alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Leslie L. McIver-Heyward, Respondent, v Richard Heyward, Appellant.

[806 NYS2d 428]

In related child custody proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Rockland County (Kaufman, J.), dated December 29, 2004, as, after a hearing, awarded sole physical and legal custody of the parties’ child to the mother.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Custody determinations are to be made to promote the best interests of the child based upon consideration of all relevant circumstances *(see Eschbach v Eschbach,*56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]; *Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer,*55 NY2d 89, 93 [1982]). The most important factors in determining the best interests of the child are the ability to provide for the child’s emotional and intellectual development, the quality of the home environment, and the parental guidance provided *(see Matter of Louise E. S. v W. Stephen S.,*64 NY2d 946, 947 [1985]; *see also Eschbach v Eschbach, supra*at 172). A custody award is a matter within the discretion of the hearing court *(see Matter of Panetta v Ruddy,*18 AD3d 662 [2005]), the determination of which is entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record *(see Matter of Olson v Olson,*8 AD3d 285 [2004]; *Klat v Klat,*176 AD2d 922, 923 [1991]).

*557The record supports the hearing court’s determination that the best interests of the child would be promoted by the award of custody to the mother, despite the report of the court-appointed forensic evaluator to the contrary, which the Family Court did not arbitrarily disregard *(see Vinciguerra v Vinciguerra,*294 AD2d 565, 566 [2002]; *cf. Matter of Maysonet v Contreras,*290 AD2d 510 [2002]; *Young v Young,*212 AD2d 114 [1995]). The Family Court conducted a full custody hearing at which it saw and heard the testimony of the witnesses. The Family Court also conducted an in camera interview with the child. The evidence demonstrated that neither parent was unfit, but that custody with the mother was in the child’s best interests. That determination has a substantial basis in the record.

The father’s remaining contention is without merit. H. Miller, J.P., Crane, Skelos and Dillon, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM TRANSCRYPT
INTERNATIONAL, INC.'S CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND
CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED BALANCE SHEETS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          16,163
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,100
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,326
<INVENTORY>                                     15,827
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                43,489
<PP&E>                                           2,828
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  71,330
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,833
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           130
<OTHER-SE>                                      43,382
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    71,330
<SALES>                                         23,275
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                23,275
<CGS>                                           19,688
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,688
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,277
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (845)<F1>
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,845)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,845)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.45)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.45)
<FN>
<F1>Interest expense is net of $1,107 of interest and other income less $262 of
interest expense.
</FN>


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 99.1



CEO CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC
REPORT



I, Bruce C. Edwards, President and Chief
Executive Officer of Powerwave Technologies, Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| | 1. |  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended March 30, 2003 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 780(d)); and
| | -- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|     
|-----
|Date:
|     





1
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 Eagle Broadband, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending November 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard
R. Royall, Chief Financial 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 results of operations of the Company.

Date:  January 14, 2004


/S/Richard R. Royall
--------------------
Richard R. Royall,
Chief Financial Officer
Skip to Content
Release dates
About
Current release
*Other formats:*
 ASCII (48 KB)
PDF (115 KB)
CSV (103 KB)

----

**September 2003**

Section A
Section B

All files contain data as of the current quarter. Files in comma-separated variable (CSV) format contain all available historical data.Section CReserve Bank Surveys of Farm Credit Conditions and Farm Land Values   C.1. Non-real-estate Farm Lending Compared with a Year EarlierASCII (12 KB)PDF (6 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (17 KB)  C.2. Expected Farm Loan Volume for the Next QuarterASCII (11 KB)PDF (6 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (12 KB)  C.3. Indicators of Relative Credit AvailabilityASCII (12 KB)PDF (6 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (14 KB)  C.4. Average Fixed Interest Rates on Farm LoansASCII (10 KB)PDF (4 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (6 KB)  C.5. Average Variable Interest Rates on Farm LoansASCII (4 KB)PDF (3 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (1 KB)  C.6. Trends in Farm Real Estate Values and Loan VolumeASCII (7 KB)PDF (4 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (12 KB)  C.7. Trends in Farm Income and ExpendituresASCII (4 KB)PDF (3 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (7 KB)Release dates |AboutCurrent release*Other formats:* ASCII (48 KB) |PDF (115 KB) |CSV (103 KB)
Statistical releases
Home |Economic research and dataAccessibility |Contact Us**Last update: September 30, 2003**
#### AMERICAN INS. CO. et al. v. MR. FOG, Inc., et al.

No. 8173.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

June 25, 1954.

Watson & Williams, Natchitoches, Bien-venu & Culver, New Orleans, for appellants.

Godfrey & Edwards, Many, Lucas F. Bruno, Jr., New Orleans, Jack L. Simms, Leesville, for appellees.

GLADNEY, Judge.

Having taken acts of subrogation from their insured, R. J. Robinson of Many, Louisiana, after payments made under policies covering damages to his home caused by a fire and explosion on June 16, 1952, plaintiffs have instituted this suit for the recovery of $8,411.14 paid by reason of their contractual liability, and for the additional sum of $3,000 as attorney’s fees. For cause of action, it is alleged the damages were caused by the negligent acts of the defendants who were engaged in “fogging” the Robinson home.

Defendants have filed in this court a motion to dismiss the appeal, asserting that this court is without jurisdiction to entertain the appeal as it falls within the jurisdiction of the Supretne Court of Louisiana, under Article VII, Section 10 of the Constitution of Louisiana. The record clearly discloses the amount in controversy between each plaintiff and the" defendants, who are sued in solido, is in excess of $2,000 exclusive of interest and costs. It is therefore clear that this court is without jurisdiction and the appeal should be lodged in the Supreme Court of Louisiana.

LSA-R.S. 13:4441 provides where a case is properly brought up on appeal and the appellant or appellants have appealed to the wrong court the appellate court is authorized to transfer the case to the proper court instead of dismissing the appeal. We think this to be the correct procedure in the instant case.

Accordingly, it is ordered that this appeal be transferred to the Honorable,, the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana. Plaintiffs-appellants are hereby granted a period of 60 days from and after the date upon which this decree becomes final *510within which to effect the transfer and to perfect the appeal in said court, failing which action within the time fixed this appeal is to stand dismissed.

Costs of this appeal are assessed against plaintiffs-appellants. All other costs are to await final determination hereof.
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1675

To permanently extend the moratorium enacted by the Internet Tax Freedom

Act, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 2, 2001

Mr. COX introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on the Judiciary

A BILL

To permanently extend the moratorium enacted by the

Internet Tax Freedom Act, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Internet Tax Non5 discrimination Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF INTERNET TAX FREE7 DOM ACT MORATORIUM.

8 (a) PERMANENT EXTENSION; INTERNET ACCESS

9 TAXES.—Section 1101 of the Internet Tax Freedom Act

10 (47 U.S.C. 151 note) is amended—
2

•HR 1675 IH

1 (1) by striking ‘‘taxes during the period begin2 ning on October 1, 1998, and ending 3 years after

3 the date of the enactment of this Act—’’ and insert4 ing ‘‘taxes after September 30, 1998:’’;

5 (2) by striking paragraph (1) of subsection (a)

6 and inserting the following:

7 ‘‘(1) Taxes on Internet access.’’,

8 (3) by striking ‘‘multiple’’ in paragraph (2) of

9 subsection (a) and inserting ‘‘Multiple’’;

10 (4) by striking subsection (d); and

11 (5) by redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as

12 subsections (d) and (e), respectively.

13 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 1104(10)

14 of the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note)

15 is amended by striking ‘‘unless’’ and all that follows

16 through ‘‘1998’’.

Æ
#### Otto HAAS, Appellant, v. Louis TEITELBAUM, Anna Eisenberg, Morris Eisenberg, and Meyer Teitelbaum, Appellees.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division A.

Oct. 26, 1954.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

          - [Docket No. ER08-1513-001] 

Take notice that on September 16, 2008, ISO New England, Inc. submitted for filing an Errata to the Informational Filing for Qualification in the Forward Capacity Market. 

Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding. 

                    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at                     *http://www.ferc.gov*. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.                 

                    This filing is accessible online at                     *http://www.ferc.gov*, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail                     *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov*, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.                 

*Comment Date:*                     5 p.m. Eastern Time on September 26, 2008.                 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E8-22616 Filed 9-25-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
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 National Holdings Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2009 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Alan B. Levin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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, 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.










/s/ Alan B.
Levin


Alan B. Levin


Chief Financial Officer


May 14, 2009
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7734

CHESTER JAMES DOLES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CALVIN T. KRAMMES, Former 1992 Police Chief,

Town of Elkton; TOWN OF ELKTON, VIRGINIA;

JAMES CROUSE, Mayor, Town of Elkton; KENNARD

MERREY, Former 1992 Town of Elkton Commissioner; JESSIE P. BOYD, Former 1992 Town of Elkton

Commissioner; GENE A. BROOMELL, Former 1992

Town of Elkton Commissioner; CONSTANCE W. DUNBARR, Former 1992 Town of Elkton Commissioner,

in their Official and Individual capacities,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-95-

2609-ADM)

Submitted: September 5, 1996 Decided: September 13, 1996

Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Chester James Doles, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2
3

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Doles v. Krammes, No. CA-95-2609-ADM (D. Md. Sept. 13,

1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIR E

United States of America

V .

Maria C . Rosario

Criminal No . 07-cr-252-02-JD

O R D E R

The assented to motion to reschedule jury trial (document no .

15) filed by defendant is granted . Trial is also continued as to

co-defendant Eduardo K . Fernandez-Avalos unless an objection is

filed by Tuesday, January 15, 2008 .

Defendant shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights within 10

days . The court finds that the ends of justice served by granting

a continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the

defendant in a speedy trial, 18 U .S .C . § 3161 (h) (8) (B) (iv) , for the

reasons set forth in the motion .

SO ORDERED .

/s/ Joseph A . DiClerico, Jr .

Joseph A . DiClerico, Jr .

United States District Judge

Date : January 10, 200 8

cc : Steven Gordon, Esq .

Mark Irish, Esq .

U .S . Marsha l

U .S . Probation

Martin Leppo, Esq .

Paul Twomey, Esq .

Case 1:07-cr-00252-JD Document 16 Filed 01/10/08 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 99.1


                                                    Frontier Communications
                                                          3 High Ridge Park
                                                         Stamford, CT 06905
                                                               203.614.5600
                                                     www.frontieronline.com

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:
David Whitehouse
203-614-5708

     Frontier Communications to Release Third-Quarter Results and Host Call

STAMFORD,  Conn.,  September  25,  2008 -- Frontier  Communications  Corporation
(NYSE: FTR) plans to release third-quarter results on Monday,  November 10, 2008
before  the  market  opens and to host a  conference  call that day at 9:00 A.M.
eastern time.

The conference call will be Webcast and may be accessed (live and replay) at:

http://www.investorcalendar.com/IC/CEPage.asp?ID=135083
-------------------------------------------------------

A telephonic  replay of the conference  call will be available from noon Eastern
time, Monday, November 10, 2008 through midnight Tuesday, November 18, 2008, via
dial-in at 1-888-203-1112 for U.S. and Canadian callers or, outside the U.S. and
Canada, at  1-719-457-0820,  passcode 4469299. A Webcast replay of the call will
be available at the above Website until noon Eastern time, December 25, 2008.


                                       ###
<PAGE>   1


Exhibit 12

Prime Succession, Inc. and subsidiaries
Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
(Dollars in Thousands)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                         Three months ended
                                                              March 31,
                                                         -------------------
                                                         1997           1996
                                                         ----           ----
<S>                                                    <C>            <C>
Ratio of Earnings to
Fixed Charges

Earnings:
   Loss before income taxes                              (920)        (6,396) 
   Add:  Fixed charges, net                             6,192          4,005

         Income (loss) before income
                  taxes and fixed charges, net
                                                        5,272         (2,391)   

Fixed Charges:

                Total interest expense (1)              5,992          3,778
                Interest factor in rents (2)              200            227

                Total fixed charges                     6,192          4,005

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                       0.85          (0.60)

Coverage deficiency (3)                                   920          6,396


<FN>

      (1)   Total interest expense for each period includes amortization of
            loan costs. (1)

      (2)   Interest factor in rents represents one-third of rent expense,
            which is considered (2) representative of the interest factor.


      (3)   The Company's earnings are inadequate to cover fixed charges for
            all periods indicated above. (3) Coverage deficiency represents the
            excess of fixed charges over income before income taxes and fixed
            charges, net.


</TABLE>
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1670

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow certain coins to

be acquired by individual retirement accounts and other individually

directed pension plan accounts.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 1, 2001

Mr. VITTER (for himself, Mr. CRANE, and Mr. MCCRERY) 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 allow certain coins to be acquired by individual retirement accounts and other individually directed pension plan accounts.

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN COINS NOT TREATED AS COLLECT4 IBLES.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (A) of section

6 408(m)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating

7 to exception for certain coins and bullion) is amended to

8 read as follows:
2

•HR 1670 IH

1 ‘‘(A) any coin certified by a recognized

2 grading service and traded on a nationally rec3 ognized electronic network, or listed by a recog4 nized wholesale reporting service, and—

5 ‘‘(i) which is or was at any time legal

6 tender in the United States, or

7 ‘‘(ii) issued under the laws of any

8 State, or’’.

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

10 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after

11 December 31, 2001.

Æ