alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### JOHN P. KINNIKEN & MATTHIAS KINNIKEN *vs.*J. H. A. DULANEY, Assignee of WARREN P. MASSEY.

Suit cannot be brought by an assignee of a sealed instrument, *in his own namet*unless the assignment be under seal, in the presence of two witnesses.

Certiorari to Justice Tunnell.

The record showed a judgment by confession, on a sealed instrument, executed by John and Matthias Kinniken, to Warren P. Mas*385sey, with warrant authorizing the entry of judgment. It was assigned by Massey to J. H. A. Dulaney, before two witnesses, but not under seal. The judgment was entered “ in favor of J. H. A. Dulaney, plaintiff, against John P. Kinniken and Matthias Kinniken, defendants, for $72, real debt, and $4 40, interest, with costs: judgment $76 41, costs $1 31, in the margin.

*Moore,*for defendant.

*Mr. Moore*

argued the exceptions, which were—1. That there was no legal assignment of the note. 2. That the judgment was in favor of Dulaney as the original payee of the note, and not as an assignee. 3. That the judgment was rendered for costs, without stating any amount. 4. That the judgment was for an uncertain amount. 5. That the execution did not follow the judgment.

*The Court*

reversed the judgment, saying:—

The suit in this case ought to have been brought by and the judgment entered in favor of Warren P. Massey, against John P. Kinniken and Matthias Kinniken, *for the use of J.*H. A. Dulaney.

The note is assignable; but the act of assembly requires that the assignment should be *under seal,*as well as before two witnesses, to authorize the assignee to bring suit in his own name. *(Code,*184.) Without such an assignment, the assignee has merely an equitable interest in the note, and cannot be regarded as a legal party. He must use the name of the person who has the legal interest in the note.

Even if the suit was properly brought, the judgment does not follow the nature of the cause of action. It is for J. H. A. Dulaney, as an original payee, and not as an assignee.

The other exceptions are not sustained by the record.

Judgment reversed.
1 

Date: July 12, 2011 

From: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 

Subject: Comments on EPA’s Toxicological Review of benzo[a]pyrene

To: Environmental Protection Agency 

We appreciate the opportunity to review EPA’s Toxicological Review of 

benzo[a]pyrene. Our review of this document focused on Chapters 5 and 6 dealing 

with Dose Response Assessment and Major Conclusions in the characterization of 

hazard and dose response assessment, respectively. 

Our reviewers did not find any conflict in the content of EPA’s Toxicological 

Review with ATSDR’s Toxicological Profile for Polycyclic Aromatic 

Hydrocarbons (PAHs). The principal studies in this document, Xu et al., (2010) 

and Archibong et al., (2002), used to derive the RfD and RfC were not part of 

ATSDR’s toxicological profile. 

General

Overall, the manuscript is excellent and represents well the current state of the 

science regarding BaP. The sections on metabolism and mechanism do a 

particularly excellent job of presenting the state of the science. Health guidance 

values presented in this document follow EPA guidelines for establishing RfDs and 

RfCs and are based upon the most appropriate studies available. We consider this 

document to be a significant contribution to the understanding of the toxicology of 

BaP. 

Minor comments

p. 202, lines 16 and 17: The phrase “especially early in development” may be 

misleading. The thymus typically reaches its maximum size around the time of 

onset of puberty and then slowly decreases in size through the process of thymic 

involution. 

p. 203, lines 27 and 28: The method of dosing/exposure in the MacKenzie and 

Angevine study is not mentioned. Our reviewers believe it was by gavage and 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES

Public Health Service 

Agency for Toxic Substances 

 and Disease Registry 

Memorandum 
suggest including this in the final document. 

p. 204, first 2 paragraphs on page: No mention is made of why the MacKenzie 

and Angevine (1981) Kristensen et al. (1995) studies were not suitable as critical 

studies. It is apparent in the discussion on p. 206 that the LOAELs in those 

studies were higher than BMDLISD, but it would be helpful to see this stated also 

on p. 204. 

p. 205, line 5: Suggest replacing “where” with “when.” 

p. 285 (in Reference section): Xu et al. (2010), the critical study for the RfD, is 

not listed as a reference. 

p. 211, lines 3-13: It is not clear which effects (and percentages) are attributable 

to Archibone et al. (2008) and which were reported in Ramesh et al. (2008). 

p. 211, line 17: Should the word “of” be inserted between “potentiation” and 

“electrophysiological?
EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                             (18 U.S.C SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report of Dynamic Leisure Corporation, a Minnesota
corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2007, as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission
(the "Report"), I, Daniel G. Brandano, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
Section 1350), 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/ Daniel G. Brandano
----------------------
Daniel G. Brandano
Chief Financial Officer

April 15, 2008

[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Dynamic Leisure Corporation and will be retained by Dynamic Leisure
Corporation and furnished to the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.]
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

M.L., the mother

, Appellant,

v.

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, GUARDIAN AD

LITEM PROGRAM and J.P.F.B., the father

, Appellee

.

No s . 4D 18

- 1476 & 4D18

- 1480

[ August 20, 2018 ]

Consolidated a ppeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Howard H. Harrison and Kirk Volker , Judge s ; L.T. Case No. 2016DP000762

.

Gary L. Pickett, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Andrew Feigenbaum, West Palm Beach, for Appellee Florida Department of Children and Families.

Thomasina Moore and Laura J. Lee, Sanford, for Appellee Guardian ad Litem Program.

Elizabeth R. Berkowitz of the Law Offices of Elizabeth R. Berkowitz, P.A., for Appellee J.P.F.B.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

T

AYLOR
, M AY and D AMOORGIAN
, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, L. Stephen Smith, Chief Executive Officer of The PMI Group, Inc. (Company), hereby certify that the
Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                         |  |                                                                 
|------------------------ |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: February 28, 2007 |  | /S/    L. STEPHEN
SMITH L. Stephen Smith Chief Executive Officer



The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
# Sheet2

# image1.png
#### Rudolph GIBSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-359.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 25, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT
32.2




FROZEN
FOOD EXPRESS INDUSTRIES, INC.


CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Frozen Food Express Industries, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2008 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Thomas G. Yetter, 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 (a) the Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.




Dated:
      November 7, 2008
            
            /s/
      Thomas G. YetterThomas
      G. Yetter
              Senior
      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
              (Principal
      Financial and Accounting
Officer)
EXHIBIT 21.1

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

|Name of Subsidiary                         | Jurisdiction of
Incorporation or
Organization | Other Names Under Which
Subsidary Does Business
|------------------------------------------ | --------------------------------------------- | -----------------------------------------------
|MDSI SOFTWARE BV                           |                                               |                                                
|518495 B.C. Ltd.                           |                                               |                                                
|518496 B.C. Ltd.                           |                                               |                                                
|MOBILE DATA SOLUTIONS INC.                 |                                               |                                                
|MDSI SERVICES (DANMARK) APS                |                                               |                                                
|MDSI SERVICES (UK) LTD.                    |                                               |                                                
|MDSI SOFTWARE SRL                          |                                               |                                                
|SERVICE SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL LTD.         |                                               |                                                
|ALLIANCE SYSTEMS LTD.                      |                                               |                                                
|MDSI DATA SERVICES SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD. |                                               |                                                
|MDSI SERVICES (NETHERLANDS) B.V.           |                                               |                                                

---
**EXHIBIT 10.67**

 

**Summary of Director Compensation Arrangements**

 

We currently pay each director who is not employed by us or any of our affiliates (i.e., all of ourdirectors except for our Chairman, Frank F. Khulusi) an annual retainer of $24,000 (paid quarterly), $2,500 for each board meeting attended in person and $500 for each board meeting attended by phone, and $1,000 for each committee meeting attendedin person or $500 for each committee meeting attended by phone.****We also pay the chairman of each board committee an additional annual retainer of $2,500 (paid quarterly) for serving in such capacity. Directors who are employed by us or any ofour affiliates are not paid any additional compensation for their service on our Board of Directors. We reimburse each of our directors for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses that they incur in connection with their service on our Board of Directors.We have entered into indemnification agreements, a form of which is attached as an exhibit to the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K, with each of our directors. 

 

Our directors are also eligible to participate in our 1994 Stock Incentive Plan, which is administered byour Compensation Committee under authority delegated by our Board of Directors. The terms and conditions of option grants to our non-employee directors under our 1994 Stock Incentive Plan are determined in the discretion of our CompensationCommittee, and must be consistent with the terms of the 1994 Stock Incentive Plan, which is filed as an exhibit to the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K.****

 

The compensation arrangements we have with our directors are reviewed and may be modified from time to timeby our Board of Directors.****
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF EARNINGS AND BALANCE SHEETS OF GARAN,
INCORPORATED AND SUBSIDIARIES ANNEXED HERETO AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE

TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000039917
<NAME> GARAN, INCORPORATED

<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                 OCT-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                  DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                          9,086,000
<SECURITIES>                    5,905,000
<RECEIVABLES>                  30,087,000
<ALLOWANCES>                      512,000
<INVENTORY>                    39,953,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>               92,047,000
<PP&E>                         39,441,000
<DEPRECIATION>                 24,972,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                153,009,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>          30,408,000
<BONDS>                         2,130,000
<COMMON>                        2,660,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<OTHER-SE>                    115,526,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  153,009,000
<SALES>                        53,345,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>               53,345,000
<CGS>                          41,947,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                  41,947,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 24,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 5,442,000
<INCOME-TAX>                    2,258,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     0
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                    3,184,000
<EPS-BASIC>                        0.60
<EPS-DILUTED>                        0.59



</TABLE>
#### WILLIAM GUTHRIE vs. THOMAS STOCKTON’S Adm’r.

Interest is recoverable in debt on a lease, for rent arrear.

Case stated. Thomas Stockton occupied a house of plaintiff’s from 1826 to 1838, at $150 per year. The whole amount-of rent claimed- for twelve years was $1,810; during which time defendant paid at different times $1,030; leaving on the 25th of March 1838, when the property was given up, a balance of $780.

The question was, whether defendant was bound to pay interest only on the balance of $780, (which the administrator was willing to do,) or on the rent claimed for each year, from the end of the year, there being no agreement between the landlord and tenant in respect to the interest. The question argued was whether interest on arrears of rent was recoverable in the action of debt.

Guthrie.

Wherever there is a contract to pay a certain sum, at a certain day, interest is recoverable from that day, for non-payment. [3 *Am. Dig.*5434-; 1 *Hayw. Rep.*4, 173; 4 *Johns. Rep.*183; 15 *East. Rep.*119, *n.]*Such is the practice; except in case of distress and avowry for rent arrear, where the court has, from the wording of the act of assembly, restrained the recovery to the rent arrear, without interest. [4 *Harr. Rep.*330; *Dig.*364.]

Rodney.

Rent stands upon peculiar grounds, because the landlord has a summary remedy for its recovery. Interest is not al*124lowable, except on the ground of contract or usage. There was no contract in this case for payment of interest, and there is no usage authorizing the recovery of interest on rent arrear. [3 *Kent’s Com.*483, *n., (6th Ed.;)*6 *Johns. Rep.*43; 1 *ib.*275; 3 *Hen. & Munf. Rep.*46, 3, Cook *vs.*Wise; *ib.*472, Newton *vs.*Wilson.] Rent and interest are profits, and on the same principle that ifiterest is not allowed on interest, it is not allowed on rent.

*Guthrie,*for plaintiff.

*Rodney,*for defendant.

Guthrie.

The remedy by distress is a benefit to the landlord, and cannot be used to his prejudice. If he waives this remedy and sues in debt, there is no reason why he should not recover damages for the detention of his rent after it was due. [4 *Harr. Rep.*330.]

Judgment for plaintiff for the sum claimed, with interest.
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Boy Elijah O’STEEN, Appellee.

No. M-99.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 13, 1970.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and J. Christian Meffert, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.

A. C. Soud, Jr., Jacksonville, for appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

This court having consolidated for appeal this case and 14 others wherein the same defendant was charged with IS separate offenses arising out of one search and seizure and one arrest, and the same principles of law being applicable, the order appealed from in this case is reversed pursuant to our decision in State of Florida v. O’Steen, 238 So.2d 434, opinion filed this date.

Reversed.

JOHNSON, C. J., and WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2
 PC MALL, INC.
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
(AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)
  (1)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, 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 as of the dates and for
the periods indicated.
   /s/ Brandon H. LaVerne

Brandon H. LaVerneInterim Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 99.11




CONSENT OF TIM MAUNULA





March 31, 2011





Brigus Gold Corp.


United States Securities and Exchange Commission





Re: Brigus Gold Corp.





Ladies and Gentlemen:





I hereby consent to (i) the use of my name in connection with the following documents and reports, which are either referenced in or filed as exhibits with the Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2010 (the “Form 40-F”) of Brigus Gold Corp. (the “Company”) to which this consent relates: (A) the technical report entitled “Black Fox Project National Instrument 43-101 Technical Report” dated January 6, 2011 (the “Report”), (B) the Company’s Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2010 and (C) the Company’s Management’s Discussion and Analysis for the year ended December 31, 2010, (ii) the inclusion or incorporation by reference of information derived from the Report in the Registration Statements on Forms S-8 (File Nos. 333-113889 and 333-162558), as amended, or any related abbreviated registration statement filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Rule 462(b) under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or in any amendment to any of the foregoing, or to any prospectuses or amendments or supplements thereto and (iii) all other references to the undersigned included or incorporated by reference in the above-referenced Registration Statements and in any prospectuses or amendments or supplements thereto.





Sincerely,





/s/ Tim MaunulaName: Tim Maunula
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 158

Designating majority membership on certain standing committees of the

House.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 22, 1993

Mr. HOYER submitted the following resolution; which was considered and

agreed to

RESOLUTION

Designating majority membership on certain standing

committees of the House.

Resolved, That the following named Members, Resident

Commissioner, and Delegates, be, and they are hereby, elected to the following standing committees of the House of Representatives:

COMMITTEE ON DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Ronald V. Dellums, California, to rank following Fortney Stark of California.

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR: Robert A.

Underwood, Guam.

Æ
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each
of the undersigned certifies that this periodic report fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained
in this periodic report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Florida Rock Industries, Inc.
				        JOHN D. BAKER, II
                                JOHN D. BAKER, II
                                John D. Baker, II
                                 President and Chief Executive
                                 Officer


                                JOHN D. MILTON, JR.
                                John D. Milton, Jr.
                                 Executive Vice President,
                                 Treasurer and Chief Financial
                                 Officer


                                WALLACE A. PATZKE, JR.
                                Wallace A. Patzke, Jr.
                                    Vice President, Controller
                                    and Chief Accounting Officer

	A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to Florida Rock Industries, Inc., and will
be retained by Florida Rock Industries, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.

   The foregoing certification accompanies the issuer's Quarterly
   Report on Form 10-Q and is not filed as provided in SEC Release
   Nos. 33-8212, 34-4751 and IC-25967, dated March 31, 2004.


1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1996
<CASH>                                       1,603,600
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,480,600
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,886,300
<PP&E>                                      28,933,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,714,300
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              33,069,900
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,118,300
<BONDS>                                     10,111,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        7,809,500
<PREFERRED>                                      9,400
<COMMON>                                       373,600
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,103,700
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                33,069,900
<SALES>                                     17,581,100
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            17,581,100
<CGS>                                        9,559,400
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               16,272,600
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,107,400
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (197,800)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (197,800)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (197,800)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.09)
        

</TABLE>