alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Jerry Halvorsen’s Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed on February 16, 2016. is hereby rejected. Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-14-0000504 29-MAR-2016 12:04 PM

SCWC-14-0000504
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ʻ I

STATE OF HAWAI ʻ I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs. JERRY HALVORSEN, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-14-0000504; CASE NO. 3P8110000164)
ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ʻ i, March 29, 2016.
James S. Tabefor Petitioner/DefendantAppellant /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson
# L_2006089EN.01002201.xml

| 28.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 89/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 89/22

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 495/2006

of 27 March 2006

determining the extent to which applications lodged in March 2006 for import licences for certain egg sector products and poultrymeat pursuant to Regulations (EC) No 593/2004 and (EC) No 1251/96 can be accepted

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 593/2004 of 30 March 2004 opening and providing for the administration of the tariff quotas in the egg sector and for egg albumin (1), and in particular Article 5(5) thereof,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1251/96 of 28 June 1996 opening and providing for the administration of tariff quotas in the poultrymeat sector and albumin (2), and in particular Article 5(5) thereof,

Whereas:

The applications for import licences lodged for the period from 1 April to 30 June 2006 are, in the case of certain products, for quantities less than or equal to the quantities available and can therefore be met in full, but in the case of other products the said applications are for quantities greater than the quantities available and must therefore be reduced by a fixed percentage to ensure a fair distribution,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Applications for import licences for the period 1 April to 30 June 2006 submitted pursuant to Regulations (EC) No 593/2004 and (EC) No 1251/96 shall be met as referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 April 2006.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 27 March 2006.

For the Commission

J. L. DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 94, 31.3.2004, p. 10.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 161, 29.6.1996, p. 136. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1043/2001 (OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 24).

2

---

ANNEX

| Group No | Percentage of acceptance of import licences submitted for the period of 1 April to 30 June 2006 |
| --- | --- |
| E1 | — |
| E2 | 42,415563 |
| E3 | 100,00 |
| P1 | 100,00 |
| P2 | 100,00 |
| P3 | 1,389024 |
| P4 | — |

Group No

Percentage of acceptance of import licences submitted for the period of 1 April to 30 June 2006

E1

—

E2

42,415563

E3

100,00

P1

100,00

P2

100,00

P3

1,389024

P4

—

---
##### 



Exhibit 10.7
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
CREDIT AGREEMENT
 Amendment US BIO PLATTE VALLEY, LLC, Borrower AGSTAR FINANCIAL SERVICES, PCA Agent
 RECITALS
 Credit Agreement
   AGREEMENT
  Amendments to Credit Agreement
 Section 5.01(c)(xvii)




---



##### 



Conditions to Effectiveness of this Amendment .
 Representations and Warranties .
   Miscellaneous .
 Effect; Ratification
 Loan Documents
 Counterparts
 Severability
 GOVERNING LAW




---



##### 



WAIVER OF JURY TRIAL




---



##### 



SIGNATURE PAGE TO
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CREDIT AGREEMENT
 BY AND BETWEEN
 US BIO PLATTE VALLEY, LLC,
 And
 AGSTAR FINANCIAL SERVICES, PCA, AS ADMINISTRATIVE AGENT
   BORROWER:
 US BIO PLATTE VALLEY, LLC
 /s/ Kelly S. Langley
 By:
Kelly S. LangleyIts: Treasurer




---



##### 



SIGNATURE PAGE TO
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CREDIT AGREEMENT
 BY AND BETWEEN
 US BIO PLATTE VALLEY, LLC,
 And
 AGSTAR FINANCIAL SERVICES, PCA, AS ADMINISTRATIVE AGENT
   AGENT:
 AGSTAR FINANCIAL SERVICES, PCA,
 /s/ Mark Schmidt
 By:
Mark SchmidtIts: Vice President




---



##### 



EXHIBIT A
 CONSENT AND REAFFIRMATION OF GUARANTY
    US BIOENERGY CORPORATIONBy:
    /s/ Kelly S. LangleyName:
    Kelly S. LangleyIts:  Treasurer
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 22

- 00018

- CR

No. 02

- 22

- 00019

- CR

On A ppeal from the 235th District Court

Cooke County, Texas

Trial Court No. CR21

- 00132, CR21

- 00133

ORDER

AMENDED ABATEMENT ORDER

We have considered “Motion To Abate Appeal In Order To Obtain

Findings Of Fact And Conclusions Of Law.”

The motion is GRANTED

.

Accordingly, we abate this appeal and direct the trial court to prepare written

findings of fact and conclusions of law.

The trial court shall file a record in this court on or before Friday

,



### T HE 

### S TATE OF 

### T EXAS



### , Appellant

V



### .

J OSEPH 

### T URNER2

September 30

, 2022

. The record shall include a supplemental clerk’s record

containing the trial court’s findings of fact and con clusions of law and a

supplemental reporter's record of any hearings on this matter. Upon our receipt of

the supplemental record, the appeal of this cause shall be reinstated automatically

without further order.

We direct the clerk of this court to send a notice of this order to the

attorneys of record, the trial court judge, the trial court clerk, and the court

reporter.

Dated August 1

, 2022.

Per Curiam
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

Novem ber 2, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00402

- CV

Jose Mario BALLESTEROS

,

Appellant

v.

Sonia Rocio BARRIENTOS

,

Appellee

From the 49th Judicial District Court

, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021FLA001101D1 Honorable Jose A. Lopez , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The trial court clerk has filed a notification of late record stating that the appellant f ailed to pay or make arrangements to pay the fee for preparing the clerk ’ s record and that appellant is not entitled to preparation of the clerk’s record without paying the fee

.

It is therefore ORDERED that appellant provide written proof to this court on or before

November 1 7 , 2022 that either: (1) the clerk’s fee has been paid or ar rangements have been made to pay the clerk’s fee; or (2) appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the clerk’s fee. If appellant fails to respond within the time provided, this appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 37.3 (b); see also T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(c) (allowing dismissal of appeal if appellant fails to comply with an order of this court).

_________________________________ Irene Rios , Justice

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

court on this 2nd day of November, 2022

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
# L_2006205EN.01002401.xml

| 27.7.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 205/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 205/24

---

COMMISSION DECISION

of 22 February 2006

relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 82 of the EC Treaty and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement

(Case COMP/B-2/38.381 — De Beers)

(notified under document number C(2006) 521)

(Only the English text is authentic)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2006/520/EC)

On 22 February 2006 the Commission adopted a decision pursuant to Article 9(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1). A non-confidential version of the integral text of the decision in the authentic language as well as the working languages of the Commission is available on the Competition Directorate General website at the following address: http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/antitrust/cases/index/by_nr_76.html#i38_381

1

(1)

This decision is addressed to De Beers société anonyme (‘De Beers SA’). The subject matter of the procedure was the purchase relationship between the De Beers Group of companies (‘De Beers’) and the second largest diamond producer ALROSA Company Ltd (‘ALROSA’) on the worldwide market of rough diamonds, for a substantial part distributed and/or processed in the European Economic Area (EEA). In its preliminary assessment, the Commission expressed concerns under Article 82 of the EC Treaty and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement about De Beers’ purchase relationship with its most important competitor ALROSA in light of its decades-long duration. The Commission’s competition concerns related to a Trade Agreement between De Beers and ALROSA concerning purchases of substantial amounts of rough diamonds and, pending Commission approval of the Trade Agreement, purchases from ALROSA under the ‘willing-seller-willing-buyer’ arrangement.

(2)

The Commission considers that the commitments offered by De Beers are sufficient to address the identified competition concerns. In particular, following a transitional period from 2006 to 2008 during which De Beers’ purchases will be reduced and which is necessary to build a competitive distribution system for the quantities of diamonds previously sold by De Beers, De Beers undertakes to refrain from all purchases of rough diamonds from ALROSA as of 2009. By freeing up the portion of diamonds from ALROSA previously resold by De Beers and, upon lapse of the transitional period, by discontinuing the entirety of De Beers’ purchase relationship with ALROSA, the commitments address the concern of reducing access to a viable source of alternative supply of rough diamonds and hindering the second biggest competitor from fully competing with De Beers.

(3)

The decision finds, in view of the commitments made binding on De Beers SA, that there are no longer grounds for action by the Commission.

(4)

The Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions issued a favourable opinion on 10 February 2006.

---

(1)  
  OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 411/2004 (OJ L 68, 6.3.2004, p. 1).

1

---
Exhibit
32.2


Certification
of Principal Financial Officer
 Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,
 As
Adopted Pursuant to
 Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 
 In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Reef Global Energy VI, L.P. (the
“Partnership”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, L.
Mark Price, principal financial officer of Reef Global Energy VI, L.P., certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Partnership.
   Date:  August
      13, 2009
                By
                /s/
      L. Mark PriceL.
      Mark Price
                  Chief
      Financial Officer
                  Reef
      Exploration, L.P.
                  (principal
      financial and accounting officer)
 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 Partnership for purposes of § 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by § 906 has been provided to the
Partnership and will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Jordan, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Silver-man, J.), rendered September 15, 1989, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, robbery in the third degree and sexual abuse in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We find that the testimony of the complainant’s father *488concerning statements that his daughter made to him was admissible under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule. The statements were made within a short time after the incident in which the 14-year-old complainant was accosted as she entered her apartment, robbed, and sexually assaulted. Her age, the traumatic nature of the incident, the absence of any reason for fabrication and evidence that she was nervous and crying at the time the statements were made, established that the remarks were not the product of studied reflection *(see, People v Brown,*70 NY2d 513; *People v Edwards,*47 NY2d 493). In addition, there was an added assurance of reliability since the complainant was subject to cross-examination *(cf., People v Caviness,*38 NY2d 227). In any event, even if the testimony was erroneously admitted, the error was harmless. Any bolstering effect from the father’s testimony was insignificant since the statements did not involve the crucial issue of identification *(see, People v Alberto,*144 AD2d 368). Harwood, J. P., Balletta, Rosenblatt and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2

AIRTRAN HOLDINGS, 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 annual report of AirTran Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2003, as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Stanley J. Gadek, Senior Vice President, Finance, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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, as amended; and                   
|-------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|               |                                                                                                                                                     
|(2)            | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|               |                                                                                                                                                     
|March 12, 2004 | By:                                                                                                                                                 
|               |                                                                                                                                                     
|               |                                                                                                                                                     
|               |
#### Robert PETT, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. EQUITABLE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent.

No. 19459

Supreme Court of Utah.

Jan. 31, 1986.

Jon J. Bunderson, Brigham City, for plaintiff and appellant.

Anthony B. Quinn, Salt Lake City, for defendant and respondent.

DURHAM, Justice:

This is an appeal from a summary judgment in favor of Equitable General Insurance Company (“Equitable”). Appellant Pett brought the action below to recover $10,800, which Equitable had received from the third party tort-feasor’s insurer as reimbursement for personal injury protection benefits previously paid to appellant. We affirm.

Appellant was injured in an automobile collision with another vehicle, owned by American-Strevell, Inc. Appellant’s insurer, Equitable, paid appellant $11,800 in personal injury protection (PIP) benefits under *653a no-fault policy. Appellant then filed a complaint against the tort-feasor, American-Strevell, seeking special and general damages. Equitable put American-Stre-vell’s insurer, Royal Globe Insurance Company (“Royal Globe”) on notice of Equitable’s claim for reimbursement of PIP benefits.

On the day set for trial, American-Stre-vell and Royal Globe offered to settle the case for $175,000. Attorneys for appellant and American-Strevell and Royal Globe prepared a release agreement with the following provision:

> The undersigned hereby acknowledges receipt of the sum of $175,000.00 less $_paid directly to Equitable Insurance Company in satisfaction of its no-fault payments claim.

The uncontroverted affidavit of counsel for American-Strevell, which was before the trial court on summary judgment, states that the blank space in the release agreement was provided at the request of appellant’s attorney who wished to negotiate the figure payable to Equitable. The amount was later established at $10,800 (a reduction of $1,000 from the amount actually paid by Equitable), and that figure was inserted in the release which was then signed by appellant. Royal Globe issued two checks and appellant received $164,200.

Appellant advances two theories for recovery of the amount paid to Equitable: (1) the release was in effect an assignment of his settlement proceeds, and therefore void because such proceeds are exempt from execution and therefore not assignable, and (2) under *Allstate v. Ivie,*Utah, 606 P.2d 1197, 1202-03 (1980), Equitable could not take any part of the amount recovered by its insured, but could only obtain reimbursement from the liability insurer through arbitration. Both theories are patently erroneous. The plain meaning of the language of the settlement agreement, which we construe as a matter of law, is that the amount of appellant’s recovery was $164,200, not $175,000. The agreement clearly shows that he never acquired any interest in the amount specified for reimbursement to Equitable. Therefore, the trial court correctly concluded that appellant had failed to state a cause of action and properly granted summary judgment.

Affirmed. Costs to respondent.

HALL, C.J., and STEWART, HOWE and ZIMMERMAN, JJ., concur.
Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 News
    
        Photos

    Week in Photos

    Air Force TV

    Commentaries

    Features

    Art

    About Us
    
        Air Force Senior Leaders
    
        SECAF

    CSAF

    CMSAF

    Biographies

    Fact Sheets

    SECAF Reading List

    CSAF Leadership Library
    
        CSAF Leadership Library 2022

    CSAF Leadership Library 2021

    CSAF Reading List Pre-2020 Archive
    
        2018 CSAF Reading List

    2017 CSAF Reading List

    2016 CSAF Reading List

    CSAF Leadership Library 2023

    CMSAF Leadership Library

    50 Years of the CMSAF

    Adjunct Professors

    Air Force Strategic Documents

    Arctic Strategy

    Empowered Airmen

    State Licensure Portability

    Careers

    AF Federal Advisory Committees

    AF 75th Anniversary

    Policy Updates

    AF Content Management

    Contact Us

    AF Sites
    
        Site RegistrationU.S. Air Force LogoAir Force

        Policy UpdatesNewsroomReoptimizationBIOGRAPHIESAF Senior Leaders

    HomeNewsPhotos   
   Unable to retrieve object  Quick Links
AccessibilityContact UsEqual OpportunityFOIA | Privacy | Section 508Information QualityInspector GeneralJAG Court-Martial DocketLink DisclaimerNo FEAR ActOpen GovernmentOSI Tip LinePlain LanguageQuestionsResilienceRSSSite MapVeterans Crisis LineCareers
Join the Air ForceAir Force BenefitsAir Force CareersAir Force ReserveAir National GuardCivilian ServiceConnect
            Get Social with Us
            
            Official United States Air Force Website
    Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements Nos.
333-1554, 333-1552, 333-18127 and 333-44253 of Midwest Express Holdings, Inc. on
Forms S-8 of our reports dated January 26, 2001(which report expresses and
unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the change
in the methods of accounting for major airframe maintenance as well as frequent
flyer revenue in 2000) appearing in and incorporated by reference in the Annual
Report on Form 10-K of Midwest Express Holdings, Inc. for the year ended
December 31, 1999.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Deloitte & Touche LLP
 Milwaukee, Wisconsin

March 23, 2001
EXHIBIT 32.2


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Wayne F.  Irmiter,  Vice  President  and  Controller  of Salton  Sea  Funding
Corporation   (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:

     (1)  the Annual  Report on Form 10-K of the Company  for the annual  period
          ended  December  31,  2003  (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 result of operations of
          the Company.


Dated:   February 27, 2004



                              /s/ Wayne F. Irmiter
                              --------------------
                                Wayne F. Irmiter
                          Vice President and Controller
                           (chief accounting officer)