alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
174 La. 388

#### Charles BACHER v. Adolphus ALBERT et al.

No. 31269.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 1, 1932.

Rehearing Denied March 30, 1932.

Deutsch *&*Kerrigan, Milling, Godchaux, Saal & Milling, and B. D. Saunders, all of New Orleans, for appellant.

Edward Rightor, of New Orleans, for A. Albert, Lynn H. Dinkins, and Dr. George A. McDiarmid.

St. Clair Adams, of New Orleans, for Eugene J. Appolonio, Arthur F. Shuey, and Donald Yarbrough.

Terriberry, Young, Rault & Carroll, of New Orleans, for Leigh Carroll.

Harry McCall, of New Orleans, for Henry H. Chaffe.

Charles J. Rivet, of New Orleans, for William T. Coats.

Legier, MeEnerny & Waguespaek, of New Orleans, for Joseph A. Danna.

George Dreyfous, of New Orleans, for Felix J. Dreyfous.

Sidney Herold, of Shreveport, for Charles Ellerbe.

Montgomery & .Montgomery and Harry F. Stiles, Jr., all of New Orleans, for Bush M. Jackson.

Racivitch & Hickerson, of New 'Orleans, for Fred N. Ogden.

Philip Gidiere, of New Orleans, for Es-mond Phelps.

Merrick, Schwarz, Guste, Barnett & Red-mann, of New Orleans, for John W. Phillips,

*6Marcus Walker, Harold S. Weil, and Herman Weil.

Morris LeCompte, of New Orleans, for Cecil G. Robinson.

Borah *&*Bloch, of New Orleans, for Dr. Paul H. Saunders.

Harvey Peltier, of Thibodaux, for H. L. Sims.

Dart & Dart, of New Orleans, for Sidney W. Souers.

Guión & Upt-oh, of New Orleans, for Emile' Sundbery and John S. Waterman.

Henry & Cooper, of New Orleans, for Charles B. Thorn.

ROGERS, J.

Plaintiff ■ appeals from a judgment dismissing his suit on an exception of no cause of action.

The defendants in this case are the same as the defendants in the case of Charles Wirth, Sr., v. A. Albert et al. (La. Sup.) 141 So. 1, this day decided; and, except as to the party plaintiff, the amount involved, and the numbers of the interim certificates, the cases are identical. What we said in affirming the judgment in the other case is equally applicable to the present case.

Eor the reasons assigned in Wirth v. Albert, supra, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 12.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**RULE 13a—14(a)**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Howard B. Kerzner, certifythat:

 

# 1.             I have reviewed thisannual report on Form 20-F of Kerzner International Limited;

#  

# 2.             Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

#  

# 3.             Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for,the periods presented in this report;

#  

# 4.             The company’s othercertifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and have:

##  

## (a)           Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;

## (b)           Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

## (c)           Disclosedin this report any change in the company’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, thecompany’s internal control over financial reporting; and

#  

# 5.             The company’s othercertifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the company’s auditors and theaudit committee of the company’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

##  

## (a)           Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely

 

----

 

## affect the company’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

## (b)           Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the company’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

 

Date: March 31, 2006

 

 
|   |   | /s/ Howard  B. Kerzner   |
|--------|--------|--------------------------|
|   |   | Howard B.  Kerzner       |
|   |   | Chief  Executive 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 PharMerica Corporation (the Corporation) on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael J. Culotta, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Corporation,
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, as amended, and

(2) The information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition, and result of operations of the Corporation.



|                                                                                        
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Michael J. Culotta                                                                  
|Michael J. Culotta Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer October 30, 2008
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4157

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that the conducting

of certain games of chance shall not be treated as an unrelated trade

or business.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 24, 1996

Mr. RAMSTAD (for himself, Mr. GUTKNECHT, Mr. LUTHER, Mr. MINGE, Mr.

OBERSTAR, Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota, Mr. SABO, and Mr. VENTO) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways

and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide

that the conducting of certain games of chance shall

not be treated as an unrelated trade or business.

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

3 SECTION 1. CONDUCT OF CERTAIN GAMES OF CHANCE NOT

4 TREATED AS UNRELATED TRADE OR

5 BUSINESS.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) of section 513(f)

7 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to certain
2

•HR 4157 IH

1 bingo games) is amended by inserting before the period

2 ‘‘or qualified games of chance’’.

3 (b) QUALIFIED GAMES OF CHANCE.—Subsection (f)

4 of section 513 of such Code is amended by adding at the

5 end the following new paragraph:

6 ‘‘(3) QUALIFIED GAMES OF CHANCE.—For pur7 poses of paragraph (1), the term ‘qualified game of

8 chance’ means any game of chance (other than

9 bingo) conducted by an organization if—

10 ‘‘(A) such organization is licensed pursu11 ant to State law to conduct such game,

12 ‘‘(B) only organizations which are orga13 nized as nonprofit corporations or are exempt

14 from tax under section 501(a) may be so li15 censed to conduct such game within the State,

16 and

17 ‘‘(C) the conduct of such game does not

18 violate State or local law.’’

19 (c) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The subsection head20 ing of section 513(f) of such Code is amended by striking

21 ‘‘BINGO GAMES’’ and inserting ‘‘GAMES OF CHANCE’’.

22 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

23 this section shall apply to games conducted after the date

24 of enactment of this Act.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

TERRY L. MOCK et al., 

Defendants.

_____________________________/

Case No. 09-12861

HONORABLE ARTHUR J. TARNOW

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT MOCK’S MOTION AND

AFFIDAVIT TO SET ASIDE THE COURT’S JUDGMENT [34]

Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion and Affidavit to Set Aside the Court’s Judgment

[34]. Defendant filed an almost identical motion [29], which the Court denied. Dkt. [33]. 

Defendant’s pending motion [34] is denied for the same reasons stated in the Court’s Order [33]. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion and Affidavit to Set Aside the Court’s

Judgment [34] is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 22, 2011 S/ARTHUR J. TARNOW 

Arthur J. Tarnow

Senior United States District Judge

2:09-cv-12861-AJT-MJH Doc # 36 Filed 04/22/11 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 300
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon

Terry L Mock 

23100 Staunton 

Southfield, MI 48033

and counsel of record on April 22, 2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/MICHAEL L. WILLIAMS 

Relief Case Manager

2:09-cv-12861-AJT-MJH Doc # 36 Filed 04/22/11 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 301
#### Olan JAMES, Appellant, v. Gladys JAMES, Respondent.

No. WD 52793.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Feb. 18, 1997.

James D. Boggs, Kansas City, for Appellant.

Deborah A. Tooley, Kansas City, for Respondent.

Before BRECKENRIDGE, P.J., and SMART and EDWIN H. SMITH, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Olan James appeals the trial court’s award of maintenance to respondent in the amount of $725 per month.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
NUMBER 13-19-00575-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

GILBERT COLUNGA, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 214th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas.

ORDER TO ABATE

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Hinojosa

Order Per Curiam

This cause is before the Court on the reporter’s failure to timely file a record. The 

reporter’s record in this cause was due on January 6, 2020. On February 7, 2020, the 

Clerk of the Court sent a late notice to the reporter. The Clerk of Court has learned the 

trial court reporter is on a medical leave until April, as such, no reporter’s record has been 

filed. However, the reporter has not filed a request for extension of time in this matter.
2

This sequence of events requires us to effectuate our responsibility to avoid further 

delay and to preserve the parties' rights. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(a)(1). Accordingly, this 

appeal is ABATED and the cause REMANDED to the trial court. 

In accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.6(b), the trial court is 

directed to conduct a hearing or otherwise to determine: (1) if the appellant has timely 

requested a reporter's record, (2) when the reporter will return to work, and (3) the earliest 

practical date the reporter’s record may be completed.

The trial court is directed to forward the record of the proceedings, including any 

orders and findings, to this Court within forty-five (45) days of the date of this order, or to 

notify this Court within such period indicating a date by which the trial court can comply.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the 

13th day of March, 2020.
#### Paula Ann MARGASON, Appellant, v. TREASURER OF the STATE OF MISSOURI As Custodian of the Second Injury Fund, Respondent.

No. 69843.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

July 9, 1996.

Ronald A. Caimi, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Maria W. Campbell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and KAROHL and GRIMM, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Claimant appeals the denial of her claim for permanent total disability against the Second Injury Fund by the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission). We affirm. The findings of the Commission are supported by competent and substantial evidence on the whole record, and an extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, January 11, 2018.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, January 11, 2018

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A18D0231. PENELOPE OPAL GILSON-KEARNS et al. v. FAIRWAY FORD OF 

AUGUSTA, INC..

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

2016CV0424
2:09-md-02042-SFC   Doc # 483   Filed 04/30/14   Pg 1 of 19    Pg ID 12803

2:09-md-02042-SFC   Doc # 483   Filed 04/30/14   Pg 2 of 19    Pg ID 12804

2:09-md-02042-SFC   Doc # 483   Filed 04/30/14   Pg 3 of 19    Pg ID 12805

2:09-md-02042-SFC   Doc # 483   Filed 04/30/14   Pg 4 of 19    Pg ID 12806

2:09-md-02042-SFC   Doc # 483   Filed 04/30/14   Pg 5 of 19    Pg ID 12807

2:09-md-02042-SFC   Doc # 483   Filed 04/30/14   Pg 6 of 19    Pg ID 12808

2:09-md-02042-SFC   Doc # 483   Filed 04/30/14   Pg 7 of 19    Pg ID 12809

2:09-md-02042-SFC   Doc # 483   Filed 04/30/14   Pg 8 of 19    Pg ID 12810

2:09-md-02042-SFC   Doc # 483   Filed 04/30/14   Pg 9 of 19    Pg ID 12811

2:09-md-02042-SFC   Doc # 483   Filed 04/30/14   Pg 10 of 19    Pg ID 12812

2:09-md-02042-SFC   Doc # 483   Filed 04/30/14   Pg 11 of 19    Pg ID 12813

2:09-md-02042-SFC   Doc # 483   Filed 04/30/14   Pg 12 of 19    Pg ID 12814

2:09-md-02042-SFC   Doc # 483   Filed 04/30/14   Pg 13 of 19    Pg ID 12815

2:09-md-02042-SFC   Doc # 483   Filed 04/30/14   Pg 14 of 19    Pg ID 12816

2:09-md-02042-SFC   Doc # 483   Filed 04/30/14   Pg 15 of 19    Pg ID 12817

2:09-md-02042-SFC   Doc # 483   Filed 04/30/14   Pg 16 of 19    Pg ID 12818

2:09-md-02042-SFC   Doc # 483   Filed 04/30/14   Pg 17 of 19    Pg ID 12819

2:09-md-02042-SFC   Doc # 483   Filed 04/30/14   Pg 18 of 19    Pg ID 12820

2:09-md-02042-SFC   Doc # 483   Filed 04/30/14   Pg 19 of 19    Pg ID 12821
Exhibit 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-87879, 333-40279 on Form S-8, and in Registration Statement
No. 333-48184 on Form S-3 of our report dated March 14, 2008, relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule of Power-One, Inc., and the effectiveness of
Power-One, Inc.'s internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Power-One, Inc. for the year ended December 30, 2007.

/s/DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Los
Angeles, California
March 14, 2008

---



QuickLinks
#### Michael Paul CRIPPS, Petitioner/Respondent, v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, State of Missouri, Defendant/Appellant.

No. 64982.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

July 12, 1994.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., James A. Chenault, III, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Mo. Dept, of Revenue, Jefferson City, for appellant.

■ Timothy F. Devereux, Clayton, for respondent.

Before CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

The Director of Revenue (Director) appeals the circuit court’s order restoring petitioner’s driving privileges after a trial *de novo*pursuant to § 302.535. We affirm.

We have reviewed the record and find the claim of error is without merit; no error of law appears. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4158

To exclude certain general service wages and hours associated with a separate

skilled nursing facility owned by certain hospitals in determining a hospital’s eligibility for continued geographic reclassification under the Medicare program.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 24, 1996

Mr. RAMSTAD (for himself and Mr. MINGE) introduced the following bill;

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To exclude certain general service wages and hours associated with a separate skilled nursing facility owned by

certain hospitals in determining a hospital’s eligibility

for continued geographic reclassification under the Medicare program.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 4158 IH

1 SECTION 1. EXCLUDING GENERAL SERVICE WAGES AND

2 HOURS ASSOCIATED WITH A SEPARATE

3 SKILLED NURSING FACILITY IN DETERMIN4 ING MEDICARE GEOGRAPHIC RECLASSIFICA5 TION OF CERTAIN HOSPITALS.

6 In the case of a hospital that is owned by a munici7 pality and that has been reclassified as an urban hospital

8 under section 1886(d)(10) of the Social Security Act for

9 fiscal year 1996, in calculating the hospital’s average

10 hourly wage for purposes of continued geographic reclassi11 fication under such section for subsequent fiscal years, the

12 Secretary of Health and Human Services shall exclude the

13 general service wages and hours of personnel associated

14 with a skilled nursing facility that is owned by the hospital

15 or the same municipality and that is physically separated

16 from the hospital to the extent that such wages and hours

17 of such personnel are not shared with the hospital and

18 are separately documented.

Æ
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Timothy S. MURRAY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 70073.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Oct. 29, 1996.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Dec. 17,1996.

Application to Transfer Denied Jan. 21,1997.

Susan K. Roach, Chesterfield, for Defendant-Appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., John M. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for Plaintiff-Respondent.

Before DOWD, P.J., and REINHARD and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from the judgment on his conviction by a jury of one count of driving while intoxicated, § 577.010, RSMo 1994, for which he was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment as a persistent offender. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).
Exhibit 32.1

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Annual Report of Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Charles R. Howell IV, 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, as amended; 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.



|                         |  |     |  |                              
|------------------------ |  | --- |  | -----------------------------
|Dated: September 3, 2009 |  | By: |  | /s/ Charles R. Howell IV     
|                         |  |     |  | Charles R. Howell IV         
|                         |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer      
|                         |  |     |  | (Principal Executive Officer)
ex101.htm


EXHIBIT 10.1


 


AMENDMENT NO. 1


TO


LIVEWIRE ERGOGENICS, INC.


2013 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN


 


WHEREAS, in May of 2013 the Company adopted its 2013 Stock Incentive Plan, filed with the Securities & Exchange Commission on May 3, 2013 (the “Plan”), covering 5,000,000 shares of Common Stock; and


 


WHEREAS, on April 22, 2014, the Board of Directors of the Company pursuant to Section 9 of the Plan determined to amend the Plan to increase the number of shares authorized for issuance under the Plan to 15,000,000 shares (the “Amendment”);







WHEREAS, on April 22, 2014, by requisite vote of the stockholders of the Company, the Amendment was approved;







NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:


 


1. The first sentence of Section 4(b) of the Plan is hereby deleted in its entirety and superseded and replaced as follows:







“(b) Number of Shares.  Subject to adjustment as provided in Section 5(i) of the Plan, the total number of shares of Stock which may be purchased or granted directly by Options, Stock Awards or Restricted Stock Purchase Offers, or purchased indirectly through exercise of Options granted under the Plan shall not exceed fifteen million (15,000,000).”
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 24

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

We, the undersigned directors of the Registrant, hereby severally constitute and
appoint Rick Green our true and lawful attorney and agent, to do any and all
things in our names in the capacities indicated below which said person may deem
necessary or advisable to enable the Registrant to comply with the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and any rules, regulations and requirements of
the Securities and Exchange Commission, in connection with the annual report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005, including specifically, but not
limited to, power and authority to sign for us in our names in the capacities
indicated below the annual report and any amendments thereto; and we hereby
approve, ratify, and confirm all that said person shall do or cause to be done
by virtue thereof.

/s/ Jim Berry                                                January 26, 2006
----------------------------------------
Jim Berry, Director

/s/ Thomas D. Berry                                          January 26, 2006
----------------------------------------
Thomas D. Berry, Director

/s/ Joe Berry Cannon                                         January 26, 2006
----------------------------------------
Joe Berry Cannon, Director

/s/ J. Berry Harrison                                        January 26, 2006
----------------------------------------
J. Berry Harrison, Director

/s/ Erd M. Johnson                                           January 26, 2006
----------------------------------------
Erd M. Johnson, Director

/s/ David P. Lambert                                         January 26, 2006
----------------------------------------

David P. Lambert, Director

/s/ Linford R. Pitts                                         January 26, 2006
----------------------------------------
Linford R. Pitts, Director

/s/ Robert B. Rodgers                                        January 26, 2006
----------------------------------------
Robert B. Rodgers, Director

/s/ Russell W. Teubner                                       January 26, 2006
----------------------------------------
Russell W. Teubner, Director