alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This fileset includes supporti ng documents for BART-eligible sources in Oklahoma granted waivers by ODEQ from BART ba sed on dispersion modeling. Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company Horsesho e Lake Generating Station Units 7 & 8

• Horseshoe_01-23-07.pdf • Horseshoe_01-30-07.pdf • Horseshoe_02-07-07.pdf • Horseshoe_02-22-08.pdf • Horseshoe_11-30-06.pdf • Horseshoe_Nodate.pdf Koch Nitrogen Company Enid Nitrogen Plant

• Koch Nitrogen Enid_02-22-08.pdf • Koch Nitrogen Enid_12-01-06.pdf • Koch Nitrogen Enid_Nodate.pdf Lafarge Tulsa Cement Plant

• Lafarge_01-15-08.pdf • Lafarge_02-22-08.pdf • Lafarge_03-17-08.pdf • Lafarge_03-19-08.pdf • Lafarge_03-27-07.pdf • Lafarge_06-16-08.pdf • Lafarge_09-20-07.pdf • Lafarge_11-02-06.pdf • Lafarge_11-13-07.pdf • Lafarge_12-01-06.pdf • Lafarge_12-12-07.pdf PSO Riverside Power Station

• PSO Riverside_02-22-08.pdf • PSO Riverside_10-15-07.pdf • PSO Riverside_12-01-06.pdf Sinclair Tulsa Refining Company

• Sinclair_02-22-08.pdf • Sinclair_12-01-06.pdfSunoco, Inc. Tulsa Refinery

• Sunoco_01-02-07.pdf • Sunoco_01-10-07.pdf • Sunoco_02-22-08.pdf • Sunoco_11-28-06.pdf Terra Nitrogen, LP Verdigris Plant

• Terra Nitrogen Verdigris_120106.PDF • Terra Nitrogen Verdigris_120106map.PDF • Terra Nitrogen Verdigris_waiver.PDF Terra International Inc. Woodward Plant

• Terra Woodward_02-22-08.pdf • Terra Woodward_12-01-06.pdf Valero Ardmore Refinery

• Valero_02_22_08.pdf • Valero_10_24_06.PDF • Valero_12_05_06.PDF • Valero_12_05_06_b.PDF • Valero_DEQ_review.PDF Western Farmers Electric Cooperative Mooreland Generating Station

• WFEC_Mooreland_12_01_06.PDF • WFEC_Mooreland_Waiver_022607.PDF Wynnewood Refining Company

• Wynnewood_DEQRequest_100307.pdf • Wynnewood_Response_120307.pdf • Wynnewood_SourceReview.PDF • Wynnewood_WaiverA pplication_120406.pdf • Wynnewood_WaiverApplication_Map2_2_120406.pdf • Wynnewood_Waiver_022208.PDF
Sorghum for Grain 2022

Harvested Acres by County

for Selected States

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service

Acres

Not Estimated

< 2,000

2,000 - 4,999

5,000 - 9,999

10,000 - 24,999

25,000 - 49,999

50,000 +
#### In re Fishel Land Company

*232
      *Lester K. Wolf,*for trustee.

*Guy L. Warman, Charles R. Taylor, Jr., J. Stanton Carson, George H. Thompson*and *Raymond R. Goehring,*for distributees.

September 21, 1976

BOYLE, *J.,*

The question involved in the petition for allowance of counsel fees in the sum of $9,500, and counsel’s expenses in the sum of $361.81, is whether counsel for the trustee is entitled to be paid out of the trust estate for extensive professional services rendered by counsel in defending the trustee against the numerous objections filed to the trustee’s account which covered a period of 24 years, where the objections were limited to the credits in the account for compensation to the trustee for its various categories of service which were necessary to the administration of the trust and the preservation of the trust property for the benefit of approximately 200 beneficiaries.

Counsel for the objector admits the fairness of the amount of the requested compensation but asserts that counsel’s fees and expenses should be paid out of the trustee’s individual pocket and not out of the trust estate.

The court does not accept the contention of the objector that the objections to the trustee’s account did not involve items of possible surcharge against the trustee. The services of the trustee were directly related to the preservation, protection, administration and distribution of the trust property. The court does not perceive any distinction between this case and similar cases where a surcharge is sought because of a dereliction of *233duty on the part of a fiduciary. See Browarsky Est., 437 Pa. 282, 285, 263, A.2d 365 (1970); Coulter Est., 379 Pa. 209, 220, 108 A.2d 681 (1954).

Counsel’s fees and expenses should be paid out of the trust estate.

A decree will be entered in accordance with this opinion.
Order entered April 1 3 , 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 15

- 00157

- CV

CBIF LIMITED PARTNER SHIP, COLUMBIA AIRPO RT, LLC, AND STEVE F LORY, Appellant s

V.

TGI FRIDAY'S INC., L BD CORPORATION, TGIF /DFW PARTNER, LLC, T GI F/DFW MANAGER, LLC, TGIF/D FW TERMINAL A RESTAU RANT, DOMAIN ENTERPRISES, INC., T GIF/DFW RESTAURANT J OINT VENTURE, LOUIS STURNS, NORMA ROBY, ERMA JOH NSON HADLEY, RSH CON CESSIONS, LLC, ET AL ., Appellee s

On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 11

- 04730



### O RDER

W e GRANT appellants’ April 7, 2016 second joint motion for extension of time to file

reply briefs and ORDER the briefs be filed no later than April 27, 2016

.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART JUSTICE
#### McKean County Liquor Licenses.

*Liquor law*— License—Resort *of minors*— Hotels—Act *of May 5, 1921.*

Liquor licenses cannot be granted to hotels under the Woner Act of May 5, 1921, P. L. 407, because they are bound to furnish entertainment to minors as well as adults, and, therefore, are “resorts for minors” within the meaning of the act.

Application for retail licenses to sell vinous, spirituous, malt and brewed liquors. Q. S. McKean Co., June Sess., 1922, Nos. 1 and 12.

*Wilson & Fitzgibbon, Melvin & Melvin, W. E. Burdick, L. H. Simons, Mullin & Woods*and *C. W. Shattuck,*for petitioners.

May 8, 1922.

Bouton, P. J.,

It will be observed that the Brooks Law, so-called, to wit, the Act of 1887, contained the following: “Provided, that no license shall be granted under the provisions of this act to any persons to sell in any room where groceries are sold, at wholesale or retail.”

The Act of May 5, 1921, P. L. 407, known as the Woner Law, which was an amendment to the Brooks Law, contained the following proviso: “Provided, that no license shall be granted under the provisions of this act to any person to sell in any room where groceries are sold, *or in any place of resort for minors.”*

It will be observed that both the Brooks Law and the Woner Law absolutely prohibited the sale of vinous, spirituous, malt or brewed liquors to minors, and it seems to have been the policy of the Woner Law to further protect minors from the temptation to purchase liquors, and to remove the temptation of licensees to sell to minors, when they added the proviso above quoted.

Each of the applicants for retail licenses at this term are keepers of hotels, and the place in each instance asked to be licensed is a hotel. A hotel is a public resort beyond all question, and it is as much a place of resort for minors as it is for those of full age. A keeper of a hotel is bound to furnish entertainment to all people of respectability who apply for accommodations, if he has such accommodations. In other words, if his rooms are not all occupied, he cannot refuse applicants for such rooms and accommodations. If we are right in our conclusion that a hotel is a place of resort for minors, then, under the law, we are prohibited from granting a license to such place.

The Woner Law has removed the discretion of the court as to the necessity for the license, but has given the court discretion as to the fitness of the place. It follows, then, in addition to the prohibition against granting licenses to a place of resort for minors, in view of the spirit of the law, which, in our judgment, as already said, seeks to remove the temptation for minors to purchase liquors, that a hotel is not a fit place in which to sell vinous, spirituous, malt or brewed liquors.

This opinion will be filed and will apply to all applications for retail licenses at this term, and will become a part of the record in each case.

From E. G. Potter, Smethport, Pa.
Exhibit32



CERTIFICATION
 OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 report on Form 10-Q ofMontana
 Mining Corp. for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2009
 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I,Ruairidh
 Campbell, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906
 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

| | (1) | Thisreport 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 represents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the registrant at the end of the period covered by this report and results of operations of the registrant
for the period covered by this report.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date:
 May12, 2009



/s/
 Ruairidh Campbell

Ruairidh
 Campbell

Chief
 Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer



Thiscertification
 accompanies this report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not,
 except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the
 registrant for the purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
 This certification shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
 Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of this report),
 irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.   A signed original of this written
 statement required by §906 has been provided to the registrant
 and will be retained by the registrant
 and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



23
**EXHIBIT 32.2(1)**

 

**STATEMENT OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER UNDER 18U.S.C. § 1350**

 

I, Shelly Schaffer, the chief financial officer of SupportSoft, Inc.(the “Company”), certify for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 oftitle 18 of the United States Code that, to the best of my knowledge,

 
| (i)    |   | the Quarterly Report of the Company on  Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 (the “Report”), fully  complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, and |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                               |
| (ii)   |   | the information contained in the Report fairly  presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of  operations of the Company.                                                                             |

 

 
| Date: August 7, 2008 | /s/ SHELLY  SCHAFFER               |
|---------------------------|------------------------------------|
|                      | **Shelly  Schaffer**               |
|                      | **Chief  Financial Officer and**   |
|                      | **Executive  Vice President**      |
|                      | **of  Finance and Administration** |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by 18 U.S.C. §1350 has been provided to SupportSoft, Inc. and will be retained bySupportSoft, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

 

----

| (1) |   | The material contained in this Exhibit 32.2 is not deemed  “filed” with the SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference into any  filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, whether made before or after the date hereof and  irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing,  except to the extent that the registrant specifically incorporates it by reference. |
|-----|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

----
#### Bachman v. Nibert

*733
      *R. Bruce Manchester,*for plaintiffs.

*Richard A. Gray,*for defendants.

November 15, 1982

BROWN, JR., P.J.,

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This matter comes before the court pursuant to preliminary objections filed by plaintiffs Larry C. Bachman and Kathleen C. Bachman to a counterclaim asserted by defendants Donald Nibert and Jack Pivirotto, trading and doing business as Forestry Consulting Services.

The controversy in this case centers around the terms and breach of an oral contract admittedly entered into between the parties. In response to plaintiffs’ complaint, defendants have filed a counterclaim seeking money due under the contract and damages incurred as a result of misinformation supplied by plaintiffs to defendants.

Plaintiffs have filed preliminary objections challenging defendants’ right to assert the counterclaim. They contend that defendants have failed to register pursuant to the Fictitious Names Act, 54 PS. §28.1 et seq. and are, therefore, barred from maintaining an action.

The parties have stipulated to the following:

“1. At all times relevant to the above-captioned litigation, Defendants had not registered the name ‘Forestry Consulting Services’ as a fictitious name pursuant to 54 P.S. 28.1 et seq.

2. At all times relevant to the above-captioned cause of action, Plaintiffs had full knowledge of the identity of Donald Nibert and Jack Pivirotto as being the persons who comprised the entity known as Forestry Consulting Services, and that those two individuals were the persons with whom they were contracting.”

*734DISCUSSION

Any individuals who conduct business in this Commonwealth under an assumed or fictitious name are required to file an application, under oath, setting forth certain specified factual information. See 54 P.S.§28.1. Failure to file such an application precludes the use of the court system to attempt to enforce any contracts entered into by persons on behalf of the business which is operating under the fictitious name. See 54 P.S.§28.4.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court, in Ross v. McMillan, 172 Pa. Super. 298, 93 A.2d 874 (1953), was asked to grant the defendant a new trial on the basis the plaintiff had failed to register its fictitious name pursuant to Section 28.4 of the Fictitious Names Act. The court affirmed the lower court’s refusal to award a new trial holding

“that where a defendant admits that he has full knowledge of the true identity of the persons who comprise an entity which is subject to, but not registered under, the [Fictitious Names Act], he is es-topped from denying their right to sue or recover.” Ross, supra, Pa.Super. at 301, A.2d at 875.

See also Kauffman v. Bebenek, 40 Northumb. L.J. 35 (1967), and Mathews v. Jaspert, 115 P.L.J. 119 (1967).

Accordingly, in light of Paragraph 2 of the stipulation, plaintiffs’ preliminary objections must be denied.

ORDER

And now, this November 15, 1982, upon consideration of plaintiffs’ preliminary objections to defendants’ counterclaim, said objections are denied.
EXHIBIT 32
         CERTIFICATION OF OFFICER OF SANGUI BIOTECH INTERNATIONAL, INC.
                        PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350


 Pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (subsection (a) and
(b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) the undersigned
officer of Sangui  BioTech  International,  Inc.  (the  "Company")  does  hereby
certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

     (a)  The quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended December 31,
          2003 of the Company fully  complies with the  requirements  of section
          13(a) or 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (b)  Information  contained  in the Form  10-QSB  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations
          of the Company.

Date: February 16, 2004                   /s/ Wolfgang Barnikol
                                          ----------------------------------
                                          Wolfgang Barnikol
                                          President, Chief Executive Officer
                                          and Chief Financial Officer


                                                                            -14-
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , 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.

January 31, 2017

a0123 

# Order

Clerk January 31, 2017

152927(41)

SUSANA E. NARVAEZ TERAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 152927

COA: 322016

Otsego CC: 10

- 013744

- DP

MICHAEL R. RITTLEY,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s October 18,

2016 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appe ar that the order was

entered erroneously.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
UNAUDITED  CONDENSED  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  FILED WITH THE COMPANY'S  JUNE 30,
2000,  QUARTERLY  REPORT ON FORM  10-QSB AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY  BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<CIK>         0001104673
<NAME>       Alexandria Holdings, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                  1
<CURRENCY>                                    U.S. Dollars


<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                    JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                 1
<CASH>                                          511
<SECURITIES>                                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   0
<ALLOWANCES>                                    0
<INVENTORY>                                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                511
<PP&E>                                          0
<DEPRECIATION>                                  0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  511
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           2,250
<BONDS>                                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           0
<PREFERRED>                                     0
<COMMON>                                        6,043
<OTHER-SE>                                      (7,922)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    511
<SALES>                                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                0
<CGS>                                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   7,331
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 0
<INCOME-TAX>                                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (7,331)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 0
<CHANGES>                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (7,331)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   0


</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-15-00676-CV

Jose GEORGE, Matilde George, and Elaine George,

Appellants

v.

COMPASS BANK,

Appellee

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014-CI-03773

Honorable Dick Alcala, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI, JUSTICE BARNARD, AND JUSTICE MARTINEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this court’s opinion and judgment dated 

September 14, 2016 are WITHDRAWN, and appellant’s motion for rehearing is DENIED. The 

appellee’s motion to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction is DENIED. The trial court’s Order 

Granting Compass Bank’s Second Motion to Approve Interpleader and Partial Summary Judgment 

on All Claims By and Between Plaintiff and Third-Party Defendants Matilde George and Elaine 

George and Compass Bank are AFFIRMED. It is ORDERED that appellee, Compass Bank, 

recover its costs of this appeal from appellants, Jose George, Matilde George, and Elaine George.

SIGNED December 7, 2016.

_____________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-10622 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus RICKY LEE MOULDER, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 2:98-CR-7-ALL

- - - - - - - - - - April 6, 1999 Before DAVIS, DUHE’ and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Court-appointed counsel for Ricky Lee Moulder has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent review of the brief and record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.