alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### St. Marks Plumbing and Heating Co., Inc., Appellant, v Koss Co-Graphics, Inc., et al., Respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis Gangel-Jacob, J.), entered February 26, 1990, which denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as well as the motion of defendants to consolidate the action with one pending in Queens County and referred the issues of fraud and personal liability of the *121endorsers of a promissory note to a Special Referee to hear and report with recommendations, unanimously modified to the extent of dismissing defendant Edward Koss’ affirmative defense of lack of in personam jurisdiction and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff loaned defendant corporation, Koss Co-Graphics, Inc. (Koss Co.), $50,000 and Koss Co. executed a promissory note payable to plaintiff, interest free. The signatures of Edward Koss (Koss Co.’s president) and Arthur Cohen appear on the back of the note as endorsers. According to plaintiff, the note was presented to defendants on its due date for payment and defendants failed to tender payment. Defendants assert that in response to the demand Koss Co. agreed to pay quarterly interest payments of $2,000 so as to extend the loan and forestall suit. Defendants maintain that after payment of four quarterly interest payments, plaintiff commenced this action.

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was denied by the IAS court which found that issues of fact precluded the granting of such relief. We find that under the circumstances here, the denial of the motion was proper. The record reveals long-standing personal relationships among the parties and the parties’ principals. Such relationships and the conduct described in defense of the action give evidence to the oral assertion by defendants that accommodations or unwritten agreements were made in respect to the note so as to raise factual issues which preclude summary judgment. *(See, Rotuba Extruders v Ceppos,*46 NY2d 223, 231.)

We dismiss Edward Koss’ affirmative defense of lack of in personam jurisdiction. The record reveals that Koss was properly served.

We have considered plaintiff’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Rosenberger and Smith, JJ.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 99.3


                            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 Shopsmith, Inc. ("the Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended June 29, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mark A. May, Vice
President of Finance and Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

      1.    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


August 13, 2002                           By:  /s/ Mark May
                                               --------------------------------
                                               Vice President of Finance
                                               And Treasurer
|                                                                                   
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                   
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                     
|View History: Annual                                                               
|View History: Annual                                                               
|View History:                                                                      
|                                                                                   
|Illinois Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves Revision Increases (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                   
|                                                                                   
|Illinois Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves Revision Increases (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                   

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 12    
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 6      | 7      | 11     | 3      | 1      | 17     | 3      | W      | W     
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000089629
<NAME> SHELL OIL COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                             284
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,315
<ALLOWANCES>                                         3
<INVENTORY>                                        911
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,932
<PP&E>                                          22,394
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,368
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  26,906
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,709
<BONDS>                                            476
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,304
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    26,906
<SALES>                                          6,908
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,970
<CGS>                                            6,167
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,299
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   475
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     2
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 157
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    919
<INCOME-TAX>                                       127
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                766
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       766
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATIONS  PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Terry McConnaughey, director and president of Silver Butte Company (formerly Silver Butte Mining Company) (the Company) do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



1.

This Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the period ended May 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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.



Date:  June 29, 2004

By:   /s/ Terry McConnaughey



Terry McConnaughey, President and Director
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 00-2271

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Tracy Harris, also known as “Woody,” * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: April 4, 2001 Filed: April 5, 2001

___________ Before BOWMAN, BEAM, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Tracy Harris pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute cocaine and crack, in violationof 21 U.S.C. § 846. At sentencing, Harris objected to his career-offender status because it was based in part on his 1982 state conviction at age 17 for shooting a t an occupied motor vehicle; and although he had been certified as an adult for that charge, his 1994 presentence report on another federal drug charge had classified the 1982 conviction as a juvenile adjudication despite noting the certification. The district1 The HONORABLE JAMES M. ROSENBAUM, United States District Judge

for the District of Minnesota. -2- court 1 overruled the objection to career-offender status and sentenced Harris to 228 months imprisonment and 5 years supervised release. On appeal, Harris argues that the district court erred in using his 1982 conviction to determine his career-offender status, because the court should be bound by its previous determination that the conviction was only a juvenile adjudication. Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude the district court did not err in counting Harris’s 1982 conviction as a predicate felony offense. See U.S.S.G. §§ 4A1.1, comment. (n.1) and 4A1.2(d)(1); UnitedStates v. McNeil , 90 F.3d 298, 299- 300 (8th Cir. 1996) (prior offense committed when defendant was 17 years old was properly considered predicate offense for determining career-offender status because defendant was charged and convicted as adult). We reject Harris’s unsupported argument that the district court was bound by its previous adoption of an erroneous designation of his conviction as a juvenile adjudication. Accordingly, we affirm. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20

- 7087

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. PERRY COUSINS, a/k/a Pzo , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Newport News

. Rebecca Beach Smith, Senior District Judge. ( 4:10

- cr - 00047

- RBS

- TEM

1 )

Submitted : March 19, 2021 Decided: September 10, 2021

Before MOTZ, FLOYD, and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Perry Cousins , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Perry Cousins appeals the district court’s order denying his motion seeking reconsideration of its prior order granting in part and denying in part his motion for reduction of sentence under § 404(b) of the First Step Act of 2018 , Pub. L. No. 115

- 391, 132 Stat. 5194, 5222 . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant Cousins’ motions to amend or correct informal brief and to amend and clarify the record pertaining to the informal brief , treat those motions as supplemental informal briefs, deny Cousins’ motion to appoint counsel, and affirm for t he reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Cousins , No. 4:10

- cr - 00047

- RBS

- TEM

- 1 (E.D. Va. July 10, 2020). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4449 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain acrylic staple fibers. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 19, 2012 

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

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain 

acrylic staple fibers. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN ACRYLIC STAPLE FIBERS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.40.16 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 certain acrylic staple fibers) is amended by striking the 

7 date in the effective period column and inserting ‘‘12/31/ 

8 2015’’. 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

10 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4449 IH

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32.2  Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  In connection with the filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) by Gold Horse International, Inc. (the Registrant), I, Adam Wasserman, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, 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 conditions and results of operations of Registrant.
  /s/ Adam Wasserman Name: Adam Wasserman Title: Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer  Dated: November 19, 2007  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement 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.
Exhibit
32.1


CERTIFICATIONS
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of 4C Controls Inc. on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Anastasios Angeloglou,
Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge 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.





Date:
July 7, 2009




By:
                    /s/ Anastasios AngeloglouName:   
      Anastasios AngeloglouTitle:     
      Principal Executive Officer and
                      Principal Financial
      Officer
EX-32.2



CERTIFICATIONS  PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Robert J. Evans, director and secretary/treasurer of Silver Butte Company (formerly Silver Butte Mining Company) (the Company) do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



1.

This Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the period ended February 28, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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.

Date:  April 12, 2005



By            /s/ Robert J. Evans



Robert J. Evans, Secretary/Treasurer and Director

Date:  April 12, 2005











1
#### WHITE v. STATE.

No. 23282.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 13, 1946.

Joseph W. Taylor and Harold Henry, both of Waco, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of felony theft, and given a sentence of ten years in the penitentiary, and he appeals.

Complaint is made of the indictment herein which charges that Freddie White “on or about the 23rd day of March, A.D. 1945, and anterior to the presentment of this indictment, in the County and State aforesaid, did then and there unlawfully and fraudulently take seventy-two in money of the value of seventy-two dollars, the same then and there being the corporeal personal property of,” etc. Evidently the drawer of this indictment meant to charge the theft of seventy-two dollars in money, but left out the word “dollars.”

It is argued that the value thereof, which is properly alleged, should control and allow the word “dollars” to be interpolated in the charge.

Article 403, C.C.P. provides:

“When it becomes necessary to describe property of any kind in an indictment, a general description of the same by name, kind, quality, number and ownership, if known, shall be sufficient. * * * ”

It will be noticed that there is no description of what kind of money, but only an allegation of its value; the value allegation being necessary in order to fix the jurisdiction of the court, which it does by classifying the offense as a felony. But what was appellant charged with stealing? Under the statute and rules of pleading he is entitled to know what property he is alleged to have stolen. It is alleged that he fraudulently took money — “seventy-two in money” — but what kind of money? If nickles, dimes, quarters, half dollars, or dollars, there should have been- some allegation thereof in order that the statute should be complied with, and the defendant given notice of what he was charged with.

We have recently held in the case of Howk v. State, 138 Tex.Cr.R. 275, 135 S.W.2d 719, that an allegation of the unlawful acquisition of “personal property of the *219value of six dollars” was too general an allegation, and the kind and character of the property should have been alleged.

In the case of Sanchez v. State, 133 Tex.Cr.R. 634, 113 S.W.2d 893, we held inadequate an indictment relative to the forgery of an instrument in writing as follows: “Give Lee 3.00 I will pay you J. L. Horne.” In the absence of innuendo averments as to what was meant by the figures “3.00” this indictment was held fatally defective.

In line with the above decisions, and on account of the failure to allege the kind and character of the “seventy-two in money,” property claimed to have been stolen, this judgment is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.
Exhibit 31

                                 Certification

I, Shevach Saraf, Chairman,  President,  Chief Executive Officer,  Treasurer and
Chief Financial Officer of Solitron Devices, Inc., certify that:

      1.    I have  reviewed the  quarterly  report on Form 10-QSB/A of Solitron
            Devices, 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 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 small business  issuer as of, and for, the periods
            presented in this quarterly report;



Date: July 13, 2004           /s/ Shevach Saraf
                              -------------------------
                              Shevach Saraf
                              Chairman, President,
                              Chief Executive Officer,
                              Treasurer and
                              Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.2

                             CERTIFICATION OF CFO
                      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 on Form 10-Q of Madison River
Capital, LLC (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), Paul H. Sunu, as Managing Director, Chief Financial Officer
and Secretary of the Company, hereby certifies, 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/ Paul H. Sunu
---------------------------------------------

Name:    Paul H. Sunu
Title:   Managing Director, Chief Financial Officer
          and Secretary
Date:    November 12, 2003




This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes
of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.