alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*The HONORABLE MICHAEL J. MELLOY, United States District Judge for

the Northern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-4194

___________

David Francois; Butler Hill *

Investments, Inc., *

*

Plaintiffs - Appellants, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Anthony L. Martin; Walker & *

Williams, a Professional Corporation, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Defendants - Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: December 13, 1999

Filed: January 28, 2000

___________

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD and LOKEN, Circuit Judges, and MELLOY,* District

Judge.

___________

PER CURIAM.

When Carl and Rita Fust refused to sell their property to developer David

Francois, Francois and Butler Hill Investments Inc. (collectively, “Francois”), sued the

Fusts in state court for trespass, defamation, and harassment. Counsel for Rita entered

an appearance, but she was never served. Carl eventually moved to dismiss for failure
-2-

to comply with discovery, and the court dismissed Francois’s complaint in March 1992.

Some months later, the Fusts sued Francois for malicious prosecution. Francois’s

insurer hired attorney Anthony L. Martin and his law firm, Walker & Williams

(collectively, “Martin”), to defend. A jury trial resulted in damage awards of $500,000

to Carl Fust and $600,000 to Rita Fust.

In March 1997, Francois commenced this malpractice action against Martin in

state court. There being diversity of citizenship, Martin removed. One allegation is

that, in defending Francois in the Fusts’ damage action, Martin negligently failed to

move to dismiss Rita’s damage claims because she was not served in the initial action

and therefore could not recover for malicious prosecution as a prevailing party. Prior

to trial, the district court barred Francois’s expert from testifying in support of this

theory (the reason for the ruling is somewhat unclear from our reading of the record,

but that does not affect our decision). At trial, the court ruled that Francois could not

submit this theory to the jury on the basis of the state court records alone, unsupported

by expert testimony. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Martin on all claims.

Francois appeals, primarily challenging the rejection of his theory that Martin

committed malpractice by not challenging Rita’s standing to sue for malicious

prosecution. We reject this contention because Rita Fust was a prevailing party in the

initial action as a matter of law, whether or not she was ever served.

We have carefully considered the other issues raised by Francois on appeal and

conclude they are without merit. We affirm the judgment of the district court and deny

Martin’s motion to strike portions of Francois’s reply brief. 

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Exhibit
13.1



Certification

Pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsections (a)
and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)



Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers
of Ecopetrol S.A. (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:



The annual report on Form 20-F for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2011 of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.



Dated: April 30, 2012

| | By: | /s/ Javier G. Gutiérrez
| | --- | -----------------------
| |     | Name:                  
| |     | Title:                 



Dated: April 30, 2012

| | By: | /s/ Adriana M. Echeverri
| | --- | ------------------------
| |     | Name:                   
| |     | Title:
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

RENE LEE SEXTON

, Appellant,

v.

KIM LOUISE DETORE

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 2133

[ April 19, 2018 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm

Beach County ; Janis Brustares Keyser , Judge; L.T. Case No.

2015CP000236

.

Lisa Braden of Lisa Braden, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

R. Lee McElroy of Downey | McElroy, P.A., Palm Beach Gardens, for

appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

T

AYLOR

, M AY and K UNTZ

, JJ., concu r.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit 32.2.  Section 1350 Certification by Chief Financial Officer








CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE


SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Texas Rare Earth Resources Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended August 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Wm. Chris Mathers, Chief Financial Officer 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief: (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.








/s/ Wm. Chris Mathers


Wm. Chris Mathers, Chief Financial Officer


February 8, 2011
**Exhibit 34.1**

 

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

 

To the Board of Directors

Protective Life Insurance Company:

 

We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying “Management’s Assertion on Compliance with Regulation AB Criteria” that Protective Life Insurance Company complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the Protective Life Secured Trust Notes (the Platform), as of December 31, 2010 and for the year then ended, excluding (i) the criteria which the Company has determined are not applicable to the servicing activities performed by them with respect to the Platform and (ii) the servicing activities that are applicable to the Platform but are excluded from the scope of management’s assertion and are not reported on herein, as indicated in Appendix A of Management’s Assertion on Compliance with SEC Regulation AB Servicing Criteria.  Appendix B to management’s assertion identifies the individual asset-backed transactions and securities defined by management as constituting the Platform.  Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.  Our examination included testing of selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria.  Our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report.  Our procedures were not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report.  We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2010 for the Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.

 

 

/s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Birmingham, Alabama

March 22, 2011

 

----
Docket Number FAA-2014-0492

 Contacts. With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed?

Organization Person Contacted Date Response 

National Business Aircraft Association Eli Cotti 7/18/13

Regional Airline Association 7/18/13

Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association Robert Hackman 7/18/13

Airlines for America Joe White 7/18/13
99UPL 99.9UPL 99UL 99.9UL

Formosa LA 67 78 67 77

OxyDP 36 56 35 54

Formosa TX 28 30 28 30

Plant Limit Is Based On

Non VC TOHAP
EXHIBIT 32




Certification pursuant to


18 U.S.C. Section 1350,


as adopted pursuant to


Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002




Ralph E. Schank, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, of St. Joseph Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”), certifies in his capacity as an officer of the Company that he has reviewed the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 and that to the best of his knowledge:




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




March 31, 2011

/s/ Ralph E. SchankDate

Ralph E. Schank

President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5329 

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to carry out certain transportation projects in the State of California to relieve congestion on State 

Route 91. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 9, 2006 

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California (for himself, Mr. CALVERT, and Mr. 

YOUNG of Alaska) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to carry out 

certain transportation projects in the State of California 

to relieve congestion on State Route 91. 

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 ‘‘California State Route 

5 91 Congestion Relief Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF HIGHWAY PROJECTS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Transportation 

8 is authorized to carry out the following projects: 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5329 IH

1 (1) A project to add one general purpose lane 

2 in each direction from State Route 55 to the River3 side County line. 

4 (2) A project to add an auxiliary lane along 

5 State Route 91 in each direction from State Route 

6 241 to State Route 71. 

7 (3) A project to add truck storage lanes in both 

8 directions at the existing commercial vehicle enforce9 ment facility on State Route 91. 

10 (4) A project to divert traffic from the State 

11 Route 241 Toll Road via a direct connector to the 

12 State Route 91 Express Lanes (HOT) to improve 

13 the traffic operation of the interchange and alleviate 

14 traffic between Orange and Riverside Counties. 

15 (5) A project to add freeway-to-freeway connec16 tors between State Route 56 and Interstate Route 5. 

17 (b) APPLICABILITY OF TITLE 23.—The Secretary 

18 shall carry out the projects authorized by subsection (a) 

19 in accordance with the requirements of title 23, United 

20 States Code. 

21 (c) FEDERAL SHARE.—The Federal share of the cost 

22 of a project carried out under subsection (a) shall be 80 

23 percent. 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
3 

•HR 5329 IH

1 (d) DELEGATION.—The Secretary may delegate to 

2 the State of California responsibility for carrying out a 

3 project with funds made available to carry out this section. 

4 SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—There is authorized to be appro6 priated from the Highway Trust Fund (other than the 

7 Mass Transit Account)— 

8 (1) $221,325,000 to carry out section 2(a)(1); 

9 (2) $40,700,000 to carry out section 2(a)(2); 

10 (3) $7,080,000 to carry out section 2(a)(3); 

11 (4) $56,000,000 to carry out section 2(a)(4); 

12 and 

13 (5) $65,000,000 to carry out section 2(a)(5). 

14 (b) PERIOD OF AVAILABILITY.—Funds authorized by 

15 subsection (a) shall remain available until expended. 

Æ 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
|**EXHIBIT 32.1****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**
|---------------------------------------------------------------------
|**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**                                           
|**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**                    

In connection with the Quarterly Report of The International White Tea
Company (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof or immediately
thereafter (the "Report"), I, Donald Hejmanowski, President and Chief Executive Officer,  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 the Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Company

|/s/ DONALD HEJMANOWSKI                                
|------------------------------------------------------
|Donald Hejmanowski, President, Chief Executive Officer
|January 30, 2004                                      

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed
to be filed by the Company for the purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

|
|
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7638

MICHAEL CLARK,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

G. M. HINKLE; MR. MITCHELL; LIEUTENANT LATNEY;

J. GOLDEN, Major; MR. VALLOUR; CAPTAIN YATES;

C. W. JOHNSON; MS. BUSWELL; MR. SPENCER; L. W.

HUFFMAN,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CA-96-1374)

Submitted: May 15, 1997 Decided: May 28, 1997

Before RUSSELL, HALL, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Clark, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Clark, a Virginia inmate, appeals the district court's

order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint under

28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the

district court. Clark v. Hinkle, No. CA-96-1374 (E.D. Va. Sept. 30,

1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 32.1

        JOINT CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL
            FINANCIAL OFFICER REQUIRED BY EXCHANGE ACT RULE 13A-14(B)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Protocall Technologies Incorporated
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarters ended September 30, 2004 and
2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), we,
Bruce Newman, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Don Hoffmann, Vice
President, Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting OFficer,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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 the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.





November 22, 2004

/s/ Bruce Newman
-------------------------------------
Bruce Newman
President and Chief Executive Officer


/s/ Don Hoffmann
-------------------------------------
Don Hoffmann
Vice President, Principal Financial
Officer and Principal Accounting Officer
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 139 (Friday, July 19, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 43200]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17424]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9010-2]

Environmental Impacts Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General 
Information (202) 564-7146 or http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements
Filed 07/08/2013 Through 07/12/2013
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public 
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment 
letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.

EIS No. 20130208, Draft EIS, USFS, CO, Gore Creek Restoration, Comment 
Period Ends: 09/03/2013, Contact: Jack Lewis 970-638-4176.
EIS No. 20130209, Draft EIS, BLM, AZ, Sonoran Valley Parkway Project, 
Comment Period Ends: 09/03/2013, Contact: Kathleen Depukat 623-580-
5681.
EIS No. 20130210, Draft EIS, DOE, CA, Hydrogen Energy California 
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle Project, Comment Period Ends: 
09/03/2013, Contact: Fred Pozzuto 304-285-5219.
EIS No. 20130211, Final EIS, USN, MD, Medical Facilities Development 
and University Expansion at Naval Support Activity Bethesda, Review 
Period Ends: 08/19/2013, Contact: Joseph Macri 301-295-1803.
EIS No. 20130212, Final EIS, BLM, AZ, APS Sun Valley to Morgan 500/
230kV Transmission Line Project, Proposed Resource Management Plan 
Amendment, Review Period Ends: 08/19/2013, Contact: Joe Incardine 801-
560-7135.

Amended Notices

EIS No. 20130122, Final EIS, MARAD, AL, ADOPTION--Garrows Bend 
Intermodal Rail, Portion of the Choctaw Point Terminal Project, Review 
Period Ends: 08/19/2013, Contact: Kris Gilson 202-492-0479. The U.S. 
Department of Transportation's Maritime Administration has adopted the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers FEIS 20040381, filed 08/10/2004. 
The Maritime Administration was not a cooperating agency, therefore 
recirculation is necessary under Section 1506.3(b) of the CEQ 
Regulation.

    Revision to FR Notice Published 05/03/2013: CEQ Wait Period Ending 
06/03/2013 has been reestablished to 08/19/2013.
EIS No. 20130161, Draft EIS, USFS, MT, East Reservoir Project, Comment 
Period Ends: 08/15/2013, Contact: Denise Beck 406-293-7773 Ext.7504

    Revision to FR Notice Published 07/26/2013; Extending Comment 
Period from 07/29/2013 to 08/15/2013.
EIS No. 20130200, Final EIS, FTA, CA, Van Ness Bus Rapid Transit 
Project, Review Period Ends: 08/12/2013, Contact: Alex Smith 415-744-
3133.

    Revision to FR Notice Published 07/12/2013; Correction to Agency 
Contact Name should be Alex Smith.

    Dated: July 16, 2013.
Cliff Rader,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2013-17424 Filed 7-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
WILLIAM WITHERSPOON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

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. 1D17-3099

_____________________________/

Opinion filed October 6, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

Martin A. Fitzpatrick, Judge.

William Witherspoon, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee. 

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROWE, MAKAR, and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5629 

To provide for the same treatment of all individuals notified of possible 

qualification for low-income subsidies for purposes of enrollment and 

the waiver of late enrollment penalties under the Medicare part D program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 15, 2006 

Mr. WEXLER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on 

Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 

the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To provide for the same treatment of all individuals notified 

of possible qualification for low-income subsidies for purposes of enrollment and the waiver of late enrollment 

penalties under the Medicare part D program. 

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 ‘‘Medicare Part D 

5 Deadline Equality Act of 2006’’. 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5629 IH

1 SEC. 2. APPLICATION OF SAME MEDICARE PART D SPECIAL 

2 ENROLLMENT AND WAIVER OF LATE EN3 ROLLMENT PENALTY RULES FOR ALL INDI4 VIDUALS NOTIFIED OF POSSIBLE QUALIFICA5 TION FOR LOW-INCOME SUBSIDIES. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Any special enrollment period for 

7 2006 established under section 1860D–1(b)(3) of the So8 cial Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w–101(b)(3)) for sub9 sidy-eligible individuals, and any waiver of a late enroll10 ment penalty applicable to such individuals, shall apply to 

11 all notified part D eligible individuals without regard to 

12 whether or not they are subsidy-eligible individuals. 

13 (b) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section: 

14 (1) NOTIFIED PART D ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUAL.— 

15 The term ‘‘notified part D eligible individual’’ means 

16 a part D eligible individual (as defined in section 

17 1860D–1(a)(3)(A) of the Social Security Act (42 

18 U.S.C. 1395w–101(a)(3)(A)) who is notified by the 

19 Secretary of Health and Human Services after May 

20 15, 2006, but before November 15, 2006, that the 

21 individual may qualify for a low-income subsidy 

22 under section 1860D–14(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 

23 1395w–114(a)). 

24 (2) SUBSIDY-ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUAL.—The term 

25 ‘‘subsidy-eligible individual’’ means a part D eligible 

26 individual (as so defined) who is determined to be a 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
3 

•HR 5629 IH

1 subsidy-eligible individual (as defined in section 

2 1860D–14(a)(3) of the Social Security Act, 42 

3 U.S.C. 1395w–114(a)(3)). 

Æ 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS