alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### BOYS ROOFING & SHEET METAL et al., Petitioners, v. Elton T. SMITH (Deceased) et al., Respondents.

No. 37911.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 5, 1969.

Rehearing Denied March 31, 1969.

Joseph V. Niemoeller, of Knight, Underwood, Peters, Hoeveler & Pickle, Miami, for petitioners.

Alvin B. Zalla, of Plisco & Zalla, West Palm Beach, Patrick H. Mears and J. Franklin Garner, Tallahassee, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

By petition and cross-petition for writ of certiorari, we have for review an order of the Florida Industrial Commission bearing date August 19, 1968.

*3We find that oral argument would serve no useful purpose and it is therefore dispensed with pursuant to Florida Appellate Rule 3.10, subd. e, 32 F.S.A.

Our consideration of the petitions, records and briefs leads us to conclude that there has been no deviation from the essential requirements of law.

The petition for certiorari and the cross-peition are therefore denied.

Attorney’s fee in the amount of $250.00 is awarded to respondent — Alta R. Smith’s attorney.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, Acting C. J., and DREW, THORNAL, CARLTON and ADKINS, JJ., concur.
#### Harold P. KOENIG, Petitioner, v. Norman J. DAVIDSON, Respondent.

No. 42882.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 11, 1973.

Cause dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         109,979
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  110,189
<ALLOWANCES>                                    24,047
<INVENTORY>                                     14,277
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               222,985
<PP&E>                                          52,766
<DEPRECIATION>                                  32,716
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 516,820
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          234,605
<BONDS>                                        150,428
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            48
<OTHER-SE>                                     124,978
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   516,820
<SALES>                                        464,385
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               464,385
<CGS>                                          328,781
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  328,781
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (42,756)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                16,209
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              75,026
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                140,093
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,550
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            125,260
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   125,260
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.64
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.30




</TABLE>
<PAGE>
 
                           FOURTH AMENDMENT TO LEASE
                           -------------------------

This Fourth Amendment to Lease Agreement (hereinafter the "Fourth Amendment") is
made and entered into this 1st day of May, 1996, by and between
HIGHWOODS/FORSYTH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (herein called "Lessor" and Successor-in-
Interest to Eastpark, L.P.) and PMT SERVICES, INC. as "Lessee".

WHEREAS, Lessor and Lessee entered into a certain Lease Agreement (the "Lease")
dated August 31, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the "Lease"), providing for
the demise by Lessor to Lessee of office space in a certain office building now
commonly known and designated as Two Maryland Farms, Brentwood, TN, all as more
specifically set forth in the Lease; and

WHEREAS, Lessor and Lessee amended the Lease on September 29, 1994, May 11, 1995
and March 1, 1996; and

WHEREAS, Lessor and Lessee now desire to revise and amend the terms of said
Lease whereby Lessee shall expand into and occupy Suites 120 and 122 which
collectively total 1,707 net rentable square feet.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of mutual covenants and undertakings
hereinafter set forth by and between the parties hereto, the Lease is hereby
Amended as follows:


1.     Commencing June 1, 1996, Lessee shall lease and occupy an additional
       1,707 net rentable square feet on the first floor of the Building (shown
       as Exhibit A) for a term of 55 months and expiring on December 31, 2000.
       The total Leased Premises will now contaiin 34, 975 net rentable square
       feet.

 
2.     Lessee shall pay base rent of $2,351.39 per month ($16.53/rsf) for the 
       use of the additional space commencing June 1, 1996.
 
3.     Lessee Improvements. Lessor will provide a "turn-key" buildout of the
       space based upon mutually acceptable and agreed to space plans and
       construction documents. Lessee to provide    space plan and finish on 
       or before May 3, 1996.

4.     Definitions.  Definitions and terms used in this Fourth Amendment shall
       have the same definitions set forth in the Lease.

5.     Incorporation.  This Fourth Amendment shall be incorporated into and 
       made a part of the Lease and all provisions of this Lease not expressly
       modified or amended shall remain in full force and effect.
 
<PAGE>
 
In witness whereof, the parties hereto have executed this Fourth Amendment to
Lease Agreement by proper person thereunto authorize to do so on the day and
year first written above.

LESSOR:                                         LESSEE:
-------                                         -------

HIGHWOODS/FORSYTH LIMITED                       PMT SERVICES, INC.
PARTNERSHIP  (Successor-in-interest
to Eastpark, L.P.) acting by and through
Highwoods Properties, Inc., its General
Partner

By:   /s/  Thomas Smith                      By:   /s/Richardson M. Roberts
   -----------------------                      ------------------------------

Its:    Vice President                       Its:    Chief Executive Officer
    ----------------------                       -----------------------------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

 OFFICE OF

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES

AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

MEMORANDUM

Date/Time: February 16, 2016 / 2:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m.

Subject: Paraquat Dichloride Meeting Minutes. OPP Meets with Technical 

Registrants of Paraquat Dichloride to Discuss Specific Details of the 

Paraquat Dichloride Training Materials Proposed as Mitigation.

From: Marianne A. Mannix, Chemical Review Manager

Re-evaluation Management and Implementation Branch III

Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (7508P)

Participants: Kelly Sherman (EPA), Tracy Perry (EPA), Marianne Mannix (EPA), 

Nancy Fitz (EPA), Jonathan Becker (EPA), Monty Dixon (Syngenta), 

John Abbott (Syngenta), K.C. Lin (Sinon), Rebecca Hargadine (Source 

Dynamics), Cheryl Wagner (Sharda and Willowood), Larry Miller (Sinon

and US Raymat)

Meeting Minutes:

EPA met with the technical registrants of paraquat dichloride on February 16, 2016 to 

discuss specific details of the training material component of the proposed mitigation

measures. The technical registrants participated in the meeting through a conference line. 

During the meeting, EPA and the registrants discussed the scope, content, format, 

distribution, and implementation of paraquat specific training materials.
#### Jane M. SIMPSON, Appellant, v. William Frear SIMPSON, Appellee.

No. 71-271.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 18, 1971.

*793Sinclair & Louis, Melvin A. Rubin and Frank Nussbaum, Miami, for appellant.

Pallot, Silver, Pallot, Stern, Proby & Adkins, Miami, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, plaintiff in the trial court, commenced an action by filing a petition and affidavit pursuant to the provisions of Ch. 88, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., otherwise known as the “uniform reciprocal enforcement of support law”, to require appellee-defendant to pay the arrearages due under a support order entered in the State of Pennsylvania. By appropriate motion, the appellant attacked the counterclaim contending the trial court did not have jurisdiction to entertain same pursuant to the express provisions of § 88.291, Fla.Stat., F.S. A.1 The trial court denied the motion and this appeal ensued. We reverse.

By the clear import of the statute, the chapter was to confer jurisdiction on the circuit court solely for the purpose of enforcing a reciprocal support order. The actions of the trial judge should have been governed by the statute as interpreted in Blois v. Blois, Fla.App.1962, 138 So.2d 373, and therefore the order here under review be and the same is hereby reversed, with directions to the trial court to dismiss the counterclaim for divorce.

Reversed and remanded, with directions.

1

. “ * 3⁄8 * Participation in any proceedings under this chapter shall not confer upon any court jurisdiction of any of the parties thereto in any other proceeding.”
No. 00-7365.

#### Chapman *v.*Louisiana.

Sup. Ct. La. Certio-rari denied.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 335

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the luxury tax

on boats.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1993

Mr. ROTH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal

the luxury tax on boats.

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

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF LUXURY TAX ON BOATS.

4 (a) GENERAL RULE.—Subpart A of part I of sub5 chapter A of chapter 31 of the Internal Revenue Code of

6 1986 (relating to luxury taxes) is amended by striking sec7 tion 4002 and by redesignating sections 4003 and 4004

8 as sections 4002 and 4003, respectively.

9 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—
2

•HR 335 IH

1 (1) The table of sections for such subpart A is

2 amended by striking the last 3 items and inserting

3 the following:

‘‘Sec. 4002. Aircraft.

‘‘Sec. 4003. Rules applicable to subpart A.’’

4 (2) Subparagraph (B) of section 4003(b)(2) of

5 such Code, as redesignated by subsection (a), is

6 amended by striking ‘‘, $100,000 in the case of a

7 boat,’’.

8 (3) Paragraph (2) of section 4011(c) of such

9 Code is amended—

10 (A) by striking ‘‘, BOATS,’’ in the heading,

11 (B) by striking ‘‘, boat,’’ in subparagraph

12 (A), and

13 (C) by striking ‘‘a boat or’’ in subpara14 graph (B)(i).

15 (4) Sections 4221(c) and 4222(d) of such Code

16 are each amended by striking ‘‘4002(b), 4003(c),

17 4004(a)’’ and inserting ‘‘4002(c), 4003(a)’’.

18 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

19 this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment

20 of this Act.

Æ
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Thomas Anthony LEBLANC.

No. 59446.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 19, 1977.

Jude Thaddeus Fanguy, Houma, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Norval J. Rhodes, Dist. Atty., William G. Yates, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Ernest B. PARKER et al. v. Clark G. BOYCE et al.

No. 47294.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Nov. 19, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 14, 1974.

Prewitt & Braddock, Vicksburg, for appellants.

Teller, Biedenharn & Rogers, Brunini, Everett, Beanland & Wheeless, Vicksburg, for appellees.

Before RODGERS, P. J., and PATTERSON, SMITH, ROBERTSON and SUGG, JJ.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Warren County; J. D. Thames, Chancellor.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32





AMERICAN GRAPHITE TECHNOLOGIES INC.





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. Section 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of American Graphite Technologies Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Rick Walchuk, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby 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 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date: November 19, 2013
By:
/s/Rick WalchukName:
Rick WalchukTitle:
Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial and Accounting Officer




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code 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.





The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Report pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code and, accordingly, is not being filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as part of the Report and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date of the Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.)
#### Louis G. VILLAUME v. Christine R. VILLAUME. Christine R. MAHAR v. Louis G. VILLAUME.

No. 61801.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 31, 1978.

In re: Christine R. Mahar applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit. Parish of Calcasieu. 355 So.2d 1084.

Writ granted. It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
# C_2014006EN.01000301.xml

| 10.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

9 January 2014

2014/C 6/02

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3612 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 142,92 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4609 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,82575 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,9260 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2368 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,4075 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,433 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 299,41 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1755 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,5340 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,9745 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5343 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4780 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,5554 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6495 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,7304 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 447,42 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,7150 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,2404 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6294 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 593,03 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,4620 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 60,805 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 45,1425 |
| THB | Thai baht | 44,944 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,2641 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,8639 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 84,5410 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3612

JPY

Japanese yen

142,92

DKK

Danish krone

7,4609

GBP

Pound sterling

0,82575

SEK

Swedish krona

8,9260

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2368

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,4075

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,433

HUF

Hungarian forint

299,41

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1755

RON

Romanian leu

4,5340

TRY

Turkish lira

2,9745

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5343

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4780

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,5554

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6495

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,7304

KRW

South Korean won

1 447,42

ZAR

South African rand

14,7150

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,2404

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6294

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 593,03

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,4620

PHP

Philippine peso

60,805

RUB

Russian rouble

45,1425

THB

Thai baht

44,944

BRL

Brazilian real

3,2641

MXN

Mexican peso

17,8639

INR

Indian rupee

84,5410

---

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

1

Source

---
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3341

To amend title 38, United States Code, to increase the rate of special

pension payable to persons who have received the Congressional Medal

of Honor.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 21, 1993

Mr. SLATTERY (for himself, Mr. SPENCE, Mr. MCNULTY, Mr. BILIRAKIS, Mr.

MONTGOMERY, Mr. STUMP, Mr. APPLEGATE, Mr. EVERETT, Mr. EVANS,

Mr. STEARNS, Mr. SANGMEISTER, Mr. KING, Mr. EDWARDS of Texas,

and Mr. TEJEDA) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

A BILL

To amend title 38, United States Code, to increase the

rate of special pension payable to persons who have

received the Congressional Medal of Honor.

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

3 SECTION 1. INCREASE IN RATE OF SPECIAL PENSION FOR

4 PERSONS ON THE MEDAL OF HONOR ROLL.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1562(a) of title 38, Unit6 ed States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘$200’’ and insert7 ing ‘‘$400’’.
2

•HR 3341 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

2 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to months begin3 ning after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
<PAGE>


                                   EXHIBIT 21



                       QUIXOTE CORPORATION & SUBSIDIARIES
                           SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY
                               as of June 30, 2000
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                              Jurisdiction
                                                               Under Which
QUIXOTE CORPORATION (PARENT)                                    Organized
----------------------------                                  -------------


<S>                                                            <C>
Quixote Transportation Safety, Inc.                             Delaware
 TranSafe Corporation                                           Delaware
  Nu-Metrics, Inc.                                              Delaware
  Highway Information Systems, Inc.                             Delaware
   TIS, Inc.                                                    North Carolina
 Energy Absorption Systems, Inc.                                Delaware
  E-Tech Testing Services, Inc.                                 Delaware
  Safe-Hit Corporation                                          Nevada
  Spin-Cast Plastics, Inc.                                      Indiana
  Energy Absorption Systems (Europe), Inc.                      Delaware
  Quixote Transportation Systems (Asia Pacific)Pty Limited      Australia
  Quixote Transportation Systems (Europe), Inc.                 Delaware

Quixote Research Corporation                                    Delaware

Quixote Foreign Sales Corporation                               U.S. Virgin Islands
</TABLE>



Quixote Transportation Safety, Inc., Quixote Research Corporation and Quixote
Foreign Sales Corporation are wholly-owned by Quixote Corporation.

TranSafe Corporation and Energy Absorption Systems, Inc. are wholly-owned by
Quixote Transportation Safety, Inc.

All subsidiaries listed under TranSafe Corporation, Highway Information
Systems, Inc. and Energy Absorption Systems, Inc. are wholly-owned by those
corporations.
**Exhibit32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

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

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

The undersigned herebycertify that pursuant to the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 1350(a), the QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 (the “Form 10-Q”) ofHearst-Argyle Television, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that information contained in the Form10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company at and for the periods indicated.

 
| Dated: May 3, 2006 |   |
|--------------------|--------|
|               | By:    | /s/ DAVID J. BARRETT |   |
|               | Name:  | David J. Barrett |
|               | Title: | President and Chief  Executive Officer |
|               |   |   |
|               | By:    | /s/ HARRY T. HAWKS |   |
|               | Name:  | Harry T. Hawks |
|               | Title: | Executive Vice  President and Chief Financial Officer |
|                    |        |  |  |  |

 

----
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Albertico Cruz, * From the 441st District Court

of Midland County,

Trial Court No. CR55110.

Vs. No. 11-21-00260-CR * January 26, 2023

The State of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no 

error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, 

the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
Juanita Perez, Virginia Garcia, 

Paul Zapata, and Sylvia 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 19, 2014

No. 04-13-00821-CV

GOLDEN REHABILITATION CENTER, L.L.C.,

Appellant

v.

Juanita PEREZ, Virginia Garcia, Paul Zapata, and Sylvia Sanchez, Individually and as Heirs of 

Elisa Zapata,

Appellees

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-CI-06946

Honorable John D. Gabriel, Jr., Judge Presiding

ORDER

On February 14, 2014, appellees filed a response to the motion to abate which was filed 

by appellant on February 6, 2014. Appellant is ORDERED to file a reply to appellees’ response 

no later than February 26, 2014.

_________________________________

Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 19th day of February, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3285

AN ACT

To redesignate the postal facility located at 1401

‘‘George W. Young Post Office’’.West Fort Street, Detroit, Michigan, as the
103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3285

AN ACT

To redesignate the postal facility located at 1401 West Fort

Street, Detroit, Michigan, as the ‘‘George W. Young

Post Office’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION.

4 The postal facility located at 1401 West Fort Street,

5 in Detroit, Michigan, shall be known and designated as

6 the ‘‘George W. Young Post Office’’.

7 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

8 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

9 paper, or other record of the United States to the postal
2

HR 3285 EH

1 facility referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a

2 reference to the ‘‘George W. Young Post Office’’.

Passed the House of Representatives November 8,

1993.

Attest:

Clerk.