alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Salem District Court,

No. 5556.

#### State *v.*Donald Daniel Carr.

Argued December 7, 1966.

Decided December 20, 1966.

*George S.*Pappagianis, Attorney General and *John T.*Pappas, Attorney ( *Mr. Pappas*orally), for the State.

*John B. Ford*(by brief and orally), for the defendant.

Duncan, J.

This complaint charges that the defendant on or about July 15, 1966 at Salem committed the crime of nonsupport of his minor children contrary to RSA 571:2 and the laws of this state. It alleges failure and refusal to support them over a period of twelve years from February 1954 to July 1966. At the hearing on probable cause it appeared that the defendant and the complainant were divorced prior to 1954; that the defendant had been living in California, and that a case was pending in California against the defendant under the Uniform Reciprocal Support Act. The defendant was arrested in New Hampshire a day or two before the hearing, the complainant had been awarded custody in the divorce proceedings, and she and the children of the parties have lived in this state since April 1954.

The questions of law raised by the defendant’s exception to the denial of his motion to dismiss were certified to this court by Romprey, justice of the Salem district court.

Jurisdiction of the defendant’s person was obtained by his arrest within this state. He maintains that since he was not resident in this state during the period when the crime of nonsupport is alleged to have been committed, “no obligation *478could arise under the laws of [this state] so as to make [him] subject to our criminal laws, ” citing *Hardy*v. *Betz,*105 N. H. 169. The weight of authority elsewhere is opposed to the defendant’s contention. In the *Hardy*case the defendant was under no obligation to furnish support to his alleged child under the laws of this state.

However, the laws of this state do impose an obligation of support upon this defendant, both by RSA 571:2 under which the proceedings are brought, and by RSA 460:23 (supp). See *Healy*v. *McQuaid,*89 N. H. 117. The defendant’s obligation to support his children thus arose under the law of this state, where the support was needed. This is where he “has neglected to provide for their maintenance and where an action should lie.” *State ex rel Brito*v. *Warrick,*176 Neb. 211, 216. “The offence is committed by violation of the duty existing here.” *Commonwealth*v. *Booth,*266 Mass. 80, 84. See *State*v. *Cote,*104 N. H. 345, 347.

It has been so held upon comparable facts in the following cases: *State ex rel Brito*v. *Warrick, supra; State*v. *Tickle,*238 N. C. 206; *Osborn*v. *Harris,*115 Utah 204; *State*v. *Wellman,*102 Kan. 503. See also, Annot. 44 A.L.R. 2d 886, 899.

The defendant’s motion was properly denied.

*Exception overruled; remanded.*

All concurred.
Exhibit
        31: Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification
  
  Re:  Morgan
        Stanley Capital I Trust 2006-HQ9 (the “ Trust ”)
 
 I,
        Warren
        H. Friend, Vice President of Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc., certify
        that:
   1.  I
        have
        reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to
        be
        filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of the
        Trust
        (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);
   2.  Based
        on
        my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required
        to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included
        in the Exchange Act periodic reports;
   4.  Based
        on
        my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report
        under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange
        Act
        periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the
        servicing agreements; and
   5.  All
        of
        the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed
        securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance
        with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included
        in
        this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act
        Rules
        13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except
        as
        otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance
        described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form
        10-K.
  In
        giving
        the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided
        to me
        by the following unaffiliated parties: Wells Fargo Bank, National Association,
        Principal Global Investors, LLC, J.E. Robert Company, Inc., HSBC Bank USA,
        National Association, and LaSalle Bank, National Association.
  Date:  March
        30,
        2007
  
 /s/
        Warren H. Friend
 By:
        Warren H. Friend
 Title:
        Vice President
### _HEmRTMENTO F 

# © fffflS s Membrandu m U. & Departmen t o f Trtinsportatio n i m NO V - 2 A% U 2 Office o fth e Secretar

y ofTranspatotlo n Subject : Grantin g Reques t

fo r Extensio n fo r

Submissio n o f

Proposal s fo r

Date : Novembe r

2 , 201 0 Essentia l Ai r

Servic e a t

Macon , Georgi a Docke t DOT-OST-2007-2867 1

: Denni s J
. Devany , Chie f ^ From : Uenni s J
. JJ e Vany , Cme r ^^-- ^ Repl y EA S & Domesti c Analysi s Division , X-5 3 ^ ^ of : To : Docket s Operations , M-3 0

O nNovembe r

1 , America n Eagl e Airline s requeste danextensio nt o submi t subsid y proposal s for essentia l ai r

servic e i n th e cas e o f

Macon , Georgia

. Wit hcommunity support , w e ar e hereb y grantin g th e extension , no t onl y for AmericanEagle , bu t for al l potential applicants

. proposal s are no w du e n o late r than Novembe r

12 , 2010

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          47,816
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,700,987
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     91,445
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,840,248
<PP&E>                                         238,683
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,184,186
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          894,732
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       233,915
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,310,904
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,184,186
<SALES>                                         46,460
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,445,307
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  849,877
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (1,264)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 925
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,596,694
<INCOME-TAX>                                   877,359
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            719,335
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   719,335
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
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 Annual Report of Flex Fuels Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert Galvin, 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, 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 results of operations of the Company.





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.





/s/ Robert GalvinName: Robert GalvinTitle:  Chief Financial OfficerDate: March 22, 2010
#### Lamoille County National Bank *vs.*B. A. Hunt.

January Term, 1899.

Present: Taft, C.J.,Rowell,Tyler, Munson, Thompson and Watson, JJ.

Opinion filed February 11, 1899.

*Argument Improper btd not Prejudicial.*— A judgment should not be reversed for the improper argument of counsel addressed to a point upon which the jury found in favor of the excepting party, when the argument was not derogatory to his character and could not have harmed him upon the other issues.

General and special assumpsit. Trial by jury, at the April term, 1898, Lamoille county, *Start,*J., presiding. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant excepted.

Defendant *pro se.*

*R. W. Hulburd*for the plaintiff.

Rowell, J.

The exception to overruling the demurrer to the declaration being waived, and there being no exception touching the matter of usury, the only question is as to certain remarks of plaintiff’s counsel in argument to the jury.

The action is for the recovery of three promissory notes, signed by the defendant as surety. The defendant conceded *252his liability on one of the notes, but claimed that the-other two were paid by giving a new note not in suit for the balance due thereon; and the jury so found.

In arguing this question of payment, plaintiffs counsel said that the defendant was not doing the business of signing these notes as a matter of charity; that if the note not in suit was taken as payment, it would then result in a delay only; that the same defences were open in the case on trial; but that delays sometimes allowed debtors to put their property beyond the reach of process; and that all. these matters were to be considered by the jury. Thereupon the defendant objected and asked for an exception, on the ground that there was no evidence in the case tending to show such facts, and the court allowed an exception, whereupon plaintiffs counsel said to the jury that he did not claim there was any such evidence, and, as the court understood, retracted his statement, and nothing more was said about it by either party. There was no evidence that the defendant received anything for signing said notes, nor any of his putting his property beyond the reach of process, nor was any such claim made on trial.

If the issue to which alone these remarks related had been found for the plaintiff, they might have vitiated the verdict; for they were an appeal to the jury to disregard the testimony, and to find for the plaintiff on the ground of expediency. But as that issue was found for the defendant, he was not harmed thereon by the remarks.

Although the defendant was not allowed all he claimed under his plea in setoff; yet, as the issues thereunder were entirely foreign to the question of payment, and as the remarks were not at all derogatory to the defendant personally, it is clear enough that he was not prejudiced, thereby on that branch of the case.

*Judgment affirmed.*
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

COURTNEY JOYDELL MILLER

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 22

- 778

[ December 8, 2022 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St.

Lucie County ; Steven J. Levin , Judge; L.T. Case No. 2017CF000909A

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Gary Lee Caldwell, Assistant

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jessica L.

Underwood, Assist ant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

C IKLIN

, L EVINE and A RTAU , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### § 1256.34 How long may access to some donated historical materials be denied?

Some donated historical materials are closed for long periods, either under the provisions of the deed of gift, our general restrictions described in subpart D of this part, or another governing authority. We are sometimes able to make a copy of materials with restricted information redacted.
#### § 1802.1 Purpose and scope.

The Harry S. Truman Scholarship Foundation will provide the public with the fullest practical information regarding its decision-making processes while protecting the rights of individuals and the Foundation's abilities to carry out its responsibilities. Accordingly, these procedures apply to meetings of the Board of Trustees, Harry S. Truman Scholarship Foundation, including committees of the Board of Trustees.
| 1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of WaferGen Bio-systems, Inc.; |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: April 27, 2012 |                          |   |
|----------------------|-------------------------------|--------|
|                 |                          |   |
|                 | /s/ IVAN TRIFUNOVICH          |   |
|                 | Ivan Trifunovich              |
|                 | Chief Executive Officer       |
|                 | (principal executive officer) |

----
§ 2105.4 How should you describe the records you seek? ( a ) You must reasonably describe the records sought. A reasonable description contains sufficient detail to enable Agency personnel familiar with the subject matter of the request to locate the records with a reasonable amount of effort.
( b ) You should include as much detail as possible about the specific records or types of records that you are seeking. This will assist the Agency in identifying the requested records (for example, time frames involved or specific personnel who may have the requested records). For example, whenever possible, identify: ( 1 ) The date, title or name, author, recipient, and subject of any particular records you seek;
( 2 ) The office that created the records you seek;
( 3 ) The timeframe for which you are seeking records; and
( 4 ) Any other information that will assist the Agency in locating the records.
( c ) The Agency's FOIA Officer or Public Liaison can assist you in formulating or reformulating a request in an effort to better identify the records you seek.
( d ) If the Agency determines that your request does not reasonably describe the records sought, the Agency will inform you what additional information you need to provide in order to reasonably describe the records that you seek so the requested records can be located with a reasonable amount of effort. The Agency will also notify you that it will not be able to comply with your request unless the additional information it has requested is received from you in writing within 20 workdays after the Agency has requested it and that you may appeal its determination. If you receive this type of notification, you may wish to discuss it with the Agency's designated FOIA contact or the FOIA Public Liaison (*see* § 2105.63). If the Agency does not receive your written response containing the additional information within 20 workdays after the Agency has requested it, the Agency will presume that you are no longer interested in the records and will close the file on the request.
#### § 2490.101 Purpose.

The purpose of this part is to effectuate section 119 of the Rehabilitation, Comprehensive Services, and Developmental Disabilities Amendments of 1978, which amended section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to prohibit discrimination on the basis of handicap in programs or activities conducted by Executive agencies or the United States Postal Service.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1930
PETER HRONEK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-03- 339-1-CCB) Submitted: October 9, 2003 Decided: October 16, 2003 Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Peter Hronek, Appellant Pro Se. Ariana Wright Arnold, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Peter Hronek appeals the district court’s order dismissing his federal tort claims act complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Hronek v. Secretary, Dep’t of Health & Human Servs. , No. CA-03-339-1-CCB (D. Md. filed July 7, 2003 & entered July 8, 2003). 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
forsmoot@att.blackberry.net To "Randy Hams" <RHams@fec.gov> 

10/14/201112:14 PM cc "Brad Parramore" <bparamore@ttpcpa.com>, 

Please respond to 

forsmoot@att.blackberry.net 

albesem94@msn.com, "Martin Weinberg" 

<attomeyweinberg@bellsouth.net> 

bcc 

Subject Smoot Re: Response to Interim Audit Report 

Hello Randy,It was good speaking with you today. As stated I intend to file the amended report. 

We will need your help in making sure we follow the correct procedure. Also I will continue to 

chip away at proving that the LLC's were legal contributions as sole proprietors.Last I will track 

down the over charge receipt from Hertz and send a copy of it to you.I am hoping Brad can 

accommodate me at some point Monday at 3pm central time. I will call you Monday.Thanks for 

your patience in this matter and thanks for helping us to understand the process. This has 

certainly been a true learning experience for all of us,but we appreciate all that your team has 

done to help us through this.Have a great day and I will check in with you Monday.Shelia Smoot 

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T 

From: RHarris@fec.gov 

Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 09:33:29 -0400 

To: <forsmoot@att.blackberry.net> 

Cc: Brad Parramore<bparamore@ttpcpa.com>; <albesem94@msn.com> 

Subject: Response to Interim Audit Report 

Greetings, 

I just wanted to inform you that the 15 day response time extension expired yesterday and we will begin 

moving fonvard witli the Draft Final Audit Report. I do not see where you have addressed the 

misstatement finding and I have not received additional requested information pertaining to your response 

for the receipt of prohibited contributions finding. We will send you the Draft Final Audit Report upon 

completion, feel free to contact me with any questions. 

Randy Harris 

Auditor 

U.S Federal Election Commission 

T + 202 694 1325 

F +202 219 3483 

rharris@fec.gov
§ 2508.16 What are the procedures for filing an appeal for refusal to amend or correct records? ( a ) In the event an individual desires to appeal any refusal to correct or amend records, he or she may do so by addressing, in writing, such appeal to the Corporation for National and Community Service, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Attn: Appeal Officer, 250 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20525. Although there is no time limit for such appeals, the Corporation shall be under no obligation to maintain copies of original requests or responses thereto beyond 180 days from the date of the original request.
( b ) An appeal will be completed within 30 working days from its receipt by the Appeal Officer; except that, the appeal authority may, for good cause, extend this period for an additional 30 days. Should the appeal period be extended, the individual appealing the original refusal will be informed in writing of the extension and the circumstances of the delay. The individual's request for access to or to amend or correct the record, the Privacy Act Officer's refusal to amend or correct the record, and any other pertinent material relating to the appeal will be reviewed. No hearing will be held.
( c ) If the Appeal Officer determines that the record that is the subject of the appeal should be amended or corrected, the record will be amended or corrected and the individual will be informed in writing of the amendment or correction. Where an accounting was made of prior disclosures of the record, all previous recipients of the record will be informed of the corrective action taken.
( d ) If the appeal is denied, the subject individual will be informed in writing: ( 1 ) Of the denial and reasons for the denial;
( 2 ) That he or she has a right to seek judicial review of the denial; and
( 3 ) That he or she may submit to the Appeal Officer a concise statement of disagreement to be associated with the disputed record and disclosed whenever the record is disclosed.
( e ) Whenever an individual submits a statement of disagreement to the Appeal Officer in accordance with paragraph (d)(3) of this section, the record will be annotated to indicate that it is disputed. In any subsequent disclosure, a copy of the subject individual's statement of disagreement will be disclosed with the record. If the appeal authority deems it appropriate, a concise statement of the Appeal Officer's reasons for denying the individual's appeal may also be disclosed with the record. While the individual will have access to this statement of reasons, such statement will not be subject to correction or amendment. Where an accounting was made of prior disclosures of the record, all previous recipients of the record will be provided a copy of the individual's statement of disagreement, as well as the statement, if any, of the Appeal Officer's reasons for denying the individual's appeal.
[64 FR 19294, Apr. 20, 1999, as amended at 81 FR 12601, Mar. 10, 2016]