alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### O’DESS *v.*GUNTER.

1. Bills and Notes — Maker.

To charge one as maker of note it must appear from instrument that he makes unconditional promise to pay.

2. Same — When Signer Deemed to be Indorser.

Person placing his signature on instrument otherwise than as maker, drawer, or acceptor is deemed to be indorser, unless he clearly indicates by appropriate words his intention to be bound in some other capacity (2 Comp. Laws 1929, §9312).

*6683. Same — Indorser.

Where note recites that “John Johnson * * * does promise to pay,” and is signed by him and another, said other signer is indorser, since he made no unconditional promise to pay (2 Comp. Laws 1929, §9312).

4. Same — Notice of Dishonor — Release.

Indorser of promissory note who received no notice of its dishonor for three years is not liable thereon (2 Comp. Laws 1929, § 9338).

Appeal from Delta; Bell (Frank A.), J.

Submitted April 22, 1932.

(Docket No. 67, Calendar No. 36,389.)

Decided June 6, 1932.

Rehearing denied September 14, 1932.

Assumpsit by Mrs. Albina O’Dess, also known as Mrs. Frank O’Dess, against John Johnson and Mike Gunter. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant Gunter appeals.

Reversed as to defendant Gunter.

*Iiyall (& Frost,*for plaintiff.

*H. J. RusMon,*for defendant.

Potter, J.

Plaintiff sued defendant on a promissory note as follows:

> “$500. Jan. 11, 1926

> “John Johnson after date does promise to pay to the order of Mrs. Frank O’Dess five hundred dollars at 7 per cent, interest for................ Value received.

> “John Johnson,

> “Mike Gunter.

> “No..... Due April 11, 1926.”

Defendant Gunter pleaded he was an indorser and received no notice of dishonor for a period of four years. There was judgment for plaintiff and defendant Gunter appeals.

*669To charge one as maker of a note it must appear from the instrument he makes an unconditional promise to pay. 8 C. J. p. 65; 38 O. J. p. 343; 2 Bonvier’s Law Dictionary (Rawle’s 3d Rev.), title, “Maker.”

The note sued upon does not contain the language “I promise to pay,” or “We promise to pay,” or other apt language indicating Gunter promises to pay. It recites, “John Johnson * # * does promise to pay.” The language of the instrument specifically indicates who promises to pay, and thereby impliedly excludes those not named. Gunter made no promise to pay. Not having unconditionally promised to pay, Gunter is not a maker of the note. He signed the note. He is not a maker, drawer, or acceptor, and hence is an indorser. 2 Comp. Laws 1929, § 9312, provides:

> “A person placing his signature upon an instrument, otherwise than as maker, drawer or acceptor is deemed to be an indorser, unless he clearly indicates by appropriate .words his intention to be bound in some other capacity.”

Gunter, being an indorser, was entitled to notice of dishonor. -2 Comp. Laws 1929, § 9338; *Mellen-Wright Lbr. Co.*v. *McNett,*242 Mich. 369. Gunter received no notice of dishonor for at least three years, and cannot be held liable on the instrument as an indorser. Judgment as to Gunter reversed, with costs.

Clark, C. J., and McDonald, Sharpe, North, Fead, WmsT, and Butzel, JJ., concurred.
Exhibit 99.2



                            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 Quarterly Report of Avery Communications,  Inc. Inc. (the
"Company") on Form  10-QSB/A for the period  ending  September 30, 2001 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I,  Thomas C.  Ratchford,  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

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



/s/ Thomas C. Ratchford
Thomas C. Ratchford
Chief Financial Officer
December 16, 2002



<PAGE>
260 La. 681

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. George R. TERRELL v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, et al.

No. 52145.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 8, 1972.

In re: George R. Terrell applying for writ of habeas corpus.

Writ granted. Evidentiary hearing ordered. (See order).

HAMLIN and SUMMERS, JJ., are of the opinion that this record supports a finding that a plea bargain is involved here and, therefore, Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 is inapplicable.

On considering the petition of the Relator in the above entitled and numbered cause,

It is ordered that the Honorables, the Judges of the Fifth Judicial District Court, Parish of West Carroll, grant an eviden-tiary hearing on relator’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed in that Court and in this Court, without undue delay.
---

EXHIBIT 13.2

CERTIFICATION of Periodic Financial Report Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350



I, P. Wayne Musselman, a Director of Sand Technology Inc. (the
Company) performing functions similar to those of a principal financial
officer, hereby certify that the Annual Report on Form 20-F/A for the Fiscal Year
ended July 31, 2012 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended and that the information
contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Date: December 11, 2012



|By: | /s/ P. WAYNE MUSSELMAN | 
|--- | ---------------------- | 
|    | P. Wayne Musselman     | 
|    | Director               | 



This certification is made solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, subject to the knowledge standard set forth therein, and not for
any other purpose. It is not being filed as part of the Annual Report or as a
separate disclosure document.

---
H. Res. 570

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

October 6, 1994.

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule

XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the

Whole House on the state of the Union for further consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 416) providing limited

authorization for the participation of United States Armed

Forces in the multinational force in Haiti and providing for

the prompt withdrawal of United States Armed Forces from

Haiti. All time for general debate under the terms of any previous order of the House shall be considered as expired. After

further general debate, which shall be confined to the joint

resolution and the amendments made in order by this resolution and shall not exceed two hours equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the

Committee on Foreign Affairs, the joint resolution shall be

considered for amendment under the five-minute rule and

shall be considered as read. The amendments printed in part

1 of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
2

HRES 570 EH

resolution shall be considered as adopted in the House and

the Committee of the Whole. No further amendment shall be

in order in the House or in the Committee of the Whole except those printed in part 2 of the report of the Committee

on Rules. Each further amendment may be offered only in

the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a

Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read,

shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally

divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,

and shall not be subject to amendment except as specified in

the report. All points of order against the amendments printed in the report are waived. If more than one of the amendments printed in part 2 of the report is adopted, only the last

to be adopted shall be considered as finally adopted and reported to the House. At the conclusion of consideration of the

joint resolution for amendment the Committee shall rise and

report the joint resolution to the House with such amendment as may have been finally adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolution and

any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening
3

HRES 570 EH

motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Attest:

Clerk.
EXHIBIT 32.1

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



         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Golden Enterprises, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the first quarter ended September 2, 2005 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Mark W. McCutcheon, Chief Executive 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, 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.

Dated:   October 13, 2005



/s/ Mark W. McCutcheon
----------------------
Mark W. McCutcheon
President and Chief Executive Officer

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



                                       23
# C_2020399EN.01003901.xml

| 23.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/39

---

Action brought on 4 September 2020 — MF v eu-LISA

(Case T-568/20)

(2020/C 399/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: MF (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 29 October 2019 terminating the applicant’s contract on the basis that a security clearance could not be issued to him — as such and insofar as it would also contain a decision to refuse access to EUCI; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 29 October 2019 terminating the applicant’s contract on the basis that a security clearance could not be issued to him — as such and insofar as it would also contain a decision to refuse access to EUCI;

| — | insofar as necessary, annul the decision of 26 May 2020 rejecting the complaint; |
| --- | --- |

—

insofar as necessary, annul the decision of 26 May 2020 rejecting the complaint;

| — | order the defendant to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Plea in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging that the termination decision is illegal as a consequence of a violation by the defendant of Article 11(5)(b) of Commission decision and of the eu-LISA security Rules.

---
EXHIBIT 21.1
  SUBSIDIARIES
    OF THE COMPANY
  State or JurisdictionName

of IncorporationPicor Corporation

Delaware, USAV*I Chip Corporation

Delaware, USAVLT, Inc.

California, USAVicor GmbH

GermanyVICR Securities Corporation

Massachusetts, USAVicor France SARL

FranceVicor Italy SRL

ItalyVicor Hong Kong Ltd.

Hong KongVicor U.K. Ltd.

United KingdomVicor B.V.

NetherlandsVicor Japan Company, Ltd.

JapanVicor Development Corporation

Delaware, USAAegis Power Systems, Inc.

Delaware, USAMission Power Systems, Inc.

Delaware, USANorthwest Power Integration, Inc.

Delaware, USAConverpower Corporation

Delaware, USAFreedom Power Systems, Inc.

Delaware, USA
[No. 532-1.

Division One—Panel 2.

June 14, 1971.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. William Hardy, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 51961, Lloyd Shorett, J., entered April 15, 1970. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 31 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 31

Directing the Architect of the Capitol to place a public debt clock in 
                   the Cannon House Office Building.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 6, 1993

    Mr. Clinger (for himself, Mr. Livingston, Mr. Packard, and Mr. 
 Doolittle) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                 the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Directing the Architect of the Capitol to place a public debt clock in 
                   the Cannon House Office Building.

    Resolved, 

SECTION 1. PLACEMENT OF PUBLIC DEBT CLOCK.

    (a) Location.--The Architect of the Capitol shall design, 
construct, and maintain a public debt clock (hereinafter in this 
section referred to as the ``clock'') in the basement rotunda of the 
Cannon House Office Building. The clock shall be adjusted on a 
continuous basis to reflect the amount of the public debt of the United 
States.
    (b) No Federal Funds.--No appropriated Federal funds may be used 
for the design, construction, or maintenance of the clock.
    (c) Gifts and Bequests.--The Architect may accept, use, and dispose 
of gifts and bequests of money for the purposes of this section.
    (d) Report.--The Architect shall submit to the Speaker and the 
Minority Leader of the House of Representatives an annual report 
containing an accounting of the acceptance, use, and disposition of 
gifts and bequests of money under this section, including an accounting 
of the amount of money accepted and used under this section and the 
source of such money.

                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>   1
                                  EXHIBIT 23.1

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 File No. 33-65189, No. 333-03291, No. 333-15665, No. 333-53151 and No.
333-63051) pertaining to the various employee and director stock option plans
and agreements of CT Holdings, Inc. of our report dated June 2, 2000, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements of CT Holdings, Inc. included
in the Annual Report (Form 10-KSB) for the year ended February 29, 2000.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
Dallas, Texas
June 2, 2000
IV

House Calendar No. 248

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 576

[Report No. 103–847]

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5231) to provide for the management of portions of the Presidio under the jurisdiction of the Secretary

of the Interior.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 7 (legislative day, OCTOBER 6), 1994

Mr. BEILENSON, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5231) to provide

for the management of portions of the Presidio under

the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior.

1 Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution

2 it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.

3 5231) to provide for the management of portions of the

4 Presidio under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the In5 terior. All points of order against the bill and against its

6 consideration are waived. Debate on the bill shall not ex7 ceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair-
2

HRES 576 RH

1 man and ranking minority member of the Committee on

2 Natural Resources. The previous question shall be consid3 ered as ordered on the bill to final passage without inter4 vening motion except one motion to recommit.

House Calendar No. 248

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 576

[Report No. 103–847]

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5231)

of the Interior.Presidio under the jurisdiction of the Secretaryto provide for the management of portions of the

OCTOBER 7 (legislative day, OCTOBER 6), 1994

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
-  Assistant Secretary for Legislation (ASL) 
-  About ASL      -  ASL Leadership 
  -  ASL Offices 
  -  ASL Mission 
  -  Grants 
-  Assistant Secretary for Legislation (ASL) 
-  Congressional Testimony      -  2021 

                      -   
                      -   
                      -   
                      -   
                      -   

# Assistant Secretary for Legislation (ASL)

The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Legislation serves the Secretary as the primary link between the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Congress.

##                       I would like info on...                  

                                - Healthcare Quality Related Testimony
                                - Vaccination Related Testimony
                                - Grants.gov

##             About ASL          

Learn about ASL’s mission, structure, grants and leadership.

##             Testimony          

Search or browse a complete listing of testimony by the Secretary and other Department officials before the United States Congress.

##             ASL Offices          

Find information on the offices that support the Department's legislative agenda and Congressional liaison activities.

## Related Links

                            - The White House
                            - Office of Management and Budget
                            - United States Senate
                            - United States House of Representatives
                            - Thomas (Legislative Information from the Library of Congress)
                            - Library of Congress
                            - United States Government Printing Office (GPO)
                            - United States Government Accountability Office

Content last reviewed September 12, 2016
**Exhibit 31****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Richard E. Gaetz, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Vitran Corporation Inc.;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 informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control overfinancial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regardingthe reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for externalpurposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin 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; andd) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe Audit Committee of the registrant’s Board of Directors:a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: October 22, 2007
#### John Rizzuto, Appellant, v L.A. Wenger Contracting Co., Inc., Repondent.

[656 NYS2d 889]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Oshrin, J.), entered May 17, 1996, as, upon an order of the same court dated April 19, 1996, which, *inter alia,*granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, dismissed the complaint. The plaintiff’s notice of appeal from the order dated April 19, 1996, is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the judgment *(see,*CPLR 5520 M).

*501Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly dismissed the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence causes of action, as the evidence establishes that the defendant did not create or have actual or constructive notice of any dangerous condition which may have caused the accident *(see, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History,*67 NY2d 836; *Sobelman v Norstar Bank,*226 AD2d 444; *Lesman v Weinrib,*221 AD2d 601; *Mantovi v Nico Constr. Co.,*217 AD2d 650). Moreover, the defendant did not direct and control the work giving rise to the plaintiffs injury *(see, Jacobsen v Grossman,*206 AD2d 405).

The Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action, which was premised upon a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d), was also properly dismissed, as the evidence demonstrates that the defendant did not have actual or constructive notice of any dangerous condition which may have caused the accident *(see, McCague v Walsh Constr.,*225 AD2d 530). Thompson, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy and Luciano, JJ., concur.