alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32

                                  CERTIFICATION
                           Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Placer del Mar, Ltd.
(the "Company") for the period ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Humberto
Bravo, as Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.


Date: November 30, 2010              By: /s/ Humberto Bravo
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Humberto Bravo
                                         Chief Executive Officer
                                         Chief Financial Officer

This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of ss.18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

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.
#### STATE ex rel. Dale Eugene BOURLAND v. CLERK OF COURT, 19TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT.

No. 87-KH-2767.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 7, 1988.

In re Bourland, Dale Eugene; applying for writ of mandamus; Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court, Div. “L”, No. 1-74-8048.

Granted for the purpose of transferring the application to the district court with instructions to the trial judge to act on relator’s motion for production of documents if same has been filed in the district court.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2448 

To extend and modify the temporary reduction of duty on paraquat technical. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

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

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend and modify the temporary reduction of duty on 

paraquat technical. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PARAQUAT TECHNICAL. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.13.06 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 paraquat technical) is amended— 

7 (1) by striking the article description and in8 serting the following: ‘‘Paraquat dichloride 

9 (1,1Ndimethyl-4,4N-bipyridinium dichloride) (CAS 

10 No. 1910–42–5) (provided for in subheading 

11 2933.39.23)’’; 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2448 IS

1 (2) by striking ‘‘4.41%’’ and inserting ‘‘Free’’; 

2 and 

3 (3) by striking ‘‘12/31/2009’’ and inserting 

4 ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

5 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

6 subsection (a) apply to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

7 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

8 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
#### Mansel J. LaFLEUR v. P & S WELL SERVICE NO. 5, INC. et al.

No. 89-C-0425.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 21, 1989.

In re Robert Murray Collins and John Richard Ludebrooke Youell, applying for *895rehearing of writ granted with order dated 3/27/89, 540 So.2d 323, to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal, No. 88CA-0686; 25th Judicial District Court, No. 28-208, Division A.

Rehearing denied.

CALOGERO, J., would grant the rehearing.
#### STATE ex rel. Raymond ROSS v. Warden DEES.

No. 89-KH-0210.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 1, 1989.

In re Ross, Raymond; — Plaintiff(s); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of Terrebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court, Div. “B”, No. 1-80-381; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. KW89 0043.

Denied. The district court has scheduled consideration of the December 26,1988 motion to withdraw guilty plea for February 2, 1989.
### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION ONE STATE OF WASHINGTON,

Respondent, )

) ) ) No. 72536-0-1
rn ( -7 ) cf x)

v. ) tr) zEq j r--
> ) ABDULKADIR ALI, ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION Ci ) ) Appellant. ) FILED: December 19, 2016

) PER CURIAM. Abdulkadir Ali challenges the judgment and sentence imposed following his guilty plea to second degree assault. His court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw on the ground that there is no basis for a good faith argument on review. Pursuant to State v. Theobald, 78 Wn.2d 184, 470 P.2d 188 (1970), and Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), the motion to withdraw must: (1) be accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal. (2) A copy of counsel's brief should be furnished the indigent and (3) time allowed him to raise any points that he chooses; (4) the court—not counsel—then proceeds, after ,a full examination of all the proceedings, to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous. Theobald, 78 Wn.2d at 185 (quoting Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). This procedure has been followed. All's counsel on appeal filed a brief with the motion to withdraw. Ali was served with a copy of the brief and informed of his right to file a statement of additional grounds for review. Ali did not file a supplemental brief. The material facts are accurately set forth in counsel's brief in support of the motion to withdraw. The court has reviewed the briefs filed in this court and hasNo. 72536-0-1/2

independently reviewed the entire record. The court specifically considered the following potential issues raised by counsel:

Was Ali's guilty plea knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently made? The issues raised by counsel are wholly frivolous. The motion to withdraw is granted and the appeal is dismissed.

FOR THE COURT:



# $ e 

# (Ja-g ) ,

2
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

WILLIAM MARK COLBURN, JR., )

DOC #D49113, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-2623

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

________________________________ )

Opinion filed September 20, 2019.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for 

Sarasota County; Stephen Walker, 

Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public 

Defender, and Matthew J. Salvia, 

Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for 

Appellant. 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

BLACK, BADALAMENTI, and SMITH, JJ., Concur.
#### Judy J. KEATS, Appellant, v. Gerrit KEATS, Appellee.

No. 86-2038.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 31, 1987.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 3, 1987.

*1031Joseph R. Park and Andrew J. Rodnite, Jr., of Park and Smith, P.A., Clearwater, for appellant.

David P. Rhodes, of Glenn, Rasmussen, Fogarty, Merryday & Russo, Tampa, and Johnson, Blakely, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel and Bums, P.A., Clearwater, for appellee.

DANAHY, Chief Judge.

This is an appeal from the financial provisions of the final judgment dissolving the parties’ marriage. In its order of distribution, the trial court meticulously listed each asset owned by the parties in order to award them to either the husband or the wife. No mention of the husband’s vested profit sharing and pension plans was made in his financial affidavit, or otherwise during the case, except for a brief mention of them during the husband’s testimony at trial. That testimony placed the value of the plans at $260,000. The trial court made no mention of this asset in the final judgment. The controlling case of *Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer,*491 So.2d 265 (Fla.1986), was released only days before the final hearing in this action. *Diffenderfer*mandates that the trial court consider the vested interest in such plans as a marital property when constructing the overall scheme of equitable distribution in a dissolution proceeding. From an examination of the record, it appears that the court and the parties were unaware of this directive concerning vested plans. Nevertheless, *Dif-fenderfer*was the controlling law at the time of the final hearing.

As *Canakaris v. Canakaris,*382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980), instructs:

> In order to properly review orders of the trial judge, appellate courts must recognize the distinction between an incorrect application of an existing rule of law and an abuse of discretion. Where a trial judge fails to apply the correct legal rule, as when he refuses to terminate periodic alimony upon remarriage of the receiving spouse, the action is erroneous as a *matter of law.*This is not an abuse of discretion. The appellate court in reviewing such a situation is correcting an erroneous application of a known rule of law.

*Id.*at 1202 (emphasis in original).

In the instant case, it was error for the court not to consider this asset, as it apparently did not, in deciding how to divide all the assets of the parties equitably. The error is not harmless because this asset is of substantial value to the parties. Therefore, we reverse so that the trial court may reconsider and make any necessary adjustments in the overall scheme of distribution of marital assets in light of *Diffenderfer. Barnett v. Barnett,*508 So.2d 456 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987).

Reversed and remanded with directions.

RYDER and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.
Ja n 0 8 201 0 4:24P M Lfl U OFFIC E O F R C UILLI S 310-331-757 2 pag e 2 

# Cll ¥ Anit aC . WilU s C A SB N 16267 1 LA W OFFICE S O FANIT A C . WILLI S 40 0 Corporate Pointe , Suite 30 0 Culve r City , C A 9023 0 Telephone : (310 ) 391-473 7 Facsimil e (310 ) 391-757 2 Pamel aJ . Walls , Count

y Counse l C A SB N 12344 6 COUNTY O FRIVERSID E 396 0 Orang e Stree t Riverside , C A 9250 1 Telephon e (951 ) 955-630 0 Facsimile : (951 ) 955-636 3

UNITE D STATE S DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N

WASHINGTON , D.C . 

### JA N

### - 8 7S m AIRPORT/EMRONMENTA L LAW , AGC-60 0

• 1- 1

•r-,:v-: ) 5 6

— I C 3

ORANG E COUNT Y SOARIN G ASSOCIATION , LARR Y TOUHINO , AN D CHRI S MANNION , Complainants , V . TH E COUNT Y O FRFVIERSIDE, ageneral la w count y an dpolitica l subdivisio n o f th e State o f California , Responden t FA A Docke t No . 16-09-1 3 Motio n t o Exten dTime fo r Submissio n o f

Rebuttal Brie f 14C.F.R . 16.1 9

AVIAT]S7]:^S^TMN: ' 

### °^^^^^^ ^ ^ ' TRANSPORTATION , FEDERA L 1 . Complainant' s Repl y Brie f wa s receive don Januar

y 7,2010 . Respondent' s Rebuttal du e o n Januar

y 18,2010 . 2 . Respondent s seek

additional tim e unti l Januar y 28 , 201 0 t o serv e it s Rebuttal Brief . 3 . Complainant s hav e consente dt o th e request . I SJa n 0 8 201 0 4:24P M LR U OFFIC E O F R C UILLI S 310-391-757 2 pag e 3

4 . Respondent' s counse l i s i n th e mids t o f completin g arepor

t an ddiscover

y response s whic h ar e du e withi n th e nex t week . 5 . Thi s extensio n wil l accommodate counsel' s litigatio n an dothe r deadline s andwil l allo w sufficient tim e t o submi t

ameaningfu l Rebuttal Brief . Respectfully submitte don behal f o f Respond^iSyCount

y o f Riversid e thi s 8 " da

y o f January , 2010 . 

# e^GJ ^ ^ Willi s L^ W OFFICE S O FANITA C . WILLI S 40 0 Corporat e Pointe , Suit e 30 0 Culver City , C A 9023 0 Counse l fo

r Responden t

Count y of Riversid e CERTIFICAT E O FSERVIC E 1 hereb y certif

y that I hav e thi s da

y serve dth e foregoin g Responden t Count y o f Riverside' s Motio n t o Exten dTime for Submissio n o f

Rebuttal Brie f

o n th e followin g person s a t th e followin g addresse s b y U.S . mail : Office o f th e Chie f Genera l Counse l ATTN : FA

A Part 1 6 Airpor

t Proceeding s Docket , AGC-61 0 Roo m92 5 Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S W Washington , D C 2059 1 Facsimile : (202 ) 267-576 9 Ronal dJ . Cozad LA W OFFICE S O FRONALD J . COZA D 210 0 Paloma

r Airpor t Road , Suit

e 21 4 Carlsbad , CA 9201 1 (760)431-820 0 (760)454-170 5 Date dthi s 8*

* da y o f January , 201 0 

# A QM)0-< ^

. Willi s th e Count y o f Riversid e
#### Joanne Gibson WOODS v. INTEGON LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION and Union Federal Savings and Loan Association.

No. 87-C-1507.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 25, 1987.

In re Integon Life Ins. Corp.; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review, supervisory and remedial writ; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CA86-0493; Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court, Div. “F”, No. 115-632.

Prior report: La.App., 507 So.2d 259.

Denied. The result is correct.
#### NORTH BROWARD HOSPITAL DISTRICT d/b/a Broward General Medical Center, Appellant, v. Natasha ROYSTER, et al., Appellees.

Nos. 87-0943, 87-1524, 87-2032 and 87-2890.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 14, 1989.

Ellen Mills Gibbs; Peterson, Fogarty & Bernard, Fort Lauderdale, Steven R. Berger and William G. Liston of Steven R. Berger, P.A., Miami, for appellant.

Carole A. Gardiner, P.A., and Arnold R. Ginsberg of Horton, Perse & Ginsberg, Miami, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

In this medical malpractice action, the trial court entered a summary judgment on the issue of negligence in favor of the plaintiff. The appellant’s purported expert affidavit in opposition to summary judgment provided in pertinent part:

> [I]t is my opinion that the nurses, agents and employees of the Defendant, NORTH BROWARD HOSPITAL DISTRICT, d/b/a BROWARD GENERAL MEDICAL CENTER, acted well within accepted standards of care in this or any other similar medical community, based upon a reasonable degree of medical probability.

The trial court found, and we agree, that such a conclusory affidavit is insufficient to rebut specific allegations of medical negligence as contained in the plaintiff’s affidavit. *Brooks v. Serrano,*209 So.2d 279 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968). Accordingly, we affirm.

LETTS, GLICKSTEIN and POLEN, JJ., concur.
Docket No. FAA-2015-5819 Dir. ID 2015-NM-166-AD
#### STATE ex rel. Philip LETZ, Jr. v. Warden DEES.

No. 89-KH-0826.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 21, 1989.

In re Letz, Philip Jr.; — Plaintiff(s); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writ; Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court, Div. “H”, No. 3-89-633.

Denied. Moot. acted. The district court has
## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 14

- 00049

- CR

ANTHONY LEE JOHNSON, Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 124th District Court Gregg County, Texas Trial Court No. 41,097

- B

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter2 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION
Anthony Lee Johnson appeals his convict ion, on his open plea of guilty, of driving while
intoxicated, subsequent offense. He raises a single contention of error, arguing that the trial
court erred by ordering that he, an indigent person , pay fees of his court appointed counsel . The

State has acknowledged this error, and likewise requests that we modify the judgment to

eliminate the assessment of attorney fees

. The judgment itemizes the costs assessed against Johnson including $765.00 for attorney
fees. Johnson was found indigent before tria l, and there is no indication of any change in that

status.
We have addressed this precise error numerous times. Court

- appointed attorney fees
cannot be assessed against an indigent defendant unless there is proof and a finding that such

defendant is no longer indigent. Cates v. State , 402 S.W.3d 250 , 251

– 52 (Tex. Crim. App.

2013 ); Mayer v State , 3 0 9 S.W. 3d 552 , 555

– 56 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) . In this case, there is no
such evidence or finding. Error is thus shown. Under such circumstances, t he prope r remedy i s

not to reverse the conviction ; rather, the proper remedy is to modify the judgment by remov ing

the fee a ssessment

. Cates , 402 S.W.3d at 251

– 52; Mayer , 3 0 9 S.W.3d at 555

– 56 ; Martin v. State ,
405 S.W.3d 944 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2013 , no pet. )

.3 We modify the judgment of the trial court by delet ing the assessment of attorney fees

. As modified, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

Jack Carter Justice

Date Submitted: October 1, 2014 Date Decided: October 2, 2014

Do Not Publish
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-50038 Summary Calendar

MIGUEL MARTINEZ-LOPEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; U.S. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE; R. D. MILES, Warden, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-00-CV-784-JN

- - - - - - - - - - April 23, 2001 Before REAVLEY, DeMOSS and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Miguel Martinez-Lopez appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for immediate deportation and removal. He contends that he is entitled to be immediately deported to Mexico because he is a Mexican national, an order of removal has been entered against him, and he has applied to be transferred to Mexico pursuant to the Treaty on the Execution of Penal Sentences between the United States and Mexico. Martinez is serving a 189- month sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent toNo. 01-50038 -2- distribute cocaine, possession with intent to distribute five or more kilograms of cocaine, and laundering monetary instruments. Orders of removal generally may not be executed until after an alien is released from prison. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(B); 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(4). Thus, Martinez’ assertion that the existence of an order of removal against him requires his immediate deportation is without merit. Additionally, section 1231 does not provide a private right of action to compel the release or removal of an alien. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(4)(D). The Attorney General is vested with discretion to determine whether to seek the transfer of an alien prisoner pursuant to the Treaty on the Execution of Penal Sentences. See 18 U.S.C. § 4102. Martinez has cited no authority for compelling such a transfer. In light of the fact that the receiving state, Mexico, also must approve the transfer, the district court did not err in determining that it lacked authority to order Martinez’ deportation. To the extent that Martinez seeks to raise new issues, pertaining to relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and an alleged sentencing error under Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), we do not consider these issues because they are raised for the first time on appeal. See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder
Co. , 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999), cert. denied , 528 U.S. 1138 (2000).
AFFIRMED.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

WILLIAM GRONER,

Claimant-Appellant,

v.

 Eric K. Shinseki, SECRETARY OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee.

______________________ 

2012-7072

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for

Veterans Claims in No. 10-1280, Judge Robert N. Davis.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

KENNETH M. CARPENTER, Carpenter, Chartered, of 

Topeka, Kansas, argued for claimant-appellant. 

SHELLEY D. WEGER, Attorney, Commercial litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 

Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for respondentappellee. With her on the brief were STUART F. DELERY, 

Acting Assistant Attorney General, JEANNE E. DAVIDSON, 

Director, and KIRK T. MANHARDT, Assistant Director. Of 

counsel on the brief were MICHAEL J. TIMINSKI, Deputy 

Assistant General Counsel, and MEGHAN HERNANDEZ, 
Attorney, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, 

of Washington, DC. 

______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (NEWMAN, DYK, and PROST, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

 

 April 1, 2013 /s/ Jan Horbaly 

Date Jan Horbaly

 Clerk
UNITE D STATE S O FAMERIC A DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N OFFIC E O FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D C n o ?• •

TRAVE LGROUP , INC. , D/B/ A REPUBLI C AI RTRAVE L AND SCO T SPENCE R AIRLIF T GROUP , INC . AND RICHAR D BERNAR D Unauthorize dAi r

Transportation , Unfai r an dDeceptiv e Practice s an dUnfai r

Method s o f

Competition , an d Violation s o f

Publi c Charte r

Rule s EXPRES S ON E INTERNATIONAL , INC . Unfai r an dDeceptiv e Practice s an dUnfai r Method s o f Competition , an dViolation s o f Publi c Charte r

Rule s Enforcemen t

Proceedin g DOT-OST-1995-27 2 formerl y Docke t 4923 3

STATU S REPOR T Th e Offic e of

th e Assistan t

Genera l Counse l for

Aviatio n Enforcemen t

an d Proceeding s ("Enforcemen t Office") , pursuan t

to You r Honor' s Marc h 22 , 2006 , Orde r stayin g thi s proceeding , file s this report detailin g th e curren t

statu s o f thi s proceedin g an d settlemen t negotiations . Th e Departmen t

ha s no t rule do n th e outstandin g motion s file db y Respondent s an doppose db y th e Enforcemen t Offic e i n Ascen dAviatio n Group , Docke t OST-2004

- 17486 .Ther e hav e bee n n o further settlemen t

discussions . Date : Apri l 29 , 20 1 1 . Respectfull y submitted . iuel Podberesky Assistan t Genera l Counse l for Aviatio n Enforcemen t

an dProceeding s Dayto n Lehman , Jr . Deput y Assistan t

Genera l Counse l fo

r Aviatio n Enforcemen t

an dProceeding s ( \ Willia mJ . Wagner^ Senio r Trial Attorne y Unite dSlate s Departmen t of Transportatio n Offic e o f Aviatio n Enforcemen t

an dProceeding s 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Roo m96-429 Washington , D.C . 2059 0 TEL : 202-366-934 2 FAX : 202-366-715 2Docke t No . DOT-OST-1995-27 2 1 hereb y certif

y tha t o n this 29t

h day o f April , 2011 , atru e an dcorrec t cop y o f th e foregoin g Statu s Report

wa s serve di

n th e followin g manne r

t o th e following : Origina l U.S . Departmen t

of Transportatio n Docke t Operations , M-3 0 Wes t Buildin g Groun dFloo r Roo mW12-14 0 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Washington , D.C . 2059 0 B y Personal Servic e Th e Honorabl e Ronni e A Yoder Chie f Administrativ e La

w Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloo r Roo mEl2-32 0 Washington , D.C . 2059 0 TEL : (202 ) 366-214 2 FAX : (202 ) 366-753 6 B y Firs t Clas s Mai l Sco t Spence r SB D Aircraf

t Service s 25 5 S Ulan dNorto n Wa y Sa mBernardino . CA 9240 8
#### In re LIQUIDATION OF THIBAUT OIL COMPANY PARTNERSHIP.

No. 87-C-2103.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 13, 1987.

In re Thibaut, Thomas A.; Thibaut, Inc.; Boyce, Jane T.; Smith, F. Michael III; Mueller, Eugenia S.; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. CA86 0723; Parish of Ascension, 23rd Judicial District Court, Div. “C”, No. 34402.

Denied.