alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
##### 



1)
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of World Air Holdings,
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 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:
    5)
    
    The registrants other certifying officer 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 the registrants board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
   Date:
2/21/06
    
    /s/ Virginia G. ClarkVirginia G. ClarkInterim Chief Financial Officerof World Air Holdings, Inc.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7583
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANGELO DEMOND DAVIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (3:04-cr-00030; 3:06-cv-00022-V-1) Submitted: February 22, 2007 Decided: March 1, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Angelo Demond Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina; Gretchen C.F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Angelo Demond Davis appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his motions for reconsideration filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Our review of the record discloses that this appeal is without merit. Davis’s motions for reconsideration do not demonstrate that his motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) was improperly dismissed. We therefore find that the district court's denial of his motions for reconsideration was not an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and affirm the district court’s order on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Davis , Nos. 3:04-cr-00030, 3:06-cv-00022-V-1 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 15, 2006). 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
#### Margery M. de Leon, Appellant, *v.*Amiel Caplan, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,

May 14, 1953.

*Lyman Stansky*for appellant.

*Sidney Advocate*and *E. Edan Spencer*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The court was in error in holding that tender was a condition precedent to the beginning of the cause of action for fraud. The provisions of section 112-g of the Civil Practice Act dispense with this requirement.

The judgment and order should be unanimously reversed upon the law and motion for a new trial granted, with $20 costs to plaintiff to abide the event.

Walsh, Mubphy and Ughetta, JJ., concur.

Judgment and order reversed, etc.
# C_2013111EN.01001901.xml

| 18.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 111/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 111/19

---

NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITIONS IN THE FIELD OF PUBLIC HEALTH

2013/C 111/09

The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising the following open competitions:

| — | EPSO/AD/250/13 — Administrators (AD 6) — Food safety (policy and legislation) |
| --- | --- |

—

EPSO/AD/250/13 — Administrators (AD 6) — Food safety (policy and legislation)

| — | EPSO/AD/251/13 — Administrators (AD 7) — Food safety (audit, inspection and evaluation) |
| --- | --- |

—

EPSO/AD/251/13 — Administrators (AD 7) — Food safety (audit, inspection and evaluation)

The competition notice is published in 23 languages in Official Journal C 111 A of 18 April 2013.

Further information can be found on the EPSO website: http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/eu-careers.info/

---
~~rrarr6N.TEXASI 78711
November 30, 1973 The Honorable Joe Carroll District Attorney P. 0. Box 684 Belton, Texas 76513 Dear Mr. Carroll: Opinion No. H- 169 Re: Cost of transporting prisoners in multi-city countie 8
Inyour opinion request you advise that:

“Belton is the County Seat of Bell County, but it is less thana third the size of either Temple or Killeen. The County Jail is in Belton, but byfar the

. . maJorlty of the arrests are made in either ofthe aforementioned larger cities. We have a problem with reference to the transfer of Felony prisoners to the County Jail. ” The problem concerns whether the time. trouble and expense required to transport prisoners from Temple andKilleen to the countyjail in Belton should fall onthe police of tho6e respective cities or upon the sheriff of Bell County.

There are no statutes or cases specifically answering your problem. The problem i6 one thatis usually worked out by agreement in multi-citied counties similar to Bell County. We believe two circumstances indicate that the sheriff of Bell County i6 responsible for the prisoners after they are taken before a magi6trate in Temple or Killeen and committed tothe countyjail. The first is juricldictional. Thejuri6diction of the police ends with their city limit8 except in rpecified circum6tances; the sheriff’6 juri6diction i6 county-wide. The second is Article 2.16, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides:

p. 775The Honorable Joe Carroll, page 2 (H-169)

“When a prisoner is committed tojail by warrant from a magistrate or court, he shall be placed injail bythe sheriff. It is a violation of duty on the part ofany sheriff to permit a defendant so committed to remain out ofjail, except thathe may, whena defendant is committed for want of bail, or whenhe arrest6 in a bailable case, give the person arrested a reasonable time to procure bail; buthe shall so guard theaccused a6 toprevent escape. ” Inthe absence of specific statute, we believe that the 6heriff’s duty to see that the prisoner is “placed injail” after commitment bya magistrate impliedly requires the sheriff to transport the prisioners from the place where the magistrate commits him to the countyjail. SUMMARY

. Itis the duty of the sherlff to see that prisoners committed to the countyjail bya magi6trate in a city outside the county seat are hansported to the countyjail.

Attorney Genera.Iof Texas

DAVID M. KENDALL, Chairman Opinion Committee

p. 776
#### Estate of Xiang Ding Wu, by its Administrator Betty Lee, Respondent, v Town of Brookhaven et al., Respondents-Appellants, Hinck Electrical Contractors, Inc., Appellant-Respondent, et al., Defendant.

[721 NYS2d 802]

—In an action to recover damages for wrongful death, the defendant Hinck Electrical Contractors, Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Klein, J.), entered September 3, 1999, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it, and the defendants Town of Brookhaven and County of Suffolk separately cross-appeal, as limited by their respective briefs, from so much of the same order as denied their respective motions for summary judg*513ment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motions are granted, the complaint and all cross claims are dismissed insofar as asserted against the defendants Hinck Electrical Contractors, Inc., Town of Brookhaven, and County of Suffolk, and the action against the remaining defendant is severed.

The Supreme Court erred in denying the motions of the defendants Hinck Electrical Contractors, Inc., Town of Brook-haven, and County of Suffolk for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them. These defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and the plaintiff failed to raise a material issue of fact requiring a trial *(see,*CPLR 3212 [a]; *Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557). O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices 

# Order

May 7, 2010

139769

DAN-KAI TUS and NU CHEN YEN TUS, Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants/ Appellants,

v SC: 139769 COA: 281007 Washtenaw CC: 06-000910-CH SHIRLEY HURT f/k/ a SHIRLEY ROBBINS, Defendant-Cross Defendant,

and

STERLING MORTGAGE & INVESTMENT COMPANY, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff/Cross Plaintiff/Appellee,

and

AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY OF WASHTENAW and RE PUBLIC BANC MORTGAGE COMPANY, Third-Party Defendants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 25, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall include among the issues to be briefed the effect, if any, on this case of Brydges v Emmendorfer, 311 Mich 274, 279 (1945) (holding that “[t]he statute of limitations does not control the question of lach es in equitable actions”) and Stokes v Millen Roofing Co, 466 Mich 660, 671-672 (2002) (concluding that courts shou ld not avoid the application of a statute under the guise of equity because a statutory penalty is ex cessively punitive or harsh).

The State Bar of Michigan Real Property Law Section, the Michigan Association of Mortgage Professionals, the Michigan Mo rtgage Lenders Association, the MichiganI, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk May 7, 2010

s0504 2

Association of Realtors, the Michigan Association of Comm unity Bankers, the Michigan Bankers Association, the American Civil Libe rties Union of Michigan, the State Bar of Michigan Consumer Law Section, the Univ ersity of Michigan Law School General Clinic, and the Michigan Association for Justice are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups intere sted in the determination of the issues presented in this case may move the Court for permissi on to file briefs amicus curiae.
# C_2013075EN.01001201.xml

| 14.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 75/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 75/12

---

NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION

2013/C 75/06

The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising the following open competition:

EPSO/AD/249/13 — Administrators (AD 7) in the following fields:

| 1. | Macroeconomics |
| --- | --- |

1.

Macroeconomics

| 2. | Financial economics |
| --- | --- |

2.

Financial economics

The competition notice is published in 23 languages in Official Journal C 75 A of 14 March 2013.

Further information can be found on the EPSO website: http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/eu-careers.info/

---
# C_2012231EN.01000201.xml

| 2.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 231/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 231/2

---

New national face of euro coins intended for circulation

2012/C 231/02

Image

National face of the new commemorative 2-euro coin intended for circulation and issued by Belgium

National face of the new commemorative 2-euro coin intended for circulation and issued by Belgium

Euro coins intended for circulation are legal tender throughout the euro area. The Commission publishes all new euro coin designs with a view to informing all parties required to handle coins in the course of their work as well as the public at large (1). In accordance with the Council conclusions of 10 February 2009 (2), the Member States and countries that have concluded a monetary agreement with the Community providing for the issuing of euro coins are allowed to issue commemorative euro coins intended for circulation, provided that certain conditions are met, particularly that only the 2-euro denomination is used. These coins have the same technical characteristics as other 2-euro coins, but their national side features a commemorative design that is highly symbolic in national or European terms.

1

2

Issuing country: Belgium

Subject of commemoration: The 75th anniversary of the Queen Elisabeth Competition

Description of the design: The inner part of the coin depicts the emblem of the Queen Elisabeth Competition superimposed on the effigy of Queen Elisabeth, looking to the left, flanked on the left and right respectively by the mark of the mint master and the mark of the Brussels mint, a helmeted profile of the Archangel Michael. The years 1937-2012 are inscribed above the effigy, and the words ‘QUEEN ELISABETH COMPETITION’ below it. The nationality ‘BE’ is indicated to the right of the portrait of the Queen.

The coin’s outer ring depicts the 12 stars of the European flag.

Issue volume: 5 million coins

Date of issue: May 2012.

---

(1)  See OJ C 373, 28.12.2001, p. 1 for a reference to all national sides that were issued in 2002.

1

(2)  See the conclusions of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council of 10 February 2009 and the Commission Recommendation of 19 December 2008 on common guidelines for the national sides and the issuance of euro coins intended for circulation (OJ L 9, 14.1.2009, p. 52).

2

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-28-1996
<CASH>                                          21,120
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  267,871
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,299
<INVENTORY>                                    362,349
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               742,237
<PP&E>                                         497,979
<DEPRECIATION>                                 375,734
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,657,190
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          357,479
<BONDS>                                      1,054,982
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,724
<OTHER-SE>                                   (104,142)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,657,190
<SALES>                                      1,803,969
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,803,969
<CGS>                                        1,170,586
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,700,354
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (1,285)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,329
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             114,244
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (9,344)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    12,710
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (22,054)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (441)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (22,495)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.31)
        

</TABLE>
#### Fe SANTOS, Appellant, v. A. J. MONTANARI and Alex Carlson, Appellees.

No. 71-184.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 25, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
# C_2012198EN.01000102.xml

| 6.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 198/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 198/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6382 — Unipapel/Spicers)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2012/C 198/02

On 20 December 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 32011M6382. 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 32011M6382. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
Exhibit 32.2SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Central Parking Corporation (the “Company”) on Form10-Q for the Quarter ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon February 9, 2007 (the “Report”), I, Emanuel Eads, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (b) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.                                                  /s/ JEFF HEAVRIN   Jeff Heavrin   Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer        A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN PROVIDED TOCENTRAL PARKING CORPORATION AND WILL BE RETAINED BY CENTRAL PARKING CORPORATION AND FURNISHED TOTHE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.     The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18U.S.C. section 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company,whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language insuch filing. This certification is executed as of February 9, 2007.
An official website of the United States government                

----

end of header

Census.govNewsroom

# Newsroom Archive

Skip left menu navigation                          - About the Newsroom
                          - Facts for Features
                          - **News Releases**
                          - Press Kits
                          - Tip Sheets

## Patricia A. Coulter 

### President and Chief Executive Officer of the Urban League of Philadelphia, Inc. 

Patricia A. Coulter is the current President and Chief Executive Officer of the Urban League of Philadelphia, Inc. In addition, she is the first woman to lead this affiliate in its 90-year-history. Ms. Coulter's career history includes leadership positions in the corporate and non-profit sectors.

CONNECT WITH US**********

                            - Information Quality
                            - Data Linkage Infrastructure
                            - Data Protection and Privacy Policy
                            - Accessibility
                            - FOIA
                            - Inspector General
                            - No FEAR Act
                            - U.S. Department of Commerce
                            - USA.gov

----

Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy

Is this page helpful?
YesNo

NO THANKS

255 characters maximum255 characters maximum reached

Thank you for your feedback.Comments or suggestions? 

PIO@census.gov
# C_2012150EN.01000101.xml

| 26.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 150/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 150/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6524 — Sberbank of Russia/BNP Paribas Personal Finance/BNP Paribas Vostok)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2012/C 150/01

On 3 May 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 32012M6524 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 32012M6524 EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---