alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
260 La. 1108

#### STATE of Louisiana v. William J. BERNOS.

No. 51982.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 3, 1972.

*372Samuel S. Dalton, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

Jack P. F. Gremillion, Atty. Gen., Harry H. Howard, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frank H. Langridge, Dist. Atty., Ronald P. Loumiet, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, William J. Bernos, appeals from a conviction of operating a vehicle while intoxicated, La.R.S. 14:98, for which he was sentenced to pay a fine of sufficient amount to give this court appellate jurisdiction of this misdemeanor conviction.

After lodging his appeal in this Court, the defendant moved to transfer the cause to the Twenty-fourth Judicial District Court for the purpose of obtaining a trial de novo. He alleges there are no questions of law presented on appeal, and that he desires a review of the facts, which is only available in the district court.

 Under our Louisiana Constitution the right to appeal is linked to the gravity of the sentence rather than the nature of the offense, and this Court has appellate jurisdiction in misdemeanor convictions where, as here, the fine actually imposed exceeds $300. La.Const. art. VII, sect. 10. State v. Seals, 254 La. 904, 228 So.2d 310 (1969) has already decided defendant’s contention adversely to him. La.Const. art. VII, sect. 36 fixes the appellate jurisdiction of the district courts giving them jurisdiction over appeals from municipal courts “except as otherwise provided in this Constitution.” In this case, because the fine exceeds $300, jurisdiction of the district courts over this misdemeanor case is “otherwise provided” by Article VII, section 10. The motion must be denied.

The defendant contends that such differentiation in appellate treatment offends due process. In State v. Seals, cited above, we rejected this contention. It likewise does not offend equal protection guarantees, because as stated in State v. Seals, “The constitutional provisions * * * are applied indiscriminately to all persons convicted.” 228 So.2d 311.

In this appeal, the defendant has perfected no bills of exceptions. We are therefore limited on appeal to a review of the pleadings and proceedings for errors discoverable. La.C.Cr.P. art. 920; State v. Ash, 257 La. 337, 242 So.2d 535 (1971). We find none.

The conviction and sentence are affirmed.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002

 

I, Richard P. Dutkiewicz, as Chief Financial Officer of Einstein NoahRestaurant Group, Inc. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

(1)   the QuarterlyReport of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”),fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)   the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated:  November 6, 2008 | By:  /s/ RICHARD P. DUTKIEWICZ |
|-------------------------------|--------------------------------|
|                          | Richard  P. Dutkiewicz         |
|                          | Chief  Financial Officer       |

 

----
# C_2012265EN.01000102.xml

| 1.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 265/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 265/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6389 — ENI/Nuon Belgium/Nuon Wind Belgium/Nuon Power Generation)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2012/C 265/02

On 7 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 32011M6389. 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 32011M6389. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
# C_2012161EN.01000201.xml

| 7.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6447 — IAG/BMI)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2012/C 161/02

On 30 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 32012M6447. 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 32012M6447. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
An official website of the United States government                

----

end of header

Census.govNewsroomReleasesCensus 2000

# Newsroom Archive

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

### Release Information

**CB01-CN.93**
**Contact:**  Public Information Office								301-457-3691/301-457-3620 (fax)301-457-1037 (TDD)e-mail: 2000usa@census.govStatistical Information StaffPopulation Division301-457-2422e-mail: pop@census.gov

## FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  EMBARGOED UNTIL: 12:01 A.M. EDT, MAY 22, 2001 (TUESDAY)

## Census Bureau Releases Census 2000 Demographic Profile for Montana

The U.S. Census Bureau today released the *Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: Census 2000* for Montana, a one-page table providing Census 2000 data on age and sex distribution, race, Hispanic origin, household relationship and type, housing occupancy and tenure (whether the housing occupant owns or rents).

 The profile includes nearly 100 data items in all, plus percentage distributions.

 In addition to the profile of the state as a whole, similar demographic profiles for counties, places and other geographic components of the state can be accessed on an embargoed basis at <https://www.census.gov/dcmd/www/embargo/embargo_demoprofile.html>. After the release time, go to the Census Bureau's online search-and-retrieval database *American FactFinder*  <http://factfinder2.census.gov> or to its Demographic Profile Page  <https://www.census.gov/census2000/demoprofile.html>. You will also be able to download the profiles from the bureau's file transfer protocol site  <http://www2.census.gov/census_2000/datasets/demographic_profile/>.

 For information about how to order paper copies of Census 2000 demographic profiles, contact Customer Services Center, U.S. Census Bureau, 301-457-4100; or e-mail: <webmaster@census.gov>.

 For local context, contact the Montana State Data Center, 406-444-4393; e-mail:  <jclack@state.mt.us>.

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
August 3, 2015

Mr. Gabriel Alvarez

Aerial Vision Services, LLC

4790 N. Powerline Road

Pompano Beach, FL 33073

Dear Mr. Alvarez:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your May 15, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-1733), but 

we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply

with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, 

you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, May 11, 2018.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, May 11, 2018

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A18A1538. DANIEL TUTOR et al. v. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES.

Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW 

THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion is hereby GRANTED.
#### Jessie D. BERRY, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-274.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 14, 1973.

Appellant, pro se, and R. B. Crawford, Jr., Bartow, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and David Luther Woodward, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The briefs and the record on appeal hav; ing been read and given full consideration, and appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment and sentence of the trial court are affirmed.

Affirmed.

MANN, C. J., and HOBSON and Mc-NULTY, JJ., concur.
#### Donald Wayne TERRILL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. P-469.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Feb. 8, 1972.

Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, Michael J. Minerva, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

The briefs and the record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., RAWLS and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
No. 00-7260.

#### Anderson *v.*Virginia Department of Corrections.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
An official website of the United States government                

----

end of header

## Health Insurance Coverage, 2008 - 2021

About this map

Use the animation controls above the map to pause and restart the visualization.

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?
Exhibit 99

Certification of CEO and CFO 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 on Form 10-Q of APAC Customer Services, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Theodore G. Schwartz, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Marc T. Tanenberg, as
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of
his knowledge:



|/s/THEODORE G. SCHWARTZName: Theodore G. Schwartz
Title: Chief Executive Officer
Date: August 14, 2002 |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | 
|/s/MARC T. TANENBERGName: Marc T. Tanenberg
Title: Chief Financial Officer
Date: August 14, 2002       |  | 

This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

---

QuickLinks
#### AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING, PENNSYLVANIA, Appellant, v. AMERICAN FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 67-1081.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

June 25, 1968.

Rehearing Denied July 24, 1968.

Moore, Welbaum, Zook & Jones, Miami, for appellant.

Dean, Adams, George & Wood and George E. Bunnell, Miami, for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, C. J., and HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Kleinman v. Bal Harbour Towers, Inc., Fla.App.1966, 188 So.2d 398 and Fla. 1967, 198 So.2d 830; Shearn v. Orlando Funeral Home, Fla. 1956, 88 So.2d 591; Bear v. Duval Lumber Co., 112 Fla. 240, 150 So. 614 (1933); and Irving Nat. Bank v. Law, 10 F.2d 721 (2d Cir. 1926).
# C_2011339EN.01000201.xml

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 339/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 339/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

18 November 2011

2011/C 339/02

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3576 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 104,06 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4426 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,85805 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,1606 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2378 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,8200 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,475 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 305,30 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7045 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,4200 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,3643 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,4686 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,3479 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3879 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,5719 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7800 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,7579 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 546,23 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 11,0814 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,6273 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4950 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 244,66 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,2907 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 58,927 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 41,8304 |
| THB | Thai baht | 42,072 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,4043 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,5448 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 69,5840 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3576

JPY

Japanese yen

104,06

DKK

Danish krone

7,4426

GBP

Pound sterling

0,85805

SEK

Swedish krona

9,1606

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2378

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,8200

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,475

HUF

Hungarian forint

305,30

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7045

PLN

Polish zloty

4,4200

RON

Romanian leu

4,3643

TRY

Turkish lira

2,4686

AUD

Australian dollar

1,3479

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3879

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,5719

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7800

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,7579

KRW

South Korean won

1 546,23

ZAR

South African rand

11,0814

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,6273

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4950

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 244,66

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,2907

PHP

Philippine peso

58,927

RUB

Russian rouble

41,8304

THB

Thai baht

42,072

BRL

Brazilian real

2,4043

MXN

Mexican peso

18,5448

INR

Indian rupee

69,5840

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
U.S. flag
              An official website of the United States government Skip to main content   end of header Census.gov Newsroom Releases 2010 Census
 Newsroom Archive
 Skip left menu navigation
 About the Newsroom
 				Facts for Features
 				**News Releases**
 				Press Kits
 				Tip Sheets
 Release Information CB11-TPS.12 **Contact:**
 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  THURSDAY, APRIL 14, 2011 National Summary File of Redistricting Data This data set includes the same population, housing unit counts and demographic characteristics that were provided to the states in February and March. This national file provides tables for the United States and other cross-state geographies, such as regions; divisions; metropolitan areas; and American Indian, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian areas in American FactFinder. The data set includes population counts by race, Hispanic origin, the voting age population and housing unit counts by occupancy status. Internet address: <http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml>. **No news release associated with this report. Tip Sheet only.**
  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
#### Peter A. CERICK, as Administrator of the Estate of Edwin W. Daniels, Deceased, and Jon Daniel Sullivan, as the sole heir of Edwin W. Daniels, Deceased, Appellants, v. John W. DANIELS et al., Appellees.

No. 73-269.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 26, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>

EIP MICROWAVE, INC.                                             1996 FORM 10-KSB

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10(l)



                            Written Description of
                        EIP BONUS PLAN FOR FISCAL 1997


EIP Microwave, Inc. (the "Company") has adopted a Bonus Plan for Lewis R.
Foster, the President and Chief Operating Officer of the Company.  The EIP Bonus
Plan is designed to provide Mr. Foster with a financial incentive to achieve the
profit objectives established by the Board of Directors for the 1997 fiscal year
of the Company.  Mr. Foster is eligible for a maximum annual bonus award of
$35,000.

As of December 20, 1996, the Company has not adopted a Bonus Plan for any other
employees for the 1997 fiscal year.  However, the Company may elect to do so in
the future for the purpose of providing other employees of the Company with
annual financial incentives to achieve specified orders, sales, pre-tax profit,
product development and/or other objectives.




















                                      61
-80 -79 -78 -77 -76 -75 -74

38 39 40 41



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 08/07 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 07 Aug 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.90 N 76.65 WMeters AGL
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6167 BART DANIEL MILLIRONS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FRANK DREW; D. D. NOHA; J. P. MCINTIRE; J. OCHS, Defendants - Appellees, and NURSE LEBO, Defendant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CA-94-1212) Submitted: March 17, 1998 Decided: April 3, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2 Bart Daniel Millirons, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Everett Malone, CLARK & STANT, P.C., Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Millirons v. Drew , No. CA-94-1212 (E.D. Va. Jan. 2, 1997) 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
#### Albert COLLIE, Appellant, v. Phillip SHUFORD, Superintendent of Glades Correctional Institution and Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections, Appellees.

No. 73-1265.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 6, 1974.

Habeas corpus denied.