alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
585 A.2d 401

#### FRED J. TOCCO v. NEW JERSEY COUNCIL ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

October 16, 1990.

Petition for certification denied. (See 242 *N.J.Super.*218, 576 A.2d 328)
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Johan P. Finley, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of PDS Gaming Corporation, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PDS Gaming Corporation;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this 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 report;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 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-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



|Date: | November 14, 2003 |  | /s/JOHAN P. FINLEYJohan P. Finley, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
|----- | ----------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Swift Energy
Pension  Partners  1993-D,  Ltd.'s  balance  sheet and  statement of  operations
contained in its Form 10-Q for the quarter  ended June 30, 1999 and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         8,670
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  31,295
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               39,965
<PP&E>                                         3,394,336
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,625,579)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 808,722
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          4,421
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     804,301
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   808,722
<SALES>                                        60,988
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               61,006
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  47,979
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (18,531)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (18,531)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (18,531)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>Includes  lease  operating  expenses,  production  taxes  and  depreciation,
depletion and  amortization  expense.  Excludes general and  administrative  and
interest expense.
</FN>



</TABLE>
#### Robert HINSON, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D10-4444.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Jan. 6, 2011.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 11, 2011.

Robert Hinson, pro se, Petitioner.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

*ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS*

PER CURIAM.

Robert Lee Hinson, Jr., filed a petition for writ of prohibition with this court presenting the argument that the criminal statute under which he was evidently convicted was invalid because it failed to contain an enacting clause. This claim is clearly frivolous. *See McCutcheon v. State,*44 So.3d 156 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010); *Brown v. State,*10 So.3d 1197 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). More significantly, however, this is but the latest of many attempts by Hinson to secure relief based on clearly meritless legal theories. Following a review of the court’s records of Hinson’s prior filings, we issued the following order:

> The records of this court reflect that Robert Lee Hinson, Jr., has appeared as appellant or petitioner in this court 58 times since 1995. Approximately one half of those cases involved pro se petitions seeking extraordinary writ relief, none of which have resulted in the granting of any substantive relief, and the bulk of which presented claims that were procedurally barred or clearly meritless. The court thus finds that Hinson’s pro se litigation has substantially interfered with the effective and efficient administration of justice by the court. Accordingly, Robert Lee Hinson, Jr., shall show cause within 10 days of the date' of this order why sanctions, including a prohibition against appearing as a litigant in this court unless represented by counsel, should hot be imposed against him. *See*Fla. R.App. P. 9.410.

Having considered Hinson’s response, we conclude that he has failed to establish good cause to avoid the imposition of a sanction we deem necessary to prevent his continued abuse of the judicial process. Accordingly, Robert Lee Hinson, Jr., is hereby prohibited from appearing as a- litigant in any proceeding before this court unless represented by counsel. In any pending cases, petitioner shall secure the appearance of counsel on his behalf within 30 days, failing which such proceeding shall be subject to dismissal without further opportunity to be heard. The clerk of this court is directed to accept no further pro se filings from Hinson. If received, they shall be returned to him without filing and with a reference to this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

KAHN, VAN NORTWICK, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 193 (Wednesday, October 6, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 61772]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-25099]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1082 and 1083 (Review)]


Chlorinated Isocyanurates From China and Spain; Determinations

    On the basis of the record \1\ developed in the subject five-year 
reviews, the United States International Trade Commission (Commission) 
determines, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 
U.S.C. 1675(c)), that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on 
chlorinated isocyanurates from China and Spain would be likely to lead 
to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the 
United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).
    \2\ Commissioner Daniel R. Pearson determines that revocation of 
the antidumping duty order on chlorinated isocyanurates from Spain 
would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of 
material injury to an industry in the United States within a 
reasonably foreseeable time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    The Commission instituted these reviews on May 3, 2010 (75 FR 
23303) and determined on August 6, 2010 that it would conduct expedited 
reviews (75 FR 51113, August 18, 2010).
    The Commission transmitted its determinations in these reviews to 
the Secretary of Commerce on September 30, 2010. The views of the 
Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4184 (September 2010), 
entitled Chlorinated Isocyanurates from China and Spain: Investigation 
Nos. 731-TA-1082 and 1083 (Review).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: September 30, 2010.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010-25099 Filed 10-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
Exhibit 10.12

                      Summary of Approved Changes to the
              Blue Shield -- Controlled Affiliate License Agreement

<TABLE>
   <C>            <C>           <C>

      Action        Effective                               Explanation
                      Date

   Replace the    March 10,      Amended Standards 6(C) and 9 - Added the Electronic Claims Routing
   entire Exhibit 2000           Process ("ECRP") as a required National Program.
   A with the new
   Exhibit A.

                  N/A            Amended Standards 6(I) - Eliminated requirements that have sunset.



                  June 16, 2000  Amended Standards 6(I) and 7(B):

                                 Eliminated the Annual Financial Forecast Required Report filed by
                                 Controlled Affiliate Licensees.



   Replace page   June 16, 2000  Amendment to Paragraph 14A:
   11
                                -    Revised double three-quarter voting requirement
</TABLE>
#### Anthony BAKER, Appellant, v. Walter A. McNEIL, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, Appellee.

No. 1D09-5970.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 28, 2010.

Rehearing Denied July 29, 2010.

Anthony Baker, pro se, Appellant.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, and Trisha Meggs Pate, Bureau Chief — Criminal Appeals, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. *Fouts v. Bolay,*795 So.2d 1116 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); *Butterworth v. Espey,*523 So.2d 1278 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).

DAVIS, VAN NORTWICK, and ROWE, JJ., concur.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T L UO MAN C HE N, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 10- 73481 A ge nc yN o. A 070- 036- 839 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d F e bruary11, 2013 ** B efo re: F E RN A N D E Z , T A S H IM A , an dW A R D L A W , C i rcu i tJu d g es. L uom an C he n, ana t i ve and c i t i z e n of C hi na , pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls ’ ( “B I A ” ) o r d e rd e n y in g h is m o tio n to r e o p e n . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r8 U . S . C . § 1252. W e r e vi e w f oran abus e of

di s c r e t i on the 

# FI LED FEB 15 2 013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 73481 2 B I A ’s d e n ia l o f

am o tio n to r e o p e n . H

e v . G on zales , 5 0 1 F .3 d1 1 2 8 , 1 1 3 0 - 3 1 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 7 ) . We d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. T he B IA di d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on by denyi ng C hen’ s m ot i on t o reopen as u n tim e lyb e c au s e th e m o tio n w a s f ile do v e rth irte e n y e ar s la te , se e 8 C .F .R . § 10 03 . 2(c) (2), and, even acc ept i ng C hen’ s and hi s f am i l y’ s c l ai m s a s true, he fa i l ed t o de m ons tr a t e am a t e r i a l c hange i n c i r c um s t anc e s i n C hi nat o qua l i f yf orthe r e g u la to rye x c e p tio n to th e tim e lim it f o rf ilin g am o tio n to r e o p e n , se e 8 C. F. R. § 1 0 0 3 .2 ( c ) ( 3 ) ( ii) ; se e al so L i n v. H

older , 588 F . 3d 981, 988- 89 ( 9th C i r . 2009) (r ec ord d i d n otes t abl i sh change i n fam i l y pl anni ng l aw s or e nforcement of s uch law s th a t w o u lde s tab lis h c h an g e dc o u n tryc o n d itio n s e x c u s in g u n tim e lym o tio n to r e o p e n ) ; He , 5 0 1 F . 3 dat1 1 3 2 (ch an g e i n p erso n al ci rcu m st an ces d o es n o test ab l i sh ch an g ed circ u m stan ce s in co u n try o f o rig in ). B ec au se th e B IA co n sid er ed C h en ’s evi dence i n rea chi ng i t s c on clusi on , w e r ej ec tC hen’ s c on t ent i on thatthe B IA di s m i s s e d hi s e vi de nc e a s notc r e di bl e . F i na l l y , w e l a c k j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w the B IA ’ s di sc re t i on ary dec i si on decl i ni ng t o exerci se i t s s ua spon t e autho ri ty und er8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 ( a ) . See Mej i a-H erna ndezv. H

older , 6 3 3 F .3 d8 1 8 , 8 2 3 - 2 4 ( 9 th C i r. 20 11 ). P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-11392

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

TARVINN DJUAN WILLIAMS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:17-CR-41-1

Before SOUTHWICK, WILLETT, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Tarvinn Djuan 

Williams has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Williams has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 20, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-11392 Document: 00514519890 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/20/2018
No. 17-11392

2

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw 

is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 17-11392 Document: 00514519890 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/20/2018
584 A.2d 211

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. FRANK BURGOS.

May 7, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
EXHIBIT 13.2


CERTIFICATION





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, the undersigned officer of Orion Engineered Carbons S.A. (the “Company”) hereby certifies that, to the officer’s knowledge, the Company’s Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2014 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:     March 5, 2015





By:    /s/ Charles Herlinger_________________________


Charles Herlinger


Chief Financial Officer











SC1:3819725.1
Exhibit 99.2

Trico Marine Services, Inc.

Form 10-Q

Quarterly Report

Quarterly Period Ended March 31, 2003Certifications Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Victor M. Perez, Chief Financial Officer of Trico Marine Services, 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 for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (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 for the period covered by such Report.
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.



|                    |     |                                       |  | 
|------------------- | --- | ------------------------------------- |  | 
|Date:  May 15, 2003 | By: | /s/Thomas
    E. Fairley             
|                    |     | Thomas E. Fairley                    
|                    |     | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                                                                                     |   | Three Months Ended March 31, 2010 |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------|--------|
| Earnings:                                                                                |   |                                        |   |   |
| Income from continuing operations before equity in earnings of unconsolidated affiliates |   | $                                           | 11,099 |   |
| Fixed charges                                                                            |   |                                        | 23,827 |   |
| Capitalized interest                                                                     |   |                                        | (353   | ) |
| Distributions of earnings from unconsolidated affiliates                                 |   |                                        | 657    |   |
| Total earnings                                                                           |   | $                                           | 35,230 |   |
|                                                                                     |   |                                        |   |   |
| Fixed charges and Preferred Unit distributions:                                          |   |                                        |   |   |
| Contractual interest expense                                                             |   | $                                           | 21,802 |   |
| Amortization of deferred financing costs                                                 |   |                                        | 835    |   |
| Interest expense on financing obligations                                                |   |                                        | 476    |   |
| Capitalized interest                                                                     |   |                                        | 353    |   |
| Interest component of rental expense                                                     |   |                                        | 361    |   |
| Total fixed charges                                                                      |   |                                        | 23,827 |   |
| Distributions on Preferred Units                                                         |   |                                        | 1,677  |   |
| Total fixed charges and Distributions on Preferred Units                                 |   | $                                           | 25,504 |   |
|                                                                                     |   |                                        |   |   |
| Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                                                       |   |                                        | 1.48   |   |
| Ratio of earnings to combined fixed charges and Distributions on Preferred Units         |   |                                        | 1.38   |   |

----
#### Raymond RAMOS a/k/a Angel Cordoba v. JB JAMES CONSTRUCTION CO., LLC and The Gray Insurance Company.

No. 2011-CC-0466.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 20, 2011.

In re Gray Insurance Company; JB James Construction Co. LLC et al.; — Defendant(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs Office of Workers’ Compensation District 6, No. 09-06479; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CW 2078.

Denied. Premature.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                        TRICO MARINE SERVICES, INC.

                               EXHIBIT 11.1

                     COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

             (In thousands, except share and per share amounts)



                                                     Three Months Ended March 31, 2000         Three Months Ended March 31, 1999
                                                    -----------------------------------     --------------------------------------
                                                                                  Per-                                       Per-
                                                       Loss        Shares        share          Loss          Shares        share
                                                    (Numerator) (Denominator)   Amount       (Numerator)   (Denominator)   Amount
                                                    ----------- -------------  --------     -------------  -------------  --------
<S>                                                 <C>         <C>            <C>          <C>            <C>            <C>
Net loss                                            $   (9,061)                             $     (7,343)
                                                    -----------                             -------------

Basic earnings per share

Loss available to common
     shareholders                                       (9,061)   28,390,416    ($0.32)           (7,343)    20,378,416    ($0.36)
                                                                                =======                                    =======

Effect of Dilutive Securities

Stock option grants                                          -              -                          -              -
                                                     ---------- --------------              -------------   ------------

Diluted earnings per share

Loss available to common
     shareholders plus assumed conversions           $   (9,061)  28,390,416    ($0.32)     $     (7,343)    20,378,416    ($0.36)
                                                     =========== =============  =======     =============   ============   =======

</TABLE>
Exhibit 13.3  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL 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 Annual Report of Cnova N.V. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Vitor Fagá de Almeida, do certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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.  /s/ Vitor Fagá de AlmeidaVitor Fagá de AlmeidaChief Financial OfficerDate: March 31, 2015