alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.2  PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION  I, John W. Peters, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Skinovation Pharmaceutical Incorporated;  2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statement made, in light of the circumstances under which statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly 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 small business issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):  (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: November 8, 2006 /s/ John W. Peters John W. Peters Principal Financial Officer
No. 6296.

#### LUKENS IRON & STEEL CO. vs. CHARLES GITZINGER, ET AL.

Syllabus.

1. An object sent to tbe shop of a mechanic to be repaired is only transiently on the premises, within the meaning of the law exempting from seizure1 for rent objects only accidently or transiently on the premises.

2. The evidence before us is not sufficient to establish with certainty the value of the property herein illegally seized and sold, and the case is remanded for further evidence on that score.

Appeal from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, Division “B,” No. 102,905. Honorable F. D. King, Judge.

Solomon Wolff, for plaintiff and appellee.

J. B. Rosser, Jr., for defendant and appellant.

His Honor, JOHN ST. PAUL,

rendered the opinion and decree of the Court, as follows:

Plaintiff had a steel cutter which became out of order and he called upon a mechanic to repair it. After vainly-endeavoring to repair it at plaintiff’s place of business, the mechanic removed it to his own shop in order to make further efforts to repair it; but he was again.unsuccessful, and some months afterwards the contents of the shop, including this cutter, were seized by defendant for unpaid rent.

We are of opinion that objects sent to a mechanic to be repaired are only transiently on the premises, within the meaning of the law, which exempts from seizure for rent objects only accidently or transiently on the premises.

*203Opinion and decree, February 1st, 1915.

Rehearing refused, March 15th, 1915.

Were it otherwise no one would entrust a mechanic with an object to be repaired, and thus he would be unable to carry on his business and earn the money with which to pay his rent.

Defendant must, therefore, reimburse plaintiff for the value of the cutter by him seized and sold for rent.

But we do not consider that the testimony herein establishes with any degree of certainty the value of the cutter when sold.

Plaintiff’s representative estimates the value of the cutter at $350 to $500. He says that it cost over $700 a few years ago, that it was as good as new and could have been repaired for less than $50.

But the fact is that the supposedly competent mechanics had been trying for nearly a year to repair it and had not succeeded, and the cutter sold at auction for only $62.

We are not prepared to say that the cutter was worth no more than $62, nor do we think the evidence shows that it wa.s worth $350, but we believe that its value can be estimated by competent testimony and that the 'case should be remanded for that purpose.

. It is therefore ordered that the judgment appealed from be set aside and the case is now remanded to the trial Court for the purpose of receiving further testimony as to the value of cutter herein seized and sold, and of fixing the value thereof.

It is further ordered that plaintiff pay the costs of this • appeal, and the cost of the ’Court below to await the final judgment.
Before the Third Division,

October 1, 1941

No. 46397.

#### Protests 14055-K, etc., of Wo Kee & Co. et al. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of pak nor similar to that the subject of *Columbia Co.*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 175, C. D. 395), hak nor similar to that the subject of Abstract 45951, and certain other merchandise similar to that the subject of *Wing Duck*v. *United States*(6 Cust. Ct. 133, C. D. 446). In accordance therewith the commodities in question were held not subject to Internal Revenue tax and the protests were sustained as to certain of the items.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION



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)



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), each of the undersigned officers of United Refining Company, a Pennsylvania corporation (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:



The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended February 28,
2006 (the Form 10-Q) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                      |  |  |  |     |  |                          |  |                            
|--------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ------------------------ |  | ---------------------------
|Dated: April 12, 2006 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ John A. Catsimatidis
|                      |  |  |  |     |  |                          |  | John A. Catsimatidis       
|                      |  |  |  |     |  |                          |  | Principal Executive Officer
|                      |  |  | 
|Dated: April 12, 2006 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ James E. Murphy     
|                      |  |  |  |     |  |                          |  | James E. Murphy            
|                      |  |  |  |     |  |                          |  | Principal Financial Officer



The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely 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) and is not being filed as part of this Form 10-Q
or as a separate disclosure document.



A signed original of
this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to United Refining Company and will be retained by United Refining Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 09a0026n.06 F iled: Janu ary 14, 2009 Case No. 07- 2477 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT NO RM AN CH OA TE, P laintif f-App ellant,

v. NA TIO NA L R

AI LR OA D P ASS EN G ER CORP ., e t al

. , Defendan t-Appellee.

_______________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EA L F RO M THE EA STER

N D ISTRIC T OF MICHIG AN

BEF ORE: SUH RH EIN RI CH , BA TC HELD ER , a nd SU TTON , C ir c uitJudg e s. ALICE M. BATCHEL DER, Circuit Judge. Norman Choate appea ls the district court’s g ra nt o f s umm ary

jud g me nt t o th e Natio na l Ra ilr oa d Pa sse ng e r C or po ratio n ( AM TRA K) on

a c la im for r elief unde r the Ag e Discr imination in Em ploy ment Act and a

n attempted re scission of a G ener al Re le a se that Ch oate ha d e nte re d into w ithAM TRA K t o settle my ri a d o the r c la ims . Ch oate a tte mpt s to appea l as well the district cour t’s ear lier order , made final by the court’s summar y judgme nt order, dismiss ing Choate’s cla im ag ainst the United Tra nsportation Union L ocal 138. We h ave c are fu lly

re vie we d th e pa

rt ie s’ br ie fs and

the re c or d s up pli e d to us by the pa rt ie s, including the two prior lawsuits Choate filed a g ainst AMTRAK, and we f ind no basis upon which to disag ree with the district court’s fina l judgment challeng ed in this appea l. We note as well that Choate’s sparse and cursor y argument with reg ard to the dismissal of his claim ag ainst the United Transpor tation Union is wholly without mer it. The district c ourt’s extending the court-order ed2

deadline f or adding the Union as a party to the First Amende d Complaint does not and cannot af fec t the under lying statute of limitations for bring ing a n action ag ainst the Union. As the district court’ s opinions correc tly set out the law g overningthe issues raised, and as Cho a te of fe rs no ba sis fo r re a c hin g a dif fe re nt c on c lus ion , is su anc e of a fu ll wri tte n o pin ion

by thi s court wou l d s er v e no useful purpose. Ac cording ly , for the r easons state d in the district court’s opinion, we AF F IRM the jud g me nt i n a ll r e sp e c ts.
No. 96-5853.

#### Ornelas-Martinez *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 47626.

#### Protests 998449-G, etc., of Sardik, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the banana flakes in question are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Sardik, Inc.*v. *United States*(8 Cust. Ct. 400, C. D. 646). In accordance therewith the protests were sustained.
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Employment Opportunities for Women in Professional Engineering

              																	United States. Women's Bureau					,	Inke, Lillian V.					 and 	Barber, Mildred S. (Mildred Sheridan). 						*Employment Opportunities for Women in Professional Engineering : Women's Bureau Bulletin, No. 254*,												Washington: 								Govt. Print. Off., 										1954,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/5527,			accessed on September 25, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
### Underground storage of imported water in the San Gorgonio Pass area, southern California

By: Richard M. Bloyd

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1999D

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf) 
- Superseded Publications:
                                        Underground storage of imported water in the San Gorgonio Pass area, California(1969)                                    

- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
Exhibit 32.1



Certification of

Chief Executive Officer

of Mannatech, Incorporated



This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and accompanies the Amendment No. 1 to the Annual
Report on Form 10-K/A (the Report) for the year ended December 31, 2003 of Mannatech, Incorporated (the Issuer).



I, Samuel L. Caster, the Chief Executive Officer of the Issuer certify that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (i) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.
| | ---- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: December 17, 2004



/s/ Samuel L. CasterSamuel L. CasterChief Executive Officer




Subscribed and sworn to before
me

This 17thday of
December, 2004



|                                     |  | 
|------------------------------------ |  | 
|/s/ Christina Dutton                
|Name: Christina Dutton              
|Title: Notary Public, State of Texas



My commission expires: March 19, 2006



A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 has been provided to Mannatech,

Incorporated and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
No. 6202.

#### MR. AND MRS. PERCY JACOBSON vs. JOSEPH MERMILLION.

Syllabus.

The manner in which the parties have acted under their contract is better indication of their common intent than their subsequent and conflicting testimony in relation thereto.

Appeal from the Civil District 'Court, Parish of Orleans, Division “B,” No. 104,464. Honorable F. D. King, Judge.

A. D. Danziger, for plaintiff and appellant.

Woodville & Woodville, for defendant and appellee.

His Honor, JOHN ST. PAUL,

rendered the opinion and decree of the Court, as follows:

*73Plaintiffs own the property known by the municipal numbers 626 and 628 South Eampart Street, consisting of a store on the g’round floor and two rooms in the rear thereof bearing the number 626, and of a hallway bearing the number 628, disconnected with the store .and containing a stairway leading to rooms on the second floor. The rooms on the second floor have been occupied by them for nine years or more.

One Wiard leased the store and two rooms on the ground floor and after him defendant took possession thereof and occupied the same under a lease from plaintiff of “the store and dwelling No. 626 S. Rampart St.,’' paying the rent regularly. At the end of six months defendant renewed -the lease, and again paid his rent regularly for six months, when he moved out under the pretense that his lease covered the whole building and the upper portion had never been delivered to him.

We are at a loss to understand upon what theory defendant claims the right to any thing more than he possessed. If we confine ourselves to the lease as being clear and unambiguous, a store and dwelling at No. 626 South Eampart Street does not include a hallway at No. 628 South Eampart Street, entirely cut off from the store and leading to rooms on an upper floor evidently intended as a separate tenement.

If we look beyond the words of the lease and seek the intention of the parties, the fact that plaintiffs remained in possession of the upper floor, that Ward did not complain, and that defendant renewed the lease knowing exactly how conditions were, is far more eloquent of the common intent than the uncorroborated testimony of defendant flatly contradicted by plaintiff.

*74Opinion and decree, November 23rd, 1914.

Rehearing refused, December 7th, 1914.

Writ denied, January 13, 1915.

The manner in which the parties have acted under their contract is better indicative of their common intent, than their subsequent and conflicting testimony in relation thereto.

C. C., 1956.

It is therefore ordered that the judgment appealed from be reversed and it is now ordered that the plaintiffs, Mr. and Mrs. Percy Jaco'bson, have judgment against the defendant, Joseph Mermillion, in the full sum of one hundred and fifty dollars with legal interest thereon from May 1st, 1913, and ten per cent attorney’s fees, and for the further sum of twenty-five dollars with legal interest from this date and costs of both Courts.

Judgment reversed.
#### Roger Piacentini, Appellant, v Mineola Union Free School District, Respondent.

[700 NYS2d 205]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries-, the plaintiff, Roger Piacentini, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Alpert, J.), dated December 17, 1998, which denied his motion to vacate an order of the same court, dated October 21, 1997, dismissing the complaint on the ground that he had failed to appear for a preliminary conference.

*291Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

To vacate the order dismissing the complaint, the appellant had to proffer a reasonable excuse for the default and establish the existence of a meritorious cause of action *(see,*CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; *Alliance Prop. Mgt. & Dev. v Andrews Ave. Equities,*70 NY2d 831; *McNeil v Milstein,*240 AD2d 549; *Martinez v Otis El. Co.,*213 AD2d 523). The court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion to vacate the default *(see, Alliance Prop. Mgt. & Dev. v Andrews Ave. Equities, supra; Barasch v Micucci,*49 NY2d 594). The record reveals an overall lack of diligence by the appellant in prosecuting his claim, a pattern of willful default, and neglect. No reasonable excuse was offered either for his failure to appear at the preliminary conference or for the lengthy delay in bringing the motion to vacate his default *(see, Yepez v Damico,*239 AD2d 412; *Roussodimou v Zafiriadis,*238 AD2d 568; *Martinez v Otis El. Co.,*supra;*Gannon v Johnson Scale Co.,*189 AD2d 1052). Furthermore, the appellant failed to proffer sufficient evidence of the merit of his underlying claim. Mangano, P. J., Ritter, Joy, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,
Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

June 21 , 2019 

# Order

Clerk June 21 , 2019

159160 (1 5 ) (20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(2 5)(27)(29)(30)(32)(33)(34)

In re HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REQUEST FOR ADVISORY OPINION REGARDING CONSTITUTIONALITY OF 2018 PA 368 & 369 SC: 159160

__________________________________________ /

On order of the Chief Justice, the separate motion s of the following entities to file

briefs amicus curiae are GRANTED and their amicus briefs are accepted for filing : ( 1) Small Business for a Better Michigan Coalition ; ( 2) Democrats for Life of Michigan ; ( 3) Count MI Vote, d/b/a Voters Not Politicians ; ( 4) Michigan Unitarian Univ ersalist Social Justice Network, Michigan Conference‒United Church of Christ, Social Justice Team, a nd State Employee Retirees Association ; ( 5) Michigan One Fair Wage a nd Michigan Time t o Care ; ( 6) National Employment Law Project ; ( 7) American Civil Liberties Union o f Michigan, League o f Women Voters o f Michigan, a nd American Association o f University Women o f Michigan ; ( 8) A Better Balance, Mothering Justice, Arab Community Center f or Economic a nd Social Services, American Federat ion o f Teachers Michigan, Clean Water Action, Detroit Jews f or Justice, The Economic Justice Alliance

o f Michigan, Family Values @ Work, Metropolitan Organizing Strategy Enabling Strength, Michigan Economic Justice Action Fund, Michigan Liberation, Progres s Michigan, Sexual Assault Services f or Holistic Healing a nd Awareness Center, Southeast Michigan Jobs w ith Justice

, a nd We The People Michigan ; (9 ) Michigan State AFL

- CIO, Michigan Building and Construction Trades Council, and Michigan Education

Associati on; ( 1 0 ) Legal Momentum, Michigan Coalition to End Domestic and Sexual Violence, National Women’s Law Center, National Organization for Women Foundation, and Michigan NOW ; (11) Governor of the State of Michigan; (12) Sugar Law Center for

Economic & Social Justice, Michigan Chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, Michigan Immigrant Rights Center, Farmworker Legal Services of Michigan, and The Center for Community Based Enterprise, and (13) Michigan Association for Justice.