alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Francisco CHURRUCA et al., Appellants, v. MIAMI JAI-ALAI, INC., et al., Appellees.

No. 72-1108.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 29, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
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 Apollo Gold Corporation (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned hereby
certifies, 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/R. David
      RussellR.  David
      RussellPresident
      and Chief Executive OfficerMarch
      16, 2010/s/Melvyn
      WilliamsMelvyn
      WilliamsChief
      Financial Officer and Senior VicePresident-Finance
      and Corporate DevelopmentMarch
      16, 2010





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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 Quarterly Report of General Kinetics Incorporated (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended November 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Larry M. Heimendinger, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



/s/ Larry M. HeimendingerLarry M. HeimendingerChief Executive OfficerJanuary 14, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           5,165
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   42,362
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,030
<INVENTORY>                                     39,951
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                98,599
<PP&E>                                          13,722
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,716
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 113,539
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           63,551
<BONDS>                                            730
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            91
<OTHER-SE>                                      49,168
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   113,539
<SALES>                                        264,654
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               264,654
<CGS>                                          253,122
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  268,184
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,659
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,236)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,229)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,007)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,007)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.45)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.45)


</TABLE>
# Official Journal L 105/2012

| | ISSN 1977-0677
  doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2012.105.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 105 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5517 April 2012 |

ISSN 1977-0677

doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2012.105.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 105

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5517 April 2012

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EU) No 322/2012 of 16 April 2012 amending Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for clopyralid, dimethomorph, fenpyrazamine, folpet and pendimethalin in or on certain products (1) | 1 |
| | | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 323/2012 of 16 April 2012 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables | 41 |
| | | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 324/2012 of 16 April 2012 amending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year | 43 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Regulation (EU) No 322/2012 of 16 April 2012 amending Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for clopyralid, dimethomorph, fenpyrazamine, folpet and pendimethalin in or on certain products (1)

1

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 323/2012 of 16 April 2012 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

41

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 324/2012 of 16 April 2012 amending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year

43

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (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.
NUMBER 13-16-00148-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

THELMA DORIS FERRY, Appellant,

v.

DALE JAMES FERRY , Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 319th District Court 

of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Benavides, Perkes, and Longoria

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Thelma Doris Ferry, attempted to perfect an appeal from an order 

denying a motion to disqualify the trial judge in cause no. 2013-FAM-4013-G pending in 

the 319th District Court of Nueces County, Texas. Upon review of the documents before 

the Court, it appeared that the order from which this appeal was taken was not a final 

appealable order. The Clerk of this Court notified appellant of this defect so that steps 
2

could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.1, 42.3. 

Appellant was advised that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date 

of receipt of this notice, the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Appellant 

filed a response generally asserting that the order at issue is final and appealable.

Texas appellate courts have jurisdiction only over final orders or judgments unless 

a statute permits an interlocutory appeal. Ogletree v. Matthews, 262 S.W.3d 316, 319 

n.1 (Tex. 2007). An order denying a motion to recuse may be reviewed only for abuse 

of discretion on appeal from a final judgment. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 18a(j)(1)(A). An order 

denying a motion to disqualify is interlocutory. Dickson v. Dickson, 516 S.W.2d 28, 31 

(Tex. Civ. App.—Austin 1974, no writ). Such an order “may be reviewed by mandamus 

and may be appealed in accordance with other law.” TEX. R. CIV. P. 18A(J)(2). 

Because there is no “other law” permitting the interlocutory appeal of an order denying a 

motion to disqualify in a case such as this, the denial of the motion to disqualify may also 

be reviewed only upon appeal from final judgment. Here, the Court finds no basis for 

interlocutory appellate jurisdiction over this appeal.

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant's failure to 

correct the defect in this matter, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for 

want of jurisdiction. See id. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF 

JURISDICTION. See id. 42.3(a),(c). All pending motions are likewise DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

9th day of June 2016.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED DECEMBER 22, 2021

NO. 03-21-00080-CV

Ex parte Earnest Lee Glover

APPEAL FROM THE 261ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, BAKER, AND SMITH

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the order signed by the trial court on January 28, 2021. Having reviewed 

the record, it appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. Therefore, the Court 

dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay 

costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
#### Gregory Lynn PATTERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-510.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 22, 1970.

Appeal from Court of Record, Brevard County; Joe A, Cowart, Jr., Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
**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 quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Friendly Ice Cream Corporation (the “Company”) for the period ended October 2, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John L. Cutter, as Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, and Paul V. Hoagland, as Executive Vice President of Administration and Chief Financial Officer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.

 

 
|   | By:                    |     /s/ JOHN L. CUTTER                                                            |   |
|--------|------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Name: John L. Cutter   |
|   | Title:            | Chief Executive Officer and President (PrincipalExecutive Officer)                                    |
|   | Date: November 9, 2005 |
|   |                   |
|   |                   |
|   | By:                    |     /s/ PAUL V. HOAGLAND                                                          |   |
|   | Name:                  | Paul V. Hoagland                                                                                      |
|   | Title:                 | Executive Vice President of Administration and Chief  Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) |
|   | Date:                  | November 9, 2005                                                                                      |
|        |                        |                                                                                                       |        |  |  |

 

----
#### STATE of Louisiana v. L. B. CARRIERE and Larry Zerangue.

No. 62671

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 14, 1978.

In re: L. B. Carriere and Larry Zerangue applying for extension of time within which to file writs of certiorari and for stay of execution. Parish of St. Landry.

Writ denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
     CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FROM
     THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999, AND IS
     QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000937603
<NAME>                        Socrates Technologies Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000
<CURRENCY>                                U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                  1.000
<CASH>                                             942
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,124
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (1,355)
<INVENTORY>                                         55
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,171
<PP&E>                                           1,474
<DEPRECIATION>                                    (837)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  11,622
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,168
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           213
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,241
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    11,622
<SALES>                                         23,239
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                23,239
<CGS>                                           19,815
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,053
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (11,997)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (11,997)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (11,997)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.77)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.77)



</TABLE>
#### Kermit C. BROWN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-373.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 13, 1973.

Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and Roy Wood, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Lance R. Stelzer, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J. and PEARSON and CARROLL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was tried before the court, having waived trial by jury, and upon a charge of second degree murder was found guilty of manslaughter. On this appeal, it is urged that the evidence was insufficient-because it was circumstantial and subject to a reasonable hypothesis of innocence. See Stewart v. State, 158 Fla. 753, 30 So. 2d 489 (1947). Such a holding is not applicable in this case because the appellant admitted to the killing, gave inconsistent *426versions of the events, and upon the witness stand testified to facts completely at variance with the hypothesis now suggested as a reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Since no error appears, the judgment and sentence are affirmed. See Groneau v. State, Fla.App.1967, 201 So.2d 599. See also the rule stated in Bryan v. State, 141 Fla. 676, 194 So. 385 (1940).

Affirmed.
256 La. 842

#### Bettie Vines NORRED v. The TRAVELERS INSURANCE CO.

No. 50750.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 25, 1970.

In re: The Travelers Insurance Company applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Jackson. 236 So.2d 637.

Writ denied. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, there is no error of law in the judgment complained of.
Collecting and Assessing Evidence to Produce Sound Audit Findings

(8 hours)

Overview

Evidence is the foundation of all audits—it forms the basis for developing findings, conclusions, 

and recommendations. Accurate, non-biased, and logical evidence helps ensure the credibility 

of audit work and influences agency actions to improve program performance. Through lecture, 

discussion, and hands-on exercises, participants will learn the strengths and limitations of the 

various types of evidence, the role of judgment and professional skepticism in assessing 

evidence, and how to apply required government auditing standards. This course is offered over 

2 half days.

CPEs: 8

Who Should Attend

This course is designed to help federal, state or local government auditors understand the 

diverse strategies for collecting, analyzing, and corroborating evidence to ensure audit findings 

are fully supported and credible. Both new as well as seasoned auditors in team leader or team 

member roles will gain knowledge about the use of evidence in accordance with Generally 

Accepted Government Auditing Standards (GAGAS) requirements.

Course Objectives

Participants will be able to

• Understand the role of evidence in conducting audits

• Identify the different types of evidence and their strengths and limitations

• Apply GAGAS standards regarding the sufficiency and appropriateness of evidence

• Use professional judgment and critical thinking skills in analyzing and assessing evidence to 

develop findings

• Understand the importance of documenting audit approaches and the supporting evidence

Course Topics

Fundamentals of Evidence

• Role and importance of evidence in audits

• Professional skepticism

• Evidence model: flow from audit questions, to evidence, to findings

• Three types of evidence

• Strengths and limitations of each type 
Applying Evidence Standards

• GAGAS requirements for assessing evidence 

• Assessing sufficiency and appropriateness 

• Evaluating types of documentary evidence: web-based; external studies; computerprocessed data

• Conducting data reliability assessments

• Using testimonial evidence

• Using physical evidence 

Collective Evidence Assessment

• Moving from individual pieces of evidence to reviewing the body of evidence

• Determining the need for corroborating evidence

• Documenting the evidence and audit approach
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 110 Agreed to House (ATH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 110

 Electing Representatives Browder and Woolsey to the Committee on the 
                                Budget.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 3, 1993

Mr. Hoyer submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 
                               agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Electing Representatives Browder and Woolsey to the Committee on the 
                                Budget.

    Resolved, That the following named Members be, and they are hereby, 
elected to the following standing committee of the House of 
Representatives:
    Committee on Budget: Glen Browder, Alabama; Lynn C. Woolsey, 
California.

                                 <all>
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         June 18, 2018.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth Reed, 202-268-3179.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on June 12, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add First-Class Package Service Contract 94 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2018-173, CP2018-245.                

Elizabeth Reed,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2018-12960 Filed 6-15-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P