alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NUMBER 13-08-027-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

GERARDO LOZANO D/B/A BRIDE’S GALLERY, Appellant,

v.

COMMERCE OFFICE PARK ONE, L.P., Appellee.

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

of Nueces County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Gerardo Lozano d/b/a Bride’s Gallery, has filed an unopposed motion to

dismiss his appeal on grounds that the parties have reached an agreement to settle and

compromise their differences. Appellant requests that this Court dismiss the appeal.
2

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant’s unopposed

motion to dismiss the appeal, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 42.1(a). Appellant’s unopposed motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal

is hereby DISMISSED. In accordance with the agreement of the parties, costs are taxed

against the party incurring same. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d) ("Absent agreement of the

parties, the court will tax costs against the appellant."). Having dismissed the appeal at

appellant's request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue

forthwith.

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and

filed this the 12th day of June, 2008.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, David
J. Keefe, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of Atlantic Broadband Finance, LLC;

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 quarterly 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 we 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 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 function):

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, 2011



|    |  |                                     
|--- |  | ------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ David J. Keefe                  
|    |  | David J. Keefe                      
|    |  | Chief Executive Officer and Director
#### Sylvia GARCIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Barbara MARTINEZ, a/k/a Barbara Galindo, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 80CA1246.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. I.

Feb. 18, 1982.

*54Michael P. Dugan, Greeley, for plaintiff-appellant.

Charles B. Dickson, Greeley, for defendant-appellee.

COYTE, Judge.

Plaintiff appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing her action seeking to have custody of her child adjudicated under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, § 14-13-101 et seq. C.R.S.1973. We affirm.

Plaintiff’s child was born in Colorado August 1, 1977. Subsequently, plaintiff planned to marry a person not the father of her child and went to visit her future mother-in-law in California on May 31, 1978. While there she signed a document purporting to relinquish custody of her child to the future mother-in-law. Thereafter, plaintiff returned to Colorado, leaving the child in California. On March 24, 1981, she commenced this action seeking an order returning custody of the child to her.

The trial court dismissed the suit on the basis that it was not in the best interest of the child for this state to assume jurisdiction of the child since California is the “home state” of the child.

Section 14-13-104, C.R.S.1973 provides in relevant part that:

> “A court of this state . . . has jurisdiction to make a child custody determination ... if:

> (a) this state is the home state of the child at the time of commencement of the proceeding or had been the child’s home state within six months before commencement of the proceeding, and the child is absent from this state because of his removal or retention by a person claiming his custody or for other reasons, and a parent or a person acting as parent continues to live in this state; or

> (b) It is in the best interest of the child that a court of this state assume jurisdiction because the child and his parents, or the child and at least one contestant have a significant connection with this state and there is available in this state substantial evidence concerning the child’s present or future care, protection, training, and personal relationships ...”

Here, plaintiff has not met any of the jurisdictional prerequisites set forth in § 14-13-104(l)(a) or (b), C.R.S.1973. Her child has been living in California for nearly three years with the plaintiff’s mother-in-law and has not been in Colorado since 1978. The child was voluntarily left there by plaintiff when she relinquished care to her mother-in-law. All of the child’s significant contacts, relationships, and training are located in California. The plaintiff is the only person who has significant contacts with Colorado.

California is thus the home state of the child and the proper state to have jurisdiction over the child. We therefore hold that the trial court did not err when it declined to accept, jurisdiction of the controversy. *Cf. In Re Custody of Thomas,*36 Colo.App. 96, 537 P.2d 1095 (1975).

Plaintiff’s other contentions of error are without merit.

Judgment affirmed.

PIERCE and SMITH, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Form 10-Q of AMH Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") for the
period ended October 2, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael Caporale, Jr.,
President, Chief Executive Officer and Director 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, 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.

Date: November 16, 2004               By: /s/ Michael Caporale, Jr.
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Michael Caporale, Jr.
                                          President, Chief Executive Officer and
                                          Director
                                          (Principal Executive Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

                                      -23-
III

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 295

Expressing the sense of the Senate that the carrying of firearms into places

of worship or educational and scholastic settings should be prohibited.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 25, 2000

Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Mr. DASCHLE, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. SCHUMER,

Mrs. BOXER, Mr. KOHL, Mr. DODD, Mr. KERRY, Mr. REED, Mr. BAYH,

Mr. HARKIN, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. REID, Mr. TORRICELLI, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. BREAUX, Mr. WELLSTONE, Mr. BRYAN, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr.

ROBB, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. AKAKA, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. EDWARDS, Mr. MOYNIHAN, Mr. SARBANES, and Mr. LEAHY) submitted the

following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Senate that the carrying of

firearms into places of worship or educational and scholastic settings should be prohibited.

Whereas repeated incidents of senseless and horrific gun violence have led many Americans to conclude that neither

they nor their children can feel completely secure anywhere at anytime anymore;

Whereas the epidemic of gun violence in our Nation has invaded schools, youth sporting events, places of worship,

and other spaces that the American people once thought

of as sanctuaries of safety;
2

•SRES 295 IS

Whereas these shootings have shattered the confidence of

parents and educators and clergy in their ability to protect children from the increasingly dangerous world

around them;

Whereas in response to this trend, Congress previously acted

to protect America’s children by prohibiting the possession of firearms in school zones;

Whereas no American adult or child should have to fear for

their safety when studying, praying in their places of

worship, or participating in any other activities at or related to their schools or places of worship;

Whereas it is the obligation of America’s elected leaders to

do all they can to protect our children from harm and ensure that adults and children alike can learn, play, or

pray in safety; and

Whereas there is no rational reason for anyone other than a

law enforcement officer to carry a gun into a place of

worship, a school, or a school-related event: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that the

2 carrying of firearms into places of worship or educational

3 and scholastic settings should be prohibited.

Æ
**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 American Cordillera Mining Corp., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the three months ended February 28, 2014, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Frank H. Blair, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Date: April 21, 2014

|  

By:

/s/ Frank H. Blair

 

 

Frank H. Blair

 

 

President, CEO, Director |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
EXHIBIT 23.2



                                 March 26, 1997



Dakota Mining Corporation
410 Seventeenth Street, Suite 2450
Denver, CO  80202

Gentlemen:

         We hereby  consent to the  reference  to our report  dated  January 30,
1997,  entitled  "GOLDEN  REWARD  MINING  COMPANY  L.P. at Lead,  South  Dakota"
contained in the Annual Report on Form 10-K, of Dakota Mining  Corporation  (the
"Company") for the fiscal year ended  December 31, 1995,  which Annual Report is
incorporated by reference into (i) the Registration  Statement,  as amended,  of
the  Company,  on Form S-3  (File  No.  33-73958),  and  (ii)  the  Registration
Statement of the Company, on Form S-8 (File 33-68872).

                                            Very truly yours,



                      c/s/    Glenn R. Clark
                      ------------------------------------
                       Glenn R. Clark & Associates Limited
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION

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

OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND 18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection
with the Quarterly Report of EPL Intermediate, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 27, 2007 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Joseph Stein,
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; and                              
|   |                                                                                                                                                      
|2. | The
 information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
 respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

Date: August
10, 2007

| |                         
| | ------------------------
| | /s/ Joseph
 Stein       
| |                         
| | Joseph Stein            
| | Chief
 Financial Officer
| | EPL
 Intermediate, Inc. 

This certification is made
solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and not for any other
purpose. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906
has been provided to EPL Intermediate, Inc. and will be retained by EPL
Intermediate, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.

---
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

**Certification**

 

I,John Fitzpatrick, certify that:

 

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

 

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

 

3.            Based on my knowledge, the consolidated financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.            The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant andhave:

 

a.             Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated 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 andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c.             Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and

 

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

 

a.             All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablelikely 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 otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.

 
| **Date: November 14, 2005** |                    |
|----------------------------------|-------------------------|
|                             | */s/ John Fitzpatrick*  |   |
|                             | John Fitzpatrick        |
|                             | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22 - 0352 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. GARREN DOUGLAS SEAL,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including June 1 2 , 2023, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 3 2023

05/03/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0352
SANITIZEDAsphalt Production
#### STATE of Louisiana v. James O. PEARSON.

No. 87-K-2536.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 12, 1988.

In re Pearson, James 0.; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 18925-KA; Parish of Morehouse, 4th Judicial District Court, Div. “C”, No. 85-2533A.

Prior report: La.App., 513 So.2d 459.

Denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             914
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      460
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,602
<PP&E>                                           2,568
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,824
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,832
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,348
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<COMMON>                                           344
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,139
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,832
<SALES>                                          2,305
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,305
<CGS>                                            1,292
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,292
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,353
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,340)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,340)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,340)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.31)
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE of Louisiana in the Interest of the Minor, C.V. v. The Parents T.V. and S.V.

No. 86-CK-2359.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 19, 1986.

In re T.V. and S.V., Parents of; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the *412Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 18067 CAJ; Parish of Webster, 26th Judicial District Court, Div. “A”, No. 1521.

Prior report: La.App., 499 So.2d 159.

Denied.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Carlton E. THOMAS.

No. 88-KH-1218.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 31, 1988.

In re Thomas, Carlton E.; applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 88KW-0694; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “B”, No. 314-387; Criminal District Court, Div. “D”, No. 279-871.

The relator represents that the district court has failed to act timely on a motion he has filed for production of documents. If relator’s representation is correct, the district court is ordered to consider and act on the motion.
#### Daniel L. Hey, Appellant, *v.*Abraham Huss et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,

December 8, 1958.

*Gross $ Regan (Asher Marcus*of counsel), for appellant.

*Samuel S. Friedman*and *Avrum J. Schrager*for respondents.

*Per Curiam.*

While the court in the exercise of discretion might set aside the verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence, it could not direct a verdict but should have ordered a new trial. *(Blum*v. *Fresh Grown Preserve Corp.,*292 N. Y. 241, 245; *Imbrey*v. *Prudential Ins. Co.,*286 N. Y. 434.) Judgment upon the facts must be the judgment of the jury and not that of another tribunal. *(Loewinthal*v. *Le Vine,*299 N. Y. 372, 377.)

The order of the City Court, Queens County, setting aside the jury’s verdict in favor of the plaintiff and dismissing the complaint on the merits, and ordering a new trial of the defendant’s counterclaim, should be modified on the law and facts by directing that there be a new trial of the entire case, and *673as so modified, affirmed with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Pette and Brown, JJ., concur. Hart, J., dissents and votes to affirm.

Order modified, etc.
#### Linda Darlene ROSS v. Henry JERNIGAN.

No. 57266.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

July 13, 1988.

J. Edward Rainer, Rainer, Hyche *&*To-ney, Brandon, for appellant.

John W. Crowell, Gholson, Hicks & Nichols, Columbus, for appellee.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Noxubee County; Ernest L. Brown, Judge.

*1230Before DAN M. LEE, P.J., and ROBERTSON and ANDERSON, JJ.

On Direct Appeal, Reversed and Remanded; on Cross-Appeal, Affirmed.

ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., HAWKINS, P.J., and PRATHER, SULLIVAN, GRIFFIN and ZUCCARO, JJ., concur.