alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

BRIAN A. LEONARD,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 5:10cv248/RH/EMT

N. ROBINSON, et al.,

Defendants.

__________________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This cause is before the court upon referral from the clerk. Plaintiff commenced this action

by filing what appears to be a civil rights complaint (see Doc. 1). On September 21, 2010, this court

entered an order giving Plaintiff thirty (30) days in which to pay the filing fee or submit a properly

completed motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 4). Plaintiff failed to respond to the order;

therefore, on October 27, 2010, the court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to show cause, within

twenty-one (21) days, why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with an

order of the court (Doc. 7). The time for compliance with the show cause order has now elapsed, 

and Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee or submitted a properly completed motion to proceed in

forma pauperis.

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

That this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with an

order of the court.

At Pensacola, Florida, this 22nd day of November 2010.

/s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy 

ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Page 2 of 2

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Any objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within

fourteen (14) days after being served a copy thereof. Any different deadline that may appear

on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use only. A copy of objections shall be

served upon all other parties. Failure to object may limit the scope of appellate review of

factual findings. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; United States v. Roberts, 858 F.2d 698, 701 (11th Cir.

1988).

Case No: 5:10cv248/RH/EMT
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

HARRY MICHAEL WRIGHT,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:10-cv-474-SPM-GRJ

MORRIS YOUNG, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

ORDER

This case is before the Court on Plaintiff’s “Motion for Subpoena Duces Tecum

for Deposition(s).” (Doc. 78.) Plaintiff wishes to depose twenty-six individuals in order

to “clarify inconsistencies and contradictions in portions of Defendant(s) answer(s) to

Plaintiff’s interrogatories and other discovery documents.” (Doc. 78, at 2.) As

Defendants note in their response to the motion, Doc. 79, the discovery deadline has

passed, and Plaintiff’s request is untimely. Even if Plaintiff’s request were timely,

however, it would be due to be denied because Plaintiff’s vague and conclusory

statements do not constitute good cause for taking any depositions, let alone

depositions in excess of the number permitted by the Federal Rules. 

Accordingly, upon due consideration, it is ORDERED:

Plaintiff’s “Motion for Subpoena Duces Tecum for Deposition(s),” Doc. 78, is

DENIED. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 12 day of March 2013.

th

s/Gary R. Jones 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL 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 this Quarterly Report of
Spartan Gold Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2014 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Malcolm Stevens, Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:



|1. | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2014 , 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 for the period ending September 30, 2014 , fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Spartan Gold Ltd.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





|Date: November 19, 2014                                                               | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|                                                                                      | 
|/s/ Malcolm Stevens                                                                   | 
|Malcolm Stevens
        Chief Executive Officer
        (Principal Executive Officer) |
# C_2010045EN.01001401.xml

| 23.2.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/14

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

22 February 2010

2010/C 45/03

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3626 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 124,38 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4436 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,87970 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,8090 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,4649 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,0350 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,750 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 269,75 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7093 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,9620 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,1270 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,0681 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5113 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4133 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,5789 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,9382 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,9188 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 563,37 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 10,4750 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,3017 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,2875 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 667,32 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6349 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 62,890 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 40,8580 |
| THB | Thai baht | 45,158 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,4528 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,3766 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 62,9730 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3626

JPY

Japanese yen

124,38

DKK

Danish krone

7,4436

GBP

Pound sterling

0,87970

SEK

Swedish krona

9,8090

CHF

Swiss franc

1,4649

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,0350

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,750

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

269,75

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7093

PLN

Polish zloty

3,9620

RON

Romanian leu

4,1270

TRY

Turkish lira

2,0681

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5113

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4133

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,5789

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,9382

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,9188

KRW

South Korean won

1 563,37

ZAR

South African rand

10,4750

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,3017

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,2875

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 667,32

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6349

PHP

Philippine peso

62,890

RUB

Russian rouble

40,8580

THB

Thai baht

45,158

BRL

Brazilian real

2,4528

MXN

Mexican peso

17,3766

INR

Indian rupee

62,9730

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
# C_2010288EN.01000501.xml

| 23.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/5

---

Criteria for assigning cases to Chambers

(2010/C 288/08)

On 20 September 2010, the General Court laid down the following criteria for the assignment of cases to the Chambers for the period from 20 September 2010 to 31 August 2011, in accordance with Article 12 of the Rules of Procedure:

| 1. | Appeals against the decisions of the Civil Service Tribunal shall be assigned to the Appeal Chamber as soon as the application has been lodged and without prejudice to any subsequent application of Articles 14 and 51 of the Rules of Procedure. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Appeals against the decisions of the Civil Service Tribunal shall be assigned to the Appeal Chamber as soon as the application has been lodged and without prejudice to any subsequent application of Articles 14 and 51 of the Rules of Procedure.

| 2. | Cases other than those referred to in paragraph 1 above shall be assigned to Chambers of three Judges as soon as the application has been lodged and without prejudice to any subsequent application of Articles 14 and 51 of the Rules of Procedure.
  Cases referred to in this paragraph shall be allocated to the Chambers in turn, in accordance with the date on which they are registered at the Registry, following three separate rotas:






  — | for cases concerning application of the competition rules applicable to undertakings, the rules on State aid and the rules on trade protection measures; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Cases other than those referred to in paragraph 1 above shall be assigned to Chambers of three Judges as soon as the application has been lodged and without prejudice to any subsequent application of Articles 14 and 51 of the Rules of Procedure.

Cases referred to in this paragraph shall be allocated to the Chambers in turn, in accordance with the date on which they are registered at the Registry, following three separate rotas:

—

for cases concerning application of the competition rules applicable to undertakings, the rules on State aid and the rules on trade protection measures;

| — | for cases concerning intellectual property rights referred to in Article 130(1) of the Rules of Procedure; |
| --- | --- |

—

for cases concerning intellectual property rights referred to in Article 130(1) of the Rules of Procedure;

| — | for all other cases. |
| --- | --- |

—

for all other cases.

In applying those rotas, the Chamber composed of four Judges which is sitting with three Judges shall be taken into consideration twice at each third turn.

The President of the General Court may derogate from the rotas on the ground that cases are related or with a view to ensuring an even spread of the workload.

---
EXHIBIT 32.2

STATEMENT OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF

INDEPENDENT FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with this Quarterly Report of Independent Film Development Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jeff Ritchie, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



1.   Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2008, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2008,, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Dated:  May 18, 2009



/s/ Jeff Ritchie

Jeff Ritchie

Chief Executive Officer
| (1) | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2) | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/      Richard McKilligan                                                  |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Richard      McKilligan                                                      |
| Chief      Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting    Officer) |
| May      14, 2010                                                            |

----
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report
of Mesa Energy Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the “Report”), I, Randy M. Griffin, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that;





(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.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





/s/ Randy M. GriffinName:  Randy
      M. GriffinTitle:  Chief
      Executive OfficerDate:  May
      17, 2010
# C_2009164EN.01000501.xml

| 16.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/5

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

15 July 2009

2009/C 164/03

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,4089 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 131,57 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4453 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,85760 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,9746 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5179 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,0190 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,900 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 273,25 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7004 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2900 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,2165 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,1625 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,7551 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5813 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,9194 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 2,1780 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0460 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 797,93 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 11,4842 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,6250 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3240 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 275,68 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 5,0206 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 67,500 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 44,9035 |
| THB | Thai baht | 48,010 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,7472 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 19,2836 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 68,5150 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,4089

JPY

Japanese yen

131,57

DKK

Danish krone

7,4453

GBP

Pound sterling

0,85760

SEK

Swedish krona

10,9746

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5179

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,0190

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,900

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

273,25

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7004

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2900

RON

Romanian leu

4,2165

TRY

Turkish lira

2,1625

AUD

Australian dollar

1,7551

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5813

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,9194

NZD

New Zealand dollar

2,1780

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0460

KRW

South Korean won

1 797,93

ZAR

South African rand

11,4842

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,6250

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3240

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 275,68

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

5,0206

PHP

Philippine peso

67,500

RUB

Russian rouble

44,9035

THB

Thai baht

48,010

BRL

Brazilian real

2,7472

MXN

Mexican peso

19,2836

INR

Indian rupee

68,5150

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
Exhibit 10.1


NOTE


 


U.S. $110,000.00 August 19, 2014


 


FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the
undersigned, WeWearables, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Borrower"), HEREBY PROMISES TO PAY to the order
of Thomas Chen (the "Lender"), upon demand, the principal sum of U.S. One Hundred and Ten Thousand
Dollars ($110,000.00), which constitutes the aggregate principal amount of the Advance (defined below) made by
the Lender to the Borrower and outstanding on the date hereof.


 


The Borrower promises to
pay interest on the unpaid principal amount of the Advance from the date of such Advance until such principal amount is paid in
full, at the rate of 6% per annum.


 


Both principal and interest
are payable in lawful money of the United States of America to the Lender, on or before March 31, 2015, at 7 Whitford, Irvine,
CA 92602, or such other address as the holder hereof may designate in writing, in same day funds, without defense, offset or counterclaim.


 


Borrower acknowledges the
receipt of the amount of $110,000, which amount was loaned as of August 19, 2014 (the "Advance").


 


The Borrower shall pay
all reasonable costs, fees and expenses (including court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees) incurred by the Lender in collecting
or attempting to collect any amount that becomes due hereunder or in seeking legal advice with respect to such collection or a
default hereunder. This Note may be prepaid at any time without penalty.


 


The Borrower, and every
guarantor and endorser hereof, hereby waive presentment, demand, notice of dishonor, protest and all other demands and notices
in connection with the delivery, acceptance, performance and enforcement of this Note.


 


This Note shall be governed
by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Nevada, without reference to conflict of laws principles.


 


THE BORROWER HEREBY WAIVES
TRIAL BY JURY IN ANY LITIGATION IN ANY COURT WITH RESPECT TO THIS NOTE OR THE ENFORCEMENT OR COLLECTION HEREOF.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
Borrower has caused this Note to be executed by its duly authorized representative as of the day and year first above written.


 


 


WeWearables, Inc.


 


 


 /s/ Thomas Chen


By: ________________________________


Thomas Chen


Corporate Secretary
# C_2010125EN.01000502.xml

| 13.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 125/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 125/5

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5832 — Avelar/Enovos/Aveleos)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 125/03

On 7 May 2010, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5832. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5832. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
|Exhibit 99.2
|------------

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 Annual Report of CityView Corporation Limited (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, P M Smyth, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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.

69



---
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit

No. 97-30231

MARY L. HELMS, individually and as next friend of Amy T. Helms; AMY T. HELMS, a minor; MARIE L. SCHNEIDER,

Plaintiffs - Appellants - Cross Appellees - Appellees,

VERSUS

CECIL J. PICARD, Louisiana Superintendent of Public Education;
KENNETH DUNCAN, Louisiana State Treasurer; LOUISIANA STATE BOARD OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION; JEFFERSON PARISH SCHOOL BOARD SYSTEM; ELTON LAGASSE, Superintendent of the J e fferson Parish School System; LAURIE E. ROLLING, Pres ident and member of the J efferson Parish School Board; LIBBY MORAN, Vice President and member of the Jefferson Parish School Board; ROBERT WOLFE, member of the Jefferson Parish School Board; BARRY BORDELON, member of the Jefferson Parish School Board; O.H. GUIDRY, member of the Jefferson Parish School Board; CEDRIC FLOYD, member of the Jefferson Parish School Board; POLLY THOMAS, member of the Jefferson Parish School Board; GENE KATSANIS, member of the Jefferson Parish School Board; MARTIN MARINO, member of the Jefferson Parish School Board,

Defendants - Appellees - Cross Appellants, and

RICHARD W. RILEY, Secretary of the United States Department of Education; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

SPECIAL EDUCATION SERVICES CORPORATION,

Defendant - Appellant,

and

GUY MITCHELL; JAN MITCHELL; EUGENE CERISE; KATHY CERISE,

Intervenor Defendants - Appellees - Cross Appellants.2

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

September 27, 2000
Before DUHÉ, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
JOHN M. DUHÉ, JR., Circuit Judge.

This case is before us on remand from the Supreme Court. G uy

Mitchell, et al, v. Mary Helms, et al
, 530 U.S. ____, 120 S.Ct.

2530 (2000). The Supreme Court reversed our judgment and held that

20 U.S.C. §§ 7301-7303 , as applied in Jefferson Parish, is

constitutional. By necessary inference, this also reversed our

holding that the Louisiana co unterpart of that statute, La.

Rev.Stat.Ann. §§ 17: 351-352, was also unconstitutional as applied

in Jefferson Parish. Although it vacated our judgment in its

entirety, The High Court did not address the other issues decided

by us. Helms v. Picard , 151 F.3d 347 (1998).

Accordingly:

We REINSTATE OUR JUDGMENT in favor of Defendants declaring the

Louisiana special education program, La.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 17:1941-

1956, constitutional as applied in Jefferson Parish.

We REINSTATE OUR JUDGMENT affirming the District Court’s

decision in favor of defendants that the transportation payments to

the Jefferson Non-Public School Transportation Corporation, by

virtue of La.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 17:158 are constitutional.

We RENDER JUDGMENT in favor of Defendants declaring that the

Federal instru ctional materials program, 20 U.S.C. §§ 7301-7373,3

and its Louisiana counterpart, La.Rev.Stat.Ann. §§ 17:351-52, are

constitutional as applied in Jefferson Parish.

JUDGMENT RENDERED.