alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Mark LATHAN.

No. 87-KH-0132.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 6, 1987.

In re Lathan, Mark; applying for supervisory writs; Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court, Div. “J”, No. 5-79-638.

Granted. The trial court is ordered to furnish relator with a copy of his *Boykin*transcript.
#### Larry Edward HYMES v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 57797.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

July 13, 1988.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 17, 1988.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Washington County; Arthur B. Clark, Judge.

*1125Martin A. Kilpatrick, Greenville, for appellant.

Edwin Lloyd Pittman and Mike Moore, Attys. Gen. by Felicia C. Adams, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Before HAWKINS, P.J., and ANDERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 10.9


 


[East
Kansas Agri-Energy Logo]


 


May 5, 2005


 


Via
Fax # (520) 323-9177


Mr. Scott
Brittenham


Ethanol
Capital Management, LLC


Rockefeller
Center, 7th Floor


1230
Avenue of the Americas


New
York, New York 10020


 


Re:                               East Kansas Agri-Energy, LLC/Ethanol Capital Partners, L.P.


 


Dear
Mr. Brittenham:


 


Ethanol
Capital Partners, L.P. has subscribed for the purchase of 4,550 Membership
Units in East Kansas Agri-Energy, LLC (“EKAE”). 
Contingent upon fulfillment by Ethanol Capital Partners, L.P. of all outstanding
obligations owed under the subscription agreement and the promissory note, EKAE
will accept the subscription by Ethanol Capital Partners, L.P. for the purchase
of the 4,550 Membership Units in EKAE. 
Following final acceptance of such subscription, EKAE will accept the
appointment by Ethanol Capital Partners, L.P. of two directors to EKAE’s board
of directors.  Such directors will have
to stand for re-election under the terms of EKAE’s operating agreement.  We understand that Ethanol Capital Partners,
L.P. is making independent arrangements with certain EKAE members to provide
for the re-election of Ethanol Capital Partners, L.P.’s directors.  We cannot assure you of their re-election.


 


Please
let me know if you have any questions regarding the foregoing.


 


	
   

  	
  Very
  truly yours,

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  /s/
  William R. Pracht

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  William
  R. Pracht

  



 


 


	
  P.O. Box
  225

  	
   

  	
  210
  1⁄2 E. 4th Ave.

  	
   

  	
  Garnett,
  KS 66032

  	
   

  	
  Phone:
  785-448-2888

  	
   

  	
  Fax:
  785-448-288

  	
   

  	
  Web
  Site: www.ekaellc.com
EXHIBIT 32.1






Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to




Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350










In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Rotoblock Corporation (Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Chien Chih Liu, Chief Executive Officer, 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 and belief:






(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 Registrant.










Date: September 16, 2010








ROTOBLOCK CORPORATION




/s/ Chien Chih Liu





By: Chien Chih Liu, Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,300
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,705
<OTHER-SE>                                    (22,032)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,500
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,500)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,500)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,500)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0




</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice: 7836]

There will be a meeting on the President's FY 2013 U.S. Refugee Admissions Program on Tuesday, May 1, 2012 from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. The meeting will be held at the Refugee Processing Center, 1401 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1100, Arlington, Virginia. The meeting's purpose is to hear the views of attendees on the appropriate size and scope of the FY 2013 U.S. Refugee Admissions Program.

                    Persons wishing to attend this meeting must notify the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration at telephone (202) 453-9257 by 5 p.m. on Tuesday, April 24, 2012, to reserve a seat. Persons wishing to present written comments should submit them by 5 p.m. on Tuesday, April 24, 2012 via email to                     *spruellda@state.gov*                     or fax (202) 453-9393.                

The use of any video or audio recording device, photographing device, or any other electronic or mechanical device designed for similar purposes is prohibited at Tuesday's event.

                    If you have questions about the public meeting, please contact Delicia Spruell, PRM/Admissions Program Officer at (202) 453-9257. Information about the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program may be found at                     *http://www.state.gov/​g/​prm/​.*

Dated: March 22, 2012.

David Robinson,

Acting, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2012-7700 Filed 3-29-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-33-P
Exhibit 11 - Statement of Computation of Per Share Earnings
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                            2001(A)                    2000(A)                   1999(B)
                                            -------                    -------                   -------
Basic:
-----
<S>                                 <C>                       <C>                       <C>
Average Shares                              24,977,353                  20,863,271                19,371,382

Net income (loss) applicable
to Common Shares                            $  104,266                 ($4,701,285)              ($1,886,399)
                                            ==========                 ============              ============
Per share amount                                $0.004                     $(0.225)                  ($0.097)
                                            ==========                 ============              ============

Fully diluted:
-------------
Average shares outstanding
 disregarding dilutive
 outstanding stock options
 and warrants, and conversion
 of debentures for each year                24,977,353                20,863,271

Dilutive stock options and
 warrants, based on the treasury
 stock method using the average
 market price                                 1,637,441                 2,168,747

Floating convertible debentures              1,500,000                  1,565,574
                                            ----------                 ----------
Shares outstanding                          28,114,794                 24,597,592
                                            ==========                 ==========

Net income (loss)                           $  104,266                ($4,701,285)

Interest on Floating Convertible
 Debenture, net of taxes                        90,430                    113,613
                                            ----------                -----------
Net income (loss) for fully
 diluted calculation                        $  194,696                ($4,587,672)
                                            ==========                ============

Per share amount                                 0.007                      (0.187)
                                            ==========                 ============
<FN>


Note A:           The fully-diluted calculation is submitted in accordance
                  with Regulation S-K, Item 601(b)(11), although it is contrary
                  to paragraph 13 of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards
                  No. 128 because it produces an anti-dilutive result.

Note B:           The fully-diluted calculation is not presented because the
                  exercise price of outstanding options was greater than the
                  average market price, therefore, exercise of the options is
                  not assumed.
</FN>
</TABLE>


<PAGE>
[No. 17658-1-II.

Division Two.

June 28, 1996.]

#### Terry M. McClanahan, *Individually and as Personal Representative,*et al., *Appellants,*v. Bradley J. Cady, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Clark County, No. 92-2-02817-8, Thomas L. Lodge, J., entered October 8, 1993. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Wiggins, J. Pro Tern., concurred in by Seinfeld, C.J., and Bridgewater, J.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 24, 2015

d1116 

# Order

Clerk November 24, 2015

150224(55)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 150224

COA: 314821

Oakland CC: 2012

- 240961

- FH

DONALD CLAYTON STURGIS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s March 31,

2015 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was

entered erroneously.
#### Leonor GARCIA, Francisco Garcia, Cristobal Brito and Hortensia Brito, Appellants, v. Percy D. ALFONSO and Mirta Alfonso, Appellees.

Nos. 85-916, 85-2162.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 27, 1986.

Rehearing Denied July 9, 1986.

*131Lawrence S. Gordon, Miami, for appellants Leonor Garcia and Francisco Garcia.

Sharon B. Jacobs, Coral Gables, Ronald Benton Brown, Ft. Lauderdale, for appellants Cristobal Brito and Hortensia Brito.

Taylor, Brion, Buker & Greene and Ar-naldo Velez, Miami, for appellees.

Before NESBITT, DANIEL S. PEARSON and FERGUSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, the sellers of real property and the purchasers under a second contract, seek review of a final judgment granting specific performance in an action brought by appellees-claimants under an earlier contract to purchase. The sellers had purportedly cancelled the contract for failure of the claimants to satisfy certain conditions within a specified time period.

The trial judge’s findings that the claimants had, within thirty days from the date of the agreement, obtained a firm commitment for mortgage financing as required by the contract is not supported by, in fact is contrary to, the evidence. Considering all the circumstances, particularly that a foreclosure of a second mortgage was imminent, it is clear that the “time is of the essence” clause in the Contract for Sale and Purchase was not a stock phrase but was intended to give the sellers an immediate right to cancel the contract if the buyers were unable to timely demonstrate an ability to purchase. *See*3A Corbin, *Contracts*§ 715 (1960); *Restatement (Second) of Contracts*§ 242 comment d (1981) (such stock phrases as “time is of the essence” do not necessarily have the effect of discharging the injured party’s duties immediately, although they are to be considered along with other circumstances).

Claimants did not obtain an institutional commitment for financing until three weeks after the thirty-day period had expired, which was seventeen days after the sellers had notified them of the cancellation and nine days after a new contract had been entered into with the new purchasers. They were not entitled to specific performance. *Robinson v. Abreu,*345 So.2d 404 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). *See also Sun Bank v. Lester,*404 So.2d 141 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (party not entitled to specific performance where deposit untimely and time was of the essence), *rev. denied,*412 So.2d 467 (Fla.1982).

Reversed and remanded with instructions to enter judgment for the defendants.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of QC Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q
for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Douglas E. Nickerson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

Dated: May 9, 2006



/s/ Douglas E. NickersonDouglas E. NickersonChief Financial Officer




Page 35
**EXHIBIT      32.2**

| (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                respect, the financial condition and result of operations of the                Company. |
|-----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                    |                                 |                                     |
|-----------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|
|                               |                            |                                |
| Date: August              10, 2005 | By:                        | /s/ Robert              M. Blodgett |
|  Name:                        | Robert              M. Blodgett      |
|  Title:                       | Chief              Financial Officer |
#### STATE ex rel. Joseph Dalton RIDEAUX, Sr. v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 88-KH-1057.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 20, 1988.

In re Rideaux, Joseph Dalton Sr.; applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court, Div. “D”, No. 36887.

Denied.
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 56 (Monday, March 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 15963]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06299]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION

Publication of FY 2013 Service Contract Inventory

AGENCY: Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.

ACTION: Notice of public availability of FY 2013 Service Contract 
Inventory.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 743 of Division C of the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010, the Bureau of Consumer 
Financial Protection (Bureau) is publishing this notice to advise the 
public of the availability of the FY 2013 Service Contract Inventory. 
This inventory provides information on service contract actions over 
$25,000, which the Bureau awarded during FY 2013. The information is 
organized by function to show how contracted resources were used by the 
agency to support its mission. The inventory has been developed in 
accordance with the guidance issued on November 5, 2010 and December 
19, 2011 by the Office of Management and Budget's Office of Federal 
Procurement Policy (OFPP). OFPP's guidance is available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/procurement/memo/service-contract-inventories-guidance-11052010.pdf and http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/procurement/memo/service-contract-inventory-guidance.pdf. The Bureau has posted its inventory 
and a summary of the inventory on the Bureau's ``Open government'' 
homepage at the following link: http://www.consumerfinance.gov/open/, 
specifically at http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201312_cfpb_worksheet_service-contract-inventory.pdf and http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201312_cfpb_summary_service-contract-inventory.pdf.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions regarding the service 
contract inventory should be directed to Hoa Crews, Senior Procurement 
Analyst, Office of Procurement, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 
(202) 435-7422.

    Dated: March 13, 2014.
Richard Cordray,
Director, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
[FR Doc. 2014-06299 Filed 3-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-AM-P
```
Aug. 13, 2015 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Management System 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Amendment to Exemption 11842 ProFly Drones 3D Robotics Solo 

This is a request for an amendment to Exemption No. 11842 Regulatory Docket No. FAA–2015–

1148, granted to ProFly Drones. This amendment will provide for the addition of the 3D 

Robotics Solo sUAS to the inventory of approved aircraft for use during VLOS operations 

currently covered under Exemption 11842. 

These airframes are commercially available to the general public, as are all components used to 

complete them. In addition, all configurations of these components follow standard, wellestablished practices. No aspect of these aircraft is proprietary to ProFly Drones in design or 

manufacture. 

3D Robotics Solo 

3DR-Solo-v8_01_05_16.pdf (Uploaded to Docket)
#### Guenther Paul STIEGHORST, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Alan CHARNES, Executive Director, Department of Revenue, Motor Vehicle Division, State of Colorado, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 82CA1335.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. I.

Oct. 27, 1983.

Certiorari Denied Jan. 16, 1984.

*1228Fleming, Pattridge, Hacking & Gardner, Conrad E. Gardner, Golden, for plaintiff-appellant.

Duane Woodard, Atty. Gen., Charles B. Howe, Deputy Atty. Gen., Joel W. Can-trick, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Roger M. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for defendant-appellee.

PIERCE, Judge.

Plaintiff, Guenther Paul Stieghorst, appeals the revocation of his driver’s license by the Department of Revenue under the implied consent law. We affirm.,

A police officer stopped Stieghorst after observing the emission of smoke and sparks from the vehicle Stieghorst was driving. The officer detected the odor of alcohol on Stieghorst’s breath and observed that Stieghorst had difficulty walking or standing in one place. Because the nature of Stieghorst’s condition seemed apparent, a roadside sobriety test was not conducted.

At police headquarters, an implied consent advisement form was read and given to Stieghorst. Stieghorst declined to take a chemical test, telling the officer in effect that it was apparent that he had been drinking, and there was no need for a test.

The hearing officer found that the arresting officer had reasonable grounds to believe Stieghorst was operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, concluded that Stieghorst did not comply with the implied consent statute, and revoked his driver’s license for a period of three months. The district court affirmed.

Stieghorst now asserts that his advisement was inadequate because he was not given an opportunity to read the implied consent form. We disagree.

The basis for the assertion is that Stie-ghorst was unable to read the form because he did not have his eyeglasses with him. However, the hearing officer found, from conflicting evidence, Stieghorst did not advise the police officer that he desired to obtain his eyeglasses. Further, the police officer advised Stieghorst “orally and by written notice” of his “rights under the law and the probable consequences of a refusal to submit to such a test.” Section 42 — 4—1202(3)(b), C.R.S.1973 (1982 Cum. Supp.). Therefore, Stieghorst was not deprived of the opportunity to read the form, if he so desired, and his failure to do so does not serve to nullify the advisement. *See Herren v. Motor Vehicle Division,*39 Colo.App. 146, 565 P.2d 955 (1977).

Stieghorst further contends that the advisement was improper because the offi*1229cer explained that failure to take the test would result in suspension, whereas it results in revocation of an operator’s license. This contention is without merit. Stie-ghorst, who testified that he did not recall being advised by the officer of the consequences of his refusal, has not shown that he was in any way misled, prejudiced, or adversely affected by the allegedly erroneous advice. *See Fish v. Chames,*652 P.2d 598 (Colo.1982).

Judgment affirmed.

BERMAN and METZGER, JJ., concur.