alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Succession of Mildred Margaret MILLER.

No. 9481.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

May 25, 1978.

Racivitch & Wegmann, William J. Weg-mann, New Orleans, for Mrs. Albertha Screen Meyer, appellant.

Derbes & Derbes, Jorda S. Derbes, New Orleans, for Mrs. Helen Miller Regan, ap-pellee.

ON COURT’S OWN MOTION TO DISMISS

Before GULOTTA, STOULIG and GAR-SAUD, JJ.

*1127STOULIG, Judge.

We dismiss this appeal as premature.

On November 5, 1976 appellant Albertha Meyer filed an ex parte petition to probate the will of Mildred Margaret Miller. The trial court refused to sign the order of probate noting on the bottom of the pleading:

> “The court declines to order the probate of the attached will for the reason that it is not either an olographic or a statutory will.

> [Signed] Sanford Levy

> Judge

> 11/9/76”

Mrs. Meyer neither appealed from this denial nor did she apply to this Court for supervisory writs. Some time later Mrs. Helen Regan was appointed administratrix of the intestate Miller succession.

On January 18, 1978, appellant filed a contradictory rule against the administra-trix directing her to show cause why the document which Judge Levy refused to probate in 1976 should not be probated. The district court made this notation on the pleading:

> “January 27, 1978

> Motion & Rule to Probate Will denied for reasons set forth on November 9, 1976.

> [Signed] Sanford Levy

> Judge”

There are no formal judgments in the record of either ruling. Both refusals to admit to probate, if reduced to formal judgments, would be final judgments because they establish permanent rights. *Succession of Lissa,*194 La. 328, 193 So. 663 (1940). More specifically, a judgment ordering a will to probate is a final judgment, *Seghers v. Antheman,*1 Mart. N.S. 73 (1823); therefore, it logically follows that the refusal to probate a will is likewise a final judgment.

Had a formal judgment been signed incorporating the decree in the first handwritten notation, appellant could not relitigate the same issue via a different procedure. However, C.C.P. art. 1911 and the jurisprudence interpreting it require that a final judgment be signed.1

The entry by the district judge does not constitute a final judgment, and until one is signed and forms a part of the record any appeal therefrom is premature. *See Bartlett v. Collector of Revenue,*276 So.2d 748 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1973).

This appeal is dismissed at appellant’s cost.

*APPEAL DISMISSED.*

1

. C.C.P. art. 2974 provides in part: “Appeals from orders or judgments rendered in succession proceedings shall be governed by the rules applicable to appeals in ordinary proceedings * * *."
#### Marie Sanders HURKS v. L. H. BOSSIER et al.

No. 62726.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 15, 1978.

In re: Mid-State Materials, Inc. and U. S. Fire Insurance Company, applying for cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit. Parish of Calcasieu, State of Louisiana.

Writ denied.
No. 00-1048.

#### Baker *v.*United States.

C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 7476** 

HAROLD DOUGLAS, JR. , Petitioner

– Appellant ,
v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk
. Raymond A. Jackson , District Judge. ( 2:14

- cv - 00018

- RAJ

- DEM )

Submitted : December 16, 2014 Decided: December 19, 2014

Before DUNCAN and DIAZ , Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Harold Douglas, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Lauren Catherine Campbell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinio ns are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Harold Douglas, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
court ’ s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012) . The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Douglas that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Th e timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge ’ s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845

- 46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Douglas has waived appellate review by failing to timely file objections
. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dis miss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials3 before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION





PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C. 1350)





Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of (18 U.S.C. 1350), the undersigned officer of Earth Search Sciences, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to the best of such officer's knowledge and belief, that:





(1) The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2014 (the "Form 10-K") of the Company 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 Form 10-K fairly presents, in all materials respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date: July 16, 2014/s/Larry VanceLarry VanceChief Executive Officer





This certification shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Securities Exchange Act.
EXHIBIT 99.2

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

In connection with the Annual Report of CT Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard Connelly,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as enacted 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.


/s/ RICHARD CONNELLY
--------------------
Richard Connelly
Chief Financial Officer

April 15, 2003


<PAGE>
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED
May 7, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

_______________



### m 01-20953

_______________



### MFE E NTERPRISES 

### , I NC 

### .,

PlaintiffCounter DefendantAppellee,

VERSUS



### T ANK 

### C ONSULTANTS 

### , I NC 

### .,

DefendantCounter ClaimantAppellant.

_________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas


### m H-00-CV-2302

____________2

Before S MITH , D ENNIS , and C LEMENT , Circuit Judges.

P ER C URIAM : *

MFE Enterprises, Inc., was awarded a judgment, after a bench trial, for misappropriation of trade secrets by Tank Consultants, Inc. The latter appeals, raising several issues.

We have read the briefs, applicable portions of the record, and the pertinent authorities, and have heard the arguments of counsel. Finding no error in the careful ex planation of the district court, we affirm, essentially for the reasons given by that court.

AFFIRMED.

* Pu rsuant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.
EXHIBIT 24.1

POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby constitutes and appoints Harris Ravine, David Kirwan and Mary Beth Wallingford the undersigned's true
and lawful attorneys-in-fact and agents, each with full power and substitution for the undersigned and in the undersigned's name, place and stead, in any and all capacities, to
sign Fischer Imaging Corporation's Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003 (the "Form 10-K") and any or all amendments to the
Form 10-K, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto and other documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto each of said
attorneys-in-fact and agents full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully to
all intents and purposes as the undersigned might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that either of said attorneys-in-fact and agents, or his substitute
or substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereto.

IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this Power of Attorney to be executed as of this 13th day of April, 2004.

| |  | /s/TODGER ANDERSONSignature
| |  | ---------------------------
| |  | Todger AndersonPrint Name: 

---

QuickLinks
#### ELI CROZIER *vs.*HENRY WILSON.

On a trial by referees before a magistrate, the record must show that they were duly qualified. This must appear on the return to a certiorari, and the private certificate of the magistrate to the fact will not do.

Certiorari. Record returned.

Exceptions. 1st. That the referees were not duly summoned. 2d. That they were not sworn. 3d. That it does not appear that the magistrate had jurisdiction.

The record did not show the qualification of the referees; but, since the last continuance, the magistrate, at the request of the party, certified to the court under his hand and seal that the referees were sworn.

*Gilpin,*for plaintiff in error.

*Wales,*for defendant.

*The Court*

said they could not notice this certificate: and, referring to the case of *Ray, use of Moon,*vs. *Hall,*1 Harr. *Rep.*106, reversed the judgment-.

Judgment reversed.
#### YOUNG *v.*YOUNG.

Divorce — Alimony.

In -wife’s suit for divorce, decree awarding her half interest in two-family flat, valued at $4,000, is modified, on appeal, under circumstances of ease, and she is awarded $500 as alimony in gross and in lieu of dower.

As to amount of permanent alimony on absolute divorce, see annotation in 44 L. R. A. (N. S.) 998.

Appeal from Wayne; Moll (Lester S.), J.

Submitted October 8, 1931.

(Docket No. 54, Calendar No. 35,665.)

Decided December 8, 1931.

Bill by Kate Young against Steve Young for divorce. Cross-bill for divorce by defendant. Decree for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.

Modified and affirmed.

*Stephen Tittenhofer,*for plaintiff.

*John H. Flancher,*for defendant.

*224Clark, J.

The bill and the cross-bill each pray divorce on the ground of cruelty. Plaintiff had decree. Defendant has appealed.

The parties were married June 27, 1929, and separated September 5th, following. She was 51 years old, he, a.widower, 61. She had been married twice before, and was divorced on June 12, 1929. There is enough testimony to sustain decree as to divorce, and, as there is no serious contest in that regard, we pass to the award of alimony in gross.

Defendant owned a two-flat house on Freer avenue, cash value near $4,000, and another two-flat house, cash value $3,800. He had nearly $1,000 in the bank. Soon after the marriage, title to one of the houses, called Freer avenue property, was changed to create an entirety estate in the parties. There are no incumbrances, except possibly taxes. Defendant is a cripple, has not been able to work for a number of years. He lives in one of the flats and rents the others when he can. The gross monthly income from the three flats, when all are rented, is $103, net income not given. Plaintiff contributed nothing toward defendant’s accumulation of property. There is no claim that plaintiff, ten years younger than defendant, is not in good health. The trial judge said of her:

> ‘ ‘It may, therefore, be concluded that plaintiff was somewhat of the adventuress type, who was actuated- in marrying the defendant by a desire to acquire an interest in his property. ’ ’

The award to plaintiff, except as to costs, was to permit her to have half interest in the Freer avenue property as tenant in common.

Considerations which obtain in determining an award of alimony are set forth in *Bialy*v. Bialy, 167 *225Mich. 559 (Ann. Cas. 1913A, 800), and need not be repeated.

Considering the conduct of the parties, their age, the very short duration of the marriage, and their comparative health, and other facts stated, we think the decree should be modified to vest title to all the property in defendant, that he pay plaintiff. $500 within a short time to be fixed by decree, which is an award of alimony in gross and in lieu of dower and to be a lien on Freer avenue property. *Allen*v. *Allen,*196 Mich. 292. *Shered*v. *Shered,*172 Mich. 222.

Except as modified, the decree is in all things affirmed, without costs.

Butzel, C. J., and Wiest, McDonald, Potter, Sharpe, North, and Fead, JJ., concurred.
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 96

Providing amounts from the contingent fund of the House for expenses

of investigations and studies by the Committee on House Administration

in the first session of the One Hundred Third Congress.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 18, 1993

Mr. ROSE submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on House Administration

RESOLUTION

Providing amounts from the contingent fund of the House

for expenses of investigations and studies by the Committee on House Administration in the first session of the

One Hundred Third Congress.

1 Resolved, That (a) for expenses of investigations and

2 studies by the Committee on House Administration (here3 inafter in this resolution referred to as the ‘‘Committee’’),

4 including expenses for—

5 (1) procurement of consultant services under

6 section 202(i) of the Legislative Reorganization Act

7 of 1946; and
2

HRES 96 IH

1 (2) provision of assistance for members of pro2 fessional staff in obtaining specialized training under

3 section 202(j) of such Act;

4 there shall be paid out of the contingent fund of the House

5 not more than $2,000,351.

6 (b) Not more than $225,000 of the amount specified

7 in subsection (a) may be used for consultant services re8 ferred to in paragraph (1) of such subsection and not more

9 than $20,000 of such amount may be used for specialized

10 training referred to in paragraph (2) of such subsection.

11 SEC. 2. Payments under this resolution shall be made

12 on vouchers authorized by the Committee, signed by the

13 Chairman of the Committee, and approved by the Commit14 tee on House Administration.

15 SEC. 3. Amounts shall be available under this resolu16 tion for investigations and studies carried out during the

17 period beginning at noon on January 3, 1993, and ending

18 immediately before noon on January 3, 1994.

19 SEC. 4. Amounts made available under this resolution

20 shall be expended in accordance with regulations pre21 scribed by the Committee on House Administration.

Æ
#### Raymond M. HAMRA, Appellant, v. Barbara HAMRA, Appellee.

No. 77-1647.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 30, 1978.

William J. Brown, Miami, for appellant.

Markus, Winter & Spitale and Laurie Silvers, Miami, for appellee.

Before HENDRY and BARKDULL, JJ., and PARKER, J. GWYNN (Ret.), Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *Martinez v. Martinez,*153 Fla. 753, 15 So.2d 842 (1943).
#### Sigmond E. FLORSHEIM, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS, State of Louisiana et al., Defendant, Third-Party Plaintiff, Respondent, YUBA CONSOLIDATED INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant, Third-Party Defendant, Relator.

No. 10820.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

June 30, 1967.

Rehearing Denied July 27, 1967.

Thomas B. Wilson, Bossier City, Cook, Clark, Egan, Yancey & King, Shreveport, for Sigmond E. Florsheim, plaintiff.

D. Ross Banister, Philip K. Jones, Norman L. Sisson, Robert J. Jones, William J. Doran, Jr., Baton Rouge, Lunn, Irion, Switzer, Johnson & Salley, Shreveport, for Department of Highways, defendant, third-party plaintiff, respondent.

Mayer & Smith, Shreveport, for Yuba Consolidated Industries, Inc., defendant, third-party defendant, relator.

Before HARDY, GLADNEY, and AYRES, JJ.

*159AYRES, Judge.

Upon the lodging of the record in this court pursuant to remedial writs issued May 3, 1967, this matter was, for the purpose of trial, consolidated with Florsheim v. Department of Highways, State of Louisiana, et al., 201 So.2d 155.

For the reasons assigned in the consolidated case, the one-year prescription urged by Yuba Consolidated Industries, Inc., to defendant Department of Highways’ third-party petition was properly overruled and the remedial writs should be and are now recalled at applicant’s cost.

Therefore, this matter is remanded to the Honorable First Judicial District Court for Caddo Parish, Louisiana, for further proceedings in accordance with law and consistent with the views expressed in the opinion in the consolidated case.

Writs recalled; case remanded.
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.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:

# Name and Committee Code:

 Proposal Review Panel for Materials Research (DMR) (#1203)—Platform for the Accelerated Realization, Analysis, and Discovery of Interface Materials (PARADIM), Materials Innovation Platform (MIP), Cornell University, Ithaca, NY (Site Visit).

# Date and Time:

 

August 1, 2018; 8:00 a.m.-8:00 p.m.

August 2, 2018; 8:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m.

# Place:

 Cornell University, B07 Day Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853.

# Type of Meeting:

Part open.

# Contact Person:

 Dr. Charles Ying, Program Director, MPS/DMR, National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Room E 9467, Alexandria, VA 22314; Telephone: (703) 292-8428.

# Purpose of Meeting: 

Site visit to provide advice and recommendations concerning further support of the MIP at Cornell University.

## Agenda

### Wednesday, August 1, 2018

8:00 a.m.-9:15 a.m. Closed—Executive Session

9:15 a.m.-11:30 a.m. Open—Review of PARADIM MIP

11:30 a.m.-1:00 p.m. Closed—Executive Session

1:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m. Open—Review of PARADIM MIP

4:00 p.m.-8:00 p.m. Closed—Executive Session

### Thursday, August 2, 2018

8:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. Closed—Executive Session

*Reason for Closing:*                     The work being reviewed during closed portions of the site review includes information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries and personal information concerning individuals associated with PARADIM/MIP program. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.                

Dated: June 25, 2018.

Crystal Robinson,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 2018-13938 Filed 6-27-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
# C_2022284EN.01004002.xml

| 25.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 284/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 284/40

---

Order of the General Court of 12 May 2022 — ClientEarth v Commission

(Case T-661/21) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Aarhus Convention - Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Impact assessment report and other documents relating to a legislative initiative in the environmental field - Implied refusal of access - Express decision adopted after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 284/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ClientEarth AISBL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: O. Brouwer, B. Verheijen and T. van Helfteren, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Ehrbar and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, ClientEarth AISBL, seeks annulment of the implied decision of the European Commission of 30 July 2021 rejecting the confirmatory application for access to several documents relating to deforestation and forest degradation.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The European Commission is to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Commission is to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 24, 17.1.2022.

---
<PAGE>
                                                                    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 Day International
Group, Inc (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Dennis R. Wolters, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

                  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

                  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial position and results of operations of
the Company.

                  A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise
adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version
of this 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/ Dennis R. Wolters
------------------------------
Dennis R. Wolters
Chief Executive Officer
August 11, 2003