alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
256 La. 613

#### Orlando B. CARTER et al. v. Ellen Bryan MOORE, Register of State Land Office, and Jimmie H. Davis, Governor of the State of Louisiana.

No. 50684.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 29, 1970.

In re: Ellen Bryan Moore, Register of State Land Office, and Jimmie H. Davis, Governor of the State of Louisiana applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge, 234 So.2d 823.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue ; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
### -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

36 38 40 

## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 

### 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 08/07 

## NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

# Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 07 Aug 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 39.06 N 76.88 WMeters AGL 

## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■



## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■ 

## ★ ● ● ● ●



## ★ ● ● ● ●
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2


                            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 Avery Communications, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Thomas
C. Ratchford, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

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

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


/s/ Thomas C. Ratchford
----------------------------------
Thomas C. Ratchford
Chief Financial Officer
September 3, 2002
EXHIBIT 32.1   NETWORK EQUIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.   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 Network Equipment Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended March 26, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, C. Nicholas Keating, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  June 8, 2010  /s/ C. NICHOLAS KEATING, JR. C. Nicholas Keating, Jr. President and Chief Executive Officer
#### E. & R. Mavin Construction Ltd. et al., Appellants, v Jacob J. Lebewohl, Respondent.

[654 NYS2d 370]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Schackman, J.), entered December 5,1995, dismissing the complaint, and bringing up for review an order which granted defendant’s motion to confirm a Special Referee’s report recommending dismissal of the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction due to improper service, and denied plaintiffs’ cross motion to reject such report, unanimously affirmed, without costs. The appeal from the order, same court and Justice, entered November 21, 1995, is unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed within the appeal from the judgment.

The finding that plaintiffs did not meet their burden of proving proper service of process is adequately supported by the significant discrepancies between defendant’s actual height, weight, age and hair color and the process server’s description thereof both in his affidavit of service and traverse testimony and by the testimony and corroborating photographic evidence that defendant had a full facial beard at the time of the al*137leged service that went unnoticed by the process server. The Special Referee’s first report, which found service proper by mistakenly shifting the burden of proof to the opponent of service where the Statute of Limitations has run, was properly rejected by the IAS Court with instructions to the Special Referee to reconsider the service issue without regard to the Statute of Limitations. We have considered plaintiffs’ other arguments, including that the Special Referee made new factual findings in his supplemental report, and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                            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 Preferred Voice, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mary G. Merritt,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

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

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

/s/ Mary G. Merritt
---------------------------
Mary G. Merritt
Chief Financial Officer
August 14, 2002
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-41456

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUAN TORRES-MARCIAL,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-98-CR-399-1

-------------------- August 6, 1999

Bef ore KING, Chief Judge, HIGGINBOTHAM, and STEWART, Circuit

Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Juan Torres-Marcial appeals his conviction, based on his

guilty plea, of transporting an alien who was in the United States

i llegally. He argues that the district court did not explain to

him that an essential element of the offense was that he must have

acted willfully in furtherance of the aliens’ violation of the law.

Therefore, Torres contends that he is entitled to reversal on

grounds that the district court did not comply adequately with Fed.

R. Crim. P. 11(c) prior to accepting his guilty plea.No. 98-41456

-2-

“When an appellant claims that a district court failed to

comply with Rule 11, we apply a two-question harmless error

analysis: (1) Did the sentencing court in fact vary from the

procedures required by Rule 11, and ( 2) if so, did such variance

affect substantial rights of the defendant?” U nited States v.

Reyna

, 130 F.3d 104, 107 (5th Cir. 1997), cert. denied

, 118 S. Ct.

1328 (1998). Thus, even if there was a variance from Rule 11(c),

Torres is not entitled to relief unless the variance “‘may

reasonably be viewed as having been a material factor affecting

[his] decision to plead guilty.’” U nited States v. Johnson

, 1 F.3d

296, 302 (5th Cir. 1993) (en banc) (quoting United States v.

Bachynsky , 934 F.2d 1349, 1360 (5th Cir. 1991) (en banc)).

At the rearraignment, the prosecutor, not the court, read the

indictment to Torres, which included the ac cusation that Torres

transported aliens “in furtherance of such violation of law.” In

response to the court’s questions, Torres twice testified that he

understood the offense charge against him. “Solemn declarations in

open court carry a strong presumption of verity.” B lackledge v.

Allison

, 431 U. S. 63, 74 (1977). Torres testified that he was

pleading guilty because the evidence as stated in the factual basis

was true.

Even if the district court erred by om itting a specific

discussion of the “in furtherance” element, we find Torres is not

entitled to relief because the record shows that this variance did

not affect his decision to plead guilty.

AFFIRMED.No. 98-41456

-3-
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7370

JEFFEREY A. HURLEY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of 

Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief 

District Judge. (2:12-cv-00408-RBS-TEM)

Submitted: December 19, 2013 Decided: December 24, 2013

Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jefferey A. Hurley, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jefferey A. Hurley seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner 

must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the 

denial of a constitutional right. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 

473, 484-85 (2000). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Hurley has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny Hurley’s motion to compel and motion for a certificate of 

appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and 

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Steven B. Solomon, Chief Executive Officer, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of CT Holdings, Inc., a
Delaware corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual
report;


3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual
report;


4. The small business issuer's other certifying officers and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and
have:


a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the small business issuer, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;


b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and


c) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and


5. The small business issuer's other certifying officers and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of
small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):


a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and


b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.




Date: April 14, 2004


/s/ STEVEN B. SOLOMON
Steven B. Solomon, Chief Executive Officer
Principal Executive Officer


<PAGE>
#### ARTHUR v. DIRECTOR OF PATUXENT INSTITUTION

[App. No. 6, (Adv.).]

September Term, 1962

*Decided June 18, 1962.*

Before the full Court.

Per Curiam.

For the reasons stated by Judge Byrnes in his opinion in the Criminal Court of Baltimore for denying relief under the Uniform Post Conviction Procedure Act, the application for leave to appeal is denied.

*Application denied.*
#### Bernard SAINTES, individually and on behalf of his minor daughter, Linda Saintes et al. v. GENERAL ACCIDENT, FIRE AND LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION, Ltd. et al.

No. 7090.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

June 30, 1967.

Monte J. Ducote of Schoemann, Gomes & Ducote, New Orleans, for appellants.

Philip E. Henderson of O’Neal & Waitz, Houma, for appellees.

Before LOTTINGER, REID, and SAR-TAIN, JJ.

*168REID, Judge.

This case is a companion case to the appeal in No. 7089 Thibodaux et al. v. Potomac Insurance Company, La.App., 201 So.2d 159. The General Accident, Fire and Life Insurance Corporation, Ltd. was made party defendant in this suit, but counsel for defendant announced in open Court that General Accident, Fire and Life Insurance Corporation, Ltd., was designated erroneously as the insurer of the Charles car, and it was further stipulated that the proper insurer was the Potomac Insurance Company against whom judgment was rendered in this matter.

For the reasons this day assigned in the case of Thibodaux, et al. v. Potomac Insurance Company, No. 7089 the judgment of the Lower Court is affirmed.

Affirmed.
259 La. 883

#### Robert P. FOSTER v. Mela Mae Durand McCLAIN et al.

No. 51749.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 18, 1971.

In re: Robert P. Foster applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Rapides. 251 So.2d 179.

Application denied. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, there is no error of law in its judgment.

TATE, J., recused, having participated in earlier court of appeal consideration of the proceedings.
<PAGE>


                                  Exhibit 23.2

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements of ION Networks, Inc. and subsidiaries (the "Company") on Forms S-3
(File Nos. 333-09507, 333-85693, 333-50246 and 333-83686) and Forms S-8 (File
Nos. 333-61837, 333-14681, 333-76809, 333-76604 and 333-76568) of our report
dated June 28, 2001 relating to the consolidated balance sheet and the related
consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity and cash flows at
and for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2001, which appears in the Company's
Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended March 31, 2002 (as filed on July
1, 2002), Amendment No. 1 of the Form 10-KSB/A (as filed on July 10, 2002),
Amendment No. 2 of the Form 10KSB/A (as filed on August 2, 2002) and Amendment
No. 3 of the Form 10KSB/A (as filed on August 21, 2002).


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Florham Park, New Jersey


August 21, 2002
EXHIBIT
      32.1





Certification
      of Principal Executive Officer


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





I,
      Lori
      A. Jones, of Analytical Surveys, Inc., certify, pursuant to Section 906 of
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
      the
      Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended September 30, 2007 (the
“Report”) which this statement accompanies 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 Analytical Surveys,
      Inc.





Dated:
                January 14, 2008/s/
                  Lori A. JonesLori
                A. JonesChief
                Executive Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-20694

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MARTIN ALVAREZ GAMEZ, also known as Martin Alvarez, also known as

Martin Carlos-Gamez, also known as Martin Alvarez-Gamez, also known as

Juan Garcia-Rivera, also known as Martin Carlos Alvarez-Gamez, also known

as Carlos Alvarez, also known as Martin Gamez Alvarez, also known as Eduardo

Gamez Alvarez,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:11-CR-559-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Martin Alvarez Gamez pleaded guilty to illegal reentry of a deported alien

after an aggravated felony conviction. He was sentenced to 78 months of

imprisonment and no term of supervised release. Gamez argues that his guilty

plea was not knowing and voluntary because trial counsel failed to recognize,

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

November 13, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 12-20694 Document: 00512439361 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/13/2013
No. 12-20694

investigate, and advise him about a potential defense to his offense of conviction. 

Specifically, he contends that although counsel did investigate and advise him

of a possible defense based on derivative citizenship, counsel did not recognize,

investigate, and advise him that he may have had a possible defense to the

illegal reentry charge based on acquisition of citizenship at birth.

Gamez did not raise this ineffective assistance of counsel claim in the

district court. “[T]he general rule in this circuit is that a claim for ineffective

assistance of counsel cannot be resolved on direct appeal when the claim has not

been raised before the district court since no opportunity existed to develop the

record on the merits of the allegations.” United States v. Cantwell, 470 F.3d

1087, 1091 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Because we conclude that “we cannot fairly evaluate the claim from the record,”

we decline to consider Gamez’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim on appeal

without prejudice to his right to raise the claim in a timely 28 U.S.C. § 2255

proceeding. See United States v. Gulley, 526 F.3d 809, 821-22 (5th Cir. 2008).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 12-20694 Document: 00512439361 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/13/2013
257 La. 458

#### A. P. SCHIRO, III v. Mrs. Rita Muller PERKINS.

No. 51067.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 18, 1971.

In re: Mrs. Rita M. Perkins, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Jefferson. 240 So.2d 920.

The application is denied. The result is correct.
Court of Appeals 

First District of Texas 

BILL OF COSTS

No. 01-14-00530-CV

Syed Hasan 

v.

Bellcroft Properties, LLP

NO. 2013-74060 IN THE 55TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID/DUE STATUS PAID BY

FILING $195.00 06/27/2014 NOT PAID ANT

The costs incurred on appeal to the First Court of Appeals Houston, Texas are 

$195.00.

Court costs in this case have been taxed in this Court’s judgment

I, Christopher A. Prine, Clerk of the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas, do hereby 

certify that this is a true statement of the costs of appeal in this case.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my 

hand and the seal of the Court of Appeals for the 

First District of Texas, this January 2, 2015.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 14.1




                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



We consent to the incorporation into the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Sand
Technology Inc. (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2003, the
Form S-8 Registration Statements for the Sand Technology Inc. 1996 Stock
Incentive Plan (Registration No. 333-8538) and the 1996 Stock Option Plan
(Registration No. 333-7462), the Form F-2 Registration Statement of Sand
Technology Inc. (Registration No. 333-12216) and the Form F-3 Registration
Statement of Sand Technology Inc. (Registration No. 333-51014) of our report
dated October 15, 2003 on the consolidated financial statements of the Company
for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2003.






                                                    /s/    Deloitte & Touche LLP
                                                           Chartered Accountants

January 28, 2004
Montreal, Quebec
1

Daniels, Nia (FAA)

From: Daniels, Nia (FAA)

Sent: Monday, February 09, 2015 9:57 AM

To: 'tlmounger@dow.com'

Cc: Pappas, Rob (FAA); Schandler, Andrea (FAA); Cooper, Thuy (FAA); Pearson, Lakisha 

(FAA)

Subject: Request for Additional Information: The Dow Chemical Company

February 9, 2015 

Mr. Thomas L. Mounger 

Director of Operations/Chief Pilot 

The Dow Chemical Company 

3259 Harriet Quimby Avenue 

Baton Rouge Metropolitan Airport 

Baton Rouge, LA 70807 

Dear Mr. Mounger: 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA2014-0933). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your 

petition. 

 Your petition references the material listed below, however the material was not submitted for the 

record. Please provide a copy of the following referenced materials: 

o Aeryon SkyRanger Manufacturers User Guide 

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit 

any proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via e-mail to 

333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information 

described above by February 23, 2015. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without 

notifying you further. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

Nia Daniels 

Program Analyst 

Nia Daniels, ARM‐108

Federal Aviation Administration
2

Office of Rulemaking, Airmen & Airspace Rules Division

800 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20591

PH: (202) 267 ‐ 7626

Fax: (202) 267 ‐ 5075

nia.daniels@faa.gov