alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Edward J. BERGIN, Appellant, v. Linda J. BERGIN, Appellee.

No. 73-1428.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 29, 1974.

Rehearing Denied March 28, 1974.

Edward C. Vining, Jr., Miami, for appellant.

Lionel Barnet, North Miami Beach, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and HEN-DRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

ON REHEARING

The appellant, who was plaintiff below, contends that the bar is in confusion as to the meaning of Rule 1.350(b), Rules of Civil Procedure, 30 F.S.A., relating to the right of a party-plaintiff to compel a party-defendant to produce documents at the taking of defendant’s deposition *within*30 days of service. The trial court, in effect, held that under the rules, without a specific order or subpoena, production could not be commanded *within*30 days. We affirmed.

The trial court has no trouble understanding the rule as promulgated by the Supreme Court of Florida, and neither do we. It seems clear from a wording of the rule, considered as a whole, that a plaintiff may not require a defendant to produce documents at a deposition simply by a notice to produce documents at the taking of his deposition if the deposition is scheduled *within*30 days of service upon him.

Therefore, the petition for rehearing be and the same is hereby denied.
#### Julla GREGORY, Appellant, v. MICA SERVICES, INC., Appellee.

No. 70-962.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 3, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
To:

"Neil Anderson" <Anderson.Neil@epamail.epa.gov>, "Laura Parsons" 

<Parsons.Laura@epamail.epa.gov>, "Russell Wasem" 

<Wasem.Russell@epamail.epa.gov>, 

Cc:

Bcc:

Subject: Fw: Cancel Dangerous Rodenticides: EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0718, EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0955

From: Richard Keigwin/DC/USEPA/US - Tuesday 05/08/2012 06:23 PM

Steven Bradbury

 ----- Original Message -----

 From: Steven Bradbury

 Sent: 05/08/2012 06:13 PM EDT

 To: Margie Fehrenbach; Karen Angulo; Richard Keigwin; Kelly Sherman

 Subject: Fw: Cancel Dangerous Rodenticides: EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0718, 

EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0955

----- Forwarded by Steven Bradbury/DC/USEPA/US on 05/08/2012 06:12 PM -----

From: Brittany Campbell <candychick@me.com>

To: Steven Bradbury/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 05/08/2012 06:11 PM

Subject: Cancel Dangerous Rodenticides: EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0718, EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0955

I urge the Environmental Protection Agency to cancel all 20 homeowner 

rodenticide bait products recommended for cancellation in docket numbers 

EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0718 and EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0955. These rodenticides cause 

unreasonable harm to the environment and human health. 

The EPA has been compiling research since the early '90s on the hazards of 

these rodenticides and must act now to pull these poisons from the shelves. 

The agency has provided thorough research on the unnecessary poisonings caused 

by products such as d-CON and Hot Shot rodent baits. Numerous poisonings occur 

each year to sensitive wildlife species like San Joaquin kit foxes, bobcats, 

eagles and owls. Even worse, families are being sickened by "loose" rodent 

bait eaten by children and pets.

Cancelling these dangerous rodenticides also benefits poor and minority 

communities. Data from the New York City Department of Health and Mental 

Hygiene shows that most rodenticide poisonings occur in low-income groups. 

Enforcing structural standards for bait stations and pulling the most 

hazardous products from the market benefits non-English speaking residents who 

are less likely to understand the language on the required labels. 

I urge the EPA to stand up to pressure from rodenticide manufacturers Reckitt 

Benckiser, Liphatech and Spectrum Brands. These companies have had more than 

three years to voluntarily update their products and place safer alternatives 

on the market, but they have refused. Adding tamper-resistant bait stations to 

products would only cost pennies on the dollar to implement, and there are a 

number of less toxic alternatives on the market.

Please take action now to cancel the 20 homeowner rodenticide bait products 

that pose unreasonable danger to the environment and human health. 
Thank you.

Brittany Campbell

1773 S Garth Ave

Los Angeles, CA 90035
No. 00-1097.

#### Brooks *v.*City of Oak Ridge.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1022 

To amend title 46, United States Code, to extend the exemption from the 

fire-retardant materials construction requirement for vessels operating 

within the Boundary Line. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 22, 2013 

Mr. BROWN (for himself, Mr. PORTMAN, Ms. LANDRIEU, and Mr. VITTER) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To amend title 46, United States Code, to extend the exemption from the fire-retardant materials construction requirement for vessels operating within the Boundary 

Line. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF EXEMPTION. 

4 Section 3503(a) of title 46, United States Code, is 

5 amended by striking ‘‘2008,’’ and inserting ‘‘2028,’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                              THE GILLETTE COMPANY
                                  Certification
            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
        (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18,
                               United States Code)

Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the
United States Code, the undersigned, James M. Kilts, Chief Executive Officer of
The Gillette Company, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does hereby
certify, to his knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 (the "Form
10-Q") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Exchange Act and information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

Date: August 2, 2005

                                              /s/  James M. Kilts
                                              -------------------------------
                                              James M. Kilts
                                              Chairman of the Board, Chief
                                              Executive Officer and President

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to The Gillette Company (the "Company") and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
<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 Evergreen Solar, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mark A.
Farber, 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 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 condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Mark A. Farber

-------------------------------
Mark A. Farber
Chief Executive Officer
November 12, 2003
February 19, 1953 

Hon. Arthur H. Van Slyke Opinion No. S-08 .' 

County Attorney 

Fort Bend County Re: Authority of the commisRichmond, Texas sioners' court to fix an 

additional compensation or 

expense allowance from 

funds of Fort Bend County 

Drainage District for 

added duties -the commissioners perform:on drainage 

Dear Sir: district smatters. 

Your requestfor:,;an opinion of this office reads 

in part as follows: 

"The Honorable Commissioners' Court of 

Fort Bend County, :Texas, has asked this office to requestan,opin,ion of your office 

as to whether or not'the Fort Bend County 

Drainage District may pay~a monthly s'um, to 

be fixed by said Co~unty Commissioners' Court 

to said Co,unty Commissioners either as a 

salary or as travel allowance and expense to 

said Commissioners for dutie,s performed on 

said drainage district matters." 

The Texas co,urts have repeatedly held that the 

commissioners' court is a court of limited jurisdiction 

and has only such powers as are conferred upon it, either 

by express terms or by necessary implication, by the 

statutes and Constitution of Texas. Childress Co. v. 

State, 127,Tex. 343, 92 S.W.2d 1011 (193 

ti. Lovett, 173 S.W. 508 (Tex.Civ.App. ,,geggg+yy 

Roper v. Hall, 280 S.W. 289 (Tex.civ.App. 1925). 

In 34 Texas Jurisprudence 531, Public Officers, 

Section 11.6, it is stated: 

'An officer is not entitled to any compensation in addition,‘to that'which.~has'been 

fixed by law for the performance of the 

duties of his office, even tho,ugh the compensation so fixed is unreasonable nor inade- 
Hon. Arthur H. Van Slyke, page 2 (s-08) 

quate. He may be required by law to perform 

specific services or discharge additional 

d,uties for which no compensation is provided. 

The obligation to perform s'uch services is 

imposed as an incident to the office, and the 

officer by his accentance thereof is deemed 

to have en aged to perform them without compensation.!*' 

Chapter ,303, Acts ,51s't Legislature, Regular 

Session, 1949, page.550, created the Fort Bend County 

Drainage District, and,the commissioners' court was 

required to assume administrative powers and control 

over the district. We find no provision in the act 

creating this district that would authorize the commist 

sioners court ,to fix an additional compensation or expense al;owance from the ,funds of Fort Bend County 

Drainage~District for added duties the commissioners 

perform on drainage district matters. Therefore, your 

question~is answered in the negative. 

The commissioners' court has no authority to fix an additional compensation or expense allowance from funds of Fort Bend 

Co,unty Drainage District for added duties 

the commissioners perform on drainage,dls' 

trict matters. 

Your,s very truly, 

APPROVED: 

J. C. Davis, Jr. 

Co,unty.'Affairs Division 

JOHN BEN SHEPPERD 

Attorney General 

C. K. Richards 

Reviewer, 

Robert S. Trottl 

First Assistant 

BDD:am 

B. Duncan Davis 

As'sistant
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated February 8, 2008, accompanying the December 31,2007, 2006 and 2005 consolidated financial statements relating to the financial statements of Unitil Corporation and subsidiaries (the Company) and the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting, included inthe Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 in the Registration Statements of the Company on Form S-8 (File No. 333-114978 effective April 29, 2004), Form S-3 (File No. 333-42264 effectiveJuly 26, 2000) and on Form S-8 (File No. 333-42266 effective July 26, 2000). 

 

/s/ Vitale, Caturano & Company Ltd. 

 

Boston, Massachusetts 

February 8, 2008
Deny and Opinion Filed this 19th day of June, 2014. 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 14
- 00795
- CV IN RE MITCHELL KAZU ASTALOS , Relator Original Proceeding from the 380th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 380
- 52696
- 06 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Moseley, Lang

- Miers, and Brown Opinion by Justice Moseley This petition for writ of mandamus and prohibition arise s from a suit affecting the parent child relationship. The facts and issues are well

- known to the parties, so we do not recount them here. The petition fails to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate procedure because is not properly authenticated and includes an incomplete record. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.3(j) , 52.7(a)(1)

. Re lator has failed to establish he is entitled to the relief sought. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8. Accordingly, we DENY relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and prohibition.

140795F.P05 /Jim Mo seley/ JIM MOSELEY JUSTICE
**Exhibit 23.1**
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**
We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-108735 andNo. 333-102946 of Merchants and Manufacturers Bancorporation, Inc. of our reports dated March 4,2005, on the consolidated financial statements of Merchants and Manufacturers Bancorporation, Inc.,management’s assessment of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004 andthe effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004, whichappear in this 2004 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
/s/ McGladrey & Pullen, LLP
Madison, Wisconsin
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      Exhibit 21

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY


                                                  State or other jurisdiction of
Name of Subsidiary                                incorporation or organization
------------------                                ------------------------------


PictureTel Securities Corporation                 Massachusetts

PictureTel International Corporation              Delaware

PictureTel Technology Corporation                 Delaware

PictureTel Service Corporation                    Delaware

PicTel Videoconferencing Systems Corporation      Delaware

PictureTel Australia Pty. Ltd.                    Australia

PictureTel International Ltda.                    Brazil

PictureTel International BV (Netherlands)         Netherlands

PictureTel GmbH                                   Germany

PictureTel Italy S.r.l.                           Italy

PictureTel Company, Ltd.                          Japan

PictureTel Mexico S.A. de C.V.                    Mexico

PictureTel Service Ltd. Pte.                      Singapore

PictureTel Scandinavia AB                         Sweden

PictureTel (Schweiz) AG                           Switzerland

PictureTel UK Limited                             United Kingdom

PictureTel FSC, Ltd.                              United States Virgin Islands

PictureTel Venezuela SA                           Venezuela

MultiLink, Inc.                                   Massachusetts

MultiLink Europe Ltd.                             United Kingdom

MultiLink UK Limited                              United Kingdom

IP Audio.Com                                      Delaware

Starlight Networks, Inc.                          California

           All the subsidiaries are wholly owned (except for directors'
qualifying shares in certain countries), either directly or indirectly, by the
company and may do business under their own name as well as the name PictureTel
Corporation.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS 13 - 13 - 00281 - CV SID ARISMENDEZ v. BRENDA NORIEGA On a ppeal from the 343rd District Court of Bee County , Texas Trial Cause No. B - 12 - 1115 - CV - C

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on a ppeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed . The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant. We further order this decision certified below for observance. November 7 , 2013

.
Exhibit 23.1

Report and Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The
Board of Directors and Stockholders
TransMontaigne Inc.:

The
audits referred to in our report dated September 12, 2005, included the related financial statement schedule included herein as Exhibit 99.1 for each of the years in the
three-year period ended June 30, 2005, included in this Form 10-K. This financial statement schedule is the responsibility of TransMontaigne Inc.'s
management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on this financial statement schedule based on our audits. In our opinion, such financial statement schedule, when considered in relation to the
basic consolidated financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333-23691) on Form S-3 and the registration statements (Nos.
333-04405, 333-15055, 333-34579, 333-71724 and 333-123000) on Form S-8 of TransMontaigne Inc. of our reports dated
September 12, 2005, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of TransMontaigne Inc. and subsidiaries as of June 30, 2005 and 2004, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, preferred stock and common stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended June 30, 2005, and management's assessment of the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of June 30, 2005 and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of June 30, 2005, which reports
appear in the June 30, 2005 annual report on Form 10-K of TransMontaigne Inc. Our report refers to a change in the method of accounting for
inventoriesdiscretionary volumes in 2003.

|                                    |  | KPMG LLP
|----------------------------------- |  | --------
|Denver, Colorado
September 12, 2005 |  |         

---



QuickLinks
251 La. 71

#### HEIRS of J. E. MERILH v. PAN AMERICAN FILMS et al.

No. 48876.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 20, 1967.

In re: Pan American Films et al. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 200 So.2d 398.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, the result is correct.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 27, 2019

No. 04-19-00237-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF C.J.G., A CHILD,

Appellant

From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017PA01800

Honorable Richard Garcia, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

This is an accelerated appeal of an order terminating the appellant’s parental rights which 

must be disposed of by this court within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is filed. TEX.

R. JUD. ADMIN. 6.2. The reporter’s record was originally due to be filed on May 28, 2019. By 

order dated June 11, 2019, the court reporter responsible for preparing the reporter’s record, Ms. 

Angie Jimenez, was ordered to file the reporter’s record by Friday, June 21, 2019. This court’s 

order stated, “NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS OF TIME WILL BE GRANTED.” See TEX.

R. APP. P. 28.4(b)(2) (precluding appellate court from granting extensions of time to file record 

in excess of thirty days cumulatively in parental termination appeals).

On Monday, June 24, 2019, Ms. Jimenez contacted the court and stated she would file the 

reporter’s record by Tuesday, June 25, 2019. On Wednesday, June 26, 2019, Ms. Jimenez filed a 

notification of late record stating she had not been paid the fee for preparing and filing the 

reporter’s record. The clerk’s record shows appellant is represented by retained counsel.

It is therefore ORDERED that appellant provide written proof to this court within ten 

(10) days of the date of this order that either (1) the reporter’s fee has been paid; or (2) appellant 

is entitled to appeal without paying the reporter’s fee. If appellant fails to respond within the 

time provided, appellant’s brief will be due within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, 

and the court will consider only those issues or points raised in appellant’s brief that do not 

require a reporter’s record for a decision. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(c). If appellant files written 

proof that the reporter’s fee has been paid or that he is entitled to appeal without paying the 

reporter’s fee, Ms. Jimenez is ORDERED to file the reporter’s record the day after such written 

proof is filed.
_________________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 27th day of June, 2019.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle,

Clerk of Court
Exhibit 32

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 undersignedofficers of Electronic Systems Technology Inc., a Washington corporation (the"Company"), does hereby certify, to the best of such officers' knowledge andbelief, that:The Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the "Form      10-KSB") of the Company 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 Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all material respects,      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

/s/ TOM L. KIRCHNER                                                                     /s/ JON CORREIO    Tom L. Kirchner                                                                                 Jon Correio    Chief Executive Officer                                                                     Chief Financial Officer    Date: March 26, 2007                                                                        Date: March 26, 2007
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7363

ROBERT LEE SMITH, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DANNY SAFRIT; SERGEANT GRIGGS; B. SMITH,

Sergeant; CHARLES STEVENSON,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Russell A. Eliason, Magistrate Judge. (CA-94-305-2)

Submitted: December 14, 1995 Decided: January 17, 1996

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Lee Smith, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Sylvia Hargett Thibaut,

Assistant Attorney General, Elizabeth F. Parsons, OFFICE OF THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the magistrate judge's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. The parties consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by the magistrate judge. We

have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge's opinion and

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

of the magistrate judge. Smith v. Safrit, No. CA-94-305-2 (M.D.N.C.

Aug. 3, 1995). 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
Exhibit 21.1

SCHEDULE OF TRANSMONTAIGNE INC. SIGNIFICANT SUBSIDIARIES AT JUNE 30, 2003

|Ownership of
Subsidiary |  | Name of Subsidiary                   |  | Trade Name |  | State/Country
of
Organization
|----------------------- |  | ------------------------------------ |  | ---------- |  | -----------------------------
|100%                    |  | Coastal Fuels Marketing, Inc.        |  | None       |  | Florida                      
|100%                    |  | Coastal Tug and Barge, Inc.          |  | None       |  | Florida                      
|100%                    |  | TransMontaigne Product Services Inc. |  | None       |  | Delaware                     
|100%                    |  | TransMontaigne Transport Inc.        |  | None       |  | Delaware                     

QuickLinks