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

# Knight 800 17th Street N.W. , S u i te 11 00 , Wash i ngton DC 20006 1 Wa s hington, DC 20006 IT 202 .955 . 3000 I F 2 02 . 955 . 55 64 Hollan d & Kn ig ht L L P I www . h kl aw . com An ita M . Mosne r (202) 419-2604 an ita . mosner@gma i l . com April 1 , 2015 BY ELECTRONIC MAIL Mr. Brett Kruger Acting Chief, U.S. Carrier Licensing Division Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue , SE Washington , D . C . 20590 Re : App li cat i on of Un ited Parcel Servi ce Co . for an amended Cert ificate of Publ i c Conven i ence and Necess ity , an Exemption , and a des i gnation under the U . S . - Mexico Air Service Agreement (Docket OST-2011-0076 & OST-1999-6663) Dear Mr. Kruger: By Application dated March 24 , 2015, United Parcel Service ("UPS " ) applied for an amended Certificate of Public Convenience and Necess ity , an Exemption , and a designation under the U . S . -Mexico Air Service Agreement. UPS has polled a ll interested parties , and no party has objected to the Appl i cat i on . For this reason , UPS respectfully requests that the Department prompt l y grant the requested authority . Respectfully Submitted ,

Anita M . Mosner Jennifer M . Nowak Attorneys for United Parcel Service

Atl a n ta I Be t hes d a I B os to n I C h ica g o I Fo rt La u d erdale I J ackso n ville I Lakel and I Lo s A n geles I M iami I New Y ork Northern Virginia I Or la nd o I Po rt la n d I San Fran cis co I Tallahasse e I Tampa I Wash i n gton , DC I W es t Pa lm BeachCERTIFI CATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this date served the foregoing document on the persons identified below by causing a copy to be sent by electronic mail. howard . kass@aa . com robe rt . wirick@aa.com dan . weiss@united.com steve . morrissey@united . com nssparks@fedex . com gb l eopard@fedex . com jri chardson@johnlrichardson . com (Counsel for Amerijet) jcanny@amerijet.com jhill@cooley . com (Counsel for Hawaiian and JetBlue) perkmann@cooley.com (Counsel for Hawaiian and JetBlue) john .freder icksen@suncountry . com tho mas .t i ng@suncountry . com bob .kneisley@wnco . com leslie . abbott@wnco . com matwood@cozen . com (Counse l for F rontier) slachter@cozen.com (Counsel fo r Frontier) jyoung@yklaw . com (Counsel for Spi rit) dki rstein@yk l aw . com (Counsel for Spirit) dheffernan@cozen.com (Counsel fo r Alaska) Jeremy .ross@alaskaair . com rsilverberg@sgbdc.com (Counsel for ABX) Barbara . russell@virginamerica.com John .var ley@vi rginamerica . com rpommer@atlasair . com brett .kruger@dot.com john .s . duncan@faa.gov cristinasa@state . gov 

# ¥( ?-

# --**i:> ~erod**  - --- April 1 , 2015



### 2 #

35105 1 28

_

vl
Notice: This opin ion is subject to form al revision before publication in the Atl antic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal

errors so that correc tions m ay be made before the boun d volum es go to press.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF AP P EALS

No. 1 3- BG- 10 56

IN RE: FR ANK B. CEGELSKI

Res po nd en t.
Ba r Reg is tra tio n No. 4 14 76 6 BDN: 3 27 -1 3

BEFORE: Bl ack bu rn e-Ri gs by, A ss oc ia te Ju dg e, an d Newm an an d Neb ek er, Sen io r Ju dg es

.

ORDER

(FILED - December 2 6, 2 01 3)

On co ns id era t i o n o f t h e cert ifi ed or de r of th e Su pr em e Co ur t of th e St at e of

New Yor k acce pt in g th e vo lu nt ary res ig na ti on whi le di sc ip li na ry ch arg es were
pe nd in g, th is co ur t’s Octo be r 10

, 20 13

, or de r su sp en di ng res po nd en t pe nd in g fu rth er
act io n of th e co ur t an d di rect in g hi m to sh ow cau se w h y t h e f u nc ti on al ly id en ti cal
reci pr oc al di sc ip li ne in th e fo rm of a fiv e-year su sp en si on wit h a fit ne ss req ui rem en t sh ou ld no t be im

po se d, th e st at em en t of Bar Co un se l reg ard in g reci pr oc al di sc ip li ne ,
an d it ap pe ari ng th at res po nd en t ha s fai le d to fil e ei th er a r e s p o n s e to th is co ur t’s

or de r or hi s D.C. Ba r R. XI, §1 4 (g ) affi da vi t, i t i s

ORDERED th at Fran k B. Ceg el sk i is he reb y su sp en de d fro m th e pr act ic e of
la w in th e Dis tri ct of Co lu m bi a fo r a p e r i o d of fiv e y ears , wit h rei ns ta te m en t

co nt in ge nt on a sh owi ng of fit ne ss , in cl ud in g pa y m en t of th e res ti tu ti on im po se d by
th e st at e of New Yor k. Se e In re Si bl ey , 99 0 A.2d 48 3 (D.C. 20 10 ), an d In re Ful le r , 93 0 A.2d 19 4, 19 8 (D.C. 20 07 ) (reb ut ta bl e pr es um pt i o n of id en ti cal reci pr oc al
di sc ip li ne ap pl ie s t o a ll cas es in whi ch th e res po nd en t d oe s n ot pa rti ci pa te ). It i s

FURTHER ORDERED th at fo r pu rp os es of rei ns ta te m en t res po nd en t’s pe rio d
of su sp en si on wil l no t b eg in to ru n un ti l su ch ti m e as he fil es an affi da vi t th at fu ll y

co m pl ie s wi th th e req ui rem en ts of D.C. Ba r R. XI, § 1 4 (g ).

PER CURIAM
#### STATE ex rel. Leonard E. DAVIS v. Frank BLACKBURN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, State of Louisiana.

No. 87-KH-0350.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 13, 1987.

In re Davis, Leonard E.; applying for writ of habeas corpus; Parish of Vernon, 30th Judicial District Court, Div. “B”, No. 35633.

Denied.
Exhibit 32.2



RADIANT SYSTEMS, 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 this amended annual
report of Radiant Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the year ending December 31, 2004, as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mark E. Haidet, 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.



|            |  |     |  |                                       
|----------- |  | --- |  | --------------------------------------
|May 2, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ Mark E. Haidet                    
|            |  |     |  | Mark E. Haidet Chief Financial
Officer
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Karl R. DUPRE.

No. 89-K-0214.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 21, 1989.

In re Dupre, Karl R.; — Defendants); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CR88-0177; Parish of St. Landry, 27th Judicial District Court, Div. “A”, No. 86-0953-A.

Prior report: La.App., 537 So.2d 1200.

Denied.
#### Gertrude F. WATERBURY, et al. v. Robert L. WATERBURY.

No. 86-C-2410.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 9, 1987.

In re Waterbury, Robert L.; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 85-1187; Parish of St. Landry, 27th Judicial District Court, Div. “A”, No. 77038-2.

Prior report: : La.App., 496 So.2d 1374.

Denied.
#### Stollwerck Brothers, Inc., Appellant, *v.*Hazlitt A. Cuppy, Respondent.

*Stollwerck*Brothers, Inc., v. Cuppy, 163 App. Div. 852, affirmed.

(Argued March 14, 1916;

decided April 11, 1916.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered April 13, 1914, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a verdict in an action to recover money loaned. The answer admitted the receipt of the money, but alleged that the defendant agreed to repay it, not absolutely, but conditionally, out of profits received by him under certain contracts, if he should receive such profits,- and alleged further that no such profits ever had been received.

*Edward H. Wilson*for appellant.

*Frederick M. Thompson*and *Frank B. Savidge*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Willard Bartlett, Ch. J., Hiscock, Chase, Collin, Hogan, Cardozo and Seabury, JJ-
EXHIBIT 32.1
SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                               SECTION 906 OF THE
                     SECTION 1.01 SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Annual Report of Brooklyn  Cheesecake & Desserts Company,
Inc. (the  "Company") on form 10-KSB for the period ended  December 31, 2005, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof, I
Ronald Schutte  President and Chief  Executive  Officer of 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 to the best of my knowledge, that

      (i)   the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and
            Section  15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
            and

      (ii)  the  information  contained  in the Report  fairly  present,  in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company at the dates and for the periods indicated.


Date: March 28, 2005

                                           /s/ Ronald Schutte
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Ronald Schutte
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer


A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, 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 to Brooklyn  Cheesecake & Desserts
Company,  Inc.  and will be  retained by and  furnished  to the  Securities  and
Exchange Commissions or its staff upon request.


                                                                              48
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                      20,384,910
<SECURITIES>                                 8,108,718
<RECEIVABLES>                               12,129,770
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,947,829
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            42,350,550
<PP&E>                                       6,407,175
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,646,677
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              48,369,169
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       14,053,936
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       116,893
<OTHER-SE>                                  34,198,340
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                48,369,169
<SALES>                                     33,017,356
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            42,539,897
<CGS>                                        2,306,040
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,107,298
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            41,228,850
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               873,471
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,796,251)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (818,416)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,062,147)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,062,147)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.27)


</TABLE>
```

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                  CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 SWMX,  Inc., (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB  for the  quarterly  period  ended  March  31,  2007 as  filed  with  the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, James
Caci,  Chief Financial  Officer of 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, to my knowledge:

     (1)     The Report fully complies with the  requirements  of Section 13 (a)
             of 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.

May 14, 2007

                                              /s/ James Caci
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              James Caci
                                              Chief Financial Officer
```
**Exhibit 10.5**

**AMENDMENT NO. 9 TOSERVICE AGREEMENT**

**THIS AMENDMENT NO. 9 TO SERVICE AGREEMENT** (“Amendment”) is made as of January 1, 2007 byand between THE HEARST CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation (“Hearst”), andHEARST-ARGYLE TELEVISION, INC., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”).

**W I T N E S S E T H**

WHEREAS, Hearst and the Company entered into a ServiceAgreement dated as of August 29, 1997 and amended by Amendments Nos.1through 8 (the “Service Agreement”), pursuant to which Hearst provides certainservices to the Company; and

WHEREAS, Hearst and the Company mutually desire toamend the Service Agreement as set forth hereinafter;

NOW, THEREFORE, inconsideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, andother good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which arehereby acknowledged, the parties agree to amend the Service Agreement asfollows:

1.     Section 3.1of the Service Agreement is hereby amended by substituting the date of December 31,2007 in place and instead of the December 31, 2006 date.

2.     Effective January 1,2007, Schedule 2.1A attached hereto and made a part hereof shall be substitutedin place and instead of Schedule 2.1 of the Service Agreement.

3.     Effective January 1,2007, the Service Level Agreement attached as Addendum 1 hereto hereto shall bemade a part of the Service Agreement.

4.     HearstService Center transaction charges for new acquisitions shall be priced usingthe current transaction rates and estimated volume.

5.     Controller’soffice, Treasurer’s office and Legal Department charges are annual estimates toservice the entire group, these charges are allocations of specific departments’current year budgets to support the entire company.

6.     Except asexpressly set forth herein, all terms and conditions of the Service Agreementshall continue in full force and effect.

INWITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date firstabove written.
| THE HEARST CORPORATION | HEARST-ARGYLE TELEVISION,  INC. |
|------------------------|---------------------------------|
| By:                    | /s/ RONALD J. DOERFLER          |   | By: | /s/ JONATHAN C. MINTZER |   |
| Name:                  | Ronald J.  Doerfler             | Name: | Jonathan C. Mintzer |
| Title:                 | *Sr. VP  and CFO*               | Title: | *Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary* |
| Dated:                 | Dated:                          |
|                        |                                 |  |  |  |  |  |  |

 

----
---

---

Exhibit 32.2

# SECTION 906
CERTIFICATION

The undersigned hereby certifies that
the Quarterly Report on From 10-Q of Israel Growth Partners Acquisition Corp. (the
Registrant) for the fiscal quarter ended April 30, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of the Registrant.

|                     |                        
|-------------------- | -----------------------
|
|
|
|
|Dated: June 15, 2008 | /s/ Dror Gad           
|                     | Dror Gad               
|                     | Chief Financial Officer



---

---
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




I, Eric
E. Marin, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q of Li3 Energy, Inc. (f/k/a NanoDynamics Holdings, Inc.) for the fiscal
quarter ended December 31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of Li3 Energy, Inc.





Date:  February
      16, 2010
              By:
              /s/ Eric E. MarinName:
              Eric
      E. MarinTitle:
              Interim
      Chief Financial Officer





A signed
original of this written statement, or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement, has been provided to
Li3 Energy, Inc., and will be retained by Li3 Energy, Inc., and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### The STATE of Oklahoma ex rel. Robert H. MACY, Appellant, v. ITEMS AND MONEY SEIZED FROM FLAMINGO BINGO, etc., Appellees.

No. 65349.

Court of Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 3.

June 16, 1987.

*1385Robert Macy, Ellen C. Callaway, Oklahoma City, for appellant.

Lawrence K. Donahoe, Midwest City, for appellees.

HANSEN, Presiding Judge:

Does conducting a bingo game without a valid license constitute gambling, thus authorizing the State of Oklahoma to seize the bingo equipment under 21 O.S. 1981 §§ 943 and 973. We hold that it does not.

Bingo games are regulated under the police power of the State of Oklahoma pursuant to 21 O.S.1985 Supp. §§ 995.1-995.15. These statutes provide for licensing of bingo games and specific penalties for failure to obtain such a license. These penalties do not include forfeiture of the equipment.

Bingo cards are not “punch boards” as claimed by the State and defined as gambling devices by 21 O.S.1981 § 966 and thus subject to forfeiture under 21 O.S. 1981 § 973. They are bingo cards as defined by § 995.2.

As stated in *Independent School District No. 1 of Tulsa County v. Board of County Commissioners of Tulsa County,*674 P.2d 547 (Okla.1983), it is a long standing rule of statutory construction where there are two provisions, one of which is special and clearly includes the matter in controversy, and prescribes different rules and procedures than those in a general statute, the special statute applies. It follows then that the specific penalties provided in § 995.15 govern rather than the general provisions of § 943.

Flamingo Bingo had been operating under an expired bingo license. The Oklahoma City Police Department, by virtue of a search warrant, seized Flamingo Bingo’s equipment. In addition to the bingo cards, it confiscated a big-screen television, a television monitor, speakers, chalk board, video camera, microphone and stand, and money and checks and record of Flamingo Bingo. No gambling or felony charges were filed although several workers were arrested and charged with a misdemeanor violation of operating bingo without a license.

The State filed a Notice of Seizure and Application for Forfeiture. They alleged bingo cards are punch boards and unlicensed bingo games constitute gambling. That Application requested the court order the items seized to be forfeited.

*1386Appellee filed a Motion to Dismiss. Both parties stipulated the game being played was indeed bingo. The court entered a finding that bingo cards are not punch boards as defined by § 966 and granted Appellees’ Motion to Dismiss. The State appeals.

Thus, by virtue of the views expressed herein, the trial court is AFFIRMED.

HUNTER and BAILEY, JJ., concur.
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




I, Luis
F. Saenz, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q of Li3 Energy, Inc. (f/k/a/ NanoDynamics Holdings, Inc.) for the fiscal
quarter ended December 31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of Li3 Energy, Inc.





Date:  February
      16, 2010
              By:
              /s/ Luis F. SaenzName:
              Luis
      F. SaenzTitle:
              Chief
      Executive Officer





A signed
original of this written statement, or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement, has been provided to
Li3 Energy, Inc., and will be retained by Li3 Energy, Inc., and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### HOLIDAY INN and Crawford & Company, Appellants, v. Heriberto LEON, Appellee.

No. BP-411.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 19, 1987.

Henry Fierro, and Jay M. Levy, Hershoff and Levy, Miami, for appellants.

Heriberto Leon, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

On consideration of appellant’s motion for new trial, the appealed order is vacated and this cause is remanded for a hearing de novo. *See Arnold Lumber Company v. Harris,*469 So.2d 786 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).

BOOTH, C.J., and MILLS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
#### The STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Luis A. DOMENECH, and Lorenzo Bergamo, Respondents.

No. 88-1466.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 8, 1988.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Janet Reno, State Atty. and Penny H. Brill, Asst. State Atty., for petitioner.

Gregory C. Denaro, Miami, Richard Do-cobo, Coral Gables, for respondents.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., DANIEL S. PEARSON and FERGUSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The subpoenas issued below at the behest of the defendants were directed to witnesses whose supposed testimony was affirmatively shown to bear no legal pertinence whatever to the issues in the case and thus could not be of any potential assistance in the legitimate defense of the pending charges. See *Mazepa v. State,*439 So.2d 1029 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); *State v. Mesa,*395 So.2d 242 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); *Doe v. State,*262 So.2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). The trial judge therefore erroneously refused to quash the subpoenas, see *Kudos v. Vinskus,*483 So.2d 727, 731 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), and the order to that effect is for that reason itself quashed.

CERTIORARI GRANTED.