alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Richard CHAPMAN and Connie Bryant, Individually and on Behalf of Her Minor Children, Derrick P. Bryant and Alvin Hennegan v. STATE of Louisiana, Through the DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT, XYZ Suger Cane Trucking Company and Allstate Insurance Company.

No. 87-C-2681.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 8, 1988.

In re Chapman, Richard; Bryant, Connie; Hennegan, Alvin; applying for writ of cer-tiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. CA86 1216; Parish of Lafourche, 17th Judicial District Court, Div. “D”, No. 56313.

Prior report: La.App., 517 So.2d 331.

Denied.
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 Annual Report of MC Shipping Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report):
 
 
 I, Mauro Terrevazzi, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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.
 
 
 March 19, 2004
 
 
 
 Mauro TerrevazziChief Executive Officer
#### STATE ex rel. Loren Kent FOUTZ v. CLERK OF COURT, CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF CALCASIEU.

No. 87-KH-0953.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 15, 1987.

In re Foutz, Loren Kent; applying for writ of mandamus; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KW87-0268; Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court, Div. “G”, No. 14471-84.

Granted. Remanded to Court of Appeal with instruction to order furnishing of Boy-kin transcript in accordance with long standing policy of this Court.
III

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 82

Condemning the assassination of Fernando Buesa and Jorge Diez Elorza,

Spanish nationals, by the Basque separatist group ETA, and expressing

the sense of the Congress that all violent actions by ETA cease.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 24, 2000

Mr. DODD submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred

to the Committee on Foreign Relations

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Condemning the assassination of Fernando Buesa and Jorge

Diez Elorza, Spanish nationals, by the Basque separatist

group ETA, and expressing the sense of the Congress

that all violent actions by ETA cease.

Whereas on February 22, 2000, the Basque terrorist group

ETA killed Fernando Buesa, the leader of the Basque

Socialist Party, and Jorge Diez Elorza, a member of his

escort, in a cowardly bomb attack;

Whereas this heinous crime displays absolute contempt for

human rights and the right to life by those individuals

who practice terrorism and threaten freedom, peace, liberty, and the peaceful coexistence of the Basque people

and the people of Spain; and
2

•SCON 82 IS

Whereas Spain is a democracy where the rule of law is enforced and terrorist acts are not tolerated: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That Congress—

3 (1) strongly condemns and denounces those re4 sponsible for the cowardly bombing that killed Fer5 nando Buesa and Jorge Diez Elorza;

6 (2) strongly shares the determination of the

7 Spanish people that the perpetrators of this vile act

8 will be brought swiftly to justice so that Spain may

9 demonstrate its opposition to acts of terror;

10 (3) calls again on ETA and those responsible

11 for this act to renounce violence and terrorism which

12 have taken so many lives; and

13 (4) continues to cherish the strong friendship

14 between Spain and the United States.

Æ
## In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 18

- 00080

- CR

JUDDSON MALONEY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 8th District Court

Hopkins County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1524589

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley2 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION

On April 10, 2018, Juddson Maloney was adjudicated guilty of the offense of indecency

with a child by sexual contact and was sentenced to thirteen years’ incarceration. On May 9, 2018,

Maloney timely filed his notice of appeal from the April 10 judgment. The trial court’s

certification of def

endant’s right of appeal, however, indicates that Maloney has waived his right

of appeal. Th at certification is supported by an express, written waiver of Maloney’s right of

appeal.

Pursuant to Rule 25.2(d) of the Texas Rule s of Appellate Procedure, th is Court must

dismiss an appeal if, as in this case, the trial court ’ s certification indicates that there is no right of

appeal or that the right of appe al has been waived. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 25.2(d).

By letter dated June 13 , 201 8, we notified Maloney o f this potential defect in our

jurisdiction and afforded him the opportunity to respond. Maloney did not respond to our

jurisdictional defect letter.

Because t he trial court certified that Maloney has no right of appeal due to waiver, and

because that ce rtification is supported by Maloney’s express, written waiver of his right of appeal,

Maloney has no right of appeal.

Consequently, we dismiss th e appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Bailey C. Moseley

Justice

Date Submitted: July 5

, 2018

Date Decided: July 6 , 2018

Do Not Publish
#### In the Matter of William Shames, Petitioner, against Town Board of the Town of Oyster Bay, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Nassau County,

October 27, 1958.

*529
      *Daniel 8. Lerner*for petitioner.

*Michael J. Sullivan*for respondent.

Marcus Gr. Christ, J.

In a proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, the respondent Town Board of the Town of Oyster Bay moves to dismiss the petition pursuant to section 1293 of the Civil Practice Act.

The petitioner alleges that as a resident of Woodbury, Town of Oyster Bay, New York, he appeared on August 13, 1958 at a hearing called by the respondent pursuant to section 348 of the Village Law to consider the annexation of certain territory to the Village of Mnttontown, that he objected to the petition on certain grounds (§ 348, subd. 2, pars, b, c, d), that by his attorney he requested an adjournment of 10 days to determine the assessed valuation of the area involved but the request was denied.

It is contended that (1) the refusal to grant an adjournment was arbitrary and unreasonable and (2) it was incumbent upon the respondent to investigate the facts raised by the objections.

The petition is insufficient. The respondent pursuant to section 348 is required to have a hearing from 10 to 20 days after the posting of notices to that effect. At the hearing, objections to the verified petition — in which the signers swear that they are a majority of the persons residing in the affected area, or are the owners of a majority in value of the property therein — are considered and testimony may be taken. The section permits but does not require the respondent to adjourn the hearing. The purpose of requiring a period of 10 days to elapse between the posting of the notices and the hearing is to enable objectants some time to obtain factual evidence to support the objections specified in section 348. Absent facts to support the request for an adjournment (1) at the hearing or (2) in the petition, it must be held that the petition herein is insufficient.

The Town Board in an annexation proceeding pursuant to section 348 “ performs the ministerial function of determining whether the petition complies with the statute ” *(Matter of Wright*v. *Ransom,*307 N. Y. 317, 321). In the absence of proof to contradict the averments of the verified petition ‘ ‘ the board had no alternative but to grant the requested annexation ” *(Matter of Wright*v. *Ransom, supra,*p. 321).

Motion to dismiss the petition granted.
Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**I, Todd F. Etter, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of United Development Funding III, L.P.; 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 suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b) Intentionally omitted;  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of our annual report)that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. 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 oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.     Dated this 29th day of June, 2006.      /s/ Todd F. Etter Todd F. Etter, Chairman of UMT Services,Inc., general partner of UMTH LandDevelopment, L.P., general partner of theRegistrant
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

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

         This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and accompanies the second amendment to annual report
on Form 10-KSB (the "Form 10-KSB/A") for the year ended September 30, 2002 of
Probex Corp. (the "Issuer"). The undersigned hereby certifies that, to the best
of my knowledge, the Form 10-KSB/A fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
78m or 78(o)(d)) and that the information contained in the Form 10-KSB/A fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Issuer.

Dated:   April 17, 2003

By:      /s/ Bruce A. Hall
         -----------------
Name:    Bruce A.  Hall
Title:   Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
**Exhibit 13.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OR EQUIVALENTPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002(SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350,CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 UNITED STATES CODE)**

 

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of DRAXIS Health Inc., a corporation incorporated under the laws of Canada (the “Company”), hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

The Annual Report of Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the “Report”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|    Dated: March 31, 2005 |                    |
|-----------------------------------------|-------------------------|
|                                    | /s/ Mark Oleksiw        |
|                                    | Mark Oleksiw            |
|                                    | Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as separate disclosure document.

 

----
**EXHIBIT32.2**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K ofMain Street Restaurant Group, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended December27, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, Michael Garnreiter, Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)               TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or78o(d)); and

 

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

 

 
| /s/ Michael Garnreiter  |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Michael Garnreiter      |
| Chief Financial Officer |
|                    |
| Date: March 8, 2005     |

 

----
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORTPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

The undersigned officer of WII Components, Inc.(the “Company”) hereby certifies that the Company’s quarterly report onForm 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2006 to which thiscertification is being furnished as an exhibit (the “Report”), as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and that the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company. Thiscertification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 andItem 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K (“Item 601(b)(32)”) promulgated underthe Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), and the ExchangeAct. In accordance with clause (ii) of Item 601(b)(32), this certification(A) shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of theExchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section, and(B) shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filingunder the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that theCompany specifically incorporates it by reference.

 
| **Date: May 9, 2006** |                                           |
|-----------------------|------------------------------------------------|
|                  | /s/ Dale B. Herbst                             |   |
|                  | Name: Dale B. Herbst                           |
|                  | Title: Vice President, Treasurer and Secretary |

 

1

----
#### David M. GOLDSTEIN, Appellant, v. Allan LEVINE and Level Medical Centers, Inc., Appellees.

No. 86-2064.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 6, 1987.

*739Marlow, Shofi, Connell, DeMahy, Valeri-us, Abrams, Lowe & Adler and Joseph H. Lowe, Miami, for appellant.

Horton, Perse & Ginsberg, Broad and Cassel, Miami, for appellees.

Before BARKDULL, NESBITT and BASKIN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Goldstein seeks review of an adverse summary judgment deciding the issue of his liability for legal malpractice. Appellees concede error, and we agree that the trial court erred in entering a summary judgment without first resolving the issue of proximate causation. *See Weiner v. Moreno,*271 So.2d 217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973).

We therefore reverse and remand this case to the trial court to determine whether questions of law or fact exist as to proximate cause.

Reversed and remanded.
No. 76-81.

#### Winters *v.*Commissioner, New York State Department of Social Services, et al.

Appeal from App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept., dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.
#### Robert L. McElroy, Respondent, *v.*Albert Goldstein, Appellant.

*McElroy*v. *Goldstein,*160 App. Div. 887, affirmed.

(Submitted March 14, 1916;

decided April 11, 1916.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered January 6, 1914, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict directed by the court in an action to recover upon a promissory note. The defense alleged a conditional delivery and a failure of consideration.

*Isidore Siegeltuch*for appellant.

*Martin Conboy, Philip S. Hill*and *Charles G. Signor*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Willard Bartlett, Ch. J., Hiscook, Chase, Collin, Hogan, Oardozo and Seabury, JJ.
**Exhibit 31.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**





I,
      John
      B. Rush, certify that:





1.  I
      have
      reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K of North
      American Scientific, Inc.;





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.








Date:
      February 28, 2008




/s/JOHN
                B. RUSHJohn
                B. Rush
                *President
                  and Chief Executive Officer*
#### STATE of Louisiana v. David Jerome ROBINS.

No. 86-KO-1766.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 5, 1986.

In re Robins, David Jerome; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 85-KA-0751; Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court, Div. “M”, No. 7-84-422.

Prior report: La.App., 499 So.2d 94.

Denied.
#### Enrique CLAUDIO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 86-2355.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 11, 1988.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Howard Landau, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Ivy Ginsberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before BARKDULL, DANIEL S. PEARSON and JORGENSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See and compare Minnis v. State,*505 So.2d 17 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).
#### In the Matter of the Judicial Inquiry Pursuant to the Order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Judicial Department (“ Anonymous N ”).

Supreme Court, Additional Special Term, Kings County,

December 1, 1958.

*Smith <& Reiher (Robert Callahan*of counsel), for petitioner.

*Denis M. Hurley*and *A. Paul Goldblum*for Judicial Inquiry.

George A. Arkwright, J.

Petitioner, who is a doctor of medicine, moves to vacate an oral direction requiring him to produce his physician’s records concerning certain designated persons. The basis of the motion is that the production of such records would disclose confidential information relating to the diagnoses, care and treatment of such persons as patients of the petitioner.

This objection is premature at this junction of the testimony. Although section 352 of the Civil Practice Act prohibits the disclosure of ‘ ‘ any information which he acquired in attending a patient in a professional capacity, and which was necessary to enable him to act in that capacity ’ ’, there is nothing before the court showing what the records contain, or indeed that they contain any privileged information. The petitioner has not been directed to disclose any confidential communication with his patients. The records may contain dates, the fees charged, payments, the names of payors, or other matter not privileged, which may serve to refresh the witness ’ recollection.

In addition, should it become necessary to interrogate petitioner on privileged portions of the record, it may also become necessary to determine the question of the possible waiver of the privilege.

The motion is denied. [See, also, 5 A D 2d 872; 6 A D 2d 723, 724, 725; 14 Misc 2d 863.]
Exhibit 32.2

# Section 1350
Certification

In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Bremer Financial Corporation (the
Company) for the period ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 22, 2006 (the Periodic Report), I, Robert B.
Buck, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby 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 Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
          Company.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Date: March 22, 2006 | /s/ Robert B. Buck                                                 
|-------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------
|                     | Robert B. Buck
Chief Financial Officer
Bremer Financial Corporation

---