alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Warren HARRIS, Jr.

No. 60664.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 19, 1977.

In re: Warren Harris, Jr. applying for remedial writ and stay order.

Application granted; a severance is ordered and the trial on one count may proceed for the reason that a fair determination of defendant’s guilt or innocence of each offense would not be promoted by the joinder of offenses as provided in C.Cr.P. 495.1; or the State may show cause to the contrary at 10:00 a. m., Thursday, Sept. 22.

SANDERS, C. J., SUMMERS and MARCUS, JJ.,

dissent from the granting of the writ. There was no abuse of discretion in the ruling of the trial judge.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Michael BETANCOURT.

No. 59777.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 14, 1977.

Rena M. Price, Orleans Indigent Defender Program, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Con-nick, Dist. Atty., Brian G. Meissner, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

DIXON, Justice.

Defendant Michael Betancourt was found guilty after trial by jury of simple burglary (La.R.S. 14:62) and simple burglary of a pharmacy (La.R.S. 14:62.1). He was sentenced to serve four years at hard labor on each count, the sentences to run concurrently-

On October 13, 1975 a dance studio and an adjoining pharmacy were burglarized. To gain entry, the burglar[s] pried open a metal door to the dance studio and then opened a two foot hole in the cement wall separating the studio and the pharmacy. The prescription department of the pharmacy was ransacked and its narcotic counter emptied; a stereo amplifier was taken from the dance studio. Police investigators lifted several latent fingerprints from two used hypodermic syringes and from a number of prescription bottles scattered on the floor of the pharmacy. The bottles had been stored in sealed boxes prior to the burglary.

Three days after the burglary, police executed a search warrant at the residence of Robert Scott. One of the officers, after entering the bedroom, observed the defendant in a closet counting and sorting pills, then putting them into bags and bottles with labels from the burglarized pharmacy. The amplifier taken from the dance studio was also found in the bedroom. Defendant’s fingerprints matched one of those found in the pharmacy.

A study of the record and defendant's assignments of error1 reveals no reversible error. Defendant’s conviction and sentence are therefore affirmed.

SUMMERS, J., concurs.

1

. Of the twenty-two assignments filed by the defendant, seven were briefed. Those assignments neither briefed nor argued are deemed abandoned. The assignments that were briefed present meritless issues concerning the need for expert testimony; the foundation requirements for the introduction of physical evidence; and cross-examination of defendant about prior arrests, to impeach his testimony on direct that he had never “been in any kind of trouble with the law” in his life.

DENNIS, Justice,

dissenting.

The cross-examination of defendant about prior arrests had no relevance other than to improper and impermissible impeachment. R.S. 15:495.
# ECi Dome Separation Failure (Typical)

Figure 1: S/N 7708

– Dome Radius Separation

– upper and lower halves

# ECi Thread Separation Failure (Typical)

Figure 2: S/N 34684

– First Thread Separation

– upper and lower halves

## Background Information:

Figure 1 above shows views of the separated halves of S/N 7708. The location of the separation is in the

dome radius at the top of the seal band. This is typical for those cylinders that have failed due to

insufficient dome radius.

Figure 2 above shows views of the separated halves of S/N 34684. The location of the separation is in

the first thread region at the head

‐ to

‐ barrel interface. This is typical for those cylinders that have failed

due to inadequate interference fit.

Inspection of both cylinders does not reveal any indication of over temperature, nor any other

operational abuse. There are no indications of detonation, nor is there any evidence of pre

‐ ignition.

Aside from the fact that both cylinders experienced catastrophic structural failure as a result of these

two known failure modes, they both appear to be normal.

Both of these cylinders were shipped to the FAA by operators in the field.
#### Linton E. WILSON, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida ex rel. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, Respondent.

No. V-75.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 14, 1974.

Linton E. Wilson, in pro per.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner has filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis *by*which he contends that there is new evidence that was not known at the time he pled nolo contendere but which would now prove him innocent of the charges of rape and robbery for which he was adjudged guilty. The new evidence consists of the alleged fact that the prosecutrix told one Harvey Roberts, who is now an inmate at Raiford, that petitioner did not force her to have inter*257course against her will and did not rob her. Petitioner contends that if this had been known, he would never have been convicted.

In an earlier proceeding before this court, which decision is reported at 248 So.2d 249, petitioner filed an original ha-beas corpus action in which he stated that he advised his appointed counsel of his desire to appeal, and counsel did not appeal. Therefore, petitioner contended that his constitutional right to appeal was frustrated by state action. The deposition of petitioner’s counsel was taken at that time, and it contained the fact that petitioner admitted to his attorney that he had in fact committed the crimes. Petitioner had also given a confession to the investigating officers prior to the entry of his plea.

It seems to us that petitioner is a little late in asserting his innocence after having admitted to his participation on at least two prior occasions, one of which was to his own lawyer.

The predicament in which petitioner now finds himself is only the natural result of a systematic resort to misleading allegations and contentions which seem to abound among our prison population. Members of the Raiford Bar Association should be more cautious in their pleadings which include charges that their appointed lawyers failed to provide adequate representation because when such charges are made against the lawyer, he is permitted to defend the quality of the services he rendered by letting the cat out of the bag, so to speak. In such circumstances, as we held in Wilson’s earlier appearance here, the appointed lawyer is permitted to explain to the court the basis upon which he gave the defendant the advice that he did. This, of course, can include any confessions of guilt or implication of whatever kind that the defendant may have given him.

In the case that we presently have before us, we cannot consider petitioner’s belated claim that he did not commit the rape and robbery of which he was convicted without at the same time considering our earlier findng, based on his own lawyer’s deposition, that he admitted the commission of those crimes.

Unfortunately, his earlier admissions belie his present assertions.

Accordingly, the petition is denied.

RAWLS, C. J., and SPECTOR and BOYER, JJ., concur.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2

Certification of
Chief Accounting Officer
of Delhaize America, Inc.

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 and accompanies the quarterly report on Form 10-Q (the Form 10-Q)
for the quarter ended June 28, 2003 of Delhaize America, Inc. (the Issuer).

I, Carol M. Herndon, the Chief Accounting Officer of the Issuer, certify that, to
the best of my knowledge:

|     |  |                                                                                                                                                              
|---- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(i)  |  | the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and
|     |  |                                                                                                                                                              
|(ii) |  | the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Issuer.       

Dated: August 12, 2003

| |                         
| | ------------------------
| | /s/ Carol M. Herndon    
| | Carol M. Herndon        
| | Chief Accounting Officer

A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN
PROVIDED TO THE ISSUER AND WILL BE RETAINED BY THE ISSUER AND FURNISHED TO THE
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

** **

FIRST HARTFORD CORPORATION

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of First Hartford Corporation (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January 31, 2008 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), INeil H. Ellis, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.         The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

 

2.         Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 

 

 

 

/s/ Neil H. Ellis

_______________________________________________________

Neil H. Ellis

President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer

 

Date:   March 24,2008
<PAGE>
                                          EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference to the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (Registration Number 333-06616) of our report dated
February 3, 2000 on our audits of the consolidated financial statements of
MDSI Mobile Data Solutions Inc. and its subsidiaries as of December 31, 1998
and 1999, which report is included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of MDSI
Mobile Data Solutions Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1999.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS

Vancouver, British Columbia
March 30, 2000
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Joseph GRAY, Jr. v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiant State Penitentiary.

No. 54480.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 5, 1974.

In re: Joseph Gray, Jr. applying for Writs of Habeas Corpus, Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus.

Writ denied. No showing of coerced plea. See Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970).
#### PHOENIX ASSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, Appellant, v. Doyle E. CONNER, as Commissioner of Agriculture of the State of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-668.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Nov. 10, 1970.

Appeal dismissed.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 Jerome E. Ball, Chief Executive Officer of ForwardIndustries, Inc. ("Forward"), and Douglas W. Sabra, Chief Financial Officer ofForward, do each certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 that, to the best of theirknowledge:

1.             Forward'squarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the three months ended March 31, 2005 (the"Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.             the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of Forward.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theundersigned have set their hands hereto as of the 21st day of April 2005. 

 

 

/s/ JEROME E. BALLJerome E. BallChief Executive OfficerPrincipal Executive Officer

/s/ DOUGLAS W. SABRADouglas W. SabraChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

Division of Advertising Practices 

Andrea C. Levine, Esq. 

Senior Vice President, Director 

National Advertising Division 

112 Madison Avenue, 3rd Floor 

New York, NY 10016 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580 

June 10,2015 

Re: Terro Novo, Inc.'s EarthGuard Fiber Matrix Soil Erosion Control Products 

Dear Ms. Levine: 

I am writing to follow up on your April 20, 2015 letter referring an NAD investigation 

into advertising claims made by Terro Novo, Inc. for its EarthGuard Fiber Matrix industrial-use 

soil erosion control products. The materials you forwarded indicated that Terro Novo continues 

to make establishment, comparative performance, and cost savings claims for its EarthGuard 

Fiber Matrix products without clearly and conspicuously disclosing the conditions under which 

these claims might be accurate, despite an NAD decision recommending otherwise. Examples 

of such claims include references to the outcomes of various erosion control studies, discussion 

ofEarthGuard's performance contrasted with that of a competitor's "flexible growth medium," 

and the relative low cost of Earth Guard Fiber Matrix. 

Upon review of this matter, we have determined not to take additional action at this time. 

In arriving at this conclusion, we considered a number of factors related to resource allocation 

and enforcement priorities, including the scope of the changes Terro Novo has made to its 

marketing claims and the nature of the products (expensive industrial-use products designed to 

reduce soil erosion), as well as the nature of any FTC Act violation and the type and severity of 

any consumer injury. The Commission reserves the right to take such further action as the 

public interest may require. 

Very truly yours, 

YtL~ :Y.~&_ Mary K E . le 

Associate Director for Advertising Practices
[ DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 14

- 11920 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:12

- cv - 03262

- MHS

NEWELL RUBBERMAID INC., GRACO CHILDREN'S PRODUCTS INC., Plaintiffs

- Counter Defendants Appellees,

versus FLEXFLO US A, INC., Defendant

- Counter Claimant Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the Uni ted States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________ ( October 23, 2014 ) Before TJOFLAT, WILSON, and ROSENBAUM Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

Case: 14-11920 Date Filed: 10/23/2014 Page: 1 of 32 This is a breach

- of

- contract action. Graco Children’s Products, Inc. (“Graco”), under a “Distributi on Agreement” with FlexFlo USA, Inc. (“FlexFlo”) effective January 1, 2007, sold Graco products to FlexFlo for resale by FlexFlo to customers in Venezuela. The Agreement’s term was one year, subject to renewal. The Agreement renewed annually for the one

- year term beginning on January 1, 2008, through January 1, 2011. In October 2011, Graco informed FlexFlo that the Agreement would expire effective December 31, 2011, and that it would not accept any of FlexFlo’s purchase orders after that date. When Flex Flo failed to pay Graco the balance due on purchases made through December 31, 2011

— a sum totaling $356,464.91

— Graco brought this lawsuit in the District Court to recover the balance due. FlexFlo, in response to Graco’s complaint, admitted the balance d ue but claimed in its answer and counterclaim that Graco (1) breached the Agreement by wrongfully terminating the Agreement and refusing to accept purchase orders through December 31, 2011; (2) agreed to defer filing suit for the balance due pending good

- f aith efforts to negotiate a settlement of the indebtedness; and (3) breached that agreement by failing to negotiate in good faith before filing this lawsuit. FlexFlo also claimed a setoff in the amount of the profits it would have made on the sale of Grac o products had Graco not wrongfully terminated the Agreement. Case: 14-11920 Date Filed: 10/23/2014 Page: 2 of 33 Following discovery, Graco moved the District Court for summary judgment. In an order entered on January 14, 2014, the court granted the motion

— rejecting the merits of FlexFlo’s defenses and counterclaim in the process

— and gave Graco judgment for $356,464.91. 1 Doc. 86. FlexFlo appeals the judgment, arguing that summary judgment was precluded by material issues of fact as to whether Graco wrongfully terminated the Agreement and thereafter br eached its agreement to defer collection proceedings pending the completion of good

- faith settlement negotiations. We have carefully considered FlexFlo’s arguments that material issues of fact precluded summary judgment and conclude, for the reasons the District Court gave in its January 14, 2014, order, that the arguments are foreclosed by the record.
AFFIRMED.

1 On March 31, 2014, the District Court also ordered FlexFlo to pay Graco $40,334.24 in prejudgment interest. Doc. 89.

Case: 14-11920 Date Filed: 10/23/2014 Page: 3 of 3
#### Harry KAPLAN et al., Appellants, v. Ben FREITAG et al., Appellees.

No. 73-303.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Aug. 8, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
May 25, 2010

Docket Operations

M

- 30 US Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Ave, SE West Building Ground Floor

Room W12

- 140 Washington, DC 20590

Subject: Doc. No. FAA

- 2002

- 12728; Exemption 7897B from 14 CFR (FAR Sections)

– 91.409(e), 91.409(f), 91.501(a) and 91.503 thru 91.535

The National Business Aviation Association, Inc. (NBAA) hereby petitions for an extension of Exemption No. 7897B for a period of 24 months. Originally, Exemption 1637 was granted on September 12, 1972 and was last amended by Ex emption 7897B on September 2 , 2008 . Under Exemption No. 7897B the NBAA is granted an exemption from 14 CFR 91.409(a) and 91. 501(a) to permit NBAA Members to operate small civil airplanes and helicopters of U.S. registry under the operating rules of 14 CFR 91.503 through 91.535 and to select and use an inspection program described in 14 CFR 91.409(f). In addition, helicopter ope rations are not required to comply with the minimum safe altitude rules of 14 CFR 91.515(a), provided these operations comply with the minimum safe altitude requirements of 14 CFR 91.119.

The original justification for this exemption has been confirmed by 36 years of experience.

Petitioner is not aware of any incidents or accidents attributable to faulty maintenance or inspection practices involving aircraft operated under this exemption. There is evidence that this exemption has contributed materially to t he increased safety of small airplane and helicopter operations by permitting utilization of continuous inspection procedures.

The FAA Part 135/125 Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) reached consensus on a recommendation document that would incorporate th is exemption into the Federal Aviation Regulations. NBAA actively supported this recommendation and encourages the FAA to adopt

the ARC ’ s recommendation in an upcoming rulemaking initiative, thereby eliminating the need

for this exemption in the future. Un til the ARC recommendation is codified, however, this exemption remains an important component of the increased safety of small airplane and helicopter operations.

Please contact me if there is any additional information we can provide to support the

proce ssing of this exemption request.

Respectfully submitted,

Douglas Carr

Vice President Safety, Security & Regulation
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>          UT
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from FPL's 
condensed consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 1998 and condensed 
consolidated statements of income and cash flows for the six months ended 
June 30, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial 
statements.

<CIK>                                         0000037634
<NAME>                     Florida Power & Light Company
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000,000
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                 JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      6-MOS
<BOOK-VALUE>                                    PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                         $8,410
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                       $1,146
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                            $1,455
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                              $0
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                      $451
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   $11,462
<COMMON>                                              $0
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                             $0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                                   $0
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                    $4,863
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 $0
<PREFERRED>                                         $226
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                              $2,418
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                    $0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                             $0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                        $0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                       $201
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                             $0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                           $0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                      $0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                    $3,754
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                    $11,462
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                         $2,929
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                                $154
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                        $2,399
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                        $2,553
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                             $376
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                   ($3)
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                      $373
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            $100
<NET-INCOME>                                        $273
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                           $7
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                       $266
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                              $0
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                             $0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                              $971
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         $0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         $0


</TABLE>
262 La. 301

#### Betty BORNE et al. v. The MAGNOLIA SCHOOL.

No. 52526.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 20, 1972.

In re: The Magnolia School applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Jefferson. 260 So.2d 793.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel of a-plaintiff and defendant be notified.