alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### McIntosh vs Matherly.

Error to the Estile Circuit.

*Libel. Slander.*

Case, Case 38,

*January*9.

Case slated.

Judge Simpson

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This was a suit of slander for the publication of a libel. The plaintiff read on the trial, a letter written to him by the defendant, and proved the previous existence of a bad state of feeling between the parties. This being all the evidence, the Court, at the instance of the defendant, instructed the jury to find as in .the' case of a non-suit. A verdict having been returned in conformity with the instructions of the Court, and a motion for a new trial overruled, a judgment, was ren*120dered for the defendant, from which the plaintiff has prosecuted this writ of error..

No action can be maintained for libellous or slanderous words contained in a letter delivered to the party unless it be exhibited, or its contents made known to third persons. (1 *Caine's Rep.,*682; 2 *Starlde’s Ev.,*844.)

Libellous matter contained in a letter is good ground for a prosecution for libel, as ittends to a breach of the peace.

*Noland*for plaintiff; *G. Smith*for defendant.

We are inclined to the opinion that the letter is of a libellous character. But as the instruction of the Court was correct upon another ground, we do not deem it necessary to decide this question.

There was no evidence of a publication. An action on the case cannot be maintained for the slanderous contents of a letter delivered to the party himself, and not exhibited, or its contents made known to a third person. The injury to the plaintiff’s character in public estimation, is the basis of the action. If the slander is not published or made known to others, his character cannot be affected by it, and a suit of slander for the private injury cannot be maintained: (1 *Caine’s Rep.*582;) (2 *Starkie on Evidence,*844.)

A different doctrine prevails in prosecutions for a libel. Such a publication would be sufficient to sustain an indictment on the ground of its tendency to produce a breach of the peace. But sending a letter to the plaintiff would not have the effect of disparaging him in the eyes of the world, who were ignorant of its publication; and therefore, although it might excite to the commission of a public wrong, and for that reason, subject the writer to a prosecution, is insufficient to sustain an- action for a private injury.

Wherefore, the judgment is affirmed.
Editorial Note on Part 165
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 165 appear by USCG-2006-25556, 72 FR 36328, 36329, July 2, 2007 and by USCG-2018-1049, 84 FR 7813, Mar. 5, 2019.

§ 165.509 Security Zone; Severn River and College Creek, Annapolis, MD. ( a ) *Definitions.* For purposes of this section, the *Captain of the Port, Maryland-National Capital Region* means the Commander, Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region or any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the Port, Maryland-National Capital Region to act on his or her behalf.
( b ) *Location.* The following area is a security zone: All waters of the Severn River, from shoreline to shoreline, bounded by a line drawn from Horseshoe Point, at 38°59′47.6′′ N, 076°29′33.2′′ W; eastward across the Severn river to a point located at 39°00′01.5′′ N, 076°29′08.5′′ W; and a line drawn from Biemans Point, at 38°59′14.4′′ N, 076°28′30.1′′ W; westward across the Severn River to a point 38°59′03.5′′ N, 076°28′50.0′′ W, located on the Naval Academy waterfront. This security zone includes the waters of College Creek eastward of the King George Street Bridge (NAD 1983).
( c ) *Regulations.* ( 1 ) The general regulations governing security zones found in § 165.33 apply to the security zone described in paragraph (b) of this section.
( 2 ) Entry into or remaining in this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port, Maryland-National Capital Region.
( 3 ) Persons or vessels requiring entry into or passage through the security zone must first request authorization from the Captain of the Port, Sector Maryland-National Capital Region seek permission to transit the area. The Captain of the Port, Maryland-National Capital Region can be contacted at telephone number (410) 576-2693. The Coast Guard vessels enforcing this section can be contacted on Marine Band Radio VHF channel 16 (156.8 MHz). Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed as directed. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port, Maryland-National Capital Region and proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course while within the zone.
( d ) *Enforcement.* The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol and enforcement of the zone by Federal, State, and local agencies.
( e ) *Enforcement period.* This section will be enforced annually on the Friday before the Memorial Day holiday in May from 7:30 a.m. to 2 p.m. local time.
[CGD05-06-112, 72 FR 24188, May 2, 2007, as amended by USCG-2016-0060, 81 FR 38594, June 14, 2016]
###### Editorial Note on Part 149

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 149 appear by USCG-2010-0351, 75 FR 36284, June 25, 2010.

#### § 149.610 What must the District Commander be notified of and when?

The District Commander must be notified of the following:

| When— | The District Commander must be notified— |
| --- | --- |
| (a) Construction of a pipeline, platform, or single point mooring (SPM) is planned | At least 30 days before construction begins. |
| (b) Construction of a pipeline, platform, or SPM begins | Within 24 hours, from the date construction begins, that the lights and sound signals are in use at the construction site. |
| (c) A light or sound signal is changed during construction | Within 24 hours of the change. |
| (d) Lights or sound signals used during construction of a platform, buoy, or SPM are replaced by permanent fixtures to meet the requirements of this part | Within 24 hours of replacement. |
| (e) The first cargo transfer operation begins | At least 60 days before the operation. |
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION



I, Bruce Benn, Principal Financial Officer of Validian Corporation (the Company), in compliance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, in connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) on the date hereof, 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.



Date:  April 15, 2009







/s/Bruce Benn

Bruce Benn

Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 31(f)1**

**SOUTHERN POWER COMPANY**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**
 

I, Ronnie L. Bates, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Southern Power Company;

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 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;

 

(b)

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

 

(c)

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 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:  August 3, 2006

/s/Ronnie L. Bates

Ronnie L. Bates

President and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 99.1

                            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 of Validian Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Andre Maisonneuve,
Chief Executive 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:

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 result of
operations of the Company.

/s/ Andre Maisonneuve
---------------------
Andre Maisonneuve
Chief Executive Officer

April 10, 2003
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, 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.

December 23, 2013

t1216 

# Order

Clerk December 23, 2013

147782

JOSEPH H. NELSON,

Plaintiff

- Ap pellant,

and

BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MICHIGAN,

Intervening Plaintiff,

v SC: 147782

COA: 313551

MCAC: 11

- 000084

ARVCO CONTAINER CORPORATION and

ACCIDENT FUND INSURANCE COMPANY

OF AMERICA,

Defendants

- Appellees.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 12, 2013

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

persuaded that the questions presented should b e reviewed by this Court.
§ 173.17 Reciprocity. ( a ) Section 12302(c) of Title 46, United States Code, states: When a vessel is numbered in a State, it is deemed in compliance with the numbering system of a State in which it temporarily is operated.
( b ) Section 12302(d) of Title 46, United States Code, states:
When a vessel is removed to a new State of principal operation, the issuing authority of that State shall recognize the validity of the number issued by the original State for 60 days.
[CGD 89-048, 54 FR 27002, June 27, 1989]
<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT 99.2


                    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


I, Mike Hanson, 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 on Form
10-KSB  of  Surforama.com,  Inc.  for  the  year  ended  November 30, 2002 fully
complies  with  the  requirements  of  Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange  Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Annual Report on
Form 10-KSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and
results  of  operations  of  Surforama.com,  Inc.


                                       By:       /s/ Mike Hanson
                                                 ---------------------

                                       Name:     Mike Hanson

                                       Title:    Chief Financial Officer

                                       Date:     March 27, 2003
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, David P. Storey, Chief Executive Officer of RELM Wireless Corporation, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of RELM Wireless Corporation;

2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.

The registrants other certifying officer 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;

(b)

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

(c)

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 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 8, 2007



| |                                      
| | -------------------------------------
| | /s/ DAVIDP. STOREY                   
| | David P. Storey                      
| | President and Chief Executive Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION

CASE NO.: 0:22-CV-61842

DONALD J. TRUMP,

Plaintiff,

v.

CABLE NEWS NETWORK, INC.,

Defendant.

______________________________/

AGREED ORDER ON JOINT MOTION FOR BRIEFING SCHEDULE

THIS CAUSE came before the Court on the Joint Motion for Briefing Schedule (the 

“Motion”) by Defendant CABLE NEWS NETWORK, INC. (“CNN”), jointly with Plaintiff 

Donald J. Trump (“Plaintiff” or “Trump”) [D.E. ___]. The Court having considered the Motion, 

the agreement of counsel for the respective parties, and being otherwise duly advised in the 

premises, it is hereupon

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Motion is GRANTED. CNN shall have through 

and including November 22, 2022 within which to file a response to Plaintiff’s Complaint. 

Plaintiff shall have through and including December 30, 2022 in which to file a response to 

CNN’s anticipated Rule 12 motion. CNN shall have through and including January 18, 2022 in 

which to file a reply to Plaintiff’s response.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Florida this ___ day of October, 

2022.

____________________________________

HONORABLE RAAG SINGHAL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 0:22-cv-61842-AHS Document 16-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2022 Page 1 of 1
Golden Ri bbon



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

February 19, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00013

- CV

Guadalupe RAMOS

, Appellant

v.

GOLDEN RIBBON INC., Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014CV04293

Ho norable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

A copy of appellant’s notice of appeal was filed in this court on January 9, 2015. The clerk of the court notified the appellant in writing that our records did not reflect payment of the $175 filing fee. In addition, our record contains no evidence appellant is excused by statute or rule from paying the filing fee. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 5, 20. It is therefore ORDERED appellant show cause in writing within fifteen days of the date of this order that either: (1) the filing fee has been paid; or (2) appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the filing fee. If appellant fails to respon d within the time provided, this appeal will be dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 5, 42.3(c) All other appellate deadlines are suspended pending the payment of the filing fee.

_________________________________ Jason Pulliam, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereun to set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 19th day of February, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2004**

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Bally Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard Haddrill,President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 that, tomy 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. |

 

Date:  December21, 2006
| /s/                                   | Richard Haddrill |   |   |
|---------------------------------------|------------------|--------|--------|
| Richard Haddrill                      |             |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |             |
| (Principal Executive Officer)         |             |

 

----
Editorial Note on Part 150
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 150 appear by USCG-2010-0351, 75 FR 36284, June 25, 2010.

§ 150.515 What are the requirements for weight testing of newly installed or relocated craft? ( a ) The operator must perform installation weight testing, using the procedure outlined in 46 CFR 199.45(a)(1) on each new lifeboat, rescue boat, and davit-launched liferaft system.
( b ) The operator must conduct installation weight tests, according to paragraph (a) of this section, when survival crafts are relocated to another deepwater port.
#### JOHN S. PROUTY, Respondent, *v.*THE LAKE SHORE AND MICHIGAN SOUTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant.

*Supplemental complaint*— consolidation *of corporations*— acts *authorizing, need, not l>e specifically alleged,.*

. Appeal from an order of the Special Term, denying a motion to strike out a supplemental complaint, and to strikeout portions thereof as irrelevant, or to have certain portions made more definite and certain.

This action was brought against the Michigan Southern and Northern Indiana Railroad and others, to compel that corporation to apply its future net earnings to the payment of dividends upon its preferred stock.

Hpon an appeal from an order confirming the report of a referee, *247it was decided by the General Term of this department (8 S’. O. [1 Hun], 655) that the action could not be maintained for the reason, that the corporation issuing the stock had ceased to exist, having become merged in a new corporation which had assumed all the obligations of its predecessors. Subsequently an order was made allowing the plaintiff to file a supplemental complaint, bringing in the Lake Shore and Michigan Southern Railroad Company as defendant. Upon this appeal it was *held,*by the General Term, that it was not necessary for the plaintiff to recite the specific acts of the legislature at length, or their several titles in the complaint. That it was sufficient for him to allege generally the consolidation of the defendants under the laws of the several States.

*Matthews da Foley,*for appellant. *Birdseye, Gloyd da Bayliss,*for respondent.

Opinion by

Davis, P. J.

Brady and Daniels, JJ., concurred.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
Case 1:22-cv-22343-KMM   Document 122   Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2023   Page 1 of 3

Case 1:22-cv-22343-KMM   Document 122   Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2023   Page 2 of 3

Case 1:22-cv-22343-KMM   Document 122   Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2023   Page 3 of 3