alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Shawn CORMIER, et al. v. CITGO PETROLEUM CORPORATION, et al.

No. 2017-C-2138

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 9, 2018

**ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT, PARISH OF CALCASIEU**

Writ denied.

WEIMER, J., would grant.

Crichton, J., would grant and assigns reasons:

I would grant this writ application to examine the excessive damages awards to plaintiffs in this matter. According to the information presented to this Court, Plaintiffs' health complaints were so benign that they required no medical treatment other than, in some instances, over-the-counter *492medications. Furthermore, not one plaintiff sought medical treatment on his own for symptoms related to his exposure.1 Consequently, in my view, it does not appear the Plaintiffs have established, through medical testimony and evidence, they have suffered injury warranting what are seemingly high monetary damages in this case. I would find the trial court abused its discretion in awarding the amounts rendered.

1

"In a personal injury suit, plaintiff bears the burden of proving a causal relationship between the injury sustained and the accident which caused the injury. Plaintiff must prove causation by a preponderance of the evidence. The test for determining the causal relationship between the accident and subsequent injury is whether the plaintiff proved through medical testimony that it is more probable than not that the subsequent injuries were caused by the accident." *Maranto v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.* , 94-2603, p. 3 (La. 2/20/95), 650 So.2d 757, 759 (internal citations omitted).
Joe Lee THOMPSON, Appellant, v. TOYOSITY, LLC, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-1689

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed January 23, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
July 30, 2015

Mr. David D. Hardwood

Terracon Consultants, Inc.

18001 West 106th Street, Suite 300

Olathe, KS 66061

Dear Mr. Hardwood:

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

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your May 12, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-1506), 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 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) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
Michael A. RODGERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

CASE NO. 1D17-3063

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Opinion filed November 21, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
|   | (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 Winland. |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                        | Winland Electronics, Inc. |                     |
|-----------------------------|---------------------------|--------------------------|
|                        |                      |                     |   |
| Date:  August 13, 2009 | By:                       | /s/ Glenn A. Kermes |   |
|                        |                      | Glenn A. Kermes          |   |
|                        |                      | Chief Financial Officer  |   |
|                        |                      |                     |   |
# C_2014175EN.01004302.xml

| 10.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/43

---

Order of the General Court of 2 April 2014 — Onidol v Commission

(Case T-313/09) (1)

1

((State aid - Framework system of actions able to be undertaken by the recognised French agricultural interprofessional organisations in favour of members of the agricultural sectors represented - Financing by voluntary levies made compulsory - Decision declaring the aid scheme compatible with the common market - Withdrawal of the decision - No need to adjudicate))

2014/C 175/59

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Organisation nationale interprofessionnel des grains et fruits oléagineux (Onidol) (Paris, France) (represented initially by: B. Le Bret and L. Olza Moreno, and subsequently by: B. Le Bret and C. Renner, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: B. Stromsky and C. Urraca Caviedes, subsequently by: B. Stromsky and S. Thomas, and finally by: B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 7846 final of 10 December 2008 concerning State aid No 561/2008, on the framework system of actions able to be undertaken by the recognised French agricultural interprofessional organisations in favour of members of the agricultural sectors represented

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.

| 2. | The European Commission shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Commission shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 244, 10.10.2009.

1

---
Surgret Urania DOSS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3736

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

September 25, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
L AW O FFICES 

# G AROFALO 

# G OERLICH 

# H AINBACH PC 1200 N EW H AMPSHIRE A VENUE NW S UITE 590 W

ASHINGTON DC 20036 - 6802 A

ARON A. G OERLICH T ELEPHONE 202 776

- 3970 D IRECT D IAL 202 776

- 3974 F ACSIMILE 202 776

- 3975 AGOERLICH @ GGH
- AIRLAW . COM WWW . GGH
- AIRLAW . COM February 24, 2015 Laura lyn Remo , Chief Air Carrier Fitness Division Office of Aviation Analysis U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. Washington, D . C . 20590 Re: Joint Application of Southern Air Inc. and Florida West I n ternational Airways, Inc. for Pendent e Lite Exemption Docket DOT - OST - 2015 - 003 4 Dear Ms. Remo: We have completed polling of the air carrier representatives served with the referenced application filed February 19, 2015. There were no objections to the application. Sincerely,
Aaron A. Goerlich Garofalo Goerlich Hainbach PC Counsel for Southern Air Inc.
c c: Docket DOT - OST - 2015 - 0034 Damon Walker, DOT Marshall S. Sinick, Counsel for FWIA
Exhibit 31.1  EXHIBIT 31.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, Conrad R Huss, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Brazil Gold Corp.  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 quarterly 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. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and I have:  a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly report is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within ninety (90) days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and  c) presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;  5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):  a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and  6. The registrants other certifying officer and I have indicated in this report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.   Date:  March 22, 2013  By: /s/Conrad R. Huss Name: Conrad R. Huss Title: Director, Chief Executive Officer, Secretary, Chief Financial Officer
---

EXHIBIT 13.2

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

I, Raakel S. Iskanius, hereby 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 Amended Annual Report on Form 20-F of Great Panther
      Silver Limited for the year ended December 31, 2010 (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 Great Panther Silver Limited.                                                                      

Dated: April 12, 2011

| | /s/ Raakel S. Iskanius                    
| | ------------------------------------------
| |                                           
| | Raakel S. Iskanius                        
| | Chief Financial Officer                   
| | (Principal Financial Officer and Principal
| | Accounting Officer)                       
| | Great Panther Silver Limited              

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Great Panther
Silver Limited and will be retained by Great Panther Silver Limited and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
Melvin W. DAVIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3883

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed February 13, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 99.1

OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE
ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

Reference is hereby made to Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2004-5 Asset-
Backed Certificates, Series 2004-5 (the "Securitization").  Long Beach Mortgage
Company (the "Master Servicer") master services mortgage loans in connection
with the Securitization (the "Mortgage Loans") pursuant to the terms of that
certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of August 1, 2004 (the
"Servicing Agreement") by and among Long Beach Securities Corp., as depositor,
the Master Servicer, as master servicer, and Deutsche Bank National Trust
Company, as trustee (the "Trustee").  Capitalized terms used herein but not
defined shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Servicing Agreement.

I, James Guerin, an authorized officer of the Master Servicer, certify for the
Benefit of the Depositor, the Trustee, the NIMS Insurer and each Rating Agency
with Respect to the calendar year immediately preceding the date of this
Officer's Certificate (the "Relevant Year"), as follows:

1.  A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the Relevant Year
and of performance under the Servicing Agreement has been made under my
supervision.

2.  To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has
fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement in all material
respects throughout the Relevant Year.


DATED as of March 1, 2005.


By:  /s/  James Guerin
Name:     James Guerin
Title:    Senior Vice President
December 23, 2013

Mr. Jason Cabot

388 Beale St, Apt 1407

San Francisco, CA 94105

Dear Mr. Cabot,

This is in response to your September 4 , 2013 letter , requesting an amendment to Title 14,

Code of Federal Regulations ( 14 CFR) § 91.187 , Operations und er Instrument Flight Rules

(IFR) in controlled airspace: Malfunction reports. Specifically, your letter r equested an

amend ment to the requirement for the pilot in command of an aircraft operating under IFR to

report any malfunctions of navigational, appro ach, or communication equipment to ATC.

When the FAA responds to petitions for rulemaking, it must follow the requirements outlined

in 14 CFR p art 11, General Rulemaking Procedures. As stated in § 11.73, the FAA uses the

following criteria when making a decision as to whether or not to amend current regulations

based on a petition for rulemaking:

1) the immediacy of the safety or security concerns the petition raises;

2) the priority of other FAA issues; and

3) the resources we have available to address these issues.

While the issues raised in your petition may have merit, they do not address an immediate

safety concern

. Therefore, your request is denied

. Your comment and reasons for a rule

change will be considered if the agency undertakes future rulemaking in this area.

Accordingly, Docket No. FAA

- 2013

- 0783 is being closed.

/s/

Lirio Liu

Director, Office of Rulemaking
Benjamin GOLDWIRE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D16-195

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[February 1, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
**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**

| 1. | The                Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or                15(d)                of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));                and |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | The                information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   |                                               |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                               |   |
|   |   | /s/ Daniel              T.              Fagan |   |
|   |   | Daniel              T.              Fagan          |   |
|   |   | Chairman&              Chief Executive Officer |   |
|   |   | August                9, 2007                      |   |
**CERTIFICATIONS****Exhibit 31.1**I, David G. Mazzella, certify that:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Veramark Technologies, Inc. 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis quarterly report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisquarterly report based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably like to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of the internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting, which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.              Date: November 10, 2006 By: /s/ David G. Mazzella           David G. Mazzella    Chairman and Chief Executive Officer  
25
# L_2013238EN.01S00301.xml

| 6.9.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 238/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 238/s3

---

NOTICE TO READERS

Council Regulation (EU) No 216/2013 of 7 March 2013 on the electronic publication of the Official Journal of the European Union

In accordance with Council Regulation (EU) No 216/2013 of 7 March 2013 on the electronic publication of the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ L 69, 13.3.2013, p. 1), as of 1 July 2013, only the electronic edition of the Official Journal shall be considered authentic and shall have legal effect.

Official Journal of the European Union

Where it is not possible to publish the electronic edition of the Official Journal due to unforeseen and exceptional circumstances, the printed edition shall be authentic and shall have legal effect in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 216/2013.

---
STATE EX REL. Jose Lima CASTRO v. STATE of Louisiana

No. 2016-KH-2208

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 23, 2018

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. The application was not timely filed in the district court, and relator fails to carry his burden to show that an exception applies. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 ; *State ex rel. Glover v. State* , 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189. The application is also repetitive. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4.

Relator has now fully litigated several applications for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the Legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.
Exhibit 32.2

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

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of HD Supply, Inc. (the Company), hereby certifies that the Companys Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the period ended January 30, 2011 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: April 14, 2011



/s/ RONALD J. DOMANICORonald J. DomanicoSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the
Report.