alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### *State *versus*James Jones and George M. Pike.

Where two are jointly indicted, and one only pleads guilty, Ms testimony is admissible for the other respondent on Ms trial.

The case was presented on exceptions, taken by Jones, to the ruling excluding the testimony of the co-defendant,__1 on his trial.

*Anderson & Webb,*for the prisoner.

The *Attorney General,*for the State, submitted the case without argument.

*

 The opinion was the only paper in this case that was received by the Reporter.

The opinion of the Court was drawn up by

Kent, J.

The respondents were jointly indicted for inciting one Pendextor to set fire to and burn a building. On arraignment, Pike pleaded guilty and Jones pleaded not guilty. On the trial of Jones, he offered Pike as a witness, who, being objected to by the government, was excluded by the presiding Judge. To this exclusion, Jones filed his exceptions.

The general rule of law is, that parties to the record, in a criminal case, cannot be witnesses for each other. The recent statute, (1861, c. 53,) removes all objection to the witness on the ground of infamy, by reason of a conviction for a criminal offence. But this does not affect the question arising from the fact that the witness is a party to the record.

There are, however, exceptions to the general rule. One is, that if no evidence is given against one of several joint defendants, the Court may order his acquittal and he may be used as a witness by them. 1 Hale’s P. C., 306 ; 2 Hawkins’ P. C., c. 46, § 94; *Sawyer*v. *Merrill,*15 Pick., 17.

The question in this case is, whether a co-defendant', after a plea of guilty on his part, may be called as a witness by the other defendant. It seems to be settled that he cannot *126be thus called whilst- the charge in the indictment is pending and undisposed of against him. And this, whether he is to be tried separately or jointly, or at the same term, with his co-respondent, or not. *People*v. *Bills,*10 Johns., 95; *Commonwealth*v. *Marsh,*10 Pick., 57; *People*v. *Williams,*19 Wend., 377. But, after a party has been adjudged guilty or not guilty by a verdict, or has voluntarily admitted his guilt by plea, he has no longer any interest in the proceedings in Court to determine the guilt or innocence of the others named in the indictment. " He has ceased to be a party to the issue to be tried.” *Com.*v. *Smith,*12 Met., 238.

If the defendant, who is offered as a witness, has been convicted by a verdict of guilty, he may be a witness for the others, before sentence, or, after sentence, if not thereby rendered infamous. The same result necessarily follows where he is convict by plea of guilty. *Regina*v. *Ford & al.,*1 Carr. *&*Marshman, 111, (41 E. C. L. R., 66,) *Ballard*v. *Noaks,*2 Pick., 45; Blackford, 119; Wharton’s Am. Cr. Law, § 794. *Exceptions sustained.*

*New trial granted.*

Appleton, C. J., Rioe, Davis, Walton and' Dickenson, JJ., concurred.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Torotel,Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending July 31, 2005, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, H. James Serrone, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

 

(1)       The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

(2)       The information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ H. James Serrone    |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
|                    |
| H. James Serrone        |
| Chief Financial Officer |
| September 9, 2005       |

 

 

----
Jump to navigation

            - About
            - Browse Collections
            - Advanced Search
            - Contact

## You are here

- Home  › 
- Browse Collections  › 
- U.S. Government Posters

# Thomas Edison: genius enlightening the world

                - U.S. Government Posters

## Description

                    -           Title        
                    -  Thomas Edison: genius enlightening the world 
                    -           Publisher        
                    -  National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior 
                    -           Description        
                    -  Commemorating Thomas Edison's invention of the first practical incandescent lamp -- 1879. 
                    -           Subjects        
                    -  Edison, Thomas A. (Thomas Alva), 1847-1931 
                    -           Subject: Time        
                    -  1970-1980 
                    -           Subject: Place        
                    -  Thomas Edison National Historic Park (West Orange, N.J.) 
                    -           Country        
                    -  United States 
                    -           State        
                    -  New Jersey 
                    -           Physical Description        
                    -  199 × 74 cm 
                    -           Number of Pages        
                    -  1 
                    -           Host institution        
                    -  University of Iowa. Libraries. Government Publications 
                    -           Digitization Specifications        
                    -  Scanned with Ideal Contex Magnum G600 54 Plus at 300 ppi, 24-bit color. Archival tiff image available. 
                    -           Rights Management        
                    -  This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. 
                    -           Contact Information        
                    -  Please contact the Government Publications Department at The University of Iowa Libraries: lib-govpub@uiowa.edu 
                    -           Item Type (AAT)        
                    -  Posters 
                    -           Item Type (IMT)        
                    -  jpeg 
                    -           Identifier        
                    -  071295655.jpg 
                    -           OCLC Collection Number        
                    -  429489521 

                - Contact the Libraries
                - Library locations & hours
                - News & Events
                - Help using the Libraries
                - Assistance for people with disabilities
                - Our diversity statement
                - Thank a Librarian
                - Web site/page feedback  OR  general suggestions
                -  

                -  
                - 100 Main Library (LIB)
                - 125 West Washington St.
                - Iowa City, IA 52242-1420
                - 319-335-5299 (Service Desk)
                - ©2020  The University of Iowa
                -
EXHIBIT 32.1


                  CERTIFICATION OF CO-CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


    Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), I, Michael
R. Mulcahy, President and Co-Chief Executive Officer of Trans-Lux Corporation,
do hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge that:

    (1) The Registrant's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
March 31, 2006 being filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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.

    This Certification accompanies this Form 10-Q as an exhibit, but shall not
be deemed as having been filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 or as a separate disclosure document of the Registrant or
the certifying officer.



                                       /s/ Michael R. Mulcahy
                                       ----------------------------------------
Date:  May 15, 2006                    Michael R. Mulcahy
                                       President and Co-Chief Executive Officer
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

December 27, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 129286 & (26)(27)(28) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 129286 

 COA: 258878 

Saginaw CC: 01-020358-FC 

JERMAINE BROWN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 24, 2005 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). The 

motion for peremptory reversal, the motion for a writ of habeas corpus and protective 

order and the motion for miscellaneous relief are DENIED. 

d1219 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

December 27, 2005 

Clerk
The 2007 edition contains a list of winners going back to 1994, first year that the award was given.
Exhibit 10.8


 


 


 


August 15, 2017


 


Tom Lin, MD, PhD


Lin Bioscience


12F., No. 68, Sec 5, Zhongxiao E. Road, Xinyi Dist.,


Taipei City 110, Taiwan (R.O.C.)


 


RE: Amendment to the Exclusive Licnese Agreement between Lin Bioscience,
Inc. (“Company”) and The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York (“Columbia”), dated September
13, 2016, (“Agreement”)


 


Dear Dr. Lin:


 


The above referenced Exclusive License Agreement (“Agreement”)
entered into by the Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York (“Columbia”) and Lin Bioscience,Inc. (“Company”),
dated as of September 13, 2016, is hereby amended, pursuant to Section 22 of the Agreement, as follows:


 


		1.	1.e. Field: The parties agree to delete and replace Section 1e. with the following:



 


““Field” shall mean all uses.”


 


All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full
force and effect, except as expressly amended herein. If there is any inconsistency or conflict between this Letter and the Agreement,
the provisions of this Letter shall govern and control. This Letter shall be binding upon, and shall inure to the benefit of, the parties
hereto and their respective successors and assigns.


 


Please indicate your agreement to the terms of this Letter by signing
where indicated below, and returning a copy to my attention for countersignature.


 


	Very truly yours,	 	AGREED AND ACKNOWLEDGED:
	 	 	 
	/s/ Scot Hamilton	 	Lin Bioscience, Inc. 
	Scot Hamilton	 	By:	 /s/ Tom Lin                          
	Senior Director	 	Tom Lin
	09-07-2017	 	Chairman and CEO
	TTS# 50909	 	Date: 	 15 AUGUST 2017
```

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly  Report of NYFIX,  Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the  period  ending  June 30,  2002 as filed  with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof  (the  "Report"),  I, Peter K.  Hansen,
Chairman,  President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby 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; 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/ Peter K. Hansen
-------------------
Peter K. Hansen
Chairman, President and
Chief Executive Officer
August 14, 2002

This  certification  accompanies  this  Report  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 Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
```
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v. JACK W. L. COWANS, Private First Class, U. S. Army, Appellant

4 USCMA 308, 15 CMR 308

No. 4724

Decided May 14, 1954

Lt Col Herman P. Goebel, Jr., U. S. Army, and 1st Lt David J. Conroy, U. S. Army, for Appellant.

Lt Col William R. Ward, U. S. Army, and 1st Lt Donald M. Sukloff, U. S. Army, for Appellee.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM:

Accused’s conviction of desertion, terminated by apprehension, was affirmed by a board of review. He has petitioned this Court to determine the sufficiency of the evidence to support the finding of apprehension.

The record shows that the following stipulation was entered into by the prosecution, defense counsel, and the accused.

> “It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between trial counsel, defense counsel, and the accused, Private First Class Jack W. L. Cowans, RA 55 036 939, with the consent of the accused, that if Mr. Joe M. Cooper, Chief of Police, Fayette, Missouri, were present in court and sworn as a witness, he would testify in substance as follows:

> I know the accused in this case. I apprehended the accused at 1130 hours, 22 September 1953, at Fay-ette, Missouri.”

This stipulation is virtually the same as that in United States v. Beninate, 4 USCMA 98, 15 CMR 98. In that case we held the stipulation to be insufficient to support the finding of apprehension.

The Government attempts to distinguish the present case from Beninate, supra, by the fact that an extract copy of a morning report entry shows that one day after the apprehension the accused was attached to a Military Police unit in Kansas City, Missouri, which is approximately one hundred and twenty-six miles from Fayette. This circumstance does not strengthen the Government’s case. As we pointed out in Beninate, the accused might have been freed by the civilian authorities, and thereafter surrendered himself to the military.

The finding of apprehension is set aside. The case is returned to The Judge Advocate General of the Army for submission to a board of review for redetermination of an appropriate sentence.
110 STAT. 3170 PUBLIC LAW 104–256—OCT. 9, 1996

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 2773:

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 104–510 (Comm. on Commerce).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 142 (1996):

Apr. 16, considered and passed House.

Sept. 27, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 104–256

104th Congress

An Act

To extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act applicable to the construction

of 2 hydroelectric projects in North Carolina, 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. EXTENSION OF DEADLINE.

(a) PROJECT NUMBERED 10812.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding the time period specified

in section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that

would otherwise apply to the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission Project No. 10812, the Commission shall, at the

request of the licensee for the project, and after reasonable

notice, in accordance with the good faith, due diligence, and

public interest requirements of that section and the Commission’s procedures under that section, extend the time period

during which the licensee is required to commence the construction of the project, under the extension described in paragraph

(2), for not more than 3 consecutive 2-year periods.

(2) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This subsection shall take effect on

the date of the expiration of the extension of the period required

for commencement of construction of the project described in

paragraph (1) that the Commission issued, prior to the date

of enactment of this Act, under section 13 of the Federal Power

Act (16 U.S.C. 806).

(b) PROJECT NUMBERED 6879.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding the time period specified

in section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that

would otherwise apply to the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission Project No. 6879, the Commission may, at the

request of the licensee for the project, and after reasonable

notice, in accordance with the good faith, due diligence, and

public interest requirements of that section and the Commission’s procedures under that section, extend the time period

during which the licensee is required to commence the construction of the project for not more than 3 consecutive 2-year

periods.

(2) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This subsection shall take effect on

the date of the expiration of the period required for commencement of construction of the project under the license for the

project.

Approved October 9, 1996.

Oct. 9, 1996

[H.R. 2773]
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

BRUCE M. LYLES, 

 

 Plaintiff, 

 Case No. 2:12-cv-00751 

 v. JUDGE GREGORY L. FROST 

 Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers 

 

CAPITAL - EMI MUSIC INC., et al., 

 

 Defendants. 

ORDER

 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s objections (ECF No. 56) to the Report and 

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 52). The Magistrate Judge recommened 

that Defendant David Guetta be dismissed from this action for Plaintiff’s failure to effect service 

of process within 120 days of the complaint’s filing in this case. 

 Plaintiff’s objection does not take issue with the Magistrate Judge’s determination that he 

has failed to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (requiring service of the complaint within 120 

days of its filing). Nor does Plaintiff object to the Magistrate Judge’s determination that Plaintiff 

failed to comply with a previous order directing him to provide a copy of the complaint, a 

completed U.S. Marshal service form, and a summons for Defendant Guetta. (ECF No. 18.) 

Plaintiff’s only attempt to demonstrate good cause for his failure to effect service upon 

Defendant Guetta is by informing the Court of his inability to find a valid service address or 

legal representative for Guetta despite Plaintiff devoting “research time” to this task. (ECF No. 

56, PageID# 400.) Plaintiff tries to shift the responsibility of locating an address for service on 

Case: 2:12-cv-00751-GLF-EPD Doc #: 59 Filed: 12/26/13 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2 

Defendant Guetta, asking “Can not the court summons [sic] legal representative addresses such 

as for David Guetta from Capital-EMI?” (Id.) 

 Plaintiff’s objection is not well taken. It is not the Court’s responsibility to ascertain 

service addresses for persons named as defendants in civil actions. The Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure place that responsibility on the plaintiff. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(1) (“The plaintiff is 

responsible for having the summons and complaint served within the time allowed by Rule 4(m) 

and must furnish the necessary copies to the person who makes service.”). 

 For the foregoing reasons, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objections (ECF No. 56) 

and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 52). Accordingly, 

the Court DISMISSES Defendant Guetta from this action WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant 

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) for failure to timely effect service of process. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 /s/ Gregory L. Frost 

 GREGORY L. FROST 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case: 2:12-cv-00751-GLF-EPD Doc #: 59 Filed: 12/26/13 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1994
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                          99,359
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,100,596
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  5,837,661
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            13,790,181
<PP&E>                                      11,858,102
<DEPRECIATION>                               7,630,295
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              18,508,343
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,270,985
<BONDS>                                      5,545,026
<COMMON>                                       295,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,024,332
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                18,508,343
<SALES>                                     17,738,266
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            17,863,275
<CGS>                                       12,306,202
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,404,330
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             702,217
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                450,526
<INCOME-TAX>                                   130,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            320,526
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   320,526
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .11
        

</TABLE>
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

ANNE M. ESKER
, Appellant,

v.

CLAY LANE RENTAL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Nevada limited partnership, and GOZZO DEVELOPMENT, INC., a Florida corporation

, Appellee s

.

No. 4D 19

- 3757

[ April 8, 2021 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; G. Joseph Curley , Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2005

- CA

011607

- XXXX

- MB

.

Steven Ellison of Nelson Mullins Broad and Cassel, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Michael A. Mo nteverde and Kali Lauren M. Sinclair of Zinober, Diana & Monteverde, P.A., for appellee Gozzo Development, Inc

.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

L EVINE , C.J., G ROSS and K LINGENSMITH , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Before the First Division,

January 28, 1942

No. 46895.

#### Protests 938077-G, etc., of R. H. Macy & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Curtis*v. *United States*(T. D. 48341) the claim under paragraph 1120 was sustained.