alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Probate of the Will of Anna Wilkens, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, Queens County,

March 14, 1950.

*Morsch, Oodden Weiboldt*for Gertrude Wilkens, petitioner.

*James F. Fitzgerald,*as special guardian for Charles Keith, an infant.

*James Scovell*for Martin Wilkens, contestant.

*642Anthony P. Savarese, S.

The items upon which the examination is sought are proper and are allowed. The fact that a party to be examined may be incompetent to testify under section 347 of the Civil Practice Act is not a valid ground for refusing to order an examination *(Lemlich*v. *Lemlich,*266 App. Div. 748). There has been a sufficient showing of special circumstances justifying the examination of the witness Keith. The period of examination will commence three years prior to the date of execution of the propounded instrument and terminate one year thereafter. The persons to be examined will produce, if in their possession or control, all papers enumerated in the notice of motion relevant and pertinent to the matters upon which an examination has been allowed.

Motion granted. Settle order on notice.
Exhibit 4.2

 


Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We have issued our
report dated December 11, 2020, with respect to the financial statement of Advisors Disciplined Trust 2047 contained in Amendment
No. 1 to the Registration Statement on Form S-6 (File No. 333-248807) and related Prospectus. We consent to the use of the aforementioned
report in the Registration Statement and Prospectus, and to the use of our name as it appears under the caption “Experts”.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


December 11, 2020
#### Ex parte State of Alabama. (Re Jonathan David MAYBEN v. STATE of Alabama).

1921779.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Nov. 12, 1993.

James H. Evans, Atty. Gen., and Gregory 0. Griffin, Sr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.

Mae Downs, Gadsden, for respondent.

HOUSTON, Justice.

The State’s petition for certiorari review is denied. However, we would like to emphasize that defense counsel was allowed to question Deborah Mayben regarding her threats to have the defendant jailed for failure to timely make child support payments. This should in no way diminish the trial court’s duty to allow a full cross-examination of Mrs. Mayben about the contents of the letters she sent to her ex-husband. We agree with the legal conclusions of the Court of Criminal Appeals. 629 So.2d 723.

WRIT DENIED.

HORNSBY, C.J., and MADDOX, SHORES and KENNEDY, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qof Huntsman Advanced Materials LLC (the “Company”) for the period ended September30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, J. Kimo Esplin, Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906of the Sarbanes- Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

 

(1)           TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
| /s/ J. KIMO ESPLIN        |   |   |
|---------------------------|--------|--------|
| J. Kimo Esplin            |
| *Chief Financial Officer* |
| November 14, 2005         |

 

----
III

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 330

Designating the week beginning September 24, 2000, as ‘‘National Amputee

Awareness Week’’.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 29, 2000

Mr. INHOFE submitted the following resolution; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

Designating the week beginning September 24, 2000, as

‘‘National Amputee Awareness Week’’.

Whereas current research indicates that more than 1.5 million Americans, of all ages and of both genders, have had

amputations;

Whereas every year 156,000 individuals in the United States

lose a limb;

Whereas each month 13,000 individuals lose a limb;

Whereas each week 2,996 individuals lose a limb;

Whereas each day 428 individuals lose a limb;

Whereas becoming an amputee is a lifetime condition, not

just a temporary circumstance;
2

•SRES 330 IS

Whereas prosthetic care can range in cost from $8,000 to

more than $70,000 depending on the level of care and

function of the patient;

Whereas most insurance policies cover prosthetics with the

stipulation of one prosthesis per patient for life;

Whereas the average prosthesis lasts between three and five

years;

Whereas the general public is unaware of the plight of the

amputee community;

Whereas an increased awareness to the issues faced by the

amputee community will also bring about increased

awareness for further research; and

Whereas establishing ‘‘National Amputee Awareness Week’’

will bring the cause of amputee awareness to the national

front: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the Senate—

2 (1) proclaims the week of September 24,

3 through September 30, 2000, as ‘‘National Amputee

4 Awareness Week’’; and

5 (2) requests that the President issue a procla6 mation calling upon the people of the United States,

7 interested groups, and affected persons to promote

8 the awareness of the amputee community, and to ob9 serve the week with appropriate ceremonies and ac10 tivities.

Æ
#### Richard A. WILDE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF the STATE OF UTAH, Morgan Department; Honorable Stanton M. Taylor, a Judge of the Third Circuit Court; and Philip C. Patterson, Morgan County Attorney, Defendants and Respondents.

No. 17563.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Sept. 23, 1982.

Gerald G. Gundry, Warren M. Wegge-land, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and appellant.

Philip C. Patterson, Ogden, for defendants and respondents.

PER CURIAM:

The plaintiff and appellant here filed a “Complaint for Extraordinary Writ” in the district court, Morgan County, to require the circuit court permanently to stay an action pending in that court charging Wilde with violation of U.C.A., 1953, § 41-6-44 (driving under the influence), on the grounds that a motion to dismiss made by Wilde in the circuit court was erroneously denied. The motion claimed the results of a breathalyzer test would be inadmissible as evidence since the ampoules used in the test admittedly were unavailable. The petition for the writ at best was for the purpose of requiring the lower court to grant a motion to dismiss the case, which, if ordered would be a “dismissal” calling for an appeal by the prosecution only under U.C.A., 1953, § 77-35-26(c)(l). As to Wilde, it would not have been appealable, except under U.C.A., 1953, § 77-35-26(b)(3), the terms of which have not been pleaded nor followed. Extraordinary writs were not intended to be used as substitutes for appeal or to circumvent the formalities required for an appeal. The plaintiff’s petition was interlocutory in nature and failed to state a cause for the relief prayed. The purported appeal from the district court’s refusal to entertain the petition is therefore dismissed as being improvidently pursued.
<PAGE>



                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


            Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Forms S-8 No. 83068, dated August 16, 1994 and No. 333-36390 dated May 5,
2000), pertaining to The 1993 Incentive Plan of Fuel-Tech N.V. of our reports
dated March 14, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and
schedule of Fuel-Tech N.V, Fuel-Tech N.V. management's assessment of the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Fuel-Tech N.V,
included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2004.

Chicago, Illinois
March 14, 2005
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER****PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)**I, Peter Stokes, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Macquarie Infrastructure Company Trust andMacquarie Infrastructure Company LLC (the “registrant”);2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and have:a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin 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; andc) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: August 10, 2005     /s/ Peter Stokes     Peter Stokes  Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM FORM
10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000849101
<NAME>                        Apple South, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                       12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 Dec-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   Dec-28-1997
<CASH>                                               2,503
<SECURITIES>                                            37
<RECEIVABLES>                                        8,983
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                         10,732
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   362,406
<PP&E>                                             283,839
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     804,289
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               65,291
<BONDS>                                            381,843
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              115,000
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                               405
<OTHER-SE>                                         220,377
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       804,289
<SALES>                                            808,320
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   808,320
<CGS>                                              225,302
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      693,880
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  20,575
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     42,073
<INCOME-TAX>                                        13,625
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 28,448
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        28,448
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         0.74
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.73
        


</TABLE>
#### Anthony T. STANLEY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 88-544.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 14, 1989.

George T. Yoss, Arthur Joel Berger, Miami, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Debora J. Turner, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and NESBITT and FERGUSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

None of the grounds asserted by the defendant for reversal of his conviction present either error or harm. See *M.H. v. State,*538 So.2d 1389 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). We remand the cause, however, to the trial court for the purposes (a) of correcting the judgment so as accurately to reflect the offense of which the appellant was found guilty and (b) of making the required written findings in support of the determination that Stanley is an habitual offender. See *Link v. State,*537 So.2d 696 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS           12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-1998      DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                       DEC-31-1998      DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                             143,213          138,182
<SECURITIES>                       0                0
<RECEIVABLES>                      0                0
<ALLOWANCES>                       0                0
<INVENTORY>                        0                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   143,213          138,182
<PP&E>                             0                0
<DEPRECIATION>                     0                0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     143,213          138,182
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              0                0
<BONDS>                            0                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              0                0
<PREFERRED>                        0                0
<COMMON>                           1,600            1,600
<OTHER-SE>                         0                0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       143,213          138,182
<SALES>                            0                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   5,788            5,205
<CGS>                              0                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      0                0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   2,588            10,236
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   0                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 0                0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    3,200            (5,031)
<INCOME-TAX>                       0                3,824
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                5,788            5,205
<DISCONTINUED>                     0                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                    0                0
<CHANGES>                          0                0
<NET-INCOME>                       3,200            (5,031)
<EPS-BASIC>                        .002             (.003)
<EPS-DILUTED>                      .002             (.003)



</TABLE>
III

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 266

Designating the month of May every year for the next 5 years as ‘‘National

Military Appreciation Month’’.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 7, 2000

Mr. LOTT (for MCCAIN) (for himself, Mr. HAGEL, Mr. THOMPSON, and Mr.

DEWINE)) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

Designating the month of May every year for the next 5

years as ‘‘National Military Appreciation Month’’.

Whereas the freedom and security that citizens of the United

States enjoy today are direct results of the vigilance of

the United States Armed Forces;

Whereas recognizing contributions made by members of the

United States Armed Forces will increase national awareness of the sacrifices that such members have made to

preserve the freedoms and liberties that enrich this Nation;

Whereas it is important to preserve and foster admiration

and respect for the service provided by members of the

United States Armed Forces;
2

•SRES 266 IS

Whereas it is vital for youth in the United States to understand that the service provided by members of the United

States Armed Forces has secured and protected the freedoms that United States citizens enjoy today;

Whereas it is important to recognize the unfailing support

that families of members of the United States Armed

Forces have provided to such members during their service and how such support strengthens the vitality of our

Nation;

Whereas recognizing the role that the United States Armed

Forces plays in maintaining the superiority of the United

States as a nation and in contributing to world peace will

increase awareness of all contributions made by such

Forces;

Whereas it is appropriate to recognize the importance of

maintaining a strong, equipped, well-educated, welltrained military for the United States to safeguard freedoms, humanitarianism, and peacekeeping efforts around

the world;

Whereas it is proper to foster and cultivate the honor and

pride that citizens of the United States feel towards

members of the United States Armed Forces for the protection and service that such members provide;

Whereas recognizing the many sacrifices made by members of

the United States Armed Forces is important; and

Whereas it is proper to recognize and honor the dedication

and commitment of members of the United States Armed

Forces, and to show appreciation for all contributions

made by such members since the inception of the Armed

Forces: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the Senate—
3

•SRES 266 IS

1 (1) designates the month of May every year for

2 the next 5 years as ‘‘National Military Appreciation

3 Month’’; and

4 (2) requests that the President issue a procla5 mation calling upon the people of the United States

6 and interested groups to observe such month with

7 appropriate ceremonies and activities.

Æ
#### John S. SANDERS v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 58090.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Nov. 16, 1988.

Charles A. Ray, Jr., Hazlehurst, for appellant.

Edwin Lloyd Pittman and Mike Moore, Attys. Gen. by Deirdre D. McCrory, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Copiah County; Joe N. Pigott, Judge.

*1126Before HAWKINS, P.J., and ROBERTSON and SULLIVAN, JJ.

AFFIRMED.

ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., DAN M. LEE,'P.J., and PRATHER, SANDERSON, GRIFFIN and ZUCCARO, JJ., concur.
1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

_________________

NO. 09
- 16
- 00402
- CV



### _________________
IN RE GERALD HOOKS JR. AND LESLY K. NOLEN

________________________________________________________________________ Original Proceeding 172nd District Court of Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. E
- 167,872

________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION In this mandamus proceeding, Gerald Hooks Jr. and Lesly K. Nolen contend that the trial court abused its discretion by striking their intervention in a class action, Trial Cause Number E

- 167,872, Sandra Geter, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Farmers Group. Inc., et al. Hooks and Nolen are
members of the class , and they have not challenged the adequacy of the representation of the class. T he class representative obtained a summary judgment on policy renewal and renewal premium rates, and the case is set for a trial limited to the issue of attorney’s fees for class counsel. See generally Tex. R. Civ. P. 42(h).2 Mandamus will issue only to correct a clear abuse of discretion or violation of a duty imposed by la w when that abuse cannot be remedied by appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. , 148 S.W.3d 124, 135

- 36 (Tex. 2004); Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992). After reviewing the petition, the response filed by Farmers 1 , the response filed by Sandra Geter, and the appendices to the petition and the responses, we conclude that the relators have not demonstrated an abuse of discretion by the trial court for which no adequate remedy by appeal exists. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of m andamus.
PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on November 14, 2016 Opinion Delivered November 15, 2016 Before Kreger, Johnson, and Clapp, JJ. 2

1 In this Opinion, “Farmers” collectively refers to Farmers Group, Inc., Farmers Underwriters Association, Fire Underwriters Association, Farmers Insurance Exchange, and Fire Insurance Exchange

. 2 The Honorable Judge Randy M. Clapp, Judge of the 329th District Court of Wharton County, Texas, sitting by assignment. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 74.003(h) (West 2013).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         58,090
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 444,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (36,367)
<INVENTORY>                                   692,273
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            1,194,473
<PP&E>                                      1,562,269
<DEPRECIATION>                               (223,881)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              5,249,141
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       1,536,333
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                 4,430,310
<COMMON>                                    6,755,260
<OTHER-SE>                                   (309,742)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                5,249,141
<SALES>                                     3,632,281
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            3,632,281
<CGS>                                       2,870,196
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               2,870,196
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            4,125,498
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            144,146
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,507,559)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,507,559)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,507,559)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (.247)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.247)
        




</TABLE>