alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### KARL KRIGSMAN, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, CROSS-APPELLANT, v. BEACH CONCRETE COMPANY, INC., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, CROSS-RESPONDENT.

Argued April 11, 1967

Decided June 5, 1967.

*Mr. Leslie 8. Eohn*argued the cause for plaintiff-respondent, cross-appellant.

*Mr. Raymond L. Ounneen*argued the cause for defendant-appellant, cross-respondent.

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion of the Appellate Division.

*341
      *For*affirmance—Chief Justice Weintraub and Justices Jacobs, Erancis, Proctor, Hall, Schettino and HaneMAN—7.

*For*reversal—Hone.
#### Jeremiah Cannon, *Respondent, v.*The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, *Appellant.*

— Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and.disbursements; order entered striking out ninety-eight dollars and twenty cents sheriff’s fees, for poundage on attachment, from the bill of costs.
Before the Third Division,

March 27, 1952

No. 56510.

protests 636102-G, etc. (New York).

#### B. B. Dorf & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Source Categories

Emissions 

(tons/yr) %

Cumulative 

%

Hazardous Waste Incineration 1.59E-02 65.09 65.09

Industrial Boilers 1.15E-03 4.71 69.80

Municipal Landfills 3.46E-04 1.42 71.22

Other Solid Waste Incineration 8.20E-05 0.34 71.55

Other Source Categories (PCBs) 9.94E-05 0.41 71.96

Portland Cement Manufacture (Combined) 5.40E-04 2.21 74.17

Refuse Systems 6.00E-04 2.46 76.62

Scrap and Waste Materials 1.34E-03 5.49 82.11

Sewage Sludge Incineration 4.37E-03 17.89 100.00

Total Emissions 0.02 100.00

Foot Notes

[1] PCB emissions were not included in the May 1999 Inventory Report

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB) [1]
No. 50544.

#### Protest 60518-K of Chas. E. Dorkey & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the .case within the holding in *John Barr*v.' *United States*(11 Cust Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83, decided February 5, 1945.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by.the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on the entry. The protest was sustained to this extent.
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 Highland Hospitality Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Douglas W. Vicari, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer 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 the best of 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 results of operations of the Company.



Date: November 15, 2004



/s/ Douglas W. VicariExecutive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
#### William C. Baur, *Appellant, v.*John F. Betz, *Respondent.*

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements bn opinion of Donohue, J.
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the annual report of Protalex, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending May 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Kirk M. Warshaw, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





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





Dated: August 19, 2011





/s/ Kirk M. WarshawKirk M. WarshawChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)





A signed original of this certification has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
##### 



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/ Anthony J. Orlando
    
    
    
    /s/ Craig D. AboltAnthony J. Orlando
    
    
    
    Craig D. AboltChief Executive Officer and President
    
    
    
    Senior Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerAugust 3, 2006
    
    
    
    August 3, 2006
 55
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

March 24, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver 127007(42) Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. JANE CAMPBELL WEST and Stephen J. Markman, JOE ELDON WEST, JR., Justices Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v SC: 127007 COA: 251003 Charlevoix CC: 02-001558-CH FARM BUREAU GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF MICHIGAN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s order of October 13, 2005 is consid ered, and it is GRAN TED. We VACATE our order dated October 13, 2005. On reconsideration, pursuan t to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of Rory v Continental Ins Co, 473 Mich 457 (2005), and Devillers v Auto Club Insurance Association, 473 Mich 562 (2005), includi ng consideration of whether the contractual limitation period in this case may be judicially tolled.

K ELLY , J., would deny the motion for reconsideration.

d0321 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 24, 2006

Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8322 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8322

To revoke visas of certain aliens for rioting or unlawful protests, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 8, 2024

 Mr. Ogles (for himself, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Weber of Texas, Mr. Tiffany, 
and Mr. Rosendale) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To revoke visas of certain aliens for rioting or unlawful protests, and 
                          for other purposes.

    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 ``Study Abroad Act''.

SEC. 2. REVOCATION OF VISAS.

    The Secretary of State shall revoke the F, J, or M visa of any 
alien who has been arrested for rioting or unlawful protest or who has 
been arrested while establishing, participating in, or promoting an 
encampment on the campus of an institution of higher education on or 
since October 7, 2023.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 (the Report) of TICC Capital
Corp. (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Patrick F. Conroy, the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, 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 Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                         
|-----------------------------------------
|/s/  PATRICK F. CONROY                   
|Name: Patrick F. Conroy Date:
May 9, 2011



63
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Michael J. Zwebner, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Universal Communication Systems, Inc.;

2.

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

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.

The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:

(a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c)

Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and

5

The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.

Date: January 13, 2006

| |                                                        
| | -------------------------------------------------------
| | /s/ MICHAELJ. ZWEBNER                                  
| | Michael J. Zwebner
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
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 this Report on Form 10-Q of Summit Financial Services Group, Inc. (the
Company), for the quarter ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Steven C. Jacobs, Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, do hereby certify, to 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; 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/ Steven C. Jacobs                                
|Steven C. Jacobs                                    
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|Dated: August 14, 2009
[No. 19220.

Department Two.

January 8, 1894.]

#### NEIL COOK et al., Respondents, *v.*TILMAN FOWLER et al., Appellants.

Partnership — Failure to File Certificate—Pleading—Matter of Defense—Waiver.—The failure of a partnership, doing business under a designation not showing the names of the persons interested as partners, to make, file, and publish a certificate stating the names and place of residence of the partners, as required by sections 2466 and 2468 of the Civil Code, is a matter of defense to an action by the partnership to be set up by the defendants, and if not so taken is waived, and cannot be urged for the first time upon appeal.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Luis Obispo County.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

*Thomas Rhodes,*for Appellant.

The partnership averment clearly brings the plaintiffs within the rule applicable to partners doing business under a designation, constituting a fictitious name. (Civ. Code, secs. 2466, 2468.)

*Venable & Goodchild,*for Respondents.

The failure of plaintiffs to make or publish th,e partnership certificate required by law should have been set up as matter of defense, and as it was not it cannot now be advanced for the first time. *(Phillips*v. *Gold-tree,*74 Cal. 151; *CarlocJc*v. *Cagnacci,*88 Cal. 600.)

Searls, C.

Defendants appeal from a final judgment against them and in favor of plaintiffs for five hundred and sixty-one dollars and seventy-five cents and costs upon a promissory note made by defendants. There is no statement or bill of exceptions.

There is but a single point made by appellant. It is that the complaint shows that plaintiffs were copartners under a designation not showing the names of the persons interested as partners, and that they have failed to aver or prove a compliance with the provisions of sec*90tions 2466 and 2468 of the Civil Code, by filing and publishing a certificate stating the names and place of residence of the copartners as therein provided.

The point is not well taken. The failure to make, file, and publish the certificate in question is matter of defense, to be set up by defendants, and, not having been so taken, is waived. *(Phillips*v. *Goldtree,*74 Cal. 151; *Garloch*v. *Gagnacci,*88 Cal. 600.)

The judgment appealed from should be affirmed.

Vancliee, C., and Haynes, 0., concurred.

For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

De Haven, J., McFarland, J., Fitzgerald, J.
Exhibit 31.02

      CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14

         I, Kenneth G.C. Telford, certify that:

         1. I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB of Essential Innovations Technology
Corp.;

         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;

         3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

         4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small
business issuer and have:

         (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;

         (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

         (c) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or
is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and

         5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit
committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

         (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

         (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting.

Date:  June 13, 2005


/s/ Kenneth G.C. Telford
---------------------------
Kenneth G.C. Telford
Principal Financial Officer
**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with this Quarterly Report of Travel Hunt Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending April 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Nancy Reynolds, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.       Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending April 30, 2005, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending April 30, 2005, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Travel Hunt Holdings, Inc.

 

 

**TRAVEL HUNT HOLDINGS, INC.**

 

Nancy Reynolds

Chief Executive Officer and

Chief Financial Office
**Exhibit99.1**

**AMENDMENTNO. 1 TO**

** **

**ADVISORYBOARD AGREEMENT**

 

This Amendment No. 1to Advisory Board Agreement (this “**Amendment**”) ismade as of May 1, 2008 (the “**Effective Date**”),between American Defense Systems, Inc. (the “**Company**”)and Thomas J. Berthel (the “**Advisor**”).

 

The parties have executedthat certain Advisory Board Agreement dated as of May 1, 2008 (the “**Original Agreement**”). The parties desire to amend the Original Agreement upon the terms andconditions set forth herein. Accordingly, the parties agree as follows:

 

1.             Defined terms. Capitalized terms used in this Amendment but not otherwise definedherein shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the OriginalAgreement.

 

2.             Amendment. The Original Agreement is hereby amended to delete: (i) clause (c) ofthe second sentence of Section 1.1 of the Original Agreement; (ii) clause(b) of the first sentence of Section 2 of the Original Agreement; and(iii) Section 4.4 of the Original Agreement.

 

3.             Ratification of Original Agreement.  Except as expressly set forth in thisAmendment, the Original Agreement is hereby ratified and confirmed in itsentirety, and shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with itsterms.

 

4.             Governing Law. This Amendment shall be governed by the laws of the State of New Yorkapplicable to agreements made and to be performed within such State, withoutgiving effect to the choice of law principles thereof.

 

5.             Entire Agreement. The Original Agreement, as amended by this Amendment, constitute theentire agreement of the parties hereto with respect to the subject matterthereof and hereof, and supersede all prior agreements and understandings ofthe parties, oral and written, with respect to the subject matter thereof andhereof.

 

6.             Counterparts; Facsimile.  This Amendment may be executed and deliveredin counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original but all ofwhich together shall constitute one and the same instrument, and by PDF orfacsimile transmission.

 

[*Remainder of Page Intentionally Blank*]

 

1

----

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theparties have executed this Amendment No. 1 to Advisory Board Agreement asof the date first written above.

 

 
| AMERICAN DEFENSE  SYSTEMS, INC. | ADVISOR |
|---------------------------------|---------|
|                            |    |
|                            |    |
| By:                             |    |   | Signature: |   |
| Name:                           |    |   | Print Name: |   |
| Title:                          |    |   |   |
|                                 |         |  |  |  |  |  |  |

 

----
No. 55348.

#### Margola Spangle & Novelty Co. *v.*United States,

protest 167857-K (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the. authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.