alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 193 (Thursday, October 6, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 58408]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20136]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

[Docket No. 05-06]


Non-Vessel-Operating Common Carrier Service Arrangements; 
Extension of Time

    The Commission has received and determined to grant a request from 
the Department of Justice for an extension of time to October 20, 2005 
to file comments in this proceeding. Comments will now be due on 
October 20, 2005.

Bryant L. VanBrakle,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-20136 Filed 10-5-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-U
EXHIBIT 12.1

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
               STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO
         FIXED CHARGES AND RATIO OF EARNINGS TO COMBINED FIXED CHARGES


                                                   YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                    ----------------------------------------------------
                                      2001       2000       1999       1998       1997
                                    --------   --------   --------   --------   --------
<S>                                 <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>
Earnings before fixed charges
Income before extraordinary item    $185,708   $181,583   $155,993   $116,677   $ 68,969
Add:  Interest expense               107,991    104,229     94,712     74,155     46,521
      Depreciation expense on
       capitalized interest            2,311      1,809      1,396      1,001        650
      Amortization of deferred
       financing costs                 4,015      4,066      4,951      4,462      4,448
                                    --------   --------   --------   --------   --------

Earnings before fixed charges       $300,025   $291,687   $257,052   $196,295   $120,588
                                    ========   ========   ========   ========   ========

Fixed charges:
Interest expense                     107,991    104,229     94,712     74,155     46,521
Amortization of deferred
  financing charges                    4,015      4,066      4,951      4,462      4,448
Capitalized interest                  22,347     17,784     15,288     16,317     11,802
                                    --------   --------   --------   --------   --------
Fixed charges                       $134,353   $126,079   $114,951   $ 94,934   $ 62,771
                                    --------   --------   --------   --------   --------

Preferred share distributions         11,000     11,000     11,000     11,000      4,247
Preferred unit distributions          10,612     10,070      3,783          -          -
                                    --------   --------   --------   --------   --------
Combined fixed charges              $155,965   $147,149   $129,734   $105,934   $ 67,018
                                    ========   ========   ========   ========   ========
Ratio of earnings to
  fixed charges                         2.23       2.31       2.24       2.07       1.92
                                    ========   ========   ========   ========   ========
Ratio of earnings to combined
  fixed charges                         1.92       1.98       1.98       1.85       1.80
                                    ========   ========   ========   ========   ========

Certain amounts from prior periods have been restated to conform to current-year
presentation.
</TABLE>
# Official Journal L 101/11 A

| | ISSN 1725-2555 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 101 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 4911 April 2006 |

ISSN 1725-2555

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 101

English edition

Legislation

Volume 4911 April 2006

---

| Contents | | I   Acts whose publication is obligatory | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | Commission Regulation (EC) No 582/2006 of 10 April 2006 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables | 1 |
| | | Commission Regulation (EC) No 583/2006 of 10 April 2006 on the issue of import licences for high-quality fresh, chilled or frozen beef and veal | 3 |

Contents

I   Acts whose publication is obligatory

page

Commission Regulation (EC) No 582/2006 of 10 April 2006 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

Commission Regulation (EC) No 583/2006 of 10 April 2006 on the issue of import licences for high-quality fresh, chilled or frozen beef and veal

3

| | | II   Acts whose publication is not obligatory |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Commission |
| | * | Commission Decision of 10 April 2006 amending Decision 95/320/EC setting up a Scientific Committee for Occupational Exposure Limits to Chemical Agents | 4 |

II   Acts whose publication is not obligatory

Commission

*

Commission Decision of 10 April 2006 amending Decision 95/320/EC setting up a Scientific Committee for Occupational Exposure Limits to Chemical Agents

4

| | | Acts adopted under Title V of the Treaty on European Union |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | * | Council Common Position 2006/276/CFSP of 10 April 2006 concerning restrictive measures against certain officials of Belarus and repealing Common Position 2004/661/CFSP | 5 |

Acts adopted under Title V of the Treaty on European Union

*

Council Common Position 2006/276/CFSP of 10 April 2006 concerning restrictive measures against certain officials of Belarus and repealing Common Position 2004/661/CFSP

5

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
The TRACTOR PLACE, INC., Plaintiff, v. Jerry Allen BOLTON, Jr., Defendant.

No. COA17-878

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 7, 2018

AFFIRMED.
**EXHIBIT 13.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

     In connection with the Annual Report of TELE SUDESTE CELULAR PARTICIPAÇÕES S.A. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Francisco José Azevedo Padinha, acting Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

|   | (i) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   |                                                                                                                                                 |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | (ii)   | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |

Date:  April 15, 2005

| By:    | /s/ Francisco José Azevedo Padinha |
|--------|-------------------------------------------|
|   |                                           |
|   | Name:                                     | Francisco José Azevedo    Padinha |
|   | Title:                                    | Chief Executive Officer |
|   |

----
STATE of North Carolina v. Damien MACKINS

No. COA17-1277

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: May 15, 2018

NO ERROR.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4657 

To amend the Older Americans Act of 1965 to include information relating 

to the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in the disease prevention 

and health promotion services authorized by such Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 23, 2010 

Mr. CARSON of Indiana introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To amend the Older Americans Act of 1965 to include information relating to the human immunodeficiency virus 

(HIV) in the disease prevention and health promotion 

services authorized by such Act. 

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 ‘‘Older Americans HIV 

5 Information and Prevention Act of 2010’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS. 

7 Section 102(14) of the Older Americans Act of 1965 

8 (42 U.S.C. 3002(14)) is amended— 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4657 IH

1 (1) in subparagraph (B) by inserting ‘‘human 

2 immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection,’’ after 

3 ‘‘density,’’, 

4 (2) in subparagraph (D) by inserting ‘‘human 

5 immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection,’’ after ‘‘dia6 betes,’’, and 

7 (3) in subparagraph (J) by inserting ‘‘human 

8 immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection,’’ after ‘‘dia9 betes,’’. 

Æ 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
#### Calvin MORGAN, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 5D03-1963.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Aug. 29, 2003.

Calvin Morgan, Avon Park, pro se.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kellie A. Nielan, Assistant Attorney General Daytona Beach, for Respondent.

GRIFFIN, J.

Calvin Morgan seeks a belated appeal, alleging that state action frustrated his right to a timely appeal. He had earlier appealed the trial court’s denial of his 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief. We reversed in part and remanded the case for further consideration of a sentencing issue. *See Morgan v. State,*840 So.2d 1151 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). The trial court entered a “revised order denying defendant’s motion for post-conviction relief.” This revised order was signed and dated by the circuit judge on April 22, 2003. However, the certificate of service indicated that the order was not served until May 16, 2003. Morgan asserts that he did not receive his copy of the revised order until May 27, 2003. On June 8, 2003, petitioner submitted his petition for belated appeal of the revised order. Morgan has no need of a belated appeal because the time to appeal did not begin to run until the order was rendered, i.e., when the signed, written order was filed with the clerk of the lower tribunal. *See*Fla. R.App. P. 9.020(h). As Morgan notes, the revised order was not filed with the clerk of the lower tribunal until May 19, 2003. His petition for belated appeal, which was “filed” here under the mailbox rule on June 8, 2003, was timely filed within thirty days of the rendition date of the order to be reviewed. Accordingly, we treat the petition as a timely notice of appeal filed in the wrong court and transfer it to the circuit court. *See*Fla. R.App. P. 9.040(b)(1); *Alfonso v. Dep’t of Envtl. Reg*
      *965
      *ulation,*616 So.2d 44 (Fla.1993); *Jackson v. State,*834 So.2d 305 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).

PETITION MODIFIED and TRANSFERRED.

SHARP, W., and THOMPSON, JJ„ concur.
### ALLISONPALMER GEORGE E. McCREA

325/659-6583 325/658-6831 (fax)

Jeffrey D. Kyle, Clerk Third Court ofAppeals P.O. Box 12547 Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711 

### 51 ST 

### & 

### 119TH 

### DISTRICTATTORNEYS 124 W. Beauregard San Angelo, Texas 76903
325/655-6116

January28, 2015

Style: Julie Ann Martinez, Appellant v. The State ofTexas-Case # 03-14-00065-CR Trial Court# D-13-0127-SB, 391st District Court

Dear Mr. Kyle:

The State believes that the trial court ruled correctly in this case. With regard to the Anders brieffiled by Appellant, the State hereby notifies the Courtthat it will not respond on the merits to the points raised and conceded byAppellant's brief. Please file this letter response with the papers in the cause and bring it to the attention ofthe appropriate members ofthe Court or its staff.

cc: Kirk Hawkins Sincerely,



# ...**~.c£-** VMeagan White

Asst. District Attorney 51 st Judicial District 124W Beauregard, Ste. B San Angelo, TX 76903 (325) 659-6583 (325) 658-6831 FAX TSB# 24060973 ACCEPTED 03-14-00065-CR 3936212 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS 1/28/2015 3:32:23 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK
Exhibit 4.2

 


	
 

 

0
    	
GDC TECHNOLOGY LIMITED

 

INCORPORATED IN THE CAYMAN ISLANDS   UNDER THE COMPANIES LAW

(AS AMENDED OR REVISED FROM TIME TO   TIME)

 

THE AUTHORISED CAPITAL OF THE COMPANY   IS

 

USD100,000 divided into 1,000,000,000 shares of a par value of US$0.0001 each
    	
 

 

0
    




 

THIS CERTIFIES THAT                                                     of [address of shareholder] is the registered holder of              Share(s) of par value USD0.0001 each subject to the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Company, and transferable only on the book of the Company by the holder hereof in person or by Attorney in accordance with the Memorandum and the Articles of Association of the Company and upon surrender of this certificate to the Company.

 

EXECUTED on behalf of the Company this                day of                                      2013.

 

 

	
 
    	
 
    
	
Director/Secretary
EXHIBIT 23


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements Nos.
33-90820, 33-90822, 333-42685 and 333-47591 of PennFed Financial Services, Inc.
on Forms S-8 and Registration Statement No. 333-20499 of PennFed Financial
Services, Inc. on Form S-3 of our report dated July 26, 2002, appearing in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K of PennFed Financial Services, Inc. for the year
ended June 30, 2002.


Deloitte & Touche LLP
Parsippany, New Jersey
September 19, 2002
Jennifer Cleland GREEN v. Stanley Boyd GREEN

No. 376P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 20, 2018

Tobias S. Hampson, K. Edward Greene, Attorneys at Law, for Green, Stanley Boyd.

Robin J. Stinson, Alexander C. Dale, William S. Durr, Mary V. Cavanagh, Attorneys at Law, for Green, Jennifer Cleland.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 7th of November 2017 by Plaintiff in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of September 2018."
STEPHEN A. HENDERSON, JR.,

Appellant,

v.

ONEWEST BANK, FSB, 

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. 1D16-2670

_____________________________/

Opinion filed April 18, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

John L. Miller, Judge.

Stephen A. Henderson, Jr., pro se, Appellant.

W. Bard Brockman of Bryan Cave LLP, Atlanta GA, for Appellee.

KELSEY, J.

Appellant raises multiple issues in this case involving foreclosure on his late 

mother’s reverse mortgage. We affirm on all issues except one, that one being the 

award of attorneys’ fees, as to which we reverse and remand for further 

proceedings.
2

Appellee’s representative testified at the bench trial that the amount of 

attorneys’ fees reflected in a proposed final judgment—$8,976.70—was accurate 

according to Appellee’s records. The proposed final judgment was not entered into 

evidence at the trial. Shortly before the bench trial, an attorney with Appellee’s law 

firm executed an “Affidavit as to Time, Effort, and Costs,” stating a total of 

$13,753.50 in fees were due for the representation, based on a blend of flat-rate 

and hourly fees. The affidavit was filed with the trial court before trial, and thus 

appears in the appellate record, but was never admitted into evidence or even 

mentioned at the trial; and neither the affiant nor any other representative of the 

law firm, nor any expert, testified at the trial. On these facts, Appellee may be 

entitled to attorneys’ fees, but it first must adduce additional competent and 

substantial evidence in support of the fees claimed.

Mortgage foreclosure plaintiffs seeking attorneys’ fees must support their 

claim with competent, substantial evidence of the number of hours worked and 

evidence that those hours and hourly rates are reasonable. Absent a stipulation or 

waiver, the party seeking fees should present testimony from the lawyer who 

performed the services or an authorized representative of the law firm, and an 

expert as to reasonableness of the rates and fees. Diwakar v. Montecito Palm 

Beach Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 143 So. 3d 958, 960-61 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). If the 

record reflects some evidence supporting the fee award, but not testimony from the 
3

lawyer or law firm or an expert, the proper remedy is to remand for further 

proceedings. Id.; see also Colson v. State Farm Bank, F.S.B., 183 So. 3d 1038, 

1040-41 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (remanding for evidentiary hearing where record 

included fee and cost affidavits filed with the trial court but not admitted into 

evidence at trial) (citing Wagner v. Bank of Am., N.A., 143 So. 3d 447, 448 (Fla. 2d 

DCA 2014)).

Accordingly, we AFFIRM in part, REVERSE in part, and REMAND for the 

trial court to take additional evidence on attorneys’ fees.

ROWE and JAY, JJ., CONCUR.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-11425

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LINDA D. MCCANLESS,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:96-CR-11-1

- - - - - - - - - -

August 25, 1997

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Linda D. McCanless appeals from her conviction for

solicitation to murder Kenneth Walker and for interstate travel

to hire an individual to murder Sandra Scott. McCanless

challenges her interstate travel conviction by arguing that the

district court should have acquitted her of the charge because

the evidence did not indicate that she had the requisite intent

to murder before or during her interstate travel. We have

carefully reviewed the arguments and the appellate record. We
No. 96-11425

-2-

conclude that the district court did not err in its

determination. See United States v. Edelman, 873 F.2d 791, 793-

95 (5th Cir. 1989).

AFFIRMED.
Joe Wallace POWELL, Jr. v. Robert KENT and Cynthia Young

No. 47P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 7, 2018

Robert J. Lopez, Steve R. Warren, Attorney at Law, for Powell, Joe Wallace (Jr.).

Charles E. McGee, Attorney at Law, for Mid-Continent Casualty Company.

Cynthia Young, Robert Kent, for Young, Cynthia.

*858***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 19th of February 2018 by Plaintiff in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 7th of June 2018."
Exhibit 32.2 

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

I, Eric Smit, the chief financial officer of eGain Corporation (the “Company”), certify for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code that, to my knowledge, 

(i) the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the period ending June 30, 2014 (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and 

(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

| /s/ ERIC N. SMIT |
|-----------------------|
| ERIC N. SMIT          |

October 24, 2014

A signed original of this written statement required by 18 U.S.C. § 1350 has been provided to eGain Corporation and will be retained by eGain Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4189 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

4000 Leap Road in Hilliard, Ohio, as the ‘‘Sergeant Shawn T. Hannon 

and Master Sergeant Jeffrey J. Rieck and Veterans Memorial Post 

Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 11, 2014 

Mr. STIVERS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 4000 Leap Road in Hilliard, Ohio, as the 

‘‘Sergeant Shawn T. Hannon and Master Sergeant Jeffrey J. Rieck and Veterans Memorial Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SERGEANT SHAWN T. HANNON AND MASTER 

4 SERGEANT JEFFREY J. RIECK AND VETERANS 

5 MEMORIAL POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

6 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

7 Postal Service located at 4000 Leap Road in Hilliard, 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4189 IH

1 Ohio, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Sergeant 

2 Shawn T. Hannon and Master Sergeant Jeffrey J. Rieck 

3 and Veterans Memorial Post Office Building’’. 

4 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg5 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

6 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

7 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Sergeant Shawn T. 

8 Hannon and Master Sergeant Jeffrey J. Rieck and Vet9 erans Memorial Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Mike CAUSEY, Commissioner of Insurance of North Carolina v. CANNON SURETY, LLC, a North Carolina Limited Liability Company

No. 373P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 7, 2017

Mr. Mark L. Bibbs, Attorney at Law, for Cannon Surety, L.L.C.

Ms. M. Denise Stanford, Assistant Attorney General, for Causey, Mike

Mr. Daniel Snipes Johnson, Special Deputy Attorney General, for Causey, Mike

Ms. Heather H. Freeman, Assistant Attorney General, for Causey, Mike

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Business Court, filed by the Petitioner on the 6th of November 2017, *698"Dismissed Ex Mero Motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 7th of November 2017."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Petitioner on the 6th of November 2017 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Business Court (Wake County), the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Business Court (Wake County):

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 7th of November 2017."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Petitioner on the 6th of November 2017 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Business Court, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Business Court:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 7th of November 2017."