alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### SAASTO v WOODS

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No 10323.

Decided Feb 10, 1930

Paul Howland, Cleveland, for Saasto.

Edward A Stendel, for Woods.

LEVINE, J.

Wp. are setting forth these facts for the reason that a great deal of space is devoted in the brief of plaintiff in error to the assignment of error that the judgment is manifestly against the weight of the evidence. We are of the opinion that this assignment of error cannot be considered by this court, in view of the fact that a new trial had already been granted in the common pleas court on -the ground that the first judgment was manifestly against the weight of the evidence.

In Cleveland Railway Co. vs. Trendel etc., 101 OS. 316 this question has been fully adjudicated. Syllabus 3 states the law as follows:

(Here follows quotation)

*We*are, in view of this holding, powerless to consider the question of the weight of the evidence.

Another assignment of error related to the charge of the court. After the court gave its general charge to the jury the plaintiff in error requested the court to charge to the effect that if plaintiff in any way contributed to the negligence, contributed to the slightest degree, it would be a bar to plaintiff’s recovery.

We are aware that this request contains in substance language approved by our Supreme Court, yet a reading of the general charge does, in our opinion, substantially state the law.

We find no reversible error in the record and the judgment is therefore affirmed.

Vickery, PJ., and Sullivan, J., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED


PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Visualant Incorporated. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mark Scott, 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, to the best of my knowledge, that:





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





(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the dates and periods covered by the Report.





This certificate is being made for the exclusive purpose of compliance by the Chief Executive and Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company with the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and may not be disclosed, distributed or used by any person or for any reason other than as specifically required by law.





/s/ Mark Scott


Mark Scott


Chief Financial Officer


August 12, 2010
§ 452.61 Elimination contests—local unions. ( a ) A procedure in a local under which nominees compete in an elimination process to reduce the number of candidates in the final balloting is also part of the election process and must be conducted by secret ballot.
( b ) When such an elimination process is used it would be unreasonable for some nominees, such as those selected by a nominating committee, to be exempt from the process since they would thus be given an unfair advantage over other nominees.
§ 38.85 Alternative dispute resolution. The Director may offer the option of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) of the complaint filed with CRC. In such circumstances, the following rules apply: ( a ) ADR is voluntary; consent must be given by the complainant and respondent before the ADR process will proceed.
( b ) The ADR will be conducted under the guidance of the Director.
( c ) ADR may take place at any time after a complaint has been filed under § 38.69, as deemed appropriate by the Director.
( d ) CRC will not suspend its investigation and complaint processes during ADR.
----

**Exhibit      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS **

**ADOPTED      PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   |                                 |                                    |
|--------|--------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|
|        |                                      | /s/ John              H. Monk, Jr. |
|   | John                H. Monk, Jr.     |
|   | Chief              Executive Officer |

|   |                                                  |                                   |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|
|        |                                                       | /s/ David              J. Baranko |
|   | David                J. Baranko                       |
|   | Chief                Financial                Officer |
[No. 20188-1-III.

Division Three.

October 31, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Daniel Irwin Buchmann, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Grant County, No. 00-1-00868-9, Evan E. Sperline, J., entered May 14, 2001. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Brown, C.J., concurred in by Schultheis and Kato, JJ.
(75 South. 1005)

#### GRAYSON v. STATE.

(1 Div. 246.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

April 17, 1917.)

Appeal from Clarke County Court; A. S. Johnson, Judge.

W. D. Martin, Atty. Gen., and Harwell G. Davis, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 30 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. J. RES. 30

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Centers for Medicare & 
 Medicaid Services within the Department of Health and Human Services 
  relating to optional State plan case management services under the 
                           Medicaid program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 13, 2008

 Ms. Mikulski (for herself, Ms. Klobuchar, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Coleman, 
Mr. Harkin, Mr. Casey, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Brown, 
   Ms. Collins, Mr. Leahy, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Levin, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. 
Kerry, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Reid, and Mr. Bingaman) introduced the following 
joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                                Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Centers for Medicare & 
 Medicaid Services within the Department of Health and Human Services 
  relating to optional State plan case management services under the 
                           Medicaid program.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services within 
the Department of Health and Human Services relating to optional State 
plan case management services under the Medicaid program (published at 
72 Fed. Reg. 68077 (December 4, 2007)), and such rule shall have no 
force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**WRITTEN STATEMENT**

**PURSUANT TO**

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

 

The undersigned,  RONALD G. LEE,  the Chief Executive Officer/Chief Financial Officer,  of LEE PHARMACEUTICALS (the “Company”),pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, hereby certifies that, to the best of hisknowledge:

 

(i)    the FORM10-KSB of the Company for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2004 (the “Report”)fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(ii)   theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

Dated: December 22, 2004

 

 
|   | RONALD G. LEE |   |
|--------|---------------|--------|
|   | Ronald G. Lee |

 

----
#### § 500.5 Filing of applications, notices and documents.

Unless otherwise prescribed herein, all applications, notices and other documents required or permitted to be filed by these regulations shall be filed in accordance with the provisions of subpart F of the regulations.
#### § 1955.45 Effect of appeal of administrative law judge's decision.

An administrative law judge's decision shall be stayed pending a decision on appeal to the Secretary. If there are no exceptions filed to the decisions of the administrative law judge, the administrative law judge's decision shall be published in the Federal Register as a final decision and served upon the parties.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 23, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 33337]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12905]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Amended Notice of 
Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National 
Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Special emphasis Panel, June 7, 2000, 
7 PM to June 8, 2000, 3 PM, Columbia Sheraton, 10207 Wincopin Circle, 
Columbia, MD, 21044 which was published in the Federal Register on 
April 2, 2000, 65 FR 24491-24492.
    The name of the meeting will be changed to Hematopoietic Stem Cell 
Biology RFA. The meeting is closed to the public.

    Dated: May 12, 2000.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 00-12905 Filed 5-22-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
----

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3476 — CARGILL/SEARA)

(2004/C 285/02)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 28 October 2004, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

----
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 12–60331

DEREJE YEMANE WOLDEGIORGISE, Petitioner

v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Before GARZA, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * T h e G o v e r n m e n t m o v e s t o d i s m i s s D erek Wold e gi o r gi s e ’ s ( “W o l d e gi o r gi s e ” ) petition for review. Because we dismiss his appeal on an alternative basis, the 1 Government’s motion is moot. In responding to the Government’s motion, Woldegiorgise asserts that the Government has misconstrued his request for relief and clarifies that he has not U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D June 13 , 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Pur sua nt to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has det erm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. This cour t pr evious ly deni ed Wold egior gise ’s mo tio n for a st ay in this cas e but grant ed 1 him le ave t o p roc eedIFP o n ap pea l. Case: 12-60331 Document: 00511886475 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/13/2012No. 12–60331

p e t i t i o n e d this court to review the Board of Immigration Appeal’s final order. He explains that he instead sought this court’s stay to s u p p o r t a coram nobis motion currently pending before the United States Distric t C o u r t for the Southern District of Texas. See Woldegiorgise v. Thaler , No. 4:12-CV-1318 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 24, 2012). Woldegiorgise seeks rel i e f f rom the district court and raises arguments before this court that have not yet been addressed by the district court. We lack jurisdiction and DISMISS his appeal. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292 (limiting our jurisdiction over district court orders to final judgments and some interlocutory orders); F E D
. R. A P P
. P. 4(a)(1)(C) (instructing us to treat appeals f rom coram nobis motions under the rules for civil appeals). The Government’s motion is therefore MOOT.

2 Case: 12-60331 Document: 00511886475 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/13/2012
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.58
                                                                  Page 1 of 1



                                 STRAIGHT NOTE


     $250,000               South El Monte, California        August 23, 2000
-------------


     For value received, Lee Pharmaceuticals promises to pay Mark DiSalvo or
order, at South El Monte, California the sum of TWO HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND
DOLLARS, with interest from August 23, 2000, on unpaid principal at the rate
of twenty (20) per cent per annum; principal is payable monthly, commencing
on September 25, 2000, with monthly principal payments of $10,000.  Interest
shall be calculated on the basis of the unpaid principal balance daily, based
on a 365-day year, actual day month and payable monthly.  Principal and
interest shall be payable in lawful money of the United States.  If action
were instituted on this note, I promise to pay such sum as the Court may fix
as attorney's fees.




August 23, 2000                       Ronald G. Lee
---------------                       ----------------------------------------
     Date                             Lee Pharmaceuticals - Ronald G. Lee



August 23, 2000                       Michael L. Agresti
---------------                       ----------------------------------------
    Date                              Lee Pharmaceuticals - Michael L. Agresti
**EXHIBIT** **23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-158121, 333-149824, 333-137768, 333-128118, 333-118348, 333-106282, 333-101536, 333-69696, 333-45094 and 333-83153) of 4Kids Entertainment, Inc. of our reports dated March 15, 2010 relating to the financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K. 

/s/ Eisner LLP 

New York, New York

March 15, 2010
Exhibit
32.2








CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002











In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Visualant, Incorporated on Form 10-QSB
for the period ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Bradley E. Sparks,
Chief Financial Officer and Secretary Treasurer 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 the best of my 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.









/s/
Bradley E. Sparks


Bradley
E. Sparks


Chief
Financial Officer and Secretary-Treasurer









Date:
February 19, 2008
(78 South. 715)

#### CONNER v. STATE.

(3 Div. 276.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

April 2, 1918.

Rehearing Denied May 7, 1918.)

1. Intoxicating Liquors «&wkey;236 (7) — Illegal Keeping — Prima Facie Evidence of , Intent. *

Under Acts 1915, p. 9, § 4, the fact that the defendant kept beer in an outhouse was prima faeie evidence that he kept it for sale or with intent to sell it contrary to law.

2. Intoxicating Liquors <&wkey;238(4) — Illegal Keeping and Sale — Prosecution — Question fob Juey.

Where there was evidence that officers came upon the defendant and others in an outhonse near defendant’s residence at midnight, that defendant had beer on ice therein, that empty bottles were there, that the others came to get beer, the defendant was not entitled to the affirmative charge; his guilt being a jury question.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Autauga County; Leon. McCord, Judge-

Bob Conner was convicted of keeping beer for unlawful sale, and appeals.

Affirmed.

See, also, 15 Ala. App. 660, 74 South. 754.

C. E. O. Timmerman, of Prattville, for appellant. F. Loyd Tate, Atty- Gen., for tbe State.

B|ROWN, P. J.

[1, 2] The evidence shows that the sheriff and his deputy came upon the defendant and *three*other men in an outhouse near the defendant’s residence at midnight, and that the defendant had several bottles of beer on ice therein, and that there were empty beer bottles in the building. The three men with the defendant at the time testified that they had gone *to*this place to get beer from the defendant. The fact that the defendant kept the beer in the outhouse was prima facie evidence tllat he kept it for sale or with the intent to sell it contrary to law. Acts 1915, p. 9, §4; Jones v. City of Montgomery, 77 South. 969 ;1 Holt v. State, 78 South. 315;2 Stokes v. State, 5 Ala. App. 160, 59 South. 310; Kinsaul v. State, 8 Ala. App. 405, 62 South. 990. Under the evidence, the defendant was not *453entitled to the affirmative charge. Wynn v. State, 11 Ala. App. 182, 65 South. 687

There is no error in the record.

Affirmed.

1

**Ante, p. 357.

2

 Ante, p. 399.
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 8 

Expressing the support of Congress for the creation of a National Hurricane 

Museum and Science Center in southwest Louisiana. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 1, 2007 

Mr. VITTER (for himself and Ms. LANDRIEU) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Expressing the support of Congress for the creation of a 

National Hurricane Museum and Science Center in 

southwest Louisiana. 

Whereas the Creole Nature Trail All-American Road District 

Board of Commissioners has begun to create and develop 

a National Hurricane Museum and Science Center in the 

southwest Louisiana area; 

Whereas protecting, preserving, and showcasing the intrinsic 

qualities that make Louisiana a one-of-a-kind experience 

is the mission of the Creole Nature Trail All-American 

Road; 

Whereas the horrific experience and the devastating longterm effects of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita will play a 

major role in the history of the United States; 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•SCON 8 IS 

Whereas a science center of this caliber will educate and motivate young and old in the fields of meteorology, environmental science, sociology, conservation, economics, history, communications, and engineering; 

Whereas it is only appropriate that the effects of hurricanes 

and the rebuilding efforts be captured in a comprehensive 

center such as a National Hurricane Museum and 

Science Center to interpret the effects of hurricanes in 

and outside of Louisiana; and 

Whereas it is critical that the history of past hurricanes be 

preserved so that all people in the United States can 

learn from this history: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That Congress supports and encourages the 

3 creation of a National Hurricane Museum and Science 

4 Center in southwest Louisiana. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
[Exhibit 32.2]

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


In connection with the quarterly report of American Sports Development
Group, Inc. on form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, William B. Kearney, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

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

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



August 19, 2003                          /s/ William B. Kearney
                                         -----------------------------
                                         William B. Kearney,
                                         Consultant performing certain
                                         Services for the company
                                         commonly performed by a Chief
                                         Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 02-4210

BART KURTRICK MULLINS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.

William L. Osteen, District Judge.

(CR-01-204, CR-01-222, CR-01-323)

Submitted: November 19, 2002

Decided: December 12, 2002

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Thomas H. Johnson, Jr., GRAY, NEWELL, JOHNSON & BLACKMON, L.L.P., Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills

Wagoner, United States Attorney, L. Patrick Auld, Assistant United

States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 
OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Bart Kurtrick Mullins appeals the sentence imposed by the district

court following his guilty pleas to two counts of bank fraud in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1344 (2000), and one count of conspiracy to make,

possess, and utter counterfeit checks in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 371,

513 (2000). Mullins claims that the district court engaged in impermissible double counting by enhancing his sentence under separate

provisions of the guidelines. Specifically, Mullins claims that the

court erred by applying enhancements under both U.S. Sentencing

Guidelines Manual § 2F1.1(b)(2) (2000) (providing two-level

enhancement for offense involving more than minimal planning), and

USSG § 2F1.1(b)(5)(C)(ii) (providing two-level enhancement for

scheme that involved five or more documents of false identification).

Because Mullins did not preserve this objection at sentencing, we

review his claim for plain error. United States v. Ford, 88 F.3d 1350,

1355 (4th Cir. 1996). Double counting is permitted by the guidelines

except where it is expressly forbidden. United States v. Crawford, 18

F.3d 1173, 1179 (4th Cir. 1994). Neither § 2F1.1(b)(2) nor

§ 2F1.1(b)(5)(C)(ii) precludes double counting. Moreover, Mullins

fails to suggest any factual connection between the use of five or

more documents of false identification and his enhancement for more

than minimal planning. 

Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not engage in

impermissible double counting. Because we discern no error, let alone

plain error, we affirm Mullins’ conviction and sentence. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED

2 UNITED STATES v. MULLINS