alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES CONCRETE PIPE CO., Appellant, v. UTILITY SYSTEMS, INC., et al., Appellees.

No. 72-34.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 20, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 13, 1972.

Carroll Dunscombe, Stuart, for appellant.

James F. Littman, Stuart, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Section 725.01, F.S.1971, F.S.A.

REED, C. J., and WALDEN and CROSS, JJ., concur.
#### S. Perceval, Incorporated, Respondent, *v.*Ernest H. Fleischmann Company, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

November, 1912.)

Municipal Courts—pleading — judgment — appeal.

The answer of a defendant in a Municipal Court action need not be subscribed by its attorney.

Where the Municipal Court refuses to permit a defendant to file its answer because not subscribed by its attorney and renders judgment in plaintiff’s favor, such judgment not being taken by default will be reversed on appeal.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, borough of Manhattan, first district, rendered in favor of the plaintiff.

Theodore Long, for appellant.

H. Aplington, for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The defendant appeared upon the return day of the summons and was given until the day following to file an answer. On that day the defendant appeared and its attorney offered an answer, verified by the vice-president of the defendant, which put in issue the allegations of the complaint but which it was claimed by the plaintiff was not subscribed by the defendant’s attorney prior to its being verified by the defendant’s officer. Upon this ground the court refused to permit the defendant to file its answer and gave a judgment in favor of the plaintiff from which judgment the defendant appeals.

The Municipal Court Act does not require that a pleading shall be subscribed by an attorney for a party and section 520 of the Code of Civil Procedure has no application to the Municipal Court. See Code Civ. Pro., § 3347, subd. *253
      *4. It*was, therefore, error to refuse to-file the offered answer. The judgment entered against the defendant was not one taken by default; the defendant appeared and was only prevented from trying its case by reason of the refusal of the justice to permit the filing of the answer.

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant.

Present: Seabury, Guy and Bijur, JJ.

Judgment reversed.
[No. 492-1.

Division One—Panel 2.

June 14, 1971.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. James Henry Bailey, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 52722, Frank Howard, J., entered March 20, 1970. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended September 30, 1996, and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                             421
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   23,845
<ALLOWANCES>                                       486
<INVENTORY>                                     16,005
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                45,725
<PP&E>                                          24,110
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,778
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  71,361
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           31,128
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           137
<OTHER-SE>                                      37,992
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    71,361
<SALES>                                         47,447
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                47,447
<CGS>                                           32,368
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,146
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 161
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,772
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,071
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,701
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .12
        


</TABLE>
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT TYDARRIOUS D. KIRKLAND, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-1028 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed August 23, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Thomas P. Barber, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Matthew J. Salvia, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Cerese Crawford Taylor, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LaROSE, MORRIS, and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
**Exhibit 32****CERTIFICATION**Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of Vitran CorporationInc., that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report of Vitran Corporation Inc. on Form 10-Q for thethree months ended September 30, 2007, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents,in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of Vitran CorporationInc.       Date: October 22, 2007 By: /s/ RICHARD E. GAETZ Richard E. Gaetz      President andChief Executive Officer           By:  /s/ SEAN P. WASHCHUK             Sean P. Washchuk      Vice President Finance andChief Financial Officer  
27
**EXHIBIT 32**

** **

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connectionwith the Annual Report of Magnetek, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for theperiod ending July 3, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Thomas G. Boren, Chief Executive Officerof the Company, and David P. Reiland, Executive Vice President and ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to U.S.C. Section1350 and Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that to our knowledge:

 

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

 

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

 

 
|   | /s/ Thomas  G. Boren          |   |
|--------|-------------------------------|--------|
|   | Thomas G. Boren               |
|   | Chief  Executive Officer      |
|   |                          |
|   |                          |
|   | /s/ David P.  Reiland         |   |
|   | David P.  Reiland             |
|   | Executive  Vice President and |
|   | Chief  Financial Officer      |

 

 

Date: September 30, 2005

 

----
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.13

                   Boise Cascade Office Products Corporation
                Executive Officer Financial Counseling Program
                      (As Amended Through August 3, 1999)


The Executive Officer Financial Counseling Program provides an annual allowance
for tax preparation, investment planning, tax planning and compliance, and
estate planning.  An initial allowance of $8,000 is available through December
31, 2000.  Beginning January 1, 2001, a $4,000 annual allowance is available and
will be added to any remaining balance up to a maximum of $8,000.  All Boise
Cascade Office Products Corporation executive officers may participate in this
program.

Invoices for financial counseling must be personally approved for payment and be
signed by the executive officer.  Payment will normally be made directly to the
provider.  Invoices must be submitted to:

                             Executive Compensation
                             Boise Cascade Corporation
                                  P.O. Box 50
                             Boise, ID 83728-0001

Payment or reimbursement for these services is generally not deductible for
federal income tax purposes.  Reimbursement includes a tax gross-up of 39%.  The
total payment or reimbursement amount (including the gross-up) is taxable income
to the executive officer and is reported in W-2 earnings.  Maximum allowances
under the program include the gross-up amount.
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification

I, Frank A. Lodzinski, certify that:

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of GeoResources, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended June 30, 2009, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Frank A. Lodzinski, 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, as amended; 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/ Frank A. LodzinskiFrank A. LodzinskiChief Executive OfficerAugust 6, 2009
#### Rush Paula ROEBUCK, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-804.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 8, 1974.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 12, 1974.

Martin S. Saxon, Miami, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen. and Joel D. Rosenblatt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889.
1 ... T h i s pr oce edi n g a r i s es ou t of Cau s e N o. 2009- CR
- 0316 , s t y l ed The St at e of Te xas v . J

os ephus D uncan , p end i ng i n t he 2 2 7 t h Jud i ci al D i st ri ct C o urt , B exar C o unt y , T exas , t he H o no rable P hi l i p K azen p res i d i ng. i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION
No
. 04 -0 9- 00 69 8- CR IN RE Jose phus DUNCA N Orig inal Mandamus Proce eding 1 PER C URI AM Sitt ing: Kar en Ang elini , J ustice

Rebec ca Simmons , J ustice Marialy n Ba rnar d , J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: November 11, 2009 PETI TI ON F OR WR I T OF MANDAMUS DEN I ED Relator Josephus Dunc an has filed a pro se petition f or writ of mandamus, seekingto compel the trial cour

t to rule on his pro se “Motion in L imine - Enhanc ement Counts” and “ Motion to S et Aside Indictment.” Howe ver, D uncan is re prese nted by reta ined counse l in the criminal procee ding pe nd ingin t

he tr ia l c ourt

fo r w hic h h e is c ur

re ntl y c on fi ne d. A c ri min a l de fe nd ant i s n ot e nti tle d to hy brid repr esentation. Se e Ro bin so n v . S tate , 240 S.W .3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). A tria l court ha s no leg al duty

to rule on a pro se motion filed with reg ard to a criminal proc eedingin which the def endant is re prese nted by

counsel. Id. Consequently , the trial cour t did not abuse its discretion04
- 09
- 00 69 8- CR

- 2- by declining to rule on re lator’s pro se motions t hat re late dire ctly to his confine ment based on the criminal proc eedingpending in the t rial cour t. Accor dingly , relator’s petition for wr it of mandamus is denied. T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.8(a). PER C URI AM

DO NO T PU B L I SH
AUBURN NATIONAL BANCORPORATION, INC AND SUBSIDIARIES

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
Auburn National Bancorporation, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as of the date hereof (the Report), I, E.L. Spencer, Jr.,
President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of the Company, certify, 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                            
|------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 29, 2010                                        
|                                                            
|/s/ E.L. Spencer, Jr.                                       
|E.L. Spencer, Jr.                                           
|President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board
#### HOWARD JOHNSON MOTOR LODGE v. DIULUS.

No. 38504.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 1969.

Certiorari dismissed without opinion.
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 95

Providing amounts from the contingent fund of the House for expenses

of investigations and studies by the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

in the first session of the One Hundred Third Congress.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 18, 1993

Mr. MONTGOMERY (for himself, Mr. STUMP, Mr. EVANS, Mr. ROWLAND, Mr.

SLATTERY, and Mr. SANGMEISTER) 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 Veterans’ Affairs 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 Veterans’ Affairs (hereinafter

3 in this resolution referred to as the ‘‘Committee’’), includ4 ing expenses for—

5 (1) procurement of consultant services under

6 section 202(i) of the Legislative Reorganization Act

7 of 1946; and
2

HRES 95 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 $911,759.

6 (b) Not more than $55,000 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 $1,500 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 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
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 131 (Monday, July 9, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 31839]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14624]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Interest Rate Paid on Cash Deposited To Secure U.S. Immigration 
and Customs Enforcement Immigration Bonds

AGENCY: Departmental Offices, Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: For the period beginning July 1, 2018, and ending on September 
30, 2018, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Immigration Bond 
interest rate is 1.88 per centum per annum.

DATES: Rates are applicable July 1, 2018 to September 30, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Comments or inquiries may be mailed to Sam Doak, Reporting 
Team Leader, Federal Borrowings Branch, Division of Accounting 
Operations, Office of Public Debt Accounting, Bureau of the Fiscal 
Service, Parkersburg, West Virginia, 26106-1328. You can download this 
notice at the following internet addresses: http://www.treasury.gov or 
http://www.federalregister.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adam Charlton, Manager, Federal 
Borrowings Branch, Office of Public Debt Accounting, Bureau of the 
Fiscal Service, Parkersburg, West Virginia, 26106-1328, (304) 480-5248; 
Sam Doak, Reporting Team Leader, Federal Borrowings Branch, Division of 
Accounting Operations, Office of Public Debt Accounting, Bureau of the 
Fiscal Service, Parkersburg, West Virginia, 26106-1328, (304) 480-5117.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Federal law requires that interest payments 
on cash deposited to secure immigration bonds shall be ``at a rate 
determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, except that in no case 
shall the interest rate exceed 3 per centum per annum.'' 8 U.S.C. 
1363(a). Related Federal regulations state that ``Interest on cash 
deposited to secure immigration bonds will be at the rate as determined 
by the Secretary of the Treasury, but in no case will exceed 3 per 
centum per annum or be less than zero.'' 8 CFR 293.2. Treasury has 
determined that interest on the bonds will vary quarterly and will 
accrue during each calendar quarter at a rate equal to the lesser of 
the average of the bond equivalent rates on 91-day Treasury bills 
auctioned during the preceding calendar quarter, or 3 per centum per 
annum, but in no case less than zero. [FR Doc. 2015-18545] In addition 
to this Notice, Treasury posts the current quarterly rate in Table 2b--
Interest Rates for Specific Legislation on the TreasuryDirect website.

Gary Grippo,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Finance.
[FR Doc. 2018-14624 Filed 7-6-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4810-25-P
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 85 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 85

Providing amounts from the contingent fund of the House for expenses of 
  investigations and studies by the Committee on Science, Space, and 
   Technology in the first session of the One Hundred Third Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 17, 1993

 Mr. Brown of California 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 Science, Space, and 
   Technology in the first session of the One Hundred Third Congress.

    Resolved, That (a) for expenses of investigations and studies by 
the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology (hereinafter in this 
resolution referred to as the ``Committee''), including expenses for 
provision of assistance for members of professional staff in obtaining 
specialized training under section 202(j) of the Legislative 
Reorganization Act of 1946, there shall be paid out of the contingent 
fund of the House not more than $3,090,776.
    (b) Not more than $7,600 of the amount specified in subsection (a) 
may be used for specialized training referred to in such subsection.
    Sec. 2. Payments under this resolution shall be made on vouchers 
authorized by the Committee, signed by the Chairman of the Committee, 
and approved by the Committee on House Administration.
    Sec. 3. Amounts shall be available under this resolution for 
investigations and studies carried out during the period beginning at 
noon January 3, 1993, and ending immediately before noon on January 3, 
1994.
    Sec. 4. Amounts made available under this resolution shall be 
expended in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee on 
House Administration.

                                 <all>
```
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2011-0445 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2011-NE-14-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

 Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: SP3192EN-E

ASE Printed Name: Alan Strom 8/24/11 Date

Branch Manager Date