alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
THOMAS NOLAN, SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE OF THE EARLENE S. NOLAN GRANTOR TRUST U/T/A 12/17/04
,
Petitioner,

v.

CYNTHIA N. STEPHENS AND BARRY E. DICKSON, JR., IN RE: THE GUARDIANSHIP OF EARLENE S. NOLAN, AN ALLEGED INCAPACITATED PERSON
, Respondent s

.

_______ ____________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

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

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 2904

Opinion filed July 21, 2015.

Petition for Writ o f Certiorari

-- Original Jurisdiction

. Robert O. Beasley and Phillip A. Pugh of Litvak Beasley & Wilson, LLP, Pensacola , for Petitioner.

John Glassman and Lois B. Lepp, Pensacola , for Respondent s (no appearances)

.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner seeks certio rari review of Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Petition

to Determine Incapacity and an Order Approving Emergency Petition to Continue2 Trial. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the order results in irreparable harm that

cannot be adequately remedied on appeal following rendition of a final order.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

ROBERTS, C. J., THOMAS and RAY, JJ., CONCUR.
<PAGE>
                                                         EXHIBIT 23.1
                       Consent of Ernst & Young LLP


     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-05415, 333-05417, 333-27031 and 333-33351)
pertaining to the GalaGen Inc. 1992 Stock Plan, Employee Stock Purchase Plan,
Non-Statutory Stock Option Agreements and 1997 Incentive Plan of our report
dated February 13, 1998 with respect to the financial statements of GalaGen
Inc. incorporated by reference in this annual report (Form 10-K) for the year
ended December 31, 1997.

                                        Ernst & Young LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota
March 25, 1998
Exhibit 32.



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 Quarterly Report of Southeastern Banking Corporation on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we,
Cornelius P. Holland, III, President & Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Alyson G. Beasley, Vice President & Treasurer of the Company, 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 Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2) The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/ CORNELIUS P. HOLLAND, IIICornelius P. Holland, III, President & CEO/s/ ALYSON G. BEASLEYAlyson G. Beasley, Vice President & Treasurer


Date: August 16, 2004
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

______________

No. 15

- 3812

______________

FA.LU. CIOLI

,

Appellant

v.

LAURA ZUCHOWSKI, Director, Vermont Service Center;

DIRECTOR UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

SERVICES; SECRETA R Y UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT

OF HOMLAND SECURITY; ATTORNEY GENERAL

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

______________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. Civ. No. 2

- 15

- cv

- 0 1310 )

Honorable Stanley R. Chesler , District Ju dge

______________

Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

June 14 , 2016

BEFORE: AMBRO, JORDAN, and GREENBERG

, Circuit Judges

______________

JUDGMENT O RDER

______________

This matter c o me s on before this Court on an appeal from an order of the Dis t rict

Court entered on November 20 , 2015, denying a motion for a preliminary injunction.

While the appeal has been pending

, the District Court on June 16, 2016, entered an order

dismissing the complaint for lack of subject matter juri sdiction. In the cir cumstances

,2

even if we held that the District Court should not have denied the motion for the

preliminary injunction we cannot remand the case to the District Court with instructions

to enter the injunction because the case is no longer pending in that Cou rt. Moreover, if

we affirmed the denial of the motion for a preliminary injunction our order would have

no consequence as the order affirming the denial would not compel the defendants to do

anything . Consequently, the appeal is moot and therefore we di s miss appeal . The parties

will bear their own costs on this appeal.

By the Court,

s/ Morto n I. Greenberg

Ci rcuit Judge

Attest:

s/ Marcia M. Waldron

Clerk

DATED: June 30, 2016
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       2,247,239
<SECURITIES>                                   600,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,774,325
<ALLOWANCES>                                    10,000
<INVENTORY>                                  2,577,635
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,669,278
<PP&E>                                       1,849,142
<DEPRECIATION>                                 735,868
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,663,459
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          970,604
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     5,088,201
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,663,459         
<SALES>                                      9,306,777
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,707,898
<CGS>                                        4,241,389
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,374,195
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,926,102
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,643,372
<INCOME-TAX>                                   580,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,063,372
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,063,372
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .20
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements of Time Warner Inc. for the twelve months ended
December 31, 1996 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             514
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,397
<ALLOWANCES>                                       976
<INVENTORY>                                        941
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,821
<PP&E>                                           3,028
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,042
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  35,064
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,012
<BONDS>                                         12,713
<COMMON>                                             6
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            1,672
<PREFERRED>                                          4
<OTHER-SE>                                       9,492
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    35,064
<SALES>                                         10,064
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,064
<CGS>                                            5,922
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,922
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 968
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      4
<INCOME-TAX>                                       160
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (156)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    (35)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (191)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (1.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.04)
        



</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

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

C.W. Gilluly, Chairman and Interim Chief Executive Officer of Comtex News
Network, Inc. (the "Company") certifies in his capacity as an officer of the
Company that he has reviewed the Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the
period ended December 31, 2005 and that to the best of his knowledge:

        1.      the report fully complies with the requirements of Sections
                13(a) and 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.

The purpose of this statement is solely to comply with Title 18, Chapter 63,
Section 1350 of the United States code, as amended by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

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 it staff upon request.


February 14, 2006                   /s/ C.W. Gilluly
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    C.W. Gilluly, Ed.D.
                                    Chairman and Interim Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 10.3






    
AMENDMENT TO INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT


On May 3, 2010, Black Hills Corporation, Inc. (“Company”) and Lone Mountain Investments, Inc. (“Contractor”) entered into an Independent Contractor Agreement (the “Agreement”), pursuant to which Contractor agreed to provide certain Services in support of Company's subsidiary, Black Hills Exploration and Production, Inc.. The Agreement expires according to its terms on July 31, 2011, unless the parties mutually agree to extend the term in order to complete the provision of Services. The parties now agree that the Services, notwithstanding the parties' best efforts, will require further engagement of Contractor, beyond the initial expiration date. Therefore, it is hereby agreed as follows:
		
	1.
	The term of the Agreement as stated in Article 3 (Agreement Expiration) is extended in order to permit the performance of Services up to or until December 31, 2011. In the event that Services are satisfactorily completed prior to that date, this Agreement may be terminated pursuant to the provisions of Article 4. 




		
	2.
	This Amendment to the Agreement sets forth the only alterations intended by the parties and constitutes their entire understanding and agreement. Subject to the terms of this Amendment, the Agreement remains in full force and effect and the terms thereof may not be waived, altered or further modified without the written agreement of the parties.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this Amendment to Independent Contractor Agreement, this 27th day of July, 2011.


BLACK HILLS CORPORATION        






By: /s/  David R. Emery         
Name:  David R. Emery                  
Title:    Chairman, President and CEO    




LONE MOUNTAIN INVESTMENTS, INC.






By: /s/ John B. Vering  
Name:    John B. Vering
Title:     Managing Director Lone Mountain Investments, Inc.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17D0146. CURTIS FARMER v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN

SERVICES, EX REL., JAYLEN FARMER.

Curtis Farmer has filed an application for discretionary appeal of the trial

court’s order establishing his paternity of a minor child and requiring himto pay child

support. The trial court entered its order on March 24, 2016, and Farmer filed his

application on October 24, 2016. We lack jurisdiction. 

To be timely, a discretionary application must be filed within 30 days of entry

of the order sought to be appealed. OCGA § 5-6-35 (d). The requirements of OCGA

§ 5-6-35 are jurisdictional, and this Court cannot accept an application for appeal not

made in compliance therewith. Boyle v. State, 190 Ga. App. 734, 734 (380 SE2d 57)

(1989). Because this application was filed 214 days after entry of the order Farmer

seeks to appeal, it is untimely, and we lack jurisdiction to consider it. Accordingly,

this application is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

11/10/2016

November 10, 2016
# C_2014306EN.01000102.xml

| 10.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 306/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 306/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7368 — Riverstone / Carlyle / Hestya / HES)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2014/C 306/02

On 2 September 2014, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7368. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7368. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Equidyne Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ended April 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jeffery B.
Weinress, Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that based on my knowledge:

         (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.

Date: June 12, 2003
                                            By: /s/ Jeffery B. Weinress
                                                -----------------------
                                                Jeffery B. Weinress
                                                Chief Financial Officer

                                       19
Order entered January 1 4 , 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 18 - 01519 - CV JAY SANDON COOPER, Appellant

V. UNKNOWN PERSON, Appellee On Appeal from the 296th Judi cial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 296 - 01847 - 2018



### O RDER Before the Court are Jay Sandon Cooper’ s motion for extension of time to file notice of restricted appeal , the City of Plano Police Department’s response, and Cooper’s re ply

. Cooper has been declared a vexatious litigant and is subject to a prefiling order

. See T EX . C IV . P RAC . & R EM . C ODE A NN . § § 11.101 , 11.103

. Pursuant to Cooper ’s request , the local administrative law judge , the Honorable Benjamin N. Smith, has grante d Cooper permission to file the appeal “condition ed on [Cooper’s] furnishing security in the amount of $2,500.” Cooper acknowledges Judge Smith’s order in his motion for extension of time . However, he has not paid the security

. Q uoting In re Florance , 3 77 S.W.3d 837 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2012, no pet.), he asser ts “ t he vexatious litigant statute ‘by its terms does not apply to post

- judgment proceedings.’” We disagree.At issue in that case was whether the trial court could declare Richard Florance vexatiou s

after its plenary power had expired. Florance , 377 S.W.3d at 839. The motion to declare Florance vexatious was filed after the trial court had dismissed Florance’s amended petition for bill of review , and no other post

- judgment motion had been filed. See id. In stating the vexatious litigant “statute by its terms does not apply to post

- judgment proceedings[,]” the Court was referring to the time period for filing a motion to declare a party vexatious and the Court went on to state that such “ a motion must be filed in a pending case

. ” Id. at 840. Florance does not excuse Cooper from paying the security ordered by J udge Smith

. Because permission to file this appeal is conditioned on Cooper paying the security , we ORDER Cooper to file, no later than J anuary 2 4 , 2019 , written verification he has furnished security in the amount of $2 , 500. In light of our order, the Court will take no action on Cooper’s extension motion at this time , and the appellate record need not be filed . The Court will determine the motion and set any appropriate filing deadlines once Cooper has complied with th is order. Should Cooper fail to comply, the Court will dismiss the appeal without further notice. See T EX . C IV . P RAC . & R EM . C ODE A NN . § 11.056. We DIRECT the Clerk of t he Court to send a copy of this order to Judge Smith ; Collin County District Clerk Lynne Finley ; Janet L. Dugger, Official Court Reporter for the 296 th Judicial District Court; and the parties. /s/ BILL WHITEHILL JUSTICE
March 23, 2015

Mr. Barry Fisch

Flash It First

1872 Sparks Place

San Diego, CA 92110

Dear Mr. Fisch:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It 

explains why we cannot process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We entered your January 8, 2015 exemption request on behalf of the Flash It First into the 

public docket (No. FAA-2015-0034), but we are unable to process your request any further. 

The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). 

For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

• The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief and the extent of 

the relief you seek.

• The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

• The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

• Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9521.

Sincerely,

/s/

Jake Troutman

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2255 

To extend the trade adjustment assistance program for one month. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 24, 2021 

Mr. BROWN introduced the following bill; which was read twice, considered, 

read the third time, and passed 

A BILL 

To extend the trade adjustment assistance program for one 

month. 

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 ‘‘Trade Adjustment As5 sistance Extension Act of 2021’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE 

7 PROGRAM. 

8 (a) EXTENSION OF TERMINATION PROVISIONS.— 

9 Section 285 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2271 

10 note) is amended by striking ‘‘June 30, 2021’’ each place 

11 it appears and inserting ‘‘July 23, 2021’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2255 CPS

1 (b) REEMPLOYMENT TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSIST2 ANCE.—Section 246(b)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 

3 U.S.C. 2318(b)(1)) is amended by striking ‘‘June 30, 

4 2021’’ and inserting ‘‘July 23, 2021’’. 

5 (c) TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE FOR WORK6 ERS.—Section 245(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 

7 2317(a)) is amended by striking ‘‘June 30, 2021’’ and in8 serting ‘‘July 23, 2021’’. 

9 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

10 this section take effect on the earlier of— 

11 (1) the date of the enactment of this Act; or 

12 (2) June 30, 2021. 

13 (e) APPLICATION OF PRIOR LAW.—Section 406 of 

14 the Trade Adjustment Assistance Reauthorization Act of 

15 2015 (title IV of Public Law 114–27; 129 Stat. 379; 19 

16 U.S.C. 2271 note prec.) is amended— 

17 (1) in subsection (a)— 

18 (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), 

19 by striking ‘‘July 1, 2021’’ and inserting ‘‘July 

20 24, 2021’’; and 

21 (B) in paragraphs (5) and (6), by striking 

22 ‘‘the 1-year period beginning on July 1, 2021’’ 

23 and inserting ‘‘the period beginning on July 24, 

24 2021, and ending on June 30, 2022’’; and 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2255 CPS

1 (2) in subsection (b), by striking ‘‘July 1, 

2 2021’’ each place it appears and inserting ‘‘July 24, 

3 2021’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS