alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered February 26, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00039-CV

THE CITY OF DALLAS, Appellant

V.

THOMAS A. DAVENPORT, Appellee

On Appeal from the 192nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-11-09411-K

ORDER

The Court has before it appellant’s February 6, 2013 unopposed motion for extension of 

time to file brief. The Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS appellant to file its brief by 

March 13, 2013. 

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
EXHIBIT
      23




Consent
          of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
  
  Merisel,
          Inc.
 New
          York,
          New York
  We
          hereby
          consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
          on Form
          S-8 (No. Nos.
          33-61592, 333-49595, 333-44605 and 33-63021) of
          Merisel, Inc. of our report dated March 27, 2006, relating to the consolidated
          financial statements, which is incorporated by reference in this Form 10-K.
  /s/
          BDO Seidman, LLP
 BDO
          Seidman, LLP
 New
          York,
          NY
  
  April
          7,
          2006
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-7310

LARRY MEYER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

GEORGE M. HINKLE, Warden,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge.

(CA-99-173-2)

Submitted: February 29, 2000 Decided: March 27, 2000

Before MURNAGHAN, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry Meyer, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Larry Meyer appeals the district court's orders denying relief

on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint, and the

district court’s order denying both his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration and his motion to amend. However, because

the sole issue Meyer raised in his informal brief relates to the

district court’s denial of his motion to amend, we have limited our

review to that issue. See Local Rule 34(b). We have reviewed the

record and the district court's opinion relating to the denial of

Meyer’s motion to amend and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Meyer v. Hinkle,

No. CA-99-173-2 (E.D. Va. Sept. 15, 1999). We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
[No. 34873.

Department Two.

December 10, 1959.]

#### Allyne Richardson, *Respondent and Cross-appellant,*v. Claude L. Richardson, *Appellant.**1*

*Bernice Bacharach,*for appellant.

*Murray & Hanna,*for respondent and cross-appellant.

1

Reported in 347 P. (2d) 548.

Per Curiam

Appellant, Claude L. Richardson, defendant below, appeals from the property settlement and alimony provisions granted the respondent wife in her divorce action, and from ancillary orders denying a modification of the alimony provisions. The respondent wife cross-appeals from the refusal to make temporary allowances in the interval between the trial and the entry of *209the written order confirming temporary allowances previously made orally.

> 209

No useful purpose would be served by abstracting the evidence because the appeal involves only the property division and the alimony award. It is sufficient to say that the divorce was awarded the respondent wife because of the indefensible wrong of the appellant husband.

The parties have three children, two of whom are grown and have their own homes. The youngest daughter is now seventeen, lives at home with her mother, attends high school, and hopes for college training.

The parties have a home encumbered by a mortgage in excess of $10,000, payable in monthly installments of $92, plus mortgage insurance on the life of the appellant husband on which the monthly premium is $12. The decree requires the respondent wife to support the daughter and to pay this monthly mortgage installment of $104. When the minor daughter attains majority, or marries, the home is to be sold and the proceeds divided equally.

A *pendente lite*monthly alimony and support allowance was fixed at $300, and by the decree at $310 monthly.

The respondent wife cross-appeals from the refusal to make the temporary allowances payable for a two-month interval between the trial and the entry of a written order in the premises. Subsequent to the trial, the respondent wife obtained employment at a monthly wage of $300.

 Thereafter, appellant husband petitioned to modify the decree because of the changed condition. We think the changed condition requires modification of the decree. Likewise, we think the respondent wife is entitled to consideration because of the two-month interval between the trial and the entry of the written order, during which time, without contribution from appellant, she supported herself and daughter and met the mortgage installments with borrowed funds. The monthly alimony and support allowances should, therefore, continue for a period of four months subsequent to the date of her employment in November, 1958, At the expiration of that *210four-month period, such allowances should be reduced to $225 monthly until the further order of the court.

Appellant husband complains about allowances made respondent wife for her defense of his appeal. However, such allowances were proper.

As so modified, the decree and ancillary orders are affirmed.

February 4, 1960. Petition for rehearing denied.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LUCIA CANDELARIO, individually and 

on behalf of all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

RIP CURL, INC., a California corporation 

and DOES, 1-10, inclusive, 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-56382 

D.C. No. 

8:16-cv-00963-CJC-AGR 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 13, 2018**

Pasadena, California

Before: McKEOWN and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, and QUIST,*** District 

Judge.

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Gordon J. Quist, United States District Judge for the 

Western District of Michigan, sitting by designation.

FILED

MAR 29 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

Lucia Candelario appeals the district court’s dismissal for lack of Article III 

standing of her putative class action lawsuit against Rip Curl, Inc. We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

In her complaint, Candelario alleges that Rip Curl violated New Jersey’s 

Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act, N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 56:12-

14 et seq. (“The Act”) because the terms and conditions on Rip Curl’s website

deprived Candelario of a cause of action for risk created by Rip Curl and absolved

Rip Curl of its duty to protect consumers from illegal acts of third parties. 

Candelario argues that, as a result of Rip Curl’s violation of the Act, she suffered 

“intangible, informational injuries” sufficient to trigger Article III standing. 

Candelario’s arguments are foreclosed by Bassett v. ABM Parking Services, 

Inc., No. 16-35933, 2018 WL 987954, at *1 (9th Cir. Feb. 21, 2018). As the 

district court noted, Candelario failed to identify any concrete informational injury. 

Candelario’s conclusory allegation that she suffered “intangible, informational 

injuries” based on a violation of the Act alone is too speculative to establish Article 

III standing. See id.

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 99.2

                            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 annual report of Syms Corp (the  "Company") on Form
10-K for the  period  ending  March 1,  2003 as filed  with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Antone F. Moreira,
Chief Financial  Officer of the Company,  certify,  to the best of my knowledge,
pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  ss.  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.




                                         /s/ Antone F. Moreira
                                         ---------------------
                                         Antone F. Moreira
                                         Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
                                         Syms Corp
                                         May 28, 2003


A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 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 31.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of TBX Resources, Inc.;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
periods presented in this quarterly report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 13a-14
and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:
 a)
    
    designed such disclosure
controls and procedures
to ensure that material
information relating to
the registrant, including
its consolidating
subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others
within those entities,
particularly during the
period in which this
quarterly report was
prepared;b)
    
    evaluated the
effectiveness of the
registrants disclosure
controls and procedures
as of the end of the
period covered by this
quarterly report (the
Evaluation Date); andc)
    
    presented in this
quarterly report our
conclusions about the
effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and
procedures based on the
required evaluation as of
the Evaluation Date;
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
 a)
    
    all significant
deficiencies in the
design or operation of
internal controls which
could adversely affect
the registrants ability
to record, process,
summarize and report
financial data and have
identified for the
registrants auditors any
material weaknesses in
internal controls; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not
material, that involves
management or other
employees who have a
significant role in the
registrants internal
controls; and
 6.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly report
whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors
that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most
recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses.
 Dated this 4th day of August, 2005/s/ Tim BurroughsTim Burroughs, President
Principal Executive and Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 604 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 604

 To amend title 49, United States Code, to relieve farmers and retail 
farm suppliers from limitations on maximum driving and on-duty time in 
the transportation of agricultural commodities or farm supplies if such 
transportation occurs within a 100-air mile radius of the source of the 
      commodities or the distribution point for the farm supplies.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 23, 1995

 Mr. Pressler introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 49, United States Code, to relieve farmers and retail 
farm suppliers from limitations on maximum driving and on-duty time in 
the transportation of agricultural commodities or farm supplies if such 
transportation occurs within a 100-air mile radius of the source of the 
      commodities or the distribution point for the farm supplies.

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

SECTION 1. EXCEPTION FOR FARMERS AND FARM SUPPLIERS FROM TRANSPORTATION 
              LIMITATIONS ON MAXIMUM DRIVING AND ON-DUTY TIME.

    (a) Exception for Farmers and Farm Suppliers.--Regulations 
prescribed by the Secretary of Transportation under section 31502 of 
title 49, United States Code, regarding maximum driving and on-duty 
time for drivers used by motor carriers shall not apply to farmers or 
retail farm suppliers transporting agricultural commodities or farm 
supplies for agricultural purposes if such transportation is limited to 
an area within a 100-air mile radius of the source of the commodities 
or the distribution point for the farm supplies.
    (b) Conforming Regulations.--The Secretary shall amend part 395 of 
title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, to reflect the exception 
provided by subsection (a).
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 31.5**

 

I, Dale E. Parker, President of WTA Inc., certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Appleton Papers Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary tomake the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

a) Designed suchdisclosure 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 usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; 

 

c) disclosed inthis report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’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 adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: November 7, 2003
Exhibit 10.74

FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE  AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT  BY AND AMONG  THE CITY OF DETROIT, THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION  OF THE CITY OF DETROIT AND  DETROIT ENTERTAINMENT, L.L.C.

THIS FOURTH AMENDMENT (the "Fourth Amendment") to that certain Amended and Restated Development Agreement, dated as of April 9, 1998, as amended by the
First Amendment dated June 25,1998, Second Amendment dated December, 1999, and by the Third Amendment dated November 30, 2000, by and among the City of Detroit (the "City"), The Economic
Development Corporation of the City of Detroit ("EDC") and Detroit Entertainment, L.L.C., a Michigan limited liability company ("Developer") for the City of Detroit Waterfront Reclamation and Casino
Development Project (the "Development Agreement") is made on this    day of November, 2001 by and among the City, EDC and the Developer.

WHEREAS, the City, EDC and Developer have previously entered into the Development Agreement; and

WHEREAS, it is the desire of the parties to enter into this Fourth Amendment to amend certain provisions of the Development Agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and the covenants herein contained, the parties agree as follows:



---



IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and had their seals affixed on the dates set forth after their respective signatures.

| |  | CITY OF DETROIT, a municipal corporation                                                     
| |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | By:                                                                                          
| |  | Its:                                                                                         
| |  | THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF DETROIT, a Michigan public body corporate
| |  | By:                                                                                          
| |  | Its:                                                                                         
| |  | By:                                                                                          
| |  | Its:                                                                                         
| |  | DETROIT ENTERTAINMENT, L.L.C. a Michigan limited liability company                           
| |  | By:                                                                                          
| |  |                                                                                              
| |  |                                                                                              
| |  | By:                                                                                          
| |  |                                                                                              
| |  |                                                                                              
| |  |                                                                                              

---

QuickLinks
EXHIBIT 32.2



PARK BANCORP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES



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 Park Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 30, 2007 (the Report), I, Steven J. Pokrak, Treasurer 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:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ Steven J. PokrakSteven J. PokrakTreasurer and Chief Financial OfficerMarch 30, 2007
**Exhibit 32**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

 

The undersigned certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that,to the best of our knowledge:

 

1.               Theaccompanying Annual Report of NVE Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSBfor the year ended March 31, 2005, fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

2.               Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

Date: May 26, 2005

 

 
| /s/ Daniel A. Baker                   |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|
| Daniel A. Baker                       |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |
|                                  |
|                                  |
| /s/ Richard L. George                 |   |
| Richard L. George                     |
| Chief Financial Officer               |

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----