alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Margaret E. LANDON, Appellant, v. R. Kirk LANDON, Appellee.

No. 70-979.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 5, 1971.

Eugene P. Spellman, Miami, for appellant.

Edward B. Johnson, Jr., Miami, for ap-pellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and BARK-DULL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The former wife in a divorce proceeding appeals an order requiring discovery as to her assets. The discovery was ordered pursuant to the former wife’s petition for attorney’s fees in proceedings to enforce the final judgment. Appellant urges that discovery was not necessary and that the trial court abused its discretion in the extent of discovery ordered. Our examination of the record presented convinces us that an abuse of discretion by the trial judge has not been demonstrated upon either ground. Carson v. City of Fort Lauderdale, Fla.App.1965, 173 So.2d 743.

Affirmed.

HENDRY, J., dissents.
#### Lee Spencer PARKER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-632.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 1, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OR
                     RULE 15d-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. Sec.1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In  connection  with  the  annual  report  of  HyperDynamics  Corporation  (the
"Company")  on  Form 10-KSB for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kent P.
Watts,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Sec.1350,  as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

     (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.

Date: September 28, 2004                          By: /s/ Kent P. Watts
                                                      --------------------------
                                                      Kent  P.  Watts
                                                      Chief  Executive  Officer


<PAGE>
Exhibit 23.1

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
Form S-8 (No. 333-02856) pertaining to the LifeRate Systems, Inc. 1993 Stock
Option Plan, as amended, in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No.
333-06783) pertaining to the LifeRate Systems, Inc. Employee Stock Option Plan
and in the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-04939) dated June 21,
1996, of our report dated March 15, 2000, with respect to the financial
statements of LifeRate Systems, Inc. included in the Annual Report on Form
10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 1999.

                                               /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Minneapolis, Minnesota
March 27, 2000
<PAGE>


                                                                  Exhibit 10(a)


INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Post-Effective Amendment
No. 5 to Registration Statement No. 333-30844 of Sun Life of Canada (U.S.)
Variable Account F on Form N-4 of our report dated February 9, 2001
accompanying the financial statements of Regatta, Regatta Gold, Regatta
Classic, Regatta Platinum, Regatta Extra, Regatta Access, Regatta Choice, and
Regatta Flex 4 Sub-Accounts included in Sun Life of Canada (U.S.) Variable
Account F and of our report dated February 9, 2001 accompanying financial
statements of Futurity, Futurity II, Futurity Focus, Futurity Accolade,
Futurity Focus II, Futurity III, and Futurity Select Four Sub-Accounts
included in Sun Life of Canada (U.S.) Variable Accounts F, to the
incorporation by reference of our report dated February 7, 2001 accompanying
the consolidated financial statements of Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada
(U.S.).

We also consent to the references to us under the headings "Accountants" and
"Appendix I - Condensed Financial Information - Accumulation Unit Values" in
the Prospectuses and under the heading "Financial Statements" in the
Statements of Additional Information, which are a part of such Registration
Statement.



DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Boston, Massachusetts
July 27, 2001
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 709

Entitled, the ‘‘California-Mexico Border Drug Trafficking Reduction Act’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 2, 1993

Mr. CUNNINGHAM (for himself, Mr. HUNTER, Mr. GALLEGLY, Mr. ROYCE,

and Mr. DOOLITTLE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to

the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

Entitled, the ‘‘California-Mexico Border Drug Trafficking

Reduction Act’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. RESTRICTIONS ON LAND LOCATED ALONG THE

4 UNITED STATES-MEXICO BORDER IN THE

5 STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—In order to carry out the purposes

7 of section 287(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality

8 Act (8 U.S.C. 1357(a)(3)), the Attorney General shall

9 take such action as is necessary to—
2

•HR 709 IH

1 (1) acquire a permanent easement for the Unit2 ed States extending 50 feet outwards along the

3 length of the United States-Mexico border in the

4 State of California for the purpose of erecting and

5 maintaining a security fence and access road; and

6 (2) establish a 500 foot setback located along

7 the length of the border described in paragraph (1)

8 for the purpose of restricting any development with9 in such setback.

Æ
#### Murdis GRIMMAGE, Petitioner, v. A. DUDA AND SONS, Hartford Insurance Company and Industrial Relations Commission, Respondents.

No. 43111.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 26, 1973.

Rehearing Denied April 12, 1973.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, Acting C. J., and ERVIN, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.
#### CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, a Florida municipal corporation, Petitioner, v. Matt KOEHL, Respondent.

No. 73-344.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 3, 1973.

Rehearing Denied June 11, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                       71,385
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                          0
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          10,398
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                         1,185
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                   5,684
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  88,652
<COMMON>                                         2,385
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                       11,113
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             13,820
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                  25,331
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        600
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                            23,500
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                               6,100
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                        0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                  33,121
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                   88,652
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                       40,021
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                               837
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                       9,823
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      10,660
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                          3,034
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                  20
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                   3,054
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         1,482
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,572
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         14
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                    1,558
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                           886
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                        1,118
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                           5,581
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.05
        

</TABLE>
#### PENNSYLVANIA NATIONAL MUTUAL CASUALTY INS. CO., Appellant, v. Isla L. MERRIAM, Appellee.

No. 70-956.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 23, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Melvin H. STEVENS d/b/a Stevens Realty v. Carol Ann TYNES a/k/a Mrs. Robert J. Tynes.

No. 61918.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 28, 1978.

In re: Melvin H. Stevens, d/b/a Stevens Realty applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit. Parish of Natchitoches. 357 So.2d 7.

Writ denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1





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 Network CN Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Earnest Leung, Chief Executive 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:





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 result of operations of the Company.





/s/ Earnest LeungEarnest LeungChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)





May 10, 2013





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Network CN Inc. and will be retained by Network CN Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





The forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
#### Rosemary H. MALONEY, Appellant, v. H. T. MALONEY, Appellee.

No. 70-165.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 22, 1970.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; George W. Tedder, Jr., Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
255 La. 339

#### Edwin B. DUNCAN, d/b/a E. B. Duncan Drilling Contractor v. G. Wray GILL et al.

No. 50256.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 23, 1970.

In re: Charles Quartararo, Theresa J. R. Lipman and Josie Marie Delaune Chetta applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 227 So.2d 376.

Writ denied. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, we find no error of law in the judgment complained of.
EXHIBIT
23.1
 
 
 
 
 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
 
 
 To the
Board of Directors of
 Network
CN, Inc.
 
 We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement No.
333-141943 on Form S-8 of Network CN, Inc. relating to our audit of the
financial statements included in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A of Network
CN, Inc. for the years ended December 31, 2007 (Restated) and
2006.
 
  
 WEBB
& COMPANY, P.A.
 Certified
Public Accountants
 
 
 Boynton
Beach, FL
 October
22, 2008
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  1501
Corporate Drive, Suite 150 • Boynton Beach, FL 33426
 Telephone:
(561) 752-1721 • Fax: (561) 734-8562
 www.cpawebb.com
# Official Journal L 39/2018

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 39 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6113 February 2018 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 39

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6113 February 2018

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/207 of 9 February 2018 approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Laguiole’ (PDO)) | 1 |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/208 of 12 February 2018 amending Regulation (EU) No 389/2013 establishing a Union Registry (
  1
  ) | 3 |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/209 of 8 February 2018 granting a derogation requested by Ireland pursuant to Council Directive 91/676/EEC concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources
  (notified under document C(2018) 624) | 5 |
| | * | Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/210 of 12 February 2018 on the adoption of the LIFE multiannual work programme for 2018-2020 (
  1
  ) | 11 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/207 of 9 February 2018 approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Laguiole’ (PDO))

1

*

Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/208 of 12 February 2018 amending Regulation (EU) No 389/2013 establishing a Union Registry (
  1
  )

1

3

DECISIONS

*

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/209 of 8 February 2018 granting a derogation requested by Ireland pursuant to Council Directive 91/676/EEC concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources
  (notified under document C(2018) 624)

(notified under document C(2018) 624)

5

*

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/210 of 12 February 2018 on the adoption of the LIFE multiannual work programme for 2018-2020 (
  1
  )

1

11

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
#### Juanita T. Brown et al., Appellants, v Anthony Paul, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

[736 NYS2d 415]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated August 9, 2000, which granted the motion of the defendant Anthony Paul for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated insofar as asserted against the respondent.

The infant plaintiff allegedly suffered lead poisoning as a result of exposure to lead paint in her apartment in a building owned by the respondent. To establish that a landlord is liable for a lead-paint condition, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the landlord had actual or constructive notice of, and a reasonable opportunity to remedy, the hazardous condition *(see, Chapman v Silber,*97 NY2d 9; *Juarez v Wavecrest Mgt. Team,*88 NY2d 628; *Bellony v Siegel,*288 AD2d 411). The respondent correctly contends that he cannot be charged with constructive notice of the alleged lead-paint condition pursuant to the Administrative Code of the City of New York, since the building is not a multiple dwelling *(see, Juarez v Wavecrest Mgt. Team, supra).*However, even in the absence of any applicable legislation, the plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the respondent had constructive notice under the circumstances of this case *(see, Chapman v Silber, supra).*Therefore, the respondent’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him should have been denied. Altman, J.P., Feuerstein, O’Brien and H. Miller, JJ., concur.
#### Anthony GUINTA, Appellant, v. Carl KURTGIS and Michael Vassolotti, Appellees.

No. 70-628.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 11, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 21, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
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 Quarterly Report of General Motors Corporation (the
"Corporation") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John M.
Devine, Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer of the Corporation, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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
   Corporation.


/s/ JOHN M. DEVINE
------------------
John M. Devine
Vice Chairman and
Chief Financial Officer
August 8, 2005



































                                       46
DefinitionsPump – Pump End Only8Extended Product – Pump; Driver; VFD; Controls (Feedback)VSDMainsl,Control,MonitoringFluidOutletElectricMotorCouplingFluidInletPump SystemsBase PlateThis page is13Thispageisintentionally leftintentionallyleftblank.CONFIDENTIAL: FOR HI-EENGO USE ONLY16This page isThispageisintentionally leftintentionallyleftblank.CONFIDENTIAL: FOR HI-EENGO USE ONLYProduct Types Within Scope -18MEI Pump Evaluation Tool34Application Results35EU Pump Mfg Cost to Comply (EU Document)- 10% -$58M in investment- 20% - $ 163M- 40%- $ 440M- 50%- $ 744M- 80% - $1900M ($1.9B)Recommendation (Summary):Same scope as EU Water Pump Standard (TC197)Clean Water25 GPM and greater Maximum 295’TDH46CleanWater25GPMandgreater,Maximum295 TDH1-200HP; Temp range from -10 deg C to +120 deg CUS P N l tANSI/HI 1 32009USPumpNomenclature –ANSI/HI1.3-European Approach – MEI (Lot11) 10% 2013 –1.9TWhr/yearScope of products (Extended Products):All applications with variable load and low static head.Average load calculations, savings of9.8TWhr/yrEnergy Savings 1 9+9 8= 11 6TWhr/yr2020 LatestEnergySavings1.9+9.8=11.6TWhr/yr–2020Latest
#### Downey, *Appellant,*v. Read *et al.*

Division Two,

December 18, 1894.

Appellate Practice: bill op exceptions: affirmance op judgment. The rulings of the trial court on the admission and exclusion of evidence will not be reviewed on appeal, where no exceptions are saved at the time and made part of the record by bill of exceptions.

*Certified from Kansas City Court of Appeals.*

Aeeibmed.

*John Doniphan*for appellant.

*T. J. Porter*and *H. K. White*for respondent.

The errors complained of by appellant do not appear upon the' record proper, but if committed by the court below, were committed during the progress of the trial, and. as no bill of exceptions has been filed, this court can not review them. R. S. 1889, sec. 2167; *State exrel. v. Circuit Coiirt,4A*Mo-. 574; *State v.*Miller, 56 Mo. 125; *Greene Co. ex rel. v. Wilhite,*35 Mo. App. 39; *Story v. Ragsdale,*30 Mo. App. 196; *McNeil v. Ins.*Co., 30 Mo. App. 306; *State v. Martinowshi,*34 Mo. App. 85.

Burgess, J.

This is an equitable proceeding by plaintiff against defendants to set aside certain deeds made by plaintiff to real property in said deeds described, upon the ground that he was insane at the time of their execution.

*502There was a judgment for defendants, from which plaintiff appealed to the Kansas City court of appeals. From that court the case was certified to this, because the title to real estate is involved.

Upon the trial, plaintiff offered in evidence a certified copy of the record of the county court of Buchanan county, Missouri, showing that he had on the thirteenth day of May, 1880, been adjudged insane by that court, which, upon objection of defendants, was excluded; but plaintiff saved no exception at the time to the adverse ruling, nor has he ever at any time filed a bill of exceptions herein.

It has been repeatedly held by this court, that the< action of the trial court on the admission and exclusion of evidence will not be reviewed on appeal where no-exceptions are saved at the time and made part of the-record by bill of exceptions. *Bray v. Kremp,*113 Mo. 552; *Harrison v. Bartlett,*51 Mo. 170; *Miller v. Breneke,*83 Mo. 163. No bill of exceptions having been filed, there is nothing before this court for review'. The-judgment is affirmed.

All of this division concur.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EDWARD DURNEY,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

MAGNA INTERNATIONAL, INC.; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-16402

D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00361-MHP

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Marilyn H. Patel, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 10, 2012** 

Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Edward Durney, an attorney, appeals pro se from the district court’s

judgment dismissing his copyright infringement action on the basis of res judicata. 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Holcombe v.

FILED

SEP 17 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-16402

Hosmer, 477 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm in part, and vacate and

remand in part. 

The district court properly dismissed the claims against the Magna

defendants as barred by the doctrine of res judicata because Durney voluntarily

dismissed two earlier lawsuits against the Magna defendants that were based on the

same claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B) (specifying when voluntary dismissal

of action operates as “an adjudication on the merits”); Owens v. Kaiser Found.

Health Plan Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 713-14 (9th Cir. 2001) (describing elements of res

judicata); Lake at Las Vegas Investors Grp., Inc., v. Pac. Malibu Dev. Corp., 933

F.2d 724, 728 (9th Cir. 1991) (closely related entities may invoke Rule 41(a)(1)(B)

res judicata).

However, judgment was not properly entered as to defendants Paperboy

Ventures and Jaime Lewis, who have not yet appeared in this action and were not

party to both of the earlier lawsuits for purposes of res judicata. See Lake at Las

Vegas Investors Grp., Inc., 933 F.2d at 728. Accordingly, we vacate judgment as

to defendants Paperboy Ventures and Jaime Lewis and remand for further

proceedings as to those defendants.

The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

AFFIRMED in part; VACATED in part; and REMANDED in part.