alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Annie Miles, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. Florida East Coast Railway Company, a Corporation, *Defendant in Error.*

Where the members of the appellate court are equally divided in opinion as to whether a judgment on writ of error should be reversed or affirmed, and there is no prospect of a change of judicial opinion, the judgment should be affirmed, so that the litigation may not be unduly prolonged.

This case was decided by the Court En Banc.

Writ of error to the Circuit Court for Volusia County.

The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

*Landis*cG *Fish}*for Plaintiff in Error;

*Stewart*cG *Biff,*for Defendant in Error.

Per Curiaji.'

This cause having been considered by the court, and Mr. Chief Justice Whitfield, Mr. Justice Taylor, and Mr. Justice Shackleford being of opinion that the judgment should be affirmed, while Mr. Justice Cockrell, Mr. Justice Hocker and Mr. Justice Parkhill are of opinion that the judgment should be reversed, and there being no prospect of a change of judicial opinion, the judgment should be affirmed on the authority of State *ex rel.,*Hampton v. McClung, 47 Fla. 224, 37 South. Rep, 51; and it is so ordered.
Exhibit 32.2

Statement Pursuant to Section
906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned, Gary D. Woerz, CFO of American
International Industries, Inc, a Nevada corporation, hereby makes the following
certification as required by Section 906(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, with
respect to the following report filed pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934: Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2006.

The undersigned certifies that the above report
fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and information contained in the above report fairly presents, in all respects, the
financial condition of American International Industries, Inc. and results of its
operations.

Date: August 8, 2006
Gary D. Woerz
Chief Financial Officer/s/ Gary D. Woerz
```

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

             INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM'S CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-130168 on Form S-8 of our report dated March 29, 2011, relating the
financial statements of InkSure Technologies Inc. , appearing in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K of InkSure Technologies Inc. for the year ended December 31,
2010.

Brightman Almagor Zohar & Co.
Certified Public Accountants,
A member firm of  Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu

Tel Aviv, Israel
March 29, 2011
```
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of SunCoast Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), I, John S. Wilks, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer) of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as added by § 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. | To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for
the period covered by the report.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|      |  |                  |  |     |  |                                                                                                      
|----- |  | ---------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: |  | November 9, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ John S. Wilks                                                                                    
|      |  |                  |  |     |  | John S. Wilks, Chief Financial Officer (Principal
Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-1382

In Re: REGINALD L. FRAZIER,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-02-29)

Submitted: April 7, 2003 Decided: April 28, 2003

Before WILKINS, Chief Judge, MOTZ, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON,

Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Reginald L. Frazier, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Reginald Frazier, disbarred as an attorney in 1989, has

recently been convicted in North Carolina state court of several

counts stemming from his unauthorized practice of law. He

petitions this court for a writ of mandamus staying his sentence or

ordering the state court to set a reasonable bond pending appeal.

Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a

clear right to the relief sought. See In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan

Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Mandamus is a drastic

remedy and should only be used in extraordinary circumstances. See

Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In re

Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). Mandamus may not be used

as a substitute for appeal. See In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d

958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979). This court does not have jurisdiction to

grant mandamus relief against state officials, see Gurley v.

Superior Court of Mecklenburg County, 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir.

1969), and does not have jurisdiction to review state court orders,

see District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462,

482 (1983). Thus, the relief sought by Frazier is not available by

way of mandamus. 

Accordingly, we deny Frazier’s motion for stay or injunction

of his sentence and deny his petition for mandamus relief. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal arguments
3

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
#### The People *ex relatione*Halsted and another *vs.*The Superior Court of the City of New-York.*

ALBANY,

May, 1839.

Where personal property levied upon by virtue of an execution, and delivered to a plaintiff in replevin, is again levied upon by another execution, an order to stay proceedings upon the second execution until the determination ■ of the replevin suit will be granted upon the application of the plaintiff in replevin.

Motion for mandamus. The relators issued an execution on a judgment in their favor, against Joseph L. Joseph and others, which was levied upon household furniture in the possession of the defendants in the execution. A person of the name of Levy, applied to the superior court of the city of New-York, for an order staying proceedings upon the execution, until the determination of a suit in replevin commenced by him in reference to the same furniture, which had been taken by virtue of an execution, against the same defendants, on a judgment in favor of one Dixon, previous to the issuing of the relators’ execution. The furniture which is not of a value equal to the amount of Dixon’s execution, was delivered by virtue of the writ of replevin to Levy, who left it in the possession of the defendants in the execution. The superior court granted the application of Levy, and the relators now ask for a *mandamus,*requiring that court to vacate the rule staying proceedings.

*S. Stevens,*for the relators.

*M. T. Reynolds,*contra.

*

 Decided April, 1839.

*By the Court,*

Cowen, J.

The mandamus cannot be granted. This court cannot control the discretion exercised by the court below. Besides it is not perceived why it was not fitly exercised. The stay is only *temporary,*until the determination of the replevin suit. It was fully competent to the court to make the order.

Mandamus denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 13.1

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

     In connection with the annual report on Form 20-F of Amdocs Limited (the
"Company") for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Dov
Baharav, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of his knowledge and belief:

     (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.

Dated: February 14, 2007

/s/ Dov Baharav
----------------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
Amdocs Management Limited
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Eugene B.Johnson, certify that:

1.                 I have reviewedthis annual report on Form 10-K of FairPoint Communications, Inc.(the “Company”);

2.                 Based on myknowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;

3.                 Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for,the periods presented in this annual report;

4.                 The Company’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in the Securities Exchange Actof 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) rule 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))for the Company and we have:

(i)            designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this annual report was being prepared;

(ii)        evaluated theeffectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this annualreport; and

(iii)    disclosed in this report anychange in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the Company’s most recent fiscal quarter (the Company’s fourth fiscalquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

5.                 The Company’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company’sauditors and the audit committee of Company’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent function):

(i)            all significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrols over financial reporting which are reasonable likely to adverselyaffect the Company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

(ii)        any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the Company’s internal controls over financial reporting.

Date: March 13,2006
| /s/ Eugene B. Johnson      |     |
|----------------------------|----------|
| Eugene B. Johnson          | * * |
| *Chief  Executive Officer* | * * |

 

 

----
Editorial Note on Part 302
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 302 appear at 84 FR 15935, Apr. 16, 2019.

§ 302.720 Service. A copy of each contract filed pursuant to § 302.718, and a copy of all material and data filed pursuant to § 302.719, shall be served upon each of the following persons: ( a ) Each certificated and commuter (as defined in § 298.2 of this chapter) air carrier, other than the contracting carrier, that is actually providing scheduled mail services between any pair of points between which mail is to be transported pursuant to the contract; and
( b ) The Assistant General Counsel, Transportation Division, U.S. Postal Service, Washington, DC 20260-1124.
HERSHELL JONES

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 1 3

- 4491

__________ ___________________/

Opinion filed October 1, 2014.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. J. Bradford Stetson , Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Joanna A. Mauer , Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee

, for Appellant

.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attor ney General, and Samuel B. Steinberg, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee

, for Appellee

.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, C.J., BENTON, and RAY, JJ., CONCUR.
§ 1610.3 Purpose and scope. ( a ) This subpart contains the regulations of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission implementing 5 U.S.C. 552. The regulations of this subpart provide information concerning the procedures by which records may be obtained from all organizational units within the Commission. Official records of the Commission made available pursuant to the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 552 shall be furnished to members of the public only as prescribed by this subpart. Officers and employees of the Commission may continue to furnish to the public, informally and without compliance with the procedures prescribed herein, information and records which prior to the enactment of 5 U.S.C. 552 were furnished customarily in the regular performance of their duties.
( b ) Nothing in this subpart shall be construed to entitle any person, as of right, to any service or to the disclosure of any record to which such person is not entitled under the FOIA.
[81 FR 95871, Dec. 29, 2016]
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement, Justices

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

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

 January 3, 2018

s1218

Order 

Clerk

January 3, 2018

156176

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 156176

COA: 338059

Oakland CC: 2016-259000-FH

HASSAN ABDULNABI BAZZI,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 1, 2017 order of 

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that 

the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4896 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4896

  To authorize certain Federal departments to enter into contracts to 
carry out existing authorities to protect United States facilities from 
                           unmanned aircraft.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 12, 2020

    Mr. Lee introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To authorize certain Federal departments to enter into contracts to 
carry out existing authorities to protect United States facilities from 
                           unmanned aircraft.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Enhanced Protection from Unmanned 
Aircraft Attacks Act of 2020''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO CONTRACTS TO PROTECT FACILITIES FROM 
              UNMANNED AIRCRAFT.

    (a) Authority.--The following Federal departments are authorized to 
enter into contracts to carry out the following authorities:
            (1) The Department of Defense for the purpose of carrying 
        out activities under section 130i of title 10, United States 
        Code.
            (2) The Department of Homeland Security for the purpose of 
        carrying out activities under section 210G of the Homeland 
        Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 124n).
            (3) The Department of Justice for the purpose of carrying 
        out activities under section 210G of the Homeland Security Act 
        of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 124n).
            (4) The Department of Energy for the purpose of carrying 
        out activities under section 4510 of the Atomic Energy Defense 
        Act (50 U.S.C. 2661).
    (b) Federal Acquisition Regulation.--Not later than 180 days after 
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Federal Acquisition 
Regulatory Council shall amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation to 
implement the authority provided under subsection (a).
                                 <all>
```
Wachovia Bank, N.A.


        Broward Commercial Banking


        FL7512


        350 East Las Olas Boulevard


        Suite 1800


        Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301


         


         


        October 27, 2009


        WACHOVIA


         


        Anthony M. Puleo


        Senior Vice President


        Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer


        Bluegreen Corporation


        4960 Conference Way North


        Suite 100


        Boca Raton, FL 33431


         


        
            	
                        RE:

                    	
                        Promissory Note from Bluegreen Corporation (“Borrower”) to Wachovia Bank, National Association (“Wachovia”) in the original principal amount of $15,700,000.00 dated July 30, 2009, including any amendments (the
                        “Note”). Obligor # 0897954276 Obligation #34

                    


        


         


        Dear Mr. Puleo:


         


                  Wachovia has agreed to extend the term of the Note, which will mature or has matured on October 30, 2009. Accordingly, this letter shall constitute Wachovia’s agreement and formal notice to you, as follows:


         


        Extension. Wachovia hereby extends, on the same terms and conditions as presently in effect, the maturity of the Note to December 15, 2009, at which time the outstanding principal balance, accrued interest and all other amounts due under the Note shall become due and payable. All periodic payments required under the Note shall be made during this extension period.


         


        No Other Changes. Extension on the maturity date as stated herein is the only change to the Note. Except as extended by this letter, the Note and all other Loan Documents (as defined in the Note) shall continue in full force and effect. Shall you have any questions, do not hesitate to call.


         


        
            	
                         

                    	
                        Very truly yours,

                    


        


         


        
            	
                         

                    	
                        Wachovia Bank, National Association

                    


        


         


        
            	
                         

                    	
                        By:

                    	
                        /s/ Karen J. Leikert

                    
	
                         

                    	
                         

                    	
                        Karen J. Leikert, Senior Vice President
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

     In  connection  with  the  Quarterly Report of UC HUB Group, Inc., a Nevada
corporation  (the  "Company"),  on  Form 10-QSB for the period ended October 31,
2004,  as  filed  with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the  "Report"),  I,  Larry  Wilcox,  Chief  Executive  Officer  of we, certify,
pursuant  to  18  U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002,  that:

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

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

Dated  January 18, 2005.

                                       UC HUB GROUP, INC.



                                       By  /s/ Larry Wilcox
                                         -------------------------------------
                                       Larry Wilcox, Chief Executive Officer


<PAGE>
§ 1627.4 Records to be kept by employment agencies. ( a ) ( 1 ) Every employment agency which, in the regular course of its business, makes, obtains, or uses, any records related to the following, shall, except as provided in paragraphs (a) (2) and (3) of this section, keep them for a period of 1 year from the date of the action to which the records relate: ( i ) Placements;
( ii ) Referrals, where an individual is referred to an employer for a known or reasonably anticipated job opening;
( iii ) Job orders from employers seeking individuals for job openings;
( iv ) Job applications, resumes, or any other form of employment inquiry or record of any individual which identifies his qualifications for employment, whether for a known job opening at the time of submission or for future referral to an employer;
( v ) Test papers completed by applicants or candidates for any position which disclose the results of any agency-administered aptitude or other employment test considered by the agency in connection with any referrals;
( vi ) Advertisements or notices relative to job openings.
( 2 ) When an enforcement action is commenced under section 7 of the Act regarding a particular applicant, the Commission or its authorized representative shall require the employment agency to retain any record required to be kept under paragraph (a)(1) of this section which is relative to such action until the final disposition thereof.
( b ) Whenever an employment agency has an obligation as an “employer” or a “labor organization” under the Act, the employment agency must also comply with the recordkeeping requirements set forth in § 1627.3 or § 1627.5, as appropriate.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 3046-0018) (Pub. L. 96-511, 94 Stat. 2812 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.*))
[44 FR 38459, July 2, 1979, as amended at 46 FR 63268, Dec. 31, 1981; 56 FR 35756, July 26, 1991]