alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Dale Franklin HOVIS, Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, Respondent.

No. 57653.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

July 24, 1990.

*702Medford Dwight Robbins, Frederick-town, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Jatha B. Sadowski, Sandra A. Mears, Sp. Attys. Gen., Jefferson City, Gary E. Stevenson, Pros. Atty., Farmington, for respondent.

CRIST, Judge.

Driver, Dale Franklin Hovis, appeals the denial of a motion to extend hardship driving privileges. We dismiss the appeal for failure to file a legal file sufficient for appellate review.

Driver contends the trial court erred in overruling his motion to extend his limited driving privilege. Driver filed a legal file containing only the following:

> (1) Driver’s application for limited hardship driving privilege on December 16, 1988;

> (2) Order on December 16, 1988, granting hardship driving privileges from December 19, 1988 through October 8, 1989;

> (3) Prosecutor’s motion to revoke limited hardship driving privilege because on May 23, 1989, driver was convicted of driving with an excessive blood alcohol content; and

(4)The docket sheet which revealed

> (a) prosecutor’s motion to revoke was noticed and heard on October 24, 1989;

> (b) prosecutor’s motion dismissed as moot;

> (c) driver’s motion to extend his limited hardship driving privilege; and

> (d) the trial court’s denial of driver’s motion because driver had a limited hardship driving privilege granted on December 16, 1988, but driver was thereafter convicted of driving with an excessive blood alcohol content.

The legal file does not contain a copy of the October 24, 1989, motion nor does it contain a transcript of the testimony presented at the motion hearing. There is no showing of the admission into evidence of any exhibits at this hearing. There is no showing this motion was made in compliance with § 302.309, RSMo 1986.

Except for the docket sheet, the legal file pertains to the prior limited hardship driving privilege. If driver desires review of an issue, it is his duty to furnish a transcript containing all the records, proceedings and evidence relating thereto. Rule 81.12; *Ellis v. Farmers Ins. Group,*659 S.W.2d 3, 4 [1, 2] (Mo.App.1983); *Davis v. Long,*521 S.W.2d 7, 8-9 [3, 4] (Mo.App.1975). Without that record, there is nothing to review. *Id.*

The driver has failed in his duty to present a record which would allow us to dispose of the case on its merit.

Appeal dismissed.

GARY M. GAERTNER, P.J., and REINHARD, J., concur.
Case 3:17-cv-08258-GMS Document 22 Filed 12/15/17 Page 1 of 4
Case 3:17-cv-08258-GMS Document 22 Filed 12/15/17 Page 2 of 4
Case 3:17-cv-08258-GMS Document 22 Filed 12/15/17 Page 3 of 4
Case 3:17-cv-08258-GMS Document 22 Filed 12/15/17 Page 4 of 4
**Exhibit 32.2**

**Certification of the Chief Financial 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 WMG Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period endedDecember 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Steven Macri, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

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

Dated:February 8, 2011
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Linda Cogdill, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance 

Company, 

 Defendants. 

Case No.: CV-17-04291-PHX-MHB

ORDER 

The Court, having received the parties Stipulation to Dismiss (Doc. 13), and 

good cause appearing, 

 IT IS ORDERED granting the Stipulation (Doc. 13), 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDRED dismissing this matter with prejudice, as to all 

parties, each party to bear their own fees and costs. 

 Dated this 18th day of December, 2017. 

 

Case 2:17-cv-04291-MHB Document 14 Filed 12/18/17 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 32.8

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER OF

UCFH II FINANCE, INC.

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In
connection with the quarterly report of UCFH II Finance, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 29, 2008 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Tracey L.
Stockwell, 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) | 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: August 8, 2008



By:

/S/ TRACEY L. STOCKWELLTracey L. StockwellTreasurer (Principal Financial Officer)




39
#### Richard G. POWELL, Appellant, v. Charlene Sue POWELL, Respondent.

No. WD 49915.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Jan. 16, 1996.

*411Bryan E. Martin, Blue Springs, for appellant.

Gary Kevin Patton, Liberty, for respondent.

Before ELLIS, P.J., and HANNA and SPINDEN, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Richard G. Powell appeals the decree of dissolution entered by the circuit court on July 19, 1994. He complains of the circuit court’s distribution of property and assignment of debt and its awarding his former wife $500 a month in maintenance. We affirm. Discerning no jurisprudential value in publishing an opinion, we issue this summary order. Rule 84.16(b). We have issued to the parties a memorandum explaining our order.
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN
NO. 03-0 9 -00 487 -CR

Wil lia m Be r r y P ie r c e , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF SAN SABA CO UNTY , 33RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 5581 , HO NORAB LE JAMES F. CLAWSO N JR. , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D UM O P I N I O N P ER CURIAM

On May 25, 2010, this Court order ed L ou Ann L indeman B err y , court re porter f

or the 33 rd Di str ic t Co ur

t, S an Sa ba County , to a

pp e ar o n Jun e 23 , 2010 , to sh owc a us e why sh e sh ou ld not be held in contempt for her failure to f ile the repor

ter’s rec ord in this cause as order ed. Ba sed
on B e rr y ’s re pr e se ntatio n th at th e re c or d h a d be e n de str oye d, the or de r p ro vid e d th at B e rr y wo uld be re lieved of he r oblig ation to appea r if she f iled an af fidavit describing in de tail the status of the
rec ord , the circ umstances surr ounding its loss, and any eff orts made to re cover

the re cord. A s reque sted, Be rry

has filed a

n aff idavit stating that a ll copies of the rec ord have either be en dele ted or destroyed by

a computer virus, that attempts have be en made to rec over the rec ord fr om Be rry ’s computer, a

nd that these attempts have bee n unsucce ssful. This appea l is hereby

abate d for a

deter mination of whether

the re porter’ s rec ord ca

n be replace d by agree ment of t he parties. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.6( f)( 4). The tr ial court is direc ted2

to forwa rd a r ecor d of any proce eding s related to this deter mination, including finding s of fac t and conclusions of l aw , to this C ourt within 30 day s of the date of this order. I n the eve nt that the repor ter’s r ecor d cannot be repla ced, the appellant will be entitled to a ne w trial. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.6(f).

Be fore J ustices Patterson, Puryear and He nson Filed: Jul y

21, 2010 Do No t Pu

bli sh
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

'\ 

\ 23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Kevin Lucas Rivers, Jr., 

Defendant. 

No. CR-17-08269-001-PCT-DMF 

ORDER 

Defendant appeared in court with counsel. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3141 et. seq. a 

detention hearing was held. The defendant is ordered detained pending an intake 

assessment for placement at Crossroads in Phoenix, Arizona or other facility as 

designated by Pretrial Services. Should defendant qualify for such placement, defendant 

shall be released upon conditions set by this Court, including pretrial residency at said 

facility, as conditions do exist which would reasonably assure the safety of others and the 

appearance of the defendant. Should defendant not so qualify, the release conditions set 

by this Court shall be vacated and defendant shall be detained pending trial as there are 

no conditions or combination of conditions which would reasonably assure the safety of 

others or the appearance of the defendant. 

The Pretrial Services Officer is ordered to timely notify this C::ourt of the 

defendant's intake assessment results, and if found acceptable, the date and time the 

II 
1 facility will provide transportation from the Sandra Day O'Connor Courthouse for the 

2 defendant. 

3 Dated this 9th day ofNovember, 2017. 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

- 2 -
Exhibit 99.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


I, Dr. Eugene Stricker, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Kushi Natural Foods
Corp.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual 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 annual report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and 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 annual report is being prepared;

         b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

         c) presented in this annual 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 officers 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
functions):

         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 officers and I have indicated in this
annual report whether 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.

                                             /s/ DR. EUGENE STRICKER
                                             -----------------------------------
Date: March 30, 2004                         Dr. Eugene Stricker
                                             Chief Executive Officer

                                      F-10
#### In the Matter of Mercedes Realty Corp., Petitioner, against Robert C. Weaver, as State Rent Administrator, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

May 2, 1956.

*1013
      *McLaughlin & Fougner*for petitioner.

*Nathan Heller*and *Emory Gardiner*for respondent.

*Eugene J. Morris*and *Matthew J. Domber*for intervenorrespondent.

William C. Hecht, Jr., J.

Petitioner, owner of premises at 1160 Park Avenue, purchased for $1,035,000 on April 30, 1952, applied for a rent increase. Prior increases of the maximum rent had been granted to the previous owner in 1951, and to petitioner in May, 1955. The valuation figure employed by the Administrator in connection with the May increase was $1,035,-000, the price paid for the property. The subsequent application was likewise determined on the basis of the valuation of $1,035,000.

Petitioner contends that the Administrator had no discretion to disregard the higher assessed value of $1,275,000 because amendment 50 modified the State Rent and Eviction Regulations (§ 33, subd. 5, par. a) by adding a provision forbidding the use of any value other than the assessed value, if a sale of the property had been preceded by an adjustment of the maximum rent. The Administrator contends that said amendment was intended to apply only to a case where the sale price is greater than the assessed valuation, not to a case, such as this, where it is less. It is unnecessary to consider whether the literal wording of amendment 50 may be disregarded and the Administrator’s intentions given effect, for, in *Matter of 340 East 57th St. Corp.*v. *Weaver*(3 Misc 2d 356), that amendment has been held void as contravening the rent control statute. By the express terms of the statute the Administrator is vested with discretion to disregard the assessed value in a case "where there has been a bona fide sale of the property after March 15, 1951. There is *1014no showing that the Administrator’s adoption of the sale price, in the exercise of his statutory discretion, was without reasonable basis or justification. In the circumstances, this court may not substitute its judgment for that of the Administrator.

Additional errors are claimed to have been committed by the Administrator. The claim that wage increases which had not been granted until after the issuance of the order of the local rent office should have been allowed is overruled (see memorandum filed in *Matter of 340 East 57th St. Corp.*v. *Weaver [supra]).*

There is no satisfactory explanation given by respondent for his refusal to allow 1% of gross collections in lieu of leasing commissions, in conformity with the practice heretofore followed by him and provided for in his Manual of Internal Procedure.

On the record, however, it cannot be said that the determination of the Administrator with respect to legal and accounting fees was arbitrary or capricious.

Settle order in conformity with the foregoing.
**Exhibit32.1**

 

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANTTO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, David T. Gulian, the Chief Executive Officer ofInfoLogix, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

•                       theForm 10-Q of the Company for the nine months ended September 30, 2007as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Form 10-Q”),fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));and

 

•                       theinformation contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Dated:  November 14, 2007
| /s/ David T. Gulian                   |   |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|--------|
| David T. Gulian                       |   |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |   |

 

----
H. Res. 411 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

June 9, 2009. 

Whereas the Intermediate Space Challenge in Mojave, California, is a program designed to capture the imagination 

of youths regarding outer space; 

Whereas the aspiration of the Intermediate Space Challenge 

is to introduce, instill, and energize youths’ interest in 

the engineering, mathematics, and science career fields; 

Whereas the Intermediate Space Challenge focuses on 4th, 

5th, and 6th grade students during their formative years; 

Whereas the Intermediate Space Challenge provides students 

the opportunity to visit the Mojave Air and Space Port, 

a 3,300 acre flight research center; 

Whereas aviation legends and private space pioneers such as 

Burt Rutan, Dick Rutan, Brian Binnie, and Mike Melvill 

have worked with and spoken to students participating in 

the program; 

Whereas the Intermediate Space Challenge enables students 

to work together in a team environment to choose a team 

name, create team banners, craft an essay, and develop 

and use their math and science skills to construct and 

launch a small rocket under appropriate supervision; and 
2 

•HRES 411 EH 

Whereas the program judges student rocket teams on banner 

designs, essays, and rocket construction and performance: 

Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) supports the goals and ideals of the Intermediate Space Challenge; 

(2) commends the volunteers who run the Intermediate Space Challenge and the Mojave Air and Space 

Port for opening its facility to the young leaders of the 

future in the science and engineering fields; and 

(3) encourages teachers and school administrators 

across the country to implement similar programs to 

stimulate students and infuse them with a love of engineering, mathematics, and science. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
MCSo02571



Beg ne
D O@ument 1132

MCSO02566



age2:47-cv-04161-§MB Document't22:6 Filed 09/27/19 Page 7.0f:40
DM Document 113-2 Filed 08/27/19 Page 22 of 74

MCS0O02569



MCS002570



MCS0O02567





pase 2a/-cv-04161-§MB Document 4226 Filed 09/27/19 Page 8.0f 10

MCS0O02568



MCS002572



neve042:61-SMB==:Document:122-6Filed 09/27/19 Page 3:0ft0
 2:17-cv-04161-SMB-DMF Document 113-2 Filed 08/27/19 Page 26 of 74

MCS002573



MCS002574
H. Res. 455 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

September 23, 2009. 

Whereas the Wichita State University (WSU) men’s and 

women’s bowling teams won the 2009 United States 

Bowling Congress (USBC) Intercollegiate Bowling National Championship in Rockford, Illinois, on April 15– 

18, 2009; 

Whereas the WSU men’s team defeated the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Webber International University and 

advanced to the finals, where they defeated Saginaw Valley State University two games to one in a best of three 

series to win the championship; 

Whereas the WSU women’s team defeated Ball State University, Fresno State University, and McKendree University 

and advanced to the finals, where they defeated 

Lindenwood University two games to zero to win the 

championship; 

Whereas the WSU men’s team has won nine USBC Intercollegiate Bowling National Championships, in 1980, 

1987, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1998, 2003, 2008, and 2009, 

and has advanced to the national tournament a record 29 

times; 

Whereas the WSU women’s team has won nine USBC Intercollegiate Bowling National Championships, in 1975, 
2 

•HRES 455 EH 

1977, 1978, 1986, 1990, 1994, 2005, 2007, and 2009, 

and has advanced to the national tournament a record 34 

times; 

Whereas head coach Gordon Vadakin has led the men’s and 

women’s teams to a combined 32 USBC Intercollegiate 

Bowling National Championship tournaments and 17 national titles since he began coaching in 1976; 

Whereas assistant coaches Mark Lewis, Brian Adelgren, and 

Nathan Bohr were also instrumental in the WSU teams’ 

2009 victories; 

Whereas the 2009 men’s championship team, comprised of 

Jake Peters, Nick Pahr, Brandon Hall, Josh McBride, 

John Szczerbinski, Stephen Cowland, Josh Blanchard, 

Adam Ferri, Kyle Bischoff, Will Barnes, Geoffrey Young, 

and Kevin Tatrow, won the national title due to the combined efforts of each of its members; 

Whereas the 2009 women’s championship team, comprised of 

Melissa Hurst, Maggie Zakrzewski, Suzana Signaigo, 

Sandra Gongora, Jessica Baker, Samantha Hesley, Mariana Ayala, Daniela Alvarado, Rocio Restrepo, and 

Samantha Linder, won the national title due to the combined efforts of each of its members; 

Whereas Sandra Gongora was named the National Collegiate 

Bowling Coaches Association and the Bowling Writers 

Association of America (BWAA) Female Collegiate Bowler of the Year, and John Szczerbinski and Josh Blanchard were BWAA Male Collegiate Bowler of the Year 

runners-up; and 

Whereas Sandra Gongora, John Szczerbinski, and Josh Blanchard were named as first team All-Americans by the 

USBC: Now, therefore, be it 
3 

•HRES 455 EH 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives congratulates and commends the Wichita State University men’s and 

women’s bowling teams for winning the 2009 United States 

Bowling Congress Intercollegiate Bowling National Championship. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
| (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. |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                   |   |   |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/ David                Fox      |   |   |   |
| David                Fox               |   |   |        |
| Chief                Executive Officer |   |   |   |
| March                  4, 2008         |   |   |   |

|                                     |   |   |   |
|------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/ Barry                  S. Baer  |   |   |   |
| Barry                  S. Baer           |   |   |        |
| Chief                  Financial Officer |   |   |   |
| March                    4, 2008         |   |   |   |

----