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



Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Dated:  November 7, 2007
    /s/ Ben M. BrighamBen M. BrighamChief Executive Officer, President and
Chairman of the Board
EXHIBIT 99.2

         Supplement to Registrant's Registration Statements on Form S-8

In  accordance  with  the  requirements  of  Form  S-8,  the  registrant  hereby
supplements any discussion of the  indemnification  provisions of the registrant
in all of the registrant's  registration statements previously filed on Form S-8
with the following undertaking:

Insofar as indemnification  for liabilities  arising under the Securities Act of
1933 may be permitted to  directors,  officers  and  controlling  persons of the
registrant pursuant to the foregoing  provisions,  or otherwise,  the registrant
has been advised that in the opinion of the Securities  and Exchange  Commission
such  indemnification  is against  public policy as expressed in the Act and is,
therefore,  unenforceable. In the event that a claim for indemnification against
such liabilities  (other than the payment by the registrant of expenses incurred
or paid by a director,  officer,  or controlling person of the registrant in the
successful  defense of any  action,  suit or  proceeding)  is  asserted  by such
director,  officer or controlling person in connection with the securities being
registered, the registrant will, unless in the opinion of its counsel the matter
has been  settled by  controlling  precedent,  submit to a court of  appropriate
jurisdiction the question whether such  indemnification  by it is against public
policy as expressed in the Act and will be governed by the final adjudication of
such issue.
**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 filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of South Jersey
      Gas Company (the “Company”) for the period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      David A. Kindlick, 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 Section 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/
      David
      A. Kindlick


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


Name:
      David A. Kindlick


Title:
      Chief Financial Officer


May
      9,
      2006
#### H. G. VOGEL COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANTS, v. HYMAN LIPSCHITZ ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.

Argued January 17, 1933

Decided July 29, 1933.

Before Justices Bodine and Donges.

Eor the plain tiff-appellant, *Maurice Bernstein.*

For the defendants-appellees, *David M. Litwin (Harry Green).*

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff appeals from a judgment in favor of the defendant. The record returned discloses besides the judgment and the pleadings, a colloquy of counsel with the court, and a document purporting to be an exhibit, but not so offered or marked. There is neither testimony or stipulation of fact. We can find no exception taken to any ruling of the trial court and would, therefore, have no basis to reverse if the judgment were entered in a form of proceeding known to us.

The learned trial court evidently regarded the matter as incomplete because he suggested at the close of the colloquy, that if counsel contemplated an appeal from his judgment the case would be reopened to the end that the record might be completed.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 22, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-51363 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MARTIN JIMENEZ-SANTOS, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:04-CR-520-1

-------------------- Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Martin JimenezSantos raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1

79–012 2000

106th Congress, 2d Session – – – – – – – – – – – – House Document 106–257

REPORT ON RESCISSIONS AND DEFERRALS

COMMUNICATION

FROM

THE DIRECTOR, THE OFFICE OF

MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

TRANSMITTING

CUMULATIVE REPORT ON RESCISSIONS AND DEFERRALS OF

BUDGET AUTHORITY, PURSUANT TO 2 U.S.C. 685(e)

JUNE 19, 2000.—Referred to the Committee on Appropriations and ordered

to be printed

(1)

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET,

Washington, DC, June 12, 2000.

Hon. J. DENNIS HASTERT,

Speaker of the House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. SPEAKER: In accordance with Executive Order 11845,

I am transmitting the cumulative report on rescissions and deferrals. This report is required by Section 1014(e) of the Congressional

Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. In accordance with

the Act, the report is being transmitted concurrently to the Senate

and will be published in the Federal Register.

Sincerely,

JACOB J. LEW, Director.

Enclosure.

Identical Letter Sent to the President of the Senate.

(3)
4
5
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001035507
<NAME>                        800-JR CIGAR, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                  SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                        16,422
<SECURITIES>                  12,482
<RECEIVABLES>                 3,453
<ALLOWANCES>                  0
<INVENTORY>                   41,369
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              77,735
<PP&E>                        28,769
<DEPRECIATION>                5,404
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                101,566
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         22,535
<BONDS>                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
<PREFERRED>                   0
<COMMON>                      128
<OTHER-SE>                    71,953
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  101,566
<SALES>                       205,414
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              206,934
<CGS>                         164,266
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 21,692
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            1,019
<INCOME-PRETAX>               19,957
<INCOME-TAX>                  8,152
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           11,805
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  11,805
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 .93
<EPS-DILUTED>                 .92
        


</TABLE>
### The Putumayo-Oriente-Maranon Province of Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru; Mesozoic-Cenozoic and Paleozoic petroleum systems

By: D. K. Higley**

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/ds63

#### Links

- More information:  **USGS Index Page**                            (html)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract
#### Emma A. Thomas, Appellant, *v.*James C. Davis, Respondent, Impleaded with Another.

*Thomas*v. *Davis,*136 App. Div. 945, affirmed.

(Argued May 18, 1911;

decided June 6, 1911.)

Appeal from a judgment, entered February 5, 1910, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, overruling plaintiff’s exceptions, ordered to be heard in the first instance by the Appellate Division, denying a motion for a new trial and directing judgment for defendant on the verdict directed by the trial court in an action of ejectment.

*John D. Lynn*and *Milton Noyes*for appellant.

*Eugene Van Voorhis*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Vann, Willard Bartlett, Hisoocic, Chase and Collin, JJ.
Exhibit 31.1





Certification of Principal Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 302 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I, Thomas W. Lanni, President and Chief Executive Officer of Comarco, Inc., certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K/A of Comarco, 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: May 31, 2017 |  | /s/ THOMAS W. LANNI                   | 
|------------------ |  | ------------------------------------- | 
|                   |  | Thomas W. Lanni                       | 
|                   |  | President and Chief Executive Officer | 
|                   |  | (Principal Executive Officer)         |
EXHIBIT (10)(A)

                           FISCAL 1997

                   KEY MANAGEMENT BONUS SYSTEM

                         WESCON PRODUCTS

President

1.   Minimum entry level for participation in the bonus program
     is at a 12% Corporate return on investment.

2.   The maximum level up to which bonus payments will be made is
     a 26% Corporate return on investment per the table below.


Key Management

A bonus amount equal to 112.5% of President's bonus will be
allocated for the President to make discretionary distribution in
amounts and to participants of his choice.


Payments

1.   This plan is for fiscal 1997 only.

2.   Payment will be made by December 31, 1997, based on audited
     fiscal results.

3.   To receive the bonus due December 31, 1997, the employee
     must be active and on the payroll at fiscal year end.


Bonus Table

                        FISCAL 1997 PLAN

                          Bonus Earned

1997 Corporate ROI         President    Discretion     Total
<TABLE>
     <C>               <C> <S>         <C> <S>        <C>
     12%               11% of Salary   12% of Salary  $ 40,000
     15%               25% of Salary   28% of Salary    93,000
     18%               30% of Salary   34% of Salary   113,000
     21%               35% of Salary   39% of Salary   130,000
     26%               43% of Salary   48% of Salary   160,000
</TABLE>
<PAGE>
Definitions

1.   "Wescon Products" is the Wescon consolidated operations
     including the assets, liabilities, revenue and expenses
     identifiable as Consumer Products and I.H. Molding, Inc.

2.   "Corporate investment" is the monthly average of the total
     of all the assets less the liabilities to outside third
     parties in Wescon.

3.   "Corporate return on investment" is Wescon Products'
     consolidated annual operating profit before income taxes
     divided by the average monthly Corporate investment in
     Wescon.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           6,053
<SECURITIES>                                    21,249
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,172
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,345
<INVENTORY>                                      2,412
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                58,012
<PP&E>                                          12,686
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,573
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  64,275
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,662
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            69
<OTHER-SE>                                      42,544
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    64,275
<SALES>                                         42,576
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                42,576
<CGS>                                           15,836
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   15,836
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                19,039
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,251
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,970
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,281
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .33
        

</TABLE>
Sullivan,

June, 1895.

#### Pollard *v.*Pollard & *Tr.,*Nichols, *Claimant.*

A written order for the payment of money, signed by one partner, orally assented to by the other, and directed to a member of a committee acting for a school district indebted to the firm, operates as an equitable assignment, and is valid against subsequent attaching creditors.

Foreign Attachment. Pacts found by the court. In 1894, the defendant and Eaymond M. Pollard jointly contracted to erect a sehoolhouse for the Lempster School District, agreeing between themselves to share the profits and losses of the contract equally. The district acted by its building committee, consist*357ing of three persons, of whom Arthur L. Benway was one. May 3, 1894, the defendant gave the claimant an order as follows: “ Lempster, May 3d, 1894. Mr. Arthur L. Benway: Please pay Mrs. Mabel L. Nichols eighty-two dollars and charge the same to my account, it being for forty-one weeks’ board.” An acceptance was indorsed upon the order in these words: “ May 3d, 1894. I hereby accept the within order. A. L. Benway, Committee.” Raymond was present when the acceptance was made, and orally consented to the same. The order being regarded as an equitable assignment, the trustee was discharged, subject to the plaintiff’s exception.

*George JR,. Brown,*for the plaintiff.

*Hosea W. Parker,*for the claimant.

Chase, J.

The order was, in effect, an equitable assignment, by Rolon 1). and Raymond M. Pollard to the claimant, of a part of their claim against the Lempster School District. *Conway*v. *Cutting,*51 N. H. 407; *Garland*v. *Harrington,*51 N. H. 409. Although it is addressed to Benway personally, and is signed by Rolon only, and directs the charging of the sum mentioned to his account, the circumstances show that all parties understood it referred to the money that would become due to the Pollards jointly from the district upon the completion of their contract. Benway was one of the three members of the district’s building committee, and it appears from the form of his acceptance of the order that he acted in that capacity. So far as appears, he was not personally indebted to the Pollards or either of them. Raymond’s oral consent to the order was a valid transfer of his interest in the subject of the assignment. *Thompson*v. *Emery,*27 N. H. 269; *Brewer*v. *Franklin Mills,*42 N. H. 292; *Jordan*v. *Gillen,*44 N. H. 424, 427; *Pierce*v. *Insurance Co.,*50 N. H. 297; *Gage*v. *Dow,*59 N. H. 383; *Brown*v. *Mansur,*64 N. H. 39. The question whether Benway was authorized to bind the district by án acceptance need not be considered, for an acceptance is not required to make the order operate as an equitable assignment. *Garland*v. *Harrington, supra.*The assignment was good as against the plaintiff', even if the district did not have sufficient notice of it before the plaintiff’s writ was served. Such assignments are upheld in law, as well as in eqirity, against subsequent attachments. *Gerrish*v. *Clough,*36 N. H. 519, 524; *Chapman*v. *Haley,*43 N. H. 300, 306; *Brown*v. *Mansur, supra.*

*Exception overruled.*

All concurred.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 118 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                  House Calendar No. 16
107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 118

                          [Report No. 107-49]

  Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 41) 
 proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States with 
                      respect to tax limitations.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 24, 2001

   Mr. Sessions, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 41) 
 proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States with 
                      respect to tax limitations.

    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 41) 
proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States with 
respect to tax limitations. The joint resolution shall be considered as 
read for amendment. The previous question shall be considered as 
ordered on the joint resolution and any amendment thereto to final 
passage without intervening motion except: (1) two hours of debate 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on the Judiciary; (2) an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute printed in the Congressional Record pursuant to 
clause 8 of rule XVIII, if offered by the Minority Leader or his 
designee, which shall be considered as read and shall be separately 
debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.

                                                  House Calendar No. 16

107th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 118

                          [Report No. 107-49]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

  Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 41) 
 proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States with 
                      respect to tax limitations.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             April 24, 2001

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
#### JOSEPH OKIN AND ISAAC SANDUSKY, PARTNERS, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME OF OKIN & SANDUSKY, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, v. SAMUEL SHAFMAN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Submitted January 30, 1933

Decided June 22, 1933.

Before Brogan, Chief Justice, and Justices Trenchard and Case.

For the defendant-appellant, *Henry P. Brown (Salvatore Mutij*of counsel).

For the plaintiffs-appellees, *Marder ■& Olein.*

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from the Second District Court of the city of Newark, the appeal being taken by the defendant from a judgment rendered by the judge sitting without a jury.

Apparently only one question is raised, namely the propriety of the denial by the judge of an application of the defendant for a jury.

The summons was returnable October 15th, and on November 24th the case was marked ready for trial, hut was not tried on that day and by order of the court it was marked “carried to November 26th.” The defendant filed a demand for a jury on November 24th and paid the fees and on the 26th the case was marked ready for trial but was not reached and the trial was again carried to the next trial day, to wit, December 1st.

*463It further appears that defendant renewed his demand for a jury by filing in writing another such demand with the clerk on November 28th. When the case was called for trial December 1st the defendant insisted upon a jury, but that insistence was denied by the judge “on the ground that the time fixed for trial was not the day on which the case was tried, but the original time set for trial” and he proceeded to try the case without a jury, and thereupon the counsel for defendant withdrew entirely and offered no defense. A judgment was rendered for the plaintiffs for $300 and costs.

We believe that under section 149 of the District Court act *(Comp. Stat., p.*1999), as construed by our cases the judge should have allowed a jury. That section (so far as pertinent to the circumstances of this case) provides for a jury when “a demand for trial by jury shall be made, and notice thereof given to the clerk of the court at least two days, exclusive of Sundays and legal holidays, before the time fixed for trial.”

In *Consolidated Gas Co.*v. *Blanda,*89 *N. J. L.*104; 97 *Atl. Rep.*769; *affirmed,*90 *N. J. L.*135, it was said that “the phrase “’day fixed for trial’ means the return day of the summons if trial be then had, or any later day to which the trial may be adjourned and on which day it is *actually*held.” See, also, *Stuppiello*v. *Waldron,*6 *N. J. Mis. R.*152; 140 *Atl. Rep.*436.

The judgment will be reversed and a new trial awarded, costs to abide the event.