alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
J I M WEBB 

VIRGINIA 

COMMITTEE ON 

ARMED SERVICES 

COMMITTEE ON 

FOREIGN RELATIONS 

COMMITTEE ON 

VETERANS' AFFAIRS 

JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE 

WASHINGTON OFFICE: 

WASHINGTON, DC 20510 

(202)224-4024 

Bnited States Senate 

WASHINGTON, DC 20510-4605 

August 20, 2010 

Ms. Heideh Shahmoradi 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Dear Ms. Shahmoradi: 

rsj 

> 

~n 

CO 

I am writing to express my support for an application submitted to the U.S. Department 

of Transportation's (DOT) Small Community Air Service Development Program (SCASDP) by 

the Shenandoah Valley Regional Airport Commission (SVRAC). 

It is my understanding that prior to 2002, the Shenandoah Valley Regional Airport 

provided self-sustaining, community-supported air transportation to Virginians living in the 

Shenandoah Valley. According to the SVRAC, service at the Shenandoah Valley Regional 

Airport was reduced by approximately seventy-percent following September 11, 2001, and the 

airport lost a commensurate volume of passenger traffic. Resources provided through the 

SCASDP would allow the Shenandoah Valley Regional airport Commission to pursue a 

substantial and sustained advertising campaign aimed at enhancing awareness of services offered 

at the airport, which could possibly reduce or eliminate the airport's need for assistance through 

the DOT'S Essential Air Service Program. 

It appears that the Shenandoah Valley Regional Airport Commission (SVRAC) is wellpositioned to meet the goals of the Small Community Air Service Development Program and, to 

that end, I ask that you give this application every fair and favorable consideration in keeping 

with established federal laws and guidelines governing your program. I further ask that you keep 

me informed of the status of this proposal by contacting Mr. Martin Mash in my Roanoke office 

at 3140 Chaparral Drive, Building C, Suite 101, Roanoke, Virginia 24018. Mr. Mash may also 

be reached via telephone at (540) 772-4236. 

With warm regards, I am 

I Webb 

ited States Senator 

,TW: mm
#### STATE ex rel. Richard T. REYNOLDS v. Hon. Robert P. JACKSON, Judge, Ninth Judicial District Court.

No. 88-KH-2622.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 21, 1989.

In re Reynolds, Richard T.; — Plaintiff(s); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court, Div. “E”, No. 208733; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KW88-0925.

Denied. Relator should direct his request for the police report to the custodian °f records for the law enforcement agency which employed the officer(s) who made that report. *See*La.R.S. 44:31 *et seq.*Insofar as the other records relator’s motion seeks are concerned, relator has not shown a particularized need for these documents.
#### Constantino Di Tullio et al., Plaintiffs, *v.*William H. Deacy et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Bronx County,

September 4, 1958.

*566*Rocco L. Moles*for defendants.

*Blealdey, Platt, Walker, Hart >& Fritz*for plaintiffs.

Charles A. Loreto, J.

Motion to dismiss under rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice for failure of plaintiffs to state in the complaint facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

Defendant is accused by the plaintiffs of making certain defamatory statements in a letter addressed to the clerk of the Municipal Court, Second District, The Bronx. The letter was submitted prior to trial, in connection with a small claims matter, in which defendant presumably, as an expert attempted to fortify the position of the defendant in the Municipal Court action. It is the defendant’s contention that since the letter was pertinent to the case in court the action was barred on the ground of privilege.

It is established law in this jurisdiction that all statements contained in documents and pleadings pertinent to the issues of a court proceeding are absolutely privileged upon the ground of public policy. *(People ex rel. Bensky*v. *Warden,*258 N. Y. 55.) This rule has been liberally construed so as to afford its protection not only to formal pleadings and affidavits, but also to communications between parties to the action and their attorneys. (See *Zirn*v. *Collum,*187 Misc. 241.)

It is the opinion of the court, however, that the rule of absolute privilege was never meant to apply to unsolicited communications made by persons not directly involved in the litigation, officiously made and not acceptable as evidence. To hold otherwise would open the door wide for abuse detrimental to the public policy the rule is intended to serve.

Motion to dismiss is, therefore, denied.
#### WELLINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Appellant, v. CRYSTAL FARMS UNLIMITED, Appellee.

No. 88-0050.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 15, 1988.

*1010John S. Trimper of Jones & Foster, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Babbitt & Hazouri, P.A., and Larry Klein of Klein & Beranek, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WALDEN and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.

GLICKSTEIN, J., concurs specially with opinion.

GLICKSTEIN, Judge,

concurring specially.

We have affirmed the trial court’s denial of the insurer’s motion to dismiss. The trial court determined Florida had personal jurisdiction over the Canadian insurer.

The basis for the jurisdiction is section 48.193(l)(g), Florida Statutes (1987). The insurer was defending its Canadian insured in Florida because of an accident which occurred here. The allegation of the plaintiff insured is that its insurer acted in bad faith by refusing to settle within the policy limits, resulting in an excess judgment against the insured.
**Exhibit 15.4**

March 6, 2017 

US Securities and Exchange Commission 

100 F Street, N.E. 

Washington, DC 20549 

Ladies and Gentlemen: 

We are in agreement with the statements contained in thesection referenced as Item 16F on page 78 under the heading “External Auditor – Appointment of External Auditors at Annual General Meeting” of Smith & Nephew plc’s Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended31 December 2014. We have also read the section referenced as Item 16F on page 76 under the heading “External Auditor – Independence of External Auditor” of Smith & Nephew plc’s Annual Report on Form 20-Ffor the year ended 31 December 2015 and are in agreement with the statement in the first paragraph referring to change of external auditor therein. We have no basis to agree or disagree with other statements of the registrant containedtherein. 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

Ernst & Young LLP 

London, England
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Earl K. HARRISON.

No. 87-K-0920.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 12, 1987.

In re Harrison, Earl K.; applying for writ of certiorari; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 18373-KA; Parish of Madison, 6th Judicial District Court, Div. “B”, No. 45489.

Prior report: La.App., 501 So.2d 1041.

Denied.
A02A0042.

#### BOWDEN v. THE STATE.

(556 SE2d 919)

Phipps, Judge.

Ernest Bowden appeals his convictions of aggravated assault and battery and the denial of his motion for new trial on evidentiary grounds. He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions. Finding the evidence sufficient, we affirm.

The victim was Diane Smith, Bowden’s common law wife. The evidence showed that during a domestic dispute while both parties were drinking, Bowden burned Smith with an iron and battered her with his hands and fists. Bowden argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his aggravated assault conviction, because Smith testified at trial that she was burned by the iron accidentally after she had lunged at him with it. Nonetheless, pretrial statements Smith made to her daughter and to police authorized the jury to find that Bowden intentionally burned Smith with the iron after pushing her onto the floor. In an affidavit in support of Bowden’s motion for new trial, Smith claimed, somewhat inconsistently with her trial testimony, that she fell on the iron after Bowden pushed her.

Conflicts in the testimony of the witnesses, including the State’s witnesses, are a matter of credibility for the jury to resolve.1 Because there is competent evidence supporting each fact necessary to make *785out the State’s case, the jury’s verdict must be upheld.2 The evidence supports both convictions, and the trial court did not err in denying Bowden’s motion for new trial.

Decided December 5, 2001.

*Hurl R. Taylor, Jr.,*for appellant.

*J. Tom Morgan, District Attorney, Jeanne M. Canavan, Assistant District Attorney,*for appellee.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Andrews, P. J., and Mikell, J., concur.*

2

 Id.

1

*Peek v. State,*247 Ga. App. 364, 365 (1) (542 SE2d 517) (2000).
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 205 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 205

     Designating the week of each November in which the holiday of 
         Thanksgiving is observed as ``National Family Week''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 19, 1999

  Mr. Grassley (for himself, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Torricelli, and Mr. Lugar) 
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 
                            on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
     Designating the week of each November in which the holiday of 
         Thanksgiving is observed as ``National Family Week''.

Whereas the family is the basic strength of any free and orderly society;
Whereas it is appropriate to honor the family unit as essential to the continued 
        well-being of the United States; and
Whereas it is fitting that official recognition be given to the importance of 
        family loyalties and ties: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) designates the week of each November in which the 
        holiday of Thanksgiving is observed as ``National Family 
        Week''; and
            (2) requests that the President issue each year a 
        proclamation--
                    (A) designating the week of each November in which 
                the holiday of Thanksgiving is observed as ``National 
                Family Week''; and
                    (B) calling on the people of the United States to 
                observe ``National Family Week'' with appropriate 
                ceremonies and activities.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT
32.1


CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





The
undersigned, the Chairwoman and Chief Executive Officer of Universal Travel
Group (the "Company"), does hereby certify under the standards set forth and
solely for the purposes of 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 the Company for the quarter ended  June 30, 2010 fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-Q fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.





Dated:
      August 10, 2010
            /s/
      Jiangping JiangJiangping
      JiangChairwoman
      and Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      I, Edwin C. Quattlebaum, Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer, President and
Co-Chairman of the Board of Directors of MetaMorphix, Inc. (the "Registrant"),
certify that to the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the quarterly
report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2005 of the Registrant (the
"Report"):

          (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 operations of the
    Registrant.

                                     By:       /s/ Edwin C. Quattlebaum, Ph.D.


                                               Edwin C. Quattlebaum, Ph.D.
                                         CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PRESIDENT AND
                                              CO-CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF
                                                      DIRECTORS OF
                                                    METAMORPHIX, INC.

Date:  October 3, 2006
#### STATE ex rel. Calvin WARE v. Hilton BUTLER, Warden.

No. 87-KH-2256.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 13, 1987.

In re Ware, Calvin; applying for supervisory and/or remedial and writ of mandamus; Parish of Evangeline, 13th Judicial District Court, Div. “A”, No. 29406.

Denied. The Third Circuit Court of Appeal has acted.
VERNELLE JONES, FORMER PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF MERVIN ALLEN JONES, SR.

, Appellant,

v.

PETER C. K. ENWALL, SUCCESSOR PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF MERVIN ALLEN JONES, SR

. , Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 1927

_____________________________/

Opinion filed May 26, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Alac hua County

. Donna M Keim , Judge

. Vernelle Jones, Former Personal Representative of the Estate of Mervin Allen Jones, Sr. , pro se , Appellant.

Peter C. K. Enwall, Successor Personal Representative of the Estate of Mervin Allen Jones, Sr., pro se , Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED

.
RAY, MAKAR, and OSTERHAUS

, J J

. , CONCUR.
#### E. Lee WEBSTER v. The TERREBONNE PARISH COUNCIL (Formerly Known As the Terrebonne Parish Police Jury).

No. 87-C-2480.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 8, 1988.

In re Webster, E. Lee; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. CA86 1149; Parish of Terrebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court, Div. “D”, No. 75087.

Prior report: La.App., 515 So.2d 461.

Denied. The result is correct.

CALOGERO, J., would grant the writ.

DIXON, C.J., and DENNIS, J., would grant, not necessarily agreeing with the Court of Appeal opinion on the law, but believing the result is wrong.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Thomas P. Russo, Executive Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of MetaMorphix, Inc. (the Registrant), certify that to the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB/A (Amendment No. 1) for the period ended March 31, 2007 of the Registrant (the Report):

(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 operations of the Registrant.

| | By:                                                                    | /S/ THOMAS P.
    RUSSO
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | -----------------------
|
| | Thomas P. Russo                                                       
| | Executive
    Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of
| | MetaMorphix,
          Inc.                                           



Date: February 29, 2008

---
50648.

#### ROBINSON v. REARDEN et al.

Webb, Judge.

A "pro se” answer timely filed in response to a suit on a note, setting forth the style and number of the case and the date it was filed, denying that the note was dated February 11, 1974, as alleged in the complaint but was actually dated February 11, 1972, as shown on a copy of the note attached to the complaint, and alleging that the "note has been satisfied either by credit to note or by monies received by complainant,” is not a nullity but is *816sufficient to join the issue in the case and to withstand a motion for judgment on the pleadings and a motion for judgment by default. Code Ann. §§ 81A-108 (b), (e)(1), (f); cf. *Snooks v. Factory Square, Inc.,*129 Ga. App. 772 (201 SE2d 168); *Knickerbocker Tax Systems v. Texaco, Inc.,*130 Ga. App. 383, 384 (2) (203 SE2d 290). Compare *Glenco-Belevedere Animal Hospital v. Winters,*129 Ga. App. 621 (200 SE2d 506). Since the name of the corporate defendant and of the individual defendant both appear on the answer, we will not disturb the trial court’s ruling that the answer is the answer of both defendants and that neither is in default.

Submitted May 6, 1975

Decided May 13, 1975.

*David P. Daniel,*for appellant.

*John W. Love,*for appellee.

*Judgments affirmed.*

*Bell, C. J., and Marshall, J., concur.*
#### SEx parte Roger Dale KENNEDY (Re: Roger Dale Kennedy v. State).

84-1258.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Jan. 10, 1986.

Sam Clenney, III, Abbeville, for petitioner.

Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Helen P. Nelson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

BEATTY, Justice.

Reversed and remanded to the Court of Criminal Appeals on the authority of *Ex parte Boatwright,*471 So.2d 1257 (Ala. 1985).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

FAULKNER, JONES, ALMON, SHORES, ADAMS and HOUSTON, JJ., concur.

TORBERT, C.J., and MADDOX, J., concur specially.

MADDOX, Justice

(concurring specially).

This case points out once again the frequency with which defendants, even when they plead guilty, are seeking to have their convictions and sentences reviewed in post-conviction proceedings. As I pointed out in *Ex parte Boatwright,*471 So.2d 1257 (Ala.1985), in a special concurring opinion, I believe that this Court should adopt a rule of procedure which would help to manage the flood of petitions which defendants are filing in pursuit of post-conviction relief. An appropriate rule of procedure would help both the trial courts and the appellate courts in eliminating frivolous petitions and in granting relief in those truly meritorious cases.
Exhibit
      32





**CERTIFICATION
      OF 10-KSB REPORT** **OF**




**ZYNEX
      MEDICAL HOLDINGS, INC.**


**FOR
      THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2006**





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 17, 2007.








/s/
      Thomas Sandgaard


Thomas
      Sandgaard


President
      and Chief Executive Officer








/s/
      Fritz G. Allison


Fritz
      G.
      Allison


Chief
      Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 11

                           THE NATIONAL REGISTRY INC.
                         CALCULATION OF LOSS PER SHARE
                  (In thousands except per share information)


                                      YEAR ENDED    YEAR ENDED    YEAR ENDED
                                      DECEMBER 31,  DECEMBER 31,  DECEMBER 31,
                                         1994          1995(1)       1996
                                      ----------    ------------  ------------

PRIMARY LOSS PER SHARE:

    Weighted average shares
     outstanding of Common Stock        19,093        23,238        28,077
                                       =======       =======       =======

    Net loss                           (57,006)      (85,070)      $(7,340)
                                       =======       =======       =======

    Net loss per share                 $ (0.37)      $ (0.22)      $ (0.26)
                                       =======       =======       =======

(1)  During the period indicated, the Company had 100,000 shares of preferred
     stock convertible into` 6,336,154 shares of common stock, 4,876,000 options
     and 75,200 warrants outstanding to purchase common stock of the Company.
     Preferred stock, stock options and warrants are not considered in the
     compensation because they are anti-dilutive in the aggregate.
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1
 
                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
 
     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement
of Verity, Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-2600) of our reports dated June 19,
1998 on our audits of the consolidated financial statements and financial
statement schedule of Verity, Inc. as of May 31, 1997 and 1998 and for the years
ended May 31, 1996, 1997 and 1998, which reports are included in the Annual
Report on Form 10-K.
 
                                          PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
 
San Jose, California
August 12, 1998
#### Frances Earline MALONE v. O’Neal MALONE, as Administrator of the Estate of Franklin Donald Malone, Deceased.

Civ. 6026.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

March 29, 1989.

AFTER REMAND FROM THE ALABAMA SUPREME COURT

INGRAM, Judge.

Upon remand to this court by the Supreme Court of Alabama, it is considered that the trial court’s judgment in the above-styled case should be affirmed in accordance with the judgment rendered by the supreme court on September 23, 1988, 543 So.2d 1190.

AFFIRMED.

HOLMES, P.J., and ROBERTSON, J., concur.
#### Richard R. SWANN, Trustee, Appellant, v. SHAMROCK ENGINEERING and Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc., Appellees.

No. 87-1142.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

March 10, 1988.

Edmund T. Baxa, Jr., of Swann & Haddock, P.A., Orlando, for appellant.

James C. Mize, Jr., of Bull & Mize, Orlando, for appellee Shamrock Engineering, Inc.

John C. Briggs of Fisher, Rushmer, Wer-renrath, Keiner, Wack & Dickson, P.A., Orlando, for appellee Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc.

DAUKSCH, Judge.

This is an appeal from an order of dismissal for failure to prosecute. Fla.R. Civ.P. 1.420(e). We reverse.

The trial judge, not the one who signed the order on appeal, ordered that “the Motion for Separate Trials ... is hereby granted. Once the Plaintiffs’ case in chief has been concluded, the parties may subsequently notice the cross-claims and third party claim/s for trial.” It is the dismissal for failure to prosecute these cross-claims and third-party claims which is on appeal here.

There is no evidence in this record to support appellees’ contention that the “case in chief” has been concluded. Although a settlement apparently was reached, and the matter was obviously not to go to trial, all of the paperwork apparently was not finalized and delivered. In view of this it is our determination the trial judge erred in dismissing the matter. The order of dismissal *362is reversed and this cause remanded for trial.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

SHARP, C.J., and ORFINGER, J., concur.