alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
11/09/2010 11:51 2022B75075 OFFICE OF RULEMAKING PAGE 22 

OERARTMENTOF 

-:AN3P0RWI0 N 

;,KETOPERAnONS 

010 m - 9 P }: 15 

Paul Hebert 

280 Paige Hill Rd, 

Goffstown, NH 03045-3031 

October 31,2010 

Administrator J. Randolph Babbitt 

800 Irdqjcndence Avenue, SW 

Room 1010 

WashingtoiL DC 20591 

Re: Support these changes to the FAA's Flight Titne/Duty Time NPRM 

Dear Administrator Babbitt: 

Aa a US commercial pilot reviewing the FAA Notice of Proposed RulemakiDg (NPRM) on Flight cre-w member 

Duty and Rest Requirements I am pleased that the majority of ihc NPRM represents an improvenient to current 

regulations and covers all commercial operations in the spirit of "One Level of Safety." However, there are some 

specific items that need to be changed in order to mitigate fatigue for the professional pilot. 

1) The flight time limit should not be increased 25% fi-om 8 hours to 10 hours, 

2) The augmented (3 person) flight time limit should not be increased 25% from 12 to 15 hours. 

3) Rest requirements should be 10 hours domestic and 14 hours international. 9 hours, reducible to 8 hours is not 

enough time to achieve restorative sleep, eat, and attend to personal hygiene between duty periods. 

4) Domestic augmentation should not be allowed. 

As a professional commercial aviator working at high speed in congested airspace, and through arduous weather 

conditions, I can tell you that fatigue mitigation is paramount to improving the safety of the traveling public. The 

NTSB has held fatigue on its "Most Wanted List" for thirty years because it is a problem that flight crews deal with 

on a daily basis. This FAA NPRM will go a long way to reducing fatigue and increasing safety if these items are 

addressed. 

Paul B. Hebert 

6034978224
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Uni-Pixel, Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2010 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Jeffrey Tomz, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

·              The Report fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934(15 U.S.C 78m or 78o(d)); and

 

·              The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 
| Date:  | October  29, 2010 |   | By:                                    | /s/  Jeffrey Tomz |
|--------|-------------------|--------|----------------------------------------|-------------------|
|   |              |   | Jeffrey  Tomz, Chief Financial Officer |

 

*Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Uni-Pixel, Inc. and willbe retained by Uni-Pixel, Inc. and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request. The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company forpurposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.*

 

1

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Erickson Phillip, Appellant.

[718 NYS2d 879]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schulman, J.), rendered December 10, 1998, convicting him of assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court properly determined that the prosecutor’s facially-neutral explanations for excusing two black prospective jurors were not pretextual *(see, People v Payne,*88 NY2d 172; *see also, People v Allen,*86 NY2d 101).

The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review. Bracken, Acting P. J., Altman, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.
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 Yosemite  Mortgage Fund II, LLC (the
"Issuer")  on Form 10-Q for the  quarter  ended  June 30,  2005,  filed with the
Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on or about the date hereof,  I, Steven M.
Pontes,  General Manager of MFP Management  LLC, the Manager of the Issuer,  and
the equivalent of the chief executive officer and chief financial officer of the
Issuer, certify that the Report on Form 10-Q containing the financial statements
of the Issuer fully complies with the  requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934 (  15U.S.C.  78m(a)  or  78o(d)  and that
information  contained in the periodic report fairly  presents,  in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.

Date: August 15, 2005

                              /S/ STEVEN M. PONTES
                              --------------------------------------------------
                              [Signature]    General Manager
                                             MFP Management LLC, Manager [Title]
                                             Principal Executive Officer
                                             Principal Financial Officer
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Anto nio, Texas

October 27, 2016

No. 04

- 16

- 00679

- CV

John M. DONOHUE

, Appellant

v.

SAN ANTONIO POLICE DEPARTMENT

,

Appellee

From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014ci12457 Honorable Larry Noll, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant, who is pro se on appeal, has filed a motion asking the court to appoint counsel for purposes of appeal. The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution grants an indigent criminal defendant the right to counsel, but does this right does not generally apply in civil cases. Mustapha v. HSBC Bank USA Nat’l Ass’n , No. 14

- 11

- 00112

- CV, 2012 WL 273897, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 31, 2012, pet. denied) (citing Turner v. Rogers, 564 U.S. 431

, 441

– 42 (2011) )

. With rare exceptions, a party is not entitled to court

- appointed counsel in a civil case. Id. (citing Gibson v. Tolbert, 102 S.W.3d 710, 712 (Tex. 2003) )

. Texas has statutorily provided for appointed counsel in juvenile delinquency cases, in parental termination cases, and in cases in which application for court

- ordered mental health services has been made. Id. (citing T EX

. F AM

. C ODE A NN

. § 51.10; id. §107.013; T EX

. H EALTH & S AFETY C ODE A NN

. § 574.003). A trial court has discretion to appoint counsel to an indigent civil litigant, “in some exceptional cases” in which “the public and private interests at stake are such that the administrat ion of justice may best be served by appointing a lawyer to represent an indigent civil litigant.” Id. (quoting Travelers Indem. Co. v. Mayfield, 923 S.W.2d 590, 594 (Tex.1996) ). W e conclude that this case does not present exceptional circumstances warra nting appointment of counsel , and t herefore DENY appellants ’ motion.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 27th day of October, 20 16

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
[No. 30575-5-II.

Division Two.

June 8, 2004.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Isaiah Lawrence Shepherd, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Kitsap County, No. 03-1-00032-7, Anna M. Laurie, J., entered June 25, 2003. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Morgan, A.C.J., concurred in by Armstrong and Van Deren, JJ.
In the INTEREST OF: S.N. and N. N. By Their Next Friend, Ryan Nolen and Ryan Nolen, Individually, Appellant, v. Danielle Maria SMITH, Respondent.

WD 81905

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

ORDER FILED: April 2, 2019

Lindsey Van Fleet, Independence, MO, Counsel for Appellant.

Danielle Smith, Independence, MO, Respondent Acting Pro Se.

Before Division Four: Karen King Mitchell, Chief Judge Presiding, Alok Ahuja, and Thomas N. Chapman, JJ.

**ORDER**

Per Curiam:

Ryan Nolen (Father) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of Jackson County, which awarded the parties joint legal and physical custody. Father challenges on appeal the designation of the address of Danielle Smith (Mother) as the address of the parties' minor children for mailing and educational purposes, the division of parenting time, and the modification of Father's support obligation. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).
#### Bruce Farkas, Appellant, v City of New York et al., Respondents.

[718 NYS2d 851]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Louis Benza, J.), entered October 5, 1999, which, in an action against defendant City and its jailkeepers for wrongful detention, denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and granted defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, who was committed to jail for contempt of court orders directing payment of support arrears, claims that the maximum period of confinement for such offense is six months, citing Judiciary Law § 774 (1) and Civil Rights Law § 72, and that defendants are liable to him in damages for keeping him in jail longer. However, as the motion court held, defendants were clearly acting under the authority of the commitment court, which denied an application by plaintiff for release in an order rendered just two days before expiration of such six-month period, and, as such, are protected by judicial immunity *(see, Weiner v State of New York,*273 AD2d 95, 97-98). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.
<PAGE>
    CERTIFICATIONS OF CEO PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT


Exhibit 31.2

                                 CERTIFICATIONS


I, Russell R. Lee III, certify that:


1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of SinoFresh
HealthCare, Inc.;


2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of
a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;


3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant
as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;


4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:


a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;


b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation;


c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting;


5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):


a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information;


b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting.


May 14, 2004


/s/ Russell R. Lee III
----------------------
Russell R. Lee III
Chief Financial Officer
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Lhrch 29, 1939 
~wsIIL~.,: of :;rticie 1529 or 0~ stfitutes. xe have 

oaly 03x2 Tcxcs cam on this -pint, City of San 

:~tan:o V. Sr:ivc:tion Jxrzy, 12 5% OGO, nr.18 that 

aase :n of little help, for the Pacts ore tio re- 

:uote Dori the :>rencr& sltut&io:l to throw any ll@t, 

cm our >roblem. Yhe Oi-.lahom Corpcratlon bns a 

CXp1tCX.l stock divided into four hundred shame, 

4th r-. per value of five doll-a eaoh, It 1s al-. 

lowe& to earn nn night per oent Soak dividend or 

six per cent ossh aivldend per amum. Tl~oae d.lvldendJ3areQaldto owMraoratoolsk,sarps 0rwb 

lpaynnt bouser8oftJ.wolootrlo powarrurnl8~ 

bythla aorparatlcmr 

Tha to6t pmmul@ssd la. ld Oorptm J&a, 

Corporatlona,8eotlon Sl,l8tbatitmahamet~ 

or ohms lo datexmhodbytb powem aonforrod~ 

It by lta oharter -artlolo8 or oortitieato at inoclrprat1m wbn lormed uaor a general La. :&I 

examln6tlal of WI0 6rtlolea pr$6enen to ua eonYlnoos lln that the aouthw& lmotrl8 Gooperative Isaraatedibrp4mnlaryprotit far. 

asldo mm other boQorits, It aan rw8ela ba 

arpeotbd and IS permItto& .to etaxn dlridonds ror 

its etookholdm or mombm. 

Sgoapdly, you iiak If a pralt miy ba 

IseUed to an elootrlaal (loOp6r&lm organid ior 

ptmuniarp profit. Artlal* lsaobor OUT statpt69 

pr0ridei3ourrul.08 r0rawia rum%eaumiiloatlon ooopratlYkl aaSpomltlcm. Th4 utatute.. lpaks0n0 pnrriafoJIt3rorthe 0wftnoeora ahim 

iorelgn oorporatlon loto'Taxam. liovmm~r, it -6 

not pwhibdt su8b anonWano~.- ApelerLtmybe 

issuedtheraI tuttbeymuatuome in undortha $eaeralru3130rthh1 atea relatkytoa rarolga 

oorporatlon. 

Your me& qutytlon alma aoka ii ArtIcle.lSO may be disregarded bygrant%ng a rare&n 

oorporatlon, that does not have rirty.wr omit or 

Its aapltdl &oak subsarmed, a germIt to do bu8ineas In Texas. We rempootfully advise pau that we 

find no authority, statutory or otberwlse Mat 
. . 

t!:1s 2-0:~ ii re:‘;Bnt. 

In view cr our atmserb 

~6 Z, of four reqi;est ,we to not 

stay to unswer questions 3 and 4. 

to rueatlonp 1 

think It nccemYou are heruby aWlsed that underthe 

.,.i 

.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2023-2209

_____________________________

D.S., Mother of N.A.H., D.S., 

J.T.L.R., D.F.J., Jr., J.L.B., III, 

K.K.B., Minor Children,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND 

FAMILIES,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

Randall Todd Harris, Judge.

January 25, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, ROBERTS, and ROWE, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Jason A. Cobb of DeFuniak Springs, Florida, for Appellant.

Sarah J. Rumph, Appellate Counsel, Children’s Legal Services, 

Tallahassee, for Appellee Department of Children and Families.

Sara E. Goldfarb, Statewide Director of Appeals, Tallahassee, 

and Claudia Gesiotto, Pro Bono Attorney, Statewide Guardian ad 

Litem Office, Orlando, o/b/o N.A.H., D.S., J.T.L.R., D.F.J., Jr., 

J.L.B., III, and K.K.B.
Nicholas THOMAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

WD 81286

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Order filed: March 19, 2019 Application for Transfer Denied June 25, 2019

Clark L. Jones, Columbia, for Appellant

Mary H. Moore, Jefferson City, for Respondent

Before Division Two: Edward R. Ardini, Jr., Presiding Judge, Gary D. Witt, Judge and Thomas N. Chapman, Judge

***ORDER***

PER CURIAM:

Nicholas Thomas appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of Boone County denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Finding no error, we affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have instead provided a memorandum of law to the parties. Rule 84.16(b).
[No. 51766-0-I.

Division One.

May 24, 2004.]

#### Van Trinh, *Appellant,*v. Denny Watson, et al., *Respondents.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 00-2-32162-7, Gregory P. Canova, J., entered January 3, 2003. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Exhibit 4.20.6


 


Additional
Agreement No. 6


to Contract on connection of
telecommunication networks as amended by Agreement No.1097-05 dated December 27,
2005 , between OAO Rostelecom and OJSC VolgaTelecom


 


	
  Moscow

  	
   

  	
  Dated July 24,
  2006

  



 


Rostelecom, Open Joint-Stock Company for Long-Distance and
International Telecommunications, hereinafter, “Rostelecom”,
represented by OAO Rostelecom General Director Dmitry
Yevgenievich Yerokhin, authorized to act by the Charter, on the one
part, and VolgaTelecom, Open Joint-Stock Company, hereinafter referred to as
the “Operator”, represented by OAO VolgaTelecom General Director Sergey Valeryevich Omelchenko, authorized to act by the
Charter, on the other part hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Parties”,
and severally, as “Party”, have entered into this Additional Agreement
(hereinafter, “the Agreement”) on the incorporation of the below-listed
amendments to the Contract on Network Connection No. 1097-05 dated December 27,
2005 between OAO Rostelecom and OAO VolgaTelecom (hereinafter, “the Contract”),
as follows:


 


1.               Clause 4.6. of the Contract shall be amended as follows: The entire
relations of the Parties hereunder shall be subject to the confidentiality
terms and conditions as set forth in the Confidentiality Agreement No. 40-06-30
entered into by the Parties on                           2006
which is an integral part of this Additional Agreement.


 


Any exchange
of information between the Parties hereunder shall be in a manner which shall
allow for it to be kept in confidence in accordance with the Confidentiality
Agreement Provisions.


 


2.               This Agreement is
an integral part of the Contract.


 


3.               All terms used in
this Agreement have a meaning, fixed for them in the Contract.


 


4.               All the rest, not
indicated in this Agreement, is subject to the provisions of the Contract.


 


5.               The agreement is
issued in the Russian language in two original counterparts, one for  each Party.


 


6.               This Agreement comes into
effect on the date of its execution. The Parties recognize that the terms and
conditions of their Agreement shall apply to their relations arising as from
the date of the Contract on connection of telecommunication networks between
OAO Rostelecom and OJSC VolgaTelecom  as
amended by Agreement No. 1097-05 dated December 27, 2005 on
amendments to the Contract on Network Interaction.


 


7.              Details
and Signatures of the Parties


 


	
  OAO Rostelecom:

  	
   

  	
  OJSC VolgaTelecom

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  General Director

  	
   

  	
  General Director

  
	
  OAO Rostelecom

  	
   

  	
  OJSC VolgaTelecom

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
                              D.Ye.
  Yerokhin

  	
   

  	
                              S.V.
  Omelchenko

  
	
  Date                            
  2006

  	
   

  	
  Date                            
  2006

  
	
  Seal here

  	
   

  	
  Seal here
#### Etta M. Roberts *v.*Edward L. Steinbicker, *Sheriff*

(No. 8024)

Submitted September 25, 1934.

Decided October 2, 1934.

*Schmidt, Hughus & Loas*and *B. S. Honecker,*for relator.

Hatcher, Judge:

After the existence of independent school districts was *373terminated in May, 1933, by the passage of the county unit bill, the 'legislature invested a board of trustees with the control, etc., of the Wheeling. Public Library — theretofore controlled by the board of education of the Wheeling Independent School District. The Act .provided that the trustees should be appointed by the judges of the circuit court of Ohio County. See Acts, Extraordinary Session, 1933, chapter 118. In compliance with the Act, the judges appointed the trustees, who, after organizing as a board on July 1, 1933, employed the relator herein as librarian of the said library. She has served in that capacity ever since. The Act provided a special levy for the maintenance of the library, to be disbursed by the board through warrants drawn'on the sheriff of Ohio County. Such warrants for the monthly salary of the relator were honored by the respondent sheriff, until May, 1934, when he refused payment of the warrant for that' month. This proceeding is brought to require payment.

The respondent has filed no answer. The relator alleges that he refused to pay her warrant, on the ground that the part of the Act providing for the appointment of the trustees by the judges, violates Articles V and VI (section 40) of the Constitution.

It is not necessary for us to pass on the constitutionality of the appointment of the trustees. (Incidentally, *State*v. *Barker,*116 Iowa 98, 89 N. W. 204, 93 Am. St. Rep. 222, 57 L. R. A. 244, is an interesting case in point.) The trustees of the board are *bona fide*claimants to their offices, with colorable title thereto. If not *de jure,*the trustees are clearly *de facto*officers. *Franklin*v. *County Court,*86 W. Va. 479, 103 S. E. 330; *Bailey*v. *County Court,*92 W. Va. 67, 114 S. E. 517. The acts of a *de facto*board (before removal from office) which relate to the rights of others, are valid. This is not only the general law but is also statutory. “* * * all acts done by any person, by authority or color of any office * * * under the * * * government * * * of this state, before his removal therefrom shall be valid, though it afterwards * * * may be * * * adjudged that he was not lawfully * * * ap*374pointed.” Code 1931, 6-5-3. *Privett*v. *Board,*104 W. Va. 35, 40, 138 S. E. 461. See generally *State v. Carter,*49 W. Va. 709, 39 S. E. 611; *B. & L. Ass’n.*v. *Sohn,*54 W. Va. 101 (section 11, syllabus), 46 S. E. 222; 46 C. J., subject Officers, sec. 378.

Therefore, the writ will issue.

*Writ issued.*
EXHIBIT 32



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


     I, Michael Pagnano, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant  to  Section  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report  of  The  World Golf League, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period
ended  September  30, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or  15(d)  of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained
in  such  Form  10-QSB  fairly  presents  in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of The World Golf League, Inc.

Date: November 14, 2005

                                   By: /s/ Michael Pagnano
                                       -------------------------------
                                       Michael Pagnano,
                                       Chief Executive Officer and
                                       Chief Financial Officer

<PAGE>