alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### DISCOUNT TIRE CENTER, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wilson DOOMES and Showmaster Southwest, Inc., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 4128.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

Nov. 20, 1972.

Caliste Beard, Jr., Lafayette, for defendants-appellants.

Doucet & Hartman, by Darrell J. Hartman, Kaplan, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before SAVOY, HOOD and MILLER, JJ-

MILLER, Judge.

We grant plaintiff appellee’s motion to dismiss this appeal.

Defendants failed to pay the $36 fee for preparing the records and the $25 fee required to file the appeal. The City Judge set October 6, 1972 as the return date for the appeal and on September 13, 1972, the City Clerk sent notice that the records were prepared and would be filed as soon as the above amounts were paid. On November 9, 1972, the City Clerk furnished an affidavit certifying that defendants appellants had not paid the required amounts.

The appeal is dismissed due to defendants appellants’ failure, following timely request by the trial clerk, to comply with the statutory requirements of LSA-C.C.P. Art. 2126 and LSA-R.S. 13:4445. Louisiana Power & Light Company v. Lasseigne, 255 La. 579, 232 So.2d 278 (1970); Johnson v. Patout, 199 So.2d 199 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1967); McMillen Feeder Finance Corporation v. Thompson, 171 So.2d 827 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1965); Manuel v. Travelers Insurance Company, 131 So.2d 223 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1961).

Appeal dismissed.
**Exhibit 32.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Theundersigned officer of Courier Corporation (the “Company”) hereby certifiesthat the Company’s annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 26,2009 to which this certification is attached (the “Report”), as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| *November 25, 2009* | * * | By:                                             | *s/James F. Conway III* |
|--------------------------|----------|-------------------------------------------------|-------------------------|
| Date                     |     | James F. Conway III                             |
|                     |     | Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

**This certification shall not be deemed “filed” for any purpose, nor shallit be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing, under theSecurities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.**

** **

----
No. 11509.

#### The Cleveland & Southwestern Traction Co. *v.*Garnett.

Decided September 28, 1909.

Error to Circuit Court of Lorain county.

*Messrs. E. G. & FI. C. Johnson*and *Mr. C. W. Collister,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Skiles, Green & Skiles*and *Messrs. Stroup & Fauver,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Crew,. C. J., Summers, Spear, Davis, Shauck and Price JJ., concur. .
# C_2012007EN.01000601.xml

| 10.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 7/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/6

---

Calls for proposals under the annual work programme 2011 for grants in the field of the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) for the period 2007-2013

(Commission Decision C(2011) 1772 as amended by Commission Decision C(2011) 9531)

2012/C 7/04

The European Commission, Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport is hereby launching a call for proposals in order to award grants to projects in accordance with the priorities and objectives defined in the amended annual work programme for grants in the field of the Trans-European Transport Network for 2011.

The maximum amount available under this call for proposals is EUR 200 million.

The deadline for the submission of proposals is 13 April 2012.

13 April 2012

The complete text of the call for proposals is available on:

http://tentea.ec.europa.eu/en/apply_for_funding/follow_the_funding_process/calls_for_proposals_2011.htm

---
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 1988 

To allow States to waive regulations promulgated under the Clean Air Act 

relating to electric generating units under certain circumstances. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 4, 2014 

Mr. INHOFE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To allow States to waive regulations promulgated under the 

Clean Air Act relating to electric generating units under 

certain circumstances. 

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

3 SECTION 1. WAIVER OF CERTAIN REGULATIONS PROMUL4 GATED UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT. 

5 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a State 

6 may permanently waive any regulation relating to electric 

7 generating units promulgated by the Administrator of the 

8 Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Air Act 

9 (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) if the Governor of the State cerVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:53 Feb 05, 2014 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1988.IS S1988

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1988 IS

1 tifies that the electric generating units are necessary for 

2 reasons of power reliability and affordability. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
ACTIO N 

^'9rmmm 

CO\~,-voi. \ 0 FAIRBANKS 

CONVENTION 6 VISITORS BUREAU 

o 1- S5 

101 Dunkel Strwt, Suite 111- Fairbanks, AK 99701 -4806 

(907)457-3282 * 1907)459-3787 Fax 

wvvw.explorc(airbanks.com 

January 14,2011 

The Honorable Ray LaHood 

Secretary 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Re: Continuation of Alaska Airlines' Essential Air Service at Cordova. Gustavus. 

Petersburg. Wranoell. and Yakutat. Alaska. Docket OST-1998-4899 

Dear Secretary LaHood: 

This letter is to express strong support for the selection of Alaska Airlines to continue to 

provide essential air service to the communities of Cordova, Gustavus, Petersburg, 

Wrangell, and Yakutat in Alaska. Alaska's current pattern of service - using jet aircraft -

meets crucial needs that would be difficult, if not impossible, to meet with any other type 

of service or aircraft type. 

Alaska's service connects Southeast Alaska passengers to one or more major 

communities of interest, with single-plane service to Anchorage, Juneau, Ketchikan or 

Seattle. From these hubs, our community can access the airline's extensive route 

system and benefit from its marketing relationships with other carriers. The 737-400 

combination ("combi") passenger and cargo aircraft, which Alaska Airlines proposes to 

continue using on this route, provides freight, mail and cargo capacity that a non-jet 

carrier simply cannot provide. Further, the 737-400 combi aircraft is equipped with 

Required Navigation Performance Technology precision technology, which enables the 

airline to reliably access the airport during inclement weather, thus reducing diversions 

and cancellations and, in turn, enabling people and products to dependably reach the 

community. In sum, Alaska's jet service is critical to the economic well being of these 

communities. 

For these reasons, we respectfully urge DOT to select Alaska Airlines to continue to 

provide essential air service to Southeast Alaska, as the airline has successfully done for 

more than thirty years. 

Warm Regards, 

Deb Hickok 

President and CEO 

cc: Susan Kurland, Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs 

Dennis DeVany, Chief, EAS and Domestic Analysis 

The Honorable Sean Parnell, Governor, State of Alaska 

Marc A. Luiken, Commissioner, Alaska State Department of Transportation and 

Public Facilities
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-6354

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ABEL PARAMA BORROMEO,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 95-7621

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ABEL PARAMA BORROMEO,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden, II, Chief

District Judge. (CR-89-241, CA-94-950, CA-95-755-2)

Submitted: December 14, 1995 Decided: January 2, 1996
2

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

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Abel Parama Borromeo, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's orders denying his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motions. We have reviewed the record and

the district court's opinions accepting the recommendations of the

magistrate judge, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v.

Borromeo, Nos. CR-89-241; CA-94-950; CA-95-755-2 (S.D.W. Va. Feb.

17, 1995 & Sept. 27, 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
3
# C_2012271EN.01000301.xml

| 8.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6463 — Marquard & Bahls/Bominflot)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2012/C 271/02

On 19 March 2012, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6463. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6463. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
# C_2012218EN.01000101.xml

| 24.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 218/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 218/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6535 — Glory/Talaris Topco)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2012/C 218/01

On 2 July 2012, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6535. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6535. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
BEFORE THE 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Agreements Adopted by the Traffic 

Conferences of the International Air 

Transport Association 

OST-2011-. 0<D { 3 

APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF AGREEMENTS 

BY THE 

INTERNATIONAL AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION 

lATA AGREEMENT APPROVED & IMMUNIZED 

DOCKETOSl-X,^'^ - 0 0 > 2> ACTFON DATE 3 ^' ^ ^ ' ' 

This approval and grant of antitrust immunity is subject, where applicable, 

to conditions previously imposed. 

This action is effective after 7 days unless a petition is filed under 

14 CFR J85.30 or a review is undertaken on the Department's own motion. 

In view ol the agreement's noncontroversial nature and the availability of 

the above niacedure, the 21-day Miiodin UkCFR 303.42 is waived. 

25 January 2011 

Communications with respect to 

this document should be sent to 

Douglas E. Lavin 

Regional Vice President - North America 

Intemational Air Transport Association 

1776 K.St.N.W. #12* Floor 

Washington DC 20006
#### The CITY OF HALLANDALE etc., R. A. Hedland, Jr., as Chief Building Inspector of the City of Hallandale, Florida, et al., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida ex rel. SAGE CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 73-840.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 7, 1973.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; Russell Seay, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
#### George WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-601.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 9, 1972.

Rehearing Denied June 22, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### LOUISIANA ASSOCIATION OF EDUCATORS v. J. K. HAYNES.

No. 62411.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 30, 1978.

In re: J. K. Haynes and the Louisiana Education Assn., et al. applying for writs of *1299certiorari, mandamus and prohibition. Parish of East Baton Rouge.

Writ denied.
# C_2011283EN.01000101.xml

| 27.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 283/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 283/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6363 — Dalkia Polska/SPEC)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 283/01

On 19 September 2011, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32011M6363. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32011M6363. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
```

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                   CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT

     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, the undersigned, Charles E. Johnson, the chief
executive officer of Proliance International, Inc. (the "issuer"), does hereby
certify that the report on Form 10-Q accompanying this certification (the
"report") fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that information
contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the issuer.

/s/ Charles E. Johnson
-------------------------------------
Charles E. Johnson
President and Chief Executive Officer
(chief executive officer)
Proliance International, Inc.
May 15, 2007
```
EXHIBIT 32.0

| (1)   | The      Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended February 2, 2008 (the      “Form 10-K”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of      section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934;      and |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2)   | The      information contained in the Form 10-K/A fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of the      Company. |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/Renato      Cataldo       |   | /s/Dale      Heins                        |
|------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------|
| Renato      Cataldo          |   | Dale      Heins                           |
| President      and           |   | Senior      Vice President, Finance,      |
| Chief      Executive Officer |   | Chief      Financial Officer andTreasurer |
```

                                                                    Exhibit 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Charles E. Johnson, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Proliance
International, Inc.;

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 registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) 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 registrant 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 registrant, 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 registrant'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 registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant'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 registrant'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 registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date: November 14, 2005                 /s/ Charles E. Johnson
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Charles E. Johnson
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Constantine Eliopoulos, Appellant.

[735 NYS2d 771]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herbert Altman, J., on speedy trial motions; Daniel FitzGerald, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered April 5, 2001, convicting defendant of permitting prostitution, and sentencing him to a term of probation of one year and 200 hours of community service, unanimously affirmed.

*302The court properly denied defendant’s speedy trial motions because the People were chargeable with only 146 days. In this complex, multi-defendant case, the record supports the court’s various findings of excludability, including its findings that certain adjournments were on consent *(see, People v Delacruz,*241 AD2d 328, *lv denied*90 NY2d 939), resulted from defense motions and the People’s need for reasonable periods to respond *(see, People v Robinson,*225 AD2d 399, 401, *lv denied*88 NY2d 884), resulted from unsuccessful plea negotiations and the People’s subsequent need for a reasonable time to prepare for trial *(see, People v Delvalle,*265 AD2d 174, 175, *lv denied*94 NY2d 879; *see also, People v Alvarado,*281 AD2d 318, *lv denied*96 NY2d 859), or constituted a reasonable time to prepare for trial after denial of defendant’s first speedy trial motion *(see, People v Hairston,*242 AD2d 466, *lv denied*91 NY2d 892). Review of the periods subsequent to the court’s denial of defendant’s second speedy trial motion, cited in his oral application, is foreclosed *(see,*CPL 210.45 [1]; *People v Lawrence,*64 NY2d 200, 204; *People v Heine,*238 AJD2d 212). We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining arguments. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Sullivan and Ellerin, JJ.