alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Sidney Schwartz, Plaintiff, *v.*David J. Greene et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Trial Term, New York County,

February 18, 1959.

*538
      *Louis C. Fieland*for plaintiff.

*Pomerantz, Levy & Haudeh (Abraham L. Pomerantz*of counsel), for David J. Greene, defendant.

*William F. Whitman*for List Industries, Inc., defendant.

Samuel M. Gold, J.

Motion by defendant to restore this action to the calendar. This is a stockholder’s derivative action. The note of issue was filed for the December 1958 Term by the moving defendant on November 17, 1958. The action appeared for the first time on the Reserve Calendar of January 19, 1959, and was marked off for the failure of both sides to answer the call. The defendant’s attorney states his office overlooked the publication of the Reserve Calendar and thus failed to answer the call. Plaintiff opposes the restoration and asserts the examination before trial of the defendants is not complete and he cannot proceed without the production of certain documents and further that it may become necessary to bring in some additional defendants. He admits that a motion should have been made to strike this cause from the calendar within 20 days after the note of issue was filed, but claims that through inadvertence and the pressure of other matters, the motion was not made in the time specified in the rule. The papers reveal that the plaintiff has. had more than one year to move for the production of the documents in question and to decide whether to serve process on additional defendants. Moreover, a party may not, in the absence of special circumstances, examine his opponent if he accepts a note of issue without moving to strike it *(Price*v. *Brody,*7 A D 2d 204). Inadvertence and the pressure of other matters do not constitute special circumstances. The motion is granted and the cause is restored and placed upon the Equity Day Calendar for March 10, 1959.
#### ORMOND COUNTRY CLUB v. DORVIN DEVELOPMENTS, INC., and Edwin C. Dorvin, Jr.

No. 86-C-2444.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 23, 1987.

In re Ormond Country Club; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the *424Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 86 CA 314; Parish of St. Charles, 29th Judicial District Court, Div. “C”, No. 29529.

Prior report: La.App., 498 So.2d 144.

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 quarterly report of QC Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q
for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Don Early, Chairman of the Board and 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:



| | (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: August 8, 2006



/s/ Don EarlyDon EarlyChairman of the Board andChief Executive Officer




Page 39
#### Michael MACK, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. 0-80-407.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Dec. 7, 1982.

ORDER

NOW on this 7th day of December, 1982, this Court having considered the order entered by the Supreme Court of the United States in *Mack v.*Oklahoma,-U.S.-, 103 S.Ct. 201, 74 L.Ed.2d 161, vacating and remanding, 641 P.2d 1122 (Okl.Cr.1982), said case to this Court for further consideration in light of *United States v. Johnson,*-U.S.-, 102 S.Ct. 2579, 73 L.Ed.2d 202 (1982), it is the order of this Court that the judgment and sentence entered in the District Court of Tulsa County, Case No. CRF-79-1749, is hereby VACATED and the said case is REVERSED and REMANDED for a new trial.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

WITNESS OUR HANDS AND THE SEAL OF THIS COURT this 7th day of December, 1982.

TOM BRETT, P.J.

HEZ J. BUSSEY, J.

TOM R. CORNISH, J.
#### STATE ex rel. Earl J. AUGUSTINE v. RECORDS CUSTODIAN FOR the NEW ORLEANS POLICE DEPARTMENT.

No. 87-KH-0962.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 15, 1987.

In re Augustine, Earl J.; applying for writ of mandamus; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “D”, No. 207-450; Criminal District Court, Div. “G”, No. 253904.

Denied. Relator should file a petition for a writ of mandamus in accordance with 44:35.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 208 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.Con.Res.208
                                        Agreed to August 3, 2001        

                      One Hundred Seventh Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
             the third day of January, two thousand and one

                          Concurrent Resolution

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That when the House adjourns on the legislative day of Thursday, August 
2, 2001, or Friday, August 3, 2001, on a motion offered pursuant to 
this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it 
stand adjourned until 2 p.m. on Wednesday, September 5, 2001, or until 
noon on the second day after Members are notified to reassemble 
pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs 
first; and that when the Senate recesses or adjourns at the close of 
business on any day from Thursday, August 2, 2001 through Saturday, 
August 4, 2001, or from Monday, August 6, 2001, through Saturday, 
August 11, 2001, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent 
resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand recessed or 
adjourned until noon on Tuesday, September 4, 2001, or until such time 
on that day as may be specified by its Majority Leader or his designee 
in the motion to recess or adjourn, or until noon on the second day 
after Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this 
concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first.
    Sec. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the 
Senate, acting jointly after consultation with the Minority Leader of 
the House and the Minority Leader of the Senate, shall notify the 
Members of the House and the Senate, respectively, to reassemble 
whenever, in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.
  Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.

  Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.
```
#### Jessie Thomas STEWART, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. F-80-831.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Nov. 30, 1982.

Donald W. Beauchamp, Lawton, for appellant.

Jan Eric Cartwright, Atty. Gen., Susan Talbot, Asst. Atty. Gen., Chief, Appellate Criminal Div., Oklahoma City, for appellee.

*1077MEMORANDUM OPINION

BUSSEY, Judge:

On appeal from his conviction in Comanche County District Court, Case No. CRF-79-424, for Robbery with Firearms, the appellant Jessie Thomas Stewart, raises two (2) assignments of error.

First, Stewart argues that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain the verdict of the jury. At trial, three (3) witnesses positively identified the appellant as one of the men who participated in the armed robbery of a gas station; the appellant was not seen to wield a weapon but was observed outside the station keeping people from entering the office. In addition a confession signed by the appellant conceding his participation in the crime was admitted into evidence.

The law regarding the sufficiency of evidence necessary to sustain a conviction in a criminal case has been clearly stated on numerous occasions by this Court. The test is whether a prima facie case has been established by the State. As long as that test is satisfied, fact questions are for the jury to determine and resolve. *Renfro v. State,*607 P.2d 703 (Okl.Cr.1980); *Hunt*v. *State,*601 P.2d 464 (Okl.Cr.1979). Upon review of the evidence in determining whether the State has established a prima facie case, this Court will view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State. *Renfro,*supra. This Court will not interfere with a jury’s verdict where there is competent evidence in the record from which that jury could reasonably find a defendant guilty as charged, *Renfro,*supra. In the case at bar, we find there was ample evidence to support the verdict of the jury. See also, 21 O.S.1981, § 172.

In his second and final assignment of error, the appellant complains that his punishment is excessive. After a careful review of the record in this case, we are unable to say that the sentence imposed shocks the conscience of this Court; consequently, we find that this assignment of error is also without merit. *Tinker v. State,*586 P.2d 74 (Okl.Cr.1978).

For the above and foregoing reasons, the judgment and sentence is AFFIRMED.

BRETT, P.J., and CORNISH, J., concur.
**Exhibit 15**

 

August 10,2009

 

GFI Group Inc.

55 Water Street

New York, NY 10041

 

We have reviewed, in accordance with the standards of the Public CompanyAccounting Oversight Board (United States), the unaudited interim financialinformation of GFIGroup Inc. and subsidiaries for theperiods ended June 30, 2009, and 2008, as indicated in our report dated August 10,2009; because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on thatinformation.

 

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in yourQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009, isincorporated by reference in Registration Statements No. 333-122905, No. 333-152027and No. 333-160344 on Form S-8.

 

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) underthe Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the RegistrationStatement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared orcertified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.

 

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

New York, New York

 

1

----
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DANIEL MASTERSON; BIJOU MASTERSON,

Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

v.

BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORP., formerly known as THE BANK OF NEW YORK AS TRUSTEE FOR CWALT, INC.,
ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2007

- 19,
MORTGAGE PASS THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007

- 19; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 16

- 55277

D.C. No. 2:14

- cv

- 0 8741

- DDP

- AJW

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California Dean D. Pregerson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 8, 2017 **

Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Daniel Masterson and Bijou Masterson appeal pro se from the district

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. A pp. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAY 17 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K
U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 55277

court’s judgment dismissing their action allegi ng federal and state law claims. We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We have an independent duty to

determine whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction

. Wash. Envtl.

Council v. Bellon , 732 F.3d 1131, 1139 (9th Cir. 2013)

. We may affirm on any

basis supported by the record. Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys.

, LP , 534 F.3d

1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand

.

Dismissal of the Mastersons’ action was proper because the district court

lacked subject matter jurisdiction

, as the Mastersons failed to allege an injury in

fact to establish Article III standing. See Friends of the Earth , Inc. v. Laidlaw

Envtl. Servs. (TOC) Inc. , 528 U.S. 167, 180

- 81 (2000) (the alleged injury must be

“actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical” to establish Article III

standing ); Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife , 504 U.S. 555, 560

- 61 (1992) (elements

of Article II I standing)

. Because a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

should be without prejudice, s ee Kelly v. Fleetwood Enters., Inc. , 377 F.3d 1034,

1036 (9th Cir. 2004 ), we vacate the judgment in part and remand for the district

court to dismiss the Mastersons’ action without prejudice.

The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED

.
**
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**RULES 13a-14(a) AND 15d-14(a) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGEACT OF 1934,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Eric Rogoff, Chief Executive Officer of Onex Falcon Direct Lending BDC Fund, certify that: 

 
 1.
I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Onex Falcon DirectLending BDC Fund (the “registrant”); 

 
 2.
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 
 3.
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 
 4.
The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 
 (a)
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared; 

 
 (b)
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport 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; and 

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

 
 5.
The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of trustees (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

 
 (a)
All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 
 (b)
Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role inthe registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Dated: March 31, 2022 

 
By: 
/s/ Eric Rogoff
 Eric Rogoff Chief Executive Officer**
EXHIBIT 10.22

Bob MacDonald                                                     August 3, 2005
Ovation Products Corporation
395 Dunstable Road
Nashua, New Hampshire 03062

RE: STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT

Dear Bob:

      Reference is made to that certain Purchase Agreement by and between
GreenShift Corporation ("GreenShift) and Ovation Products ("Ovation) dated
August 3, 2005 and related documents (collectively, the Transaction Documents).
This letter shall confirm our subsequent agreement relative to the timing of
GreenShift's payment of the investment funds due to Ovation under such
agreement.

      The parties hereby agree that GreenShift shall pay the total purchase
price due under the Transaction Documents to Ovation in four equal installments
of $250,000 on August 30, 2005, September 30, 2005, October 31, 2005 and
November 30, 2005.

      The parties also hereby agree that Ovation shall, upon its receipt of the
first of the above payments, appoint GreenShift's chairman, Kevin Kreisler, to
Ovations board of directors.

      Your signature below shall indicate your agreement with the above
conditions. Thank you and we look forward to working with you.



                                    Best Regards,

                                    G R E E N S H I F T   C O R P O R A T I O N

                                    By: /s/ Kevin Kreisler
                                        ------------------
                                    Kevin Kreisler
                                    Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Agreed and Accepted to by:

OVATION PRODUCTS

By: /s/ Bob MacDonald
    -----------------
Bob MacDonald
Chief Executive Officer
[No. 14689-8-III.

Division Three.

June 6, 1996.]

#### James H. Cummins, et al., *as Personal Representatives, Appellants,*v. The State of Washington, et al., *Respondents.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Benton County, No. 91-2-01002-9, Carolyn A. Brown, J., entered January 13, 1995. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Thompson, J., concurred in by Schultheis, A.C.J., and Munson, J.
[No. 18455-9-II.

Division Two.

July 12, 1996.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Joseph Guy Yaconetti, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 93-1-04307-6, Karen L. Strombom, J., entered June 14, 1994. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Morgan, J., concurred in by Seinfeld, C.J., and Bridgewa-ter, J.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk July 25, 2011

y0718 

# Order

July 25, 2011

142530 & (20)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 142530 COA: 297804 Wayne CC: 93-005642-FH ARDENDOYLE ARMY, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e motion for stay is DENIED. The applica tion for leave to appeal the December 28, 2010 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the de fendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
CERTIFICATION

      I, Richard M. Cohen, certify that:

      1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Baseline Oil &
Gas Corp.;

      2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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
quarterly report;

      3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

      4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

            a) designed such disclosure and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

            b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

            c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

      5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent function):

            a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

            b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
controls.

<PAGE>

      6. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.


Date: May 15, 2006                              /s/ Richard M. Cohen
                                                ------------------------------
                                                Name:  Richard M. Cohen
                                                Title: Chief Financial Officer