alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 406.38 Prejudice to enrollment rights because of Federal Government error. ( a ) If an individual's enrollment or nonenrollment for premium hospital insurance is unintentional, inadvertent, or erroneous because of the error, misrepresentation, or inaction of a Federal employee, or any person authorized by the Federal Government to act on its behalf, the Social Security Administration or CMS may take whatever action it determines is necessary to provide appropriate relief.
( b ) The action may include— ( 1 ) Designation of a special initial or general enrollment period;
( 2 ) Designation of an entitlement period;
( 3 ) Adjustment of premiums;
( 4 ) Any combination of the actions specified in paragraph (b) (1) through (3) of this section; or
( 5 ) Any other remedial action which may be necessary to correct or eliminate the effects of such error, misrepresentation, or inaction.
[48 FR 12536, Mar. 25, 1983. Redesignated at 51 FR 41338, Nov. 14, 1986. Further redesignated at 56 FR 38080, Aug. 12, 1991]
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER** ****

**pursuant to**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**as adopted pursuant to**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Manfred F. Dyck, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Hydromer, Inc. on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Hydromer, Inc.

 

|   | Date: September 21, 2007 | By: /s/ Manfred F. Dyck |
|--------|--------------------------|-------------------------|

|   | Manfred F. Dyck |
|--------|-----------------|

|   | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |
|--------|--------------------------------------|
AMERICANWEST BANCORPORATION



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



I, C. Tim Cassels, state and attest that:



(1) I am the Chief Financial Officer of AmericanWest Bancorporation (the
Registrant).



(2) I hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S. C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that



| |  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant for the period ended March 31, 2004 (the periodic report) containing financial statements 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 78 o(d)); and
| | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  | the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant for the periods
presented.
| | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|      |  |                                                     
|----- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Name: |  | /s/ C. Tim Cassels                                  
|Title |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|Date: |  | May 5, 2004
#### Wood *v.*Wood.

4-9662

245 S. W. 2d 575

Opinion delivered February 4, 1952.

*Osborne W. Garvin,*for appellant.

*Wood & Smith,*for appellee.

George Bose Smith, J.

This is a petition by the appellee for back alimony in the sum of $630. The appellant admits that he has not paid the last twenty-one installments of $30 a month, but he contends that he and the appellee agreed that the appellant’s contributions to their daughter’s college education should be treated as prepayments of alimony due the appellee. The chancellor found against the existence of such an agreement and entered a decree for the petitioner.

The divorce decree of 1937 approved a property settlement by which the appellant agreed to pay his former wife $30 a month and to pay a like amount for the support of their daughter until she reached her majority in 1948. The appellant testified below that he and the appellee later agreed that he would contribute additional sums toward their daughter’s education upon the understanding that such contributions were to be credited as prepayments of future alimony. He produced canceled checks to show payments totaling $2,329.77. His mother and his sister testified that the appellee had told them that this agreement existed.

This testimony was contradicted by the appellee, who says that she has not talked to the appellant since their *943divorce, that all their communications have been through their daughter, and that she neither made the alleged agreement nor ever told any one that it had been made, The daughter corroborates her mother, testifying that her father wrote to her suggesting such an arrangement, but she did not communicate the offer to Mrs. Wood. Instead she wrote her father that her mother needed the alimony and that she would quit school rather than have the payments discontinued.

The appellant had the burden of proving the defense offered, not only because proof of nonpayment of the installments made a *prima facie*case but also because it is primarily the father’s duty to educate his child. With the evidence about evenly balanced the version given by the parties ’ daughter is especially persuasive, as even the appellant says that she was present when the agreement was made. We agree with the chancellor’s conclusion that the making of the agreement has not been proved by a preponderance of the testimony.

Affirmed. The deposit of $150 heretofore made by the appellant with the clerk of this court will be disbursed upon a proper showing of expenses and attorney’s fees incurred by the appellee.

Griffin Smith, C. J., and Ward, J., not participating.
#### Ouida McCANDLESS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, Cross Appellees, v. BEECH AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee, Cross Appellant.

No. 84-1621.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 25, 1986.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 2, 1986.

Darrell Panethiere and John Howie, Dallas, Tex., for plaintiffs-appellants, cross appellees.

R. Brent Cooper and Michael W. Huddleston, Dallas, Tex., for defendant-appellee, cross appellant.

Before GARZA, JOHNSON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

ON PETITIONS FOR REHEARING

(Opinion December 10, 1985, 5th Cir.1985, 779 F.2d 220)

PER CURIAM:

In our previously released opinion in this case, 779 F.2d 220 (5th Cir.1985), we reversed the district court’s denial of Beech Aircraft’s Motion for Judgment n.o.v. with respect to the jury’s awards for mental anguish as to the Plaintiffs-Appellants. *Id.*at 226. Our decision was based on the rule in Texas that physical manifestation of mental anguish is necessary to support a jury award in an ordinary wrongful death action. *See Farmers & Merchants State Bank v. Ferguson,*617 S.W.2d 918, 921 (Tex. 1981); *Bedgood v. Madalin,*600 *164S.W.2d 773, 779 (Tex. 1980) (Spears, J., concurring).

In a recent decision the Supreme Court of Texas held that “in a wrongful death action, it is no longer necessary to prove that mental anguish is physically manifested.” *Moore, et. al. v. Lillebo,*(Tex.1986) Tex.S.Ct.J. 513, 514 (July 9, 1986). In view of the rule announced in the *Moore*decision, we hereby Vacate our Judgment reversing the district court’s denial of Beech Aircraft’s Motion for Judgment n.o.v. with respect to the judgment and awards for mental anguish as to the Plaintiffs-Appellants, and Order that the Plaintiffs-Appellants’ awards for mental anguish be reinstated so as to reflect the district court’s original judgment, as noted in 779 F.2d at 222, n. 2.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2922 Introduced in House (IH)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 2922

   To amend part Q of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
Streets Act of 1968 to ensure that Federal funds made available to hire 
or rehire law enforcement officers are used in a manner that produces a 
    net gain of the number of law enforcement officers who perform 
               nonadministrative public safety services.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 31, 1996

Mr. Traficant introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend part Q of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
Streets Act of 1968 to ensure that Federal funds made available to hire 
or rehire law enforcement officers are used in a manner that produces a 
    net gain of the number of law enforcement officers who perform 
               nonadministrative public safety services.

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

SECTION 1. NET GAIN OF OFFICERS.

    Section 1704 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
Streets Act of 1968 is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(d) Net Gain of Officers.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
under this part, funding provided under this part for hiring or 
rehiring a career law enforcement officer shall be used by an entity 
described in section 1701(a) to ensure that such entity achieves a net 
gain in the number of law enforcement officers who perform 
nonadministrative public safety service.''.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendment made by section 1 shall apply to all applications and 
grant renewal requests made on or after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
##### 



Exhibit 10M
 AMENDMENT NO. 1
TO
SIXTH AMENDED AND RESTATED REVOLVING CREDIT AGREEMENT
DATED MAY 4, 2006
  WITNESSETH:
 WHEREAS,
 NOW, THEREFORE,
 Section 1. Amendment of the Agreement.
  Tangible Net Worth. plus
 Section 2. Governing Law.
 Section 3. Costs and Expenses.
 Section 4. Counterparts.
 Section 5. Confession of Judgment.




---



##### 



Section 6. Conditions Precedent.
     Section 5. Reaffirmation of Representations and Warranties.
 Section 6. Reaffirmation of Documents.




---



##### 



WARNING  BY SIGNING THIS PAPER YOU GIVE UP YOUR RIGHT TO NOTICE AND COURT TRIAL. IF YOU DO NOT
PAY ON TIME A COURT JUDGMENT MAY BE TAKEN AGAINST YOU WITHOUT YOUR PRIOR KNOWLEDGE AND THE POWERS
OF A COURT CAN BE USED TO COLLECT FROM YOU REGARDLESS OF ANY CLAIMS YOU MAY HAVE AGAINST THE
CREDITOR WHETHER FOR RETURNED GOODS, FAULTY GOODS, FAILURE ON HIS PART TO COMPLY WITH THE
AGREEMENT, OR ANY OTHER CAUSE.
 MAX & ERMAS RESTAURANTS, INC.
    
    
    
    NAT IONAL CITY BANKBy:
    
    /s/ William C. Niegsch, Jr.
    
    
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Douglas E. HouserName:
    
    William C. Niegsch, Jr.
    
    
    
    
    
    Name:
    
    Douglas E. HouserIts:
    
    Chief Financial Officer
    
    
    
    
    
    Its:
    
    Senior Vice President
# C_2006022EN.01000201.xml

| 28.1.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/2

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 17 November 2005

in Case C-476/04: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive No 2001/55/EC - Mass influx of displaced persons - Temporary protection - Minimum standards)

(2006/C 22/03)

Language of the case: Greek

In Case C-476/04 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M. Kontoy and C. O'Reilly) v Hellenic Republic (Agent: N. Dafniou) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 12 November 2004 — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of A. Borg Barthet (Rapporteur), acting as President of the Sixth Chamber, U. Lõhmus and A. Ó Caoimh, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 17 November 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2001/55/EC of 20 July 2001 on minimum standards for giving temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons and on measures promoting a balance of efforts between Member States in receiving such persons and bearing the consequences thereof, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2001/55/EC of 20 July 2001 on minimum standards for giving temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons and on measures promoting a balance of efforts between Member States in receiving such persons and bearing the consequences thereof, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| 2. | Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 6 of 8.1.2005.

1

---
#### Lavelle WASSON, et ux. v. Joe SANDERS.

No. 51834.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

April 30, 1980.

Ray S. Mikell, Edward C. Fenwick, Kosciusko, for appellants.

Thornton, Guyton, Dorrill & Pettit, George L. Dorrill, Kosciusko, for appellee.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Attala County; John C. Love, Jr., Chancellor.

Before PATTERSON, C. J., and SUGG and BROOM, JJ.

AFFIRMED.
#### § 38.7 Nonliability.

Attention is called to section 308 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 5148) which provides that the Federal Government shall not be liable for any claim based upon the exercise or performance of or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a Federal agency or an employee of the Federal Government in carrying out the provisions of the Act.
**Exhibit****31.2**

**CERTIFICATION****OF****PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**

I, Henry Fahman, Acting Principal Financial Officer, PHI Group, Inc., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Kof PHI Group, Inc.;

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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the small business issuer and have:

      a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

      b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

      c) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

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

      a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

      b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.

PHI GROUP, INC.

/s/ Henry Fahman
#### Kenneth WILLIAMSON v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 51847.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

April 30, 1980.

Wilkins, Ellington & James, Samuel H. Wilkins, Jackson, for appellant.

Bill Allain, Atty. Gen. by Catherine Walker Underwood, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Hinds County; William F. Coleman, Judge.

Before PATTERSON, C. J., and SUGG and WALKER, JJ.

SMITH and ROBERTSON, P. JJ., and BROOM, LEE, BOWLING and COFER, JJ., concur.

AFFIRMED.
#### § 900.5 Form of payment.

Claims may be paid in the form of money or, when a contractual basis exists, the Government may demand the return of specific property or the performance of specific services.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway,

 Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

August 6, 2009 

s0720 

Order 

 

August 6, 2009 

137819 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 137819 

 COA: 287542 

Washtenaw CC: 01-001965-FC 

OMAR JERMAINE GATES, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 6, 2008 

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).
HomeUnited Kingdom

# United Kingdom

492 items

        -    TIAS  		United Kingdom (13067) – Memorandum of Understanding for the Joint Anti-Armor Weapon System (JAAWS) Project	  October 1, 1999 
        -    TIAS  		United Kingdom (13031) – Agreement on Behalf of the Turks and Caicos Islands Relating to Investment Guarantees	  April 20, 1999 
        -    TIAS  		United Kingdom (12971) – Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Cooperation in the Development, Production and Follow On Support of an Armored Scout and Reconnaissance Vehicle (ASRV) System	  July 7, 1998 
        -    TIAS  		United Kingdom (12846) – Amendment to the Agreement of July 23, 1977, as Amended, Concerning Air Services	  April 7, 1997 
        -    TIAS  		United Kingdom (96-1202) – Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters	  December 2, 1996 
        -    TIAS  		United Kingdom (95-1219) – Defense Cooperation Agreement	  December 19, 1995 
        -    TIAS  		United Kingdom (91-1204) – Agreement on Law Enforcement	  December 4, 1991 
        -    TIAS  		United Kingdom Concerning the Cayman Islands (90-319) – Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters	  March 19, 1990 
        -    		Daniel Emmett  O’Connor	  December 21, 1988 
        -    		Ronald Albert Lariviere	  December 21, 1988 

previous page1…47484950next page

Back to Top
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION



I, C. Jayson Brentlinger, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this Report on Form 10-QSB of Circuit Research Labs, Inc.;

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 officer(s) 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:

(a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(c)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(d)

Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5.

The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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):



---

(a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.

Date:  May 15, 2006.

/s/ C. Jayson Brentlinger

C. Jayson Brentlinger

Chief Executive Officer
#### § 583.314 United States person; U.S. person.

The term *United States person* or *U.S. person* means any United States citizen, lawful permanent resident, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States.