alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case Ho. 10,036.

#### NATIONAL BANK OF COMMERCE v. BOOTH.

[5 Biss. 129.] 1

Circuit Court, N. D. Illinois.

June, 1870.

Notes — Bankruptcy of Maker — Action against Indorser.

1. In Illinois, the indorsee of a promissory note, the maker of which has been adjudicated bankrupt, may proceed at once against the in-dorser.

2. The case is not similar to that of a deceased maker of a note, where the holder must pursue the estate of the maker in the probate court.

NOTE. The statute referred to will be found in 1 Gross (1S71) p. 461, § 5. For the present statute, see Rev. St. 1874. p. 719, § 7. These provide if “such suit would have been unavailing,” when brought against the maker, the in-dorser shall be immediately liable.

Assumpsit against Alfred Booth as in-dorsee of a promissory note of Barnum, Mason & Co.

1

 [Reported by Josiah H. Bissell, Esq., and here reprinted by permission.]

BLODGETT, District Judge.

Judgment must go against_the defendant in this case. Mr. Booth is sued as the indorser of a promissory note made by the firm of Barnum, Mason & Co. He pleads that Barnum, Mason & Co. have been thrown into bankruptcy, and that their assets are in the hands of the assignee and will produce fifty cents on the dollar, and insists that the holders of the note can not proceed against him as indorse: until they have exhausted the assets in bankruptcy.

The statute of this state provides that an indorser shall not be liable unless the holder shall have used due diligence by the institution and prosecution of a suit against the maker of a note, except under certain conditions. In this ease, the institution and prosecution of a suit against Barnum, Mason *&*Co. is entirely impossible, they having been by the act of their creditors, declared bankrupts, adjudicated as such, and no suits on their old indebtedness could be maintained against them.

It was contended very strenuously on 1he part of the defendant in this case, that the case was similar to that of a deceased maker of a note; and there are some adjudications of Indiana and Kentucky to the effect that the holder of the note must first pursue the estate of the deceased in the probate court, and exhaust his remedy against the estate of the deceased in the surrogate or probate courts; but on examination, I find the statute of Illinois is broader than the statutes of Indiana and Kentucky, and it seems to convey the idea that the institution and prosecution of a suit against the maker of the note is the diligence, or kind of diligence, that is required to fix the liability of the indorser. There being no adjudicated case to sustain the position taken by counsel for defendant in this case, I am inclined to hold to the doctrine that sufficient is shown by the declaration in this case, — by the averment of the bankruptcy of the makers of the note, — to dispense with any diligence against them. Judgment for plaintiff.
No. 96-271.

#### Redding, Individually and as Legal Guardian of Bell, a Minor *v.*Independent School District No. 33 of Creek County, Oklahoma, et al.

Ct. App. Okla. Cer-tiorari denied.
Exhibit 32.1


                    Bingham Canyon Corporation

                 CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT
    Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
                      18 U.S.C. Section 1350

The undersigned executive officer of Bingham Canyon Corporation (the
"Company") certifies pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
that:

a.   the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended
      September 30, 2004, fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

b.   the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Company.


Date:  November 10, 2004
                                    /s/ Brett D. Mayer
                              ____________________________________
                                    Brett D. Mayer
                                    Principal Executive Officer
                                    Principal Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Of

Chief Executive Officer And

Chief Financial Officer

Of NATCO
Group Inc.

Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant To

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002

In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, John U. Clarke, Chief Executive Officer of NATCO Group Inc. (the
Company), and, I, Bradley P. Farnsworth, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, to my knowledge, that:

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
results of operations of the Company.



|                     |  |                        
|-------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: March 14, 2007 |  | /s/ John U. Clarke     
|                     |  | John U. Clarke         
|                     |  | Chief Executive Officer



|                     |  |                          
|-------------------- |  | -------------------------
|Date: March 14, 2007 |  | /s/ Bradley P. Farnsworth
|                     |  | Bradley P. Farnsworth    
|                     |  | Chief Financial Officer
No. 44373.

#### Protests 965434-G/88196, etc., of American Express Co. et al. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
# C_2015065EN.01000201.xml

| 23.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/2

---

Opinion of the Court (Full Court) of 18 December 2014 — European Commission

(Opinion 2/13) (1)

1

((Opinion pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU - Draft international agreement - Accession of the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms - Compatibility of the draft agreement with the EU and FEU Treaties))

(2015/C 065/02)

Language of the procedure: all official languages

Requested by

Requested by

European Commission (represented by: L. Romero Requena, H. Krämer, C. Ladenburger and B. Smulders, acting as Agents)

Operative part

Operative part

The agreement on the accession of the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is not compatible with Article 6(2) TEU or with Protocol (No 8) relating to Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union on the accession of the Union to the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

---

(1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.

1

---
No. 48239.

#### Protest 942017-G of Millinery Clearing House, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain of the items consist of hemp hats similar to those involved in *United States*v. *Armand Schwab*(30 C. C. P. A. 72, C. A. D. 218) and other items consist of hats of ramie and cellophane (racello) similar to those involved in Abstract 47291 the protest was sustained as to those items.
No. 47722.

#### Protests 724847-G (A), etc., of A. D. Cohen Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Caradine Hat Co.*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 69, C. D. 664), “8-Bu paper hats,” known as harvest hats, were held dutiable at 25 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1504 (b) (5), and other “8-Bu paper hats” at 12)4 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1504 (b) (5) as amended by the Netherlands Trade Agreement (T. D. 48075). Protests sustained.
No. 55586.

#### Armour *&*Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 162091—K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
# C_2015279EN.01000601.xml

| 24.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 June 2015 — Republic of Estonia v European Parliament, Council of the European Union

(Case C-508/13) (1)

((Action for annulment - Directive 2013/34/EU - Obligations on some forms of undertakings in relation to financial statements - Principles of subsidiarity and proportionality - Obligation to state reasons))

(2015/C 279/06)

Language of the case: Estonian

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Estonia (represented by: K. Kraavi-Käerdi, Agent)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: U. Rösslein and M. Allik, Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: P. Mahnič Bruni and A. Stolfot, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendants: European Commission (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and L. Naaber-Kivisoo, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Estonia to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Estonia to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.

---
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 144 (Monday, July 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 40343]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-19738]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER97-2518-001]


New York State Electric & Gas Corporation; Notice of Filing

July 22, 1997.
    Take notice that on June 24, 1997, New York State Electric & Gas 
Corporation tendered for filing additional information in the above-
referenced docket.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such 
motions or protests should be filed on or before July 31, 1997. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-19738 Filed 7-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
CERTIFICATION OF
                          CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
                            CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Bytewatch
Technologies, Inc. for the quarter ending September 30, 2003, I, Rick
Plotnikoff, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Bytewatch
Technologies, Inc. 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 and belief, that:

     1.   Such Quarterly Report of Form 10-QSB for the period ending September
          30, 2003, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     2.   The information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for
          the period ended September 30, 2003, fairly represents in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
          Bytewatch Technologies, Inc.

Dated:    October 31, 2003

BYTEWATCH TECHNOLOGIES, INC.


By:  /s/ Rick Plotnikoff
-----------------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
Chief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, WILLIAM A. OWENS, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the second quarter of 2004 of NortelNetworks Limited; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor 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 included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s 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 registrant and have:
 (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s 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 reportbased on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial 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 hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
Date: January 31, 2005 /s/ WILLIAM A. OWENSWILLIAM A. OWENSPresident and Chief Executive Officer
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-2244

_____________________________

ROBERT WAYNE VAUGHAN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County.

Michael C. Overstreet, Judge.

November 28, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, LEWIS, and RAY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Kathryn Lane, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Quentin Humphrey, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
No. 92-1782.

#### Zuluaga v. United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 220 (Thursday, November 14, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 68500]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27296]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8519]

In the Matter of the Designation of Boko Haram Also Known as 
Nigerian Taliban Also Known as Jama'atu Ahlus-Sunnah Lidda'Awati Wal 
Jihad Also Known as Jama'atu Ahlis Sunna Lidda'awati wal-Jihad Also 
Known as People Committed to the Prophet's Teachings for Propagation 
and Jihad Also Known as Sunni Group for Preaching and Jihad as a 
Foreign Terrorist Organization Pursuant to Section 219 of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, as Amended

    Based upon a review of the Administrative Record assembled in this 
matter and in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary 
of the Treasury, I conclude that there is a sufficient factual basis to 
find that the relevant circumstances described in section 219 of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (hereinafter ``INA'') (8 
U.S.C. 1189), exist with respect to Boko Haram, also known as Nigerian 
Taliban, also known as Jama'atu Ahlus-Sunnah Lidda'Awati Wal Jihad, 
also known as Jama'atu Ahlis Sunna Lidda'awati wal-Jihad, also known as 
People Committed to the Prophet's Teachings for Propagation and Jihad, 
also known as Sunni Group for Preaching and Jihad.
    Therefore, I hereby designate the aforementioned organization and 
its aliases as a Foreign Terrorist Organization pursuant to section 219 
of the INA.
    This determination shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Dated: November 5, 2013.
John F. Kerry,
Secretary of State.
[FR Doc. 2013-27296 Filed 11-13-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-03-P
```
EXHIBIT
31.1





I,
Winston Johnson, Chief Executive Officer of Winsonic Digital Media Group, Ltd.
(“the Company”), certify that:





1.
            I
      have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Winsonic Digital
      Media Group, Ltd. for the quarter ended September 30, 2008;
      and








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








4.
            I
      am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
      procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))* for
      the Company, and I have:





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





(b)
(*this section left intentionally blank)





(c)
Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company's disclosure controls and procedures,
and presented in this report my 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





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





5.
            I
      have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control
      over financial reporting, to the Company's auditors and the audit
      committee of the Company’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 Company'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 Company’s internal control over financial
reporting.




December
      9, 2008
            /s/
      Winston JohnsonWinston
      Johnson, Chief Executive Officer
              (Principal
      Executive Officer and Principal Financial
  Officer)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE: 

APPOINTMENT TO THE CRIMINAL

PROCEDURAL RULES COMMITTEE

:

:

:

:

NO. 543

CRIMINAL PROCEDURAL RULES 

DOCKET

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 23rd day of January, 2023, Brian L. Deiderick, Esquire, Lebanon

County, is hereby appointed as a member of the Criminal Procedural Rules Committee 

for a term expiring January 1, 2027.
EXHIBIT
32.1





SECTION
1350 CERTIFICATION





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Sunnyside Acres Mobile Estates (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Hui Peng Cheng, President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my
knowledge:





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





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





Date:
November 13, 2009




By:
            /s/
      Hui Peng ChengHui
      Peng ChengPresident
      and Chief Financial Officer
#### COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent, v. George Bennett MELIUS, Petitioner.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Oct. 14, 1998.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 14 01 day of October, 1998, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED limited to the following issue:

> Whether under the Pennsylvania Constitution, the requirements of probable cause and reasonable suspicion for warrantless stops pertain only to present or future criminal activity, and not past criminal activity.