alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17E0037. KEITA v IPADEOLA.

Margaret Keita has filed a timely emergency motion pursuant to Court of

Appeals Rule 31 (i) seeking a seven-day extension of time to file her application for

discretionary appeal in this dispossessory matter. Keita’s motion is hereby

GRANTED. She shall have until February 28, 2017, to file her discretionary

application in accordance with OCGA § 5-6-35.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

February 21, 2017

02/21/2017
# Inspection Report of Boiler

                - Title:  Inspection Report of Boiler 
                - Form #:         GSA349      
                - Current Revision Date:  11/1962
                - Authority or Regulation:  

PDF versions of forms use Adobe      ReaderTM.      Download Adobe ReaderTM

Search for another form

Print PageEmail Page

Top
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 324 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 324

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                     November 23, 1993.
    Resolved, That a committee of two Members of the House be appointed to wait 
upon the President of the United States and inform him that the House of 
Representatives has completed its business of the session and is ready to 
adjourn, unless the President has some other communication to make to them.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
1... This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2009-CR-0316, styled The State of Texas v. Josephus Duncan,

pending in the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Philip Kazen presiding.

i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-09-00698-CR

IN RE Josephus DUNCAN

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: November 11, 2009

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

Relator Josephus Duncan has filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus, seeking to compel

the trial court to rule on his pro se “Motion in Limine - Enhancement Counts” and “Motion to Set

Aside Indictment.” However, Duncan is represented by retained counsel in the criminal proceeding

pending in the trial court for which he is currently confined. A criminal defendant is not entitled to

hybrid representation. See Robinson v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). A trial

court has no legal duty to rule on a pro se motion filed with regard to a criminal proceeding in which

the defendant is represented by counsel. Id. Consequently, the trial court did not abuse its discretion
04-09-00698-CR

-2-

by declining to rule on relator’s pro se motions that relate directly to his confinement based on the

criminal proceeding pending in the trial court. Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus

is denied. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges McClanahan, Haley and Senior Judge Willis 

CLAUDE WESLY STOOTS 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* 

v. Record No. 1699-10-3 PER CURIAM 

 JANUARY 11, 2011 

BOART LONGYEAR COMPANY AND 

 ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Ginger J. Largen; J.D. Morefield; Morefield & Largen, on brief), for 

appellant. 

 (Kevin W. Cloe; Angela F. Gibbs; Midkiff, Muncie & Ross, P.C., on 

brief), for appellees. 

 Claude W. Stoots appeals a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission finding 

that Stoots did not adequately market his residual work capacity. We have reviewed the record 

and the commission’s opinion and find that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm 

for the reasons stated by the commission in its final opinion. See Stoots v. Boart Longyear Co., 

VWC File No. 232-80-81 (July 8, 2010). We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court 

and argument would not aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27. 

 Affirmed.

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
259 La. 755

#### Maybelle M. OLSEN and Sharon M. Mitchell v. The CITY OF BATON ROUGE et al.

No. 51581.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 28, 1971.

In re: Maybelle M. Olsen and Sharon M. Mitchell applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 247 So.2d 889.

Application denied. There is no final judgment on the merits. All rights are reserved.
GN-IN SHEET 

SIA f SE/111 M erA.' ( t PfiC Skill

rint) 

 

.. ,,___ 

J' 

1 o 

. ~ 

t 

r , -

 

 ds 

/( 

Company E-Mail f/1/~;J!r /(t} /:LtS/~ir -rotU tf4 Gcv 

MP1..1 t: o 1-t \tlt J\-1.-~ (;Jt ~~~l.\M _ ,'V\C"'" e C~ r'l'\~ . + .c:."·M 

( e "'~' tt 5 I/l.s ; I L-< .IW'·v> cJt.j .:7 '-1..., l-?1--1 c. t~, L ~ .-. 

.( ~ ),.i.'t-t t.. rrj .[';~,., '·" ,/v.;.. .... : c ) 

Phone 

?CJl- r~> ~- orfY. 

W 2 - &. ~ x · Y '-iS Lf ..< ~- e. ..;L 2L....:? 9 Y b ? 

.? :/L - 9- <!-C · I ?- t. 7 ow (f? e;t1r'ca / tvtCaS for C'/ 'l () G dov , C t''t1 .)0 o -J J 1- 7!( () 

, \ 1 ~ rr r , I ' 

7~(_ 

\~~~~UM~<-L</' ?<J'L ITT ~fdj 

GLo&.L rDUiuDR }5-s. & \C{n . {t)ce~ sfck.tl-f~o~ ~/)'\ s~g -~2 3 -!;;oLf s 

JoJ:y l EL.::ZfMtoJ L,~ J<r}. ;Tc/'F,f,?,-..,/Jo~ Y);;. TEL Co,., f"Jz- ~2.' -'jO<jz 

~~C5I:Ml 

E ;1 ;t / o lfr/utJjtm 

FJ !?A I 0 fP -r/ ({ /) 

f3tlf )Off/):CC/ 

' ./\_, . k. ,-yJ ((. 1\. . t' ('' ' '\ I ~ ..;:::;.'-· '---- ' ' _\..., ·- 'II'' ?.d. 5: ~ 7 · 'lSD f::. 

sbo. tj~ ® sem; .Ofj "1ct 1i3 b1S7 

5qqJs. k'l·/yf\ @~J'" VJZ~ Sbl-j-6>'3 

DOa.-r f\AaJu tL{i,Jt: pa , (f l l!J Z 5 {p ~ 61· ( 6 I~ J f/"'c.¥ · CJu·~~ ~t=/11 "~tl J.,/Jll..-- f6l(-~? 8 
Breakout Example of an Industrial Tool 

 a small semiconductor 

eds of thousands of 

enous material 

strial tool. Each 

 verified as 

h documentation 

aration) or testing. 

nd testing are likely 

mpossible for used 

xtremely difficult for 

~ ~ 172-..,, ?1 ~11--® I 110 '~ 69~ 168/7 ~ 35 ~ 160 ... - . l 

257~ 25 1--r'~ N 

250 

l20/ 19 ZS -f(~ l:l/1 ~~1/J . -. ..... ' 

. ' 

semiconductor 

I , 

. 

- ~ ~ '~~ . ~ ! ~· il I h,,,,,, ./ Jt..:.-- -_ ( •• ,,, 

. ' 

Semiconductor package 

Photo credit: Zephyris. Licensed under GNU Free Documentation License. 

https:/ /en.wikipedia.org/wiki/lntegrated_circuit#/ media/File:Microchips.jpg
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T M I CHAEL W ES T, P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. M A RI O N FEA TH ER, R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 12- 35745 D. C . No . 3 : 1 0 - c v - 0 0 4 2 7 - HU ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

O r e gon A nnaJ . B r ow n, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r24, 2013 ** B efo re: R A W L IN S O N , N . R . S M IT H , an dC H R IS T E N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. F e de r a l pr i s one rM i c ha e l W e s tappe a l s f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s j udgm e nt de ny i ng hi s 28 U . S . C . § 2241 habe a s pe t i t i on. W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 1291. W e r e vi e w de novo adi s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de ni a l of a28 U . S . C . § 2241 

# FI LED OC T 02 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS12- 35745 2 h ab e a s c o rp u s p e titio n , s e e Mor a-Me r azv . T hom as , 60 1 F . 3d 93 3, 93 9 (9th C i r. 2 0 1 0 ) , a n d w e a f

f i rm. W e s tc ont e nds tha tthe B ur e au of P r i s ons w a s obl i ga t e d t o c r e di thi m f or tim e s e rv e d in c u s to d yp r io rto S e p te m b e r6 , 2 0 0 6 , b e c au s e h e o v e r s e rv e dh is s ta te se nt ence . W e di sa gree . T he re cord ref l ec t s thatW es t ’ s s t at e s ent ence t erm i nat ed on S e pt e m be r6, 2006, a nd thi s c ourt ’ s c a s e l a w s upport s us e of tha tda t e a s the c o m m e n c e m e n t d a te o f

h is f e d e r a l s e n te n c e . See 18 U . S . C . § 3 58 5(a) ; T ho m as v. B re w er , 9 2 3 F .2 d 1 3 6 1 , 1 3 6 4 -6 7 (9 th C ir. 1 9 9 1 ). N o th in g in th e r ec o rd o f W es t’ s s e nt e nc i ng i n the c a s e unde rr e vi e w r e qui r e s adi f f e r e ntc onc l us i on; thus , the d is tr ic t c o u rt p r o p e r lyd e n ie d h is p e titio n . AF F I RME D.
EXHIBIT 31.3

CERTIFICATION

I, Frank F. Khulusi, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of PC Mall, Inc.; and

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.



|                     |  |                        
|-------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: April 27, 2006 |  | /s/ Frank F. Khulusi   
|                     |  | Frank F. Khulusi       
|                     |  | Chief Executive Officer
# C_2020287EN.01003801.xml

| 31.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/38

---

Action brought on 7 July 2020 — Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe v EUIPO — Huawei Technologies (GT9)

(Case T-423/20)

(2020/C 287/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, QC and M. Maier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd (Shenzhen, China)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark GT9 — Application for registration No 14 738 298

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceeding

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 April 2020 in Case R 1610/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and other party to bear their costs and pay those of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and other party to bear their costs and pay those of the applicant.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by failing to identify specifically the relevant public; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by failing to identify specifically the relevant public;

| — | Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by failing to take into account the evidence as to the likely perception of the earlier European Union Trade mark by the relevant public; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by failing to take into account the evidence as to the likely perception of the earlier European Union Trade mark by the relevant public;

| — | Failure to consider the other elements of the above mentioned Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) objections; |
| --- | --- |

—

Failure to consider the other elements of the above mentioned Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) objections;

| — | Failure to apply national rules under Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Failure to apply national rules under Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament by failing to consider the other elements under passing off law. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament by failing to consider the other elements under passing off law.

---
# C_2020247EN.01003401.xml

| 27.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 247/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 247/34

---

Action brought on 19 May 2020 — Hijos de Moisés Rodríguez González v EUIPO — Ireland and Ornua (La Irlandesa 1943)

(Case T-306/20)

(2020/C 247/45)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Hijos de Moisés Rodríguez González, SA (Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain) (represented by: J. García Domínguez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ireland and Ornua Co-operative Ltd (Dublin, Ireland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark La Irlandesa 1943 — European Union trade mark No 12 043 436

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Grand Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 March 2020 in Case R 1499/2016-G

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those of the other parties to the proceedings, if appropriate. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those of the other parties to the proceedings, if appropriate.

Pleas in law

Infringement of Article 59(1)(a), in conjunction with Article 7(1)(g) and Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0690

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

vs. 

NATHAN PAUL KRAFT,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including November 22, 2024, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 2 2024

10/02/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0690
#### Albert GIBSON, Appellant, v. DR. JOHN T. MacDONALD FOUNDATION d/b/a Doctors’ Hospital, Appellee.

No. 67-320.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. . Third District.

Dec. 12, 1967.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
No. 10712.

#### The Board of Education of The Cloverdale Village School District et al. *v.*Stretker, etc.

Decided December 8, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Putman county.

*Messrs. Handy & Unverferth*and *Messrs. Bailey & Leasure,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Messrs. Straman & Straman; Mr. E. F. Wieser*and *Mr. J. W.*Smith, for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Shaucic, Crew, Summers and Spear, JJ., concur.
#### Oscar L. FORSYTH, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL AIRLINES, INC., et al., Respondents.

No. 40634.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 12, 1971.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, C. J., and CARLTON, BOYD and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

ERVIN, J., dissents.
# C_2020339EN.01002501.xml

| 12.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 339/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 339/25

---

Action brought on 15 August 2020 — Uno v Commission

(Case T-514/20)

(2020/C 339/31)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Uno Organización Empresarial de Logística y Transporte (Coslada, Spain) (represented by: J. Piqueras Ruiz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul European Commission Decision C (2020) 3108 final of 14 May 2020 on State aid SA.50872 (2020/NN) — Compensation to Correos on account of the universal service obligation (‘USO’), 2011-2020; and consequently, |
| --- | --- |

—

annul European Commission Decision C (2020) 3108 final of 14 May 2020 on State aid SA.50872 (2020/NN) — Compensation to Correos on account of the universal service obligation (‘USO’), 2011-2020; and consequently,

| — | order the Commission to pay all the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay all the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Case T-513/20, Asempre v Commission

---
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

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

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

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

LA/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ERNEST J. BROOKS, III,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

WILLIAM B. KOLENDER, Sheriff; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 08-56432

D.C. No. 3:05-cv-00749-JAHCAB

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 11, 2010** 

Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Ernest J. Brooks, III, a former pretrial detainee at San Diego County Jail,

appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

FILED

JAN 19 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
LA/Research 2 08-56432

action claiming that jail personnel were deliberately indifferent to his medical

needs. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. 

Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment to defendants because

Brooks failed to raise a triable issue as to whether any defendant intentionally

delayed or interfered with treatment of Brooks’ knee. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296

F.3d 732, 744 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Prison officials are deliberately indifferent to a

prisoner’s medical needs when they deny, delay, or intentionally interfere with

medical treatment”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Brooks did not

demonstrate that his problem was so severe that a delay in treatment could cause

significant harm, or that defendants should have known this to be the case. See id.;

see also Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998) (holding that, because

pretrial detainees’ Fourteenth Amendment rights are comparable to prisoners’

Eighth Amendment rights, the same standards apply). 

Brooks’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>
                       AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO PLEDGE AGREEMENT

      This Amendment No. 1 to Pledge Agreement ("Agreement") made as of this
18th day of November 1996, between PSINet Inc., a New York corporation
(hereinafter sometimes referred to as the "Pledgor"), and Fleet National Bank, a
national banking association (the "Bank").

      WHEREAS, the Pledgor and the Bank are parties to a Pledge Agreement dated
as of October 1, 1996 (the "Pledge Agreement");

      WHEREAS, Pledgor and the Bank desire to amend the Pledge Agreement as
provided herein;

      NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto hereby agree as
follows:

      1. Capitalized terms used herein, unless otherwise defined herein, shall
have the meaning ascribed thereto in the Pledge Agreement.

      2. Exhibit A to the Pledge Agreement is hereby replaced in its entirety
with Exhibit A attached hereto.

      3. The Bank hereby acknowledges receipt of the Pledged Securities listed
in Exhibit A.

      4. Except as specifically provided herein, the Pledge Agreement remains in
effect in accordance with its terms.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of
the date first above written.
<PAGE>
                                              PSINET INC.

                                              By:  /s/ William L. Schrader
                                                  ------------------------------
                                              Title: Chairman, President and CEO

                                              FLEET NATIONAL BANK

                                              By:  /s/ Thomas W. Davies
                                                 -------------------------------
                                              Title: VP

                                              By: /s/ William E. Rurode
                                                  ------------------------------
                                              Title: Senior Vice President

                                       2
<PAGE>

                                    EXHIBIT A

                           List of Pledged Securities


         Name of Entity Issuing                            Description of
         the Pledged Securities                          Pledged Securities
         ----------------------                          ------------------
1.    EUNet GB Limited                                   500,000 shares,
      (a corporation organized under                     (pound)1.00
       the laws of the United Kingdom)

2.    PSINet Limited                                     2,000 shares of
      (a corporation organized under                     Common Stock, without
       the Canada Business Corporations Act)             par value

3.    PSI Japan K.K.                                     200 shares, par value
      (a corporation organized under the laws            50,000 yen
       of Japan)

                                       3
P.1 

RCRA Box 1883 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

42) ll-B-203 

Docket Number: 

A-90-19 

Printed 12/3/200810:42:12 AM Sheet 42 of 171 
A-90-19 

ll-B-203 

P.2 

PENDING CONFIDENTIAL 

jHJJJJT 

yi9a 

I9 

EPA AIR DOCKET 

The following information is located in the confidential 

files of the Director, Emission Standards Division, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711. This 

information is confidential pending final determination by the 

Administrator and is not available for public inspection. 

W. Floyd, Radian Corporation, to Process Vents Docket 

A-90-19, December 1991, HON NESHAP: Industry 

Characteristics/Xylenol. 23 pages. 

CBI Document Control No. 86/23, PPS-203
#### Wilfred HOFFPAUIR v. Wilmer HOFFPAUIR.

No. 53931.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 14, 1973.

In re: Wilmer Hoffpauir applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Lafayette. 280 So.2d 855.

Writ denied. On the fact found, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is correct.