alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ABIR WOLF

,

Appellant

,

v.

SALVADOR C. RAM IREZ

,

Appel lee

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 9

- 00 147

- C V

Appeal from the

448 th District Court

of El Paso County , Texas

(TC# 2018DCV1155 )

O R D E R

Pending before the Court is Appellee’s motion to dismiss Appellant’s request for the trial

court to make findings of fact and conclusions of law. This is an appeal from a summary judgment

granted in favor of Appellee. It is well established that findings of fact and conclusions of law

have no place in a summary judgment proceeding. Linwood v. NCNB Tex as , 885 S.W.2d 102, 103

(Tex. 1994) . If summary judgment is proper, there are no facts to find, and the legal conclusions

have already been stated in the motion and response. IKB Industries v. Pro

- Line Corporation

, 938

S.W.2d 440, 441 (Tex. 1997)

. Consequently, t he trial court should not make, and an appellate

court cannot consider, findings of fact in connection with a summary judgment. IKB Indus tries

,

938 S.W.2d at 441. Even though the trial court should not make findings and we cannot consider

them in deciding whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment , we are not authorized

to “dismiss” Appellant’s request for findings and concl usions. Accordingly, Appellee’s motion is

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 1 st day of August

, 20 1 9

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure , C.J., R odriguez and Palafox , JJ.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.2

The Board of Directors
DSL Group Limited:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(No 333-8533 and No 333-38765) on Form S-3 and registration statement
(No 333-38759) on Form S-4 of Armor Holdings, Inc of our report dated 15 April
1997, with respect to the consolidated balance sheet of DSL Group Limited and
subsidiaries as of 31 December 1996 and the related consolidated profit and
loss account and consolidated cash flow statement from 3 June 1996 to 31
December 1996, which report appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Armor Holdings, Inc filed on 27 March 1998.

/s/ KPMG

KPMG
London, England
27 March 1998
Clean Diesel Technologies
Exhibit 10(u)
 
 Clean Diesel Technologies, Inc.
 10 Middle Street, Suite 1100
 Bridgeport, CT  06604
 Tel:  (203) 416-5290
 Fax:  (203) 416-5188
 www.cdti.com
 
 
  January 26, 2010
 
 
 Mr. David F. Merrion
 4526 Lakeshore Court
 Brighton MI  48116
 
 Re:  Consulting Agreement
 
 Further to your discussions by phone and email Friday with Ted Carvis our patent counsel, we appreciate your willingness to consult with Clean Diesel Technologies, Inc. (“we” and “us”), and likely serve as our expert witness, in connection with a European patent opposition relating to European Patent No. 998 625, all as we may request from time to time.  The following is our understanding of the arrangement between us for the provision of those consulting services.  If you are in accord with that understanding, please sign below where indicated and fax a copy of this signed letter agreement to me at the above fax number.
 
 Your services will likely involve reading materials that Ted Carvis has sent to you and that you find by independent research and preparation of an expert’s statement in February relating to the issues of clarity, novelty and inventive step as questioned by the EPO in the papers recently sent to you.  Your consultation may also involve meetings with Ted Carvis, me and our European counsel, Vossius & Partner of Munich, by phone and also travel to Munich for oral proceedings in March.  As is appropriate and possible, we may seek to extend these dates.
 
 We will reimburse you for your time spent on these activities at an hourly rate of $300.00, or a daily maximum of $3000.00.  We will also reimburse you for ordinary and necessary out-of-pocket expenses that you may incur in connection with your activities on our behalf, such as travel (coach fare), lodging, meals, telephone and fax charges, etc.  We understand that you will not charge for travel time except as you may during travel review materials pertinent to your consulting assignment.  Your invoices should be sent directly to me for payment.
 
 You agree that you will treat your discussions with Ted Carvis, me Vossius & Partner and others of our employees, officers and directors, and any documents and information provided to you, as confidential; that you will not disclose any such documents or information to any other persons without our prior consent; and that you will use such information and documents only for the purpose of this present engagement and that any materials or work product you prepare shall be our property.  You will also agree not to render services to others in connection with matters adverse to Clean Diesel Technologies’ interests in this matter.
  
  Thanks in advance for your cooperation and assistance.  We look forward to working with you.
 
 Sincerely,
 
 /s/  C.W. Grinnell
 
 Charles W. Grinnell
 Vice President, General Counsel
 & Secretary
 
 
 Agreed to and Accepted this 27th day of January, 2010.
 
 /s/  David F. Merrion
 
 David F. Merrion
#### Lela LAMB, Appellant, v. Hoyt L. LAMB, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Lyman Lamb, Appellee.

No. BJ-173.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Dec. 16, 1986.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 29, 1987.

Theodore M. Burt, of Burt & Filman, Trenton, for appellant.

Robert Moeller, Cross City, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The wife appeals a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, raising these issues: (1) That the trial court failed to make an equitable distribution of property acquired subsequent to the marriage; (2) that the court erred in failing to award the wife permanent alimony in the form of lump sum alimony; and (3) that the husband should be required to pay the wife’s attorney’s fees.

Although there is conflict in the evidence, there is competent substantial evidence to support the trial judge’s ruling on the issues. The wife has shown no abuse of discretion in the trial judge’s findings and we should not substitute our judgment for that of the trial judge on matters within his discretion. *Canakaris v. Canakaris,*382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980).

AFFIRMED.

SHIVERS, ZEHMER and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
#### Emile J. CAMAILLE, Jr. v. SHELL OIL COMPANY and Travelers Insurance Company.

No. 89-C-1291.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 30, 1989.

In re Camaille, Emile J. Jr.; — Plaintiff(s); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 88-CA-0876; Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court, Div. “G”, No. 142-123.

Prior report: La.App., 542 So.2d 663.

Denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

S.J.P.,

Petitioner

v.

L.L.P.,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 516 WAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 25th day of May, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Aaron Caleb Swenson , Appellant

No. 06

- 21

- 00125

- CR v.

The State of Texas , Appellee Appeal from the 102nd District Court of Bowie County, Texas (Tr. Ct

. No. 20F0504

- 102 ). Memorand um Opinion delivered by Justice Stevens

, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice van Cleef participating

.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note tha t the appellant, Aaron Caleb Swenson , has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED OCTOBER 7, 2022 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey , Clerk
From: "West Martha" Martha.West@generalshale.com

Sent: 08/13/2008 12:08 PM

To: Jeff Telander/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc:

Subject: General Shale Brick, Inc. – ICR for Brick and Structural Clay Products

(Embedded image moved to file: pic10866.gif)

Dear Mr. Telander,

Attached is the completed survey form for the ICR pertaining to the brick and structural clay 

products facility information. Since some information on FORM F is confidential business information, I 

have included that page with the CD submittal only. The CBI portion is highlighted in red as you 

suggested.

In this submittal, I have included some demolished kilns and closed facilities in my form B to 

assist EPA with updating their existing database.

For my Form E, I completed one form for each “representative” facility. If there were exceptions 

that made some facilities fall outside the norm, I completed a site-specific Form E for those.

Stack test report copies have been shipped separately. If you have any questions, please let me 

know.

Thank You,

Martha West

Martha West

Environmental Engineer, REM

General Shale Brick, Inc.

P.O. Box 3547

Johnson City, TN 37602

Phone: (423)952-4240

Fax: (423)952-4160

(See attached file: Brick ICR- GENERAL SHALE BRICK - Final.xls)
#### Franz O. Melin *vs.*Joseph W. Reynolds and others.

April 19, 1884.

Chattel Mortgage — Description—Growing *Crop.*— “One-half of all the crop growing” on certain described lands, means one undivided half of such crop, and as a description (in a chattel mortgage) of the property mortgaged, is sufficiently definite.

Part-owner of Chattel — Right of Possession.— *Miller*v. *Barling, 22*Minn. *80S,*followed as to the right of a tenant in common of personal property to the possession of the whole, or any part thereof, as against a stranger to such property.

Plaintiff brought this action in the district court for Stevens county, to recover the value of certain wheat and oats taken and carried away by defendants from the farm of one Dahlso, and by them converted to their own use. The complaint alleges that the grain had been raised on Dahlso’s farm; that by a chattel mortgage duly filed, which is' set out in full in the complaint, Dahlso had mortgaged to plaintiff “one-half of all the crop now growing on the south half of the northeast quarter and lot 1 of section 18, town 127 north, of range 43 west, all the said property being now in the possession of the said first party (Dahlso) in the town of Marsville, county of Grant, and state of Minnesota; ” that default having been made, the plaintiff, by virtue of a power in the mortgage, had taken and was in possession of the mortgaged crop (which had been harvested and threshed) at the time of the trespass complained of. A demurrer to the complaint as not stating a cause of action*was stricken out as frivolous, and judgment ordered for plaintiff by *Brown,*J., and the defendants appealed.

*J. W. Reynolds,*for appellants.

*L. G. Spooner*and *G. M. Stevens,*for respondent.

Berry, J.1

' “One-half of all the crop growing” on certain described lands means one undivided half of such crop, and, as a description (in a chattel mortgage) of the property mortgaged, is sufficiently definite. The plaintiff, as mortgagee, after condition broken, of an un*53divided half of the crop, was a tenant in common of the whole with the owner of the other half, and therefore entitled to the possession of the whole, or of any part of it, as against mere strangers like defendants, not appearing to have any right or interest in or to any part of such crop. To them it is of no consequence who owns the other undivided half, or whether the mortgage was made in good faith or not. *Miller*v. *Darling,*22 Minn. 303.

The defendants’ objections to the complaint, and the demurrer in support of which they were interposed, were clearly frivolous, and on that ground the demurrer was properly stricken out.

Order affirmed.

1

 Dickinson, J., because of illness, took no part in this decision.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1992
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1992
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1992
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         490,200
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 490,200
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,323
<OTHER-SE>                                     490,200
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   490,200
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                70,200
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (70,200)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (70,200)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (70,200)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit
32





CERTIFICATION OF 10-KSB REPORT OF




ZYNEX MEDICAL HOLDINGS,
INC.


FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
2007







Each of
the undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of Section 1350 of Chapter 63
of Title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of Zynex Medical
Holdings, Inc. (“Zynex”), that to his knowledge:





1.
            The
      10-KSB 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 such 10-KSB Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      Zynex.





This
written statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
as an exhibit to the 10-KSB Report. A signed original of this statement has been
provided to Zynex and will be retained by Zynex and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





This
Certification is executed as of April 15, 2008.








/s/ Thomas
Sandgaard


Thomas
Sandgaard


President
and Chief Executive Officer








/s/ Fritz G.
Allison


Fritz G.
Allison


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




In connection with the Quarterly Report of Chisen Electric Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:




1.           The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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: February 28, 2011
By:
/s/Liu ChuanjieName:
Liu ChuanjieTitle:
Chief Financial Officer, Principal Financial and Accounting Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Chisen Electric Corporation will be retained by Chisen Electric Corporation and furnished to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
NMR Analysis Summary 

Instrumentation Used: 

Experiments Performed: 

Identification of Functional groups: 

Structural elucidation: 
160 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 ppm
160 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 ppm
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### International Trade Commission

          - [USITC SE-12-007] 

# AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING:

 United States International Trade Commission. 

      ( print page 16261)    

# Time and Date:

 March 20, 2012 at 9:30 a.m. 

# Place:

 Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000. 

# Status:

Open to the public. 

# Matters to be Considered: 

1. Agendas for future meetings: none. 

2. Minutes. 

3. Ratification List. 

4. Vote in Inv. No. 731-TA-472 (Third Review) (Silicon Metal from China). The Commission is currently scheduled to transmit its determination and Commissioners' opinions to the Secretary of Commerce on or before March 30, 2012. 

5. Outstanding action jackets: none. 

In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: March 13, 2012. 

James R. Holbein, 

Secretary to the Commission.

[FR Doc. 2012-6809 Filed 3-16-12; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE;P
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



We consent to the incorporation by reference in Amendments No. 1 to
Registration Statements No. 333-8533 and No. 333-38765 on Form S-3, and No.
333-38759 on Form S-4 of Armor Holdings, Inc. of our report dated March 19,
1998, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Armor Holdings, Inc., for
the year ended December 27, 1997 and to the reference to us under the heading
"Experts" in the Prospectuses which are part of these Registration Statements.

We additionally consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration
Statement No. 33-018863 of American Body Armor & Equipment, Inc., now known as
Armor Holdings, Inc., on Form S-8, of our report dated March 19, 1998,
appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Armor Holdings, Inc., for the
year ended December 27, 1997.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Deloitte & Touche LLP
New York, New York
March 26, 1998
AAM-12-329-E April 30, 2012

Exemption No. 10522 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2012-0446

Ms. Shelly Alexander

President ALEXAIR, Inc. 108 Kahului Airport Road, # 108 Kahului, HI 96732

Dear Ms. Alexander:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated April 14, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of ALEXAIR, Inc. (ALEXAIR), for an exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exempti on, if granted, would allow ALEXAIR, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one drug and alcohol testing program.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to ALEXAIR.

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two testing programs into one would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs.2

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703;

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 also apply to the situation you present; and

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby grant ALEXAIR, Inc., an exemption from 14 CFR part 120 to the extent necessary to allow ALEXAIR, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program, subject

to the conditions and limitations described below.

Conditions and Limitations

1. Employees of ALEXAIR are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of the ALEXAIR part 135 operation, not under part 91.

This exemption terminates on May 31, 2014, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/
James R. Fraser, M.D. Deputy Federal Air Surgeon

Enclosure
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. for the period ended March 31, 2010 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:
      May 17, 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.