alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
262 La. 1076

#### SOCIETY TO OPPOSE PORNOGRAPHY, INC. v. Michael G. THEVIS and Robert Di Bernardo, et al.

No. 52600.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 23, 1972.

In re: Michael Silvers applying for writs of prohibition, certiorari and mandamus, and stay order, and alternatively, writ of habeas corpus.

Stay order issued June 23, 1972 at 3:00 p. m. See order.

SUMMERS, J.,

dissents. See order.

ORDER

To: Louis A. Heyd, Jr., Criminal Sheriff, Parish of Orleans and Honorable Clarence Dowling, Judge, Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans.

The relator, Michael Silvers, is ordered released from custody pending action of *216this Court on the merits of his application. The trial court is ordered to stay any proceedings in this contempt action against this relator until this Court can review the merits of his application for the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction. Relator is given five days to file the proper proceeding with us in compliance with our Rules. The trial court may file a return in response to this application within five days thereafter.

SUMMERS, J.,

dissents. The application does not comply with the rules of this Court. There is no claim of indigency or that counsel could not be retained to prepare a proper application. In my view this non-compliance is a dilatory tactic employed to further circumvent the authority of the trial court.
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2013-0021 Directorate ID: 2010-SW-040-AD

Helicopter Model: Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH Model MBB-BK 117 C-2

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 96 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: The actions of this AD are intended to prevent contact between the bolts on certain main 

rotor bellcranks, which could result in chafing and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter

Labor per Helicopter

(1 work-hour to inspect a 

bolt, 2 work hours to replace 

a bolt x $85/work-hour)

$24,480

Other (Explain) If a bellcrank 

or bearing block is to be 

replaced, we estimate 10 

work-hours to change a 

bellcrank (assuming all 3 are 

replaced), and 10 work-hours 

to change a bearing block x 

$85/work-hour)

$4,632 for a Bellcrank-Q,

$3,294 for a Bellcrank-K,

$4,411 for a Bellcrank-L, and

$1,150 for a bearing block.

Total Cost per Helicopter $255

Total US Fleet Cost $24,480

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: Jim Grigg
#### OCEANCOAST CORPORATION, Inc. v. CITY OF MIAMI BEACH.

No. 36647.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 1967.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 203 So.2d 640.
259 La. 903

#### Alcee Rene DOIRON and Francis Davis Doiron v. SCHWING LUMBER AND SHINGLE CO., Inc. (now the Dow Chemical Company).

No. 51792.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 21, 1971.

In re: Alcee Rene Doiron and Francis Davis Doiron applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Iberville. 251 So.2d 506.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal we find no error of law in its judgment.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-10794

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LUIS MANUEL LEON QUINONES,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:15-CR-320-2

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Luis Manuel Leon 

Quinones has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 

632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Quinones has not filed a response. We have 

reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected 

therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 23, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-10794 Document: 00514442100 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/23/2018
No. 17-10794

2

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave 

to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 17-10794 Document: 00514442100 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/23/2018
From: Donley, Charles F.

To: Hedberg, Brian (OST); Wellington, George (OST)

Cc: Finamore, Robert (OST)

Subject: Volaris Exemption Application

Date: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 11:25:40 AM

Attachments: volaris.pdf

Brian/George, I am writing to confirm that we have completed the polling on the

attached Volaris exemption application. There are no comments and no objections.

Thanks.

Best regards.

Charlie

From: Donley, Charles F. 

Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 10:59 AM

To: 'sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com'; 'sametta.c.barnett@delta.com'; 'jeff.morgan@delta.com';

'dan.weiss@coair.com'; 'steve.morrissey@united.com'; 'efaberman@wrf.com'; Sinick, Marshall S.;

'howard_kass@usairways.com'; 'benjamin.slocum@usairways.com'; 'jhill@dowlohnes.com';

'mlbenge@zsrlaw.com'; 'dkirstein@yklaw.com'; 'carl.nelson@aa.com'; 'pmurphy@lopmurphy.com';

'pmurphy@ggh-airlaw.com'

Cc: 'Brian.Hedberg@dot.gov'; George.Wellington@dot.gov

Subject: POLLING: Volaris Exemption Application

Attached please find Volaris' application for an exemption to serve AguascalientesChicago, Monterrey-Las Vegas, Morelia-Oakland, Toluca-Chicago and ZacatecasOakland. This is not an extrabilateral application.

Please let me know if you have any comment. Thanks.

Charlie

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

This message is confidential and may be legally privileged or otherwise protected

from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please telephone or email the

sender and delete this message and any attachment from your system; you must

not copy or disclose the contents of this message or any attachment to any other

person.

Squire, Sanders & Dempsey (US) LLP is part of the international legal practice

Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, which operates worldwide through a number of

separate legal entities. Please visit www.ssd.com for more information. 

#SSDUS

---------------------------------------------------------------------
EXHIBIT 99.1

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 Cutter & Buck Inc. ("the Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending
January 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 17, 2003 ("the Report"), I, Frances M. Conley, 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief, 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.



---



QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>
     This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  from  unaudited
Statements of Financial  Condition at March 26, 1999 and unaudited  Statements
of Operations for the nine months ended March 26, 1999, which are contained in
the body of the  accompanying  Form 10-Q and is  qualified  in its  entirety  by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                         MAR-26-1999
<CASH>                                                       0
<SECURITIES>                                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                                           31,678
<ALLOWANCES>                                                 0
<INVENTORY>                                                  0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                             0
<PP&E>                                                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                               0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         744,124
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                        0
<BONDS>                                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                        0
<PREFERRED>                                                  0
<COMMON>                                                 1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                              33,098
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           744,124
<SALES>                                                      0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                             0
<CGS>                                                        0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         7,484
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                           0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         (7,484)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             3,258
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     (4,226)
<DISCONTINUED>                                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                              0
<CHANGES>                                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                            (4,226)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                0
        

</TABLE>
ALASKA SEAFOOD C B I R E P L AC E M E NT P A G E

EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2013

- 0652

DCN: 00 313 CBI

T H E FO LL OW ING H AS BEE N R E M O V E D BE CAUSE IT

C O N T AINS C O N F ID E N T IAL B USIN E SS IN FO RMA T I O N

(C B I) P E R 4 0 C F R P ART 2

, SU B P ART B

.
* 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. 06-41042 Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee
v. FREDDY LIONEL ROMERO-VENTURA Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:05-CR-2529-ALL Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE, and GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Freddy Lionel Romero-Ventura (Romero) appeals the 41-month sentence he received following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. §1326. In light ofApprendi v. NewJersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), Romero challenges the constitutionality of § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than elements ofthe offense that must be found by ajury. This court has held that this issue is “fully United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December 12, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 06-41042

2 foreclosed from further debate.” U nited States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), petition for cert. filed (Aug. 28, 2007) (No. 07-6202). AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 144 (Thursday, July 26, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 35461]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15946]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration


Notice of Charter Renewal of the U.S. Investment Advisory Council 
and Soliciting Nominations for Members; Correction

AGENCY: International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: On April 6, 2018, the Department of Commerce Acting Chief 
Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary for Administration renewed 
the charter for the United States Investment Advisory Council (Council) 
for a two-year period, ending April 5, 2020. The Council is a federal 
advisory committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Meyers. 202-482-2612.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Correction

    In the Federal Register of June 26, 2018, in FR Doc. 83 FR 29746, 
on pages 29746-29747, corrections were made to the deadline for 
submitting information for consideration to the Council in the Dates 
sections (under the DOCUMENT DETAILS and DATES) and SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section (9th paragraph). The deadline has been corrected to 
Friday, August 24, 2018, and the corrections should read:
    (1) DOCUMENT DETAILS--Dates: All applications for immediate 
consideration for appointment must be received by 5:00 p.m. Eastern 
Daylight Time (EDT) on Friday, August 24, 2018. After that date, 
applications will be accepted under this notice for a period of up to 
two years from the deadline to fill any vacancies that may arise.
    (2) DATES: All applications for immediate consideration for 
appointment must be received by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) 
on Friday, August 24, 2018. After that date, applications will be 
accepted under this notice for a period of up to two years from the 
deadline to fill any vacancies that may arise.
    (3) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: To be considered for membership, 
submit the following information by 5:00 p.m. EDT on Friday, August 24, 
2018 to the email address listed in the ADDRESSES section.

    Dated: July 20, 2018.
Anthony Diaz,
Program Analyst, Global Markets, International Trade Administration.
[FR Doc. 2018-15946 Filed 7-25-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
#### CHATEAUGAY ORE & IRON COMPANY, Appellant, v. EASTERN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 274.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

March 1, 1937.

Platow Lyon & Stebbins, of New York City (Leo J. Curren, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.

Foley & Martin (Christopher E. Heck-man, and James A. Martin, all of New York City, of counsel), for appellee.

Before L. HAND, SWAN, and AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Decree (15 F.Supp. 705), affirmed.
#### Elizabeth D. KINDRED, Appellant, v. Kermit G. KINDRED, Appellee.

No. 72-1250.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 2, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 20, 1973.

Jepeway, Gassen & Jepeway, Miami, for appellant.

Milton M. Ferrell, Miami, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and HAVER-FIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See: Zuidhof v. Zuidhof, Fla.App.1971, 242 So.2d 739; Weston v. Weston, Fla.App.1971, 251 So.2d 315; Landsberg v. Landsberg, Fla.App.1972, 259 So.2d 727; Cooper v. Cooper, Fla.App.1972, 260 So.2d 272.
#### Henry GRAY, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Adult Corrections, Florida, Respondent.

No. 41227.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 26, 1971.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, C. J., and CARLTON, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

ERVIN, J., dissents.
#### Milton Lamar ALDERMAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-1414.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 22, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Jacob B. Smith, Appellant, *vs.*William Shore, Respondent.

I. *Justices’ Courts*— Appeal—Lafayette *County.*— Nothing in the acts relating to Lafayette Court of Common Pleas requires, that an appeal from a justice of that county should be taken to that court instead of the Lafayette Circuit Court, when the term of the former began soonest after the date of granting the appeal.

*Appeal from Lafayette Circuit Court.*

*Sathbun*4' *Graves,*for Apellant.

Sherwood, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This was an action brought by Smith against Shore before a Justice of the Peace of Lafayette County. A trial was had resulting in a judgment in favor of the defendant, from which the plaintiff appealed to the Circuit Court of that county, and on motion of the defendant that court dismissed the appeal on the ground, that as the appeal was taken ten days before the first day of the term of the Common Pleas Court of that county, it should have gone to that court, and therefore that the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction.

Although there are in the acts, creating some of the Common Pleas Courts of this State, provisions requiring appeals *274from magistrates to be brought to that court (either Common. Pleas or Circuit Court,) whose term should occur next after the appeal taken, yet an examination of all the Acts, both original or amendatory, in relation to the Lafayette Court of Common' Pleas, does not disclose any requirement of this character, nor is. there anything in the general law on the subject of appeals from Justices of the Peace, which will uphold the ruling made on. defendant’s motion in the court below. .

For these reasons the judgment will be reversed and the-cause remanded.

Judge Adams absent,'the other judges concur
##### 



EXHIBIT 6 CERTIFICATION REQUIRED BY RULE 13a-14(a) OR RULE 15d-14(a), PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Gregory C. Wilkins, President and Chief Executive Officer of Barrick Gold Corporation, certify
that:  1.
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 40-F of Barrick Gold Corporation;2.
    Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;3.
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    The issuers other certifying officer 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 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 issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which
this report is being prepared;(b)
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the issuers disclosure controls and procedures
and presented in this 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 issuers internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that
has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the issuers
internal control over financial reporting; and  5.
    The issuers other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the issuers auditors and the
audit committee of the 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 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 issuers internal control over financial reporting.  Date:   March 30, 2005 /s/   Gregory C. Wilkins
Name: Gregory C. Wilkins
Title:   President and Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                           5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE NUCO2
INC. CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                           1,000

<S>                                                                                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                          3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                      JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                           SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                                         198
<SECURITIES>                                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                9,567
<ALLOWANCES>                                                   666
<INVENTORY>                                                    230
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                            10,381
<PP&E>                                                     141,626
<DEPRECIATION>                                              33,874
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                             148,448
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                       11,928
<BONDS>                                                          0
<COMMON>                                                         7
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                        5,151
<PREFERRED>                                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                                                  35,740
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                               148,448
<SALES>                                                     16,113
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                            16,113
<CGS>                                                        8,077
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                               15,813
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                           2,692
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                             (2,392)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                         (2,392)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                  0
<CHANGES>                                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                                (2,392)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                   (.34)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                 (.34)


</TABLE>
#### Arthur Lee RAVENELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. P-24.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 11, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.