alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### State v. The City of Port St. Joe, a municipality.

180 So. 29.

Division B.

No. 376.

Opinion Filed March 31, 1938.

*855
      *Jno H. Carter, Jr.,*State Attorney, for Appellant;

*E. Clay Lewis, Jr.,*and *Knight, Adair, Cooper & Osborne,*for Appellee.

Chapman, J.

On December 21, 1937, Honorable Ira A. Hutchison, a Judge of the Circuit Court in and for Gulf County, Florida, made and entered a final decree ratifying, confirming and validating bonds issued by the City of Port St. Joe, a municipal corporation of Gulf County, Florida, in the sum of $175,000.00, bearing interest at 4% and maturing annually from 1940 to 1959, and the proceeds of the sale of the bonds to be used in dredging of a ship channel within the city limits of the City of Port St. Joe, Florida. The necessary ordinances and resolutions, were duly passed by the Commissioners of the City of Port St. Joe, the proposed issue was submitted to a vote of the freeholders of said city at a lawfully called and duly advertised notice of an election and approved by the required number of qualified freeholders electors participating in said election. The ordinance and resolutions were prepared and authorized under Chapter 6758, Laws of *856Florida, Special Acts 1913; and the validation proceedings under Chapter 14715, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1931.

While it is true that Chapter 6758, Laws of Florida, Special Acts of 1913, being the Charter of the City of Port St. Joe, was abolished and amended and re-enacted by Chapter 18816, Laws of Florida, Special Acts of 1937, all proceedings in connection with this bond issue were carried forward and affirmed, approved and fully ratified by Chapter 18820 and 18821.

The appellant in this case, by Honorable John H. Carter, Jr., State Attorney of Gulf County, Florida, has assigned as error in this Court the final decree appealed from.

We have given due consideration to assignments from one to six and authorities cited in the brief to sustain them. We have had before us a companion case to the one at bar where each question here presented was by this Court duly considered. We hold that this case is ruled by the one decided this day between the same parties. The difference in the cases is the purpose for which the proceeds should be used. The proceeds of the sale of the bonds in the instant case is for dredging a ship canal within the incorporated limits of said city, while the proceeds of the sale of the bonds in the companion case are to be used for the purchase ofi docks within said city.

There being no error in the record the decree appealed from is hereby affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Brown, J., concur.

Ellis, C. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
#### Shirley Feldberg, Petitioner, v Robert Friedland, as Mayor of the Village of Monticello, Respondent.

[633 NYS2d 847]

—Proceeding initiated in this Court pursuant to Public Officers Law § 36 to remove respondent from the office of Mayor of the Village of Monticello, Sullivan County.

Petitioner, a resident of the Village of Monticello, commenced this proceeding to remove respondent from his position as Mayor of the Village of Monticello. The allegations center primarily on two telephone conversations between respondent and the village Police Chief, wherein respondent asked the Police Chief to give respondent’s son a job on the village police force. The Police Chief refused to do so, citing the low score respondent’s son achieved on the qualifying examination and the need to hire minorities to augment the predominantly white police force. Apparently, unhappy with this response, respondent made several inappropriate remarks during the second telephone conversation. He reminded the Police Chief that he had helped to get the Police Chief hired, and he commented to the effect that he did not care about minorities and that "the white middle-class person doesn’t have a chance here”. This conversation took place on a taped telephone line, and the recording has since been made public. *767Although respondent does not deny making these statements, he moves to dismiss the petition on the ground that it fails to state a cause of action.

Respondent correctly contends that his misconduct does not rise to the level necessary to precipitate removal from office under Public Officers Law § 36. In general, courts have been reluctant to remove public officials from office for acts not involving "allegations of self-dealing, corrupt activities, conflict of interest, moral turpitude, intentional wrongdoing or violation of a public trust” *(Matter of Deats v Carpenter,*61 AD2d 320, 322). Most often, such acts involve misappropriation of public funds *(see, e.g., Matter of Phillips v Dally,*143 AD2d 273; *Matter of Abare v Hatch,*21 AD2d 84), gross dereliction of duty *(see, Matter of Williams v Travis,*194 AD2d 969), or a pattern of misconduct and abuse of authority *(see, e.g., Matter of DeFalco v Doetsch,*208 AD2d 1047; *see, Matter of Swope v Kean,*71 AD2d 972). Here, respondent’s conduct, and his racial references, while disgraceful, do not amount to the sort of self-dealing or violation of the public trust contemplated by Public Officers Law § 36. Thus, the petition fails to state a cause of action and must be dismissed. In addition, we conclude that an award of sanctions against petitioners, as requested by respondent, is not warranted in this instance.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, White and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the motion to dismiss is granted and the petition is dismissed, with $100 costs.
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



I, William D. Davis, Chief Executive Officer of MD
Technologies Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of MD Technologies Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 fully
complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of MD
Technologies Inc.



|                       |  |                        
|---------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: November 9, 2004 |  | /s/ William D. Davis   
|                       |  | William D. Davis       
|                       |  | Chief Executive Officer
No. 64160.

protests 59/9618 and 59/21614 (Los Angeles).

#### Madison Import Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of percussion caps similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Gold-Silver & Co.*v. *United States*(36 Cust. Ct. 51, C.D. 1753), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
### Product Information

DOW CONFIDENTIAL - Do not share without permission Unrestrited – May be shared with anyone

®TM

Trademark of The Dow Chemical Company (“Dow”) or an affiliated company of Dow Form No. 119-02220 Page 1 of 2 Dow Surfactants 

### ECOSURFTM LF-30 Product Information

Chemical Description Name: Secondary Alcohol Alkoxylate Surfactant Type: Nonionic

Benefits  Superior wetting

 Low Foam

 Excellent Caustic Stability

 APE Free  Outstanding formulation & handling properties

 Readily biodegradable (OECD 301)

 Low Aquatic Toxicity

Applications  Paints & coatings

 High performance cleaners

 Foam Control

 Hard surface cleaners  Pulp & paper

 Textiles

 Oilfield

 Agrochemicals

Typical Physical Properties
Cloud Point (1) 33
HLB (2) 11 - 12 Polydispersity 1.07 CMC (3) / Surface Tension (4) 26 / 30 Foam Height (5) 60 / 5
Pour Point (6) -5°C
Form (7) Pale yellow liquid pH, 1% aq solution 7.0 Viscosity at 40°C (104°F), cSt 36.096 Density at 40°C (104°F), g/mL 0.9836 Flash Pt, Closed Cup, ASTM D93 193°C 380°F (est)

(1)

Cloud point: °C, 1% Aqueous, (2) HLR Range: <10 w/o emulsifier, > 10 o/w emulsifier, (3) Critical micelle concentration: ppm at 25°C, (4) Surface tension: dynes/cm at 0.2% actives, 25°C, (5) Ross-Miles foam height: mm at 0.1 wt% actives, (6) Pour point: °C, (7) Form at 25°C



### Solubility and Compatibility  Dispersible in water

 Soluble in chlorinated solvents and most polar organic solvents

 Chemically stable in the presence of dilute acids, bases and salts

 Compatible with anionic , cationic, and other nonionic surfactants

Disposal Although the ECOSURFTM LF Surfactants are considered readily biodegradable (>60 percent biodegradation within 28 days per OECD 301F) it has been determined that for unused & contaminated product, the preferred option for disposal is via a licensed, permitted incinerator or other thermal destruction device. These efforts to minimize emissions to the environment are consistent with Dow’s overall commitment to the Responsible Care® Guiding Principles.

Contact information: North America: 1-800-477-4369 Europe: (+32) 3-450-2240 Asia/Pacific: (+852) 2879 7339 Other areas: 1-989-832-1556 http://www.dow.com/surfactants NOTICE: No freedom from any patent owned by Seller or others is to be inferred. Because use conditions and applicable laws may differ from one location to another and may change with time , Customer is responsible for determining whether products and the information in this document are appropriate for Cust omer’s use and for ensuring that Customer’s workplace and disposal practices are in compliance wi th applicable laws and other governmental enac tments. Seller assumes no obligation or liability for the information in this document. NO WARRANTIES ARE GIVEN; ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTI CULAR PURPOSE AREEXPRESSLY EXCLUDED.DOW CONFIDENTIAL - Do not share without permission

– May be shared with anyone

®TM

Trademark of The Dow Chemical Company (“Dow”) or an affiliated company of Dow Form No. 119-02220 Page 2 of 2 Dow Surfactants
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 489 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 489

   To prohibit any direct or indirect United States funding for the 
          territory of Gaza unless certain conditions are met.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 16, 2023

  Mr. Scott of Florida (for himself, Mrs. Hyde-Smith, and Mr. Braun) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                     Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To prohibit any direct or indirect United States funding for the 
          territory of Gaza unless certain conditions are met.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Stop Taxpayer Funding of Hamas 
Act''.

SEC. 2. RESTRICTION ON THE EXPENDITURE FOR FEDERAL FUNDS IN GAZA.

    (a) In General.--No United States Government funds may be obligated 
or expended in the territory of Gaza until after the President 
certifies to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the 
Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives that such 
funds can be expended without benefitting any organization or persons 
that is--
            (1) a member of Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, or any 
        other organization designated by the Secretary of State as a 
        foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the 
        Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189); or
            (2) controlled or influenced by Hamas, Palestinian Islamic 
        Jihad, or any such foreign terrorist organization.
    (b) United Nations Entities.--No United States Government funds may 
be obligated or expended in the territory of Gaza through any United 
Nations entity or office unless the President certifies to the 
congressional committees referred to in subsection (a) that such entity 
or office is not encouraging or teaching anti-Israel or anti-Semitic 
ideas or propaganda.
                                 <all>
```
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
  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.
  /s/ John A. BardisJohn A. BardisChairman, President and Chief Executive OfficerMay 15, 2008/s/ L. Neil HunnL. Neil HunnSenior Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerMay 15, 2008
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 48 (Tuesday, March 13, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 11420]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4546]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i> 10804]


Oklahoma Disaster Number OK-00010

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 2.

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

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Oklahoma 
(FEMA-1678-DR), dated 2/1/2007.
    Incident: Severe Winter Storms.
    Incident Period: 1/12/2007 through 1/26/2007.

DATES: Effective Date: 3/5/2007.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 4/2/2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the President's major disaster 
declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of 
Oklahoma, dated 2/1/2007, is hereby amended to include the following 
areas as adversely affected by the disaster.
Primary Counties: Mcclain, Cleveland.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008.)

Herbert L. Mitchell,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
 [FR Doc. E7-4546 Filed 3-12-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
(V. D. 84)

#### Clarence S. Holmes *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 05-2103; 05-2440.

(Decided October 10, 1958)

*Lawrence & Tuttle (Hadley S. King*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran*Doub, Assistant Attorney General *(Henry J. O’Neill,*trial attorney), for the defendant.

Johnson, Judge:

This matter comes before me pursuant to a remand from classification proceedings *(Clarence S. Holmes*v. *United States,*37 Cust. Ct. 260, C. D. 1833), wherein judgment was rendered, ordering the matter “remanded to a single judge to determine the proper dutiable value of the merchandise involved herein, as provided by 28 U. S. C. § 2636 (a).”

At the trial, counsel for the respective parties stated:

> Mb. King: This case involves the remand of a protest that was decided on the protest side of the court, and the court held that the machine in question consisted of a machine itself, and secondly, an electric motor, and that the ap-praisement was null and void for that reason, and remanded the case to the single judge under Section 501 of the Tariff Act to find a separate value for the machine and for the electric motor.

> We offer to stipulate that the merchandise involved was exported from Canada. It consists of a certain blower with an electric motor, and a feeder with an electric motor. There are two entries involved. In the case of entry 2103, of November 3, 1952, we offer to stipulate that on or about the date of exportation such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale for home consumption in Canada, nor for exportation to the United States; that on or about the date of exportation such or similar imported merchandise was not freely offered for sale in the principal markets of the United States.

> We further offer to stipulate that the cost of production, as such cost of production is defined in Section 402 of the Tariff Act, is as follows: For the blower, Canadian funds $818.60 each; for the motor, Canadian funds, $317.25 each.

> Similarly, we offer to stipulate that in the case of entry 2440, the cost of production, as defined in Section 402 if), for the blower is Canadian funds $778.86 each, and for the motor, Canadian funds, $317.25 each.

> On the same entry, there is an item described as a 9 inch feeder, and the cost of production as defined in Section 402 (f) for the feeder is Canadian funds, $1,191.30; for the motor, Canadian funds, $85. each.

> Me. O’Neill: After conferring with the examiner, the Government so agrees.

On the agreed facts, I find that cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of each of the items involved herein and that such values are as follows:

*461Entry 2103: Blower, Canadian $818.60 each

Motor, Canadian $317.25 “

Entry 2440: Blower, Canadian $778.86 “

Motor, Canadian $317.25 “

9-inch feeder, Canadian $1,191.30 *“*

Motor, Canadian $85.00 “

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Inconnection with the quarterly report of East Coast Diversified Corporation (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 31, 2009 (the“Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof, I, Frank Rovito, CEO and CFO 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. TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Frank Rovito

Frank RovitoCEO and CFODated: January 5, 2009

A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to East Coast Diversified Corporationand will be retained by East Coast Diversified Corporation and furnished to the Securitiesand Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Louis Pellegrino, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 91]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (William Wallace, III, J.), rendered August 4, 1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent felony offender, to concurrent prison terms of 10 years to life and one year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant argues that the court erred in admitting irrelevant evidence of the complainant’s "religious conversion” and his work with a Christian ministry. We find, contrary to the People’s argument, that this claim has been preserved, and we *276agree this testimony should have been stricken *(People v Mercado,*188 AD2d 941, 944; Richardson, Evidence § 387, at 367 [Prince 10th ed]). We nevertheless conclude that reversal is not warranted in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt, which included police testimony which amply corroborated the complainant’s testimony *(People v Blair,*173 AD2d 172, 173, *lv denied 78*NY2d 1009). Defendant failed to preserve his argument concerning the court’s supplemental instructions, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review it, we would find it without merit. Reading the charge as a whole, the court conveyed the correct standard to the jury *(People v Coleman,*70 NY2d 817). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman, Asch and Williams, JJ.
**EXHIBIT 4******

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consent to the incorporationby reference in Registration Statements Nos. 333-90920, 333-105310 and 333-151733 on Form S-8 and to the use of our reports dated February 10, 2016 relating to the consolidated financial statements of Sun Life Financial Inc. (the“Company”) and the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting appearing in this Annual Report on Form 40-F of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2015. 

/S/ “Deloitte LLP” 

CharteredProfessional Accountants 

Licensed Public Accountants 

February 10, 2016 

Toronto, Canada
Filed in the office of
Document Number20110406231-40Ross Miller
Filing Date and Time

5/31/2011 12:18 PMSecretary of State
Entity NumberState of Nevada
C4773-2003Certificate of Amendment(PURSUANT TO NRS 78.385 and 78.390)




Certificate of Amendment to Articles of Incorporation


For Nevada Profit Corporations


(Pursuant to NRS 78.385 and 78.390 – After Issuance of Stock)





1.  Name of corporation:





AMP Productions, Ltd.





2.  The articles have been amended as follows:(provide article numbers, if available)





Article 1.1shall be amended to change the name of the corporation to read as follows:





“1.1 The name of the Corporation is Computer Graphics International Inc.”





Article 4 (Capital Stock) shall be amended to effect a 1-for-2.18 reverse stock split by adding the following Article:4.6





See attached Appendix A





3.  The vote by which the stockholders holding shares in the corporation entitling them to exercise a least a majority of the voting power, or such greater proportion of the voting power as may be required in the case of a vote by classes or series, or as may be required by the provisions of the articles of incorporation* have voted in favor of the amendment is: 53.4%





4.  Effective date of filing: (Optional)(must not be later than 90 days after the certificate is filed)





5.  Signature: (required)





X /s/Jing Wang


Signature of Officer





*If any proposed amendment would alter or change any preference or any relative or other right given to any class or series of outstanding shares, then the amendment must be approved by the vote, in addition to the affirmative vote otherwise required, of the holders of shares representing a majority of the voting power of each class or series affected by the amendment regardless to limitations or restrictions on the voting power thereof.





IMPORTANT: Failure to include any of the above information and submit with the proper fees may cause this filing to be rejected.





This form must be accompanied by appropriate fees.
Nevada Secretary of State Amend Profit-AfterRevised: 3-5-09










APPENDIX A





“4.6 Effective upon the “Effective Date” (as defined below), the outstanding shares of Common Stock of the Corporation shall be combined on the basis that two and eighteen hundredths (2.18) of such shares of Common Stock shall become one (1) share of Common Stock without changing the par value of the shares of the Corporation (the “Reverse Stock Split”); provided that no fractional shares of the Corporation shall be issued in connection with the Reverse Stock Split and the number of shares to be received by a stockholder shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number of shares in the event that such stockholder would otherwise be entitled to receive a fractional share as a result of the Reverse Stock Split.





The “Effective Date” shall be the first date permitted or determined by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) as the effective date of such Reverse Stock Split, subject to the prior filing and recording of this Certificate of Amendment in the office of the Secretary of State of the State of Nevada.”