alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Paula Falconio, Formerly Known as Paula Mitrione, Appellant, v Joseph Mitrione, Respondent.

—In a matrimonial action, in which the parties were divorced by a judgment dated August 20, 1984, the plaintiff wife appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), entered March 23, 1990, as denied those branches of her motion which were (1) for an upward modification of child support, (2) for an increase in the amount of life insurance to be purchased by the defendant, and (3) to compel the defendant husband to pay 90% of the cost of the private education of the parties’ daughters.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law and as a matter of discretion, by deleting the provisions thereof which (1) require defendant husband to pay $225 per month in connection with the educational expenses of the parties’ children, and (2) fix $450 as the amount of arrears, and by substituting therefor provisions (1) directing the defendant husband to pay $324 per month in connection with the educational expenses of the parties’ children, and (2) fixing $648 as the amount of arrears; as modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for a determination of the amount of any additional arrears and how any additional arrears are to be paid.

*599The Supreme Court found that the educational expenses reasonably related to the private education of the parties’ children amounted to $300 per month. The parties’ separation agreement requires the parties to contribute to these expenses in a manner proportionate to their "respective financial abilities”. The Supreme Court, enforcing this provision, directed the defendant husband to pay 75% of $300, or $225, per month, retroactive to February 1, 1990, and fixed arrears in the sum of $450.

Based on our review of the record, we conclude that the plaintiff wife has proven that the children’s reasonable educational expenses amount to $360 per month. We also conclude that, in light of their respective incomes, the defendant husband should pay 90% and the plaintiff wife 10% of this monthly expense. We, therefore, modify the Supreme Court’s order so as to increase the defendant husband’s monthly obligation to pay for educational expenses from $225 to $324 per month, and to increase the arrears due from $450 to $648.

We have examined the plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. We note that the plaintiff’s argument concerning the adequacy of attorneys’ fees is beyond the scope of her appeal, as limited by her notice of appeal. This argument is meritless in any event. Bracken, J. P., Kooper, Sullivan and Lawrence, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS RESTATED FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
EXTRACTED FROM THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY'S
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000015511
<NAME> THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                             114
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      481<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                        67<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                        244
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,129<F1>
<PP&E>                                          26,435
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,309
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  23,383<F1>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,139<F1>
<BONDS>                                          4,892
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,739
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    23,383<F1>
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,382
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,411
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 151
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    815
<INCOME-TAX>                                       306
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                509
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       509
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>RESTATEMENT REFLECTED HEREIN IS THE RESULT OF RECLASSIFICATION TO PRIOR
PERIODS' FINANCIAL STATEMENTS TO CONFORM TO THE CURRENT PERIOD PRESENTATION.
</FN>


</TABLE>
1

Daniels, Nia (FAA)

From: Daniels, Nia (FAA)

Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 4:04 PM

To: 'extrememedia@charter.net'

Cc: Pappas, Rob (FAA); Pearson, Lakisha (FAA); Cooper, Thuy (FAA); Schandler, Andrea 

(FAA)

Subject: Request for Additional Information

February 26, 2015 

Mr. Richard Edmund 

Extreme Media Productions 

P.O. Box 170301 

Spartanburg, South Carolina 29301 

Dear Mr. Edmund: 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA2014-1034). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your 

petition. 

 Please provide a copy or URL link of the aircraft manual. 

 Your petition references the material listed below, however the material were not submitted for the 

record. Please provide a copy of the following referenced materials: 

o Flight Operations and Procedures Manual 

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit 

any proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If

you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information described above by March 12, 

2015. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

Nia Daniels 

Program Analyst
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Sharrod Hill, Appellant.

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Moskowitz, J.), *634rendered April 10, 1989, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the trial court improperly instructed the jury on the defense of justification and failed to mention the justification defense in the verdict sheet is unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Colon,*159 AD2d 582; *People v Amey,*151 AD2d 490; *People v Lopez,*113 AD2d 475, 479). The defendant also failed to preserve for appellate review his objection to the trial court’s failure to provide the jury with a circumstantial evidence charge *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Thomas,*50 NY2d 467; *People v Alexander,*153 AD2d 507, 509, *affd*75 NY2d 979). In any event, we find that neither claim has merit.

Finally, we find that the defendant’s sentence was not excessive *(see, People v Farrar,*52 NY2d 302). Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, O’Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.
Martha s



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

July 2, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00265

- CV

John DONOHUE

, Appellant

v.

Martha DONOHUE

, Appellee

From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012CI19573

Honorable David A. Canales, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

This court has issued a show cause order requiring appellant to establish this court’s

jurisdiction. Pursuant to that order, all deadlines have been stayed pending further order of this

court. Accordingly, we DENY AS MOOT the reporter’s request for an extension of time to file

the record.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

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

court on this 2nd day of July, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
**Exhibit 31.2**
I, Kristina M. Leslie, certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10Q of DreamWorks Animation SKG, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of material factor omit to state of material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controlsand procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities,particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared;
(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the periodcovered by this report based on suchevaluation; and
(c) Disclosed in this report any changein the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred duringthe registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter that has materially affected, oris reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and
 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors:
(a) All significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonablelikely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financialinformation; and
(b) Any fraud, whether or not material,that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role inthe registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.
Date: December 10, 2004 /s/ KRISTINA M. LESLIEKristina M. LeslieChief Financial Officer
57
**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


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





**Exhibit
      32.1**





Pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63
      of
      Title 18 of the United States Code), the undersigned officer of Finlay
      Enterprises, Inc., (the “Company”) does hereby certify with respect to the
      Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended May 3, 2008
      (the “Report”) that:





1.
            The
                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
                of
                the SecuritiesExchange
                Act of 1934; and


2.
            The
                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                respects, the financialcondition
                and results of operations of the
                Company.




Date:
      June 12, 2008





/s/
                Arthur E. ReinerArthur
                E. ReinerChairman,
                President and Chief Executive
                Officer





The
      foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United
      States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate
      disclosure document.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1331 Reported in House (RH)]

<DOC>

                                                  Union Calendar No. 17
116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1331

                          [Report No. 116-36]

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize certain 
    programs relating to nonpoint source management, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 25, 2019

 Mrs. Craig (for herself and Mr. Mast) introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 
                             Infrastructure

                             April 8, 2019

                  Additional sponsor: Mr. Fitzpatrick

                             April 8, 2019

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize certain 
    programs relating to nonpoint source management, and for other 
                               purposes.

 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Local Water Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. NONPOINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.

    Section 319(j) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
U.S.C. 1329(j)) is amended by striking ``subsections (h) and (i) not to 
exceed'' and all that follows through ``fiscal year 1991'' and 
inserting ``subsections (h) and (i) $200,000,000 for each of fiscal 
years 2020 through 2024''.
                                                  Union Calendar No. 17

116th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1331

                          [Report No. 116-36]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize certain 
    programs relating to nonpoint source management, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             April 8, 2019

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed
```
<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 Quarterly Report of Aventura Holdings, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Craig A. Waltzer, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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.


November 1, 2006                     By:     /s/ Craig A. Waltzer
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                             Craig A. Waltzer
                                             Chief Executive Officer, President
                                             and Director
No. 01-14-01015-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT 

HOUSTON, TEXAS 

SANDRA UZE 

Appellant 

V.

UCHENNA NWABUEZE 

Appellee 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

APPELLEE COUNSEL NOTICE OF APPEARANCE 

By copy of this letter Appellee files this document noticing the Court and applicable 

parties that he has retained Attorney Carlette White to represent him in the appeal of this matter 

to the 1st Court of Appeals. Attorney Carlette White will be serving as lead counsel. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 WHITE LAW OFFICE 

 BY: ___ s/ Carlettte White 

 Carlette White, 

 P.O. Box 

 Sugar Land, Texas 77487 

 TBN: 21516430 

281-203-0800 

713-391-8724 fax 

 Whitelawoffice1@aol.com 

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been furnished by fax/email/ or USPS 

on this 27th day of January, 2015 to Attorney for Appellant.

ACCEPTED

01-14-01015-CV

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

1/26/2015 11:28:09 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK
2

BY: ___/s/ Carlettte White____________

Carlette White, Attorney for Plaintiff
**Exhibit
      32**


CERTIFICATION





PURSUANT
      TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(SUBSECTIONS
      (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF


TITLE
      18,
      UNITED STATES CODE)




Pursuant
      to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
      section 1350, chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the undersigned
      officers of Newgold, Inc. , a
      Delaware corporation (the “Company”), do hereby certify with respect to the
      Amended Quarterly Report of Newgold on Form 10-QSB/A for the quarter ended
      July
      31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “10-QSB/A
      Report”) that:


(1)  the
      10-QSB/A 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 10-QSB/A Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      Newgold.





NEWGOLD,
      INC.




Dated:
      September 19, 2006      /s/
      Scott
      Dockter


Scott
      Dockter, President and Chief Executive Officer




Dated:
      September 19, 2006      /s/
      James
      Kluber


James
      Kluber, Chief
      Financial Officer
MEMORANDUM

February 22, 2011

To: Air Docket

FROM: Jaimee Dong

CISD, EPA

SUBJECT: Meeting Summary

On February 3, 2011, John Eichberger of NACS met with Mary Manners, Nancy

Ketcham

- Colwill, Robert Anderson, and Jaimee Dong of EPA to discuss issues associated with other mitigation measures applied to gasoline containing up to 15% ethanol (E15). The use of electronic keypads or touch screens for consumers to confirm that they want to fuel with E15

was discusse d. Also discussed was using a uniform color, texture, or text for hand warmers (also known as scuffguards or nozzle grips) on nozzles used to dispense E15. NACS was generally supportive of both ideas, but identified issues such as text on hand warmers inte rfering with advertising space as well as uncertainty regarding the cost of using electronic keypads or touchscreens for affirmative confirmation by consumers.
(June 11, 1991)

#### John W. McGrath, Respondent, v Diane L. McGrath, Appellant.

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered May 17, 1990, which, *inter alia,*denied *369defendant’s application for an order declaring the parties’ son emancipated, and for reimbursement of school expenses paid by defendant retroactive to July 20, 1988, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The parties’ separation agreement, which survived a judgment of divorce, sets forth the support obligations of each parent to their two children. Under the agreement, both parties are required to pay their children’s school expenses. In addition, while defendant retains custody of the children, plaintiff is required to pay defendant support and maintenance of each child until their emancipation. Another section of the agreement provides that a child is deemed emancipated by electing to permanently reside with plaintiff. That section defines the terms under which a child permanently resides with plaintiff and states that plaintiff must continue to pay defendant child support for a three month period after the child’s permanent residence with plaintiff commences. Finally, the agreement states that the obligations assumed by the husband and the wife for each child terminate upon the emancipation of the children.

We agree with the IAS court that, contrary to defendant’s construction of the agreement, the parties intended that plaintiff would not be required to pay defendant support for a child whose support obligations plaintiff assumed by virtue of the child’s permanent residence with him, but that such would not affect the obligation for educational expenses here in issue. Defendant’s construction of the agreement would violate the public policy against parents contracting away their parental responsibilities, since by her interpretation of the agreements, all parental obligations would terminate by virtue of the child’s permanent residence with plaintiff *(see, Matter of Hoppl v Hoppl,*50 AD2d 59, *affd 40*NY2d 993). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Ellerin, Wallach and Smith, JJ.
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 200 9-0 819

DCN: SE0395 5

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS I NFORMATION

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.