alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
James JOHNSON, Appellant, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Appellee.

No. 1D19-0166

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 28, 2019

James Johnson, pro se, Appellant.

No appearance for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

Upon consideration of Appellant's response to the Court's order of January 14, 2019, the Court has determined that the appeal is untimely.

In order to timely invoke the Court's appellate jurisdiction, a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed. Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(b). The thirtieth day following rendition of the order on appeal was January 2, 2019. Thus, the notice of appeal, filed on January 3, 2019, failed to invoke the Court's appellate jurisdiction in a timely manner. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Roberts, Wetherell, and Makar, JJ., concur.
Eric Patrick LAFAVOR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-3755

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 21, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
BTXN 104b/105b (rev. 09/11)

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

In Re: §

§

§

§

1NOnly Phimar, LLC 

PhiMars Square, LLC 

 Case No.: 24−30017−sgj11

 Chapter No.: 11

Debtor(s)

ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE

 The Court, having considered the Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Daniel M. Eliades, to represent

TMH Worldwide, LLC, related to document #57, ORDERS this application be:

 Granted − The Clerk of the District Court for the Northern District of Texas shall deposit the application fee to

the account of the Non−Appropriated Fund.

 Denied − The Clerk of the District Court for the Northern District of Texas shall return the admission fee to the

applicant.

# # # End of Order # # #

Signed January 26, 2024

______________________________________________________________________

The following constitutes the ruling of the court and has the force and effect therein described.

Case 24-30017-sgj11 Doc 60 Filed 01/26/24 Entered 01/26/24 16:26:51 Desc

Page 1 of 1
Federal Aviation Administration 

National Part 139 CertAlert

**Advisory**Cautionary**Non-Directive**Advisory**Cautionary**Non-Directive**Advisory**Cautionary**Non-Directive**

No. 22-06

Date: November 8, 2022

To: All Title 14 CFR Part 139 Airport Operators

Subject: Awareness Video for Collecting and Reporting Wildlife 

Strikes with Aircraft

Point of Contact: John R Weller, AAS-300, 202-267-3778 

Email: John.Weller@FAA.gov

Amy L Anderson, AAS 300, 202-267-7205

Email: Amy.Anderson@FAA.gov

1. Purpose. This CertAlert highlights a recently published video on the importance of reporting wildlife 

strikes to aircraft. This video reveals how successful the National Wildlife Strike Database, jointly 

administered by United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA), is in reducing the impact of wildlife strikes on both commercial and general aviation.

2. Background. Aircraft and wildlife often share the same airspace. The FAA has recognized this from 

early on and, through its wildlife hazard management program, has worked to reduce wildlife strikes at 

the nation’s airports and show the benefit of strike reporting over the last 50 years. Strike reporting 

provides the vital foundation for understanding wildlife hazards at airports. Strike data allows airframe 

and engine manufacturers to design aircraft components that can withstand greater impacts from 

wildlife. Airport operators and biologists effectively mitigate specific wildlife hazards based on the 

information provided from wildlife strikes. Additionally, airports use strike data to target and eliminate 

habitats that attract wildlife.

3. Action. We encourage airport operators to review the video linked below and consider adding it to their 

training curriculum to ensure all airport stakeholders are aware and educated on the importance of 

reporting all strikes (damaging or non-damaging) to their airport-specific strike systems and to the 

National Wildlife Strike Database. For additional guidance on reporting strikes, please review the most 

current version of Advisory Circular 150/5200-32, Reporting Wildlife Aircraft Strikes, which clarifies 

strike reporting procedures for the aviation industry.

FAA Wildlife Video

https://youtu.be/f2nuO4PZKF0

FAA Wildlife Website

https://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_safety/wildlife

______________________________

Birkely Rhodes, Manager 

Airports Safety and Operations Division, AAS-300
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 12

- 00553

- CV

BANK OF SOUTH TEXAS

v. ADRIAN ROSALES AND BECKY ROSALES

On a ppeal from the 93rd District Court of Hidalgo County , Texas Trial Cause No. C

- 1896

- 12

- B

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having con sidered this cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed . The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant. We further order this decision certified below for observanc e. October 24, 2013

.
2010.

#### BETTS *v.*THE STATE.

Where the relation of landlord and cropper exists, the title and the possession of the growing crops are in the landlord until his claims have been fully settled. Hence, in an accusation of stealing or attempting to steal a portion of the growing crop so owned and possessed, the ownership should be alleged to be in the landlord, and not in the cropper.

Accusation of misdemeanor, from city court of Nashville— Judge Peeples. June 24, 1909.

Submitted October 4, —

Decided October 13, 1909.

*Hendricks & Christian,*for plaintiff in error.

*J. H. Gary, solicitor,*contra.

Powell, J.

The defendant was accused of attempting to commit larceny; the specific allegation being that he had entered the sugar-cane patch of one Richardson to steal cane therefrom, and, with knife in hand, began stripping the cane, preparatory to stealing it. It appeared on the trial that the cane was growing upon the land of one 'Summerlin, to whom Richardson bore the relation of cropper. The crop was still undivided, and the landlord’s claim thereon had not been satisfied.

It is unnecessary for us to decide whether the defendant’s act progressed far enough to make him guilty of the offense of an attempt to commit the crime of lareenjr, on the theory that the growing crop is not the subject-matter of larceny until it has been severed from the realty; the judgment must be reversed on another ground. Ownership, in indictments for larceny, may be laid in the name of any one having either title or possession. Under our Civil Code, §§3129-31, where the relation of landlord and cropper exists, the landlord has both title and possession of the crops until they are divided and his lawful claims have been satisfied, and the cropper has neither; the latter is a mere laborer. Therefore, the indictment in this ease having improperly laid the ownership in the cropper, the verdict must be set aside as being contrary to the evidence. The principle here applied is especially true of growing crops, the title and possession to which are determined by the title and possession of the land itself. Compare *Morgan*v. *State, 63 Ga.*307; *Yarborough*v. *State,*86 *Ga.*396 (12 S. E. 630).

*Judgment reversed.*
Exhibit 23.4





PricewaterhouseCoopers Auditores, S.L.





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS





We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Forms S-8 (No. 333-58298, No. 333-129152, No. 333-147448, No. 333-161459, No. 333-168588 and No. 333-183142), of our report dated June 17, 2014 , relating to the financial statements of Hotel Ritz Madrid S.A., which appears in this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Belmond Ltd. and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2015 .








PricewaterhouseCoopers Auditores, S.L.


Madrid, Spain


June 17, 2016
**Exhibit 13.2**

*** ***

***Certification of the Principal Financial Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002***

 

**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 Aeterna Zentaris Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F/A for the year ended December 31, 2018 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Leslie Auld, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.

 

Date: July 26, 2019

 
|   | /s/ Leslie Auld         |
|--------|-------------------------|
|   | Leslie Auld             |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
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




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of United Energy Corp. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James McKeever,
Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the Company.





Dated:  
      February 16, 2010
              
              By:/s/ James McKeeverJames
      McKeeverInterim
      Chief Financial Officer
# C_2021368EN.01001702.xml

| 13.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 368/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 368/17

---

Order of the President of the Court of 17 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln — Germany) — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v CS

(Case C-630/20) (1)

(2021/C 368/24)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 72, 1.3.2021.

---
# C_2020443EN.01001401.xml

| 21.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 443/14 |
| ---------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Holland (Netherlands) lodged on 13 October 2020 — P v Swiss International Air Lines AG (Case C-512/20) (2020/C 443/15) Language of the case: Dutch Referring court Rechtbank Noord-Holland Parties to the main proceedings Applicant: P Defendant: Swiss International Air Lines AG Question referred Does Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 ( 1 ) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, having regard to Article 15 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport of 21 June 1999 ( 2 ) and Decisions No 1/2006 ( 3 ) and No 1/2017 ( 4 ) of the Committee, in the case of directly connecting flights, where, between the departure from an airport situated in the territory of a Member State and the arrival at an airport situated in the territory of a third State there is a planned stopover in Switzerland and a change of aircraft, also apply to the directly connecting flight departing from Switzerland and bound for a third country? ( 1 )  OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1. ( 2 )  OJ 2002 L 114, p. 73. ( 3 )  2006/727/EC: Decision No 1/2006 of the Community/Switzerland Air Transport Committee of 18 October 2006 amending the Annex to the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (OJ 2006 L 298, p. 23). ( 4 )  Decision No 1/2017 of the Joint European Union/Switzerland Air Transport Committee set up under the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport of 29 November 2017 replacing the Annex to the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (OJ 2017 L 348, p. 46).

---
Carin Elaine MAXEY, Petitioner, v. James Michael DUNKEL and Karen McClain Dunkel, Respondents.

No. 1D18-4789

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 8, 2019

Michael M. Naughton, Jacksonville, for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondents.

Per Curiam.

The petition for writ of prohibition is denied on the merits.

Bilbrey, Winokur, and Jay, JJ., concur.
Case 24-10026-rlj11 Doc 54 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 12:11:20 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 4
Case 24-10026-rlj11 Doc 54 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 12:11:20 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 4
Case 24-10026-rlj11 Doc 54 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 12:11:20 Desc Main

Document Page 3 of 4
Case 24-10026-rlj11 Doc 54 Filed 04/30/24 Entered 04/30/24 12:11:20 Desc Main

Document Page 4 of 4
Arzy RICHARDSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-2697

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed February 26, 2019

Arzy Richardson, Lake City, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Carmen F. Corrente, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

HARRIS, GROSSHANS and SASSO, JJ., concur.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Geology General

Filters

              - products_maps(1)
              - (-)products_publications(5)
              - multimedia_video(1)
              - multimedia_video-149195(1)

## By Location

              - alabama(8)
              - alaska(43)
              - arizona(13)
              - arkansas(3)
              - california(45)
              - colorado(19)
              - connecticut(4)
              - district of columbia(1)
              - florida(7)
              - georgia(6)
              - guam(2)
              - hawaii(7)
              - idaho(11)
              - illinois(3)
              - indiana(5)
              - iowa(6)
              - kansas(1)
              - (-)kentucky(5)
              - louisiana(2)
              - maine(3)
              - maryland(3)
              - massachusetts(7)
              - michigan(7)
              - minnesota(2)
              - mississippi(6)
              - missouri(4)
              - montana(13)
              - nebraska(4)
              - nevada(14)
              - new hampshire(3)
              - new jersey(4)
              - new mexico(9)
              - new york(4)
              - north carolina(6)
              - north dakota(7)
              - ohio(1)
              - oklahoma(3)
              - oregon(8)
              - pennsylvania(7)
              - puerto rico(3)
              - rhode island(3)
              - south carolina(5)
              - south dakota(2)
              - tennessee(3)
              - texas(16)
              - u.s. virgin islands(1)
              - utah(25)
              - vermont(1)
              - virginia(4)
              - washington(11)
              - wisconsin(6)
              - wyoming(10)

## By Year

publication        February 15, 2023        Generalized additive model estimation of no-flow fractions and L-moments to support flow-duration curve quantile estimation using selected probability distributions for bay and estuary restoration in the Gulf States

publication        January 1, 2000        Sources, instream transport, and trends of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment in the lower Tennessee River basin, 1980-96

publication        January 1, 1983        Evaluation of ground-water quality data from Kentucky

publication        January 1, 1906        Geology and mineral resources of part of the Cumberland Gap coal field, Kentucky

publication        January 1, 1919        The oil fields of Allen County, Kentucky, with notes on the oil geology of adjoining counties
**EXHIBIT 35.1**

**SERVICERCOMPLIANCE STATEMENTNew Holland Credit Company, LLC**

Theundersigned, a duly authorized officer of New Holland Credit Company, LLC (“NHCC”),as Servicer pursuant to the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as ofSeptember 1, 2006 (as amended from time to time, the “Sale and ServicingAgreement”) by and among NHCC, CNH Capital Receivables LLC and CNH EquipmentTrust 2006-B, does hereby certify that:

1.               NHCCis Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement.

2.               The undersigned isduly authorized as required pursuant to the Sale and Servicing Agreement toexecute and deliver this Certificate to the Indenture Trustee.

3.               This Certificate isdelivered pursuant to Section 4.9(a) of the Sale and Servicing Agreementand Item 1123 of Regulation AB.

4.               A review of theServicer’s activities during the period from the trust’s initial cutoff date,August 31, 2006, to and including December 31, 2006 and of itsperformance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement has been made under mysupervision.

5.               To thebest of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all ofits obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respectsthroughout the period from the trust’s initial cutoff date, August 31,2006, to and including December 31, 2006.

6.               INWITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 29thday of March 2007.
|        | By:    | /s/ Brian J. O’Keane |   |
|--------|--------|---------------------------|--------|
|   | Name:  | Brian J. O’Keane     |   |
|   | Title: | Treasurer                 |   |

** **

----
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 Quarterly Report of Harbor Global Company Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Stephen G. Kasnet, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge: 

 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 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 result of operations of the Company.

 

Dated: August 11, 2004 

 

 

Thiscertification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 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 Company for purposes of Section 18 of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Alejandro MONDRAGON, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0150

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

January 31, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARI-LYNNE EARLS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE, in her 

administrative capacity as chair of the 

Judicial Council of California and Assigned 

Judges Program of the Judicial Council; 

PATRICIA M. LUCAS, Presiding Judge; in 

her capacity as presiding judge as described 

in CCP 391.7, 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 18-15414 

D.C. No. 3:17-cv-07122-VC 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Vince Chhabria, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 17, 2018**

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

Mari-Lynne Earls appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

DEC 20 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-15414 

dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims related to 

California’s Vexatious Litigant Statute, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 391-391.8. We 

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 

the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003). 

We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Johnson v. Riverside 

Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm. 

The district court properly dismissed Earls’s claims regarding past or future 

enforcement of the prefiling order, and her inclusion on the Judicial Council’s 

vexatious litigant list, because such claims constitute a forbidden “de facto appeal” 

of prior state court judgments or are “inextricably intertwined” with those

judgments. See Noel, 341 F.3d at 1163-65 (discussing proper application of the 

Rooker-Feldman doctrine); see also Henrichs v. Valley View Dev., 474 F.3d 609, 

616 (9th Cir. 2007) (Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred plaintiff’s claim because the 

relief sought “would require the district court to determine that the state court’s 

decision was wrong and thus void”). To the extent Earls sought prospective relief 

from a future denial of an application to file new litigation unrelated to the prior 

state court judgments, such a claim is not ripe. See Texas v. United States, 523 

U.S. 296, 300 (1998) (“A claim is not ripe for adjudication if it rests upon 

contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur 

at all.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).
3 18-15414 

Dismissal of Earls’s first amended complaint without leave to amend was 

not an abuse of discretion because amendment would have been futile. See

Chappel v. Lab. Corp., 232 F.3d 719, 725-26 (9th Cir. 2000) (setting forth standard 

of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to amend is proper when 

amendment would be futile).

AFFIRMED.