alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### CITY OF SOUTH SALT LAKE, a municipal corporation, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Debbie L. HANNA, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 17081.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Sept. 1, 1981.

W. Andrew McCullough, Orem, for defendant and appellant.

Clint Balmforth, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and respondent.

STEWART, Justice:

Defendant Debbie L. Hanna appeals from her conviction, after a jury trial, of a violation of § 3B-8-5(3) of the Revised Ordinances of South Salt Lake. That provision states, “[i]t shall be unlawful for a masseur to touch or offer to touch or massage the genitalia of customers.”

Defendant attacks her conviction on the grounds that the ordinance is invalid because it (1) exceeds the authority delegated to cities by state statutes; (2) is unconstitutional as violative of Art. I, § 24 of the Utah Constitution; (3) denies equal protection of the law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Art. I, § 2 of the Utah Constitution; and (4) is unconstitutionally void for vagueness.

*473Defendant’s first argument was rejected as to a similar Salt Lake County ordinance in *Redwood Gym v. Salt Lake County Commission,*Utah, 624 P.2d 1138 (1981), and as to the same ordinance in the companion ease of *Hollingsworth v. City of South Salt Lake,*Utah, 624 P.2d 1149 (1981). Those cases are dispositive.

Defendant’s contention that the ordinance in question contravenes Art. I, § 24 of the Utah Constitution requiring uniform operation of general laws is also without merit. In *State*v. *Hutchinson,*Utah, 624 P.2d 1116 at 1127 (1980), the Court held that Art. I, § 24, required uniformity of laws within the jurisdiction in which they operate. The ordinance at issue operates uniformly throughout the jurisdiction of the City of South Salt Lake and therefore does not violate Art. I, § 24.

Defendant’s equal protection argument was also fully addressed and rejected in the *Redwood Gym*and *Hollingsworth*cases. Those cases held that the ordinance in question creates no suspect classification, touches no fundamental interest recognized by the State or Federal Constitutions, and has a rational basis in a legitimate legislative objective. Art. I, § 2 of the Utah Constitution adds no merit to defendant’s contention.

Finally, defendant maintains that the ordinance is void for vagueness. This argument was considered and rejected in *Hollingsworth v. City of South. Salt Lake, supra.*

Affirmed.

HALL, C. J., and HOWE and OAKS, JJ., concur.

MAUGHAN, J., heard the arguments but died before the opinion was filed.
----

| 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 as of the dates and for the periods covered by the report. |
|----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/ Robert J. Halloran, Jr.                      |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Robert J. Halloran, Jr.                          |   |
|   | President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |   |
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14(a) AND 15d-14(a),

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

I, Glenn R. Cole, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of NightHawk Radiology Holdings, 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;

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 maintaining disclosure 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 be designed 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 is being prepared;

b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in 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; and

c. Disclosed in this report any change in the
registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred 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 internal control over financial reporting; and

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

a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal
control over financial 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 in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting.

Date: November 5, 2007



/s/ GLENN R. COLEGlenn R. Cole Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial
Officer)
H. Con. Res. 325 Agreed to February 13, 2002

One Hundred Seventh Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the twenty-third day of January, two thousand and two

Concurrent Resolution

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That the Rotunda of the Capitol is authorized to be used

on April 9, 2002, for a ceremony as part of the commemoration

of the days of remembrance of victims of the Holocaust. Physical

preparations for the ceremony shall be carried out in accordance

with such conditions as the Architect of the Capitol may prescribe.

Attest:

Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Attest:

Secretary of the Senate.
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Lease Equity Appreciation Fund II, L.P. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Crit S. DeMent, 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.


|August
    15, 2005 | /s/ Crit
    S. DeMent     
|------------------- | ---------------------------
|                    |                            
|                    | Crit S.
    DeMent         
|                    | Chief Executive
    Officer

---
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 4.13

                CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT TO CERTIFICATE OF TRUST
                                       OF
                            CNA FINANCIAL CAPITAL III

1.)      The name of the statutory trust (the "Trust") is:

                            CNA Financial Capital III

2.)      Article 2 of the Certificate of Trust of the Trust is hereby amended to
         read in its entirety as follows:

         2. Delaware Trustee. The name and business address of the trustee of
the Trust with a principal place of business in the State of Delaware are Chase
Bank USA, National Association, Attn: Worldwide Securities Services, 500 Stanton
Christiana Road, 3/Ops 4, Newark, Delaware 19713.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate of
Amendment to Certificate of Trust of the Trust this 11th day of August, 2005.



                                                        CHASE BANK USA, NATIONAL
                                                        ASSOCIATION, not in its
                                                        individual capacity but
                                                        solely as Trustee


                                                    By: /s/ John J. Cashin
                                                        ------------------------
                                                        Name:  John J. Cashin
                                                        Title:  Vice President
**Exhibit 31.1**

**Certification**

I, Michael Gooch, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qof GFI Group Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich 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 in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)               designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation 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)              evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

c)               disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s first fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):

a)               all significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

b)              anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
| Date: May 15, 2006    |
|----------------------------|
| /s/ MICHAEL GOOCH          |   |
| Michael Gooch              |
| *Chairman  of the Board,*  |
| *Chief  Executive Officer* |

 

1

----
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-11325

Conference Calendar

 

JAMES BRIAN REED,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

STATE OF TEXAS; 352ND DISTRICT

COURT; BONNIE SUDDERETH,

Defendants-Appellees.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:01-CV-661-Y

--------------------

February 21, 2002

Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

James Brian Reed appeals the district court’s order

dismissing as frivolous his pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit. He

has failed to brief any of the district court’s bases for

dismissal. Pro se litigants must comply with the requirements of

FED. R. APP. P. 28 that the appellant’s argument contain the

reasons he deserves the requested relief with citation to

authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant

relies. Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995). As
No. 01-11325

-2-

Reed’s brief does not satisfy the briefing requirements under

FED. R. APP. P. 28 and fails to identify any district court error,

it is frivolous and is DISMISSED. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d

215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

APPEAL DISMISSED.
#### Laura Thomas, Plaintiff in Error, v. The Yellow River Railroad Company, Defendant in Error.

Division A.

Writ of Error to Circuit Court, Santa Rosa county;. Charles B. Parkhill, Judge.

*D. L.*McKinnon, for Plaintiff in Error.

*W. A. Blount,*for Defendant in Error.

Per Curiam.

This action was brought by the plaintiff in error against the defendant in error. There was judgment for the defendant and the plaintiff takes writ of error. The judgment is affirmed.

Decision
107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 469

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Authorizing the Rotunda of the Capitol to be used

on September 19, 2002, for a ceremony topresent the Congressional Gold Medal to GeneralHenry H. Shelton (USA, Ret.).

107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 469

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the Rotunda of the Capitol is authorized

3 to be used on September 19, 2002, for a ceremony to

4 present the Congressional Gold Medal to General Henry

5 H. Shelton (USA, Ret.). Physical preparations for the
2

•HCON 469 EH

1 ceremony shall be carried out in accordance with such con2 ditions as the Architect of the Capitol may prescribe.

Passed the House of Representatives September 17,

2002.

Attest:

Clerk.
[No. 33722-0-I.

Division One.

June 17, 1996.]

#### Dennis Martin, et al., *Respondents,*v. John McEvoy, et al., *Appellants.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 91-2-17082-7, Mary Wicks Brucker, J., entered October 13, 1993, October 22, 1993, November 19, 1993. *Affirmed in part, reversed in part*and *remanded*by unpublished opinion per Coleman, J., concurred in by Webster and Becker, JJ.
#### The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Patrick E. CLERKIN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 80CA0877.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. II.

Aug. 20, 1981.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 17, 1981.

Certiorari Denied Dec. 7, 1981.

*809Stuart A. VanMeveren, Dist. Atty., Loren B. Schall, Asst. Dist. Atty., Francis H. Old-ham, Chief Deputy Dist. Atty., Fort Collins, for plaintiff-appellee.

Law Offices of King & Wallin, Tad Wal-lin, Fort Collins, for defendant-appellant.

KELLY, Judge.

The defendant, Patrick Edwin Clerkin, was charged with assault in the second degree, resisting arrest, and criminal mischief. The defendant moved to dismiss pursuant to the provisions of § 18-1-408(2), C.R.S. 1973 (1978 Repl.Vol. 8). The trial court dismissed count 3, the charge of criminal mischief, but denied the motion as to the remaining counts. The defendant thereupon prosecuted this appeal.

During oral argument of the case, the court inquired whether counts 1 and 2 of the information are still pending and remain to be tried. Upon receiving an affirmative answer from both counsel, and after consultation, the court dismissed the appeal because there is no final judgment. This opinion elaborates the reasons therefor.

The defendant relies on the authority of *County Court*v. *Ruth,*194 Colo. 352, 575 P.2d 1 (1977). That case is not dispositive of the issue, because it arises in a different procedural context. In *Ruth,*the accused was charged in county court and sought review in district court pursuant to C.R.C.P. 106. Accordingly, the action in district court was civil in nature, *see also Thomas v. County Court,*198 Colo. 87, 596 P.2d 768 (1979), the judgment of the district court therein was final, and the appeal was properly pursued in this court. Here, the criminal prosecution was initiated in district court, and there is no final judgment.

Since this court is without jurisdiction to hear original writs, *see*C.A.R. 21, the appeal is dismissed.

VAN CISE and TURSI, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



I, Paul Kim, Chief Financial Officer of Cogent, Inc. (the Registrant), do hereby certify in accordance with 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:



(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant, to which this certification is attached as an exhibit (the Report), fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 Registrant.



Dated: November 15, 2004



|                             
|-----------------------------
|/s/ Paul Kim                 
|Paul Kim                     
|Chief Financial Officer      
|(Principal Financial Officer)
#### Paddock, Appellee, *v.*Ripley et al., Appellants.

(No. 31322

Decided March 17, 1948.)

*Mr. Charles T. Barkett,*for appellee.

*Mr. H. M. Rust,*for appellants.

It is ordered and adjudged that this appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason that no debatable constitutional question is involved.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Turner, Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman, Sohngen and Stewart, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 486 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  2d Session

                            H. CON. RES. 486

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 Supporting the goals and ideals of Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
107th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 486

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas over 30,300 people will be diagnosed with pancreatic cancer this year in 
        the United States;
Whereas the mortality rate for pancreatic cancer is 99 percent, the highest of 
        any cancer;
Whereas pancreatic cancer is the 4th most common cause of cancer death for men 
        and women in the United States;
Whereas there are no early detection methods and minimal treatment options for 
        pancreatic cancer;
Whereas when symptoms of pancreatic cancer generally present themselves, it is 
        too late for an optimistic prognosis, and the average survival rate of 
        those diagnosed with metastasis disease is only 3 to 6 months;
Whereas pancreatic cancer does not discriminate by age, gender, or race, and 
        only 4 percent of patients survive beyond 5 years;
Whereas the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network (PanCAN), the only national 
        advocacy organization for pancreatic cancer patients, facilitates 
        awareness, patient support, professional education, and advocacy for 
        pancreatic cancer research funding, with a view to ultimately developing 
        a cure for pancreatic cancer; and
Whereas the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network has requested that the Congress 
        designate November as Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month in order to 
        educate communities across the Nation about pancreatic cancer and the 
        need for research funding, early detection methods, effective 
        treatments, and prevention programs: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That the Congress supports the goals and ideals of Pancreatic Cancer 
Awareness Month.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 10, 2002.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
IV

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 266

Honoring veterans by requesting that television and radio stations provide

a moment of silence or a public service announcement on November

11 at 11 a.m. each year.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 8, 2001

Mr. PASCRELL (for himself, Mrs. ROUKEMA, Mr. SAXTON, and Mr. HOLT)

submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Honoring veterans by requesting that television and radio

stations provide a moment of silence or a public service

announcement on November 11 at 11 a.m. each year.

Whereas millions of veterans have served our Nation with

pride and distinction;

Whereas more than 700,000 brave American men and women

have sacrificed their lives while serving in the Nation’s

Armed Forces so that all of our people may continue to

live in a country that is based on the principles of democracy and liberty;

Whereas there are more than 25,000,000 United States veterans in our Nation today;
2

•HCON 266 IH

Whereas each year on November 11, our Nation pays tribute

to its war dead and veterans in a national observance;

and

Whereas children throughout our Nation would benefit from

increased recognition of and familiarity with the contributions and accomplishments of the millions of men and

women who have served in our Armed Forces and shaped

the history of the United States: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that—

3 (1) the Nation dedicate November 11 to give

4 special recognition to the contributions to its vet5 erans in defending freedom and democracy;

6 (2) the Nation should use that occasion to

7 make a greater effort to educate children on the con8 tributions of veterans in defending the freedoms our

9 Nation enjoys; and

10 (3) television and radio stations should recog11 nize veterans through a public service announcement

12 or moment of silence on November 11 at 11 a.m.

13 each year.

Æ