alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Barbara J. WARREN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Robert L. WARREN, Defendant and Respondent.

No. 17514.

Supreme Court of Utah.

March 1, 1982.

John D. Parken, Paul H. Proctor, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and appellant.

Nicholas DeJonge, Salt Lake City, for defendant and respondent.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant filed a “motion for an injunction” in a divorce case, the appeal of which is now pending before this Court. Pursuant to Rule 65A, Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, appellant seeks to restrain the parties from dissipating the assets of the marriage during the pendency of the appeal.

The district court is the proper court to address motions of this type in the ordinary case.1 Article VIII, Section 7 of the Constitution of Utah provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

> The District Courts or any judge thereof, shall have power to issue writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, *injunction,*quo war-ranto, certiorari, prohibition and other writs *necessary to carry into effect their orders judgments and decrees*.... [Emphasis added.]

This Court is not equipped to take evidence and typically refuses to address issues raised here for the first time. Any jurisdiction we may have in such matters 2 should be invoked only after a party has sought relief in the district court, in all but the most exceptional circumstances.

Appellant’s motion is therefore denied.

DURHAM, J., does not participate herein.

1

. In divorce matters specifically, the district court maintains “continuing jurisdiction to make such subsequent changes or new orders with respect to the support and maintenance of the parties, the custody of the children and their support and maintenance, or the distribution of the property as shall be reasonable and necessary.” U.C.A., 1953, 30-3-5.

2

. Rule 62(g), Utah Rules of Civil Procedure provides as follows:

> The provisions in the Rule do not limit any power of an appellate court or of a judge or justice thereof to stay proceedings during the pendency of an appeal or to suspend, modify, restore, or grant an injunction, writ of mandate or writ of prohibition during the penden-cy of an appeal or to make any order appropriate to preserve the status quo or the effectiveness of the judgment subsequently to be entered.
#### Joseph R. ALFONSO, Appellant, v. FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION and Coldwell Banker, Appellees.

No. 85-2554.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 23, 1986.

Joseph R. Alfonso, in pro per.

John D. Maher, Tallahassee, for Unemployment Appeals Com’n.

Before HENDRY, NESBITT and JOR-GENSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *Florida State University v. Jenkins,*323 So.2d 597 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975).
#### S.S., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 86-2363.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 21, 1988.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Robert Burke, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Michele L. Crawford, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before NESBITT, BASKIN and FERGUSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *State v. Young,*217 So.2d 567 (Fla.1968); *N.C. v. State,*478 So.2d 1142 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).
#### Mary Louise SAUCIER v. The COUNTRY CLUB OF JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI, INC.

No. 58440.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

March 29, 1989.

Rehearing Denied May 3, 1989.

Paul Snow, David Slaughter, Paul Snow & Associates, Jackson, for appellant.

Stephen P. Kruger, Upshaw, Williams, Biggers, Page *&*Kruger, Jackson, for ap-pellee.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Hinds County; L. Breland Hilbum, Judge.

Before DAN M. LEE, P.J., and SULLIVAN and ANDERSON, JJ.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.2











CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. Section 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the Quarterly Report of Ecolocap Solutions Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Michel St-Pierre, Chief Financial Officer 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:





(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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated this 16th day of August, 2010








MICHEL ST-PIERREMichel St-PierreChief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 63 (Monday, April 2, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19676-19677]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7834]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human 
Development; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Child Health and Human 
Development Special Emphasis Panel Autism and Related Disorders
    Date: April 24, 2012.
    Time: 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.

[[Page 19677]]

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6100 Executive Boulevard, 
Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Marita R. Hopmann, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Division of Scientific Review, Eunice Kennedy Shriver 
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6100 
Executive Blvd. Room 5B01, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-6911, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fc94938c919d929291bc919d9590d2929594d29b938a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c0a8afb0ada1aeaead80ada1a9aceeaea9a8eea7afb6">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, 
Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 
93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, 
Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: March 27, 2012.
Jennifer S. Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-7834 Filed 3-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### STATE ex rel. James Earl WILLIAMS v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 87-KH-0051.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 23, 1987.

In re Williams, James Earl; applying for writ of mandamus; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “G”, No. 219-697.

The motion is granted in part and denied in part. Granted in part, the trial judge is ordered to rule on the motion for a P.S.I. without further delay and before the hearing scheduled for January 27. Otherwise denied.
III

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 301

Designating August 16, 2000, as ‘‘National Airborne Day’’.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 1, 2000

Mr. THURMOND submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

Designating August 16, 2000, as ‘‘National Airborne Day’’.

Whereas the Parachute Test Platoon was authorized by the

War Department on June 25, 1940, to experiment with

the potential use of airborne troops;

Whereas the Parachute Test Platoon was composed of 48 volunteers that began training in July, 1940;

Whereas the Parachute Test Platoon performed the first official Army parachute jump on August 16, 1940;

Whereas the success of the Parachute Test Platoon led to the

formation of a large and successful airborne contingent

serving from World War II until the present;

Whereas the 11th, 13th, 17th, 82nd, and 101st Airborne Divisions and the numerous other regimental and battalionsized airborne units were organized following the success

of the Parachute Test Platoon;
2

•SRES 301 IS

Whereas the 501st Parachute Battalion participated successfully and valiantly in achieving victory in World War II;

Whereas the airborne achievements during World War II provided the basis for continuing the development of a diversified force of parachute and air assault troops;

Whereas paratroopers, glidermen, and air assault troops of

the United States were and are proud members of the

world’s most exclusive and honorable fraternity, have

earned and wear the ‘‘Silver Wings of Courage’’, have

participated in a total of 93 combat jumps, and have distinguished themselves in battle by earning 69 Congressional Medals of Honor, the highest military decoration

of the United States, and hundreds of Distinguished

Service Crosses and Silver Stars;

Whereas these airborne forces have performed in important

military and peacekeeping operations, wherever needed,

in World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon, Sinai, the

Dominican Republic, Panama, Somalia, Haiti, and Bosnia; and

Whereas the Senate joins together with the airborne community to celebrate August 16, 2000 (the 60th anniversary

of the first official parachute jump by the Parachute Test

Platoon), as ‘‘National Airborne Day’’: Now, therefore,

be it

1 Resolved, That the Senate—

2 (1) designates August 16, 2000, as ‘‘National

3 Airborne Day’’; and

4 (2) requests that the President issue a procla5 mation calling on Federal, State, and local adminis6 trators and the people of the United States to ob-
3

•SRES 301 IS

1 serve the day with appropriate programs, cere2 monies, and activities.

Æ
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(A) OR RULE 15D-14(A)**

**OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934**

I, Stephen E. Carley, certify that:

1.          I  have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of EPL Intermediate, Inc.;

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

3.          Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report. 

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

  (a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures,  or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,  to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its  consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,  particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

  (b)  [Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release  Nos. 33-8238, 34-47986, 33-8392 and 33-8545];

 (c)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

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

5.           The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

  (a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses  in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which  are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,  process, summarize and report financial information; and 

  (b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves  management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's  internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: May 12, 2006

/s/ Stephen E. Carley          

Stephen E. Carley

President 

EPL Intermediate, Inc.

 

----
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 Quarterly Report of SmartPros Ltd. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the period ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, the undersigned, Allen S.
Greene, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Stanley P. Wirtheim, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 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, 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 Company.

A
signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon
request.

Date: August
 10, 2010

| |     |                                | 
| | --- | ------------------------------ | 
| | /s/ | ALLEN S.
 GREENE               | 
| |     |                                | 
| |     | Allen S.
 Greene              
| |     | Chief
 Executive Officer      
| |     | (Principal
 Executive Officer)
| |     |                                | 
| | /s/ | STANLEY P.
 WIRTHEIM           | 
| |     |                                | 
| |     | Stanley P.
 Wirtheim          
| |     | Chief
 Financial Officer      
| |     | (Principal
 Financial Officer)

---
#### BEN GLAZER COMPANY, INC., Abe Glazer, Harry Glazer, M.D., and Pearl Glazer Horowitz v. THARP-SONTHEIMER-THARP, INC., and Meyer Glazer, Individually and In His Capacity As Executor of the Succession of Jayne A. Glazer.

No. CA 8066.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

Dec. 30, 1987.

Warren A. Goldstein, New Orleans, for plaintiffs-appellants.

A.D. Freeman, Satterlee, Mestayer & Freeman, New Orleans, for defendant-ap-pellee.

Before CIACCIO and LOBRANO, JJ., and CADE, J. Pro Tern.

HERBERT A. CADE, Judge Pro Tern.

This court ordered four of five burial plots in the Glazer family plot divided among Abe Glazer, Harry Glazer, M.D., Pearl Glazer Horowitz and Meyer Glazer, designating that the plot in which Meyer Glazer’s wife is buried belongs to him, and leaving the other three siblings to choose from the four remaining plots. The plot not chosen was ordered sold at auction. The matter was remanded for the trial court to determine whether Meyer Glazer owed his brothers and sister damages for burying his wife in the family plot without their consent. See *Ben Glazer Co. v. Tharp-Sontheimer-Tharp, Inc.,*491 So.2d 722 (La.App. 4th Cir.), writ denied 496 So. 2d 348 (La.1986).

On remand Abe Glazer, Harry Glazer, M.D. and Pearl Glazer Horowitz each selected a burial plot. The remaining plot— *208that contiguous to Mrs. Meyer Glazer’s resting place — was purchased by Abe Glazer. The issue of damages was tried and the trial court found no damages were due. Abe Glazer, Harry Glazer, M.D., and Pearl Glazer Horowitz now ask us to reverse that determination and to award damages.

Our review of the record on remand reveals no reversible error. Pearl Glazer Horowitz did not appear or testify at trial. Harry Glazer did not appear or testify at trial. Abe Glazer testified only that the presence of his late sister-in-law’s remains in the family plot caused him “grieving,” affected him “pretty bad”, and aggravated an ulcerous condition; that the relationship between his late mother and his late sister-in-law was “very bad”; and that he purchased the plot between them for $20,-000.00. On such a meager record we are not inclined to disturb the trial court’s factual findings, and accordingly affirm the judgment.

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                            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 Ansoft Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the year ended April 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Nicholas Csendes,
President and Chief Executive Officer 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 my knowledge:


(1) The Report fully complies with 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.




                           By: /s/ Nicholas Csendes
                           ---------------------------------------
                           Nicholas Csendes
                           President and Chief Executive Officer


This certification is made solely for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other
purpose.
#### Walter GRAY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 87-674.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

June 16, 1988.

Rollin E. Tomberlin, Sp. Asst. Public Defender of Bond, Arnett & Phelan, P.A., Ocala, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Kellie A. Nielan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.

DAUKSCH, Judge.

This is an appeal from convictions for delivery, possession and conspiracy to deliver cocaine. There is ample evidence to support the convictions for sale and possession. There is inadequate evidence to support the conspiracy conviction. The conspiracy statute says:

> Whoever agrees, conspires, combines, or confederates with another person or *1021persons to commit any offense commits the offense of criminal conspiracy ...

The state proved that an informant walked up to Burley and asked him if he was selling cocaine. He said no and took him to Gray. The informant handed money to Burley who handed it to Gray who handed cocaine to Burley who handed it to the informant. Gray and Burley were then arrested. There was no proof of any prearrangement, any prior discussions or plans or anything else done in preparation for the above events. No proof they conspired together to commit the crime or did anything other than engage in the one transaction.

This absence of proof requires that this court reverse the judgment of conviction for conspiracy.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part.

SHARP, C.J., and ORFINGER, J., concur.
#### Enid Faust Eckhardt, Wife of Elroy W. ECKHARDT v. Elroy W. ECKHARDT.

No. 86-C-2576.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 30, 1987.

In re Eckhardt, Enid Faust; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, Nos. 86-CA-358, 86-CA-360; Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court, Div. “J”, No. 268-895.

Prior report: La.App., 499 So.2d 1204.

Denied.

MARCUS and WATSON, JJ., would grant the writ.
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit 

No. 21-50382 

consolidated with 

Nos. 21-50384, 21-50398 

Summary Calendar 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Sergio Rodriguez-Garcia, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

Appeals from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas 

USDC No. 7:16-CR-88-1 

 USDC No. 7:12-CR-306-1 

 USDC No. 4:20-CR-537-1 

Before Jolly, Willett, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

*

 Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

October 15, 2021 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 21-50382 Document: 00516056207 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/15/2021
No. 21-50382 

c/w Nos. 21-50384, 21-50398 

2 

Sergio Rodriguez-Garcia appeals the sentence imposed following his 

guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry, as well as the revocations of the 

terms of supervised release he was serving at the time of the offense. Because 

his brief does not address the validity of the revocations or the revocation 

sentences, he has abandoned any challenge to them. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 

F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). 

The sole argument Rodriguez-Garcia raises on appeal is that the 

enhancement of his sentence pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) is 

unconstitutional because the fact of a prior conviction must be charged and 

proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. He acknowledges this argument 

to be foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), 

but seeks to preserve the issue for further review. The Government has 

moved for summary affirmance or, in the alternative, for an extension of time 

to file a brief. 

The Supreme Court held in Almendarez-Torres that for purposes of a 

statutory sentencing enhancement, a prior conviction is not a fact that must 

be alleged in an indictment or found beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury. 523 

U.S. at 239-47. This court has held that subsequent Supreme Court decisions 

such as Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013), and Apprendi v. New 

Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See, e.g.,

United States v. Wallace, 759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014); United States v. 

Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625-26 (5th Cir. 2007). Therefore, 

Rodriguez-Garcia is correct that his argument is foreclosed, and summary 

affirmance is appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 

1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). 

The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, 

the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is 

DENIED, and the district court’s judgments are AFFIRMED. 

Case: 21-50382 Document: 00516056207 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/15/2021