alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Stone & Downer Co. *v.*United States

No. 6813.

Entry No. 4458/1-2, etc.

Invoices dated Torquay, England, December 17, 1941, etc.

Certified December 22, 1941, etc.

Entered at Boston, Mass., February 10, 1942, etc.

(Decided January 28, 1947)

*Joseph F. Lockett*for the plaintiff.

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

Oliver, Presiding Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, 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.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Exhibit
32.2











CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)








In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Walgreen Co., an Illinois corporation
(the "Company"), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended November 30, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Wade D. Miquelon,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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.














/s/ Wade D.
Miquelon


Wade D.
Miquelon


Chief
Financial Officer


Dated:  January
6, 2009





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Walgreen Co. and will be retained by Walgreen Co. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Case No. 8,660.

#### MACKBEE v. GRIFFITH.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 336.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Oct. Term, 1822.

Contracts—Board and Lodging— Prostitutes.

A woman who keeps prostitutes for gain cannot recover in an action against them for boarding and lodging.

Indebitatus assumpsit ana quantum meruit, for boarding and lodging.

Mr. Jones, for plaintiff,

did not object to the instruction.

THE COURT,

upon the motion of Mr. Key and Mr. Lear, for defendant, instructed the jury, that if they should be satisfied by the evidence, that the plaintiff kept a bawdy-house, and that the defendant lived with her for the purposes of prostitution, and that the plaintiff was to derive any profit from the prostitution of the defendant, the plaintiff could not recover in that action.
SCAD-18-0000323 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL,

Petitioner,

vs. PHILIP M. KLEINSMITH, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (ODC 17-O-267) ORDER OF DISBARMENT ( B y : R e c k t e n w a l d , C . J . , N a k a y a m a , M c K e n n a , P o l l a c k , a n d W i l s o n J J . )

Upon consideration of the petition for issuance of a reciprocal discipline notice upon Respondent Philip Martin Kleinsmith, filed on April 10, 2018 by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) pursuant to Rule 2.15(b) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai # i (RSCH), and the memorandum and exhibits appended thereto, and the record in this matter, we find that, on December 21, 2016, the Supreme Court of the State of Colorado entered an order, disbarring Respondent Kleinsmith, effective December 23, 2016, having concluded Kleinsmith had converted more than $55,000.00 in funds owed to a title company to Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCAD-18-0000323 10-JUL-2018 10:50 AMpay expenses for his law firm, and having found, in aggravation,

that Kleinsmith had substantial experience in the practice of law, had previously been disciplined, exhibited a dishonest and selfish motive, engaged in a pattern of misconduct, refused to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct, and was indifferent to making restitution, conduct which, if committed in this jurisdiction, would constitute violations of Rules 1.15(a) and 8.4(c) of the Hawai # i Rules of Professional Conduct (2014). We further find that the record in this matter establishes that service of a Notice and Order was properly made upon Respondent Kleinsmith on April 25, 2018 at the address Respondent Kleinsmith has registered with the Hawai # i State Bar Association for service of process and, therefore, that Respondent Kleinsmith had until May 25, 2018 to show cause as to why reciprocal discipline in this jurisdiction is unwarranted. Respondent Kleinsmith has failed to respond to the Notice and Order, and a review of the record and precedent demonstrates, pursuant to RSCH Rules 2.15(c) and (d), that reciprocal discipline is authorized and justified. Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent Philip Martin Kleinsmith is disbarred from the practice of law in this jurisdiction, pursuant to RSCH Rules 2.3(a)(1) and 2.15(c). Furthermore, RSCH Rule 2.16(c) notwithstanding, insofar as the record indicates Respondent Kleinsmith is not present in the jurisdiction and is on involuntary inactive status, the disbarment

2shall be effective immediately upon entry of this order. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Respondent Kleinsmith is reminded he may not resume the practice of law in this jurisdiction until reinstated by order of this court.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, July 10, 2018. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson

3
Exhibit 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Ben Jamil, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Security Intelligence
Technologies, 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 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 we 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; and

      c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
      control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
      first 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 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:

      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 management or other
      employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
      over financial reporting.

Dated: November 20, 2006

                                              /s/ Ben Jamil
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Ben Jamil, Chief Executive Officer


                                       22
No. 54920.

#### Max Ettlinger & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 161521-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protests were dismissed.
#### C. A. Ballard *vs.*Ridgley & Billon.

_ T . *Error to Louisa.*

Where a rule of decision relative to the remedy is changed by statute, the new rule will be applicable to all cases subsequently tried, although they might have been commenced prior to the enactment of the statute.

The statute of this territory despensing with the necessity of proving the names of the individuals composing a firm, took effect in cases previously commenced, if tried afterwards.

The declaration in this case was upon a promissory note. It set forth that Charles Ridgley & Henry Billon, trading and doing business under the name, style, and description sf Ridgley & Billon, complains, «fee. Subsequently-to the filing of the declaration, but before ¡the Asial of the case it was enacted, by a statute of the territory,” that inalbsuits *28brought in any court of the territory upon any promissory nóte, bond, bill or other instrument of writing, made payable to, or by any corporate body, by their corporate name, or any association of individuals, by their associate name, or partners trading together, under their partnership name and style, it shall only be necessary to prove the corporate, associate or partnership name and style, without proving the name of the individuals who compose the same, &c. ” On the trial, the partnership name and style of the firm was proved, but not the names of the individuals composing the same. Judgment was rendered for the plaintiff below, and thereupon a bill of exceptions was tendered and the case brought to this court.

The case was submitted to the Supreme Court without argument.

Per Curiam,

Mason, Chief Justice.

This cause has been submitted without argument, and even without stating the points relied upon, farther than they aro contained in the bill of exceptions. The action below, however, it appears, was upon a promissory note given by the plaintiff in error to the firm of Ridgley & Billon, by their partnership name. On the trial, the existence of the firm was proved, but not the individual nampsof the partners composing if. The court decided this tobe sufficient, and this decision was undoubtedly correct, being in direct accordance with the statute of this territory in relation to promissory notes, &c., approved, January 4, 1839. It is true, this suit was commenced previous to the passage of that act, but the trial took place after-wards, and the rules of decision in all the subsequent proceedings, so far as they relate merely to the remedy, must be regulated by that statute. The judgement below is therefore affirmed.
#### Carnell POWERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 98-669.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Sept. 25, 1998.

*41James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Noel A. Pelella, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Roberta J. Tylke, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appel-lee.

ORFINGER, M., Senior Judge.

Appellant appeals from his conviction on the charge of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Only one point on appeal has merit. He preserved for appeal and is correct in his contention that eighteen additional sentence points should not have been assessed for possession of the firearm, since he was not convicted of an additional separate crime which itself did not necessarily involve possession of a firearm as a separate legal element thereof. *White v. State,*714 So.2d 440, 23 Fla. L. Weekly S311 (Fla.1998).

Convictions affirmed. Sentence reversed and remanded for resentencing.

W. SHARP and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
#### Robert GIVENS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 98-864.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Sept. 4, 1998.

Robert Givens, Appellant, pro se.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. *See Wood v. State,*698 So.2d 293 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).

JOANOS, WOLF and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.
No. 54897.

#### Dale Products Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 157938-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protests were dismissed.
# Simulation, Parker-Imperial

# Simulation, Hoover-Imperial

# Model Coefficients

# Convert SC to DS

# Statistics, Monthly

# Statistics, Percentiles

# Estimate Parker Q

# Concentration Interpolator

# Flow-Weighted Concentration
**Exhibit 31.1**
**Certification of Principal Executive Officer**
     I, Steven P. Richman, the Chief Executive Officer of Werner Holding Co. (PA), Inc. andWerner Holding Co. (DE), Inc. (the “Co-registrants”), certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of the Co-registrants;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the Co-registrants as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;
     4. The Co-registrants’ other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the Co-registrants and have:
     a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the Co-registrants, including their consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;
     b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Co-registrants’ disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report basedon such evaluation; and
     c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Co-registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the Co-registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theCo-registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Co-registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and
     5. The Co-registrants’ other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Co-registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the Co-registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
     a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe Co-registrants’ ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and
     b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the Co-registrants’ internal controls over financial reporting.         WERNER HOLDING CO. (PA), INC.       Date: May 10, 2005 /s/ STEVEN P. RICHMAN          Chief Executive Officer           WERNER HOLDING CO. (DE), INC.       Date: May 10, 2005 /s/ STEVEN P. RICHMAN          Chief Executive Officer  
85
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
Company's  Form 10-Q for the quarter  ended October 31, 1996 and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                       JAN-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                            OCT-31-1996
<CASH>                                                    2,406,263
<SECURITIES>                                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                             4,485,129
<ALLOWANCES>                                                200,653
<INVENTORY>                                               3,093,736
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         10,881,043
<PP&E>                                                    6,676,639
<DEPRECIATION>                                            8,305,678
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                           18,513,860
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                     2,876,938
<BONDS>                                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                             0
<PREFERRED>                                                       0
<COMMON>                                                    424,452
<OTHER-SE>                                               12,059,964
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                             18,513,860
<SALES>                                                  26,536,297
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         26,536,297
<CGS>                                                    16,400,294
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            23,684,826
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                            178,312
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                          178,312
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                           2,673,159
<INCOME-TAX>                                              1,060,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                       1,613,159
<DISCONTINUED>                                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                   0
<CHANGES>                                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                              1,613,159
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                   .36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                   .36
        

</TABLE>
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 Amendment to the Quarterly Report of China BAK
        Battery, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the period
        ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
        (the Report). I, Han Yongbin, 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; and
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |                                                                                                                                                         |                                                                                                                        
| | The information contained in the Report fairly   presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of   operations of the Company.

|By: | /s/ Han   Yongbin       | 
|--- | ----------------------- | 
|    |                         | 
|    | Han Yongbin             | 
|    | Chief Financial Officer | 
|    | February 16, 2006       | 

---
#### Alonza E. MARIMON, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 99-1376.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

July 16, 1999.

Aonza E. Marimon, Quincy, pro se.

No Appearance for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Marimon seeks a belated appeal, alleging he timely asked his counsel to file a notice of appeal in a criminal case.. However, he fails to describe the nature of the order sought to be reviewed, the name of the trial court rendering the judgment or the disposition and dates of any previous proceedings, as required by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(j)(2). Accordingly, we dismiss Marimon’s petition, without prejudice to refile in compliance with the rule.

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus DISMISSED.

DAUKSCH, W. SHARP, and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
9/20/2007 Page of 

POSTFOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT 

This report revised to reflect change in concentration of concern to 1 ppb. 

Case Number: P040636 Assessor: Flessner 

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES 

Scenario#: 1 Number of Release Sites: 

Release Activity: PROC1 

Release Description: WATER LANDFILL INCINER LAND/INCIN FUGITIVE 

Total Releases: 

(kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) 

Release Days/yr: 

Per Site Release: 

(kg/day) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/day) 

Remarks: 

Consumer use expected? 

EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 3
POSTFOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT Page of 

CASE NUMBER:P040636 

EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 3
Page of 

POSTFOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT 

Case Number: P040636 Assessor: 

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES 

Scenario#: 2 Number of Release Sites: 5000. 

Release Activity: USE 

Release Description: WATER LANDFILL INCINER LAND/INCIN FUGITIVE 

Total Releases: 

(kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) 

Release Days/yr: 

Per Site Release: 

(kg/day) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/day) 

Remarks: 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 3 of 3