alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Harris J. GUIDROZ, Jr. v. Marion EDWARDS d/b/a Law Offices of Marion F. Edwards.

No. 88-CC-0024.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 5, 1988.

In re Guidroz, Harris J. Jr.; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review, supervisory writ; Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court, Div. “E”, No. 336-062; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 87-CW-0873.

Denied.
1 ENVIRONMENTAL PRO TECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 Docket Number EPA-R08-OAR-2009-0282 Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions; State of North Dakota; Air Pollution Control Rules, and In terstate Transport of Pollution for the 1997

PM 2.5 and 8-hour Ozone NAAQS: “Significant Contribution to Nonattainment” and “Interference with Prevention of Sign ificant Deterioration” Requirements DATE : March 16, 2010 Update January 14, 2010 SUBJECT: EPA's Guidance and Supporting Docume ntation - Proposed Rulemaking Federal Register : "Approval and Promulgation of Stat e Implementation Plan Revisions; State of North Dakota; Air Pollution Cont rol Rules, and Inters tate Transport of Pollution for the 1997 PM 2.5 and 8-hour Ozone NAAQS: “Significant Contribution to Nonattainment ” and “Interference with Prevention of Significant Deterioration” Requirements FROM: Domenico Mastrangelo, Environmental Engineer Office of Partnership and Regulatory Assistance Air and Radiation Program (8P-AR) TO: Docket Number EPA-R08-OAR-2009-0282

CONTENTS: GUIDANCE MEMORANDUM 1. EPA – August 15, 2006: "Guidance for Stat e Implementation Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current Outstanding Obligations Under Section 110(a)(2)(D)( i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and
PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards;" signed by William Ha rnett, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION 1. EPA – Maps for Counties Designated Nonattainment for PM-2.5 and for 8-hour Ozone Standards. 2. Table 1. 8-Hour Ozone Monitoring Data and Design Values for North Dakota, Minnesota2 and South Dakota; 1998-2008. 3. Table 2: 24-Hour and Annual PM 2.5 Monitoring Data and Desi gn Values for North Dakota and Neighboring States (Iowa, Minn esota, and South Dakota.) 1999-2008. 4. County Maps for North Dakota, Minnesota, and South Dakota. 5. “Climate of North Dakota-Wind,” USGS web page at http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/habitat/c limate/wind.htm, visited February 10, 2010.
6. "Section 6.8.1, EPA 9-Factor analyses for Montana for the Designation of PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas," pages 6-347 through 6-3 52 of the December 4, 2004 document entitled "Technical Support for State and Tribal Air Qua lity Fine Particle (PM2.5) Designation." Includes the document's title and table of conten t pages. As of April 16, 2007 this document could be reviewed at http://www.epa.gov/pmdesignations/tech.htm

. 7. Montana State Implementation Plan: “Libby Annual PM 2.5 Control Plan.” April 1, 2008. Material referenced by footnote no. 6 is on pages 27.12.7.1(1) and 27.12.8(3). 8. State of Wisconsin’s September 2009 attainment demonstration for the Wisconsin nonattainment counties along the western shore of Lake Michigan.
9. “Climatology of Ozone Synoptic Scale Transport in the East ern US;” Ozone Transport Assessment Group (OTAG), January 11, 1998.
Exhibit
3.2





FIRST
CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT


OF


AMENDED
AND RESTATED


CERTIFICATE
OF INCORPORATION


OF


SOUTHPEAK
INTERACTIVE CORPORATION





SouthPeak
Interactive Corporation, a corporation duly organized and existing under the
General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the “Corporation”), does
hereby certify that:





1.           The
amended and restated certificate of incorporation of the Corporation is hereby
amended by deleting the first sentence of ARTICLE IV in its entirety and
inserting the following in lieu thereof:





The total
number of shares of all classes of capital stock which the Corporation shall
have authority to issue is Two Hundred Ten Million (210,000,000) shares, of
which:  One Hundred Ninety Million (190,000,000) shares, par value
$0.0001 per share, shall be shares of common stock (the “Common Stock”); and
Twenty Million (20,000,000) shares, par value $0.0001 per share, shall be shares
of preferred stock (the “Preferred Stock”).





2. The
foregoing amendment was duly adopted in accordance with the provisions of
Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware and by the
written consent of stockholders of the Corporation in accordance with Section
228 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.





[Signature
page follows]





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has
caused this First Certificate of Amendment to the Amended and Restated
Certificate of Incorporation to be signed by Melanie Mroz, its President and
Chief Executive Officer, this 1st day of November, 2010.





SOUTHPEAK
      INTERACTIVE CORPORATIONBy:
              /s/ Melanie MrozName:  Melanie
      MrozTitle:  President
      and Chief Executive Officer
#### MIDSTATES RESOURCES CORPORATION *v.*REX K. COLLUM ET AL.

*John R. Williams,*in support of the petition.

*Thomas J. Sansone,*in opposition.

Decided April 8, 1998

The defendants’ petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 47 Conn. App. 936 (AC 17448), is denied.

MCDONALD, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.
**Exhibit 12.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Mark Oleksiw, Chief Financial Officer, certify that:

 

1.            I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of DRAXIS Health Inc.

 

2.            Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.

 

3.            Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.

 

4.            The company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company and have:

 

a.            designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b.            evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c.            disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.            The company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company’s auditors and the audit committee of company’s board of directors (or persons performing equivalent functions):

 

a.            all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b.            any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the company’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date:  |   March 31, 2006 |                           | By: | /s/ Mark Oleksiw |   |
|--------|-----------------------|--------------------------------|-----|------------------|--------|
|   |                  |   Mark Oleksiw            |
|   |                  |   Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16314-16315]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6683]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>13033 and <greek-i>13034]


Kansas Disaster <greek-i> KS-00062

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a 
disaster for the State of Kansas dated 03/12/2012.
    Incident: Severe Storms and a Tornado.
    Incident Period: 02/28/2012 through 02/29/2012.
    Effective Date: 03/12/2012.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 05/11/2012.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 12/12/2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster 
loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally 
announced locations.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:

Primary Counties: Wabaunsee.
Contiguous Counties:
    Kansas: Geary, Lyon, Morris, Osage, Pottawatomie, Riley, Shawnee.

    The Interest Rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Physical Damage:
  Homeowners With Credit Available Elsewhere.................      3.750
  Homeowners Without Credit Available Elsewhere..............      1.875
  Businesses With Credit Available Elsewhere.................      6.000
  Businesses Without Credit Available Elsewhere..............      4.000
  Non-Profit Organizations With Credit Available Elsewhere...      3.125
  Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere      3.000
For Economic Injury:
  Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives Without Credit
   Available Elsewhere 4.000.................................
  Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere      3.000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 13033 B 
and for economic injury is 13034 0.
    The State which received an EIDL Declaration <greek-i> is Kansas.


(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)


[[Page 16315]]


    Dated: March 12, 2012.
Karen G. Mills,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2012-6683 Filed 3-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2381 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2381

 To suspend temporarily the duty on certain desk accessory cases with 
                      small, built-in amplifiers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

 Mr. Voinovich introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To suspend temporarily the duty on certain desk accessory cases with 
                      small, built-in amplifiers.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN DESK ACCESSORY CASES WITH SMALL, BUILT-IN 
              AMPLIFIERS.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00      Cases for desk      Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        accessories                                                        31/2011.......
                        (provided for in
                        subheading
                        4202.92.90) with
                        dimensions not
                        exceeding
                        approximately 267
                        mm H x 153 mm W x
                        77 mm D, made of
                        ethylene-vinyl
                        acetate material
                        covered in
                        polyester fabric,
                        having a three-
                        sided zipper
                        closure, with a
                        small, battery-
                        operated
                        amplifier........

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### SMITH SCOW CORPORATION, as owner of the Scow THE ARTHUR McCABE, Libellant-Appellee, v. B. TURECAMO CONTRACTING COMPANY, Inc., Respondent-Appellee, and B. Turecamo Towing Corporation, Respondent-Appellant.

No. 165.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Jan. 2, 1940.

Burlingham, Veeder, Clark & Hupper, of New York City (Roscoe H. Hupper and Adrian J. O’Kane, both of New York City, of counsel), for respondent-appellant.

Bigham, Englar, Jones & Houston, of New York City (Andrew J. McElhinney, of New York City, of counsel), for respondent-appellee.

Foley & Martin, of New York City (James A. Martin and Christopher E. Heck-man, both of New York City, of counsel), for libellant-appellee.

Before SWAN, AUGUSTUS N. HAND, and'PATTERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Decree affirmed.
49981.

#### TAYLOR v. STAPP.

Bell, Chief Judge.

Plaintiff sued the defendant for personal injuries caused by an alleged assault. Defendant did not answer within the time required by law. The trial court thereafter ordered the plaintiff to submit to the taking of his *469discovery deposition on the issue of damages. Plaintiff failed to obey. Defendant’s motion for sanctions was sustained and the court dismissed the action. This appeal has been transferred by the Supreme Court to this court. *Held:*

Argued January 6, 1975

Decided April 7, 1975.

1. In a prior appeal the Supreme Court disposed of issues concerning the denial of purported interlocutory injunctions which plaintiff again raises in this appeal. See *Taylor v. Stapp,*231 Ga. 268 (201 SE2d 419).

2. CPA § 55 (a) (Code Ann. § 81A-155(a)) provides in pertinent part that where a defendant is in default in an action "ex delicto” the plaintiff shall be required to introduce evidence and establish the amount of damages before a jury with the right of defendant to introduce evidence as to damages. The plaintiff contends that the lower court erred in denying him a judgment by default for the amount of damages sought as his claim is not one ex delicto. The phrase "ex delicto” describes a tort. *L & N R. Co. v. Spinks,*104 Ga. 692 (30 SE 968).

3. It is also claimed that the court erred in requiring plaintiff to submit to the taking of his deposition since defendant was in default and had no right to discovery. Plaintiff claims damages for physical injuries that he asserts arose from the assault alleged in the complaint. Even though liability was resolved by the default of defendant, the question of damages remained for resolution by a jury. Defendant has the right to introduce evidence on his own behalf on the issue of damages. It follows that he has the right to engage in discovery to include the taking of plaintiffs deposition on the issue. CPA §§26 (b) (1) and 30 (a) and (c). Code Ann. §§ 81A-126 (b) (1) and 81A-130 (a) and (c). Since plaintiff rerused to comply with the court’s order to submit to the taking of his deposition, the sanction of dismissal of the action was authorized. CPA § 37 (b) (2) (C).

4. All other enumerations of error are without merit.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Webb and Marshall, JJ., concur.*

*470
      *E. B. Shaw,*for appellant.

*Henry Bowden, Ralph H. Witt,*for appellee.
Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            
            
            U.S. Air Force
                    U.S. Air Force
        Search
                    Search AF.mil:
                        Search
                Search AF.mil:
                    Search
    Home





    News
    
        Commentaries

    Features

    Photos

    Art

    Air Force TV

    Radio

    Week in Photos





    About Us
    
        Air Force Senior Leaders    
        SECAF

    CSAF

    CMSAF

    Biographies

    Adjunct Professors

    Fact Sheets

    Commander's Call Topics    
        CCT Archive

    CSAF Reading List    
        2018 CSAF Reading List

    2017 CSAF Reading List

    2016 CSAF Reading List

    2015 CSAF Reading List

    2014 CSAF Reading List

    2013 CSAF Reading List

    2012 CSAF Reading List

    2011 CSAF Reading List

    2010 CSAF Reading List

    2009 CSAF Reading List

    2008 CSAF Reading List

    2007 CSAF Reading List

    2006 CSAF Reading List

    50 Years of the CMSAF

    The Book

    Speeches Archive    
        Former AF Top 3 Viewpoints and Speeches

    Air Force Warrior Games 2019

    Air Force Strategic Documents

    Desert Storm 25th Anniversary

    DoD Warrior Games

    Portraits in Courage    
        Portraits In Courage Vol. I

    Portraits In Courage Vol. II

    Portraits In Courage Vol. III

    Portraits In Courage Vol. IV

    Portraits In Courage Vol. V

    Portraits In Courage Vol. VI

    Portraits In Courage Vol. VII

    Portraits In Courage Vol. VIII

    Portraits In Courage Vol. IX

    Portraits In Courage Vol. X

    Chapman MoH

    The Air Force We Need

    Events 2020





    AF Sites
    
        Social Media Sites

    Site Registration





    AF Content Management





    Careers  
 Home
  News
  Photos
 Air Force Photos Search
 Search
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Full Size (0.54 MB)
 
 Train USecAF ACTIVE DUTY undersecretary of the Air Force Matthew Donovan Department of the Air Force organize equp provide Welfare AF reserve Guard AIR FORCE SecAF Heather Wilson Secretary of the Air Force
 Photo Gallery
 Quick Links
                            Join the Air ForceSite MapQuestionsContact UsRSSFOIAIGAF SitesAccessibilityEEOLink DisclaimerStrategic APRSuicide PreventionSAPRUSA.govNo FEAR Act
                    Connect
                    Official United States Air Force Website
                        Subscribe to USAF News and Information
          Submit
Exhibit 32

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 Endeavor Acquisition Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of 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:

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: May 12, 2006 |  | /s/ Jonathan J. Ledecky
|                   |  | Name:                   |  | Jonathan J. Ledecky                         
|                   |  | Title:                  |  | President and Secretary                     
|                   |  |                         |  | (Principal Executive Officer)               
|                   | 
|Date: May 12, 2006 |  | /s/ Eric J. Watson     
|                   |  | Name:                   |  | Eric J. Watson                              
|                   |  | Title:                  |  | Chairman of the Board and Treasurer         
|                   |  |                         |  | (Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)
#### Donna S. WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. In the Interest of W.T., a Minor, Appellee.

Nos. 86-1125, 86-1617.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 25, 1987.

Guilene F. Theodore and Prince J. McIntosh of Bay Area Legal Services, Inc., Tampa, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Shirley A. Walker,-Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant contends and the appellee agrees that the trial court erred by not advising the appellant of her right to counsel as required by section 39.406, Florida Statutes (1985). We agree, reverse, and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

RYDER, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and HALL, JJ., concur.
#### Christopher Everett CENAC, Sr. v. Monique Ellender CENAC.

No. 89-C-0078.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 17, 1989.

In re Cenac, Christopher E. Sr.;—Plaintiffs); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. CA87 0889; Parish of Terrebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court, Div. “A”, No. 74874.

Denied.

CALOGERO and DENNIS, JJ., would grant the writ.
Exhibit 8

PRINCIPAL SUBSIDIARIES

Smith & Nephew plc

Subsidiary Undertakings



|                                  |  |                         
|--------------------------------- |  | ------------------------
|Company                           |  | Country of Incorporation
|Smith & Nephew (Europe) B.V.      |  | Netherlands             
|Smith & Nephew (Overseas) Limited |  | England & Wales         
|Smith & Nephew, Inc.              |  | United States           
|Smith & Nephew Consolidated, Inc. |  | United States           
|Smith & Nephew Finance S.a.r.l.   |  | Luxembourg              
|Smith & Nephew Management B.V.    |  | Netherlands             
|Smith & Nephew Orthopaedics AG    |  | Switzerland             
|Smith & Nephew PTE Limited        |  | Singapore               
|Smith & Nephew USD Limited        |  | England & Wales         
|T. J. Smith and Nephew, Limited   |  | England & Wales         

All companies trade under the name of Smith & Nephew and deal with Medical Device products.
#### JANET FRANCO *v.*KENNETH FRANCO

*Kenneth Franco,*pro se, in support of the petition.

Decided February 18, 1998

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 47 Conn. App. 926 (AC 16547), is denied.
#### Lionel OLIVIER, et al. v. SEARS ROEBUCK & COMPANY, et al.

No. 86-C-2119.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 5, 1986.

In re Olivier, Lionel; Olivier, Velma; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 85-1037; Parish of Acadia, 15th Judicial District Court, Div. “J”, No. 46860.

Prior report: La.App., 499 So.2d 1058.

Denied.

DIXON, C.J., and CALOGERO and DENNIS, JJ., would grant the writ.