alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### O’Toole v. Garvin *et al.,*appellants.

*Amendment—defense without merit not allowed as.*

An application was made by defendants, in an action to recover for goods sold, etc., after the action had been tried, an appeal taken and new trial granted, *757for leave to amend the answer so as to set up that plaintiff sold the goods in the name of T. & Go., in violation of the statute against fictitious firms. Laws of 1833, ch. 281. *Held,*that the refusal of the special term to allow the amendment was proper, the defense not being meritorious.

Appeal from an order of the special term denying leave to amend so as to set up the defense of the statute against fictitious partnerships. Laws 1833, ch. 281. The case upon a former appeal is reported *ante,*page 118, where the facts are stated.

*E. D. McCarthy,*for appellant.

*D. M. Porter,*for respondent.

Brady, J.

The head-note gives the substance of the opinion.

*Order affirmed.*
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 Annual Report of OneBeacon Insurance Group, Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending
December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, T. Michael Miller, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

|Date: February 28, 2008 |  | /s/T. MICHAEL MILLERT. Michael Miller
President and Chief Executive Officer
|----------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

---



QuickLinks
NEW YORK COMMON PLEAS.

#### John Hughes agt. The Mercantile Mutual Insurance Company.

An order of the special term, denying a motion to strike out certain allegations of the complaint as irrelevant, is *not appealable*to the general term.

*General Term, January,*1871.

*Before*Robinson, Loew *and*Larremore, *JJ.*

Appeal from an order made at special term. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court.

Scudder *&*Carter, *for defendants and appellants.*

R. P. Lee, *for plaintiff and respondent.*

*By the court,*Loew, J.

This action was brought to recover the sum of $5,000, upon a policy of marine insurance. The defendant made a motion, at special term, to strike out certain allegations contained in the complaint as irrelevant.

The motion was denied, and the defendant thereupon brought this appeal. If the order of the special term in this case can be reviewed at all, it must be under subd. 3 of sec, 349 of the Code, which provides that an appeal may be taken to the general term from an order, “When it involves the merits of the action, or some part thereof, or affects a substantial right.” It seems clear that the order appealed from does not involve the merits of the action, or some part thereof, especially as the only ground upon which the defendant asks that the matters complained of should be stricken out, is their irrelevancy. Nor can it be *254said that the order affects a substantial right of the defendant, within the meaning of the Code, as the denial of the motion lay entirely in the discretion of the judge at special term *(Field*agt. *Steward,*8 *Abb., N. S.,*193).

Having come to the conclusion that the order in question is not appealable, and cannot therefore be reviewed by us, it will be unnecessary to consider whether the matter sought to be stricken out was irrelevant or not.

The appeal should be dismissed with costs.

Robinson and Labrémose, JJ., concurred.
§ 201.13 Action on audit and review findings. ( a ) If the audit results in no exceptions, the State agency is advised by letter of this result. The general course for the disposition of proposed exceptions resulting from audits involves the submittal of details of these exceptions to the State agency which then has an opportunity to concur in the proposed exceptions or to assemble and submit additional facts for purposes of clearance. Provision is made for the State agency to appeal proposed audit exceptions in which it has not concurred and which have not been deleted on the basis of clearance material. After consideration of a State agency's appeal by the Administrator, the Administration advises the State agency of any expenditures in which the Federal Government may not participate and requests it to include the amount as adjustments in a subsequent statement of expenditures. Expenditures in which it is found the Federal Government may not participate and which are not properly adjusted through the State's claim will be deducted from subsequent grants made to the State agency.
( b ) If the Federal or State reviews reveal serious problems with respect to compliance with any Federal requirement, the State agency is required to correct its practice so that there will be no recurrence of the problem in the future.
[35 FR 12180, July 29, 1970, as amended at 53 FR 36579, Sept. 21, 1988]
#### § 148.126 Determination of an eligible individual.

The rules for guaranteeing the availability of individual health insurance coverage to certain eligible individuals with prior group coverage have been superseded by the requirements of § 147.104 of this subchapter, which set forth Federal requirements for guaranteed availability of coverage in the group and individual markets.

[79 FR 30341, May 27, 2014]
§ 158.220 Aggregation of data in calculating an issuer's medical loss ratio. ( a ) *Aggregation by State and by market.* In general, an issuer's MLR must be calculated separately for the large group market, small group market and individual market within each State. However, if a State requires the small group market and individual market to be merged, then the data reported separately under subpart A of this part for the small group and individual market in that State must be merged for purposes of calculating an issuer's MLR and any rebates owing.
( b ) *Years of data to include in calculating MLR.* Subject to paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, an issuer's MLR for an MLR reporting year is calculated according to the formula in § 158.221 of this subpart and aggregating the data reported under this part for the following 3-year period: ( 1 ) The data for the MLR reporting year whose MLR is being calculated; and
( 2 ) The data for the two prior MLR reporting years.
( c ) *Requirements for MLR reporting years 2011 and 2012.* ( 1 ) For the 2011 MLR reporting year, an issuer's MLR is calculated using the data reported under this part for the 2011 MLR reporting year only.
( 2 ) For the 2012 MLR reporting year— ( i ) If an issuer's experience for the 2012 MLR reporting year is fully credible, as defined in § 158.230 of this subpart, an issuer's MLR is calculated using the data reported under this part for the 2012 MLR reporting year.
( ii ) If an issuer's experience for the 2012 MLR reporting year is partially credible or non-credible, as defined in § 158.230 of this subpart, an issuer's MLR is calculated using the data reported under this part for the 2011 MLR reporting year and the 2012 MLR reporting year.
( d ) *Requirements for MLR reporting years 2013 and 2014 for the student market only.* ( 1 ) For the 2013 MLR reporting year, an issuer's MLR is calculated using the data reported under this part for the 2013 MLR reporting year only.
( 2 ) For the 2014 MLR reporting year— ( i ) If an issuer's experience for the 2014 MLR reporting year is fully credible, as defined in § 158.230 of this subpart, an issuer's MLR is calculated using the data reported under this part for the 2014 MLR reporting year.
( ii ) If an issuer's experience for the 2014 MLR reporting year is partially credible or non-credible, as defined in § 158.230 of this subpart, an issuer's MLR is calculated using the data reported under this part for the 2013 MLR reporting year and the 2014 MLR reporting year.
[75 FR 74921, Dec. 1, 2010, as amended at 77 FR 16469, Mar. 21, 2012; 79 FR 30352, May 27, 2014]
Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection 

i Bob Martinez Center I \,\ 

2600 Blair Stone Road 

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 

- . . - >.- . ? - 

Mr. James I. Palmer. Jr. 

October 19.2007 

Regional Administrator P6-J f United States Environmental i 

3% T*. 

Protection Agency - Region 4 :? 

6 1 Forsyth Street, S W & -7 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8909 , . - f, - ",Z 

Re: Air Program: Proposed Revision to State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

New Source Review Update 

Crist 

Governor 

Jeff Kottkamp 

Lt. Governor 

Michael W. Sole 

Secretary 

Dear Mr. Palmer: 

In accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 5 1.103 and 5 1.104, and on behalf of the 

Governor of Florida, I am pleased to submit the subject proposed revision to Florida's State 

Lmplementation Plan (SIP) under the Clean Air Act. The proposed SIP revision consists of amendments 

to Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) Chapters 62-210, and 62-212. The rule amendments update and 

clarify the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) PSD rules to be consistent with EPA's 

November 29, 2005, Phase 2 Ozone Implementation Rule. One hard copy and one electronic copy 

(compact disk) of the complete submittal package have been sent directly to the Air Planning Branch. 

The DEP held a public hearing in Tallahassee, Florida, on June 22, 2007, on this 

proposed SIP revision and has considered all comments received into the hearing record. I 

hereby certify that the public notice and hearing requirements of all applicable state and 

federal regulations, including those of 40 CFR 5 1.102, have been satisfied with respect to this 

revision. 

Thank you for your continued support of our efforts to fully implement the Clean Air Act in 

Florida. 

Sincerely, 

\ 

~ivision of Air Resource Management 

JWls 

cc (with enclosures): Kay Prince, Chief, Air Planning Branch, EPA Region 4
# PAC Table 5b

&"Arial,Bold"&10&KFF0000This table was generated on 8/31/23.
From: Joshua Burman (MPCA) [Joshua.burman@state.mn.us]

Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 3:10 PM

To: Rich LaShier

Subject: States Policies Respecting CBI Claims for Hazardous Waste Manifests; Additional 

Followup from MN

Dear Rich:

Yes, the Minnesota data laws do include a ‘trade secret’ provision [Minn. Stat. 13.37, Subd. 1], however 

this provision is much more restrictive than the Federal (FOIA) equivalent, and was intended to include 

“...formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique or process...”, which does not 

encompass simple data collections, and also does not include the Federal provisions for ‘commercial or 

financial information’.

Excerpt from Minnesota Department of Administration, Information Policy Analysis Division (Minnesota 

state agency responsible for implementation and enforcement of Minnesota’s public data laws):

“...The Commissioner does, however, offer the following guidance. First, data considered proprietary by 

a non-government entity are not protected from public disclosure when those data become government 

data. As the Commissioner stated in Advisory Opinions 98-017 and 98-026, she is not aware of any 

statutory provision that generally classifies proprietary data as not public...

...Also important to keep in mind is that the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, unlike the 

federal Freedom of Information Act, does not generally protect from public disclosure "commercial or 

financial information" when that information becomes government data. (See 5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(4).) (See 

Advisory Opinions 94-037, 95-017, and 98-050.)...” [Advisory Opinion 98-054]

Minnesota has also previously made rulings that to qualify as a protected ‘compilation’ under the 

intended Minnesota meaning of the term, the data in question must not just be a collection of data 

generated or used by the supplier in the normal course of its business, but must be a truly unique 

creation from which the supplier realizes direct economic gain:

“...In order for a compilation to be a trade secret within the meaning of section 13.37, the data must be 

a compilation that, in and of itself, is information that derives independent economic value from not 

being known to others. A compilation of information which is compiled by the affected organization in 

its normal course of carrying on its operations, such as a list of employees and their salaries, is not the 

type of compilation that should qualify for trade secret protection under section 13.37. To be consistent 

with other items listed in the first element of the trade secret definition, a compilation that qualifies for 

trade secret protection ought to be a unique kind of compilation, the preparation of which results in 

some kind in some kind of direct economic gain to the compiler....” [Advisory Opinion 02-041].

Minnesota does not recognize any difference between protection of individual manifest data and 

compiled manifest data.

Thanks:

Joshua Burman

HW/PCB Compliance

MPCA, Mankato Office
§ 150.219 Final determination. If, after providing notice and a reasonable opportunity for the State to show that it has corrected any failure to substantially enforce, CMS finds that the failure to substantially enforce has not been corrected, it will send the State a written notice of its final determination. The notice includes the following: ( a ) Identification of the PHS Act requirements that CMS is enforcing.
( b ) The effective date of CMS's enforcement.
[64 FR 45795, Aug. 20, 1999, as amended at 78 FR 13440, Feb. 27, 2013]
EXHIBIT  99.2

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


In  connection  with the Quarterly Report of American Energy Services, Inc. (the
"Company")  on  Form 10-QSB for the period ending August 31, 2002, as filed with
the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Larry  Elliot,  the  Chairman  of  the  Board  of  Directors  and  the Principal
Accounting  Officer  of  the  Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.
1350,  as  adopted  pursuant to ss. 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 the Company.

                                             /s/  Larry  Elliot
                                             ------------------
                                             Larry  Elliot
                                             Chairman of the Board of Directors
                                             and the Principal Accounting
                                             Officer
October  15,  2002

                                       16
§ 162.1902 Standard for Medicaid pharmacy subrogation transaction. The Secretary adopts the Batch Standard Medicaid Subrogation Implementation Guide, Version 3, Release 0 (Version 3.0), July 2007, National Council for Prescription Drug Programs, as referenced in § 162.1902 (Incorporated by reference at § 162.920): ( a ) For the period on and after January 1, 2012, for covered entities that are not small health plans;
( b ) For the period on and after January 1, 2013 for small health plans.
# **Exhibit32**

**SECTION 1350CERTIFICATIONS**

Theundersigned hereby certify that the quarterly report on Form 10-Q/Aof Insight Communications Company, Inc. (the “Registrant”) for the quarterended March 31, 2007, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Registrant.

|        | /s/ Michael S. Willner                               |   |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Michael S. Willner                                   |   |
|   | Vice Chairman and Chief Executive Officer            |   |
|   | August 15, 2007                                 |   |
|   |                                                 |   |
|   | /s/ John Abbot                                       |   |
|   | John Abbot                                           |   |
|   | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|   | August 15, 2007                                 |   |

 

----
#### Bartholemew *et al.*v. Lyon.

*Treatment—suit by infant—JShidence—presumption of fact*— *memoranda*— Nonsuit— *error in refusing cured by subsequent evidence.*

*The*objection that an infant has. not the legal *capacity*to sue in ejectment must be taken .by demurrer. *.Beaton*v. *Demis,*1 IT. Y. Sup. 91. But where the wife of the infant’s father sued as guardian, the father being dead, and no proof being introduced showing that he had married more than once, *held,*that the presumption was that she was the mother of the infant and the guardian in socage, and as such entitled to sue, and an amendment of the pleadings would be made .to meet the technical objection first raised on appeal that the suit was not properly brought. *Sylvester*v. *Bolston,*31 Barb. 286; 1B. S. 718, § S; 17 Wend. 75; 30 Barb..633; 55 id. 428, 429.

Where a nonsuit on the ground of want of evidence was refused, *held,*that subsequent proof of the necessary facts would.obviate the error (if one) of refusal. 21 Barb. 241; 11 N. Y. 102,112; 2 Hill, 620.

Memoranda of facts made by a witness about twenty-three years before the trial, the witness not being able to recollect the facts, but testifying that the memoranda were true; *held,*admissible to refresh the memory of the wit. ness. 22 N. Y. 462; 15 id. 485 ; 29 id. 346.

*775Exceptions ordered to be first heard at general term after a verdict for plaintiffs.

Action of ejectment brought by Ellison Bartholemew and others, the widow and children of Daniel Bartholemew, deceased, against Harvey Lyon, to recover thirty acres of land in Ohemung county.

*Smith & Hill,*for plaintiffs.

*R. King,*for defendant.

Bockes, J.

The head-note states the points passed upon in the opinion, and it is not believed necessary to give the same at length.

*Judgment for plaintiffs.*
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 Implant Sciences Corporation, a Massachusetts corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Roger P. Deschenes, Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby 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:




(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.




/s/Roger P. DeschenesRoger P. DeschenesVice President, Finance and Chief Financial OfficerDate: March 21, 2011










This certification accompanies each report of the Company on Form 10-Q and Form 10-K pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by we for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.




A signed original of this written statement required by §906 has been provided to us and will be retained by us and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or our staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.2

(Certification Required by 18 U.S.C. Section 1350)

(as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

I, Jack Weinstein, as Principal Financial Officer of Catalyst
Pharmaceutical Partners, Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), that to my knowledge:



|1. | the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended December 31, 2010 (the Report), filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission, 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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |                              
|-------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Date: March 31, 2011 |  | /s/ Jack Weinstein           
|                     |  | Jack Weinstein               
|                     |  | Chief Financial Officer      
|                     |  | (Principal Financial Officer)
Date o! 

report 

1970 

Oct 2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

&ruutr nf tqr luitr~ itntrs 

NINETY-FIRST CONGRESS 

F S {Convened January 3, 1969 

IRST ESSION Adjourned December 23, 1969 

S S {Convened January 19, 1970 

ECOND ESSION 

EXECUTIVE CALENDAR 

Prepared under the direction of FRANCIS R. V ALEO, Secretary of the Senate 

By GERALD A. HACKETT, Executive Clerk 

Monday, October 5, 1970 

NOMINATIONS 

Calendar Message Name ofnommee Office Predecessor 

No. No. 

1781 

AMBASSADORS 

I 282 William M. Rountree, of Ambassador Extraordinary 

I Florida, a Foreign Service and PlenipotentiarY of 

officer of the class of I the United States of I 

Career Minist er. America to BraziL I 

I 

179 288 Horace G. Torbert, Jr., Ambassador Extraordinary 

of the District of Colum- and Plenipotentiary of 

bia, a Foreign Service the United States of 

officer of the class of America to Bulgaria. 

Career Mimsier. 

180 324 Turner B. Shelton, of Ambassador Extraordinary 

California, a Fore1gn and PlenipotentiarY of 

Service officer of class 2 the United States of 

America to Nicaragua. 

INTER-AMERICAN 

SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT I 

INSTITUTE 

A member of the Board of New position. 

Directors of the InterAmerican Social Development Institute for ihr 

terms indicated. 

For a term of 2 years: 

181 250 Luis A. Ferre, of Puerto _____ do ______ _____ ________ Do. 

Rico. 

For a term of 4 years· 

181 250 Charles W Robinson, of _____ do ____ __ ____ ______ ___ Do 

California. 

0 S GOVERN.ENT PRINTING OFFICE 1970
NotesFAQContact Us

Collection

Thesaurus
AdvancedSearch Tips

Collection

Thesaurus
BrowseThesaurus

 Download full text

**ERIC Number:**

**Record Type:**

**Publication Date:**

**Pages:**

**Abstractor:**

**ISBN:**

**ISSN:**

**EISSN:**

Crime PreventionElementary Secondary EducationPreventionSchool SafetySchoolsStudent School Relationship

**Publication Type:**

**Education Level:**

**Audience:**

**Language:**

**Sponsor:**

**Authoring Institution:**

**Grant or Contract Numbers:**

PrivacyCopyrightContact UsSelection PolicyAPI
JournalsNon-JournalsDownloadSubmitMultimediaWidget