alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 47359.

#### Protests 679006-G, etc., of J. G. Braun Co., Inc.

. Plaintiffls-application for rehearing.granted.
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 Quarterly Report of Trey Resources, Inc. ("the Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("the Report"), I, Mark Meller,
President, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and
belief, 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.


                                       Date: May 12, 2005

                                       By /s/ Mark Meller
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Mark Meller
                                       President, Chief Executive Officer and
                                       Principal Financial Officer
**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 CounterPath Solutions, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended October 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David Karp, the Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer (Principal Financial and Principal Reporting 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 to 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.

Date: December 18, 2006.
| /s/ David Karp   |
|----------------------------|

David Karp

Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer

(Financial and Reporting Officer)

 

 

CW995163.1
Case No. 13,767.

#### TAVENNER v. HUNTER.

[1 Hayw. & H. 81.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

April 30, 1842.

Replevin — Custody under Levy.

A plaintiff is not entitled to recover in an action of replevin where the goods to be replevied are in the hands of defendant as an officer of the law by virtue of an attachment.

This is an action of replevin brought by [Charles H. Tavenner] the plaintiff against [Alexander Hunter] the defendant, who was marshal of the District, for the possession of a cow and calf, the property of said plaintiff. The writ was directed to the coroner of Washington county, in the District of Columbia, commanding him to replevy said cow and calf.

Brent *&*Brent, for plaintiff.

Clement Cox, for defendant.

The following instruction was given by

THE COURT:

“If the jury believe from the *725evidence that, at the time the writ of re-plevin in this cause was .sued out and levied on the cow and calf therein mentioned, the same were in the custody of the defendant by virtue of the levy thereon of the attachment given in evidence, then the plaintiff is not entitled to recover under the issue joined in this cause.”

The following is the verdict of the jury: “The jury find for the defendant, and assess his damages at one cent. They also find the property mentioned in the replevin to be in plaintiff, and the replevin bond given by the plaintiff to be in no wise answerable to the defendant.”

Judgment on the verdict for one cent damages and costs. No return of property awarded or to be awarded.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6220

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RANDY KENDRELL SIMPSON, a/k/a Cheese, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-96-11, CA-98-974) Submitted: April 10, 2000 Decided: April 25, 2000Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randy Kendrell Simpson, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Francis Joseph, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on November 12, 2000, the district court’s record shows that it was entered on the docket sheet on November 15, 1999. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the judgment or order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM: Randy Kendrell Simpson seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny relief on Simpson’s 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999) motion. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Simpson’s notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded sixty days after entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)).The district court’s order was entered on the docket on November 15, 1999. * Simpson’s notice of appeal was filed on February 4, 2000. Because Simpson failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We3 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.

DISMISSED
April 8, 2015

Docket Management Facility U.S. Department of Transportation Attention: Docket FAA

- 2001

- 9348 Docket Management System 400 7 th Street, SW, Room PL

- 401 Washington, DC 20590

Submitted electronically to: http://www.regulations.gov/

Subject: Petition for Extension of Exemption No. 5318L to Permit Operation of Certain Registered Airline Aircraft without the Reg istration and Airworthiness Certificates on Board

Ladies/Gentlemen:

In accordance with the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), Part 11, the Airlines for America (A4A) , on behalf of its member air carriers 1

, petitions for th e renewal of Exemption No. 5318L , Docket Number FAA

- 2001

- 9348 . Exemption No. 5318L expires on July 31, 2015

. A4A make s this application on behalf of its member air carriers 1

.

A4A is the trade and service organization of the U.S. scheduled air carriers with its main office at 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 1100, Washington, D.C. 20004

- 1707. The appropriate technical contact for the purposes of this application is Robert Irelan d

, Managing Director, Engineering and Maintenance

, telephone: (202) 626

- 4228.

Exe mption No. 5318 L , extended on March 22, 2013

, authorizes the conditional dispatch of aircraft without the certificates of registration and/or airworthiness required by the Code of Federal Regulations sections §91.203 and §47.49 on board.

The justification for the requested extension of the exp irati on date for Exemption 5318L is the same as the justification for the original exemption. In addition, airline efforts to reduce incidents of cert ificate loss/mutilation since A4 A’s original filing

– e.g., hardened pouches

– have been only partially successful. The need for this exemption continues, and we have seen no foolproof designs offering a permanent solution to the problem. While we will continue to examine improved protection methods, the re lief afforded by Exemption 5318L is needed for the near future. Extension of this exemption will be in the public interest because strict enforcement of the registration/airworthiness certificate requirements would result in the grounding of aircraft at times and places where substitute aircraft are not available. This would consequently mean that the traveling and shipping public would be greatly inconvenienced

. The

1 A4A airline members are: Alaska Airlines, Inc.; American Airlines Group , Inc. (American and US Airways) ; Atlas Air, Inc.; Delta Air Lines, Inc.; Federal Express Corporation; Hawaiian Airlines; JetBlue Airways Corp.; Southwest Airlines Co.; United Air Lines, Inc.; and United Parcel Service Co

. Air Canada is an associate member

.renewal of this exemption is not a controversial issue. As the renewal of this exemption is not

precedent setting, A4 A requests that public ation in the Federal Register be waived.

Your consideration and approval of this request is appreciated.

Sincerely,

Robert L Ireland Managing Director, Engineering and Maintenance Airlines for America 202

- 626

- 4228 rireland@airlines.org
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a),**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, John C. Prior, certify that:

 

1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form10-Q of Curative Health Services, Inc.;

 

2.     Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.     Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

4.     The registrant’s other certifying officer(s)and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:

 

a.     Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

b.     Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c.     Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

 

5.     The registrant’s other certifying officer(s)and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committeeof the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

a.     All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b.     Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| Date:  May 22, 2006 |   |
|---------------------|--------|
|                |   |
|                | /s/    | John  C. Prior |   |
|                |   | John C. Prior |
|                |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, December 03, 2014. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, December 03, 2014 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A15A0292. PHILLIP SIMS v. FIRST ATLANTIC MORTGAGE, LLC et al..
Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion is hereby GRANTED.
Exhibit 23.2.b









             CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We  hereby consent to the incorporation by reference  in  the
Registration  Statement on Form S-3 (File No.  333-18139)  of
Kansas  City Power & Light Company (a wholly-owned subsidiary
of  Great  Plains  Energy Incorporated) of our  report  dated
February  5,  2002  relating to the financial  statements  of
Kansas  City  Power  & Light Company and Subsidiaries,  which
appears in this Form 10-K.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


Kansas City, Missouri
February 26, 2002
No. 52573.

protests 14150-K, etc. (Providence, etc.).

#### E. H. Ashley & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 55936.

protest 170129-K (New York).

#### M. D. Gourlay *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

An examination of the official papers disclosing no reason which would warrant disturbing the classification of the collector, which was presumptively correct, the protest was overruled.
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 General Steel Holdings, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of
the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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 results of operations of the
Company.





Date:
      May 11, 2009
            By:
            /s/ John ChenJohn Chen(Chief
      Financial Officer)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE: REASSIGNMENT OF JUDGE OF

THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF 

THE FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF 

PENNSYLVANIA 

:

:

:

:

:

No. 341 Common Pleas Judicial 

Classification Docket 

 O R D E R

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 29th day of March, 2017, upon consideration of the 

Petition of Jeffrey A. Manning, President Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of the 

Fifth Judicial District of Pennsylvania, for the reassignment of a Judge to a division of 

the court, it is hereby ORDERED that the Petition is granted and the following 

reassignment is approved:

From the Juvenile Section of the Family Division to the Civil Division

The Honorable John T. McVay, Jr.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

VICTOR S. HALTOM

Attorney at Law

State Bar No. 155157

428 J Street, Suite 350

Sacramento, CA 95814

Telephone: (916) 444-8663

Facsimile: 444-1546

e-mail: vshjah@aol.com

Attorney for Petitioner

ANTOINE N. WATIE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 IN AND FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTOINE N. WATIE, ) CIV-S-04-1289 FCD PAN P

)

Petitioner, ) ORDER

)

v. )

)

THOMAS L. CAREY, Warden, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

________________________________ )

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s application for an enlargement of

time until August 5, 2005 is granted. On or before August 5, 2005, petitioner shall file

his reply herein.

Dated: July 7, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01289-FCD-CHS Document 34 Filed 07/12/05 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 23.2 

**INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ CONSENT**

We consent to the incorporation byreference in Registration Statement No. 333-104273 of Interstate Power and Light Companyon Form S-3 of our report dated March 3, 2004 (which report expresses an unqualifiedopinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the adoption of Statement ofFinancial Accounting Standards No. 143, “Accounting for Asset RetirementObligations”), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Interstate Power andLight Company for the year ended December 31, 2003. 

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

Milwaukee, Wisconsin
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH MILLS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1528 LKK CMK P

vs.

SAN JOAQUIN JAIL, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On February 2, 2006, plaintiff filed a “Request for Declaration of Judgment.”

This action was dismissed on December 20, 2005. Documents filed by plaintiff since the closing

date will be disregarded and no orders will issue in response to future filings.

DATED: February 9, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01528-LKK -CMK Document 12 Filed 02/10/06 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>


                        AMERIPRISE CERTIFICATE COMPANY
                               POWER OF ATTORNEY

City of Minneapolis

State of Minnesota

Each of the undersigned as a director of Ameriprise Certificate Company, a
face-amount certificate company registered under the Investment Company Act of
1940, hereby constitutes and appoints William F. (Ted) Truscott, Brian J.
McGrane, David K. Stewart, Scott R. Plummer and Christopher O. Petersen or any
one of them, as his or her attorney-in-fact and agent, to sign for him or her
in his or her name, place and stead any and all registration statements and
amendments thereto (with all exhibits and other documents required or
desirable in connection therewith) that may be prepared from time to time in
connection with said Company's existing or future face-amount certificate
products - whether pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Act of 1933,
the Investment Company Act of 1940 or otherwise - and periodic reports on Form
10-K, Form 10-Q and Form 8-K required pursuant to provisions of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and any necessary or appropriate filings with states or
other jurisdictions, and grants to any or all of them the full power and
authority to do and perform each and every act required or necessary or
appropriate in connection with such signatures or filings.

Signed on this 1st day of August, 2006
               ---


/s/ Rodney P. Burwell
--------------------------
    Rodney P. Burwell

/s/ Jean B. Keffeler
--------------------------
    Jean B. Keffeler

/s/ Thomas R. McBurney
--------------------------
    Thomas R. McBurney

/s/ Karen M. Bohn
--------------------------
    Karen M. Bohn
#### Irma Veronica CASTRO; Carlos Fernando Castro-Lerma; Francisco Javier Castro-Lerma, Petitioners, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 00-71180.

INS Nos. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 11, 2001.*

Decided June 25, 2001.

Before O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Irma Veronica Castro and her children Carlos Fernando Castro-Lerma and Francisco Javier Castro-Lerma (collectively “Petitioners”) petition for review of their final orders of deportation entered by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) on August 17, 2000. The facts and prior proceedings are known to the parties; they are not restated herein except as necessary.

Petitioners, natives and citizens of Mexico, entered the United States without inspection in July 1990. On November 8, 1996, they were served with Orders to Show Cause (“OSC”) why they should not be deported as aliens having entered the United States without inspection. In a decision dated May 29, 1997, an Immigration Judge pretermitted Petitioners’ applications for suspension of deportation because Petitioners had failed to meet the continuous physical presence requirement before being served with the OSC and thus were statutorily ineligible for suspension. On appeal, the BIA affirmed.

Petitioners contend that they were eligible for suspension of deportation and challenge the BIA’s decision that the “stop-time rule” — a new continuous physical presence requirement set forth in the Ille*595gal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, 110 Stat. 3009-625 (“IIRIRA”) — bars such relief in their case.1 Petitioners’ arguments challenging the application of the stop-time rule are foreclosed by our decision in *Ram v. INS,*243 F.3d 510 (9th Cir.2001). The Board therefore correctly concluded that the stop-time rule applied to their application.

PETITIONS DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. The Immigration Judge properly applied the stop-time rule to Petitioners because her order pretermitting Petitioners' application for suspension of deportation was issued subsequent to the April 1, 1997, effective date of IIRIRA. *See Astrero v. INS,*104 F.3d 264, 266 (9th Cir.1996) (holding that IIRIRA's effective date is April 1, 1997).
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEACH CHHOEUN,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-1629 GEB CMK

vs.

JOHN ASHCROFT, et al.,

Respondents. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

On January 24, 2005, respondents filed a motion to dismiss for lack of

jurisdiction. On January 27, 2005, petitioner filed an motion for substitution of attorney. The

court granted the requested substitution and the federal defender’s office was replaced by CJA

panel attorney Carolyn D. Phillips, as petitioner’s counsel. 

On April 27, 2005, petitioner was granted an additional sixty days in which to file

an opposition to respondents’ motion to dismiss because his new attorney was unaware of 

respondents’ motion to dismiss. Recently, on June 6, 2005, petitioner’s counsel filed a statement

of non-opposition to respondents’ motion to dismiss.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Respondents’ motion to dismiss, filed January 24, 2005, be granted; and

2. This action be dismissed without prejudice.

DATED: July 7, 2005.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01629-GEB-CMK Document 13 Filed 07/08/05 Page 1 of 1
# sec5_sbr_2021

&L&"Arial"&10&BBulletin No. 2021-12	&"Arial,Bold"&10V SBR - &P	&R&"Arial"&10&BMarch 2021