alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### A. J. BARTHOLOMEW, Alcoholic Beverage Administrator, Appellant, v. Sandy PANIELLO, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Feb. 24, 1956.

*617Foster C. DeWees, Louisville, for appellant.

Thomas F. Marshall, Frankfort, for ap-pellee.

CLAY, Commissioner.

This action is before us on appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal.

Appellant is Alcoholic Beverage Control Administrator for the City of Louisville. Upon application made by appellee for malt beverage and liquor licenses, appellant refused to give his approval.

Appellee appealed to the State Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, which likewise denied the licenses applied for. Thereupon appellee appealed to the Franklin Circuit Court as authorized by KRS 243.560. The parties to that appeal were the appellee and the members of the State Alcoholic Beverage Control Board. Under subsection (3) of KRS 243.560, the applicant and the Board are the only designated “necessary parties” to such an appeal.

The Franklin Circuit Court reversed the State Board and ordered the issuance of the licenses to appellee.

Thereafter appellant, who had not been made a party to any of these proceedings, filed a notice of appeal from the judgment of the Franklin Circuit Court and took other steps required by the Rules of Civil Procedure to perfect an appeal to this Court.

KRS 243.590 authorizes “Any party aggrieved” to appeal to this court in the manner provided in the Rules of Civil Procedure. Though appellant may be aggrieved, he never was a party to the proceedings in the Franklin Circuit Court.

It is appellant’s contention that he was a necessary or indispensable party to the appeal from the ruling of the State Alcoholic Beverage Control Board. We do not pass upon that question because it is not before us. Conceding, without deciding, that appellant was an aggrieved “person” under KRS 243.560(2) and could have appealed to the Franklin Circuit Court, and conceding, without deciding, that appellant could have intervened and been made a party in the Franklin Circuit Court, he failed to take either of these steps. The term “party” as used in KRS 243.590 and CR 73.02 clearly means a party of record in the proceedings. See In re Phoenix Dress Co., 7 Cir., 1942, 131 F.2d 726, 51 Am.Bankr.Rep.,N.S., 757; United States v. Seigel, 1948, 83 U.S.App.D.C. 88, 168 F.2d 143; Commanding Officer United States Army Base, Camp Breckinridge, Ky. v. United States ex rel. Bumanis, 6 Cir. 1953, 207 F.2d 499; Braun v. Brown, 13 Cal.2d 130, 87 P.2d 1009; Stewart v. Duncan, 40 Minn. 410, 42 N.W. 89.

Since appellant was not a party to the proceedings in the Franklin Circuit Court, he had no right to appeal from its judgment.

The appeal must be, and hereby is, dismissed.
**AD Economic Evaluation** Docket No . FAA - 20 15 - 3883 Directorate ID : 2014 - SW - 029 - AD Helicopter Model: Airbus Helicopters Model AS332L 2 and EC225LP helicopters Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): Four Helicopters in the US Registry . Reason : The actions of this AD are intended to detect a crack in frame 5295, which could lead to loss of the helicopter frame’s structural integrity and consequently , loss of helicopter control. Costs : In stalling the cut - outs on frame 5295 would require 40 work hours for a labor cost of $3,400. Parts would cost $5,000 for total cost per helicopter of $8,400 and $33,600 for the U.S. fleet. In specting helicopter frame 5295 would require 2 work - hours for a labor cost of $170 per helicopter. No p arts would be needed for a total U.S. fleet cost of $680 per inspection cycle.

Executive Order 12866 : Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No (  ) DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures : Is the AD signif

icant? 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 : Gary Roach
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 302 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Jeffrey H. Buchalter, certify that:

|  
|--
|1.
|  
|2.
|  
|3.
|  
|4.

|   
|---
|(a)
|   
|(b)
|   
|(c)
|   
|(d)

|  
|--
|5.

|   
|---
|(a)
|   
|(b)

|              |  |                                                                                                 
|------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|March 6, 2009 |  | /s/ Jeffrey H. Buchalter                                                                        
|              |  |                                                                                                 
|              |  | Jeffrey H. BuchalterChairman, President and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)



---
NOTE:

DATE: January

20, 2010 TO: Docket EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2005

- 0161 FROM: Jeff Herzog, Mechanical Engineer, U.S. EPA SUBJECT: Phone Conversations with Conoco Phillips Regarding EPA’s Registration

Requirements for Manufactures of E85 and on the Composition of the Gasoline Blendstocks Used to Manufacture E85 July 30, 2009 Conference Call Participants: Marla Benechek, Conoco Phillips Jeff Herzog, EPA Marla Benechek from Conoco Phillips called me to discuss the existing EPA requirements for the gasoline us ed with denatured ethanol to blend E85 at terminals. We also discussed EPA requirements related to whether a terminal operator who blends butane during the manufacture of E85 would be considered as a refiner. Ms. Benechek related that the composition of the gasoline used to blend E85 at terminals should not be required to compl y with the RFG and anti

- dumping requirements that are applicable where the terminal is located. She also related that terminal operators who blend butane during the manufacture of E85 should not be considered as refiners b y EPA. Ms Benechek related that the rationale for Conoco Phillips po s iti on on these issues will be detailed in their formal written comments on the RFS2 proposal. August 4, 2009 Conference Call Participants: Marla Benechek, Conoco Phillips Jeff Kodish, EPA Jeff Herzog, EPA We discussed EPA’s determination that the gasoline portion of E85 must comply with the applicable requirements for reformulated or conventional gasoline. Ms. Benechek related that she did not necessarily agree that EPA has sufficient grounds to require that the gasoline used in blending E85 must be EPA certified gasoline.Ms Benechek related that it will likely continue to be necessary to blend butanes and pentanes during the manufacture of E85 in order to meet minimum ASTM volatility specifications. She related that that there are currently widespread difficulties in manufacturing E85 to meet minimum ASTM volatility specifications. ASTM will likely raise the limit on the amount of hy dr ocarbons that can be used in manufacturing E85 to facilitate meeting ASTM volatility specifications. This is likely to resolve much of the difficulty in meeting minimum ASTM volatility specifications. However, even if these changes to the ASTM E85 speci fication are adopted, it will likely continue to be necessary to blend in high vapor pressure h ydrocarbons (such as butane and pentane) into E85 to meet minimum volatility specifications under some circumstances. She related that requiring the high volati lity blendstocks to be considered part of the gasoline used to manufacture E85 and to require that this mixture meet EPA gasoline certification specifications would represent an obstacle to the manufacture of E85 in circumstances where high

- volatility

blen dstocks are needed to meet minimum E85 volatility specifications.
#### Landon Raymond COMPTON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 38057.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 17, 1965.

Robert E. Burroughs, Centerville, Emmett Colvin; Jr., Dallas, for appellant.

Leon B.. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

DICE, Commissioner.

The conviction is under Art. 802, Vernon’s Ann.P.C., for the offense of driving a motor vehicle upon a public highway while intoxicated, with punishment assessed at a fine of $50.

The minimum punishment for such offense under the provisions of Art. 802, supra, is three days in jail and a fine of $50.

The punishment assessed, being less than the minimum provided by law, requires a reversal of the conviction. Compian v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 363 S.W.2d 468.

The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

Opinion approved by the Court
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT
DANIELLE S. WILLIAMSON, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D19-3481 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. )

) Opinion filed September 18, 2020. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Charlotte County; George Richards, Judge. Robert David Malove of The Law Office of Robert David Malove, P.A., Ft. Lauderdale, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Donna S. Koch, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Danielle Williamson appeals from the sentence imposed following the revocation of her probation. We affirm in all respects without comment. With regard to- 2 -

Williamson's claim that counsel rendered ineffective assistance, our affirmance is without prejudice to Williamson raising that issue in a timely filed Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion. See McClough v. State, 74 So. 3d 158, 160 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). Affirmed.

CASANUEVA, SILBERMAN, and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 23.1


                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
No. 333-32338, No.333-35956, No. 333-56414 and No.333-64274 on Forms S-8 of
Predictive Systems, Inc. of our report dated February 28, 2003 (March 27,
2003, as to the disclosure of the settlement of a litigation claim described
in Note 15 and April 10, 2003, as to the disclosure of the merger and asset
sale as described in Note 19), relating to the consolidated financial
statements of Predictive Systems, Inc. as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2002 (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes
explanatory paragraphs relating to i) application of procedures related to the
inclusion of the transitional disclosures required by Statement of Financial
Accounting Standards ("SFAS") No. 142 "Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets",
ii) the application of procedures relating to certain disclosures of proforma
stock-based compensation expense, proforma net loss and proforma basic and
diluted net loss per share and iii) the application of procedures relating to
the reclassification in the statements of operations of Revenues and Cost of
Revenues for reimbursed expenses required by Emerging Issues Task Force Issue
No. 01-14 related to the 2001 and 2000 consolidated financial statements that
were audited by other auditors who ceased operations and for which we have
expressed no opinion or other form of assurance other than with respect to
such disclosures and reclassifications and the adoption of SFAS No. 142 and
SFAS No. 123 "Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation" ), appearing in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K of Predictive Systems, Inc. for the year ended
December 31, 2002.


/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

New York, New York
April 30, 2003
#### Mable GANT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28238.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 11, 1956.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

This is a conviction for a violation of the Liquor Control Act, Vernon’s Ann.P.C. art. 666-1 et seq., with a prior conviction for an offense of like character. Punishment was assessed at twenty days in jail and a fine of $300.

The record on appeal contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. All proceedings appear to be regular. Nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
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 Digicorp (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jay
Rifkin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
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 and 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.

      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.



February 23, 2007                           /s/ Jay Rifkin
                                            -------------------------------
                                            Jay Rifkin
                                            Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 99.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, Robert W. McMartin, hereby certify that,
to the best of my knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A of Circuit
Research Labs, Inc. (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002
(the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained
in that Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.


                                        /s/ Robert W. McMartin
                                        ----------------------
                                        Robert W. McMartin
                                        Chief Financial Officer
                                        Circuit Research Labs, Inc.
                                        April 29, 2003




This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-KSB/A pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent
required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
**Exhibit 31.2** **CERTIFICATION**     I, Keith Yee, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this report on    Form 10-Q/A    of Tvia, 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 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 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 we 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 quarterly    report is being prepared;     b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s    disclosure controls and procedures presented in this report our    conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls    and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this    report based on such evaluation; and     c) Disclosed in this 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; and     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 the registrant’s board    of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):     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; 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 22, 2006     /s/  Keith    Yee    Keith Yee    Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT 99.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Thomas S. Liston, certify that:
         1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of eFundsCorporation;
         2.     Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisquarterly report;
         3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;   Date: November 29, 2002 /s/ Thomas S. ListonBy: Thomas S. ListonIts: Interim Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

UNDER

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

PACIFIC MERCANTILE BANCORP

Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q

for the quarter ended June 30, 2010

The undersigned, who is the Chief Financial Officer of Pacific Mercantile Bancorp (the Company), hereby certifies that
(i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010, as filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Quarterly Report), to which this Certification is an Exhibit, fully complies
with the applicable requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and (ii) the information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.



|                      |  |                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
|--------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 16, 2010 |  | /S/    NANCY A.
GRAY                                                                                                                                                                                                       
|                      |  | Nancy A. Gray, Chief
Financial Officer                                                                                                                                                                                     
|                      |  | 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 on its staff upon request.
Exhibit 99


AUDITORS' REPORT

To the shareholder of 
E-Z-EM Canada Inc.

We have audited the consolidated balance sheets of "E-Z-EM CANADA INC." as of
May 31, 1997 and 1996 and the consolidated statements of earnings, retained
earnings and changes in financial position for the years ended May 31, 1997,
1996 and 1995. These financial statements are the responsibility of the
company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these
financial statements based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform an audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material
misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting
the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes
assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.

In our opinion, these consolidated financial statements present fairly, in all
material respects, the financial position of the company as of May 31, 1997 and
1996 and the results of their operations and the changes in their financial
position for the years ended May 31, 1997, 1996 and 1995 in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles.



Jacques, Davis, Lefaivre & Associes
Chartered Accountants

Montreal, July 9, 1997

                                      -85-
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

UNDER

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

PACIFIC
MERCANTILE BANCORP

Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q

for the
quarter ended June 30, 2009

The undersigned, who is the Chief Executive Officer of Pacific Mercantile Bancorp (the
Company), hereby certifies that (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009, as filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Quarterly Report), to which this
Certification is an Exhibit, fully complies with the applicable requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and (ii) the information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                     |  |                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
|-------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 7, 2009 |  | /s/    RAYMOND E. DELLERBA                                                                                                                                                                                                 
|                     |  | Raymond E. Dellerba, President and Chief Executive Officer                                                                                                                                                                 
|                     | 
|                     |  | 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.