alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

JANE DOE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) C.A. No. N1 7 C

- 10

- 0 77 MMJ

)

DR. BRUCE GROSSINGER, )

GROSSINGER NEUROPAIN )

SPECIALISTS, P.A., )

)

Defendants. )

Submitted: February 23, 2018

Decided: March 8, 2018

Upon Defendants’

Request to Determine if the Affidavit of Merit

Complies with 18 Del. C. §§ 6853(a)(1) and (c)

ORDER

Section 6853(a)(1) of title 18 of the Delaware Code provides that all

healthcare negligence complaints must be accompanied by an affidavit of merit as

to each defendant signed by an expert witness, accompanied by a current

curriculum vitae of the witness

, stating that there are reasonable grounds to believe

that there has been healthcare medical negligence committed by each defendant.

In this case, the affidavit of merit was filed under seal, as required. Pursuant

to 18 Del. C. § 6853(d), Defendants req uested in camera review of the affidavit to2

determine compliance with sections 6853(a)(1) and (c). The Court has reviewed

the affidavit of merit and the accompanying curriculum vitae. The Court finds:

1. The affidavit is signed by an expert witness.

2

. The affidavit is now accompanied by a current curriculum vitae

.

3. The affidavit sets forth the expert’s opinion that there are reasonable

grounds to believe that the applicable standard of care was breached by Dr.

Grossinger.

4. The affidavit sets forth the expert’s opinion that there are reasonable

grounds to believe that specifically enumerated breaches by Dr. Grossinger

proximately caused the injuries claimed in the complaint. The expert does not

opine as to any other defendan t.

5. The expert witness was licensed to practice medicine as of the date of

the affidavit.

6. In the 3 years immediately preceding the alleged negligent act, the

expert witness was engaged in the treatment of patients and/or in the

teaching/academic s ide of medicine in the fields of Neurology and Psychiatry.

7. The expert is board certified in the fields of Neurology and

Psychiatry.

THEREFORE, the Court having reviewed in camera the affidavit of merit

and accompanying curriculum vitae of plaintiff’s expert witness, the Court finds3

that the affidavit of merit now complies with sections 6853(a)(1) and (c) of title 18

of the Delaware Code.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Exhibit No. 15 

 

Awareness Letter from Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

 

April 28, 2005 

 

Armstrong Holdings, Inc. 

Lancaster, Pennsylvania 

 

Re: Registration Statement No. 333-74501; 33-91890; 33-18996; 33-18997; 33-65768; 333-79093;333-43872 

 

With respect to the subject registration statements, we acknowledgeour awareness of the use therein of our report dated April 28, 2005 related to our review of interim financial information of Armstrong Holdings, Inc. 

 

Pursuant to Rule 436 under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Act”), such report is not considered part of a registration statement prepared or certified by anindependent registered public accounting firm, or a report prepared or certified by an independent registered public accounting firm within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act. 

 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1442 

Making appropriations for fiscal year 2011 to ensure that members of the 

Armed Forces, including reserve components thereof, continue to receive 

pay and allowances for active service performed during a Government 

shutdown. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 8, 2011 

Mr. AMASH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Appropriations 

A BILL 

Making appropriations for fiscal year 2011 to ensure that 

members of the Armed Forces, including reserve components thereof, continue to receive pay and allowances 

for active service performed during a Government shutdown. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1442 IH

1 SECTION 1. EMERGENCY APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS TO 

2 PROVIDE PAY AND ALLOWANCES FOR MEM3 BERS OF THE ARMED FORCES DURING GOV4 ERNMENT SHUTDOWN. 

5 (a) APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FOR MILITARY PAY

6 AND ALLOWANCES.—If a funding gap occurs during fiscal 

7 year 2011 impacting the Armed Forces, amounts are here8 by appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not 

9 otherwise appropriated, at a rate for operations as pro10 vided for military personnel accounts by division A of H.R. 

11 1, as passed by the House of Representatives on February 

12 19, 2011, for the purpose of providing pay and allowances 

13 (without interruption) to members of the Army, Navy, Air 

14 Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard, including reserve 

15 components thereof, who perform active service during the 

16 funding gap. 

17 (b) FUNDING GAP DEFINED.—In this section, the 

18 term ‘‘funding gap’’ means any period of time after the 

19 beginning of fiscal year 2011 for which interim or full20 year appropriations for the military personnel accounts of 

21 the Armed Forces for that fiscal year have not been en22 acted by a law other than this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
#### Virgil (Nick) HALEY, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Jan. 27, 1956.

Joseph B. Hennessey, Augusta, for appellant.

J. D. Buckman, Jr., Atty. Gen., Zeb A. Stewart, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

’CAMMACK, Judge.

The appellant, Virgil .(Nick) Haley, was convicted of aiding and abetting William (Billy) Woosley in the malicious cutting and wounding of James Bonfield with intent to kill, and received a sentence of three years’ imprisonment. The transcript of evidence is not before us, and only a bill of exceptions has been filed. The circumstances surrounding the encounter, as they appeared on the trial of Woosley, are set forth in Woosley v. Commonwealth, Ky., 282 S.W.2d 625.

Haley seeks a reversal of the judgment upon the grounds that '(1) his demurrer to the indictmént should have- been sustained by the trial court because the indictment was not direct and certain regarding the offense charged; and (2) the instructions failed to set forth clearly that an aider *526and abettor must share the intent or purpose of the principal.

Section 124(2) of the Criminal Code of Practice requires that an indictment be direct and certain regarding the offense charged. The accusatory portion of the indictment under which Haley was convicted specifically charged him with the crime of “aiding and abetting another with the offense of malicious cutting and wounding another with intent to kill.” The descriptive part of the indictment clearly set out the acts constituting the alleged offense, as required by Section 122(2) of the Criminal Code of Practice. While a compliance with Section 122(2) will not dispense with the necessity of compliance with Section 124(2) (see Puckett v. Commonwealth, 264 Ky. 577, 95 S.W.2d 242), we fail to see how the indictment, as drawn, is indirect or uncertain as to the offense charged. The language used charged Haley with the crime of aiding and abetting another in the offense of malicious cutting and wounding with intent to kill in terms that were direct and certain.

The second ground upon which Haley seeks a reversal is also without merit. While it is true that a defendant, to be guilty of the crime of aiding and abetting, must have shared the criminal intent or purpose of the principal (see Whitt v. Commonwealth, 221 Ky. 490, 298 S.W. 1101, and Moore v. Commonwealth, 266 Ky. 514; 99 S.W.2d 715), we think the trial court covered that requirement by telling the jury that Haley should be found guilty only if it believed that he was “present and did at said time and place *wilfully*and *maliciously*aid, assist, abet, advise, counsel and encourage the said William ‘Billy’ Woos-ley Jr. to cut, stab and wound the said James Bonfield for the purpose of killing the said James Bonfield.” (Emphasis ours.) The use of the words “wilfully and maliciously” showed that Haley, to be found guilty, must have had the required criminal intent of an aider and abettor. See Moore v. Commonwealth, 266 Ky. 514, 99 S.W.2d 715; Riley v. Commonwealth, 269 Ky. 8, 106 S.W.2d 85.

The judgment is affirmed.
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 19

- 0673

_________________ CASCADE COUNTY,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v. MONTANA PETROLEUM TANK RELEASE COMPENSATION BOARD,

Defendant, Appellee , and Cross Appellant. O R D E R

_________________ Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including September 25 , 2020 , within which to file Appellant’s reply and answer to cross- appeal brief. No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 20 2020

08/20/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0673
EXHIBIT 31.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Richard L. Feinstein, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014 of Enzon Pharmaceuticals, Inc.;
and
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A 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 Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





|April 24, 2015 | /s/ Richard L. Feinstein        
|-------------- | --------------------------------
|               | Richard L. Feinstein            
|               | Vice President - Finance and    
|               | Principal Financial Officer     
|               | (Principal Financial Officer and
|               | Principal Accounting Officer)
#### James William MILLIGAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 30845.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 10, 1959.

*865No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

DICE, Commissioner.

Upon a plea of guilty before the court without a jury appellant was convicted of the offense of burglary and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for 10 years.

The record contains no statement of facts but does present two formal bills of exception for review.

By Bill of Exception No. 1, appellant complains of the fact that he had not been served with a copy of the indictment at the time of trial. The bill of exception, as qualified, certifies that at the time appellant announced ready for trial he made no objection to the fact that he had not been served with a copy of the indictment and that it was not until after judgment was pronounced by the court that appellant, in his motion for new trial, objected and excepted to the fact that he had not been served with a copy of the indictment. Having pleaded to the indictment without making any objection to the fact that he had not been served with a copy of the indictment, appellant’s complaint after judgment, in his motion for new trial, to such failure came too late. See 1 Branch’s Ann. P.C., 2d Ed., par. 536, page 514, and cases there cited.

By Bill of Exception No. 2, appellant complains of the court’s action in refusing to permit him to withdraw his plea of guilty and change such plea to one of not guilty after both sides had closed their case, completed their arguments and the court had concluded that appellant was guilty and was in the process of pronouncing judgment. Appellant’s request to withdraw his plea after the conclusion of the evidence and the case had been taken under advisement by the trial judge came too late and the court did not abuse his discretion in refusing to allow appellant to withdraw his plea. No error is shown in the bill. Ralls v. State, 151 Tex.Cr.R. 146, 205 S.W.2d 594, and Stanton v. State, 159 Tex.Cr.R. 275, 262 S.W.2d 497.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1451 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1451

To repeal a modification of authority to make certain interval payments 
 of educational assistance under laws administered by the Secretary of 
               Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 8, 2011

 Mrs. Davis of California (for herself and Mr. Hunter) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' 
  Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Appropriations, for a 
 period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
                          committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To repeal a modification of authority to make certain interval payments 
 of educational assistance under laws administered by the Secretary of 
               Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Post 9/11 GI Bill Payment 
Restoration Act''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF MODIFICATION OF AUTHORITY TO MAKE CERTAIN INTERVAL 
              PAYMENTS OF EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE UNDER LAWS 
              ADMINISTERED BY THE SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.

    (a) Repeal.--The Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance 
Improvements Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-377) is amended by striking 
section 206.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 3. RESCISSION OF UNSPENT FEDERAL FUNDS TO OFF SET LOSS IN 
              REVENUES.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, of all 
available unobligated funds equal to the amount required to implement 
this Act in appropriated discretionary funds are hereby rescinded.
    (b) Implementation.--The Director of the Office of Management and 
Budget shall determine and identify funding from appropriation accounts 
that has been deemed duplicative by the Government Accountability 
Office, and the rescission under subsection (a) shall apply and the 
amount of such rescission that shall apply to each such account. Not 
later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall submit a report 
to the Secretary of the Treasury and Congress of the accounts and 
amounts determined and identified for rescission under the preceding 
sentence.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32


                                CERTIFICATION OF
               CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and in connection with the filing by Soyo Group,
Inc.  (the  "Company")  with  the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  of its
Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the three  months  ended  March 31, 2006 (the
"Report"), the undersigned does hereby certify that:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

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



 /s/ MING TUNG CHOK
-------------------------------
Name:  Ming Tung Chok
Title: Chief Executive Officer
Date:  May 15, 2006


 /s/ NANCY CHU
-------------------------------
Name:  Nancy Chu
Title: Chief Financial Officer
Date:  May 15, 2006
#### R. L. ADAME, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28515.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 10, 1956.

Jose R. Gonzalez, Arturo C. Gonzalez, Del Rio, O. P. Carillo, San Diego, and Luther E. Jones, Jr., Corpus Christi, for appellant.

Sam B. Burris, Dist. Atty., Alice, Davis Grant, Asst. County Atty., Austin, John Ben Sheppard, Atty. Gen., of Texas, Sam C. Ratliff, Asst. Atty. Gen., of Texas, and *775Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The offense is theft by false pretext; the punishment, five years.

The State has filed a motion, duly verified, asking that the appeal in this case be abated on account of the death of the appellant.

The motion is granted and the appeal is abated.
<PAGE>

                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.17


                      MODIFICATION TO CONSULTING AGREEMENT


     Agreement by and between Cardinal Resources, Inc. ("Cardinal") and
Cornerstone Natural Gas, Inc. ("Company") dated this 15th day of February
1995.

     WHEREAS, Company entered into that certain Consulting Agreement by and
between Company and James W. Bryant as ("Consultant") dated June 4, 1993
("Agreement");

     WHEREAS, effective August 1, 1994, Consultant assigned the Consulting
Agreement to Cardinal Resources, Inc., in that Assignment of Consulting
Agreement, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A";

     WHEREAS, Consultant is desirous to commit additional consulting services
to the Company for a period of one year only and Company is agreeable to such
additional services,

                            W I T N E S S E T H :

     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual covenants
and agreements herein contained, and intending to be legally bound hereby,
the Company and Cardinal hereby agree to modify the Agreement as follows:

     1.   Consulting Services as defined in the Agreement shall be modified
to include Mr. Dale Wilson as an additional business consultant ("Additional
Consultant") for a period of one year only beginning on January 9, 1995.

     2.   The duties of the Consultant as defined in the Agreement shall be
modified and expanded so that between the Consultant and Additional
Consultant, a total of 60 hours per week will be devoted to the Company.

     3.   The Company shall provide to the Additional Consultant medical
insurance as provided to Consultant.

     4.   As compensation for Additional Consultant, the Company shall pay
Cardinal an additional $50,000 for the one-year period.  Cardinal shall
invoice Company monthly over the one-year period.  This additional
compensation shall not increase the rate paid to Consultant.

     5.   The Company shall provide to Additional Consultant office space it
has available and necessary secretarial support.

<PAGE>

     6.   All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall not be
changed, modified, or enlarged except as specified in this Modification to
Consulting Agreement or Assignment of Consulting Agreement.

                                      CARDINAL RESOURCES, INC.


                                      By:       /s/  JAMES W. BRYANT
                                          -------------------------------
                                          James W. Bryant



                                      CORNERSTONE NATURAL GAS, INC.


                                      By:        /s/  RAY C. DAVIS
                                          -------------------------------
                                          Ray C. Davis, CEO



                                      JAMES W. BRYANT, CONSULTANT AND GUARANTOR


                                      By:       /s/  JAMES W. BRYANT
                                          -------------------------------
EXHIBIT 32

                          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 Vanity Enterprises, Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2003, as filed  with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I,
Anthony  N  DeMint, President and Chief Accounting 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.



                              /s/ Anthony N. DeMint
                              Anthony n. DeMint
                              President and Chief Accounting Officer
                              August 4, 2003