alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Roberta Allen BELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John Wesley BELL, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 13384.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

Sept. 1, 1977.

En Banc. Rehearing Denied Sept. 26, 1977.

Wilkinson, Carmody *&*Peatross by W. Scott Wilkinson, Shreveport, for plaintiff-appellant.

Booth, Lockard, Jack, Pleasant & LeSage by Henry A. Politz, Shreveport, for defendant-appellee.

*1026Before PRICE, HALL, MARVIN and JONES, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Upon lodging of the record in this case involving a judgment denying a wife a separation from bed and board, the court noted probable lack of jurisdiction due to failure of the appellant to post an appeal bond within the thirty-day period for taking an appeal provided by LSA-C.C.P. Art. 3942. Appellant was advised to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed.

In response, counsel for appellant filed an excellent and authoritative brief, urging that: (I) the Code of Civil Procedure, particularly Article 3942, does not require a bond for an appeal from a judgment rejecting a petition for separation from bed and board; (2) the court cannot read words into a legislative expression unless the terms of the statute are ambiguous; (3) an appeal bond is not necessary to secure the husband for costs or damages where a separation is denied, since these charges must be satisfied by the husband as head and master of the community; (4) the law does not require vain and useless acts; (5) the rule of stare decisis does not apply in Louisiana and the court should not follow previous decisions inadvisedly rendered; and (6) the right to appeal is favored and an appeal should be sustained whenever possible.

This court has carefully considered the arguments presented, but adheres to the rule and rationale of the numerous cases holding that a bond must be filed within the delay provided in LSA-C.C.P. Arts. 3942 and 3943 in order to perfect an appeal from the types of judgments described in those articles. See *Malone v. Malone,*282 So.2d 119 (La.1973); *Gates v. Gates,*341 So.2d 574 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1977); *Kinnaird v. Kinnaird,*260 So.2d 802 (La. App. 2d Cir. 1972), writ refused 261 La. 1065, 262 So.2d 44 (1972); *Wynder v. Wynder,*240 So.2d 425 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1970); *Brown*v. *Brown,*180 So.2d 106 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1965).

Because the appeal was not timely perfected, this court lacks jurisdiction and the appeal must be and is dismissed at appellant’s costs.

Parenthetically, it is noted that Act 176 of 1977, amending LSA-C.C.P. Art. 2124, does away with the requirement of security for devolutive appeals in all cases in which the order of appeal is granted on or after January 1, 1978.

Appeal dismissed.
#### GENERAL FINANCE LOAN CO. v. ODUM.

No. 38396.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 1969.

Rehearing Denied June 19, 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 219 So.2d 130.
Exhibit 21

                                 Subsidiaries
                                  VPGI Corp.
                                June 30, 2005

                                                        Date
                                     State of         Acquired/
 Name                              Incorporation       Created       Status
 ----                              -------------       -------       ------
 (100% ownership,
      unless otherwise shown)

 uniView Technologies Products
      Group, Inc.                      Texas          08-10-98      Inactive

 uniView Softgen Corporation (61%)     Texas          10-27-99      Inactive

 uniView Asia Limited (60%)            Hong Kong      06-26-02      Inactive

 Curtis Mathes Corporation             Delaware       11-12-93      Inactive

 Venture Pacific Group, Inc. ("VPG")   Texas          11-16-04       Active


      Test Secure International, Inc. (formerly Online Testing Services,
      Inc.; wholly owned subsidiary of VPG)

      uniView Technologies Corp. (formerly VPG India Corp.; wholly owned
      subsidiary of VPG)

      Global Knowledge Group, Inc. (80% owned by VPG)
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1189 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1189

 To adjust the boundaries of Paterson Great Falls National Historical 
      Park to include Hinchliffe Stadium, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 19, 2013

  Mr. Menendez (for himself and Mr. Chiesa) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To adjust the boundaries of Paterson Great Falls National Historical 
      Park to include Hinchliffe Stadium, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PATERSON GREAT FALLS NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK BOUNDARY 
              ADJUSTMENT.

    Section 7001 of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (16 
U.S.C. 410lll) is amended as follows:
            (1) In subsection (b)(3)--
                    (A) by striking ``The Park shall'' and inserting 
                ``(A) The Park shall'';
                    (B) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) through (G) 
                as clauses (i) through (vii), respectively; and
                    (C) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(B) In addition to the lands described in 
                subparagraph (A), the Park shall include the 
                approximately 6 acres of land Hinchliffe Stadium and 
                generally depicted as the `Boundary Modification Area' 
                on the map entitled `Paterson Great Falls National 
                Historical Park', numbered T03/120,155, and dated March 
                2013, which shall be administered as part of the Park 
                in accordance with subsection (c)(1).''.
            (2) In subsection (b)(4), by striking ``The Map'' and 
        inserting ``The Map and the map referred to in paragraph 
        (3)(B)''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 21.1


                  List of Subsidiaries of the Registrant
                  ______________________________________


American Journal Inc., a New York corporation

Camelot Entertainment Sales, Inc., a Delaware corporation

Four Crowns Inc., a Delaware corporation

Inside Edition Inc., a New York corporation

K.W.M., Inc., a Delaware corporation

King World Corporation, a Delaware corporation

King World Direct Inc., a Delaware corporation

King World FSC Corporation, a Virgin Islands corporation

King World/GSN Inc., a Delaware corporation

King World/LR Inc., a California corporation

King World/LBS Inc., a New York corporation

King World Merchandising, Inc., a Delaware corporation

King World/RWS Inc., a New York corporation

Quickstead Inc., a California corporation

Topper Productions Inc., a California corporation
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.4



                            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-Q for the period ending June 30, 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 23.2

         Consent of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, Independent Accountants.





                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of
Rare Medium Group, Inc. (formerly ICC Technologies, Inc.) (the Company) on Form
S-8 (File Nos. 33-37036, 33-37037, 33-85634, 33-85636, 33-89122 and 33-89124) of
our report, which includes an explanatory paragraph which refers to conditions
that raise substantial doubt about the Company's ability to continue as a going
concern, dated March 20, 1998, on our audits of the consolidated financial
statements of the Company as of December 31, 1997 and for the years ended
December 31, 1997 and 1996, which report is included in the Company's Annual
Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 1998. We also consent
to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (set forth
above) of the Company of our report, dated March 20, 1998, on our audits of the
financial statements of Engelhard/ICC as of December 31, 1997 and 1996 and for
the years ended December 31, 1997, 1996 and 1995, which report is also included
in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31,
1998.




PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
April 9, 1999
#### Francis J. HIGGINS v. STATE.

No. 38729.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 1969.

Habeas corpus denied without opinion.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-7199

MICHAEL ANTHONY FEREBEE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

SHERIFF MCCABE; DR. CEJAS; MS. WATSON, Head

Nurse; N.C.J.’S MEDICAL STAFF, Nurses; NORFOLK

CITY JAIL; NORFOLK CITY JAIL MEDICAL STAFF,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District

Judge. (CA-96-1787-AM)

Submitted: December 16, 1999 Decided: December 29, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Anthony Ferebee, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Lawrence

Dumville, Virginia Beach, Virginia; Deborah Sue Prince, HEILIG,

MCKENRY, FRAIM & LOLLAR, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on

July 21, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was

entered on the docket sheet on July 22, 1999. Pursuant to Rules 58

and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date

the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the

effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v.

Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Anthony Ferebee appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint.

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning

of the district court. Ferebee v. McCabe, No. CA-96-1787-AM (E.D.

Va. July 22, 1999).* We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
#### Alex BOJMAN and Roma Bojman, his wife, Appellants, v. SOUTHLAND ASSOCIATES REALTORS, Appellee.

No. 73-488.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 11, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 18, 1974.

Berkell, Strauss & Benjamin, North Miami Beach, for appellants.

Caidin, Rothenberg, Kogan & Kornblum, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, CARROLL and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Lance v. Martinez-Arango, Fla.App.1971, 251 So.2d 707.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Gregory ST. ANN et al.

No. 53845.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Aug. 13, 1973.

In re: The State of Louisiana applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.

Writ Denied. In the absence of a grand jury indictment, when as here only an information is filed, the trial judge has discretion to order a preliminary examination at which the state must show probable cause to continue in custody a person whom no grand jury has indicted. La.C. Cr.P. Art. 296. We find no abuse of trial court’s discretion here. However, the release from custody is stayed for seventy-two hours, within which the state may show probable cause for continued custody. See order. The denial is without prejudice to the right of the parties to move for a speedy trial.

SANDERS, C. J., is of the opinion that a writ should be granted, but concurs in the continuation of the stay order.

SUMMERS, J.;

I dissent from the order issued here. In view of the fact that this case was fixed for trial on August 23, 1973, — ten days hence — and the trial judge granted a continuance upon defendant’s motion, the substantive purpose of the preliminary hearing will be satisfied by a trial *458on the merits in ten days. Obviously, the defendants are using this preliminary hearing .as a device to discover the State’s case, which this Court has heretofore consistently prohibited. In my view the order continuing the trial on its merits was improvidently issued and constitutes an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge. The motion for a preliminary hearing is now moot and the trial should proceed on the date fixed by the District Attorney.

DIXON, J., is of the opinion that the trial court was correct and the writ should be denied, without a stay.

MARCUS, J.;

I am of the opinion that the writ should be granted with a stay order. I dissent from the order issued herein.

Relator’s application for writs in the above entitled case is denied, after having been duly considered. Moreover, the original stay order issued in this matter is recalled and set aside.

However, a stay order of twenty-four (24) hours is granted in which the State may move for a preliminary examination, which, if requested, is to be heard and disposed of by the Court within seventy-two (72) hours. The burden of proof at that hearing is upon the State to show probable cause.

Failing to move timely for the preliminary examination or failing to show probable cause upon the hearing of the preliminary examination, the defendants are ordered released.

If the State timely moves for the preliminary examination within the twenty-four hour stay period, an additional forty-eight (48) hours is granted for the hearing and disposition of the preliminary examination. The State’s right to move for a speedy trial is not affected by this order.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 USC, SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**

**OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Entremetrix Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Scott W. Absher, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

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

 

 

| Dated:  April 17, 2007 |  /s/ Scott Absher |
|------------------------|------------------------|
|                   | By:  Scott W. Absher   |
|                   | Its:  President        |

 

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to Entremetrix Corporation and will be retained by EntremetrixCorporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staffupon request.
ex_234686.htm


EXHIBIT 10.29


 


 


 


COMPENSATORY ARRANGEMENTS OF DIRECTORS


 


 


Directors who are not also our officers (each a "non-employee director") currently receive an annual retainer of $25,000. The Chairman of the Board of Directors (the "Board") is paid an additional annual retainer of $40,000. The Chair of each of the committees of the Board are paid an additional annual fee as follows: the Chair of the Audit Committee is paid an additional annual fee of $20,000; the Chair of the Compensation Committee is paid an additional annual fee of $10,000; and the Chair of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee is paid an additional annual fee of $10,000. The members of the committees, other than the Chair, are paid additional annual fees as follows: members of the Audit Committee are paid an additional annual fee of $10,000, members of the Compensation Committee are paid an additional annual fee of $5,000, and members of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee are paid an additional annual fee of $5,000. Non-employee directors also receive a one-time award of restricted stock after their initial election to the Board that vests over four years and an annual award of restricted stock that vests fully in the year awarded, both of which are granted under our Third Amended and Restated 2014 Stock Plan. In addition, we reimburse non-employee directors' travel expenses and other costs associated with attending Board or committee meetings. We do not pay compensation to our executive officers for their service as directors.
Exhibit 13.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    this annual report on Form 20-F of BT Group plc fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    the information contained in this annual report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of BT Group plc.
 Date: May 27, 2011
    
    /s/ Ian LivingstonName: Ian LivingstonTitle:   Chief ExecutiveDate: May 27, 2011
    
    /s/ Tony ChanmugamName: Tony ChanmugamTitle:    Group Finance Director
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Ronnie JONES v. CLERK OF COURT, CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT, State of Louisiana, et al.

No. 62043.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 5, 1978.

In re: Ronnie Jones, applying for remedial writs. Parish of Orleans.

Denied.
<PAGE>

                                             EXHIBIT 10.3

          GREAT WESTERN FINANCIAL CORPORATION
                       AMENDMENT
                          TO
          NONQUALIFIED STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT
               WITH JAMES F. MONTGOMERY
                DATED DECEMBER 12, 1994


      This Amendment between Great Western Financial Corporation, a Delaware
corporation (the "Corporation") and James F. Montgomery (the "Employee")
effectuates the changes to the subject option agreement (the "Option
Agreement") contemplated by the Amendment to Employment Agreement between the
Corporation and the Employee dated as of April 25, 1995 (the "Amendment"),
as approved by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the
Corporation.  Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined have
the meanings assigned to them in the Option Agreement or the Plan, as the
case may be.

This Amendment shall be effective as of 4:59 p.m. Pacific Standard
Time on December 28, 1995, but only if the Employment Agreement
(as defined in the Amendment) has not been terminated in
accordance with its terms by action of the Corporation before that
time.

      FOR VALID CONSIDERATION, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged,
the parties amend the Option Agreement as follows:

      1.  EFFECT OF TERMINATION.  Section 6 of the Option Agreement is
amended to change the caption thereof and to add a sentence at the end
thereof, as follows:

      "6. EFFECT OF TERMINATION OF SERVICES OR DEATH.    * * * * *     
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Option and all other rights hereunder,
with respect to all 150,000 shares, shall be extended and shall not terminate
nor become null and void until two (2) years after the later of a termination
of Employee's services as a member of the Board of Directors of the
Corporation or the termination of his services as a Consultant under his
Consulting Agreement dated as of April 25, 1995, EXCEPT THAT in no event may
the Option be exercised by anyone under this Section or otherwise after the
Expiration Date."  

      2.  EXERCISABILITY OF OPTION.  Section 3 of the Option Agreement is
amended to add a new sentence after the second sentence to read in its
entirety as follows:

     "Notwithstanding the preceding vesting schedule, this Option
     shall become fully exercisable as of 4:59 P.M. Pacific Standard
     Time on December 28, 1995.<PAGE>
<PAGE>

      3.  MISCELLANY.  Section 12 (subsidiaries) of the Option Agreement is
deleted.


               GREAT WESTERN FINANCIAL CORPORATION
               (a Delaware Corporation)


               By J. Lance Erikson                
                  --------------------------------
               Its Executive Vice President



               EMPLOYEE


               /s/James F. Montgomery                 
               --------------------------------------
               Signature
               


APPROVED:


By: Charles D. Miller        
    Charles D. Miller
    Chairman, Compensation Committee
    of the Board of Directors
#### J. J. FERGUSON et al. v. HARDWARE MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY.

No. 46880.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Jan. 2, 1973.

Fox, Lacy & Gowan, Jackson, for appellants.

Daniel, Coker, Horton, Bell & Dukes, Thomas H. Suttle, Jr., Jackson, for ap-pellee.

Before GILLESPIE, C. J., and PATTERSON, INZER, SMITH and ROBERTSON, JJ.

Affirmed.
```

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.  ss.1350),
the  undersigned,  Robert R. Galvin,  Chief  Financial  Officer of NuCO2 Inc., a
Florida  corporation  (the  "Company"),  does hereby certify,  to his knowledge,
that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2004
of the Company (the "Report")  fully complies with the  requirements  of section
13(a) or 15(d)  of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934,  and the  information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                          /s/ Robert R. Galvin
                                          --------------------------------
                                          Robert R. Galvin
                                          Chief Financial Officer
                                          February 9, 2005
```
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements 
(Form S-8 Nos. 33-37913, 33-41664, 33-41665, 33-41783, 33-65754, 33-71008,
33-71010, 33-86368, 33-86370, 33-86372, 333-03427, 333-03429) pertaining to the
Micrografx, Inc. Incentive and Nonstatutory Stock Option Plan, the Micrografx,
Inc. Employee Stock Purchase Plan, the Micrografx, Inc. Restricted Stock
Purchase Plan and the Micrografx, Inc. Directors Stock Purchase Plan of our
report dated August 11, 1998 (except Note 14, as to which the date is September
18, 1998), with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of
Micrografx, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
June 30, 1998.


                                                  /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Dallas, Texas
September 18, 1998