alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### GENTILLY TIME PAY PLANS, INC. v. Joseph SIRAGUSA, a/k/a Joseph R. Siragusa.

No. 3966.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Fourth Circuit.

Nov. 3, 1969.

Donald N. Memmer, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellee.

Joseph R. Siragusa, in pro. per.

Before SAMUEL, HALL and RED-MANN JJ.

SAMUEL, Judge.

This matter is before us on a plaintiff-appellee motion to dismiss an appeal taken by the defendant from a judgment of the First City Court for the City of New Orleans in the amount of $614.24, together with interest, attorney’s fees and costs. The motion is based on the contention that the application for appeal was not made timely.

The judgment appealed from was rendered and signed on October 15, 1968. Defendant’s application for a new trial was denied on October 18, 1968. The petition for appeal was filed on March 13, 1969. The law relative to the time within which an appeal may be taken from a City Court judgment in cases involving more than $100 is C.C.P. Art. 5002, which provides, *inter alia:*

> “A devolutive or suspensive appeal to the proper appellate court may be granted if applied for within ten days after the expiration of the delays for applying for a new trial, or within ten days of the denial of a new trial.” LSA-C.C.P. Art. 5002.

It is quite clear that the appeal in the instant case was not applied for within the required ten-day period after the denial of a new trial. More than four months elapsed between October 18, 1968, the date on which the new trial was denied, and March 13, 1969, the date on which the petition for appeal was filed. No opposition has been filed to the motion to dismiss and we know of no facts which could possibly excuse the delay. Accordingly, we must dismiss the appeal.

For the reasons assigned, the appeal taken herein by the defendant, Joseph R. Siragusa, is dismissed at his cost.

Motion granted and appeal dismissed.
<PAGE>   1


                                                                      EXHIBIT 11



             FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE HOLDINGS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
  WEIGHTED AVERAGE NUMBER OF SHARES AND EARNINGS USED IN PER SHARE COMPUTATION
                        (DOLLARS AND SHARES IN THOUSANDS)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                        THREE MONTHS ENDED                 SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                                             JUNE 30,                           JUNE 30,
                                                  -----------------------------      -----------------------------
                                                     1998              1997              1998             1997
                                                  -----------     -------------      ------------     ------------
<S>                                               <C>             <C>                <C>               <C>
The weighted average number of shares of
   Common Stock were as follows................       90,000             90,000            90,000           90,000
                                                  ==========      =============      ============     ============
</TABLE>


Income used in the computation of earnings per share were as follows:


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                        THREE MONTHS ENDED                 SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                                             JUNE 30,                          JUNE 30,
                                                  -----------------------------      -----------------------------
                                                     1998              1997              1998           1997
                                                  -----------     -------------      ------------     ------------
<S>                                                <C>            <C>                <C>               <C>
Net Earnings - Continuing Operations...........    $  12,827      $      10,896      $     22,550     $    17,780
Dividends paid on preferred stocks.............         (130)              (130)             (260)           (260)
                                                   ---------      -------------      ------------     ------------
Income used in per share computation of         
 earnings.......................................   $  12,697      $      10,766      $     22,290     $     17,520
                                                   =========      =============      ============     ============
Basic and fully dilutive earnings per share -    
 Continuing Operations..........................   $    0.14      $        0.12      $       0.25     $       0.19
                                                   =========      =============      ============     ============

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           2,600
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  381,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    29,400
<INVENTORY>                                     20,900
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               389,500
<PP&E>                                       5,846,400
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,591,700
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,849,400
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          808,400
<BONDS>                                        692,700
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      7,600
<COMMON>                                       650,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     274,500
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,849,400
<SALES>                                        425,400
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               425,400
<CGS>                                          156,300
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  323,600
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,100
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 83,100
<INCOME-TAX>                                    29,300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             53,800
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    53,800
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# Travel Consulting Services

Travel Consulting Services (SIN 561599) contractors provide professional advice and/or information on travel related matters. Some of the many offerings under SIN 561599 include:
                        - Improving aspects of the travel process to realize cost and/or administrative savings.
                        - Reengineering business processes.
                        - Developing policy.
                        - Developing customer satisfaction surveys.
                        - Travel risk management services for travel security.
                        - Supplier negotiations.
                        - Supplier management.
                        - Technology support.

Find more information about Travel Consulting Services on GSA eLibrary - SIN 561599 (listing of approved contractors).

##           Resources    

- Download the complete  Federal Travel Regulation
- Joint Travel Regulations
- Foreign Affairs Manual

Print PageEmail Page

Top

-  Travel-  Overview 
-  Travel and lodging services    -  E-Gov Travel Services (ETS) 
  -  Travel category schedule      -  Lodging Negotiations and Management Services 
    -  Travel Agent Services 
    -  Travel Consulting Services 
  -  FedRooms 
  -  Employee Relocation Resource Center 
  -  Rideshare 
-  Plan a trip
| 1. | I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of ImageWare Systems, 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 23, 2015 | ImageWare Systems, Inc. By: /s/ Wayne Wetherell |   |
|----------------------|------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                 | Wayne Wetherell                                      |   |
|                 | Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer) |   |
#### Marlon W. BRIGHAM, Appellant, v. Marian Alice MURRAY and F. Rouse Smith, Appellees.

No. 67-855.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Dec. 12, 1967.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# C_2023007EN.01000601.xml

| 9.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 7/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okrazhen sad — Burgas — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against DELTA STROY 2003

(Case C-203/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA - Applicability - Imposition of a financial penalty on a legal person for non-payment of tax debts - Concept of ‘confiscation’ - Articles 48, 49 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Penalties of a criminal nature - Principles of the presumption of innocence and the legality and proportionality of criminal offences and penalties - Rights of the defence - Imposition of a criminal penalty on a legal person for an offence committed by the representative of that legal person - Parallel criminal proceedings against that representative that have not been concluded - Proportionality)

(2023/C 7/07)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Okrazhen sad — Burgas

Party in the main proceedings

DELTA STROY 2003

Intervening party: Okrazhna prokuratura — Burgas

Operative part of the judgment

Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a national court may impose on a legal person a criminal penalty for an offence for which a natural person who has the power to bind or represent that legal person is allegedly liable, where that legal person has not been put in a position to dispute the reality of that offence.

---

(1)  OJ C 228, 14.6.2021.

---
#### STATE of Louisiana, Through the DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS v. Warren H. SMITH, Jr., et al.

No. 53166.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 1, 1973.

In re: State of Louisiana, through the Department of Highways applying for cer-tiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of St, Tammany. 270 So.2d 178.

Writ denied. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal there is no error of law in the judgment complained of.
Exhibit 32.2



Pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350)



The undersigned, as the Executive Vice President - Finance and Chief
Financial Officer of Georgia-Pacific Corporation, certifies, to the best of my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 2, 2005, which accompanies this certification fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Georgia-Pacific Corporation at the dates and for the
periods indicated. The foregoing certification is made pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350) and shall not be relied upon for any other purpose.



Date: April 28, 2005



/s/ DANNY W. HUFFDanny W. Huff Executive Vice President - Finance and Chief Financial Officer




A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Georgia-Pacific Corporation and will be retained by Georgia-Pacific Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
House Calendar No. 44

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 182

[Report No. 103–109]

RESOLUTION

Dismissing the election contest against Jay Dickey.

MAY 25, 1993

Referred to the House calendar and ordered to be printed
IV

House Calendar No. 44

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 182

[Report No. 103–109]

Dismissing the election contest against Jay Dickey.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 25, 1993

Mr. KLECZKA, from the Committee on House Administration, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House calendar and ordered

to be printed

RESOLUTION

Dismissing the election contest against Jay Dickey.

1 Resolved, That the election contest of Bill McCuen,

2 contestant, against Jay Dickey, contestee, relating to the

3 office of Representative from the Fourth Congressional

4 District of Arkansas, is dismissed.
<PAGE>









                                   EXHIBIT 3.6


                                          I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A COPY
                                          OF A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THE
                                          REGISTRAR 0F COMPANIES 
                                               0CT 15 1993
                                          ------------------------------------
                                              (illegible)
                                          ------------------------------------
                                          FOR REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES 
                                          FOR THE PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

                                     FORM 21

                                  (SECTION 371)

                          PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

                                   COMPANY ACT

                                         Certificate of Incorporation No. 330743

                               SPECIAL RESOLUTI0N

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

     The following special resolutions were passed by the undermentioned Company
on the date stated:

Name of Company: EAST COAST EXPLORATIONS LTD.

Date resolutions passed: September 29, 1993

RESOLUTION:

     "RESOLVED, AS A SPECIAL RESOLUTION THAT:

1.   The name of the Company be changed from "EAST COAST EXPLORATIONS LTD." to
     "SUMMO MINERALS CORPORATION".

2.   Item 1 of the Memorandum of the Company be changed to read:

            The name of the Company is "Summo Minerals Corporation".

3.   The Memorandum as altered by these resolutions be in the form attached
     hereto as Schedule "A", so that the Memorandum as altered shall at the time
     of filing comply with the Company Act."

CERTIFIED a true copy this 4th day of October, 1993.

                                                    ---------------------------
                                                            (signature)




<PAGE>

                                  SCHEDULE "A"

                                   MEMORANDUM

                       (As altered by special resolutions
                     dated the 29th day of September, 1993)

                                       of

                           SUMMO MINERALS CORPORATION


1.   The name of the Company is "SUMMO MINERALS CORPORATION".

2.   The authorized capital of the Company consists of Twenty
     Million (20,000,000) Common shares without par value.
<PAGE>   1
                               AG ASSOCIATES, INC.


                                  EXHIBIT 11.01
                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                      (in thousands, except per share data)




<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                     Fiscal Years Ended
                                               ------------------------------
                                                1996        1995        1994
                                               ------      ------      ------
<S>                                            <C>         <C>         <C>
       Weighted average common shares
            outstanding during the period       5,883       4,385       2,925

       Common share equivalents                   257         385         847
                                               ------      ------      ------

       Total                                    6,140       4,770       3,772
                                               ======      ======      ======


       Net Income                              $2,743      $9,753      $3,224

       Interest on convertible debentures        --            35          60
                                               ------      ------      ------

       Adjusted net income                     $2,743      $9,788      $3,284
                                               ======      ======      ======


       Earnings per share                      $ 0.45      $ 2.05      $ 0.87
                                               ======      ======      ======
</TABLE>

                                       14
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 327 Agreed to House (ATH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 327

            Providing for the hour of meeting of the House.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 25, 1994

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
            Providing for the hour of meeting of the House.

    Resolved, That until otherwise ordered, the hour of meeting of the 
House shall be noon on Mondays and Tuesdays; 2 p.m. on Wednesdays; 11 
a.m. on all other days of the week up to and including May 15, 1994; 
and that from May 16, 1994, until the end of the second session, the 
hour of daily meeting of the House shall be noon on Mondays and 
Tuesdays and 10 a.m. on all other days of the week.

                                 <all>
```
#### In the Matter of Rhiannon B., a Child Alleged to be Abused. Claranne B., Appellant; Genesee County Department of Social Services, Respondent.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[656 NYS2d 999]

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Same Memorandum as in *Matter of Rhiannon B.,*237 AD2d 935 [decided herewith]). (Appeal from Order of Genesee County Family Court, Graney, J.—Order of Protection.) Present—Den-man, P. J., Pine, Lawton, Balio and Boehm, JJ.
#### In re ESTATE of H. Vivian WALKER, Deceased.

No. 67-12.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Nov. 17, 1967.

*45Ronald W. Vogler, of Carlton & Vogler, Miami, for appellant.

Owen S. Allbritton, III, of Allbritton & Barber, and Jack F. White, Jr., of Furnell & White, Clearwater, for appellees.

SMITH, CULVER, Associate Judge.

This is an appeal from an order entered by the County Judge of Pinellas County on November 9, 1966. The facts are not in dispute.

H. Vivian Walker died testate. Article XII of her will reads as follows:

> “All the rest, residue and remainder of my estate, I give, devise and bequeath equally to the Christian Science Church of which I am a member at the time of my death, and the organization known as CARE.”

The executors filed a petition for determination of beneficiaries reciting that they were unable to find any Christian Science Church of which she was a member at the time of her death, and that they were in doubt as to how to distribute the residuary proceeds.

The County Judge held that the bequest to the Christian Science Church failed. This holding is not attacked. He further held, however, that the share which failed remained as a part of the residue and passed in toto to the organization known as CARE under the authority of Section 731.20(2). The point raised by appellant is whether a lapsed portion of a residuum passes as intestate property under the law of descent and distribution, or passes by reason of Section 731.20(2) to the remaining residuary beneficiary. The Court below relied on the case of Magruder v. Magruder, Fla.App., 157 So.2d 86, which was decided by this Court on October 25, 1963. In Magruder it was held that Section 731.20(2) regarding lapsed or void legacies or devises should apply to lapsed portions of a residuary gift, and that no contrary intent was expressed by the testatrix in her will. In the instant case certainly no contrary intent appears.

Appellant attacks the holding of Magruder and asserts that it is contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court of Florida in the case of In Re Eltzeroth’s Estate, Fla. 1955, 83 So.2d 772. No mention of Section 731.20(2) is made in that case. Further, it appears to us that the testator expressed an intent contrary to the provisions of the statute. The will provided that all property of any kind should go to George C. Jarrett and Charles W. Jarrett. It further provided that in the event either was not living at the time of the testator’s death, his portion of the bequest should go to his children. We find the order of the Court below to be correct.

Affirmed.

ALLEN, Acting C. J., and SHANNON, J., concur.
Devany, Dennis (OST) 

From: mjbland@aoLcom 

. Sent: ":' . 'Saturday, February 13, 201010:19 AM 

To: Devany, Dennis (OST) 

Dear Mr,Devany, 

., .-, ­

I am a resident of the Plattsburgh, New York area. I am extremely unhappy with the recommendation 

of our elected officials on the Cape Air vs. Colgan Air contract. Cape Air has a proven track record of 

serving the community. It promises/gu~rantees a reasonable rate and 21 weekly flights to Boston. 

Colgan promises/guarantees nothing except a vague we will provide some level of service, less than 

Cape Air and at a higher price. 

I am familiar with Colgan from other places I have lived. They are not service oriented, they are 

highly driven by profit, are not reliable and have some safety issues. I can only assume that they 

have a strong lobbying contingent and have thus influenced our elected officials. 

Since you are not tied to the recommendation of the legislatures, I would hope that you would 

consider the common man here and go with Cape Air. We can afford them, we can depend on them 

and they have shown that they care. 

Thank you for your consideration of this matter. 

Mary Jean Bland 

41 Cascade Lane 

Jay, NY 12941 

(518) 647-5803 

1