alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Thomas Andrew JACKSON, Jr., Appellant, v. Betty D. JACKSON, Appellee.

No. BQ-431.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 12, 1987.

*781Edwin B. Browning, Jr., and Frederick T. Reeves of Davis, Browning & Schnitker, Madison, for appellant.

Robert C. Gobelman and Jack W. Shaw, Jr., of Mathews, Osborne, McNatt, Gobel-man & Cobb, Jacksonville, for appellee.

ZEHMER, Judge.

We have for review a post-judgment order entered in this dissolution of marriage proceeding. The appealed order directs the husband to pay the former wife’s automobile expenses and defers ruling on the wife’s motion to have appellant held in contempt for failing to pay such expenses. We reverse.

The motion for contempt and the appealed order are based upon directions contained in two separate orders of the lower court. The first order was entered November 3, 1983, and required the husband to provide temporary support to the wife pending entry of final judgment. The second order was entered August 12, 1986, after entry of final judgment, and set forth certain conditions upon which the court would stay the final judgment pending the husband’s appeal therefrom. The final judgment was entered April 10, 1985, and awarded the wife alimony but contained no provisions for the payment of her automobile expenses..

The November 3, 1983, interlocutory order for temporary support was superseded by and merged in the final judgment. *Rankin v. Rankin,*275 So.2d 283 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973); *Moliver v. Moliver,*200 So.2d 613 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967). That order did not, therefore, provide any legal basis for compelling the husband to continue paying the wife’s automobile expenses after the entry of final judgment.

The conditions set forth in the August 12, 1986, stay order, including the condition requiring the husband to pay the wife’s automobile expenses, never became effective because the husband declined to post the required $30,000 bond and thereby put the stay of the final judgment into effect. That order, likewise, cannot serve as the basis for compelling appellant to *782continue paying the automobile expenses of his former wife. Rather, the wife’s rights against the husband are now determined by the final judgment that has never been stayed. Since that judgment contained no requirement that the husband continue to pay his former wife’s automobile expenses, the imposition of such duty upon the husband could be accomplished only by modification thereof, which has never been done.

We hold, therefore, that the appealed order erroneously attempts, based upon two orders which cannot be enforced against appellant, to enforce obligations not contained in the final judgment. Accordingly, the order is reversed and this cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

SHIVERS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
----

|   | 2. | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the      Company. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/      L. Paul Latham                             |
|-----------------------------------------------------|
| L.      Paul Latham                                 |
| President      and Chief Executive Officer          |
| of      Southwest Royalties, Inc., the              |
| Managing      General Partner of                    |
| Southwest      Oil & Gas Income Fund IX-A, L.P. |
|                                                |
| March      28, 2008                                 |
|                                                |
|                                                |
| /s/      Mel G. Riggs                               |
| Mel      G. Riggs                                   |
| Vice      President and Chief Financial Officer of  |
| Southwest      Royalties, Inc., the                 |
| Managing      General Partner of                    |
| Southwest      Oil & Gas Income Fund IX-A, L.P. |
|                                                |
| March      28, 2008                                 |
**Exhibit
31.2**
 
 **OFFICER’S
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**
 **SECTION
302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 
 I, Gary
M. Clifford, certify that:
 
 1.
    I
      have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Acceris Communications
      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;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(s) 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)
    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(c)
    Disclosed
      in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over
      financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s fourth fiscal
      quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely 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 recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,
      to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee 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 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: March 28,
2005
    By:
    /s/ Gary
      M. CliffordGary
      M. CliffordChief
      Financial Officer and Vice President of
Finance
#### Myriam Guidroz LEMIRE and Leroy Guidroz v. NEW ORLEANS PUBLIC SERVICE INC., et al.

No. 89-CC-1303.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 30, 1989.

In re Lemire, Myriam Guidroz; Guidroz, Leroy; — Plaintiff(s); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review, supervisory and/or remedial; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 88CW-0707; Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court, Div. “I”, No. 82-6685.

Denied.
From: "Frey, Nathan J." <Nathan_J._Frey@omb.eop.gov>

To: Kevin Culligan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Peter Tsirigotis/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, RobertJ 

Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Joseph Goffman/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: "Mancini, Dominic J." <Dominic_J._Mancini@omb.eop.gov>, "Higgins, Cortney" 

<Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov>

Date: 03/22/2012 07:14 PM

Subject: Interagency Comments on latest draft of NSPS EGU preamble

Attached are comments on the latest draft of the EGU NSPS preamble. Please call me if you have any 

questions.

Regards,

Nathan
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**AND PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING OFFICER**

**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 World Trophy Outfitters, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Quarterly Report”), I, Don Peay, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

|   | a. | the Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | b. | the information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

|   | /s/ Don Peay |
|--------|--------------|

Don Peay, President and Chief Executive Officer 

(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)

November 14, 2007
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of

the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 10/9/96 TENTH CIRCUIT

RONALD DEAN TUCKER,

Plaintiff - Appellant, and BOBBERT S. COOK and BRIAN A. WALKER, Plaintiffs,

v. HARVEY COUNTY DETENTION,

Defendant - Appellee. No. 96-3020 (D. Ct. No. 95-CV-3493) (D. Kan.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before TACHA, BALDOCK, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and the appellate record , this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument wouldnot be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. Se e Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered sub mitted without oral argument.- 2 -

This action was brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 198 3 by current and former inmates of the Harvey County Jail in Newton, Kansas. In their pro se complaint, these plaintiffs allege a series of viol ations of their constitutional rights because of conditions of confinement in the Harvey County Jail. The district court determined that none of plaintiffs’ allegations rise to the level of alleging unconstitutional conditions in the Harvey County Jail. The district court further found that plaintiffs’ allegations on appea l are legally frivolous and are not taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 191 5(d). On appeal here, plaintiffs’ seek in forma pauperis status and renew their allegations regarding substandard meals, lack of pr ivacy, lack of sufficient exercise, and various other conditions in the Harve y County facility. Plaintiffs allege that the district court erred in finding that their complaint failed to state a claim and reiterate their allegations that they hav e been denied their constitutional rights because of the conditions to which they are allegedly subjected in Harvey County Jail. Construing liberally the pro se plain tiffs’ complaint and allegations on appeal, we agree with the district court that pl aintiffs have failed to allege any constitutional violations and that this appeal is l egally frivolous. We therefore DISMISS this appeal as frivolous and DENY leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.- 3 -

The mandate shall issue forthwith. ENTERED FOR THE COURT,

Deanell Reece Tacha Circuit Judge
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Terrance BASS.

No. 87-KK-2561.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 8, 1988.

In re Bass, Terrance; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review, supervisory writ; Parish of Plaquemines, 25th Judicial District Court, Div. “B”, No. 86-1443; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. KW-8526.

Denied.
Certificate of Dissolution of Nanotechnica, Inc



 Exhibit 10.5 
  
 CERTIFICATE OF DISSOLUTION 
 of 
 NANOTECHNICA,
INC. 
  
 The undersigned hereby certify
that: 
  

	 	1.	We constitute a majority of the directors now in office of Nanotechnica, Inc., a California corporation, number C2658380. 

  

	 	2.	The corporation has been completely wound up. 

  

	 	3.	The corporation’s known debts and liabilities have been adequately provided for by their assumption by Arrowhead Research Corporation, 1118 East Green St., Pasadena, CA 91106.


  

	 	4.	Arrowhead Research Corporation assumes the tax liability, if any, of the dissolving corporation as security for the issuance of a Tax Clearance Certificate from the Franchise Tax
Board and is responsible for additional corporate taxes, if any, that are assessed and that become due after the date of the assumption of the tax liability. 

  

	 	5.	The corporation’s known assets have been distributed to the persons entitled thereto. 

  

	 	6.	The corporation is dissolved. 

  
 We further declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the matters set forth in this certificate are true and correct
of our own knowledge. 
  
 Executed this 17th day of June, 2005, at Pasadena, California. 
  

	
	
	 /s/ R. Bruce Stewart

	 R. Bruce Stewart, Director

	
	 /s/ Edward W. Frykman

	 Edward W. Frykman, Director
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

753 

CA 13-02221 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CENTRA, CARNI, WHALEN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ. 

 

 

SHIRLEY WEST, AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF 

WILLIAM H. WEST, DECEASED, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, 

V ORDER

CAROUSEL FOOD SERVICE, INC., RUSSELL 

DIPASQUALE, INDIVIDUALLY AND DOING BUSINESS AS 

WATERING TROUGH, LITTLE FILLYS AND CAROUSEL 

ROOM AT THE FAIR, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS,

ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

 

DAVID W. POLAK ATTORNEY AT LAW, P.C., WEST SENECA (DAVID W. POLAK OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS. 

MARK R. UBA, WILLIAMSVILLE (MARK UBA OF COUNSEL), FOR

PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme

Court, Erie County (John A. Michalek, J.), entered March 14, 2013. 

The order and judgment, among other things, granted plaintiff’s motion

for partial summary judgment. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order and judgment so appealed from

is unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in the

decision at Supreme Court.

Entered: June 13, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT EVARISTO GOM EZ, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 13-72973 Age n c y No. A073-967-311 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d July 21, 2015 ** B e fore : C ANB Y, B EA, a nd M UR GUIA, C irc uit Judge s. Eva risto Gom e z , a

native and c itiz e n

of M e xic o, pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s’ (“ B IA” ) orde r de ny ing his motion to re m a n d a nd dism issing his a

ppe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) orde r pre t e rm i tting his a pplic ation for c a

n c e l lation of re m ova l. Our jurisdic tion is governe d by 8 U.S.C . 

# FIL ED JUL 28 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).§ 1252. W e re vie wfor substa ntia l e vide n c e the a ge nc y ’ s c ontinuous phy sic a l pre s e nc e de te rm i nat ion, Ibarra-Flore s v . Gonzale

s , 439 F.3d 614, 618 (9th C ir. 2006), a nd re v ie w de novo c onstitutiona l c la im s , Iturribarria v. IN S , 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th C i r. 2003). W e de ny in pa rt a nd dismiss in pa

rt thepe t ition for re vie w. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s de te rm ination tha t Gom e zfa ile d to e s ta b lish thete n y e ars of c ontinuous phy sic a l pre s e nc e re q uire d for c anc e lla

tion of re m ova l. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1229b(b)(1)(A); J uare z-Ramos v . Gonzale

s , 485 F.3d 509, 511-12 (9th C ir. 2007) (e xpe dite d re m ova l inte rrupts a

n a lie n’ s c ontinuous phy sic a l pre se n c e for c anc e lla tion purpose s). The a dm ission of e vide nc e pe rta i ning to Gome z ’ s 1999 e xpe dite d re m ova l orde r wa s not funda

m e nta lly unfa ir suc h tha

t it viola te d his dueproc e ss rights. S e e Sanc he z v . Holde r , 704 F.3d 1107, 1109 (9th C ir. 2012). Ac c ordingly , Gom e z ’ s c la im tha t the B IA viola

te d due proc e ss in a ffirm i ng the IJ’ s de c ision a lso fa ils. Lata v . IN

S , 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th C ir. 2000) (re quiring e rror for a pe titione r to pre v a i l on a

due proc e ss c la im). To the e xte nt tha

t Gom e z se e ks to c h a lle nge his 1999 e xpe dite d re m ova l orde r, we la c k jurisdic tion to c o nside r this c l a im . Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a)(2)(A)(i), (e )(2); A v e ndano-Ramire

z v . Ashc roft , 365 F.3d 813, 818-19 (9th C ir. 2004).

1 3 - 7 2 9 7 3 2Gom e z ha s not ra ise d , a n d ha s the re fore wa i ve d, a ny c ha lle nge to theB IA’ s de nia l of his mo tion to re m and. Se eLope z-Vasque z v . Holde r , 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th C ir. 2013) (a pe titione r wa ive s a c onte ntion by fa iling to raise it in the o pe ning brie f). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D in par t and DISM ISSE D in par t.

1 3 - 7 2 9 7 3 3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Balance Sheet at December 31, 1999 and the Statement of Operations for
the Year Ended December 31, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         143,818
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   92,878
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               236,696
<PP&E>                                       2,956,364
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,608,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 585,060
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     585,060
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   585,060
<SALES>                                        322,555
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               327,462
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                98,939
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                228,523
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            228,523
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   228,523
<EPS-BASIC>                                      20.77
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    20.77


</TABLE>
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 on Form 10-Q for the three months ended December 31, 2008 of the MacroShares $100 Oil Down Trust (the "Registrant"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Quarterly Report"), I, John A. Flanagan, principal financial officer of MACRO Securities Depositor, LLC, which acts as the depositor for the Registrant (the "Depositor"), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.

The Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Registrant.



Date: February  17, 2009

| |  |  |                                                              
| |  |  | -------------------------------------------------------------
| |  |  | /s/ JOHN A. FLANAGAN                                         
| |  |  | John A. Flanagan                                             
| |  |  | Chief Financial Officer of Depositor,
on behalf of Registrant