alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE 

CASE NAME FILE/DOCKET NUMBER 

r~A-rd-ag_h_G_r-ou_p_S-.A-.. -e-t a-I.----------------,~~D09356 

Pursuant to Section 4.1 of the Commission's Rules of Practice, I (we) am (are) entering in the above 

proceeding the appearance of 

r counsel supporting the complaint (Complete Items 1, 3, 4, and 5 below) 

r counsel or representative for the respondent (Complete Items 1, 2, 4, and 5 below) 

fX, counsel or representative for a third party (Complete Items 1, 2, 4, and 5 below) 

1. COUNSEL OR REPRESENTATIVE 2. RESPONDENT(S) OR THIRD PARTY(IES) 

Include the name, address, email address, and telephone number of each 

counsel or representative entering an appearance in the above proceeding, 

Include the address and telephone numbers of all persons, partnerships, 

corporations, or associations on whose behalf this Notice of Appearance 

is being filed. 

David A. Calhoun 

Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs, LLP 

Suite 2800 

500 West Jefferson Street 

Louisville, Kentucky 40202 

Phone Number: 502 589-5235 

Heaven Hill Distilleries 

1 064 Loretto Road 

Bardstown, Kentucky 40004 

Phone Number: 502 348-3921 

3. ASSOCIATE/ASSISTANT DIRECTOR 

Return this form to: 

FTC Form 232 (rev. 7/11) 

Federal Trade Commission 

Room H-113 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20580 

ORIGlNAL 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES 

In The Matter of 

) 

) 

) 

Ardagh Group S.A., ) 

a public limited liability company, and ) 

Saint-Gobain Containers, Inc., 

a corporation, and 

Compagnie de Saint-Gobain, 

a corporation, 

Respondents 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) ______________________________) 

DOCKET NO. 9356 

DECLARATION OF COUNSEL IN SUPPORT OF 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AS COUNSEL FOR 

THIRD PARTY HEAVEN HILL DISTILLERIES, INC. 

The undersigned, David A. Calhoun, in support of his Notice of Entry of Appearance, 

declares as follows: 

1. I am a member in good standing of the bar of the Commonwealth of Kentucky 

and am licensed to practice before its highest court. 

2. In addition, I have been admitted to practice before the Sixth, Seventh, and 

.Eleventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States District Courts for the Western and 

Eastern Districts of Kentucky, Southern District of Indiana, Northern District of Florida, 

Northern and Middle Districts of Alabama, and Rhode Island. 

3. I have never been the subject of a bar or ethics complaint and have never been 

sanctioned or disciplined by any court. 

4. I have never been an employee of or counsel for the Federal Trade Commission. 
In accordance with the provisions of28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty ofperjury 

that the foregoing is true and correct. 

Executed on this 5th day of December, 2013. 

61068255.1 

~~~ David A. Calhoun 

WYATT, TARRANT & COMBS, LLP 

500 West Jefferson Street, Suite 2800 

Louisville, Kentucky 40202-2898 

Tel: 502.589.5235 

E-Mail: dcalhoun@wyattfirm.com
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21
- 0453 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. SCOTT KELLY WALSH,

Defendant and Appellant .

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including September 23, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 17 2022

08/17/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0453
#### In re ADOPTION OF MINOR CHILD by George B. H. Stallings and Consuelo M. Stallings, his wife.

No. 72-341.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 8, 1973.

David Goldman, of Law Offices of David Goldman, Miami, for appellant Ragnar G. Stallings.

Errol S. Willes, of Willes, Bittan & Wil-les, Fort Pierce, for appellees George B. H. Stallings et ux.

PER CURIAM.

The adoption of a fourteen (now sixteen) year old female is at issue. The protagonists are on the one hand the natural father and on the other the child’s paternal grandparents. The grandparents prevailed. The natural father appeals. We affirm.

The minor has lived with the grandparents since she was three years of age and preferred and requested the adoption that resulted.

Without the necessity of repeating the detailed evidence, it is manifest that the best interests of the minor will be best served by the adoption by her grandparents and that the natural father is not in condition or qualified to take custody and assume parental responsibility.

Affirmed.

WALDEN and OWEN, JJ., and DOWNEY, JAMES C., Associate Judge, concur.
United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

September 4, 2020 

Before 

MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge 

MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge 

AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge

No. 19-2807 

SPEECH FIRST, INC., 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

TIMOTHY L. KILLEEN, et al., 

 Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Central District of Illinois. 

No. 3:19-cv-03142-CSB-EIL 

Colin S. Bruce, 

Judge. 

O R D E R 

 The opinion of this court issued on July 28, 2020, is amended as follows: 

In the caption, which appears on the first page, correct the name of the 

defendant-appellee from Thomas L. Killeen to Timothy L. Killeen. 

On consideration of the petition for rehearing en banc, filed by the plaintiffappellant, no judge in regular active service has requested a vote on the petition for 

rehearing en banc and the judges on the original panel have voted to deny rehearing. It 

is, therefore, ORDERED that the petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

ATLANTA DIVISION

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION

v. NO. 1:04-CV-3294-CAP

NATIONAL UROLOGICAL GROUP,

INC., et al.,

Defendants.

O R D E R

This matter is now before the court to address the final

judgment in this case. On June 4, 2008, the court granted the

Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTC’s”) motion for summary judgment

[Doc. No. 219]. In that order, the court held that the FTC was

entitled to permanent injunctive relief against all parties, with

the exception of the National Institute for Clinical Weight Loss,

Inc. (“NICWL”). In addition, the court concluded that defendants

National Urological Group, Inc. (“NUG”), NICWL, Hi-Tech

Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Hi-Tech”), Jared Wheat, Thomasz Holda, and

Stephen Smith were jointly and severally liable for $15,882,436 in

consumer redress and that defendant Terrill Mark Wright, M.D. was

liable for $15,454 in consumer redress. 

The court did not enter final judgment against the defendants

in its summary judgment order. Instead, it indicated to the

parties that it intended to adopt the proposed final judgments and
-2-

orders granting permanent injunctive relief submitted by the FTC in

conjunction with the FTC’s summary judgment motion [Doc. No. 172,

Exs. 30 and 31]. However, the court granted the defendants an

opportunity to file any objections that they had to the proposed

orders. The defendants submitted their objections [Doc. Nos. 220

and 221], and the FTC filed a response to those objections [Doc.

No. 222].

After carefully considering the defendants’ objections, the

court concludes that it will ADOPT the proposed judgments prepared

by the FTC, subject to the following exception. The FTC is

DIRECTED to modify the judgment and order for permanent injunction

against NUG, NICWL, Hi-Tech, Wheat, Holda, and Smith [Doc. No. 172,

Ex. 30] to reflect that injunctive relief is not necessary against

now-dissolved NICWL. Judgment will be entered against these

defendants after the FTC submits the modified order. 

Pursuant to this order, the FTC’s motion to bifurcate the

final judgment [Doc. No. 223] is MOOT. Accordingly, that motion is

DENIED. 

So ordered, this 10th day of December, 2008.

/s/Charles A. Pannell, Jr.

CHARLES A. PANNELL, JR.

United States District Court Judge
260 La. 27

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Eddie J. BURKHALTER and Mancel Clayton.

No. 51663.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 23, 1971.

William E. Woodward, Clinton, for defendants-appellants.

Jack P. F. Gremillion, Atty. Gen., Harry H. Howard, Asst. Atty. Gen., Richard H. Kilbourne, Dist. Atty., Fred C. Jackson, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

BARHAM, Justice.

Eddie J. Burkhalter and Mancel Clayton were jointly tried for murder (R.S. 14:30), and both were convicted. Clayton was sentenced to life imprisonment, and Burk-halter to death. Burkhalter has appealed his conviction and sentence.

Burkhalter filed a motion for a bill of particulars, containing 11 requests for information. The State answered eight of these, but refused to answer the other three. The trial judge declined to require the State to furnish these answers, and to that ruling the defendant reserved the only bill of exception which is before us.

The information requested and not supplied was: Whether the State had in its possession any written or oral state-1' ments made by other persons; whether these were any witnesses to the crime with which the defendant was charged; and the names and addresses of those persons testifying before the grand jury which indicted the defendant for this crime. All these requests seek pre-trial discovery, and it is now well settled that full pre-trial discovery of the State’s evidence is unavailable *63under our criminal procedure. State v. Davis, 259 La. 35, 249 So.2d 193 (1971); State v. Coney, 258 La. 369, 246 So.2d 793 (1971), and cases cited.*

There is no merit in this bill of exception, and there are no errors discoverable on inspection of the pleadings and proceedings.

The conviction and sentence of Eddie J. Burkhalter are affirmed.

*

 See State v. Shilow, this day decided, 260 La. 23, 255 So.2d 60.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350**

 

The undersigned, Donald H. Hosmer, President and Chief Executive Officer of Royale Energy, Inc., a California corporation (the "Company"), pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certifies that:

 

(1) the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

| Date:  March 31, 2008 | By:    | */s/ Donald H. Hosmer***                                |
|-----------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------|
|                  |   | Donald H. Hosmer, President and Chief Executive Officer |
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 05979

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

x 05979\05979_Checklist_102110_version34.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

05979\05979_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

05979\05979_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 05979\05979_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 05979\05979_PartB.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 05979\05979_PartC.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 05979\05979_PartD.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 05979\05979_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 05979\05979_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file

05979\Certification Statement_05979.pdf Plant certification statement

x 05979\Supporting Documentation\05979_PP_A5-2 Maps.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 05979\Supporting Documentation\PP_A5-3_water balance.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
#### Ann BUTLER v. Lucy HAYS. Ann BUTLER v. Ben N. HAYS.

Nos. 47026, 47027.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

March 19, 1973.

Lake, Tindall & Hunger, Frank S. Thackston, Jr., Greenville, for appellant.

Harvey T. Ross, Clarksdale, for appel-lees.

WALKER, Justice:

The above cases were consolidated for purpose of trial and appeal and are companion cases to Ann Butler v. Donna Chrestman and Ann Butler v. J. E. Chrestman, 264 So.2d 812 (Miss.1972), all having arisen out of an automobile collision in Coahoma County on September 13, 1969.

Appellant contends that the *Chrestman*case is controlling and that this case should be reversed and remanded for a new trial.

The appellees vigorously contend that the facts developed on the trial hereof distinguishes it from the *Chrestman*case and that a different result necessarily follows, and that the case should be affirmed.

We have thoroughly gone over this record and considered it in the light of the *Chrestman*decision and find that there is no substantial and material variance in the evidence adduced in the trial hereof that distinguishes it from *Chrestman.*Therefore we are of the opinion that the principles announced in the *Chrestman*case are controlling.

*97However, as this case must be retried, and the appellant has raised the question, we are of the opinion that the trial judge was correct, under the facts of this case, in refusing appellant’s instructions with respect to any contributory negligence on the part of Lucy Hays.

We have also considered the other assignments of error and find them to be without merit.

For the reasons cited above, this case is reversed and remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

RODGERS, P. J., and INZER, SUGG and BROOM, JJ., concur.
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Leandries SAMUELS v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, et al.

No. 54163.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 15, 1974.

In re: Leandries Samuels, applying for writs of certiorari and habeas corpus.

Writ denied. Relator fails to support his contention of lack of knowledge of right of appeal at the evidentiary hearing. The trial court ruling is correct. See transcript.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                      JAN-02-2000
<PERIOD-END>                        APR-01-2000
<CASH>                                  972,913
<SECURITIES>                            624,888
<RECEIVABLES>                         5,082,743
<ALLOWANCES>                            189,789
<INVENTORY>                           6,051,724
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     12,999,798
<PP&E>                                9,043,777
<DEPRECIATION>                        3,243,500
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       22,934,879
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 6,257,972
<BONDS>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                888,999
<OTHER-SE>                           13,626,812
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         22,934,879
<SALES>                              13,391,582
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     13,391,582
<CGS>                                10,688,670
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        12,416,457
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         26,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       20,180
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         928,945
<INCOME-TAX>                            348,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     580,945
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                            580,945
<EPS-BASIC>                                0.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                              0.18


</TABLE>
8638 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 38 / Wednesday, February 26, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660

Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: February 21, 1997.

Rolland A. Schmitten,

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,

National Marine Fisheries Service.

For the reason set out in the preamble,

50 CFR part 660 is amended as follows:

PART 660—FISHERIES OFF WEST

COAST AND WESTERN PACIFIC

STATES

1. The authority citation for part 660

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

2. In § 660.61, paragraph (a) is revised

to read as follows:

§ 660.61 Permits.

(a) The owner of any vessel used to

fish for bottomfish in the Mau Zone

must have a permit issued under this

section for that vessel. Permits for

persons not previously permitted to fish

in the Mau Zone will not be issued for

a 2-year period beginning March 27,

1997.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 97–4778 Filed 2–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F

50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No. 960502124–6190–02; I.D.

022097B]

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic

Zone Off Alaska; Scallop Fishery;

District 16 of Registration Area D

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Closure.

SUMMARY: NMFS is closing the scallop

fishery in District 16 of Scallop

Registration Area D (Yakutat). This

action is necessary to prevent exceeding

the scallop 1997 total allowable catch

(TAC) in this area.

EFFECTIVE DATE: 1200 hrs, Alaska local

time (A.l.t.), February 23, 1997, until

2400 hrs, A.l.t., June 30, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mary Furuness, 907–586–7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

scallop fishery in the exclusive

economic zone off Alaska is managed by

NMFS according to the Fishery

Management Plan for the Scallop

Fishery Off Alaska (FMP), which was

prepared by the North Pacific Fishery

Management Council under authority of

the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

Conservation and Management Act.

Fishing for scallops is governed by

regulations appearing at subpart F of 50

CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

In accordance with § 679.62(b), the

1997 scallop TAC for District 16 of

Scallop Registration Area D (Yakutat),

was established by the Final 1996–97

Harvest Specifications of Scallops (61

FR 38099, July 23, 1996) as 35,000 lb

(15,880 kg) shucked meat.

In accordance with 679.62(c), the

Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS,

has determined that the scallop TAC for

District 16 of Scallop Registration Area

D (Yakutat), has been reached.

Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting the

taking and retention of scallops in

District 16 of Scallop Registration Area

D (Yakutat).

Classification

This action is required by § 679.62

and is exempt from review under E.O.

12866.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

Dated: February 20, 1997.

Richard W. Surdi,

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 97–4774 Filed 2–21–97; 4:51 pm]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F
#### Seab Allen JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-219.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 30, 1970.

Walter N. Colbath, Jr., Public Defender, and Bruce J. Daniels, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and J. Terrell Williams, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

OWEN, Judge.

This is an appeal from an order denying without evidentiary hearing appellant’s motion filed pursuant tó CrPR 1.850, 33 F.S.A. seeking to vacate judgment and sentence.

Succinctly stated, the motion alleged an agreement between appellant and the county solicitor whereby appellant would plead guilty to one of the three counts of robbery with which he was charged, in exchange for which the county solicitor would submit a recommendation to the court that the defendant be sentenced to somewhere between twenty and thirty years maximum and would be present in court at the time the plea was entered in order to advise the court of such recommendation; that thereafter the appellant appeared in court and withdrew his previous plea of not guilty and entered a plea of guilty; that the court accepted the plea, withholding adjudication and sentence until a presentence investigation could be ordered; that subsequently, appellant appeared before the court for sentencing and was sentenced to sixty years, but the county solicitor failed to appear (either at the time the plea was entered or at the time of sentencing) to advise the court of the county solicitor’s recommendation for maximum sentence.

These allegations, unrebutted by the record, were legally sufficient to present the issue of voluntariness of appellant’s *669plea so as to require an evidentiary hearing on such allegations. See Broxson v. State, Fla.App.1966, 192 So.2d 511.

The order denying the motion to vacate is reversed and this cause is remanded to the trial court with directions that appellant be afforded an evidentiary hearing on the allegations contained in the motion to vacate.

Reversed and remanded.

CROSS, C. J., and WALDEN, J., concur.
Exhibit 99.2
                   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                     18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                       ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
         SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Del Global Technologies Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended November 2, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Thomas
V. Gilboy, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 that to my knowledge:
   (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
       the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
   (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
       respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
       Company.



                                          /s/  Thomas V. Gilboy
                                          -------------------------
                                          Name: Thomas V. Gilboy
                                          Chief Financial Officer
                                          Date: March 17, 2003












                                          1


<PAGE>
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of BJ Services Company (the Company) on Form 10-K
for the period ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jeffrey E. Smith, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,
as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|    |  |                                                    
|--- |  | ---------------------------------------------------
|    | 
|By: |  | /s/ Jeffrey E. Smith                               
|    |  | Jeffrey E. Smith                                   
|    |  | Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer
|    |  | December 7, 2006