alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
15




February
16, 2010




SouthPeak
Interactive Corporation 2900 Polo
Parkway


Midlothian,
Virginia




We have
made a review, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting
Oversight Board (United States), of the unaudited interim consolidated financial
information of SouthPeak Interactive Corporation and subsidiaries for the
three-month and six-month periods ended December 31, 2009 and 2008, as indicated
in our report dated February 16, 2010; because we did not perform an audit, we
expressed no opinion on that information.




We are
aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2009, is incorporated by
reference in the Registration Statement of SouthPeak Interactive Corporation on
Form S-8 (File No. 333-151391, effective June 3, 2008) and Form S-1 (File No.
333-154311, effective April 1, 2009).




We also
are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the
Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration Statement
prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or certified by an
accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.




/s/
Reznick Group, PC




Vienna,
Virginia February
16, 2010
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 95

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to ensure that public availability

of information concerning stocks traded on an established stock exchange

continues to be freely and readily available to the public through all

media of mass communication.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 19, 1999

Mr. MCCAIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

A BILL

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to ensure that

public availability of information concerning stocks traded on an established stock exchange continues to be

freely and readily available to the public through all

media of mass communication.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Trading Information

5 Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

7 The Congress finds that—
2

•S 95 IS

1 (1) the provision of up-to-date information con2 cerning the price of shares of stock traded on recog3 nized exchanges to the investing public via media of

4 mass communication is important to the economy of

5 the United States; and

6 (2) the use of the vertical blanking interval to

7 present, on an on-going basis, such information

8 through an overlay of broadcast television images, or

9 through other media of mass communication, is an

10 effective, efficient, and important means of commu11 nicating such information to the public.

12 SEC. 3. AMENDMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934.

13 Title VII of the Communications Act of 1934 (47

14 U.S.C. 301 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end there15 of the following:

16 ‘‘SEC. 714. TELECOMMUNICATION OF STOCK TICKER IN17 FORMATION.

18 ‘‘Nothing in this Act, or any other provision of law,

19 shall limit or inhibit the dissemination by any medium of

20 mass communication of information compiled from a tick21 er or otherwise for transactions on a national securities

22 exchange, to the extent that such information is excluded

23 from copyright protection by section 103(b) of title 17,

24 United States Code, including information with respect to

25 the volume of trading, the stock symbol for the security
3

•S 95 IS

1 employed by the exchange, the most currently available

2 ask and bid prices for the security, and information with

3 respect to the relationship between those prices and the

4 ask and bid prices at which the security closed on the pre5 ceding trading day, and such other information as the

6 Commission by regulation may establish.’’.

Æ
#### Dagoberto PEREZ and Margarita Perez, his wife, Appellants, v. INGERSOLL-RAND COMPANY, et al., Appellees.

No. 86-2593.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 29, 1987.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 26, 1987.

Eliot R. Weitzman, Miami, for appellants.

Kimbrell & Hamann and John W. Wylie and James W. Middleton, Miami, for appel-lees.

Before BARKDULL, HUBBART and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *Pullum v. Cincinnati, Inc.,*476 So.2d 657 (Fla.1985); *Sampson v. Caterpillar Tractor, Co.,*507 So.2d 1222 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Section 95.031(2) Florida Statutes (1979).
October 31, 2014

Paul D. Salvati

12560 N.W. 83 rd Court

Parkland, Florida 33076

- 4931

Dear Mr. Salvati:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from

§ 61.156(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regula tions (14 CFR). It explains why we

cannot process your request.

Why We Can No t Process Your Request

We entered your October 10, 2014 , exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA

- 2014

- 0833 ), but we are unable to process your request any further. Th e information you sent does

no t comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed) . The information you provided

did not identify;

• The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a wh ole.

• The reasons why the exemption would no t adversely affect safety or how the exemption

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you

seek an exemption.

• Any additional information, views, or arguments availa ble to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described

earlier to us within 30 days from the date of this letter . We will consider the docket on your

request open until the expiration of the 30

- day period

. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires

you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of

the exemption.2

If We Do No t Hear From You

If we do not receive the requested informa tion from you within the 30 day period , we will

close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional

time, you may call (202) 267

- 9677.

Sincerely,

//s//

James M. Crotty

Manager, Airport and

Aircraft Rules D ivision

Enclosure
#### Twila COWGER, Steven R. Cowger and Emma Lou Schaefer v. The TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.

No. 87-CC-0360.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 13, 1987.

In re Motorists Mutual Ins. Co.; applying for supervisory writs; Parish of Washington, 22nd Judicial District Court, Div. “B”, No. 58190; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. CW/87/0052.

Denied.

MARCUS and LEMMON, JJ., would grant the writ.
#### James Willie SIMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 86-1844.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 1, 1987.

On Motion for Rehearing Sept. 9, 1987.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and A.N. Radabaugh, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Lauren Hafner Sewell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

SCHEB, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and LEHAN, JJ., concur.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal we affirmed the defendant’s conviction and sentence. On rehearing the defendant has requested that we certify to the supreme court the same question we certified in *Hoefert v. State,*509 So.2d 1090 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), and *Washington v. State,*508 So.2d 565 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987).

Accordingly, we grant the defendant’s request and again certify to the supreme court, as a question of great public importance, the question certified in *Hoefert*and *Washington:*

> IS THE HABITUAL OFFENDER STATUTE STILL AN EFFECTIVE BASIS ON WHICH TO EXCEED THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM AS LONG AS THE SENTENCE IMPOSED DOES NOT EXCEED THE GUIDELINES RECOMMENDATION?

SCHEB, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and LEHAN, JJ., concur.
#### CITY OF MUSCLE SHOALS v. CITY OF TUSCUMBIA.

87-1246.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

March 10, 1989.

John D. Clement, Jr., Tuscumbia, for appellant.

James D. Hughston, Tuscumbia, for ap-pellee.

HORNSBY, Chief Justice.

Affirmed on the authority of *City of Birmingham v. Blount County,*533 So.2d 534 (Ala.1988); see also *City of Sumiton v. Barton,*538 So.2d 819 (Ala.1988); *Campbell Development Co. v. Dudley,*533 So.2d 546 (Ala.1988).

AFFIRMED.

MADDOX, JONES, ALMON, SHORES, ADAMS, HOUSTON and STEAGALL, JJ., concur.

KENNEDY, J., not sitting.
#### R.W., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 86-667.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 1, 1988.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Beth C. Weitzner, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Nancy C. Wear, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before HUBBART, BASKIN and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant R.W. seeks reversal of the trial court’s order adjudicating him delinquent upon a finding that he committed the offenses of carrying a concealed firearm and trespass in a conveyance. We hold that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that the juvenile committed these offenses. *See Horton v. State,*442 So.2d 1064 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (circumstantial evidence which fails to exclude reasonable hypothesis of innocence does not support conviction for trespass of a conveyance); *Bailey v. State,*442 So.2d 385 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) (gun on floor of passenger side of car occupied by driver and defendant is insufficient evidence to support conviction for carrying a concealed weapon; reasonable hypothesis exists that driver carried and placed gun in car). Accordingly, we reverse the order and remand with directions to discharge appellant.

Reversed and remanded.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2395 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2395

To renew the temporary the suspension of duty on 9, 10-Anthracenedione, 
                     1-amino-4-hydroxy-2-phenoxy-.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To renew the temporary the suspension of duty on 9, 10-Anthracenedione, 
                     1-amino-4-hydroxy-2-phenoxy-.

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

SECTION 1. 9, 10-ANTHRACENEDIONE, 1-AMINO-4-HYDROXY-2-PHENOXY-.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.03.49 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to 9, 10-Anthracenedione, 1-
amino-4-hydroxy-2-phenoxy-) is amended by striking the date in the 
effective period column and inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (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 enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 14, 2020

No. 04

- 19

- 00892

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF L.M.R., A CHILD

From the 73rd Judicial District Cou rt, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019

- PA

- 02001

Honorable Peter A. Sakai, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant’s amended second motion for extension of time to file a brief is granted.

_________________________________ Luz Ele na D. Chapa, Justice

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

court on this 14th day of February, 2020

.

__________________________________ _ M ichael A. C ruz

, Clerk of Court
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 17, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 2286]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-689]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12717-002]

Northern Illinois Hydropower, LLC; Notice of Meeting

    a. Date and Time of Meeting: Thursday, January 26, 2012 from 11 
a.m. to 12 p.m. EST.
    b. Place: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street 
NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    c. FERC Contact: Janet Hutzel, (202) 502-8675 or 
[email protected].
    d. Purpose of Meeting: Commission staff will meet with Northern 
Illinois Hydropower, LLC to discuss potentially moving the powerhouse 
location for the Brandon Road Project No. 12717, and the effects moving 
the powerhouse may have on processing the license application.
    e. All local, state, and Federal agencies, tribes, and interested 
parties are hereby invited to participate. Please contact Janet Hutzel 
at (202) 502-8675 or via email at [email protected] by the close of 
business on Friday, January 20, 2012 to attend via teleconference.

    Dated: January 9, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-689 Filed 1-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```
#### Kitty W. EDISON, Appellant, v. George S. EDISON, Appellee.

No. 85-176.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 5, 1986.

Edward C. Vining, Jr., and Thomas B. Scott of Law Offices of Edward C. Vining, Jr., Miami, for appellant.

Fred J. Berman and Scott R. Gill of Fred J. Berman, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for ap-pellee.

ON REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

We grant rehearing and withdraw the opinion filed in this case on November 13, 1985 and simultaneously issue the following opinion in its place.

The trial court awarded Kitty W. Edison exclusive possession of the marital residence and an adjoining lot until the parties’ child attains the age of eighteen years or until appellant remarries or dies or is no longer primary residential custodial parent. The final judgment also required her to pay the mortgage, taxes and insurance without credit therefor at the time of *40sale. In *Whiteley v. Whiteley,*329 So.2d 352 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976), the trial court awarded the wife exclusive possession of the marital domicile and ordered her to pay all the expenses. The court however refused to give her credit upon partition of the property for the husband’s proportionate share of the mortgage, taxes, insurance and maintenance on the home during her possession thereof. In *Whiteley,*we said:

> Generally, if one co-tenant pays an obligation for which all are liable, he is entitled to have the other co-tenant pay his proportionate share. 8 Fla.Jur., Co-tenancy, § 12. But where the final judgment of dissolution awards one co-tenant the exclusive possession of the marital domicile and directs that co-tenant to pay all or some of the obligations of the property such as taxes, liens and repairs, the right of the co-tenant in possession to reimbursement from the other co-tenant is postponed until such time as the property is partitioned or otherwise sold. However, upon partition or other sale the tenant paying those obligations of the property is entitled to credit from the proceeds of the sale for the other co-tenant’s proportionate share of those expenses.

> 

> We thus conclude that it was error for the trial court to provide that upon partition of the property, appellant should have no right to reimbursement for the husband’s proportionate share of the obligations of the property in question.

*Id.*at 353.

Therefore we reverse that part of the final judgment which requires the wife to pay the mortgage, taxes and insurance on the home, but denies her credit for these expenditures at the time of the sale. We direct the trial court to modify its final judgment to provide for her to receive credit for the husband’s proportionate share of those expenses at the time of sale or disposition of the marital home.

We also hold that the periodic alimony provision of the final judgment is modifiable pursuant to chapter 61.14, Florida Statutes (1983). The final judgment is otherwise affirmed in all respects.

REVERSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART and REMANDED.

ANSTEAD, DELL and WALDEN, JJ„ concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from First
Citizens Financial Corporation's Annual Report and Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 1996 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          15,979
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             363
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     81,387
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          55,035
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            56,788
<LOANS>                                        506,092
<ALLOWANCE>                                      6,931
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 687,196
<DEPOSITS>                                     538,897
<SHORT-TERM>                                    12,128
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              7,644
<LONG-TERM>                                     86,910
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            29
<OTHER-SE>                                      41,588
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 687,196
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 37,968
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                9,976
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   141
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                48,085
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              23,938
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              29,170
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           18,915
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       94
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  49
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 17,557
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,782
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       4,782
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,168
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .99
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .99
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.80
<LOANS-NON>                                        970
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 3,942
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 7,460
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    (623)
<RECOVERIES>                                        94
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                6,931
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,244
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          5,687
        


</TABLE>
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





In
connection with the Annual Report of Marine Growth Ventures, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Craig Hodgkins, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. section 1350 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
Company.





A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be
retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.





The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 and is not being filed for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or
after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such
filing.








Date:  August
      14, 2008
            By:
            /s/  Craig
      HodgkinsCraig
      Hodgkins
              President
      and Director
              (Principal
      Executive Officer)
13 January , 2014

Mr. Carl Allen Horizon Air 8030 NE Airtrans Way Portland, OR, 97128 Dear: Mr. Allen This letter is to inform y ou that we have received and begun processing your petition for exemption. I t acknowledges receipt of the petition and descr ibes how we will process it. **We Have the Petition** We have received your December 10, 2013 petition on behalf of Horizon Air (Horizon ) for an exemption from § § 121.346(d)(3)(i) and 121.346(d)(4) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). This exemption, if granted, would a llow Horizon to operate its Bombardier Aerospace DHC
- 8 series 400 aircraft bey ond April 21, 2014, without meeting flight data recorder requirements to capture flight parameters without filtering for accurate reconstruction of even ts during an investigation We have added your petition to the p ublic docket No. FAA
- 2013
- 1048 and we are processing it. We will contact you if we need additional information. **How We Will Process the Petition**  A petition for an exemption, according to § 1 1.63(d), must be sent to the FAA at least 120 day s before the proposed effective date of the exemption. In addition, we publish a summary of the petition in the Federal Register for public com ment unless, according to § 11.87, we determine that good cause exists for not publishing it.2

We will advise y ou of the agency 's final decision on your petition as soon as possible. I f y ou have any questions in the meantime , y ou may contact me at (202) 493
- 5260
. Sincerely , /s/ Alphonso W. P e ndergrass Transportat ion Industry

Analy st Airmen and Airspace Rules Division3

Project No.: AFS
- 14
- 074
- E Project Officer: _______________ ARM
- 207:A Pendergrass : 01/08/14 :Doc#37661 ARM
- 1/200 :Program Offic e AFS
- 300
MR CARLALLEN HORI ZON AIR 8030 NE AI RTRAI

NS WAY POR TLAND OR 97128