alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(March 11, 1997)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Suarez, Appellant.

[655 NYS2d 354]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Beal, J.), rendered June 7, 1994, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 41/2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that his waiver of a jury trial was not knowing and voluntary is unpreserved and without merit *(People v Tamarez,*213 AD2d 261, 262, *lv denied*85 NY2d 981). The court emphasized to defendant the importance of jury trials and the requirement that any waiver of the right to a jury trial be knowing and voluntary, whereupon defendant clearly indicated that he had discussed this matter with counsel and that he *wished to*proceed to trial without a jury. Concur— Murphy, P. J., Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.
<PAGE>

                                                               Exhibit 23.1

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
                     CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

The Board of Directors
NeoRx Corporation:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
33-60029, 33-64992, 33-63169, 333-05661, 333-00785 and 333-25161) on Form S-3
and in the registration statements (Nos. 33-43860, 33-46317, 33-87108 and
333-32583) on Form S-8 of NeoRx Corporation, of our report dated February 5,
1999, relating to the balance sheets of NeoRx Corporation as of December 31,
1998 and 1997, and the related statements of operations, shareholders' equity 
and cash flows for the years then ended, which report appears in the December 
31, 1998 annual report on Form 10-K of NeoRx Corporation.


                                        KPMG LLP
Seattle, Washington 
March 24, 1999
**Exhibit
      32.2**




SECTION
      1350 CERTIFICATION


(Chief
      Financial Officer)




I,
      Patrick E. Delaney, Chief Financial Officer of Clacendix, Inc. (the "Company"),
      certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
      Section 1350, that:





1.  The
      Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended December 31,
      2007
      (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
      of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.78m or 78o(d)); 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:
                April 14, 2008
            
            /s/
                Patrick E. DelaneyPatrick
                E. Delaney
              Chief
                Financial Officer




This
      certification is being furnished to the SEC with this Report pursuant to Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent
      required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section
      18
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to
      the
      liability of that section.
EXHIBIT 32.2


                            Certification Pursuant to
                             18 U.S.C. Section 1350
                             As Adopted Pursuant to
                    Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



         I, Christopher M. Rasmussen, Chief Financial Officer (Principal
Accounting Officer), certify that this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2007 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 herein fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Gateway Energy
Corporation and its subsidiaries for the periods presented.


Date:  November 14, 2007                    /s/  Christopher M. Rasmussen
                                            -----------------------------------
                                                 Christopher M. Rasmussen
                                                 Chief Financial Officer
                                                 (Principal Accounting Officer)
**Exhibit 10.85**

 

EXECUTIVECHANGE OF CONTROL

AGREEMENT

 

THIS AGREEMENT dated as of September 20, 2004 is made by and between Mobile Satellite Ventures LP, a Delaware limited partnership (the "Company"), and  Randy S. Segal (the "Executive").

 

WHEREAS, the Company considers it essential and in its best interests and in the best interests of its equity owners to foster the continuous employment of certain key management personnel, including the Executive; and 

 

WHEREAS, the Company recognizes that the possibility of a Change of Control (as defined in Section 8.5 hereof) exists and that such possibility, and the uncertainty and questions which it may raise among management, may result in the departure or distraction of management personnel to the detriment of the Company and its equity owners; and

 

WHEREAS, the Company has determined that appropriate steps should be taken to reinforce and encourage the continued attention and dedication of members of the Company's management, including the Executive, to their assigned duties without distraction in the face of potentially disturbing circumstances arising from the possibility of a Change in Control. 

 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants herein contained, the Company and the Executive hereby agree as follows:

 

1.  Defined Terms.  For purposes of this Agreement, definitions of certain capitalized terms used in this Agreement are provided in Section 8 and elsewhere in this Agreement.  

 

2.  Term of Agreement.  This Agreement shall become effective on the date hereof and shall remain in effect indefinitely thereafter; provided, however, that (a) except as provided in clause (b) of this Section 2, either the Company or the Executive may terminate this Agreement by giving the other party at least one (1) year advance written notice of such termination, and (b) if a Change in Control shall have occurred during the term of this Agreement, this Agreement may not be terminated until all obligations of either party hereto have been performed in full and the Coverage Period has expired without the occurrence of a Triggering Event. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Agreement shall terminate upon the Executive's attaining age sixty-five (65), the Executive's Disability or death, except as to obligations of the Company hereunderarising from a Change in Control and a Triggering Event that occurred prior to his having reached such age or prior to the occurrence of his Disability or death.  

 

3.  Agreement of the Company.  In order to induce the Executive to remain in the employ of the Company, the Company agrees, under the terms and conditions set forth herein, that, upon the occurrence of both a Change in Control and a Triggering Event during the term of this Agreement, the Company shall provide to the Executive the benefits described in Sections 3.1 through 3.3 below (the "Severance Benefits"), unless prior to the date of any Triggering Event, 

 

- 1  -

 

----
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 03373

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2File Name3

Description

x 03373\03373_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

03373\03373_Completeness_Checklist.xls Draft Questions for Follow Up

x 03373\03373_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 03373\03373_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 03373\03373_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 03373\03373_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 03373\03373_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

03373\Supporting Documents\Midwest Generation ICR Cover Letter.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 03373\Supporting Documents\MWG-Waukegan - Aerial Plan - 100410.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 03373\Supporting Documents\MWG-Waukegan-Block Diagram#1-101210.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 03373\Supporting Documents\MWG-Waukegan-Water Balance-101210.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket. 

3

 No hardcopy log is included for this plant as no hardcopy materials were received.
Exhibit 99.2

                    GE GLOBAL INSURANCE HOLDING CORPORATION
                                AND SUBSIDIARIES


                           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  GE  Global  Insurance  Holding
Corporation  (the  "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period  ending  September 28,
2002 as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof
(the  "Report"),  I, Marc A. Meiches,  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:

     (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  result of operations of
         the Company.


October 29, 2002



  /s/ Marc A. Meiches
--------------------------
Marc A. Meiches
Chief Financial Officer



                                       21
#### Nancy P. ROCHON, as Executrix of the Estate of Andrew Rochon, deceased, and Nancy P. Rochon, individually as surviving spouse, Appellant, v. Orpha Gay MARTIN, as Executrix of the Estate of Eldorous Earl Martin, deceased, and Orpha Gay Martin, Appellee.

No. 68-700.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

May 22, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 17-1948

___________________________

Edward Thurman

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Queen, Sergeant, NCU; Downing, Lieutenant, NCU; Spurlock, Sergeant, NCU;

Stephen Williams, Warden, NCU; Billy Inman, Deputy Warden, NCU; Keith Day,

Building Mayor; Dexter Payne, Deputy Director, ADC; Barbara Williams, Inmate

Grievance Supervisor, ADC; John Doe, Corporal, NCU

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Batesville

____________

 Submitted: December 21, 2017

Filed: January 5, 2018

[Unpublished]

____________

Before GRUENDER, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.
In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Arkansas Department of Correction inmate

Edward Thurman appeals after the district court adversely disposed of all of his

1

claims, including dismissing some of his claims without prejudice for failure to

exhaust administrative remedies. Also before the panel are Thurman’s motions for

appointment of counsel and for admission and production of documents. 

After careful review, we conclude that the district court appropriately disposed

of Thurman’s claims. See, e.g., King v. Iowa Dep’t of Corr., 598 F.3d 1051, 1052

(8th Cir. 2010) (reviewing de novo dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative

remedies). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny Thurman’s

pending motions as moot.

______________________________

The Honorable D. P. Marshall Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern 1

District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations ofthe HonorableBeth

Deere, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

-2-
MEMORANDUM 

DATE: 1/8/2015

TO: CSAPR Update Proposal Meeting; Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR–2015-0500

FROM: Jeremy Mark, EPA

SUBJECT: CSAPR Update Proposal 

SUMMARY

A phone call was held between EPA and the below attendees on 1/8/2015 to discuss the 

CSAPR Update Proposal. The proposed CSAPR Updated Proposal was proposed on December 

3, 2015.

ATTENDEES

Jeremy Mark, EPA

Randy Strait, North Carolina DEQ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1997
<CASH>                                         112,948
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,723,710
<ALLOWANCES>                                   130,000
<INVENTORY>                                  8,737,149
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            13,467,923
<PP&E>                                      13,080,881
<DEPRECIATION>                               8,858,705
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              18,118,398
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,768,483
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        53,038
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,648,141
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                18,118,398
<SALES>                                      7,792,006
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,792,006
<CGS>                                        6,702,763
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,702,763
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (30,806)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               130,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             112,799
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (264,512)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (82,261)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (182,251)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (182,251)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.03)
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 706 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 706

           Raising a question of the privileges of the House.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 31, 2014

    Mr. Jones (for himself and Mr. Massie) submitted the following 
        resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
           Raising a question of the privileges of the House.

Whereas H.R. 1123, the Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act, 
        was introduced on March 13, 2013;
Whereas the Committee on the Judiciary marked up and ordered the bill reported, 
        with strong bipartisan support, on July 31, 2013;
Whereas the suspension version of the bill included new language to prohibit the 
        bulk unlocking of cellular phones;
Whereas the changes made to the bill fundamentally altered the substance of the 
        underlying bill;
Whereas the report of the Committee on the Judiciary on the bill was filed in 
        the House on February 25, 2014; and
Whereas the bill was passed under suspension of the rules on the night of 
        February 25, 2014: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives disapproves of the 
actions taken by the Committee on the Judiciary and the leadership of 
the House of Representatives with respect to H.R. 1123 and directs the 
leadership of each committee of the House and the leadership of the 
House to operate in a matter that maximizes transparency and public 
trust.
                                 <all>
```
#### In re TRUST Under Will of Jeannette E. KISKER, Deceased.

No. 69-490.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 4, 1970.

John T. Carlon, Jr., Coker & Carlon, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant, John T. Carlon, Jr., Guardian Ad Litem for Erik Vinson Kisker, a minor, and for the unborn lineal descendants of Erik Vinson Kisker, as contingent remaindermen.

Burl F. George, McCune, Hiaasen, Crum & Ferris, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee Burl F. George, as Guardian Ad Litem for all of the children living and yet unborn of Jerry Wilder Kisker (except Erik Vinson Kisker), as beneficiaries, and their unborn lineal descendants, as contingent remain-dermen.

PER CURIAM.

We have thoroughly reviewed the point presented for our review by the appellant’s brief and the pertinent portions of the record. On the basis thereof we are of the opinion that no error has been demonstrated by the appellant. The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.

REED, J., and COOPER, RICHARD H., Associate Judge, concur.

WALDEN, J., dissents with opinion.

WALDEN, Judge

(dissenting) :

It is my view that the will was unambiguous and that by its provisos the trust in question vested at the death of the testator in the grandchildren then in being.

I would reverse.
#### The LANTERN, INC., a Florida corporation, and Keith Roberts, Appellants, v. Mary L. CARVER, Administratrix of the Estate of Farris A. Carver and Mary L. Carver, Appellee.

No. 73-763.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 10, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Evergreen Solar, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mark A. Farber,
Chief Executive 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.

/s/ Richard M. Feldt
----------------------------
Richard M. Feldt
Chief Executive Officer
May 12, 2004


                                       28
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1999
<CASH>                                          26,678
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               21,714,128
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 17,947,852
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            40,366,193
<PP&E>                                       8,491,563
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,646,504
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              47,571,071
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       38,958,777
<BONDS>                                      3,924,986
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,562,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,125,308
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                47,571,071
<SALES>                                     41,142,357
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            41,783,865
<CGS>                                       38,461,914
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               38,461,914
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,019,105
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              99,721
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                272,455
<INCOME-TAX>                                   107,371
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            165,084
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   165,084
<EPS-BASIC>                                     136.32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   136.32


</TABLE>
#### Vernel GOLAR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-218.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Sept. 24, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 22, 1969.

Robert E. Jagger, Public Defender, and Edwin I. Ford, Asst. Public Defender, Clearwater, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and William D. Roth, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, defendant in the trial court, was informed against and charged with the crime of breaking and entering a building other than a dwelling house with intent to commit a misdemeanor. He was tried along with a codefendant and found guilty by a jury. Following the conviction and sentence defendant appeals.

Appellant urges this court to reverse the verdict of the jury and the sentence of the court for the reason that the trial judge failed to give the specific requested instruction concerning circumstantial evidence. The record reveals that the trial judge gave the following instruction, which we believe is sufficient:

> “[Cjircumstantial evidence is legal evidence. A well-connected chain of circumstances is as conclusive of a fact as positive evidence. Its value is dependent upon its conclusive nature and tendency. When circumstances are relied upon to establish the guilt of a defendant in a criminal case or to estab*825lish any indispensable element of the offense, they must not only be so conclusive as to prove such element and the defendant’s guilt beyond every reasonable doubt, but they must be inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. If they are susceptible of two equally reasonable constructions, one indicating guilt and the other innocence, you must accept that construction indicating innocence.”

This instruction was taken from the 1967 Florida Judicial Seminar on Criminal Instruction and is sufficient to adequately inform the jury in their consideration of circumstantial evidence.

No error having been made to appear, the judgment is affirmed.

HOBSON, C. J., and LILES and Mc-NULTY, JJ., concur.
#### Donna W. MAGERS v. James L. MAGERS, Jr.

No. 49522.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Aug. 24, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 21, 1977.

Harris H. Barnes, III, Gulfport, for appellant.

Greaves & Terry, Ben E. Sheely, Gulf-port, for appellee.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Harrison County; Prank W. Alexander, Chancellor.

Before SMITH, P. J., and SUGG and BROOM, JJ.

AFFIRMED AS TO DISMISSAL OF CONTEMPT CHARGES; CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS OF $100 PER MONTH ARE REINSTATED; AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.

PATTERSON, C. J., INZER, P. J., and ROBERTSON, WALKER, LEE and BOWLING, JJ., concur.