alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In re ESTATE of Eurith Dickinson RIVERS, Sr., Deceased.

No. 72-630.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 19, 1973.

E. D. Rivers, Jr., in pro. per.

Bernstein, Hodsdon & Tannen and Robert E. Korn, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is by Eurith Dickinson Rivers, Jr., co-executor and trustee of the estate involved, from an order of the County Judges’ Court directing return of certain monies which the trial court had ordered to be disbursed directly, to be used for benefit of an incompetent beneficiary under a testamentary trust. The earlier order was reversed by this court as being contrary to the provisions of the will for payment thereof to the trustees. Our judgment of reversal (In re Estate of Rivers, Fla.App.1972, 257 So.2d 83) did not contain directions to the trial court as to further proceedings. However, consistent with this court’s ruling, the trial court then made the order for repayment of said monies to the Rivers estate, and denied the request made on behalf of the incompetent for a direct payment of the kind which this court in the decision cited had held was improper.

On consideration of the present appeal we find no merit in the' appellant’s contention that the order appealed from was contrary to and not in accordance with the decision of this court as rendered in 257 So.2d 83.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement
of Diamond Multimedia Systems, Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 33-98470) of our
report dated March 18, 1997, on our audits of the consolidated financial
statements and financial statement schedule of Diamond Multimedia Systems, Inc.,
as of December 31, 1996 and 1995, and for the years ended December 31, 1996,
1995 and 1994, which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.


                                    COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.


San Jose, California
March 28, 1997


                                       58
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-50614

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ARMANDO RODRIGUEZ-ZAVALA

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:07-CR-289-ALL

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Armando Rodriguez-Zavala

raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States,

523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty

provision and not a separate criminal offense. United States v.

Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), petition for cert. filed (Aug.

28, 2007) (No. 07-6202). The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is

GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 5, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 642

To provide that for taxable years beginning before 1980 the Federal income

tax deductibility of flight training expenses shall be determined without

regard to whether such expenses were reimbursed through certain veterans educational assistance allowances.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 26, 1993

Mr. SUNDQUIST introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To provide that for taxable years beginning before 1980

the Federal income tax deductibility of flight training

expenses shall be determined without regard to whether

such expenses were reimbursed through certain veterans

educational assistance allowances.

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

3 SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN REIMBURSED FLIGHT

4 TRAINING EXPENSES.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—In the case of a taxable year be6 ginning before January 1, 1980, the determination of

7 whether a deduction is allowable under section 162(a) of
2

•HR 642 IH

1 the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 for flight training ex2 penses shall be made without regard to whether the tax3 payer was reimbursed for any portion of such expenses

4 under section 1677(b) of title 38, United States Code (as

5 in effect before its repeal by Public Law 97–35).

6 (b) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.—If refund or credit

7 of any overpayment of tax resulting from the application

8 of subsection (a) is prevented at any time before the close

9 of the 1-year period beginning on the date of the enact10 ment of this Act by the operation of any law or rule of

11 law (including res judicata), refund or credit of such over12 payment (to the extent attributable to the application of

13 subsection (a)) may, nevertheless, be made or allowed if

14 claim therefor is filed before the close of such 1-year pe15 riod.

®
Exhibit
31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Damien R.
Tanaka, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly
report for the three month period ended June 30, 2006 on Form 10-QSB of
General Devices, Inc.

2. Based on my knowledge, this
report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit
to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present in all
material respects the financial condition, results of operations and
cash flows of the small business issuer as of and for the periods
presented in this report.

4. The Company's other
certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange
Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and we have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small
business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known
to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period
in which this report is being prepared; and

b) Evaluated the
effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred
during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter
(the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of
an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely
to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.

5. The small business
issuer's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit
committee of small business issuer's board of directors (or
persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely
to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting.

Date: October 17, 2006

/s/ Damien R.
Tanaka

Damien R. Tanaka Chairman of the
Board, President and Chief Executive
Officer

---
#### MOBILE FUELING SHIPPING, INC. v. Charles M. SCOTT.

Civ. 1480.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

July 12, 1978.

Lowell H. Becraft, Jr., Huntsville, for appellant.

Charles M. Scott, pro se.

HOLMES, Judge.

The Circuit Court of DeKalb County, in May of 1977, granted a summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $1,924. Numerous motions and other documents were thereafter filed. In November of Í977, the defendant filed a Rule 60, ARCP, motion. The essence of this motion was to seek relief from the original summary judgment granted in May of 1977.

On February 24, 1978, the circuit court entered an order setting aside the May, 1977, summary judgment and restoring the case to the docket. The *defendant*has appealed. In view of the trial court’s order of May, 1977, the appeal is due to be dismissed as being moot.

In order for this court to decide an appeal, a justiciable controversy must exist at the time the matter is under submission to this court. See *Board of Adjustment,*
      *1029
      *City of Montgomery v. Priester,*Ala.Civ.App., 347 So.2d 530 (1977).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

WRIGHT, P. J., and BRADLEY, J., concur.
---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Chandler Air Service, 

COMPLAINANT 

v. 

City of Chandler, AZ 

RESPONDENT. FAA Docket No. 16-13-05 

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME 

This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the abovereferenced complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted 

Airport Enforcement Proceedings, 14 CFR, Part 16. Pursuant to 14 CFR Part 16, subpart B, 

the date by which the Director's Determination will be issued in this matter is hereby 

extended to March 10,2015. 

An extension of time is necessary and appropriate for a fair and complete determination in this 

case. 

Randall S. Fiertz 

Director, Airport Compliance 

and Management Analysis 

~~ 

I-S/2Di6 

Date 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

_:;:jV 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on January ~) , 2015, I caused to be placed in the United 

States mail (first class mail, postage paid) a true copy of the Notice of Extension of Time to 

March 10,2015, for FAA Docket 16-13-08 addressed to: 

Timothy I. McCulloch 

Gordon & Rees LLP 

111 W. Momoe Street, Suite 1600 

Phoenix, AZ 85003 

W. Eric Pilsk 

Daniel S. Reimer 

Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell, LLP 

101 Connecticut Avenue NW Suite 800 

Washington, DC 20036 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket 

FAA Airport Compliance and Management Analysis, AC0-100 

FAA Airports District Office, Phoenix, AZ 

/l .~ .. ·· ... . .. (' tJ . ~~--.) 

f!ktlki{tt . t-ri<J,t--/ 

Clartdia Roberts 

Office of Airport Compliance and 

Management Analysis
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2




CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Jeffrey L. Wright, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of G&K Services, Inc.;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
     statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
     make the statements made, in light of circumstances under which such
     statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
     this quarterly report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
     information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all
     material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash
     flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
     quarterly report.

Date: November 6, 2003

                                By: /s/ Jeffrey L. Wright
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Jeffrey L. Wright, Chief Financial Officer
                                      and Secretary
                                    (Principal Financial Officer)



                                                                              23
EXHIBIT 32



CAREADVANTAGE, INC



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to, and for purposes only of, 18 U.S.C. § 1350, I, Dennis J. Mouras, Chief Executive Officer and acting principal financial officer of CareAdvantage, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify that
(i) the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                      |  |                                                                                 
|--------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: March 31, 2005 |  | /s/ Dennis J. Mouras                                                            
|                      |  | Dennis J. Mouras, Chief Executive Officer and
acting Principal Financial Officer
#### Mrs. Mary SANDERS v. Mrs. J. Doyle SARTAIN.

No. 49870.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Jan. 11, 1978.

Ottis B. Crocker, Jr., Bruce, for appellant.

Jon M. Barnwell, Clarksdale, for appellee.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Calhoun County; William H. Anderson, Chancellor.

Before PATTERSON, C. J., BROOM and BOWLING, JJ., and O. GUYTON IDOM, Commissioner.

AFFIRMED.
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Adolph KEITH v. C. Paul PHELPS, Secretary, Department of Corrections.

No. 62595.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 1, 1978.

In re: Adolph Keith, applying for writ of certiorari. Parish of East Baton Rouge.

Writ denied.

SUMMERS, J. and TATE, J. would grant the writ.
#### ARTHREE, INC., etc., et al., Petitioners, v. Howard KASKEL et al., Respondents.

No. 43233.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 13, 1973.

Rehearing Denied May 1, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 269 So.2d 699.

CARLTON, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
#### LICOHO ENTERPRISES, INC. v. Succession of Herbert CHAMPAGNE.

No. 53149.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 1, 1973.

In re: Licoho Enterprises, Inc. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Iberia. 270 So.2d 139.

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 for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
CITY OF FLORENCE, ALABAMA 

Mr. Dennis DeVany 

Chief, Essential Air Service Division 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

May4, 2012 

RE: DOT-OST-2008-0209, 2001-10685, 2009-0305, 2000-7856 

Greenville MS; Laurel/Hattiesburg, MS; Tupelo, MS; and Muscle Shoals, AL EAS 

Dear Mr. DeVany: 

Office of the Mayor 

.. ; ; ~ :.:; 

- ' .---··' --

''· ... / 

The City of Florence, Alabama, supports the proposal of Silver Airways to provide essential air 

service at Muscle Shoals, Alabama, as the replacement for current Delta Air Lines service. 

Local air service that provides an effective connection to the national and international air 

transportation system is critical to the economic wellbeing of Florence and to all of Northwest Alabama. 

We rely on our local air service for both business and leisure travel. 

The Silver Airways proposals offer us a modern 34-seat turboprop aircraft and flights to Atlanta, 

which is not only the largest hub airport in the world, but also a popular business and leisure travel 

destination from Florence and the Shoals area in its own right. 

We believe the Silver air service proposals represent the best option for retaining our local air 

service long term and building up traffic so that government subsidies can eventually be reduced or 

eliminated. We urge the Department of Transportation to award Silver Airways the designation to 

provide Florence and the Northwest Alabama communities this essential air service. 

Sincerely, 

-

~E./~ Bobby j{lrons 

Mayor 

sm 

c: The Honorable Governor Robert Bentley 

The Honorable Congressman Robert Aderholt 

The Honorable Congressman Mo Brooks 

The Honorable Senator Jeff Sessions 

The Honorable Senator Richard Shelby 

POST OFFICE Box 98 + FLORENCE, AL 35631-0098 

TELEPHONE (256) 760-6400 + www.florenceal.org + fAX (256) 760-6388
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 9, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-60633

Summary Calendar

SERGIO PARRA-ROMERO,

Petitioner,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

--------------------

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A95 607 744

--------------------

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Sergio Parra-Romero, a native and citizen of Mexico,

appeals the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

affirming without opinion the Immigration Judge’s denial of his

application for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b. 

Because cancellation of removal is governed by § 1229b, the

jurisdictional bar of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) applies in

the instant case. This court lacks jurisdiction to review the

Attorney General’s discretionary decision regarding cancellation

of removal. See Rueda v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 831, 831 (5th Cir.
No. 06-60633

-2-

2004); § 1229b(b); § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). The petition for review

is 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, 2005 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:  October 13,  2005          By:   /s/  Kent  P.  Watts
                                        --------------------
                                        Kent  P.  Watts
                                        Chief  Executive  Officer
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 18

- 11757

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:16

- cv - 00325

- ODE

IVY WHITWORTH, Plaintiff

- Appellant,

versus SUNTRUST BANKS, INC., Defendant

- Appellee.

__________________ ______ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________ ( April 13, 2020 )
Before WILSON and BRANCH , Circuit Judges , and RESTANI, ∗ Judge. PER CURIAM:

∗ The Honorable Jane A. Restani, United States Judge, U.S. Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.

Case: 18-11757 Date Filed: 04/13/2020 Page: 1 of 32 Ivy Whitworth appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to her former employer Sun T rust Banks in this retaliatory termination case. Whitworth claims she was fired in retaliation for voicing opposition to alleged discrimination against a co

- wo rker in violation of Title VII 1 and § 1981. 2 SunTrust counters that she was fired for misusing her corporate credit card in violation of company policy

. The district court granted summary judgment to SunTrust , finding that Whitworth failed to satisfy the “but

- for” causation standard articulated in
Univ ersity of Tex as S outhwest ern Med ical C enter v. Nassar , 570 U.S. 338, 362 (2013)

. Having fully reviewed the record and after the benefit of oral argument, we affirm the district court ’s order

. 3 Regardless of the validity of Whitworth’s temporal proximity arguments, 4 we agree with the district court that she failed to show , through her comparators or otherwise, that SunTrust’s proffered reason for her termina tion was mere pretext. As the district court correctly noted, Whitworth fails to satisfy the but

- for causation standard whether that standard is applied at the

1 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq.

2 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

3 Whitworth v. SunTrust Banks, Inc. , No. 1:16

- CV

- 325

- ODE

- CMS, 2018 WL 1634301 ( N .D. Ga. Mar. 30, 2018) (as amended Apr

. 3, 2018).

4 Without discussing its contours and limits here, we note that “temporal proximity” has continued relevance in determining causation under our post

- Nassar jurisprudence. See Jefferson , 891 F.3d at 926. Case: 18-11757 Date Filed: 04/13/2020 Page: 2 of 33 prima facie or pretext stage of the traditional burden

- shifting test articulated in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green , 411 U.S. 792 (1973)

. See Jefferson v. Sewon America, Inc. , 891 F.3d 911 , 924

– 26 (11th Cir. 2018)

. Accordingly, the district
court correctly granted summary judgment in fav or of SunTrust. AFFIRMED. Case: 18-11757 Date Filed: 04/13/2020 Page: 3 of 3