alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In re FOXCROFT BUILDING CORP. FOXCROFT LTD., Debtor.

Bankruptcy Nos. 81-00825-BKC-TCB, 81-00836-BKC-TCB.

United States Bankruptcy Court, S. D. Florida.

Aug. 31, 1981.

Samuel Goldman, Miami, Fla., for Sky-lake Bank.

Leo Greenfield, North Miami, Fla., for debtor.

Barbara Phillips, Miami, Fla., for Fox-croft Condo Apts.

Irving Wolff, Miami, Fla., for City Nat’l. Bank.

ORDER ON OBJECTION AT CREDITORS’ MEETING

THOMAS C. BRITTON, Bankruptcy Judge.

During a creditors’ meeting held on August 10, the debtor’s representative, Feld-man, was asked:

> “Would you know if Mr. Feinstein is an officer or a director of that corporation (Heritage Corp.)?”

The question was objected to by the debt- or:

> “It’s immaterial and irrelevant what Mr. Feinstein is in reference to Heritage Corp.”

The scope of examination at a creditors’ meeting is extremely broad. 11 U.S.C. § 343; B.R. 205(d) 2 *Collier on Bankruptcy*(15th ed.) ¶ 373.05. B.R. 205, which remains applicable under the Code provides that:

> “The examination ... may relate only to the acts, conduct, or property of the *838bankrupt, or to any matter which may affect the administration of the bankrupt’s estate, or to his right to discharge.”

Heritage Corporation is this chapter 11 debtor’s largest creditor. According to the debtor’s schedules at least some of the debtor’s books and records are in the possession of Heritage and payments have been made during the year before bankruptcy to Heritage. Edward Feinstein is the holder of 42.5% of the stock of the debtor corporation. The relationship of Feinstein to Heritage Corporation could clearly affect the administration of this estate in several ways. The question is well within the scope of permissible examination. The objection is overruled.

The witness, Feldman, is ordered to answer the question fully and completely in affidavit form within seven days, filing the affidavit with the clerk in this case, and sending a copy to the interrogating attorney, Samuel Goldman.
# Jfourtf)**Court of** **Antonio, August 1,2014** **No. 04-13-00231-CV** **James W.** **Carroll, Appellant** **v. Joan** **Castanon, Appellee** **Trial Court** **Case No.** **1998-CI-09347**

### ORDER**The Court** **has reviewed** **the record** **and briefs** **in this** **appeal and** **has determined** **that oral** **argument will** **not significantly** **aid it** **in determining** **the legal** **and factual** **issues presented** **in the** **appeal. See** **Tex. R.** **App. P.** **39.8. Therefore,** **all requests** **for oral** **argument are** **denied, and** **the**

### cause**is advanced** **for ON** **BRIEFS submission** **on September** **10, 2014,** **to the** **following panel:** **Justice Marion,** **Justice Barnard,** **and Justice** **Chapa. All** **parties will** **be notified** **of the** **Court's decision** **in this** **appeal in** **accordance with** **Tex. R.** **App. P.** **48. Either** **party may** **file motion** **requesting the** **Court to** **reconsider its** **determination that** **oral argument** **will not** **significantly aid the** **Court in** **determining the** **legal and** **factual issues** **presented in** **the appeal.** **See Tex.** **R. App.** **P. 39.8.** **Such motion** **should be** **filed within** **ten (10)** **days from** **the date** **of this** **order. It** **is so** **ORDERED on** **August 1,** **2014. Sandee** **Marion, Ju$nce** 

## IN**WITNESS WHEREOF,** **have hereunto** **set my** **hand and** **a/fixed the** **seal o/the** **said court** **on this** **August 1,** **2014.**
#### The State *v*. Jacob Ellar,

From Ashe.

Profane Swearing charged to be a public nuisance, is punishable by indictment, notwithstanding the power to proceed summarily, given to the Justices of the Peace by the act of 1741.

The indictment charged, that the Defendant being an evil disposed person, “ did, in the public street of Jefferson, profanely curse and swear, and take the name of God in vain, to the evil example, &c. and to the common nuisance of the good citizens of the State.”

After a verdict for the State, the Counsel for the Defendant moved in arrest of judgment, upon the ground that the offence was not indictable. His honor Judge Strange sustained the motion, and judgment being arrested, the Solicitor appealed.

The *Attorney-General*cited the *State*v. *Kirby*( 1 *Mur-phey*254) and the *State*v. *Waller*(3 *do.*229). No Counsel for the Defendant appeared in this Court.

Taylor, Chief-Justice.

It was held, in the case of the *State*v. *Waller,*that if the offence with which the Defendant then stood charged, had been laid as a common nuisance, and the Jury had so found it, thejudg-*268ffipnf would have been supported. Drunkenness and profane swearing are placed on the same footing by the act of 1741, c. SO, and where committed in single acts, may be punished summarily by a Justice of the Peace. But where the acts are repeated, and so public as to become an annoyance and inconvenience to the citizens at targe, no reason is perceived why they are not indictable as common nuisances. Several offences are stated in the books as so indictable, though not more troublesome to the public than the one before us. A common scold is indictable as a common nuisance; and with equal, if not stronger reason, I should think, a common, profane swearer, may be so considered.

Per Curiam. — Let the Judgment be reversed.
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2013-0204 Directorate Identifier: 2012-NM-229-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

See 747-53A2860 

R0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 0

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

See 747-53A2860 

R0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
No. 82-792.

#### Grove City College et al. *v.*Bell, Secretary of Education, et al.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari granted.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 5 (Sunday, January 11, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Page S263]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

              APPOINTMENT OF ACTING PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will please read a communication to 
the Senate from the President pro tempore (Mr. Byrd).
  The assistant legislative clerk read the following letter:

                                                      U.S. Senate,

                                        President pro tempore,

                                 Washington, DC, January 11, 2009.
     To the Senate:
       Under the provisions of rule I, paragraph 3, of the 
     Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby appoint the Honorable 
     Jon Tester, a Senator from the State of Montana, to perform 
     the duties of the Chair.
                                                   Robert C. Byrd,
                                            President pro tempore.

  Mr. TESTER thereupon assumed the chair as Acting President pro 
tempore.

                          ____________________
```
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 9 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 9

  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
   prohibit Members of Congress from receiving compensation during a 
fiscal year unless both Houses of Congress have agreed to a concurrent 
resolution on the budget for that fiscal year prior to the beginning of 
                           that fiscal year.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2017

  Mr. Fitzpatrick submitted the following joint resolution; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
   prohibit Members of Congress from receiving compensation during a 
fiscal year unless both Houses of Congress have agreed to a concurrent 
resolution on the budget for that fiscal year prior to the beginning of 
                           that fiscal year.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled   (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article--

    ``Section 1. A Member of Congress may not receive a compensation 
for service as a Member of Congress during a fiscal year unless both 
Houses of Congress have agreed to an identical concurrent resolution on 
the budget for that fiscal year prior to the beginning of that fiscal 
year.
    ``Section 2. This article shall apply with respect to fiscal years 
which begin after this article becomes a valid part of the 
Constitution.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jonathan Bars, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 1012]

Judgment unanimously affirmed *(see, People v Saunders,*190 AD2d 1092, 1093, *lv denied*81 NY2d 1019). (Appeal from Judgment of Erie County Court, LaMendola, J. — Criminal Possession Marihuana, 3rd Degree.) Present — Pine, J. P., Fallon, Wesley, Doerr and Davis, JJ.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO . A

- 4830

- 15T3

ALISA DIAMOND, f/k/a ALISA LICHAW,

Plaintiff

- Respondent,

v.
STEPHEN LICHAW,

Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________________________

Submitted May 16, 2017

– Decided
Before Judges Espinosa and Suter.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Bergen County, Docket No. FM

- 02

- 0861

- 10.
Stephen Lichaw, appellant pro se.
Respondent has not filed a brief.

PER CURIAM
The parties in this post

- judgment matrimonial matter entered
into a consent order in January 2013 that transferred exclusive
jurisdiction of the matter to the Family Court of Nassau County NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court
. " A lthough it is posted on the internet , this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited
. R .1:36

- 3.

July 28, 20172 A

- 4830

- 15T3

in New York. Defendant filed a motion seeking, among other relief,
a declaratory judgment that New J ersey has exclusive jurisdiction
over all issues relating to custody, visitation and child support,
based upon his assertion that plaintiff breached terms of the

consent order. That motion was denied. Defendant then filed a
motion for reconsideration, wh ich was denied by order dated May
16, 2016. Defendant appeals from the denial of his motion for

reconsideration . We affirm, substantially for the reasons
articulated by Judge Gary N. Wilcox in his thoughtful and well

reasoned written decision.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 99.2

              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Win or Lose
Acquisition Corporation (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2002, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, John L. Petersen, the principal financial officer of the Company,
certify, 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) or15(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/ John L. Petersen
John L. Petersen, Chief Financial Officer
March 24, 2003
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

November 7, 2008 Revision

Cause number: 01-14-00488-CV

Style: Commerce and Industry Insurance Company; Starnet Insurance Company; Catlin Insurance 

Company, Inc.; Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty S.E.; United States Aircraft Insurance 

Group; and QBE Aviation Syndicate 5555 at Lloyd’s v. American Jet International 

Corporation d/b/a Million Air Charter; REW Investments, Inc.; Houston Aviation Partners, 

LLC; Woolsey Aviation, Inc.; Million Air Lackland, LLC; Go Fayetteville, LLC; Reno 

Aviation Partners, LLC; Gulfport Aviation Partners, LLC; Tallahassee Aviation Partners, 

LLC; Million Air Interlink, Inc.; Roger Woolsey; and Carl Moody

Date motion filed: July 8, 2014

Type of motion: Unopposed motion for extension of time to file response to petitions for permissive appeal

Party filing motion: Torus National Insurance Company

Document to be filed: Response to American Jet International Corporation d/b/a Million Air Charter, et al.’s 

Petition for Permissive Appeal and Response to Carl Moody’s Petition for Permissive

Appeal

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If documents are to be filed, documents due: July 23, 2014

 Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant additional motions to extend time.

 Denied

 Dismissed 

 Other: _____________________________________ 

Judge’s signature: /s/ Jim Sharp

 

Panel consists of ____________________________________________

Date: July 15, 2014
No. 82-5298.

#### Segura et al. *v.*United States.

C. A. 2d Cir. Motion of petitioners for leave to proceed *informa pauperis*granted. Certiorari granted limited to Question 1 presented by the petition.
JEFFREY A. SIEGMEISTER, STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA , Appellant,

v. L. J. JOHNSON , Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING A ND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 3095

_____________________________/ Opinion filed September 6 , 2016. An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Columbia County

. Wesley R. Douglas , Judge

. Arthur I. Jacobs, Richard J. Scholz , and Do uglas A. Wyler of Jacobs, Scholz & Associates, LLC, Fernandina Beach , for Appellant. Joseph W. Little, Gainesville, and Kevin "Kit" Carson, Lake City , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM. Appellant seeks review of an order styled “Final Judgment for Plaintif f.” The order said the court was “find[ing] in favor of the Plaintiff,” but was retaining jurisdiction “to entertain any additional relief that the parties may seek and be2 entitled to based upon [the] ruling.” Finding that this order is not an appealable

f

inal order, we dismiss. Generally, an order is final and ripe for appeal when “the order in question constitutes an end to the judicial labor in the cause, and nothing further remains to be done by the court to effectuate a termination of the cause as b etween the parties directly affected.” See S.L.T. Warehouse Co. v. Webb , 304 So. 2d 97, 99 (Fla. 1974); see also Caufield v. Cantele , 837 So. 2d 371, 375 (Fla. 2002) (“A final judgment is one which ends the litigation between the parties and disposes of al l issues involved such that no further action by the court will be necessary.”). Here, the “Final Judgment” reserves jurisdiction to consider requests for additional relief and therefore contemplates additional judicial labor.

DISMISSED. WINOKUR, JAY, a nd WINSOR , J J

. , CONCUR.
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Wayne R. Hellman, certify that:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Advanced Lighting Technologies, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and15d-14) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report, based on suchevaluation: and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter on the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weakness in the design or operation ofinternal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: May 15, 2007        /s/ Wayne R. Hellman   Wayne R. Hellman   Chief Executive Officer
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1052 

To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to develop best practices for 

caring for high-risk military occupation veterans as part of the evaluation 

of mental health care and suicide prevention programs administered 

by the Secretary. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 14, 2017 

Ms. MENG (for herself and Mr. MAST) introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to develop best 

practices for caring for high-risk military occupation veterans as part of the evaluation of mental health care 

and suicide prevention programs administered by the 

Secretary. 

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 ‘‘High-Risk Military Oc5 cupation Veteran Suicide Prevention Act’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1052 IH

1 SEC. 2. CARE OF HIGH-RISK MILITARY OCCUPATION VET2 ERANS IN DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AF3 FAIRS MENTAL HEALTH CARE AND SUICIDE 

4 PREVENTION PROGRAMS. 

5 Subparagraph (E) of section 1709B(a)(2) of title 38, 

6 United States Code, is amended to read as follows: 

7 ‘‘(E) propose best practices for caring for 

8 individuals who suffer from mental health dis9 orders, are at risk of suicide, or previously held 

10 high-risk military occupations, including such 

11 practices conducted or suggested by other de12 partments or agencies of the Federal Govern13 ment, including the Substance Abuse and Men14 tal Health Services Administration of the De15 partment of Health and Human Services; and’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>

                                                                     Exhibit 23

                              Consent of KPMG LLP
                              -------------------

The Board of Directors and Stockholders
Alberto-Culver Company:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form
S-8 (Numbers 33-36051, 33-47748, 33-62693, 33-62699, 33-62701, 333-35795,
333-51527, 333-51529, 333-70067, 333-72388, 333-72262, 333-101573 and
333-101620) and Form S-3 (Numbers 333-49649, 333-44390, 333-54302 and
333-89382) of Alberto-Culver Company of our reports dated October 22, 2002,
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Alberto-Culver Company and
subsidiaries as of September 30, 2002 and 2001 and the related consolidated
statements of earnings, cash flows, and stockholders' equity and related
schedule for each of the years in the three-year period ended September 30,
2002, which reports appear or are incorporated by reference in the September
30, 2002 annual report on Form 10-K of Alberto-Culver Company.

Our reports refer to a change in accounting for goodwill and trade names in the
year ended September 30, 2002.

                                          /s/ KPMG LLP
                                          -------------
                                          KPMG LLP

Chicago, Illinois
December 11, 2002