alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 24     **POWER OF    ATTORNEY**     The undersigned directors of Gardner Denver, Inc., a Delaware    corporation (the “Company”), which anticipates filing    with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the    “Commission”) under the provisions of the Securities    Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) an Annual Report on    Form 10-K    (the “Annual Report”) for the fiscal year ended    December 31, 2006 (together with any and all subsequent    amendments) does hereby constitutes and appoints    Ross J. Centanni and Tracy D. Pagliara, and each of    them, with full power of substitution and resubstitution, as    attorney or attorneys to execute and file on behalf of the    undersigned, in their capacity as a director of the Company, the    Annual Report and any and all other documents to be filed with    the Commission pertaining to the Annual Report with full power    and authority to do and perform any and all acts and things    whatsoever required or necessary to be done in the premises, as    fully as to all intents and purposes as he could do if    personally present, hereby ratifying and approving the acts of    said attorneys and any of them and any such substitution.     Dated: February 28, 2007    **Signature** **Title** /s/  Donald    G.    Barger, Jr.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of CEO and CFO 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 Paradise, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Melvin S. Gordon, as Chief Executive Officer of Paradise, Inc., certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes- Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and 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 Paradise, Inc.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                     |  |  |  |                   
|------------------------------------ |  |  |  | ------------------
|/s/ Melvin S. Gordon                 |  |  |  | Date: May 14, 2009
|Melvin S. Gordon                     |  |  |  |                   
|Chief Executive Officer and Chairman |  |  |  |
184 La. 463

#### Succession of WINKLER.

No. 33714.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 3, 1936.

Rehearing Denied March 2, 1936.

John C. O’Connor and Arthur Landry, both of New Orleans, for appellant.

Harold J. Moore, of New Orleans, for appellee Mary Frances Ohlenforst Wink-ler.

Daniel Wendling, of New Orleans, for appellee Victory Oil Co.

BRUNOT, Justice.

Peter Gabriel Winkler died intestate. Pie was married twice. Four children, all the issue of his first marriage, survive him. He left an estate, consisting of paraphernal personal property, and a surviving widow. An administration of the estate was provoked, and, by agreement of the interested parties, Leopold C. Winkler was appointed and qualified as administrator of the succession.

In due course the assets of the succession were assembled, the debts tabulated, and. the administrator’s final account was filed. Several alleged creditors of the deceased, and his surviving widow, who alleged herself to be the widow of the deceased, in necessitous circumstances, and, as such, entitled, as a privileged creditor of the estate, to the sum of $1,000, filed oppositions to the account. The oppositions were heard, some of them were rejected, and the account was amended by affirming Others, including the opposition of the widow of the deceased.

No appeal from the judgment was taken by any of the parties opposing the account, but the administrator appealed from that part of the judgment decreeing the widow Of the "deceased to be in necessitous circumstances and entitled, as a privileged creditor, to- $1,000, and ordering the account amended accordingly.

The testimony of the widow is positive that she was left in dire necessity by the death of her husband. To offset this testimony, the appellant- offered certain probate records- from the clerk of court of the parish of Acadia, in which parish the succession of Mrs. Winkler’s first husband was opened.

These records show that, in the settlement of the.affaii-s of that succession, Mrs. Winkler, who was at that time the widow of* the deceased, Wenzel Ohlenforst, received from his succession a few hundred dollars. The record shows that this small sum was used after the death of her first husband for the purpose of educating her son, the issue of her first marriage, and that it was wholly expended several years before the death of her second husband, Peter Gabriel Winkler.

It would serve no useful purpose to review the facts further.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment appealed from is affirmed, the costs of the appeal to be paid by the succession.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<CIK> 0000916310
<NAME> PROTECTION ONE ALARM MONITORING, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           7,658
<SECURITIES>                                     6,664
<RECEIVABLES>                                  102,405
<ALLOWANCES>                                    30,689
<INVENTORY>                                     12,908
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               186,380
<PP&E>                                          89,919
<DEPRECIATION>                                  29,007
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,512,558
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          214,313
<BONDS>                                        822,291
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,269
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,215,651
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,512,558
<SALES>                                        605,176
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               605,176
<CGS>                                          184,006
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  184,006
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,869
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 21641
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              87,037
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                106,153
<INCOME-TAX>                                    27,108
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             79,045
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  1,691
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    80,736
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.64
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.64


</TABLE>
#### MURPHY v. B. MUTTI, Inc., et al.

No. 16775.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

March 24, 1939.

Writ of Certiorari Denied May 29, 1939.

T. Semmes Walmsley and Maurice R. Woulfe, both of New Orleans (Drew L. Smith, of New Orleans, of counsel), for appellant.

Eraste Vidrine and James G. Schillin, both of New Orleans, for appellee.

JANVIER, Judge.

We granted a rehearing because of our fear that possibly we erred in concluding that the claimant was justified in leaving the hospital and in refusing to submit to the operation which was scheduled for the following day, • and because, also, of the possibility that we might have erred in not concluding that the claimant could, with reasonable safety, submit to the operation at this time. While there may be ground for the- charge that, when the claimant left the hospital, he did so arbitrarily and without any proper reason other than his refusal to submit to the operation to which he had already consented, still we feel that there is a preponderance of evidence to-the contrary and that, when he deserted the hospital, he was impelled to do so by an illness with which he at that time was suffering and that, even had he remained, he should not, in his then condition, have been required to submit.

Nor have we changed our view that he should not now be required to undergo the operation. While it is true that the doctrine is established that a disabled employee, whose disability will with almost complete certainty be removed by an operation which may be performed with practical certainty of success and with almost no danger, should submit- to the operation, the cases in which an operation has been required — if there are any- — are so few as to lead to the conclusion that, while the academic principle is recognized, the practical application thereof is rare indeed.

We conclude that, in his present condition, plaintiff should not be required to submit.

For these reasons and for the-reasons contained in our original opinion, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed that our original decree be and it is reinstated, defendant to pay all costs.

Original decree reinstated.
STATE OF LOUISIANA 

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT 

JENNIFER SEVIN AND WEBSTER 

SEVIN, III, ON BEHALF OF 

THEIR MINOR CHILD, CHANNING 

SEVIN 

VERSUS 

HANNAH BECNEL, THE TOT SPOT 

EARLY LEARNING CENTER, LLC, 

AND WESTERN WORLD INSURANCE 

COMPANY 

NO. 2023 CW 1248 

FEBRUARY 5, 2024 

In Re: Western World Insurance Company, applying for 

supervisory writs, 19th Judicial District Court, 

Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 701345. 

BEFORE: GUIDRY, C.J., CHUTZ, LANIER, MILLER AND GREENE, JJ. 

WRIT GRANTED. We find the trial court abused its 

discretion in denying the motion for leave to file an amended 

answer filed by the defendant, Western World Insurance Company. 

Amendments to pleadings should be liberally allowed provided the 

movant: 1) is acting in good faith, 2) the amendment is not 

sought as a delaying tactic, 3) the opponent will not be unduly 

prejudiced, and 4) trial of the issues will not be unduly 

delayed. Hogan v. State Farm Automobile Insurance Company, 94-

0004 (La. App. 1st Cir. 12/22/94), 649 So.2d 45, 50, writ 

denied, 95-0215 (La. 3/17/95), 651 So.2d 276. Here, there was 

no evidence that the defendant, Western World Insurance Company, 

was not acting in good faith, that the amendment was being used 

as a delaying tactic, that plaintiffs would be unduly 

prejudiced, or that the trial would be unduly delayed, as there 

are no pending deadlines and this case has not yet been set for 

trial. We reverse the trial court's November 3, 2023 judgment 

and grant the motion for leave to file an amended answer filed 

by the defendant, Western World Insurance Company. 

WRC 

WIL 

HG 

Guidry, C.J., dissents and would deny the writ application. 

The criteria set forth in Berlitz Const. Co., Inc. v. Hotel 

Investors of New Iberia, Inc., 396 So.2d 878 (La. 1981) (per 

curiam), are not met. 

Miller, J., would refuse to consider the writ application. 

The writ application failed to include a copy of the pleadings 

upon which the ruling was founded, including a copy of the 

motion at issue and a copy of the July 24, 2023 hearing 

transcript, in violation of Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of 

Appeal, Rule 4-5 (C) (8). 

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT 

11.,,J) 

DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT 

FOR THE COURT
**Exhibit 21.1**

Subsidiaries of the Company 

Riverbed Technology Ltd. (UK) 

Riverbed Technology S.A.R.L. (France) 

Riverbed Technology Pte. Ltd. (Singapore) 

Riverbed Technology GmbH (Germany) 

Riverbed Technology Australia Ltd. (Australia) 

Riverbed Technology Korea, Inc. (Korea) 

Riverbed Technology Ltd. (Hong Kong) 

Riverbed Technology KK (Japan) 

Riverbed Technology BV (Netherlands) 

Riverbed Technology India Ltd. (India) 

Riverbed Technology International, Inc. (Delaware) 

Riverbed Technology AG (Switzerland) 

Riverbed Technology SRL (Spain) 

Riverbed Technology Canada Ltd. (Canada) 

Riverbed Technology South Africa (Proprietary) Limited (South Africa) 

Riverbed Technology, S.r.l. (Italy)
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6042 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6042

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 213 William Hilton Parkway in Hilton Head Island, South Carolina, as 
           the ``Casear H. Wright Jr. Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 18, 2021

 Ms. Mace (for herself, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, Mr. Duncan, Mr. 
   Timmons, Mr. Norman, Mr. Clyburn, and Mr. Rice of South Carolina) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                          Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 213 William Hilton Parkway in Hilton Head Island, South Carolina, as 
           the ``Casear H. Wright Jr. Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. CASEAR H. WRIGHT JR. POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 213 William Hilton Parkway in Hilton Head Island, South 
Carolina, shall be known and designated as the ``Casear H. Wright Jr. 
Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Casear H. 
Wright Jr. Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit
      35


COUNTRYWIDE
      HOME LOANS SERVICING LP




OFFICERS’
      CERTIFICATE


ANNUAL
      STATEMENT OF THE MASTER SERVICER




CWALT,
      INC.


ALTERNATIVE
      LOAN TRUST 2006-11CB


MORTGAGE
      PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-11CB




The
      undersigned does hereby certify that the undersigned is an officer of
      Countrywide GP, Inc., general partner of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP
      (the “Master Servicer”), and does hereby further certify pursuant to Section
      3.16 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the above-captioned Series
      (the
“Agreement”) that:




(i)           A
      review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding calendar
      year and of the performance of the Master Servicer under the Agreement has
      been
      made under my supervision; and




(ii)           To
      the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has
      fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects
      throughout such calendar year.













/s/
      Craig Baingo                                                                                                                Dated:
      March 14,
      2007




Craig
      Baingo


Executive
      Vice President, Finance
#### James S. Jackson, as Surviving Partner of the Firm of Edward Jackson and James S. Jackson, Respondent, v. Ernest Jenkins and Martha Jenkins, Appellants.

Interlocutory judgment affirmed, with costs, with usual leave to defendant to withdraw demurrer and answer on payment of costs in this court and in the court below. All concurred.
224 So.2d 920

#### Lenwood CARROLL v. STATE.

4 Div. 337.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

July 3, 1969.

Griffin Sikes, Andalusia, for petitioner.

MacDonald Gallion, Atty. Gen., opposed.

Certiorari to Court of Appeals.

SIMPSON, Justice.

Petition of Lenwood Carroll for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision in Carroll v. State, 45 Ala.App., 80, 224 So.2d 917.

Writ denied.

LIVINGSTON, C. J., and COLEMAN and BLOODWORTH, JJ., concur.
DISMISS and Opinion Filed March 4, 2015

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-14-01269-CV

IN RE HERMES SARGENT BATES, LLP AND COLLEEN MCCOY, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 44th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 12-03421

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Francis, Evans, and Whitehill

Opinion by Justice Evans

By order dated December 30, 2014, the Court abated this mandamus proceeding 

pursuant to rule 7.2(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure to allow the successor judge to 

reconsider the ruling of the trial court. Relator has advised the Court that the trial court has 

granted the relief sought by the petition for writ of mandamus. Relator now moves to dismiss its 

petition for writ of mandamus. Pursuant to relator’s motion, we dismiss relator’s petition for 

writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1.

141269F.P05 /David Evans/

DAVID EVANS

JUSTICE
#### STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF LOUISIANA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Miss Mary JOY and Miss Catherine Joy, in Solido, Defendants and Appellees. *

No. 14251.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

April 10, 1933.

T. M. Milling, IP. L. Hargrove, and A. M. Curtis, all of New Orleans, for appellant.

Francis P. Burns, of New Orleans, for ap-pellees.

*

Rehearing granted May 22, 1933.

JANVIER, Judge.

Plaintiff succeeded to all the rights of Liberty Oil Company, which corporation was originally the tenant of property owned by defendants. In the matter of Liberty Oil Company, Limited, v. Miss Mary Joy and Miss Catherine Joy, 147 So. 375, decided by us today, we held that the lease should be construed as placing upon the tenant the obligation of paying certain paving charges recorded against the demised property, and we so held because we were of the opinion that the tenant itself had so interpreted an ambiguous clause in the lease.

When the lease was transferred by the original tenant, Liberty Oil Company, Limited, to the present tenant, Standard Oil Company, the latter company continued to make annual payments on the paving charges for two years, without protest and without demanding that the owners themselves pay said charges, and now seeks reimbursement of the amounts paid, alleging that the payments were made as the result of duress because it was required by the lease to pay other taxes and there was no way by which the paving charges could be separated from the other taxes for the purpose of making separate payments. The fact that Standard Oil Company continued for two years to make the said payments *378rattier indicates ttiat ttie company itself interpreted the lease just as its predecessor had apparently interpreted it — as placing upon the tenant the obligation of paying the paying charges.

For these reasons and for the reasons assigned by us in Liberty Oil Go., Limited, v. Miss Mary Joy and Miss Catherine Joy, 147 So. 375, decided this day, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment appealed from be, and it is, affirmed.

Affirmed.
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 Annual Report of Atlas America Public #15-2006 (B) L.P. (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Freddie M. Kotek, Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer of the General Partner, 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 Partnership. |
|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| /s/ FREDDIE M. KOTEK                                                                  |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Freddie M. Kotek                                                                      |
| Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer of the General Partner |
| September 11, 2015                                                                    |
*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. 00-31420

_____________________

FLEXI-VAN LEASING, INC.,

Plaintiff - Appellee-Cross Appellant,

versus

AVONDALE CONTAINER YARD, INC.;

WESTBANK CONTAINER SERVICES, INC., 

Defendants - Appellants-Cross Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

No. 99-CV-1988-L

December 13, 2001

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

We have studied the briefs and heard the argument of the

parties. After thorough consideration of the issues and the

arguments, it is clear to us that the conclusions of the district

court are not, in the end, reversible. Accordingly its judgment

and all of the rulings encompassed therein are

AFFIRMED.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 November 25, 2013

s1118

Order 

Clerk

November 25, 2013

147459 & (20)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 147459

COA: 312326

Wayne CC: 06-004397-FC

ANTONIO DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 30, 2013 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). The 

motion to stay is DENIED.