alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE v. DAVID BELL.

Where no exceptions are made below, and no error is apparent upon the record, the judgment will be affirmed.

The defendant was indicted for rape, and tried before *Boykin, J,*at August Term, 1888, of the Superior Court of MadisoN County, and, upon conviction and judgment, appealed to this Court.

*Attorney General,*for the State.

*Mr. T. P. Devereux,*for the defendant.

Davis, J.

No errors are assigned in the case on appeal, or in the' record, and, in return to a writ of *certiorari*from *439this Court, it is certified that no exceptions whatever “ were noted at any time before or after verdict, either to the admission or to the refusal to admit evidence, or to the charge of the Judge.” Upon a careful examination of the record, no error appears, and the judgment must be affirmed.

No error. Affirmed.
<PAGE>   1


EXHIBIT 15
----------

LETTER RE: UNAUDITED INTERIM FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Cintech Solutions, Inc.:

We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited condensed interim
financial information of Cintech Solutions, Inc. (formerly Cintech
Tele-Management Systems, Inc.) for the periods ended March 31, 2001 and 2000, as
indicated in our report dated May 3, 2001; because we did not perform an audit,
we expressed no opinion on that information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2001, is
incorporated by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 33-95366 and 333-94661
on Form S-8.

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under
the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration
Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or
certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.

"/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP"

Cincinnati, Ohio
May 5, 2001
P.1 

OAR Box 1852 

Prepped by Keeia Richards 

Document Number: 

37) ll-C-13 

Docket Number: 

A-86-03 

Printed 11/19/2008 2:38:54 PM Sheet 37 of 101 
P.2 

-,>v 

.-•'as* 

rJfmW. 

H «0SP 

• * f . -

"KO 

•rr* 

SK.C • 

pST 

*!?•'•• 

r~„*• 

*% -

> < * ..*' • -

.*£** • 1 UNlTiB5fMES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTJ^TION A^gf * rf 

JJL2TI9ST 

1/ 

;

/

\ 

Us. Marts Tornwall 

5 Greenway Flasa East 

Suits 210 

Houston, TX 77046-0583 

Dear Ms. Tornwall: 

This letter answers the questions you transmitted to us 

concerning diesel fuel and hydrocarbon emissions on May 27. A 

copy of the questions is enclosed. 

Questions 1, 3/ and 5 deal with the implications of 

raising the 90 percent distillation point (T90 value) for 

diesel fuel by 10°C, so we will answer those questions first. 

The weight of evidence indicates that there is little direct 

relationship between particulate and smoke emissions and the 

Tag value for diesel fuel, all other factors being the same. 

There were some studies in the literature showing a difference 

in eaissions for diesel fuels with different Tog values, but 

this difference in emissions has since been explained as being 

due to differing sulfur levels in the test fuels used. For 

further details, see pages 3-29 through 3-33 in the attached 

report 'Diesel Fuel Quality Effects on Emissions, Durability 

and Performance." Industry sources indicate that raising the 

T90 value by 10°C would have little or no effect on the 

oxidation stability of a diesel fuel. 

Question 2 asks which evaporative HCs are of most concern 

environmentally. Evaporative HCs are predominantly a mixture 

of butane, propane and pentane. They would not be present in 

sufficient concentrations in the immediate vicinity of a car to 

pose a direct inhalation threat to anyone nearby. However, 

they do contribute to ozone formation in the atmosphere. 
P.3 

The last question asks 

Units of human acceptance of 

EPA has ambient 

These standards 

levels and the 

report, "Basis 

about the maximun permissible 

CO, CO2, NOx and hydrocarbon*. 

air quality standards for CO, NOx and osone. 

are based on health effects. The standard 

health effects are described in the attached 

for Primary Air Quality criteria and 

Standards." 

hydrocarbons. 

EPA has no exposure standards for CO2 and 

I hope thet these answers will prove useful. 

Sincerely, 

Chester j. France, chief 

Standards Development and Support Branch 

Enclosures 

-.
-80 -79 -78 -77 -76 -75 -74

 37

 38

 39

 40

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

07/09

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 09 Jul 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.56 N 76.20 W Meters AGL
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

August 6, 2009 

s0720 

Order 

 

August 6, 2009 

138578 

_________________________________________ 

In re Estate of LAWRENCE PAUL DOSS, 

Deceased. 

_________________________________________ 

JUDITH YOUNG DOSS, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v SC: 138578 

 COA: 277982 

Wayne Probate Court: 

2001-642445-DE 

LAWRY NICOLE DOSS, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 19, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
S. 574

One Hundred Sixth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the sixth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine

An Act

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to make corrections to a map relating

to the Coastal Barrier Resources System.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. CORRECTIONS TO MAP.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 30 days after the date of

enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall make

such corrections to the map described in subsection (b) as are

necessary to move on that map the boundary of the otherwise

protected area (as defined in section 12 of the Coastal Barrier

Improvement Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 3503 note; Public Law 101–

591)) to the Cape Henlopen State Park boundary to the extent

necessary—

(1) to exclude from the otherwise protected area the adjacent property leased, as of the date of enactment of this Act,

by the Barcroft Company and Cape Shores Associates (which

are privately held corporations under the law of the State

of Delaware); and

(2) to include in the otherwise protected area the northwestern corner of Cape Henlopen State Park seaward of the

Lewes and Rehoboth Canal.

(b) MAP DESCRIBED.—The map described in this subsection

is the map that is included in a set of maps entitled ‘‘Coastal

Barrier Resources System’’, dated October 24, 1990, as revised
S. 574—2

October 15, 1992, and that relates to the unit of the Coastal Barrier

Resources System entitled ‘‘Cape Henlopen Unit DE–03P’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
**                               **                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1.

Certification of Principal Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350

(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

I, Dr. Thomas Drees, Chief Executive Officer, and David Nelson, Principal Financial Officer, of Sanguine Corporation (the "Registrant") do 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 the best of our knowledge, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period September 30, 2010 of the Registrant, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"):

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 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 Registrant.

 

Dated:  November 19, 2010

By:  /s/ Dr. Thomas Drees

                            

       Dr. Thomas Drees

  

       Chief Executive Officer

By:  /s/  David Nelson

       David Nelson, Chief Financial Officer/

       Principal Financial Officer

 * A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Sanguine Corporation and will be retained by Sanguine Corporation and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**TABLE OF CONTENTS**        Page ARTICLE 1    Relation to Indenture; Definitions         Section 1.01*. Relation to Indenture*  2 Section 1.02*. Definitions*  2 Section 1.03*. General References*  2      ARTICLE 2    Terms and Issuance          Section 2.01. *Issue of Notes*  2 Section 2.02. *Form of Notes, Authentication Certificate*  2 Section 2.03. *Additional Notes*  2      ARTICLE 3    Miscellaneous         Section 3.01*. Certain Trustee Matters*  3 Section 3.02*. Continued Effect*  3 Section 3.03*. Provisions Binding on Company’s Successors*  3 Section 3.04*. Governing Law*  3 Section 3.05*. Counterparts*  3      Exhibit A  A-1 
 

 
     **FOURTEENTH SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE**, dated as of December 12, 2008 (this “**SupplementalIndenture**”), between **EL PASO CORPORATION**, a Delaware corporation (the “**Company**”), and **HSBC BANKUSA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION**, a national banking association, as successor-in-interest to JPMorganChase Bank (formerly The Chase Manhattan Bank), as trustee under the Indenture referred to below(in such capacity, the “**Trustee**”).**RECITALS OF THE COMPANY**     WHEREAS, the Company and the Trustee are parties to an Indenture dated as of May 10, 1999 (asamended and supplemented from time to time, the “**Indenture**”), providing for the issuance from timeto time of one or more series of the Company’s unsecured debentures, notes or other evidences ofindebtedness (the “**Securities**”), the terms of which are to be determined as set forth in Section301 of the Indenture; and     WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 901 of the Indenture, without the consent of any Holders, theCompany and the Trustee, at any time and from time to time, may enter into one or more indenturessupplemental to the Indenture to establish the form or terms of securities of any series aspermitted by Sections 201 and 301 of the Indenture; and     WHEREAS, pursuant to this Supplemental Indenture, the Company desires to create a new seriesof Securities under the Indenture, to be titled the 12.000% Senior Notes due 2013 in an initialaggregate principal amount of $500,000,000 (the “**Notes**”) and to establish the forms and the termsand conditions thereof;     WHEREAS, all action on the part of the Company necessary to authorize the issuance of theNotes under the Indenture and this Supplemental Indenture has been duly taken; and     WHEREAS, all acts and things necessary to make the Notes, when executed by the Company andauthenticated and delivered by the Trustee as provided in the Indenture and this SupplementalIndenture, the valid and binding obligations of the Company and to make this Supplemental Indenturea valid and binding agreement in accordance with the Indenture have been done and performed;     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, agreements and obligations set forth hereinand for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are herebyacknowledged, the parties hereto hereby agree, for the equal and proportionate benefit of allHolders of the Notes, as follows:
1

 
ARTICLE 1
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal Service TM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         October 31, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 23, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 526 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-148, K2025-146.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-25290 Filed 10-30-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          48,620
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,189,709
<ALLOWANCES>                                   504,000
<INVENTORY>                                    256,658
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,139,656
<PP&E>                                       2,794,870
<DEPRECIATION>                                 778,502
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              33,779,209
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,606,920
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     40,000
<COMMON>                                       609,460
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,216,511
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               865,288
<CGS>                                          718,106
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,833,632
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              59,292
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,744,439)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,744,439)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,744,439)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

**Pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(18 U.S.C. 1350)**

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), the undersigned officer of BostonRestaurant Associates, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), doeshereby certify, to the best of such officer’s knowledge and belief, that:

 

(1)                                  TheQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January 23, 2005 (the “Form10-Q”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  Theinformation contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all materialsrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated:March 7, 2005 |   | /s/ Fran Ross                      |   |
|--------------------------|--------|------------------------------------|--------|
|                     |   | Fran Ross  Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

This certification shall not be deemed “filed”for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act, or otherwisesubject to the liability of that section. Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by referenceinto any filing under the Securities Act or the Securities Exchange Act.

 

----
Exhibit 99.18  CONSENT OF CHRISTIAN PROVENCHER  I consent to the inclusion in the Annual Report on Form 40-F of Agnico Eagle Mines Limited for the year ended December 31, 2016 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March     , 2017 (the Annual Report) of my name and the information that I have approved of as a qualified person under the Canadian Securities Administrators National Instrument 43-101 in the Annual Information Form of Agnico Eagle Mines Limited dated March     , 2017 (the AIF) filed as part of the Annual Report.  I also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form F-10 (registration no. 333-206498), Form F-3D (registration no. 333-215096) and Form S-8 (registration nos. 333-130339 and 333-152004) of the reference to my name and the above-mentioned information in the AIF.  March 27, 2017  /s/Christian ProvencherChristian ProvencherVice-President, Canada
#### Estes v. The Chicago, Iowa & Dakota R’y Co.

1. Former Adjudication: effect of. Where, in a former case, in the same court, between the same parties, it had. been adjudicated that a certain alleged contract relied on by defendant did not exist, it was proper, in a subsequent case, to strike out an answer setting up the same contract, and to exclude evidence offered to prove it.

*Appeal from Hardin Circuit Court.*

Monday, June 27.

This is a proceeding to ascertain the amount of compensation due to the plaintiff for certain of her land which was 'appropriated by the defendant for right of way upon which to construct its railroad. The defendant entered upon the land without taking any steps to ascertain the damages,( and *236this proceeding was instituted by the plaintiff. , A sheriff's jury was impaneled, a.nd from their assessment the plaintiff appealed to the circuit court, where the defendant filed an answer, setting up an alleged oral agreement between the parties, by which the plaintiff, in consideration of the benefits of the location and construction of the railroad, gave to defendant said right of way. The answer was, on motion of the plaintiff, stricken from the files of the court. There was a trial by jury, and a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff'. Defendant appeals.

*Jokn Porter*and *Weaver <&*Baker, for appellant.

*M. W. Anderson*and *Nagle <&*Birdsall, for appellee.

Rothrock, J.

-In the course of the trial the defendant offered to prove by certain witnesses that plaintiff had given the right of way in question to the defendant by a certain oral contract. The evidence was objected to on the ground that the alleged oral contract had already been adjudicated in the same court in a case between these parties. The objection was sustained.

The defendant denies that any such an adjudication was had. We have considered this case in connection with the case of *Chicago, I. & D. R’y Co. v. Estes, 71*Iowa, 703. We have found in that case that the defendant herein acquired no rights by the alleged oral contract, or, rather, that no such contract was made. In so finding we affirmed the decree of the circuit court, which was founded upon a decision announced by that court before the trial of the case at bar. In our opinion, the court was correct in striking the answer from the files, and in excluding all evidence as to the alleged oral contract.

No other objection is urged against the judgment, and if must be * Aeeiemed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
         FROM THE SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 BALANCE SHEET, STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS
         AND STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
         BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>             9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>         Dec-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>            Jan-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>              Sep-30-1996
<CASH>                      187218
<SECURITIES>                     0
<RECEIVABLES>              2761478
<ALLOWANCES>                 58325 
<INVENTORY>                7249772
<CURRENT-ASSETS>          10524043
<PP&E>                    30711520
<DEPRECIATION>             4310872
<TOTAL-ASSETS>            37727569
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>      4662122
<BONDS>                   14696006       
<COMMON>                  12411631
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>      4798378
<PREFERRED>                      0
<OTHER-SE>                 1159432
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY> 37727569
<SALES>                   11120709
<TOTAL-REVENUES>          11120709
<CGS>                      6211820
<TOTAL-COSTS>              6211820
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>             35646
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>          649325
<INCOME-PRETAX>            1640974
<INCOME-TAX>                598600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>        1042374
<DISCONTINUED>                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                  0
<CHANGES>                        0
<NET-INCOME>               1042374
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 0.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                 0.18
        

</TABLE>
April 9, 2013



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

ROBERTO HINOJOSA , Appellant

NO. 14

- 11

- 00989

- CV V.

BRITTANY HINOJOSA , Appellee

________________________________ This cause, an appeal from the “ FINAL ORDER IN SUIT AFFECTING THE PARENT

- CHILD RELATIONSHIP ,” signed August 30 , 2011, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find no error in the order. We order the order of the court below AFFIRMED

.
We order appellant, Roberto Hinojo sa , to pay all costs in this appeal. We further order the decision certified below for observance.