alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Commonwealth *v.*White, Appellant.

Submitted March 7, 1969.

Before Bell, O. J., Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien, Roberts and Pomeroy, JJ.

*70April 23, 1969:

*Miles Warner,*for appellant.

*Henry J. Rutherford,*Assistant District Attorney, and *Clarence C. Newcomer,*District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

*Theodore Voorhees,*and *Dechert, Price <& Rhoads,*for amicus curiae.

Opinion

Per Curiam,

On June 14, 1960, Harry B. White was convicted by a jury in Lancaster County of murder in the first degree and punishment was fixed at life imprisonment. No post-trial motions were filed, and judgment of sentence was imposed in accordance with the jury’s verdict. Throughout these proceedings, White was represented by self-retained counsel. No appeal was entered from the judgment.

In October 1964, White instituted an action in habeas corpus which was dismissed by the trial court. In these proceedings, White was represented by court-appointed counsel. On appeal we affirmed, 419 Pa. 244, 213 A. 2d 662 (1965).

In September 1966, White instituted proceedings seeking post-conviction relief. The court below dismissed these proceedings without hearing, and an appeal from that order is now before us.

*71The only contention requiring discussion in tbe present proceedings is that White was unconstitutionally denied his right to appeal from the judgment of sentence imposed in 1960 in violation of *Douglas v. California,*372 U.S. 353, 83 S. Ct. 814 (1963). This contention was raised for the first time in the present action and was not asserted in the 1964 habeas corpus proceedings in which White was represented by counsel. Under such circumstances, this claim has been waived. See *Commonwealth v. Mumford,*430 Pa. 451, 243 A. 2d 440 (1968), and §4, Post Conviction Hearing Act, Act of January 25, 1966, P. L. (1965) 1580, 19 P.S. §1180-4.

Order affirmed.
Exhibit 32.4

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.§1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of the Currency Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, to the best of 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 Currency Series.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                                                                               
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Robert J. Enck                                                                                                                             
|Robert J. Enck                                                                                                                                 
|President and Chief Executive Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of the Currency Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund
|                                                                                                                                               
|/s/ Brent Bales                                                                                                                                
|Brent Bales                                                                                                                                    
|Chief Financial Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of the Currency Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund              

Date: November 11, 2010
117 STAT. 556 PUBLIC LAW 108–9—MAR. 6, 2003

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.J. Res. 19:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 149 (2003):

Feb. 11, considered and passed House.

Feb. 13, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 108–9

108th Congress

Joint Resolution

Recognizing the 92d birthday of Ronald Reagan.

Whereas February 6, 2003, is the 92d birthday of Ronald Wilson

Reagan;

Whereas Ronald Reagan is the first former President ever to attain

the age of 92;

Whereas both Ronald Reagan and his wife Nancy Reagan have

distinguished records of public service to the United States, the

American people, and the international community;

Whereas Ronald Reagan was twice elected by overwhelming margins as President of the United States;

Whereas Ronald Reagan fulfilled his pledge to help restore ‘‘the

great, confident roar of American progress, growth, and optimism’’

and ensure renewed economic prosperity;

Whereas Ronald Reagan’s leadership was instrumental in extending

freedom and democracy around the globe and uniting a world

divided by the Cold War;

Whereas Ronald Reagan is loved and admired by millions of Americans, and by countless others around the world;

Whereas the recent tragic loss of the space shuttle Columbia and

her crew remind us of how, 17 years ago, Ronald Reagan’s eloquence helped heal the Nation after the Challenger disaster;

Whereas Nancy Reagan not only served as a gracious First Lady

but also led a national crusade against illegal drug use;

Whereas, together Ronald and Nancy Reagan dedicated their lives

to promoting national pride and to bettering the quality of life

in the United States and throughout the world; and

Whereas the thoughts and prayers of the Congress and the country

are with Ronald Reagan in his courageous battle with Alzheimer’s

disease: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Congress,

on behalf of the American people, extends its birthday greetings

and best wishes to Ronald Reagan on his 92d birthday.

Approved March 6, 2003.

Mar. 6, 2003

[H.J. Res. 19]
Exhibit
32.1






CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of
CenterPoint Energy Transition Bond Company, LLC (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 2009 (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Gary L. Whitlock, 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, that:





1.           The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





2.           The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








/s/
      Gary L. WhitlockGary
      L. WhitlockPresident
      and Manager(Principal
      Executive Officer)March 30,
      2010
#### THE INHABITANTS OF THE CITY OF TRENTON AND EVERETT TOWNSEND, PROSECUTORS, v. TRENTON AND MERCER COUNTY TRACTION CORPORATION ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

Argued October 16, 1918

Decided October 18, 1918.

Whether a street railway shall run some parts of its line at a loss, perhaps with a view to future development or future gain or with a view to greater public service, is a business question to be determined by the railway, subject to the control of the board of public utility commissioners, and the fact that the street railway loses money by the operation of suburban lines is no valid reason why the rate charge throughout its whole system should not be increased.

On *certiorari.*

Before Justice Swayze.

For the prosecutors, *George L. Record (Charles E. Bird*with him).

For the traction corporation, *Frank S. Katzenbach, Jr. (Edward, M. Hunt*with him).

For the public utility commissioners, *L. Edward Herrmann.*

*62The opinion of the court to delivered by

Swayze, J.

Most of the points made in this case are sufficiently dealt with in the opinion in *O’Brien*v. *Public Service Railway Co., ante p.*44. The only argument calling for remark is that the street railway lost $86,000 a year by its operation of suburban lines, and that this loss cannot be made up by profits on the operation of lines in the city of Trenton. Whether the railway shall run some parts of its line at a loss, perhaps with a view to future development or future gain, perhaps with a view to greater public service, is a business question to be determined by the railway subject to the control of the public utility commission. It is settled that the correct legal test is the effect on the railway’s entire line and not upon that part which was formerly a part of one of' the consolidating roads. *St. L. & San Francisco Railway*v. *Gill,*156 *U. S.*649, 665. The test has recently been applied in the case of a street railway. *Puget Sound Traction Co.*v. *Reynolds,*244 *Id.*574. A rule which would deprive suburban communities of street railway service might be much to the advantage of great cities like Trenton, but work harm to rural communities, and perhaps be to the disadvantage of the state as a whole. There is a general public interest in having thinly populated and relatively poor sections helped by the more densely populated and richer communities. Public roads are a good illustration. We can readily picture to ourselves the state of our roads if every mile depended for its upkeep upon the revenues traceable to that mile. The law as to railways is settled adversely to prosecutors’' contention.

The order in this ease must be affirmed, with costs.
P.1 

OAR Box 1784 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

93.CMP Iht'l 

Docket Number: 

A-84-44 

Printed 10/31/2008 8:05:42 AM Sheet 93 of 143 
P.2 

-^'

 T -if /-J 1 

/£>-' ARI Technologies, Inc; Lester Hardison jl' lL' y 

(312)359-7810 * 

4/1/85 

LO-CAT will work OK in small plants 

Chemical cost-sulfur 

87.5 TPD largest 

up to 15 TPD refiner may select LO-CAT 

15-30 questionable 

above 30 Claus 

1 to 10% H2S seems high 

No Claus below 10 LT/D 

(hard to turn down) 

Sour water stripper 0/H goes to LO-CAT incinerator 

0 H2S in outlet 

5/21/85 

1/3 men per shift for labor 

capital cost differ from 1 to 10% H2S 

not significant 

6/10/85 

no data on caustic scrubbing available 

technology is not a good choice (1) cost of caustic (2) cost of disposal
#### Salerno, Appellant, *v.*Donoway.

Argued January 7, 1969.

April 23, 1969:

Before Bell, C. J., JONES, Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien, Roberts and Pomeroy, JJ.

*Frank J. Marcone,*for appellant.

*Edward J. Carney, Jr.,*for appellee.

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Judgments affirmed.
**3.****Continuing Effect; No Other Amendments****.**Except as expressly amended hereby, all of the terms of the Restructuring Agreement shallremain in full force and effect. The amendment provided for herein is limited to the specificSection of the Restructuring Agreement specified herein and shall not constitute an amendment ofany other provisions of the Restructuring Agreement or the Section. The amendments introduced tothe Restructuring Agreement herein shall become effective as from the signing of this Amendment bythe Parties hereto.IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the Parties hereto has caused this Third Amendment to theRestructuring Agreement to be executed by its duly authorized officers as of the date first abovewritten.       COMPAÑÍA DE INVERSIONES DE ENERGIA S.A.       By: /s/ Joao Bezerra         Name: Joao Bezerra    Title: Attorney    Date: March 25, 2008       PETROBRAS ENERGÍA S.A.       By: /s/ Joao Bezerra         Name: Joao Bezerra    Title: Attorney    Date: March 25, 2008       PETROBRAS HISPANO ARGENTINA S.A.       By: /s/ Nicolas Mordeglia         Name: Nicolas Mordeglia    Title: Attorney    Date: March 25, 2008       ENRON PIPELINE COMPANY ARGENTINA S.A.       By: /s/ Eduardo Ojea Quintana         Name: Eduardo Ojea Quintana    Title: Attorney    Date: March 25, 2008       ABN AMRO BANK N.V., Sucursal Argentina  as trustee of the MSA Trust       By: /s/ P. Fernandez Ranvier         Name: P. Fernandez Ranvier    Title: Attorney    Date: March 25, 2008       AEI       By: /s/ Pablo Ferrero         Name: Pablo Ferrero    Title: Attorney    Date: March 25, 2008
#### John F. Gray, *Respondent, v.*Ann Livermore, *Appellant, Impleaded, etc.*

— Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion *Per Curiam.*
**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, to which this certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1,                fully                complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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                Registrant |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated: September 19, 2008 | /s/                Paul Goodman                                                                 |   |
|------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                     | Paul                Goodman, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial                Officer |
|                                     |

----
#### Donna Ferraiulo, Appellant, v Patrick Ferraiulo, Respondent.

[634 NYS2d 388]

—In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by a judgment entered August 6, 1992, the former wife appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Radin, J.H.O.), dated June 23, 1994, which denied her motion to vacate the judgment and the stipulation on which it was based.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Stipulations of settlement are favored by the courts and are not lightly set aside *(see, Wilutis v Wilutis,*184 AD2d 639). Absent a showing that a stipulation was the product of fraud, overreaching, mistake, or duress, it will not be disturbed *(Wilutis v Wilutis, supra; Bossom v Bossom,*141 AD2d 794). The appellant has failed to make the requisite showing in this case. Sullivan, J. P., Thompson, Copertino, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.
EX-3.3
         CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT TO ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION

                       CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                     TO ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
                                   OF
                  POINT GROUP HOLDINGS, INCORPORATED

I, John Fleming, certify that:

     1.  The original articles of incorporation of the Company
were filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on December
19, 2001.

     2.  Pursuant to a unanimous written consent of the Board of
Directors of the Company, the Company hereby adopts the following
amendments to the Articles of Incorporation of this Company:

     New provisions are added under Article 5 as follows:

(a)  An increase in the authorized capital stock of the
Company can be approved by the Board of Directors without
shareholder consent.

(b)  A decrease in the issued and outstanding common stock
of the Company (a reverse split) can be approved by the
Board of Directors without shareholder consent.

     3.  A majority of the shareholders of the common stock of
the Company approved of these amendments to the Articles of
Incorporation by written consent.


                                   /s/  John Fleming
                                   John Fleming, President
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the quarterly report of DayStar Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the nine months endedSeptember 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified (the “Report”), I, John R. Tuttle, President, and Chief Executive 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 fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

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

Date: November 14, 2006 

 

This Certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed “filed” by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended, whether made before or after the date of this Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to DayStar Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by DayStar Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request
#### Etta Armstrong, *Respondent, v.*William A. Cummings and others, *Appellants.*

— Order modified by directing the residue of the motion costs to be set off, the scandalous matter in the affidavit to be stricken out, and denying costs of motion below, and as *322modified affirmed, without costs to either party. Opinion by Daniels, J.
#### Myott Tharaud Corp. et al. *v.*United States

No. 6310.

Entry No. 742340, etc.

Invoices dated Hanley, England, January 21, 1942, etc.

Certified February 7, 1942, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., March 12, 1942, etc.

(Decided July 29, 1946)

*Benjamin A. Levett*for the plaintiffs.

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Keefe,' Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement fisted in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> It is hereby stipulated and agreed, subject to the approval of the court, that the merchandise consisting of earthenware and chinaware and the issues in the appeals for reappraisement listed in the attached schedule are the same in all material respects as the merchandise and issues decided in *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*Suit No. 4513, C. A. D. 334, and that the record in said case may be incorporated herein.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that the appraised value of the merchandise consisting of earthenware and chinaware involved in each of the cases enumerated in the attached schedule, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases, is' equal to the price, at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise is freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, and that the foreign value of such or similar merchandise is no higher.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that these cases may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

Oh the agreed facts I find the export value, as tfiat value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be tbe proper basis for the determination of the value of the earthenware and chinaware here *275involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases. Insofar as the appeals relate to all other merchandise they are hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
**EXHIBIT12**

 

**CalculationOf Earnings (Deficiency) To Fixed Charges**

 
|                 |   | **As of  December 31** |   |
|----------------------|--------|------------------------|--------|
|                 |   | **2001**               |   | **2000** |   | **1999** |   |
|                 |   | **(thousands)**        |   |
| EARNINGS             |   |                   |   |
| Pretax Income(Loss)  |   | $                      | 1,035  |   | $ | (531 | ) | $ | (2,641 | ) |
| Fixed Charges        |   | 27,687                 |   | 27,777 |   | 14,237 |   |
| Capitalized Interest |   | (27,171                | )      | (24,668 | ) | (8,438 | ) |
|                 |   |                   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Net Total            |   | $                      | 1,551  |   | $ | 2,578 |   | $ | 3,158 |   |
|                 |   |                   |   |   |   |   |   |
| FIXED CHARGES        |   |                   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Interest Expense     |   | $                      | 153    |   | $ | 2,935 |   | $ | 5,755 |   |
| Capitalized Interest |   | 27,171                 |   | 24,668 |   | 8,438 |   |
| Other                |   | 363                    |   | 174 |   | 44 |   |
|                 |   |                   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Total                |   | $                      | 27,687 |   | $ | 27,777 |   | $ | 14,237 |   |

 

The dollar amount of thedeficiency of earnings to fixed charges for 2001, 2000, and 1999 (in thousands)was $29,238, $30,355, and $17,395, respectively.

 

64

----