alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The AUTO CENTER OF PENSACOLA, INC., a corporation, Carl W. Nolting, James E. Hertz, and the Estate of Joe E. Dorman, deceased, Appellants, v. SECURITIES INVESTMENT COMPANY OF ST. LOUIS, a corporation, Appellee.

No. 1-256.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

July 27, 1967.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 25, 1967.

Harrell, Caro, Middlebrooks & Wilt-shire, Pensacola, for appellants.

Shell, Fleming & Davis, Pensacola, for appellee.

JOHNSON, Judge.

This is an appeal from a final judgment in favor of the appellee (plaintiff below) rendered by the Circuit Court of Escambia County in a trial without a jury.

Three of the personal defendants, Hertz, Nolting, and Dorman were officers and stockholders of the corporation defendant, and as such, after the corporation had entered into a general automobile financing contract entered into a “Wholesale Guaranty Agreement” with the plaintiff-appellee guaranteeing the payments of the loans made to the corporate defendant, The Auto Center of Pensacola, Inc. There is some dispute as to the time of entering into this Guaranty Agreement and as to the pressure asserted on the officers of the corporate defendant to give their personal guaranty.

There appears from the evidence that the Auto Center was making sales out of trust, which fact was explained by the defendants as a necessary, temporary thing while funds and titles were in transit. There was much evidence of bickering between the plaintiff’s agent and the defendants over a period of several months which culminated in the plaintiff not only cutting off any further financing, but in a demand for a pay off. In the absence of the pay off, the plaintiff repossessed the autos in inventory and sold them at public auction about 30 days after repossessing them. The sale resulted in a loss to the plaintiff. Thereafter suit was instituted against the defendants under the Dealer’s Wholesale Underlying Agreement for the loss sustained by the plaintiff. Counterclaims were filed by the defendants wherein, inter alia, the plaintiff was charged with breach of contract as well as tortious conduct resulting in damage to the Auto Center’s business and the resulting damage to the individual defendants.

The trial court had a lot of evidence before it and entered a comprehensive and extensive findings of law and fact which *262were later incorporated by reference into the final judgment.

We have carefully considered the record, briefs and arguments and sifting through all this, we conclude the real issue or prayer of the appellants is for a new trial based upon the question of facts. We do not find any abuse of judgment on the part of the trial court and we will not attempt to substitute our judgment for that of the trial judge as to the facts. Neither do we find any wrongful application of the established law to the facts so found. We therefore affirm the judgment appealed from.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and RAWLS, J., concur.
EXHIBIT 4.5

                                  AMENDMENT TO
                                U.S. ENERGY CORP.
                             1998 STOCK OPTION PLAN
                               AS OF MAY 25, 2001


                  The first  paragraph  of existing  section 8(h) of the Plan is
         deleted and replaced with the following provisions:

                  (h) NONTRANSFERABILITY.  Except by will or the laws of descent
         and distribution,  and except for transfers to a Permitted  Transferee,
         no Option,  and no right or interest  in any  Incentive  Stock  Option,
         shall  be  assignable  or   transferable.   Transfers  to  a  Permitted
         Transferee  shall be authorized only if (i) the transfer is a bona fide
         gift and not payment of anything to any person, directly or indirectly;
         (ii) the Optionee  receives  nothing of value,  directly or indirectly,
         for the gift; and (iii) the transferred  Options continue to be subject
         to the  identical  terms and  conditions  as the Options  prior to such
         transfer.  A  Permitted  Transferee  means (and shall be limited to) an
         Optionee's  Family  Members:  child,  stepchild,   grandchild,  parent,
         stepparent, grandparent, spouse, former spouse, sibling, niece, nephew,
         mother-in-law,  father-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, brother- or
         sister-in-law  (including adoptive  relationships);  anyone sharing the
         Optionee's  household (but not as a tenant or employee),  or a trust or
         other entity in which the  Optionee  and Family  Members hold more than
         50% of its  beneficial  or voting  interest.  It is  intended  that the
         preceding  comply  with  General  Instruction  A(1)(a)(5)  to Form  S-8
         adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission.


                                       53

<PAGE>
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3271 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3271

    To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide penalties for 
               willfully harming law enforcement animals.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 13, 1993

 Mr. Gallegly introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide penalties for 
               willfully harming law enforcement animals.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Law Enforcement Animal 
Protection Act of 1993''.

SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ANIMALS.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 65 of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 1368. Harming Federal law enforcement animals
    ``(a) Whoever willfully kills, harms, or attempts to kill or harm 
any animal being used by any Federal law enforcement officer in the 
discharge or attempted discharge of that officer's duties shall be 
fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
    ``(b) As used in this section, the term `Federal law enforcement 
officer' means any person whose killing is made unlawful by section 
1114 of this title.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
chapter 65 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the 
end the following new item:

``1368. Harming Federal law enforcement animals.''.

                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

The undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as the Principal Executive Officer of China ShouGuan Mining Corporation****(the “Company”), for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:

(1)  The Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2015 (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.

| Dated:  November 23, 2015

/s/ Feize Zhang

  

Feize Zhang

Chairman and Principal Executive Officer

 

(Principal Executive Officer)

This certification accompanies each 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.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1


                           SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
          SUBSIDIARY                              STATE OF INCORPORATION
          ----------                              ----------------------
<S>                                               <C>
Amite Foundry and Machine, Inc.                          Louisiana

Prospect Foundry, Inc.                                   Minnesota

Quaker Alloy, Inc.                                       Pennsylvania

Canadian Steel Foundries Ltd.                            Quebec, Canada

Kramer International, Inc.                               Wisconsin

Empire Steel Castings, Inc.                              Pennsylvania

La Grange Foundry Inc.                                   Missouri

The G&C Foundry Company                                  Ohio

Los Angeles Die Casting Inc.                             California

Canada Alloy Castings, Ltd.                              Ontario, Canada

Pennsylvania Steel Foundry &                             Pennsylvania
  Machine Company

Jahn Foundry Corp.                                       Massachusetts

PrimeCast, Inc.                                          Wisconsin

Inverness Castings Group, Inc.                           Delaware

Atchison Casting UK Limited                              England

Sheffield Forgemasters Group, Ltd.                       England

Sheffield Forgemasters Engineering Ltd.                  England

Sheffield Forgemasters Rolls Ltd.                        England

Claremont Foundry, Inc.                                  Delaware

London Precision Machine & Tool Ltd.                     Ontario, Canada

Foundrie d'Autun                                         Autun, France
</TABLE>
June 27 , 2016

Filed E lectronically to the Federal Register

Federal Aviation Administration Regulatory Dockets Orville Wright Building (FOB

- 10A) 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591

Subject: Time

- limited Exemption from 14 CFR 91.227 (c)(1)(i) and (iii)

- Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS

- B) Out Equipment Performance Requirements

.
Reference: Grant of Exemption Nu mber 12555, regulatory docket No. FAA

- 2015

- 0971 Grant of Exemption No. 12555 provides for a time

- limited grant of exemption from the ADS

- B Navigation Integrity Category (NIC) and Navigation Accuracy Category for position (NACp) requirements of 14 CFR secti on 91.227(c)(1)(i) and (iii) from January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2024.
Spirit Airlines herby notifies the FAA that it intends to comply with the conditions and limitations expressed in the exemption cited above.

Kind Regards,

Jyri Strandman DO & VP, Flight Operations Spirit Airlines, Inc.

Cc: James Taylor, Principal Operations Inspector Spirit Airlines CMU; Lee Egecrone, Sr. Manager Regulatory Compliance and QA, Flight Operations 2800 Executive Way

Miramar , FL 33025 (Office) 954

- 447

- 7958 (Fax) 954

- 447

- 8081 Jyri.Str andman @Spirit.com
#### LATEX CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, a Georgia corporation and Argonaut Insurance Company, Appellants, v. William B. HEARIN, individually and as husband of Ann Elizabeth Hearin, et al., Appellees.

No. 72-975.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 5, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
In The MatterOf: 

### SERVED:· June 8, 2016 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS WASHINGTON, DC

SkyWest Airlines, Inc. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. FAA-2014-0322 Case No. 2012NM060030 Respondent Docket No. FAA-2014-0686 Case No. 2014WP910006 Docket No. FAA-2014-0809 Case No. 2012NM060029 DocketNo. FAA-2014-0810 Case No. 2012NM060123 DocketNo. FAA-2014-0811 Case No. 2013NM060083 DocketNo. FAA-2016-4267 Case No. 2015WP910079



### ORDER GRANTING PARTIES' SECOND JOINT MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS On April 6, 2016, the undersignedjudge granted in part the parties'joint motion to stay proceedings for a period of60 days and directed the parties to submit ajointreportstating the progress ofthe settlement negotiations by June 6, 2016. On June 6, 2016, the parties submitted a Second Joint Motion to Stay Proceedings. The parties explained that the negotiations involve 28 cases in various procedural postures, including four within the exclusivejurisdiction ofthe United States District Courts. In those four cases, the Respondent has entered into a tolling agreement with the DepartmentofJustice throughOctober 1, 2016. The parties requested the proceedings in the above captioned cases be stayed until that same date. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.205(a)(8), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. The parties'jointmotion to stay proceedings**i~** granted through October 1, 2016. 2. The parties must submit ajointreport stating the progress ofthe global settlement negotiations, including an indication ofhow much additional time, ifany, the negotiations require, no later than October 1, 2016.

Attachment: Service List

# -Y~---~- DOUGLAS M. RAW ALD Administrative Law JudgeDocket No. FAA-2014-0686 (Civil Penalty Action) SERVICE LIST

- BY U.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000 1

Todd Emerson, Respondent's Counsel SkyWest Airlines, Inc. 444 S. River Road St. George, UT 84790 TEL: 435-634-3530 FAX: 435-634-3505 ONE COPY

Jeffrey M. Harper, Complainant's Counsel Federal Aviation Administration Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 1601 Lind Avenue Southwest Renton, WA 98057 TEL: 425-227-2161 FAX: 425-227-1007 The Honorable Douglas M. Rawald, Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (El 1-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by**expedit~d** courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
EXHIBIT
      31.1-





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 Annual Report of DataMetrics Corporation (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-KSB for the annual year ended, October 31, 2006 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
      undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
      certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:





1.  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2.  The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.





Date:
                January 25, 2008
            By:*/s/
                John Marceca*Name:
                John MarcecaTitle:
                Chief Operating Officer





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided DataMetrics Corporation and will be retained
      by DataMetrics Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
      Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Mannie FENN and Leonard Leibowitz, Appellants, v. Roslyn KATZ et al., Appellees.

No. 71-966.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 18, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
#### The FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF MIAMI SPRINGS, a United States banking corporation, Appellant, v. Bess B. FELT, Appellee. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF MIAMI SPRINGS, a United States banking corporation, Appellant, v. INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, Appellee. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF MIAMI SPRINGS, a United States banking corporation, Appellant, v. S. R. Y., INC., et al., Appellees.

Nos. 73-695, 696, 73-700, 701 and 73-861, 978.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 5, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Appeals dismissed.
<PAGE>   1



                                                                      Exhibit 12
                       Dean Foods Company and Subsidiaries

                Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                -------------------------------------------------

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                 FISCAL YEARS ENDING MAY
                                             -----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    1998          1997         1996         1995         1994
                                                    ----          ----         ----         ----         ----
<S>                                             <C>           <C>         <C>           <C>           <C>
Income (loss) from continuing operations
     before taxes                               $143,730      $124,529    $(15,586)     $100,582      $95,706
                                             ------------ ------------- ------------ ------------ ------------

Fixed charges:
         Interest expense                         21,101        15,071       16,316       13,298       11,030
         Portion of rentals (33%)                 10,758         8,417        8,735        6,772        5,907
                                             ------------ ------------- ------------ ------------ ------------

         Total fixed charges                      31,859        23,488       25,051       20,070       16,937
                                             ------------ ------------- ------------ ------------ ------------

Earnings from continuing operations before
     taxes and fixed charges                    $175,589      $148,017     $  9,465     $120,652     $112,643
                                             ============ ============= ============ ============ ============

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                   5.5           6.3      0.4 (*)          6.0          6.7
                                             ============ ============= ============ ============ ============
</TABLE>


(*)  The Fiscal 1996 Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges and "Income (Loss) from
     Continuing Operations Before Taxes" includes the effect of a pre-tax
     special charge to earnings of $102.4 million.
Use of Gridded Met in 

Dispersion Models

9th Conference on Air Quality Modelin

Research Triangle Park, NC

October 9 – 10, 2008
Second Essential Eleme

“Promote and facilitate the use of grmeteorological data including “state-

practice” National Weather Service (

meteorological analyses to improve modeling science and performance near-field modeling applications (pertoxics, direct PM).” – Tyler Fox, 8thConference on Air Quality ModelingSeptember 22, 2005.
What Has Happened In th

Interim?

• OAQPS formed a gridded meteorological workg

2005 to discuss sources and various uses of grimeteorology in dispersion modeling.

• EPA development of MM5-to-AERMOD tool in 2• EPA (Touma, Isakov, Brode, Cimorelli, & Anders

publish MM5-AERMOD Philadelphia Study in 20

• UNC development of MCIP-to-AERMOD prototy

2007-2008.

• EPA development of MM5-to-CALPUFF prototy

2008.
Where Do We Go from He

• Complete development of software a

documentation for gridded meteorolodata conversion tools.

• Develop testing protocols gridded m

products in dispersion models.

• Development of guidance on the 

application of gridded meteorologicaproducts in dispersion modeling applications.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99-8


                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT



I, David E. Meador, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Detroit
Edison Company (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my
knowledge and belief:

(1)      the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period
         ended December 31, 2002 (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

(2)      the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         the Company.



Dated:  March 20, 2003                            /s/ DAVID E. MEADOR
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                                      David E. Meador
                                       Senior Vice President and Chief Financial
                                          Officer of Detroit Edison Company
#### Ronald F. POWERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-397.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 8, 1973.

Rehearing Denied July 11, 1973.

John A. Baldwin, Sp. Public Defender, Casselberry, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and William W. Herring, and Frank B. Kessler, Asst. Attys. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We have considered the five points on appeal from a judgment and sentence for second degree murder. It is our considered appellate decision that such points either have not been preserved for review or are patently without merit.

Affirmed.

WALDEN, and OWEN, JJ., and DOW-NEY, JAMES C., Associate Judge, concur.