alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Chet O. NICHOLS, Appellant, v. C. D. SIMPSON, Appellee.

No. 13263.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Dec. 11, 1957.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 8, 1958.

*614Joe Burkett, San Antonio, for appellant.

Archer & San Miguel, San Antonio, for appellee.

POPE, Justice.

The trial court permanently enjoined Chet Nichols, appellant, from operating and maintaining a dog kennel at 205 Mount Vernon Court, in the City of San Antonio. The case was tried without a jury, and the court concluded that the kennel constituted a nuisance. On appeal, C. D. Simpson, ap-pellee, urges that Nichols did not timely perfect his appeal. Nichols urges that the decree, at most, should have enjoined the manner of the operation, instead of totally enjoining the operation of the kennel.

The appeal was timely. On March 15, 1957, the judge signed the judgment. On March 25, Nichols filed a motion for new trial. On May 10, the motion was first presented, and the trial court properly ruled that the motion was overruled by operation of law on May 9. The appeal bond was filed on May 28, which was within thirty days from the time the motion for new trial was overruled by operation of law. Rule 329-b, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; Arana v. Gallegos, Tex.Civ.App., 279 S.W.2d 491.

The record reflects that Nichols was operating the kennel prior to the time the City annexed the area in which he lives and operates the kennel, and that he has continuously operated the kennel since 1941. While disputed, there is ample evidence that the dogs substantially disturb plaintiff and the neighbors by their barking and yelping during the day and night; there are noxious odors which emanate from the kennel; at times dogs breed in view of the neighbors; filth accumulates and attracts swarms of flies; and customers’ cars congregate around the kennel. The kennel is located in a residence area, but several owners have sold their homes. Others have offered their homes for sale but could find no buyers because of the presence of the kennel. Tenants often move from the rental houses after the first month. The condition has severely disturbed the health *615of some of the neighbors. > These condL, tions exist with reference to plaintiff and other neighbors. There was ample proof of a nuisance.

Appellant urges that the decree should only have enjoined the mannef in which he operates the kennel. At the trial, he offered no remedy for these conditions and suggested no changes for the future. His' position has been that he is now operating the kennel in a clean orderly fashion. We, therefore, have a nuisance with no suggested or possible remedy which would' alleviate the many undesirable features.' The trial court properly ordered the abatement of the nuisance by permanently enjoining the operation of the kennel at its present location. Note, 79 A.L.R. 1067; Patton v. Carter, Tex.Civ.App., 197 S.W.2d 168.

The judgment is affirmed.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


                                   EXHIBIT 27.5
<ARTICLE> 5

<CIK>                                 0001012704
<NAME>                        UGLY DUCKLING CORP
<MULTIPLIER>                               1,000

       
<S>                          <C>              
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                         JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                     1,652
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                            116,279
<ALLOWANCES>                              16,344
<INVENTORY>                               34,690
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            0<F1>
<PP&E>                                    34,040
<DEPRECIATION>                             5,616
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           283,218
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       0<F1>
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                 173,562
<OTHER-SE>                                10,228
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             283,218
<SALES>                                   69,522
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          88,819
<CGS>                                     41,153
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          26,359
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          14,988
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         1,370
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            4,949
<INCOME-TAX>                               2,007
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        2,942
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                               2,942
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                .16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                .16
<FN>
<F1>UNCLASSIFIED BALANCE SHEET </FN>         

</TABLE>
Exhibit 3.70
 
     Registered Office.
 Other Offices.
   Time and Place of Meetings.
 Annual Meetings.
 Special Meetings.
 Notice.




---



##### 



Quorum.
 Voting.
 Method of Voting.
 Action Without Meeting.
 2




---



##### 



Responsibilities.
 Number; Term.
 Vacancies; Increases.
 Place of meetings.
 Regular Meetings.
 3




---



##### 



Special Meetings.
 Quorum; Majority Vote.
 Minutes.
 Committees.
 Committee Minutes.
 Action Without Meeting.
 4




---



##### 



Method.
 Waiver.
   Number.
 Appointed Officers.
 Removal.
 Compensation.
 5




---



##### 



Duties.
       6




---



##### 



Checks.
 Fiscal Year.
 Telephone and Similar Meetings.
 Distributions and Share Dividends.
 Amendment of Bylaws.
 7
Sickbay.com, Inc. and Subsidiaries

                             (Formerly Xetal, Inc.)

                                   Form 10-K

                               September 30, 1999

                                   Exhibit 23

                        Consent of Independent Auditors

To the Board of Directors and Stockholders
Sickbay.com, Inc. and Subsidiaries (formerly Xetal, Inc.)

     We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of
Sickbay.com, Inc. (formerly Xetal, Inc.) and Subsidiaries as of September 30,
1999 and 1998, and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in
stockholders' equity and cash flows for each of the three years in the period
ended September 30, 1999. These financial statements are the responsibility of
the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion of these
financial statements on our audits.

     We consent to the inclusion of our independent auditors report with respect
to such financial statements in the inclusion of the Company's 10-K for the
fiscal year ended September 30, 1999.




s/Linder & Linder
-----------------

Linder & Linder
Certified Public Accountants
Dix Hills, New York
December 15, 1999

Dated: March 4, 2000
##### 



Exhibit 31.1 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION I, Joe W. Forehand, Chief Executive Officer of Accenture Ltd, the general
partner of Accenture SCA (the Registrant), certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed the Registrants Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
period ended February 29, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof:2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all
material respects the financial condition, results of operations and
cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the period presented in
this quarterly 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 quarterly report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and
procedures, as of the end of the period covered by
this quarterly report based on such evaluation; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the
Registrants internal control over financial reporting
that occurred during the Registrants most recent
fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the
Registrants internal control over financial
reporting.  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 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 controls over
financial reporting. Dated: April 7, 2004 /s/ JOE W. FOREHANDChief Executive
Officer(Principal Executive Officer of Accenture Ltd,General Partner of Accenture SCA)
Thomas Schwennesen

San Antonio Drone Photography 13330 Rockhampton St. San Antonio, TX 78232


### Specific Sections in which San Antonio Drone Photography is seeking an exemption: IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR EXEMPTION OF: San Antonio Drone Photography FOR AN EXEMPTION SEEKING RELIEF FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF TITLE 14 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS SECTIONS 61.113(a) & (b), 91.7(a), 91.121, 91.151(b), 91.405(a), 91.103, 91.119, 91.409(a)(1) & (a)(2), and 91.417(a) & (b) CONCERNING COMMERCIAL OPERATION OF DJI PHANTOM 3 UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS PURSUANT TO SECTION 333 OF THE FAA MONDERNIZATION AND REFORM ACT OF 2012 (PUBLIC LAW 112

- 95)

Extent of relief and our reason for seeking relief: In order to use our Unmanned Aircraft Systems for commercial use. We are seeking this exemption in order to legally conduct business and comply with all Federal regulations and standards put forth by the FAA while operating our Unmanned Aircraft Systems.

How our request would benefit the public as a whole: Granting the petition for San Antonio Drone Photography would allow for us to be able to efficiently, legally, economically, and safely perform aerial video and photography of special events , sporting events, land surveillance , real estate, search and rescue, commercia l inspections , and commercial maintenance over certain areas of these United States. Using Unmanned Aircraft Systems such as drone technology would greatly reduce negative impacts on the environment and also provide a safer alternative for businesses to co nduct land and equipment inspections.

Reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety, or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to the existing rule:

By adhering to guidelines set forth by the FAA we would not be go ing above the recommended altitude nor flying at night therefore avoiding any hazardous accidents such as colliding with a manned aircraft. We will be giving notification to the FAA 72 hours prior to any commercial use. Also we will be regularly test flying and doing daily maintenance logs to ensure the quads are in proper working order for each job or event as to prevent damage or bodily injury.


### Summary to publish in the Federal Register stating

-- 1. SEEKING RELIEF FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF TITLE 14 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS SECTIONS 61.113(a) & (b), 91.7(a), 91.121, 91.151(b),91.405(a), 91.103, 91.119, 91.409(a)(1) & (a)(2), and 91.417(a) & (b) CONCERNING COMMERCIAL OPERATION OF DJI PHANTOM 3 UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS PURSUANT TO SECTION 333 OF THE FAA MONDERNIZATION AND REFORM ACT OF 2012 (PUBLIC LAW 112

- 95) 2. We are seeking exemption in order to use our UAS for commercial use.

Submitted on July 15, 2015 by: Thomas Schwennesen San Antonio Drone Photography 13330 Rockhampton St. San Antonio, TX 78232 Taschwenn@yahoo.com
II

Calendar No. 552

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1840

[Report No. 104–342]

To amend the Federal Trade Commission Act to authorize appropriations

for the Federal Trade Commission.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 5, 1996

Mr. PRESSLER (for himself, Mr. GORTON, Mr. HOLLINGS, Mr. BRYAN, Ms.

SNOWE, and Mr. EXON) introduced the following bill; which was read

twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

JULY 31, 1996

Reported by Mr. PRESSLER, without amendment

A BILL

To amend the Federal Trade Commission Act to authorize

appropriations for the Federal Trade Commission.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Trade Com5 mission Reauthorization Act of 1996’’.
2

•S 1840 RS

1 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION.

2 Section 25 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15

3 U.S.C. 57c) is amended by striking ‘‘and not to exceed’’

4 and inserting ‘‘not to exceed’’ and by inserting before the

5 period the following: ‘‘; not to exceed $107,000,000 for

6 fiscal year 1997; and not to exceed $111,000,000 for fiscal

7 year 1998’’.

Calendar No. 552

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1840

[Report No. 104–342]

A BILL

To amend the Federal Trade Commission Act to

Commission.authorize appropriations for the Federal Trade

JULY 31, 1996

Reported without amendment
SCPW-22-0000575
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I
GUY BARRETT; and RONETTE BARRETT, Petitioners,

vs. T HE HONORABLE THOMAS A.K. HAIA, Judge of the District Court of the First Circuit,

State of Hawai # i, Respondent Judge,

and MERVINA CASH-KAEO, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CASE NO. 1DRC-21-0005397) ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ.)

Upon consideration of the petition for a writ of mandamus, filed on September 29, 2022, the documents attached and submitted in support, and the record, Petitioners have alternative means to seek relief by seeking a stay in the Intermediate Court of Appeals in CAAP-22-0000389, which is the appeal of the underlying proceeding. See Hawai # i Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 8(a). Additionally, the Respondent Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-22-0000575 30-SEP-2022 02:47 PM Dkt. 6 ODDPJudge is not required to recuse himself merely because

Petitioners disagree with the Respondent Judge’s decisions. See Aga v. Hundahl, 78 Hawai # i 230, 242, 891 P.2d 1022, 1034 (1995) (“[W]e have long adhered to the general rule that, standing alone, ‘mere erroneous or adverse rulings by the trial judge do not spell bias or prejudice[.]’” (Quoting Peters v. Jamieson, 48 Haw. 247, 264, 397 P.2d 575, 586 (1964)). An extraordinary writ is thus not warranted. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai # i 200, 204- 05, 982 P.2d 334, 338-39 (1999). Accordingly,

It is ordered that the petition is denied. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, September 30, 2022. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Michael D. Wilson /s/ Todd W. Eddins

2
Third District Court of Appeal 

State of Florida 

Opinion filed February 20, 2019. 

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. 

________________ 

No. 3D18-345 

Lower Tribunal No. 15-7712 

________________ 

Laura Ann Cancio n/k/a Laura Ann Davis, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

Juan Manuel Cancio, 

Appellee. 

 An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade 

County, Maria Elena Verde, Judge. 

 Law Offices of Robin Bresky, and Robin Bresky and Jeremy Dicker (Boca 

Raton), for appellant. 

 Juan Manuel Cancio, in proper person. 

Before FERNANDEZ, LOGUE, and LINDSEY, JJ. 

 PER CURIAM. 
 2 

 Finding the issues raised in the current appeal virtually identical to the issues 

raised by appellant in her prior appeal which was affirmed, Cancio v. Cancio, Case 

No. 17-2774 (Fla. 3d DCA May 16, 2018), we affirm here as well. 

 Affirmed.
#### E. Alfred BIBBINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMCAST CABLEVISION OF THE SOUTH, INC.; Geoff Shook, General Manager; Billy Thornton, General Sales Manager; Billy Finley, Ad Sales; National Aeronautical Space Administration; TV-Guide; Pat, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 02-5015.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Aug. 12, 2002.

Before SUHRHEINRICH and BATCHELDER, Circuit Judges; and LITTLE, District Judge.*

*

The Honorable F.A. Little, Jr., United States District Judge for the Western District of Louisiana, sitting by designation.

*ORDER*

E. Alfred Bibbins appeals pro se from a district court judgment that denied his motion for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*(“IFP”) in a civil rights action that he had filed under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 through 1987. His appeal has been referred to a panel of this court pursuant to Rule 34(j)(l), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon review, the panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed in this case. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a).

The complaint indicates that Bibbins had used the defendants’ facilities to broadcast several cable television programs. He primarily alleged that the defendants had thwarted his attempt to build a multi-station television empire, by providing poor quality transmission, by misquoting the cost of a fibre-optic line, and by ultimately discontinuing their services. The district court denied Bibbins’s motion for pauper status on December 4, 2001, as it appeared that he was not indigent. It is from this judgment that Bibbins now appeals.

We review the denial of an IFP motion for an abuse of discretion. *Phipps v. King,*866 F.2d 824, 825 (6th Cir.1988). The district court did not abuse its discretion here because Bibbins’s declaration indicated that paying the filing fee would not deprive him of the basic necessities of life. *See Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.,*335 U.S. 331, 339, 69 S.Ct. 85, 93 L.Ed. 43 (1948). Nevertheless, we note that the denial of Bibbins’s motion was also appropriate because his claims lacked an arguable basis in law. *See Neitzke v. Williams,*490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827,104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989).

Bibbins now primarily argues that the district court judge was biased against him. However, a careful review of the record reveals no clear evidence of judicial bias in the case at hand. *See Liteky v. United States,*510 U.S. 540, 555-56, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 127 L.Ed.2d 474 (1994).

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is affirmed. Rule 34(j)(2)(C), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.
EXHIBIT 21.1

Registrant had the following significant subsidiaries as of June 13, 2007:



|                                               |  |                          |  |                      |  
|---------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------ |  | -------------------- | -
|Name                                           |  | State of Incorporation   |  | Percentage Ownership |  
|Keystone Automotive Industries MN, Inc.        |  | Minnesota                |  | 100                  | %
|Keystone Automotive Industries FL, Inc.        |  | Florida                  |  | 100                  | %
|Keystone Automotive Industries Resources, Inc. |  | Delaware                 |  | 100                  | %
|Keystone Automotive Industries TN, Inc.        |  | Tennessee                |  | (1                   | )
|Keystone Automotive Industries QC, Inc.        |  | Quebec, Canada           |  | 100                  | %
|Keystone Automotive Industries CDN, Inc.       |  | Ontario, Canada          |  | 100                  | %
|Keystone Automotive Industries ON, Inc.        |  | Ontario, Canada          |  | (2                   | )
|Keystone Automotive Industries BC Inc.         |  | British Columbia, Canada |  | 100                  | %
|Keystone Automotive Industries OH, Inc.        |  | Ohio                     |  | (3                   | )

---

|(1) | A wholly-owned subsidiary of Keystone Automotive Industries Resources, Inc.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

|(2) | A wholly-owned subsidiary of Keystone Automotive Industries CDN, Inc.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------

|(3) | A wholly-owned subsidiary of Keystone Automotive Industries TN, Inc.
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Annual Report of Netopia,
Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), Alan B. Lefkof, as President and Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



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



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



By:

/s/ Alan B. LefkofAlan B. Lefkof President and Chief Executive Officer Date: December 16, 2005
<PAGE>



              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


I,  LOCKE  GOLDSMITH,  certify,  pursuant  to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant  to  Section  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-QSB of Princeton Ventures, Inc. for the quarterly period ended
December 31, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the
Quarterly  Report  on  Form  10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the
financial  condition  and  results  of  operations  of  Princeton Ventures, Inc.

By:      /s/ LOCKE  GOLDSMITH
         ----------------------
Name:
    LOCKE  GOLDSMITH
Title:
   Chief  Executive  Officer
Date:    February  18,  2003