alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### State *vs.*Patrick Maxwell.

Under the statute (Revision of 1866, tit. 12, § 137,) which provides for the punishment of every person who shall keep “ a disorderly house,” it is not necessary to show that the house had acquired the reputation of being a disorderly house.

Information for keeping a disorderly house ; tried before Loomis, J., in the superior court. Defendant found guilty and motion for new trial for error in the charge of the judge. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.

*Shelton*and *Johnson,*in support of the motion.

*Foster,*State Attorney, contra.

Hinman, C. J.

The defendant takes exception to the charge

to the jury. The information was founded upon the statute which provides “that every person who shall keep or maintain a disorderly house, a house where lewd, dissolute or drunken persons resort, or a house where drinking, carousing, dancing or fighting is permitted to the disturbance of the neighbors, shall be punished,” &c. The claim was made that the jury should be instructed that in order to convict the defendant it was necessary for the state to prove that the reputation of the house was that of a disorderly house; but the court omitted to so charge and in substance informed the jury that it was sufficient if the house was in fact a house of this description, within the meaning of the statute. It appears to us that this, instruction was correct. Nothing is said in the statute abou? the reputation of houses the keepers of which are liable to prosecution under it, and unless by the phrase “ disorderly house ” is necessarily meant a house which is reputed to be such, it clearly is not within its letter or spirit. But the statute uses the phrase as synonymous with a house where lewd, dissolute or drunken persons resort. And this is very nearly the common law definition of a disorderly house, which is a house the inmates of which behave so badly as to *260become a nuisance to the neighborhood. But a house may become a nuisance to its immediate neighborhood without acquiring a general reputation of being disorderly. It must become disorderly and a nuisance before it would acquire a general reputation of being so, and as soon as it becomes a house of this description it is, we think, liable to prosecution under this statute. The persons immediately injured by such a house would know that it was in fact disorderly long before its general character would be acquired, and it was not the intention to shield it from prosecution until its general character was established. The statute is unlike that in relation to houses of ill-fame. Houses of this latter description, by the very terms of the statute in relation to them, must have acquired an ill-fame or reputation ; and hence the case of *Cadwell*v. *The*State, 17 Conn., 467, cited by the defendant, has no application to this case.

We find no error in the charge complained of, and do not advise a new trial.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.
#### In the Matter of Claude A. Lindquist, Petitioner, against Rudolph H. Swanson, as Chief of the Fire Department of the City of Jamestown, et al., Respondents.

Motion to strike out certain allegations contained in the answer granted. Determination annulled, without costs and matter remitted for a .rehearing. Memorandum: The petitioner, a veteran, after a hearing as provided for in section 22 of the Civil Service Law, was dismissed from his position as a captain in the- Jamestown Fire Department. He now seeks to review the proceedings resulting in his dismissal pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Act. The respondents’ answer to the petition contains so-called new matter which the petitioner has moved to have stricken from the answer, and we conclude that the motion should be granted for the reason that the allegations and the certificates or records objected to are neither relevant nor competent upon a review of the proceedings resulting in petitioner’s dismissal. The motion to strike out is therefore granted. Our review of the proceedings resulting in the petitioner’s dismissal is directed to the question of whether or not the record contains substantial evidence to support the determination. *(Matter of Weber*v. *Town of Cheektowaga,*284 N. Y. 377; *Matter of Miller*v. *Kling,*291 N. Y. 65.) Substantial evidence must mean competent evidence with which the petitioner was confronted at the hearing, and thus afforded an opportunity to deny or explain. Petitioner was found guilty at the hearing of violation of that part of rule 95 of the Rules and Regulations of the Jamestown Fire Department providing that “ Any member reporting for duty under the influence of intoxicants will be sufficient cause for dismissal ”. We find in the record no substantial evidence to support a finding that petitioner reported for duty under the influence of intoxicants on April 18, 1947. In fact no such issue was litigated at the hearing. We do find substantial evidence that plaintiff was guilty of violation of rule 70 in that he refused to obey the orders of his superior. He was dismissed from the service, however, because he was found guilty of a violation of both rule 70 and rule 95. "Under such circumstances, the determination should be annulled and the matter remitted to the hearing officer for a rehearing. (See *People ex rel. Long*v. *Whitney,*143 App. Div. 17; *People ex rel. Gilson*v. *Gibbons,*231 N. Y. 171, 174.) All concur, except Larkin, J., who dissents as to the annulling of the determination and votes to confirm. (Review of a determination dismissing petitioner from his position as captain of the Jamestown Fire Department, which proceeding was transferred to the Appellate Division for determination by order of Chautauqua *803Special Term, Piper, J.) Present — Taylor, P. J., Harris, MeCurn, Larkin and Love, JJ. [See *post,*p. 941.]
### §170507. Restrictions

(a) Stock and Dividends.—The corporation may not issue stock or declare or pay a dividend.

(b) Political Activities.—The corporation or a director or officer as such may not contribute to, support, or participate in any political activity or in any manner attempt to influence legislation.

(c) Distribution of Income or Assets.—The income or assets of the corporation may not inure to the benefit of, or be distributed to, a director, officer, or member during the life of the charter granted by this chapter. This subsection does not prevent the payment of reasonable compensation to an officer or reimbursement for actual necessary expenses in amounts approved by the board of directors.

(d) Loans.—The corporation may not make a loan to a director, officer, or employee.

(e) Claim of Governmental Approval or Authorization.—The corporation may not claim congressional approval or the authority of the United States Government for any of its activities.

(Pub. L. 105–225, Aug. 12, 1998, 112 Stat. 1445.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 170507(a) | 36:2508(d). | July 23, 1984, Pub. L. 98–372, §8, 98 Stat. 1240. |
| 170507(b) | 36:2508(c). | |
| 170507(c) | 36:2508(a). | |
| 170507(d) | 36:2508(b). | |
| 170507(e) | 36:2508(e). | |

Section

In subsection (a), the words "any shares of" are omitted as unnecessary.

In subsection (c), the words "inure to the benefit of" are substituted for "inure to" for consistency in the revised title.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Armor Electric, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Quarterly Report"),
I, Merrill Moses, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


Dated: May 20, 2005

/s/ Merrill Moses
-----------------
Merrill Moses
President and CFO
### §150408. Exclusive right to name, seals, emblems, and badges

(a) In General.—The corporation shall have the sole and exclusive right to use the names "National American Indian Veterans, Incorporated" and "National American Indian Veterans", and such seals, emblems, and badges as the corporation may lawfully adopt.

(b) Effect.—Nothing in this section interferes or conflicts with any established or vested rights.

(Added Pub. L. 118–31, div. E, title LI, §5103(a), Dec. 22, 2023, 137 Stat. 936.)
<PAGE>


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 Annual  Report of First  Security  Bancorp,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10- KSB for the period  ending  December 31, 2003,  as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, John G. Sullivan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  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 and 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:  March 24, 2004               Signature  /s/ John G. Sullivan
                                               ------------------------
                                               Chief Financial Officer
Board Coverage Decision

2010-42.5

Covington & Cincinnati Elevated Railroad & Transfer

& Bridge Company

Employer Coverage Terminated*

No Decision Published

BA # 4515
§ 537.103 Agency student loan repayment plans. Before providing student loan repayment benefits under this part, an agency must establish a student loan repayment plan. This plan must include the following elements: ( a ) The designation of officials with authority to review and approve offering student loan repayment benefits (which may parallel the approval delegations used for other recruitment, relocation, and retention incentives);
( b ) The situations in which the student loan repayment authority may be used;
( c ) The criteria to meet or consider in authorizing student loan repayment benefits, including criteria for determining the size and timing of the loan payment(s);
( d ) A system for selecting employees (or job candidates) to receive student loan repayment benefits that ensures fair and equitable treatment;
( e ) The requirements associated with service agreements (including a basis for determining the length of service to be required if it is greater than the statutory minimum);
( f ) The procedures for making loan payments;
( g ) The provisions for recovering any amount outstanding from an employee who fails to satisfy a service agreement and conditions for waiving an employee's obligation to reimburse the agency for payments made under this part; and
( h ) Documentation and recordkeeping requirements sufficient to allow reconstruction of each action to approve a student loan repayment benefit.
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 Ucluelet Exploration Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended February 29, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David Heel, the President, Treasurer and Director (Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer) of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

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

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

Dated: April 19, 2004

David Heel

/s/ David Heel______________________
President, Treasurer and Director 
(Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer 
and Principal Accounting Officer)
### Part H—Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Tuberculosis in Correctional Institutions
Exhibit 32.2

@ROAD, INC.    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 @Road, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael Johnson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



March 15,
2005

/s/MICHAEL JOHNSON

Michael
Johnson
Chief Financial Officer

---



QuickLinks
* 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

February 10, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-40852

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MOSES C. SALDUA,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(2:03-CR-393-1)

Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Moses C. Saldua appeals his guilty-plea convictions for the

simultaneous possession of a firearm and ammunition under 18 U.S.C.

§ 922(g)(1), contending the convictions are multiplicitous and

violate double jeopardy. The Government does not seek to rely on

Saldua’s claimed waiver of appeal; therefore, this court will not

enforce it. See United States v. Rhodes, 253 F.3d 800, 804 (5th

Cir. 2001).
2

As the Government concedes, simultaneous convictions and

sentences for the same criminal act involving possession of a

firearm and possession of ammunition violate double jeopardy.

United States v. Berry, 977 F.2d 915, 919 (5th Cir. 1992). The

district court’s ordering Saldua’s sentences to run concurrently

does not change this result. Id. at 920; United States v.

Kimbrough, 69 F.3d 723, 729 (5th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S.

1157 (1996). Accordingly, we VACATE Saldua’s sentences and REMAND

for dismissal of one of the duplicitous convictions, at the

election of the Government, and for resentencing. 

VACATED AND REMANDED
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

WrittenStatement of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

The undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of American Bank Holdings,Inc. (The “Company”), Hereby certifies that to his knowledge on the datehereof:

 

(a)          The Quarterly Report of Form 10-QSB of theCompany for the Quarter Ended September 30, 2004 filed on the date hereof withthe Securities and Exchange Commission (the “report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

(b)         Information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/John M. Wright                                 |   |
|---------------------------------------------------|--------|
| John M. Wright                                    |
| Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
| November 12, 2004                                 |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 hasbeen provided to American Bank Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by AmericanBank Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission orits staff upon request.

 

1

----
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

 Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200

 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov 

Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov

 

No. 06-042 March 28, 2006

NRC BEGINS SPECIAL INSPECTION AT

TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY’S RESEARCH REACTOR

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has begun a special inspection at Texas A&M

University’s Nuclear Science Center Research Reactor, following a reported potential radiation

overexposure of one of its workers.

The university reported the potential overexposure on March 15 (event report # 42424 at

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event-status/event/2006/20060316en.html ) indicating

that an employee involved in neutron activation analysis work at the Texas A&M Nuclear Science

Center potentially received 76 rem to the right hand during the month of January. The annual

radiological exposure limit for extremities is 50 rem.

The licensee stated that there were no increased radiation levels around the reactor, nor were

there any unusual processes that could have caused an unanticipated increase in radiation levels and,

therefore, the licensee had not considered the indicated dose reading accurate. According to the

licensee, the individual also potentially received 38 rem to the same hand during the month of

February. Once this second potential high exposure was found, the licensee reported the potential

overexposure. The licensee's investigation is ongoing.

On March 20, an NRC inspector responded to the research facility and will stay on to lead the

special inspection. The inspectors will seek to understand the circumstances surrounding the event and

its probable causes, including conditions preceding the event, chronology, equipment performance,

precursors, human factors considerations, quality assurance considerations, and radiological

considerations.

A written report of the special inspection will be issued about 45 days following the completion

of the inspection. It will be available on the NRC website. Texas A&M’s research reactor was licensed

to operate in 1961 by NRC’s predecessor, the Atomic Energy Commission.

###
#### § 842.701 Purpose.

This subpart explains the benefits available to employees and Members who elect alternative forms of annuity under section 8420a of title 5, United States Code.
EXHIBIT 32

| |  |  |  | CERTIFICATION |  | OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
| |  |  |  | ------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Allied Resources, Inc. (Registrant) for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (Report), I, Ruairidh Campbell, chief executive officer and chief financial officer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

(1)     This Report complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) The information contained in this Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition of Registrant

| | at the end of the period covered by this Report and results of operations of Registrant for the period covered by this Report.
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: November 13, 2006

/s/ Ruairidh Campbell

Ruairidh Campbell

Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by Registrant for the purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. This certification shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of this Report), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

A signed original of this written statement required by §906 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 2443 Warrenville Road

 Lisle IL 60532

 Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

No. III-06-022 May 12, 2006

CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663 

Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 829-9662 

NRC TO DISCUSS 2005 PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

FOR MONTICELLO NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with representatives of Nuclear

Management Co. on Wednesday, May 17, to discuss the agency’s assessment of safety performance for

last year at the Monticello Nuclear Power Plant. The plant is located in Monticello, Minn.

The meeting, which is open to the public, is scheduled to begin at 3 p.m. at the Monticello

Community Center, 505 Walnut Street, Suite 4, in Monticello. The NRC will respond to questions or

comments from the public before the close of the meeting.

“The NRC continually reviews the performance of the Monticello plant and the nation’s other

commercial nuclear power facilities,” NRC Region III Administrator James Caldwell said. “This

meeting will provide an opportunity for a discussion of our annual assessment of safety performance

with the company and with local officials and residents who live near the plant. Our goal is to explain

the NRC oversight process and make as much information as possible available to the public regarding

our regulation of these facilities.”

A letter sent from the NRC Region III Office to plant officials addresses the performance of the

plant during the period and will serve as the basis for the meeting’s discussion. It is available on the

NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/mont_2005q4.pdf .

The NRC’s assessment concluded that the Monticello plant operated safely during the period. 

The NRC uses color-coded inspection findings and performance indicators to assess nuclear plant

performance. The colors start with “green” and then increase to “white,” “yellow” or “red,”

commensurate with the safety significance of the issues involved. 

All of the inspection findings and performance indicators for Monticello during 2005 were

determined to be “green.” As a result of this performance, the NRC will conduct the normal, baseline

level of inspections during the upcoming year.

Routine inspections are performed by two NRC Resident Inspectors assigned to the plant and

by inspection specialists from the Region III Office in Lisle, Ill. Among the areas of plant operations

to be inspected this year by NRC specialists are access control to radiologically significant areas, alert

and notification system testing, identification and resolution of problems, and evaluation of changes,

tests, or experiments.
Current performance information for Monticello is available on the NRC’s web site at: 

http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/MONT/mont_chart.html .

###
#### § 361.105 [Reserved]