alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v EARL D. FRANCIES, Lance Corporal, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

20 USCMA 291, 43 CMR 131

No. 23,609

January 22, 1971

*Captain Paul A. Reiehs,*USMCR, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Commander Michael F. Fasanaro, Jr.,*JAGC, USN, was on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Darden, Judge:

In a court-martial composed of a military judge alone, the appellant’s request *in writing*to be so tried is a jurisdictional prerequisite. United States v Dean, 20 USCMA 212, 43 CMR 52 (1970).

As in *Dean,*the absence of a written request here causes us to reverse the decision of the United States Navy *292Court of Military Review, set aside the findings and the sentence, and return the record of trial to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy. Another trial may be ordered.

Judge Ferguson concurs.

Quinn, Chief Judge

(dissenting) :

I would affirm the decision of the United States Navy Court of Military Review for the reasons set out in my dissent in United States v Dean, 20 USCMA 212, 43 CMR 52 (1970).
May 25, 1954

No. 58132.

Suit 4770.

#### United States *v.*Milton Diamond and Massce-Barnett Co., Inc.

Abstract 56994 affirmed April 9, 1954. C. A. D. 561.
EXHIBIT 13.1







PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with this Annual Report of Sprott Physical Silver Trust (the "Trust") on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on or about the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Eric S. Sprott, Principal Executive Officer of Sprott Asset Management LP, the Manager of the Trust, 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 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 Trust.




This certification is made solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and not for any other purpose.  A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Trust and will be retained by the Trust and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.





Date: June 24, 2011








/s/ Eric S. Sprott


Eric S. Sprott


Principal Executive Officer
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, John R. Tuttle, President and Chief Executive Officer of DayStar Technologies, Inc., certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of DayStar Technologies, Inc. for the three months ended March 31, 2006; 

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 thestatements 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 theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant 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, includingits 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 registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the endof 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 the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, tothe registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’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 registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: May 12, 2006
June 2, 1960

No. 64264.

protests 58/24286, etc.

#### Paul E. Sernau, Inc., and Ignaz Strauss & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Plaintiffs’ application for rehearing granted.
#### In the Matter of the Application of ALPHONSINE MERTIAN, to compel payment to her by EDWARD W. BRENEN of Money received by him as her Attorney.

*Aitwney*— *when compelled, upon petition of client, to pay over money collected for him.*

Appeal from an order of the Special Term requiring Edward W. Brenen, attorney-at-law, to pay over to the petitioner the sum of $200 and ten dollars costs of motion.

By the verified petition and other proofs in the case, it appears that the appellant had collected for his client, the petitioner, in three several suits from various debtors of the petitioner, the sum of $271. In addition to that sum, he had received for disbursements from the petitioner herself fifty-one dollars, mating in all the sum of $322. After deducting the compensation due the appet *460lant under an agreement between him and bis client by which he should receive ten per cent of the amount of collections where there was no litigation, and twenty-five per cent of the amount in the cases that were litigated, there was a sum coming to the petitioner of $225.50, but the amount directed by the Special Term to be paid by the attorney was, by consent of the petitioner, reduced to $200.

The court at General Term said: *“*The facts of the petition standing substantially uncontradicted, we think it was competent for the Special Term to direct in this summary manner the attorney to pay over the moneys to his client. Were there any facts in dispute between the parties as to the condition of the accounts between them, we should be inclined to put the petitioner to her action at law against her attorney, but where it stands admitted that an officer of this court has money belonging to his client collected by him in the course of his employment and refuses to pay over the same, the court has the power, without putting the party to an action, to compel the attorney to pay it.” ' .

The order should be affirmed, with costs and disbursements.

*Thomas Nolan,*for Edward W. Brenen, appellant.

*John McCrone,*for the petitioner, respondent.

Opinion by

Maoombeb, J.;

Davis, . P. J., and Daotels, J., concurred.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
Case No. 14,536.

#### UNITED STATES v. BASCADORE.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 30.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Nov. Term, 1811.

Criminal Law — Evidencf—Confession.

The confession of a prisoner, taken upon oath, cannot be used against him upon his trial.

Indictment for burglary.

The attorney for the United States, offered to prove by Mr. Paw, a justice of the peace, that the prisoner sent for him to come to the gaol, where the prisoner confessed the fact and named his associates. This confession was taken upon oath, as it charged the accomplices.

THE COURT,

(nem. con.) upon the authority of McNally, p. 47, rule 12, rejected the testimony, no goods having been found in consequence of the confession. The statute of Phillip and Mary does not say whether the confession should be upon oath or not. Prom the silence of the act in that respect the judges have drawn the inference that the confession is not to be upon oath; and it is said that policy forbids the using of such declarations against the prisoner.
**Exhibit 32.1**

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asAdopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Norcross Safety Products L.L.C. (the “Registrant”)on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert A. Peterson, Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted 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 theSecurities 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 Registrant.
| Dated: May 11, 2007 | By:    | /s/ ROBERT A. PETERSON                         |   |
|---------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                |   | Robert A. Peterson                             |   |
|                |   | President, Chief Executive Officer and Manager |   |
|                |   | (Principal Executive Officer)                  |   |
|                     |        |                                                |        |  |

 

**Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.**

----
#### Mary Brockman, App’lt, *v.*Henry Buell, Resp’t.

Appeal from judgment of the fifth judicial district, Hon. H. M. Goldeogle, J.

*Ordered,*that the judgment he reversed, new trial ordered, costs to abide event.
EXHIBIT 31.1





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





I, Alyson M. Mount, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Entergy Arkansas Restoration Funding, LLC (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);





2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;





4.  I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer, and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and





5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.





In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: The Bank of New York Mellon, as Indenture Trustee.





Dated: March 29, 2017





By:  /s/ Alyson M. Mount


Name:  Alyson M. Mount


Title:  Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer


of Entergy Arkansas, Inc., as Servicer


(Senior officer in charge of the servicing function)
Before the Third Division,

April 4, 1945

No. 50106.

#### Petitions 6389-R etc., of Wing Wo Tai & Co., Ltd. (Honolulu).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

The petitions were dismissed.
1)
    
    I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Northfield Bancorp, 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
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 registrants other certifying officer 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 registrant 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 registrant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; andc)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting; and
 5)
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrant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 registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 /s/ John W. AlexanderJohn W. AlexanderChairman, President and Chief Executive
Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
(Reap. Dec. 10205)

#### Arbit Trading Co. J. E. Bernard & Co., Inc. v. United States

Entry No. 892454, etc.

(Decided March 20, 1962)

Tonvp7~ins c~ Toniplcin.s for the plaintiffs.

William, H. Orrick, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

MoLLIsoN, Judge:

Counsel for the parties have submitted the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the attached schedule for decision upon stipulation reading as follows:

> It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between counsel for the Plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States, Defendant, subject to the approval of the court that all of the items of merchandise on the invoices covered by the reappraisement appeals specified in Schedule A, below, which Schedule A is made a part of this stipulation, consist of birch plywood from Finland of the same kind in all material reapects, and subject to the ~ame marketing and sales conditions as the mei~chandise and the conditions that were the subject of decision in the case of United States v. Arbit Trading Company, A.R.D. 131, and that the record in said cited case may be received into evidence in the appeals set forth in Schedule A, below.

> That at or about the dates of exportation such and similar plywood was not freely offered for sale for home consumption in Finland; and the prices at which it was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Finland in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, were the invoice prices, net as set forth in the invoices covered by the reappraisement appeals in *589said Schedule A, less prorated the items of ocean freight and insurance as set forth in said invoices.

On the agreed facts, I find export value, as defined in section 402(d), Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise involved and that such values were the invoice prices, net, as set forth in the invoices, less prorated the items of ocean freight and insurance, as set forth in the said invoices.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
Case No. 5,406.

#### GIEK v. GREGG et al.

[4 McLean, 202.] 1

Circuit Court, D. Illinois.

June Term, 1847.

Phactice — Status of Cause ox Removal— Amendatory Answer.

1. A case removed from a state court, to the ■circuit court of the United States, .stands, in the latter, as it did at the time of the removal in the former.

[Cited in Wolf v. Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. Co., Case No. 17,924; Moynahan v. Wilson, Id. 9,897.]

2. If an amendatory answer repeat what was said in the answer filed before, without varying the defense, it may be considered as impertinent, and will be referred to a master, etc.

In equity.

Mr. Butterfield, for plaintiff.

Mr. Chickering, for defendants.

OPINION OF

THE COURT.

This case was brought here from the circuit court of the state, and it is now before the court on exceptions to the answer. Leave was given at the last term to amend the answer. The counsel for the defendants [Gregg & Wald] contends that nothing is brought from the state court into this court, under the act of congress, but the process. The case, when removed from the state court to the circuit court of the United States, stands in the latter court as it stood in the former, before the removal. The objection to the answer to the amended bill is, that it repeats what was said in the answer previously filed. In Story, Eq. PI. § 80S, it is said, that an answer to an amended bill is considered a part of the answer to the original bill. Therefore, if a defendant, in a further answer, or in an answer to an amended bill, repeats any thing contained in a former answer, the repetition, unless it varies the defense, in point of substance, or is otherwise necessary or expedient, will be considered as impertinent; and on reference to a master, such parts will be struck out. In section S75a the author says, “It may well be suggested whether the plaintiff has a right to dispense with the oath, and yet to make the answer evidence in his own favor as to all the facts which it admits, and exclude it as evidence as to all the facts which it denies.” It would seem that the whole answer should be taken together, at least so far as one part may be explanatory of another, or have a direct bearing upon it. The court referred the answer back to the master, to state what part of the former answer, if any. is a fuli answer to the interrogatories in the amended bill.

[See Case No. 5,799.]
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

 

I, Stephen A. Aanderud, Chief Financial Officer of DayStar Technologies, Inc., certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of DayStar Technologies, Inc. for the period ended June 30, 2004; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof 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 financialinformation 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 registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat 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 registrant’s disclosure controlsand 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 registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: August 13, 2004
#### William E. Leavitt, *Respondent, v.*Frederick H. Wolcott, *Appellant.*

— J udgment affirmed, with costs of all parties to be paid out of the fund. Opinion by Davis, P. J.
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

No. 04-30007 Plaintiff-Appellee,

D.C. No.

v.  CR-03-02059-EFS

LUIS EMILO GONZALES,

ORDER Defendant-Appellant. 

Filed December 21, 2006

Before: Mary M. Schroeder, Chief Judge.

ORDER

Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused regular active

judges of this court, it is ordered that this case be reheard by

the en banc court pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3.

19781
PRINTED FOR

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS

BY THOMSON/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO

The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted

© 2006 Thomson/West.