alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SCAP

- 21

- 0000 576

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ʻ I

STATE OF HAWAI ʻ I,
Plaintiff

- Appellee,

vs.

RICHARD OBRERO , Defendant

- Appellant

.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (CAAP

- 21

- 0000 576 ; CASE NO. 1CPC

- 19

- 000 1669 )

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (By: McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins
, JJ. , and Recktenwald, C.J., dissenting, with whom Nakayama, J. , joins )

On September 19, 2022, Plaintiff

- Appellee State of

Hawai ʻ i filed a motion for reconsideration challenging this

court’s September 8, 2022 majority opinion

.

The court has reviewed the motion. After due

consideration, the court denies the motion.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ʻ i
, September 28 , 202 2

. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ Todd W. Eddins Electronically Filed Supreme Court
SCAP-21-0000576
28-SEP-2022

11:35 AM
Dkt. 31 ODMR
NUMBER 13-09-00019-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

______________________________________________________________

EUGENE X. MERCIER, INDIVIDUALLY, Appellant,

v.

MARGARET MEGAN INGLE, INDIVIDUALLY,

AND THE INGLE LAW FIRM, L.L.C., Appellees. 

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 28th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.

______________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Yañez, Rodriguez, and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Eugene X. Mercier, Individually, attempted to perfect an appeal from a

judgment entered by the 28th District Court of Nueces County, Texas, in cause number

07-5198-A. Judgment in this cause was signed on October 9, 2008. A motion for new trial

was filed on November 7, 2008. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1,
2

appellant’s notice of appeal was due on January 7, 2009, but was not filed until January

8, 2009. 

On January 13, 2009, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant of this defect so that

steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. Appellant was advised that,

if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this Court’s letter,

the appeal would be dismissed. To date, no response has been received from appellant.

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

failure to timely perfect his appeal, and appellant’s failure to respond to this Court’s notice,

is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Accordingly,

the appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.3(a)(c).

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and

filed this the 26th day of March, 2009.
III

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 353

Designating October 20, 2000, as ‘‘National Mammography Day’’.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 12, 2000

Mr. BIDEN (for himself, Mr. ABRAHAM, Mr. AKAKA, Mr. ASHCROFT, Mr.

BAYH, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. BREAUX, Mr. BRYAN, Mr.

BYRD, Mr. CLELAND, Mr. CONRAD, Mr. DEWINE, Mr. DOMENICI, Mr.

DORGAN, Mr. DURBIN, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. FITZGERALD, Mr. FRIST,

Mr. GORTON, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. GRAMM, Mr. HAGEL, Mr. HELMS, Mrs.

HUTCHISON, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. JEFFORDS, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. KENNEDY,

Mr. KERREY, Mr. KERRY, Mr. HOLLINGS, Ms. LANDRIEU, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mrs. LINCOLN, Mr.

LUGAR, Mr. MACK, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. MILLER, Mr. MURKOWSKI, Mrs.

MURRAY, Mr. REID, Mr. ROBB, Mr. ROTH, Mr. SARBANES, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. SMITH of Oregon, Ms. SNOWE, Mr. SPECTER, Mr. VOINOVICH,

Mr. WARNER, Mr. WELLSTONE, and Mr. HATCH) submitted the following

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

SEPTEMBER 15, 2000

Committee discharged; considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

Designating October 20, 2000, as ‘‘National Mammography

Day’’.

Whereas according to the American Cancer Society, in 2000,

182,800 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer and

40,800 women will die from this disease;
2

SRES 353 ATS

Whereas in the decade of the 1990’s, it is estimated that

about 2,000,000 women were diagnosed with breast cancer, resulting in nearly 500,000 deaths;

Whereas the risk of breast cancer increases with age, with a

woman at age 70 years having twice as much of a chance

of developing the disease as a woman at age 50 years;

Whereas at least 80 percent of the women who get breast

cancer have no family history of the disease;

Whereas mammograms, when operated professionally at a

certified facility, can provide safe screening and early detection of breast cancer in many women;

Whereas experts agree that mammography is the best method

of early detection of breast cancer, and early detection is

the key to saving lives;

Whereas mammograms can reveal the presence of small cancers up to 2 years or more before a regular clinical breast

examination or breast self-examination, reducing mortality by more than 30 percent; and

Whereas the 5-year survival rate for localized breast cancer

is over 96 percent: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the Senate—

2 (1) designates October 20, 2000, as ‘‘National

3 Mammography Day’’; and

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

6 to observe such day with appropriate programs and

7 activities.

Æ
[No. 18928-3-II.

Division Two.

August 29, 1996.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Paul John Rosado, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 94-1-03969-7, Thomas R. Sauriol, J., entered December 5, 1994. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Armstrong, J., concurred in by Houghton, A.C.J. and Bridgewater, J.
#### STATE ex rel. Eddie Lee JOHNSON v. CLERK OF COURT, SECTION F, CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ORLEANS.

No. 87-KH-2267.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 13, 1987.

In re Johnson, Eddie Lee; applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “F”, No. 263-814.

Denied. No particularized need shown.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

STEPHEN MICHAEL HARMER,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 472 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 30th day of November, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal is DENIED.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  
    
    the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June
30, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
    
    the information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
  /s/ Alan LiptonAlan LiptonPresident and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Douglas P. Rosefsky, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of North Atlantic Holding Company, 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 and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) 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 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 controls 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: November 13, 2006
|                        | 
|                        |  | /s/ Douglas P. Rosefsky
|Name:                   |  | Douglas P. Rosefsky    
|Title:                  |  | Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21


                           SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY
                               As of June 30, 2002


<Table>
<S>                                      <C>
Wholly-owned by Ace Cash Express, Inc.:  Check Express, Inc., a Florida corporation

                                         Q.C.& G. Financial, Inc., an Arizona corporation

                                         Public Currency, Inc., a California corporation


Wholly-owned by Check Express, Inc.:     Check Express Florida, Inc., a Florida corporation

                                         Check Express Finance, Inc., a Florida corporation

                                         Check-X-Change Corporation, a California corporation

                                         Check Express South Carolina, Inc., a Florida corporation

                                         Check Express USA, Inc., a Florida corporation
</Table>
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION 5
77 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD CHICAGO, IL 60604-3590

REPLY TO THE ATTENTION OF MAILCODE : WU-16J

CERTIFIED MAIL 7009 1680 0000 7670 8050 RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

**Mark Burau Decatur Corn Plant Manager**  **Archer Daniels Midland Company 4666 Faries Parkway**  **Decatur, Illinois 62526**

Re: Completeness Review of Underground Injection C ontrol (UIC) Permit Applications for a Geologic Sequestration Well, United States En vironmental Protection Agency

UIC Permit No. IL-115-6A-0002

**Dear Mr. Burau:**

**On December 12, 2011 we received your permit applic ation for the carbon sequestration well to**  **be located in Decatur, Illinois. Title 40 of the Co de of Federal Regulations Section 124.3(c)**  **requires us to perform a completeness review within 30 days of our receipt of the application. We**  **have reviewed the application and determined that y ou did not provide the financial assurance** 

**documentation needed to make sure that there will b e funds available for closure and post closure**  **care of this facility. We understand that the exact amount of necessary funds cannot be** 

**determined at this time. Please be aware that the financial assurance documentation must be**  **provided and reviewed prior to the issuance of a dr aft permit. We are proceeding with the** 

**evaluation of the information for technical soundne ss and compliance with applicable**  **Underground Injection Control regulations. If addi tional information is necessary to clarify,**  **modify or supplement the information you provided, we will notify you. When we determine**  **that the information you provided is sufficient for a permitting decision, a draft decision will be**  **made and a statement of basis will be prepared and supplied to you as well as the public for** 

**comment.**

**If you have any questions, please feel free to cont act Dana Rzeznik of my staff at (312) 353-6492**  **or rzeznik.dana@epa.gov.**

**Sincerely yours,**

**Rebecca Harvey, Chief Underground Injection Control Branch**
##### 



POLYPORE INTERNATIONAL, INC.
 CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Polypore International, 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 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; andc)
    
    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;
andb)
    
    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: August 15, 2006
    
    /s/ Lynn AmosLynn AmosChief Financial Officer
#### In re STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS CIVIL CASES.

No. 69705.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 5, 1987.

Robert P. Smith, Jr., Chairman, Committee on Standard Jury Instructions (Civil), Tallahassee, for petitioner.

PER CURIAM.

The Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions (Civil) recommends the following revisions to the Florida Standard Jury Instructions *(Civil):*A Supplement to SJI 2.2, *Believability of Witnesses,*and a new comment to 6.2f *[.Damages for*] *Parent’s Loss of Child’s Services, Earning, Earning Capacity.*

We approve for publication the recommended changes which follow this opinion. We caution that the comments reflect only the opinion of the Committee and are not necessarily indicative of the views of this Court as to their correctness or applicability-

It is so ordered.

McDonald, C.J., and OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW and BARKETT, JJ., and ADKINS, J. (Ret.), concur.

BELIEVABILITY OF WITNESSES

Redesignate 2.2 as *2.2a General Considerations*and add the following *2.2b Expert witnesses:*

*b. Expert witnesses:*

[You have heard opinion testimony [on certain technical subjects] from [a person] [persons] referred to as [an] expert witnesses].] [Some of the testimony before you was in the form of opinions about certain technical subjects.]

You may accept such opinion testimony, reject it, or give it the weight you think it deserves, considering the knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education of the witness, the reasons given by the witness for the opinion expressed, and all the other evidence in the case.

*Delete existing comment 1 and substitute:*

1. *Expert witness.*See § 90.702, Fla. Stat. (1985), and *Shaw v. Puleo,*159 So.2d 641 (Fla.1964). The court will select one or the other introductory sentence in keeping with the court’s practice and preference in announcing before the jury, or acceding to counsel’s characterization, that a tendered witness is an “expert.”

*Add the following Comment following 6.2f:*

*Comment on 6.2f*

The Committee expresses no opinion concerning whether there also is a cause of action for a parent’s recovery due to loss of a child’s companionship and society. *Compare Yordan v. Savage,*279 So.2d 844 (Fla. 1973), citing *Wilkie v. Roberts,*91 Fla. 1064, 109 So. 225 (1926), *with*language in *Wilkie*and other cases interpreting *Wilkie,*including *Youngblood v. Taylor,*89 So.2d 503 (Fla.1956); *City Stores Co. v. Langer,*308 So.2d 621 (Fla. 3d DCA), *cert. dism.,*
      *320312 So.2d 758 (Fla.1975); *Hillsborough County School Board v. Perez,*385 So.2d 177 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); and *Brown v. Caldwell,*389 So.2d 287 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).
[No. 14724-0-III.

Division Three.

July 9, 1996.]

#### Wayne Gladden, et al., *Appellants,*v. State Farm Insurance Company, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Spokane County, No. 94-2-00927-8, Marcus M. Kelly, J., entered February 15, 1995. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Munson, J., concurred in by Sweeney, C.J., and Thompson, J.
Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            
            
            U.S. Air Force
                    U.S. Air Force
        Search
                    Search AF.mil:
                        Search
                Search AF.mil:
                    Search
    Home





    News
    
        Commentaries

    Features

    Photos

    Art

    Air Force TV

    Radio

    Week in Photos

    Coronavirus Disease 2019





    About Us
    
        Air Force Senior Leaders    
        SECAF

    CSAF

    CMSAF

    Biographies

    Adjunct Professors

    Fact Sheets

    Commander's Call Topics    
        CCT Archive

    CSAF Reading List    
        2018 CSAF Reading List

    2017 CSAF Reading List

    2016 CSAF Reading List

    2015 CSAF Reading List

    2014 CSAF Reading List

    2013 CSAF Reading List

    2012 CSAF Reading List

    2011 CSAF Reading List

    2010 CSAF Reading List

    2009 CSAF Reading List

    2008 CSAF Reading List

    2007 CSAF Reading List

    2006 CSAF Reading List

    50 Years of the CMSAF

    The Book

    Speeches Archive    
        Former AF Top 3 Viewpoints and Speeches

    Air Force Warrior Games 2019

    Air Force Strategic Documents

    Desert Storm 25th Anniversary

    DoD Warrior Games

    Portraits in Courage    
        Portraits In Courage Vol. I

    Portraits In Courage Vol. II

    Portraits In Courage Vol. III

    Portraits In Courage Vol. IV

    Portraits In Courage Vol. V

    Portraits In Courage Vol. VI

    Portraits In Courage Vol. VII

    Portraits In Courage Vol. VIII

    Portraits In Courage Vol. IX

    Portraits In Courage Vol. X

    Chapman MoH

    The Air Force We Need

    Events 2020

    Focus on Priorities





    AF Sites
    
        Social Media Sites

    Site Registration





    AF Content Management





    Careers





    Contact Us  
 Home
  News
  Photos
 Air Force Photos Search
 Search
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Full Size (5.23 MB)
 
 JBSA Change of Command AETC Air Education and Training Command Joint Base San Antonio Webb First Command Kwast AETCChangeofCommand
 Photo Gallery
 Quick Links
                            Join the Air ForceSite MapQuestionsContact UsRSSFOIAIGAF SitesAccessibilityEEOLink DisclaimerStrategic APRSuicide PreventionSAPRUSA.govNo FEAR Act
                    Connect
                    Official United States Air Force Website
                        Subscribe to USAF News and Information
          Submit
391 A.2d 701

#### Commonwealth v. Stepp, Appellant.

Submitted March 13,1978.

Larry E. Stone, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant; Marion E. MacIntyre, Second Assistant District Attorney, and LeRoy S. Zimmerman, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.
----

----

**EXHIBIT        32.2**

**CERTIFICATION        PURSUANT TO**

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

| (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 results of operations of                  the                  Company. |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| April                  30, 2006 | /s/                  Richard R                  Ivanovick                                     |
|---------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                            | Richard                  R. Ivanovick                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             |
|                            | Chief                  Financial Officer                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          |

----