alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Paul Rufus COMEAUX, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WEILL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Colaco Engineers, Inc., Amca International Corporation Erroneously Designated as Clyde Ironworks, Beaver Advance, Inc., RWR Development Group, Ltd., Concrete & Steel Erectors, Inc. & Superior Oil Company, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 85-364.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

Feb. 4, 1987.

*140Marx and Marx, G. Paul Marx, Lafayette, for plaintiff-appellant.

Onebane, Donohoe, Bernard, Torian, Diaz, McNamara & Abell, Timothy J. McNamara and Graham Smith, McBride and Foret, Robert McBride, Gachassin, Ca-pretz & Hunter, Shepton Hunter, Pugh and Boudreaux, Donlon Pugh, John K. Hill and C. Michael Hill, Lafayette, Dan A. Spencer, Houston, Tex., Raggio, Cappel, Chozen & Berniard, Richard Chozen, Lake Charles, Joseph E. Friend, New Orleans, for defendants-appellees.

Before DOMENGEAUX, GUIDRY and KNOLL, JJ.

KNOLL, Judge.

For the foregoing reasons stated in the companion case of *Bowman, et al. v. Weill Construction Company, et al.,*502 So.2d 133 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1987), in which a separate decision is being rendered by us this day, we affirm the trial court’s judgment sustaining Beaver’s exceptions of insufficiency of citation and service of process. However, we reverse the trial court’s judgment sustaining Beaver’s exception of lack of personal jurisdiction and its dismissal of plaintiffs’ suit against Beaver. We remand this case to the trial court to enter an order allowing plaintiffs a delay within which to supplement the record with proof of citation and service of process according to the Long Arm Statute further, right is reserved to Beaver to reurge its exception to jurisdiction, supported by proper proof if it elects to do so. The trial court’s judgment dismissing AMCA from plaintiffs’ action is affirmed. Costs of this appeal are assessed one-half against plaintiffs and one-half against Beaver.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED.
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-19-0000645

27-JAN-2020

08:25 AM
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

 

I, Frederick F. Wolfe,certify that:

 

1.             I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of RealMex Restaurants, Inc.;

 

2.             Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;

 

3.             Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, andother financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

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

 

a)Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b)Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c)Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.             The registrant’s other certifying officer and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

a) Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

b) Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

Date: May08, 2006

 

 
| /s/ Frederick F. Wolfe  |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Frederick F. Wolfe      |
|                    |
| Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>


This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
balance sheets and statements of operations found on the Company's Form 10-K
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.

</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000846535
<NAME> VARTECH SYSTEMS INC.
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                          YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               JUL-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                    JUL-31-1997
<CASH>                                              100796                   
<SECURITIES>                                          6500
<RECEIVABLES>                                       936338
<ALLOWANCES>                                         15000
<INVENTORY>                                         291350
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   1356073
<PP&E>                                              530167
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     1924720
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              1331168
<BONDS>                                                  0
<COMMON>                                              1937
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0 
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<OTHER-SE>                                          370700
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       1924720
<SALES>                                            3001492
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   3001492
<CGS>                                              2041759
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      2041759
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    755566
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   18408 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     153323
<INCOME-TAX>                                         48594 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0   
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0    
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        104729  
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .06

</TABLE>
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 08294**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  

### x 08294\08294_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook



### 08294\08294_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 

### 08294\08294_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted 

### x 08294\08294_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 08294\08294_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 08294\08294_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 08294\08294_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 08294\08294_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file



### 08294\Certification Statement Plant ID 08294.pdf Plant certification statement 

### x 08294\Supplemental Documents\08294_Email Correspondence.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### x 08294\Supplemental Documents\08294_FGD System Operation Verification Email Correspondence.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey



### 08294\Supplemental Documents\08294_Niles - Cover Letter.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### x 08294\Supplemental Documents\08294_PartA_A5-2_map-1_Niles.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### x 08294\Supplemental Documents\08294_PartA_A5-2_map-2_Niles.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### x 08294\Supplemental Documents\08294_PartA_A5-3_Niles.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### x 08294\Supplemental Documents\08294_PartD_D3-1_Niles.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
EXHIBIT 23.1
<PAGE>

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The Board of Directors
Virginia Beach Federal Financial Corporation:

We consent to incorporation by reference in Registration  Statement No. 33-46154
on Form  S-8,  in  Registration  Statement  No.  33-76678  on Form  S-8,  and in
Registration  Statement  No.  333-22399  on Form S-3 of Virginia  Beach  Federal
Financial  Corporation  of our report dated  January 31,  1997,  relating to the
consolidated   statement  of  financial  condition  of  Virginia  Beach  Federal
Financial  Corporation  and subsidiary as of December 31, 1996 and 1995, and the
related  consolidated  statements  of  operations,  cash  flows and  changes  in
stockholders'  equity for the years then ended, which report appears in December
31,  1996,  annual  report  on Form 10-K of  Virginia  Beach  Federal  Financial
Corporation.

/s/ KPMG Peat Marwick, LLP

Richmond, Virginia
March 26, 1997
#### STATE ex rel. Whitney C. FRILOUX v. Hon. Frank J. SHEA, Judge, Criminal District Court, Parish of Orleans, Sect. “G”.

No. 88-KH-1199.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 26, 1988.

In re Friloux, Whitney C.; applying for writs of mandamus, supervisory and/or remedial; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “G”, No. 267-706.

The relator represents that the district court has failed to act timely on a motion he has filed for production of his multiple bill hearing transcript. If relator’s repre*1065sentation is correct, the district court is ordered to consider and act on the motion.
Table 7.4. Weighted Average Cost of Fossil Fuels for the Electric Power Industry, 2003 through 2013CoalPetroleum Natural Gas Total FossilBituminous Subbituminous Lignite All Coal RanksPeriodReceipts(Trillion Btu)Average Cost(Dollars perMMBtu)Receipts(Trillion Btu)Average Cost(Dollars perMMBtu)Receipts(Trillion Btu)Average Cost(Dollars perMMBtu)Receipts(Trillion Btu)Average Cost(Dollars perMMBtu)Receipts(Trillion Btu)Average Cost(Dollars perMMBtu)Receipts(Trillion Btu)Average Cost(Dollars perMMBtu)Receipts(Trillion Btu)Average Cost(Dollars perMMBtu)2003 11,284 1.43 7,598 1.10 1,026 1.03 19,990 1.28 1,146 4.335,663 5.39 26,799 2.282004 11,260 1.55 7,817 1.12 1,012 1.06 20,189 1.36 1,155 4.295,891 5.96 27,234 2.482005 11,546 1.83 8,004 1.19 1,008 1.07 20,647 1.54 1,198 6.446,357 8.21 28,202 3.252006 11,789 2.03 8,842 1.31 982 1.15 21,735 1.69 610 6.23 6,856 6.94 29,201 3.022007 11,279 2.07 8,826 1.45 925 1.28 21,152 1.77 536 7.17 7,396 7.11 29,085 3.232008 11,119 2.50 9,087 1.62 896 1.41 21,280 2.07 575 10.87 8,089 9.02 29,945 4.112009 10,010 2.75 8,421 1.64 835 1.58 19,438 2.21 528 7.02 8,319 4.74 28,285 3.042010 9,652 2.81 8,545 1.73 925 1.62 19,290 2.27 445 9.54 8,8675.09 28,602 3.262011 9,040 2.94 8,498 1.91 986 1.62 18,676 2.39 388 12.48 9,251 4.72 28,314 3.292012 7,502 2.89 7,722 1.97 931 1.80 16,266 2.38 237 12.48 9,747 3.42 26,249 2.832013 7,351 2.77 7,511 2.00 927 1.78 15,907 2.34 256 11.57 8,721 4.33 24,884 3.09* = Value is less than half of the smallest unit ofmeasure. (e.g., for values with no decimals, the smallest unit is 1 then values under 0.5 are shown as *.)NM = Not meaningful due to large relative standarderror or excessive percentage change.W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.Notes:Coal includes anthracite, bituminous, subbituminous, lignite, and waste coal; coal synfuel and refinedcoal; and beginning in 2011, coal-derived synthesis gas. Prior to 2011 coal-derived synthesis gas wasincluded in Other Gases.Bituminous coal includes anthracite coal; and beginning in 2011, coal-derived synthesis gas. Prior to2011 coal-derived synthesis gas was included in Other Gases.Petroleum includes Petroleum Liquids and PetroleumCoke.Petroleum Liquids includes distillate and residualfuel oils, jet fuel, kerosene, waste oil, and beginning in 2011, propane. Prior to 2011 propane was included in Other Gases.Petroleum Coke includes petroleum coke-derived synthesis gas. Prior to 2011, petroleum coke-derived synthesis gas was included in Other Gases.See the Technical Notes for fuel conversion factors.See Glossary for definitions.Values are final.See Technical Notes for a discussion of the sampledesign for the Form EIA-923 and predecessor forms.Totals may not equal sum of components because of independent rounding.Sources: U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Form EIA-923, "Power Plant Operations Report" and predecessor form(s) including Form EIA-423, "Monthly Cost and Quality of Fuels for Electric PlantsReport" and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), FERC Form 423, "MonthlyReport of Cost and Quality of Fuels for Electric Plants"1 of 1
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 6- 37 35

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e
v. Ja m es All en Cri pp en ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ctof M is so ur i - J op li n

__ __ __ __ __ __ Subm it te d: Ju ne 26 , 20 17 Fi le d: Ju ne 30 , 20 17 [Unpubl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re LOKEN, ARNOLD , andMURPHY, Ci rcu itJu dg es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.
Afte r th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed hi s m ot io n to su pp res s ev id en ce, Ja m es All en 1 Cri pp en pl ead ed gu il ty to ch il d- po rn og rap hy of fen se s and was se nt en ced be lo w th e
The Hon or ab le M. Dou gl as Harp oo l, Uni te d St at e s D i s t ric t Ju dg e fo r th e 1 W es te rnDis tri ctof M is so ur i.ad vi so ry Gui de li ne s ran ge . On ap pe al , Cri pp en ’s co un se l ha s m ov ed to withd raw,

an d ha s fil ed a br ie f un de r And ers v. Cal ifo rn ia , 38 6 U.S. 73 8 (1 96 7) , ch al le ng in g th e de ni al of th e supp res si on m ot io n. Cri pp en ’s un co nd i t i o n a l gu il ty pl ea, ho wev er, fo recl os es ou r rev ie w of th e supp res si on ru li ng . See Uni te d St at es v. Ch ris te ns o n , 65 3 F.3 d 69 7, 69 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). Fu rth er, h av in g in de pe nd en tl y rev ie wed th e reco rd un de r Pen so n v. Ohi o, 48 8 U.S. 75 (1 98 8) , we fin d no no nf riv ol ou s is su es fo r ap pe al

. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm th e jud gm en t of th e di st ric t co ur t, an d we gr an t co un se l’s m ot io n t o wi th dr aw.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2

-
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 June 25, 2013

t0617

Order 

Clerk

June 25, 2013

146988

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 146988

COA: 306903 

St Clair CC: 10-002936-FC

TIA MARIE-MITCHELL SKINNER,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 21, 2013 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Exhibit 32.1


CERTIFICATIONS
OF


CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND SENIOR COST ACCOUNTANT


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 SouthPeak Interactive Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2010, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), Melanie Mroz, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company
and James Huyck, Senior Cost Accountant of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to our best knowledge:





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:
February 17, 2011





/s/
      Melanie MrozMelanie
      MrozPresident
      and Chief Executive Officer/s/
      James HuyckJames
      HuyckSenior
      Cost Accountant
#### Curtis THOMAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 84-1719.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 14, 1987.

Douglas N. Duncan of Foley, Colton & Duncan, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee and Georgina Jimenez-Orosa, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See Thomas v. State,*494 So.2d 248 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); *Thomas v. State,*494 So.2d 240 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); *Jones v. State,*336 So.2d 672 (Fla. 1st DCA), *cert. denied,*341 So.2d 1083 (Fla.1976).

GLICKSTEIN, DELL and STONE, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 10.11


 


Globis
Acquisition Corp.


805
Third Avenue, 15th floor


New
York, New York 10022


 


_____________,
2020


_______________


_______________


_______________


 


Ladies
and Gentlemen:


 


This
letter will confirm our agreement that, commencing on the effective date (the “Effective Date”) of the registration
statement (the “Registration Statement”) for the initial public offering (the “IPO”) of the securities
of Globis Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”) and continuing until the earlier of (i) the consummation by the Company
of an initial business combination or (ii) the Company’s liquidation (in each case as described in the Registration Statement)
(such earlier date hereinafter referred to as the “Termination Date”), _________ (the “Affiliate”) shall
make available to the Company certain office space, utilities and secretarial and administrative support as may be required by
the Company from time to time, situated at 805 Third Avenue, 15th floor, New York, New York 10022 (or any successor location).
In exchange therefor, the Company shall pay the Affiliate the sum of $10,000 per month on the Effective Date and continuing monthly
thereafter until the Termination Date; provided, however, that the Company may delay payment of such monthly fee upon a determination
by the audit committee of the board of directors of the Company that the Company lacks sufficient funds held outside of the Trust
Account (as defined below) to pay actual or anticipated expenses in connection with an initial business combination. Any such
unpaid amount shall accrue without interest and either be due and payable no later than the date of the Company’s initial
business combination or at the Affiliate’s option, treated as working capital loans and be convertible into warrants on
terms identical to the private warrants. If the Company does not consummate an initial business combination, any accrued and unpaid
amounts hereunder shall be forgiven. The Affiliate hereby agrees that it does not have any right, title, interest or claim of
any kind in or to any monies that may be set aside in a trust account (the “Trust Account”) to be established upon
the consummation of the IPO (the “Claim”) and hereby waives any Claim it may have in the future as a result of, or
arising out of, any negotiations, contracts or agreements with the Company and will not seek recourse against the Trust Account
for any reason whatsoever.


 


[Signature
Page Follows]


 




    	 



     


    




 


	 	Very
truly yours,
	 	 
	 	Globis
    acquisition corp.
	 	 
	 	By:	 
	 	Name:	Paul
    Packer
	 	Title:	Chief
    Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary


 


	Acknowledged
    and Agreed:	 
	 	 
	___________	 
	 	 
	By:	            	 
	Name:	 	 
	Title:	 	 


 


[Signature
Page to Administrative Services Agreement]
50066.

#### JERNIGAN v. COLLIER.

Evans, Judge.

On December 18, 1970, Shirley Jernigan sued Lena B. Collier for personal injury and damage arising out of a collision of automobiles. Defendant was served and filed defensive pleadings, and subsequently died on January 14, 1972. On July 11, 1972, her death was suggested of record by counsel who represented the deceased, but no substitution of parties was made.

On April 13, 1972, costs were paid in this suit, and plaintiff filed another suit, substantially in the same form and substance, against the executor of the estate of Lena B. Collier, deceased. Motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted to defendant, and plaintiff appealed.

This court, in a divided opinion, in *Jernigan v. Collier,*131 Ga. App. 162 (205 SE2d 450), affirmed in part without prejudice to the rights of the parties in the case which was still pending in the lower court. Counsel for *the deceased defendant*then moved to dismiss, and plaintiff moved to substitute *the executor of the estate as defendant.*The lower court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss because there had been no motion to substitute the proper party within 180 days from the service of the suggestion of the fact of death, and more than two years had passed without any motion to substitute. The court also stated that no justification for the delay had been presented. Plaintiff appeals. *Held:*

"Unless the motion for substitution is made not later than 180 days after the death is suggested upon the record by service of a statement of the fact of the death . . . the action shall be dismissed as to the deceased party.” Code Ann. § 81A-125 (a) (1). Here, almost two years had passed after the death was suggested, and under the statute, the court had the right to dismiss as Code Ann. § 81A-125 (a) (1) provides that, "the action shall be dismissed.” This is true regardless of whether or not the alleged counsel for the deceased would be authorized to make the motion to dismiss. (Note: This motion was made by counsel for the *deceased,*and not counsel for the *Estate of the Deceased,*which plaintiff was seeking to substitute as proper party.) *138A judgment that is right for any reason cannot be reversed. *Sims T. V. v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co.,*108 Ga. App. 41, 43 (131 SE2d 790), and as was so succinctly stated by Justice Bleckley in *Lee v. Porter,*63 Ga. 345, 346: "The human mind is so constituted that in many instances it *finds the truth*when wholly unable to *find the way*that leads to it.

Submitted January 14, 1975

Decided February 12, 1975

Rehearing denied March 4, 1975

*Albert B. Wallace, William R. L. Latson,*for appellant.

*Long, Weinberg, Ansley & Wheeler, Arnold Wright, Jr.,*for appellee.

"The 'pupil of impulse, it forced him along,

His conduct still right, with his argument wrong; Still aiming at honor, yet fearing to roam,

The coachman was tipsy, the chariot drove home.’ ”

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Deen, P. J., and Stolz, J., concur.*