alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Charlot E. KERSLAKE, Appellant, v. Harold A. KERSLAKE, Appellee.

No. 4208.

Supreme Court of Alaska.

April 18, 1980.

*560A. Lee Petersen, Anchorage, for appellant.

Robert B. Downes, Cole & Downes, Fairbanks, for appellee.

OPINION ON REHEARING *

Before RABINOWITZ, C. J., and CON-NOR, BOOCHEVER, BURKE and MATTHEWS, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Chariot E. Kerslake contends that the superior court erred: (1) in finding that the parties, who were both represented by counsel, had agreed to the terms and conditions of a divorce and property settlement; and (2) in entering a decree of divorce which included the property settlement without independently determining that the property settlement was just.

We hold that the trial court did not err. *Interior Credit Bureau, Inc. v. Bussing,*559 P.2d 104, 106-07 (Alaska 1977), disposes of the first issue. As to the second issue, a court may accept as “just”1 a divorce property settlement entered into by parties represented by counsel.

*

 This case was originally decided by an unpublished memorandum opinion and judgment pursuant to Appellate Rule 26, on September 17, 1979. A timely petition for rehearing was thereafter filed.

1

. AS 09.55.210(6) provides that in a judgment for divorce the court may provide

> for the division between the parties of their property, whether joint or separate, acquired only during coverture, in the manner as may be just, and without regard to which of the parties is in fault; however, the court, in making the division, may invade the property of either spouse acquired before marriage when the balancing of the equities between the parties requires it; and to accomplish this end the judgment may require that one or both of the parties assign, deliver, or convey any of his or her real or personal property to the other party;

Although this section grants broad authority to a trial court to fashion property settlements absent an agreement, we do not read the section as imposing an affirmative duty on a trial court to examine every property settlement reached by the parties to determine if it is just. We favor the rule advocated by Professor Clark that, insofar as an agreement relates to the division of property,

> the separation agreement should be controlling in the absence of fraud, duress, concealment of assets or other facts showing the agreement was not made voluntarily and with full understanding.

H. Clark, Law of Domestic Relations § 16.10 at 551 (1968). While counsel for Chariot Kers-lake raises the spectre of “concealment of assets” or “lack of understanding,” it seems clear that Chariot and her counsel understood that she was entering into a stipulation with incomplete knowledge, but she apparently considered it to Be adequate enough at the time to make an informed decision.
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 SendTec, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Donald Gould, Principal 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, to my knowledge:



| | (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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                             
|-----------------------------
|/s/ Donald Gould             
|Donald Gould                 
|Chief Financial Officer      
|(Principal Financial Officer)
|November 16, 2007
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**SENECA GAMING CORPORATIONCERTIFICATION OF CORPORATE OFFICERS**

 

(Furnished Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Seneca Gaming Corporation, or SGC, on Form 10-Qfor the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission, we, Catherine Walker, Chief Operating Officer(principal executive officer), and David Sheridan, Chief Financial Officer(principal financial officer), 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 QuarterlyReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,; and

 

2.                                       The informationcontained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operation of SGC as of, and for, theperiods presented in the Form 10-Q.

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to SGC and will be retained by SGC and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its Staff upon request.

 

May 15, 2009

 
| /s/ Catherine Walker          |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|
| Catherine Walker              |   |
| Chief Operating Officer       |   |
| (Principal Executive Officer) |   |
|                          |   |
|                          |   |
| /s/ David Sheridan            |   |
| David Sheridan                |   |
| Chief Financial Officer       |   |
| (Principal Financial Officer) |   |

 

 

Theforgoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-Qpursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not beingfiled as part of the Form 10-Q for purposes of Section 18 of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated byreference into any filing of SGC, whether made before or after the date hereof,regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

 

----
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2011-1034 Directorate ID: 2011-SW-014-AD 

Helicopter Model: Agusta S.p.A. Model AB139 and AW139 Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 76 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: to detect damage in the tailboom in order to prevent failure of the tailboom and subsequent loss 

of control of a helicopter.

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter $52,300 (mod)

Labor per Helicopter

Daily check

(2 x $85/work-hour per

recurring inspection)

(192 x $85/work-hour for 

mod installation)

minimal

$170

$16,320

Other (Explain)

Total Cost per Helicopter varies

Total US Fleet Cost $704,000 (assumption of 12 recurring inspections 

and 8 tailboom modifications)

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: Sharon Miles
The State of TexasAppellee

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

Friday, April 10, 2015

No. 04-14-00649-CR

Alex Rene GONZALES,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR7573

Honorable Maria Teresa Herr, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant’s brief was due February 16, 2015, but was not filed. This court notified 

appellant’s appointed counsel, William L. Baskette Jr., of the deficiency by letter dated February 

19, 2015. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b)(2). The letter required appellant to respond in writing

within ten days, explaining why the brief has not been filed and demonstrating that counsel has 

taken affirmative steps to prepare and file the brief. The letter further advised counsel that if an 

adequate response was not timely filed, the court would abate the appeal for an abandonment 

hearing in the trial court. We received no response.

Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 38.8(b)(2) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we 

ordered the appeal abated and remanded the matter to the trial court to conduct a hearing to 

determine: (1) whether appellant desires to prosecute his appeal; and (2) whether counsel has 

abandoned the appeal. In response to our order, the trial court held a hearing and thereafter 

prepared findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court’s findings and conclusions were 

filed in this court on April 8, 2015. In its findings the trial court found appellant desired to 

prosecute his appeal. However, the court found that appellant had retained new appellate 

counsel, Dayna L. Jones, to prosecute his appeal. Accordingly, William L. Baskette Jr. is no 

longer appellate counsel for appellant. 

Based on the foregoing, we ORDER the abatement lifted and the appellate deadlines 

reinstated. Appellant’s brief was due almost sixty days ago — February 16, 2015. We therefore 

ORDER appellant’s new appellate counsel, Dayna L. Jones, to file appellant’s brief within May 

11, 2015. We advise counsel that given the prior delays with regard to the filing of the brief, 

additional requests for extensions of time to file appellant’s brief will be strictly reviewed. 
We order the clerk of this court to serve copies of this order on the attorney William L. 

Baskette Jr., attorney Dayna L. Jones, and counsel for the State. 

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 10th day of April, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
IA 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 87 

Providing for the reappointment of Michael M. Lynton as a citizen regent 

of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 5, 2020 

Ms. MATSUI (for herself, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, and Mr. SHIMKUS) submitted 

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

House Administration 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for the reappointment of Michael M. Lynton as 

a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That, in accordance with section 5581 of the Revised Stat4 utes of the United States (20 U.S.C. 43), the vacancy on 

5 the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, in 

6 the class other than Members of Congress, occurring by 

7 reason of the expiration of the term of Michael M. Lynton 

8 of California is filled by the reappointment of the incum9 bent. The reappointment is for a term of 6 years, beginVerDate Sep 11 2014 21:26 May 05, 2020 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HJ87.IH HJ87

pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HJ 87 IH 

1 ning on the later of September 29, 2020, or the date of 

2 the enactment of this joint resolution. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

THOMAS FRANCIS TRUE, IV, 

 Petitioner 

 v. 

PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF LAW 

EXAMINERS, 

 Respondent 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 185 MM 2014 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 8th day of April, 2015, the Petition for Review per Pa.B.A.R. 222 

is DENIED.
IN THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN

NO.03-14-00404-CV

KEVIN TOWER AND KARRIE LYNN TOWER,

Appellants,

v.

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.

Appellee.

APPELLANTS FIRST MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPLY BRIEF

COMES NOW APPELLANTS Kevin Tower and Lynn Tower ("Appellants") and files

this their First Motionfor Extension of Time to file a Reply Brief, and in support thereof, would

show as follows:

I. FACTS

1. This matteroriginated from the Hays County Court at Law. Appellants' were the

Defendant's in a case styled, Bank ofAmerica, N.A. v. Kevin Tower, Cause No. 13-0320-C.

2. Appellants' received notice that Appellee's brief was filed on March 12, 2015

thereby making the deadline for filing a Reply Brief April 1, 2015.'

3. Appellant Kevin Tower was recently promoted at his employ which has caused

great delay in a number of tasks most importantly the filing of the Reply Brief. With an

inordinate number of additional tasks required of him with his new position he has had no time

to set aside two uninterrupted days to focus on crafting the arguments required for the Reply

Brief.

Texas Rules ofAppellate Procedure §38.6(c) ofwithin 20 days after the date the appellee's brief was/I JPcbvhT

Appellants Motion forExtension ofTime
4. It must be noted that the Appellant's are fighting for their home, the single most

important asset they own. Therefore it is desperately important that a Reply Brief be filed to

distinguish certain important points of law.

II. ARGUMENT & AUTHORITIES

5. Tex. R. App. P. 38.6(c) demands the Appellants' Reply Brief be submitted within

20 days of the Appellee filing its brief. Tex. R. App. P. 38.6(d) does, upon motion, allow for a

modification of the timelines in which to file the brief provided this motion complies with Tex.

R. App. P. 10.50(b), which the undersigned believes to be the case.

6. However, for good cause this Court may grant an extension. Appellants are

confident that with the impending holiday twelve (12) additional days from the date of

submission of this motion shall be sufficient time in which to file its brief.

III. PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant preys that this Court grant an

extension of time to file Appellants Appeal Brief.

Respectfully submitted:

Kevin Tc

Appellants Motion forExtension ofTime

Page 2 of3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this the 2^ day ofApril 2015, a true and correct copy ofthe

foregoing was served as stated below pursuant to the Texas Rulesof Civil Procedure.

Mr. Jonathan M. Williams

Marinosci Law Group. P.C.

14643 Dallas Parkway. Suite 750

Dallas, Texas 75254 "

Appellants Motion forExtension ofTime

Page 3 of3

Confirmed Facsimile to (972) 331-5240
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 on Form 10-Q of Wise Metals Group LLC (the Company) for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, David DAddario, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge, 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.

Date: March 4, 2008



By:

/s/ David DAddarioDavid DAddarioChairman and Chief Executive Officer


A signed original of this written statement, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise
adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement, 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.
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of ABC Funding, Inc. (the "Company") for
the quarter ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Alan Gaines, as Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, and Richard Cohen, as Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, each certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge,
respectively, that:

      1.    The Report fully complies with 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.


Dated: November 12, 2007         By: /s/ Steven Barrenechea
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     Steven Barrenechea, Chief Executive Officer
                                     ABC Funding, Inc.


Dated: November 12, 2007         By: /s/ Richard Cohen
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     Richard Cohen, Chief Financial Officer
                                     ABC Funding, Inc.


                                       23
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 110 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.J.Res.110

                     One Hundred Sixteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday,
            the third day of January, two thousand and twenty

                            Joint Resolution

 
 Making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2021, and for 
                             other purposes.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Continuing 
Appropriations Act, 2021 (division A of Public Law 116-159) is further 
amended by striking the date specified in section 106(3) and inserting 
``December 21, 2020''.
     This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Extension of 
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2021''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
#### Billy Joe THOMPSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ben M. TOMASI, a Hearing Examiner for the State of Colorado, Department of Revenue, Motor Vehicle Division, George L. Theobald, Hearing Division Director, Motor Vehicle Division, Department of Revenue of the State of Colorado and Alan Charnes, Director of the Department of Revenue, State of Colorado, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 79CA0610.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. I.

Dec. 28, 1979.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 24, 1980.

Certiorari Granted April 7, 1980.

*559G. William Beardslee, Fort Collins, for plaintiff-appellant.

J. D. MacFarlane, Atty. Gen., Richard F. Hennessey, Deputy Atty. Gen., Mary J. Mullarkey, Sol. Gen., James R. Willis, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for defendants-appellees.

COYTE, Judge.

On January 9, 1979, defendant’s driver’s license was revoked by the Department of Revenue for a period of nine months for driving under the influence and weaving. Defendant sought review of the Department’s order in the district court. On January 23, 1979, that court enjoined enforcement of the Department’s revocation order “until the conclusion of the review proceedings,” and ordered the Department to return defendant his driver’s license for employment purposes only (restricted use). On May 14,1979, the district court affirmed the Department’s order revoking defendant’s driver’s license and vacated the injunction. On July 11, 1979, this court ordered the stay of execution previously granted by the trial court to be continued during the pendency of this appeal.

Defendant asserts that *Donelson v. Department of Revenue,*38 Colo.App. 354, 561 P.2d 345 (1976) renders any appeal from this ruling moot. We agree. Having suffered a diminution of driving privileges for a time greater than the original period of suspension, defendant is entitled to apply for the return of his driver’s license, and this appeal is now moot. *Donelson*v. *Department of Revenue, supra.*

That portion of the trial court judgment affirming the action of the Department in issuing the revocation order is affirmed. That portion of the trial court judgment which, in effect, authorized the Department to continue the revocation for another nine months from the date of the trial court judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded for entry of judgment directing the Department to reissue Thompson’s license upon compliance with § 42-2-124(3), C.R.S. 1973.

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

                                   EXHIBIT 32

                                CERTIFICATION OF
               CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

This certification is given by the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of Valley Bancorp ("the Registrant") pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Each of the undersigned hereby certifies,
with respect to the Registrant's quarterly report of Form 10-Q for the period
ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the
date hereof (the "Report"), 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.

/s/ Barry L. Hulin                                      /s/ Dick Holtzclaw
-----------------------                                 ------------------------
Barry L. Hulin                                          Dick Holtzclaw
Chief Executive Officer        Date: May 13, 2005       Chief Financial Officer
Valley Bancorp                                          Valley Bancorp
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Petitioner

 v.

GABRIEL J. MARTINEZ,

 Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 328 MAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Petitioner

 v.

SHAWN PATRICK MCGINNIS JR.,

 Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 329 MAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Petitioner

 v.

ADAM MACKENZIE GRACE,

 Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 330 MAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

No. 331 MAL 2014
[328 MAL 2014, 329 MAL 2014, 330 MAL 2014 and 331 MAL 2014] - 2

 v.

CHRISTINA J. LASATER,

 Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 8th day of April, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

GRANTED. The issue, as stated by petitioner, is:

(1) Whether the Superior Court’s application of its decision Commonwealth v.

Hainesworth to the instant cases impermissibly expanded the contract

clause to bind the Commonwealth to collateral consequences over which

the Commonwealth has no control?