alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Estate of Schmidt: Smith, Objector, Appellant, vs. Seher, Executor, Defendant: Riebow, Claimant, Respondent.

*February 2*

March *2, 1954.*

*184For the appellant there were briefs by *Gerlach & Porter*of Milwaukee, and oral argument by *Frederick C. Gerlach*and *Emery J. Porter.*

For the respondent there was a brief and oral argument by *Alvin Juedes*of Milwaukee.

Brown, J.

Appellant submits that the promise to pay for the food by a provision in Schmidt’s will was not proved by clear and convincing evidence and was not sufficiently specific to be enforceable; and that in fact Mr. Riebow furnished the food gratuitously and without expectation of reimbursement. The testimony of the Riebows is clear and direct concerning the agreement. It is not controverted by any other evidence and in its essential feature, that neither *185Schmidt nor the Riebows considered that the food was given gratuitously, it is corroborated by Mr. Seher. Under the circumstances in evidence here, the failure of Mr. Riebow to keep an account or render a bill does not raise a presumption that the food was intended as a gift, much less establish that fact, as it did in *Estate of Beilke*(1953), 263 Wis. 372, 57 N. W. (2d) 402. We see no reason why it should not be paid for in accordance with the expressed intention of the parties and, as payment was not provided for in the will, why a claim for its value should not be allowed.

Appellant submits that Mr. Seher was incompetent to testify and his evidence should be disregarded, leaving that of the Riebows insufficient to establish their claim. The alleged incompetency rests on supposed privileged communications and on Seher’s position as executor of Mr. Schmidt’s will. Schmidt’s statements to Seher, *supra,*were not made in the course of conferences between attorney and client but in the course of ordinary social calls by Seher upon his old friend. They involved no professional services or advice, and no confidential or privileged character attaches to them.

We find no authority which suggests that an executor shall not testify to matters within his knowledge. His duty to protect and conserve the estate does not justify, much less require, him to suppress the truth concerning transactions or communications which he knows about between the testator and a claimant if he is called as a witness to them.

Appellant also contends that Mr. Seher was disqualified as a witness because when he was executor he assisted Mr. Riebow in preparing and filing the claim. We believe that this is frequently done as a matter of accommodation by executors and administrators when creditors of the deceased come to inquire about his estate and their prospects of payment. It is not the most careful practice because of the ambiguous position in which the executor may find himself with the claimant who relied on him instead of taking counsel, *186but that is another matter. It does not result in making the executor incompetent to testify to matters within his knowledge about the transaction on which the claim is based.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
Exhibit 99.1

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 Movie Gallery, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending April 6, 2003
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, J. T. Malugen, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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.

Date:
May 21, 2003

|/s/J. T. MALUGENName: J. T. Malugen
Its: Chief Executive Officer |  | 
|---------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

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

---

QuickLinks
Exhibit 10.34

|[AUGUST TECHNOLOGY GRAPHIC] |  | 4900 West 78th Street
Bloomington, MN 55435 USA |  | Tel: 952-820-0080
Fax: 952-820-0060 |  | www.AugustTech.com
info@augusttech.com
|--------------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------------- |  | --------------------------------------

Mr. Richard
Smith                                18 December 2002
Firfax Systems Limited
Meteor Business Park
Gloucestershire Airport
Cheltenham Road East
Gloucester, England
GL2 9QL UK

Dear
Richard,

August
Technology has appreciated the service provided by Firfax over the years as our distributor for Europe. But as the industry becomes more Asia focused and August Technology grows as a company,
we find it best for August Technology to pursue the direct sales and service model in the UK, Ireland, Benelux and Scandanavia.

As
such, August Technology is terminating our International Sales Distributor Agreement with Firfax Systems Ltd., dated 3 September 1996, to be effective 31 December 2002. I do
not believe you find this a surprise, as you yourself have admitted that more and more companies are doing technology
development in Europe and volume manufacturing in Asia. This business fact does not fit well with the distributor model of sales and service.

Richard,
we thank you and your entire organization for their support over the years. We truly wish you and your team all the best in your future endeavors.

We
would like to wrap up all outstanding receivables, on both sides by the end of the year as well as to develop a plan on how to inform your customers at this time. I am asking Paul Hayes to work
with you and your team to finalize this plan.

Again,
we thank you for your support.

Best
respects,

Mayson
Brooks
Vice President
Worldwide Sales and Field Operations
August Technology
4900 West 78th Street
Bloomington, MN 55435

---

QuickLinks
Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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/ James C. ReaganMay 10, 2010
    James C. ReaganSenior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer A signed original of this written statement has been provided to Vangent and will be retained
by Vangent and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 32D  CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT  I, Qu Shuzhi, director and Chief Financial Officer of Yantai Dahua Holdings Company Limited (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:  The annual report on Form 20-F of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d); and  The information contained in the annual report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.    Dated: July 14, 2006     /s/ Qu Shuzhi Qu Shuzhi Chief Financial Officer
**NOTE
      (“the Note”)**





Power3
      Medical Products, Inc., a New York corporation (the “Company”) for value
      received hereby promises to pay **Steven
      B. Rash** (“Payee”) on or before June 30, 2007, (“Maturity Date”); the principal amount
      of **ninety-four thousand three hundred forty-one dollars ($94,341.00)** (“Principal”).





Should
      the Principal not be repaid as of June 30, 2007 interest of 6 % per year on
      any
      unpaid Principal amount will be earned by the Payee until such time as all
      of
      the Principal amount is repaid. This Note may be repaid at any time prior to
      June 30, 2007 without interest or penalty.





I n
      no
      event shall interest contracted for, charged or received hereunder, plus any
      other charges in connection herewith which constitute interest, exceed the
      maximum interest permitted by applicable law. The amounts of such interest
      or
      other charges previously paid to the holder of the Note, if any, in excess
      of
      the amounts permitted by applicable law shall be applied by the holder of the
      Note to reduce the principal of the indebtedness evidenced by the Note, or,
      at
      the option of the holder of the Note, be refunded. To the extent permitted
      by
      applicable law, determination of the legal maximum amount of interest shall
      at
      all times be made by amortizing, prorating, allocating and spreading in equal
      parts during the period of the full stated term of the loan and indebtedness,
      all interest at any time contracted for, charged or received from the Maker
      hereof in connection with the loan and indebtedness evidenced hereby, so that
      the actual rate of interest on account of such indebtedness is uniform
      throughout the term hereof.





Notices,
      payments, requests, and other communications to the respective parties hereunder
      shall be in writing, and shall be deemed received when delivered personally,
      by
      facsimile, or first class certified mail, return receipt requested and postage
      prepaid, as follows:





If
      to the
      lender:





Steven
      B.
      Rash


3400
      Research Forest Parkway


Woodlands,
      Texas 77381





If
      to the
      Company:





Power3
      Medical Products, Inc.


3400
      Research Forest Parkway


Woodlands,
      Texas 77381





This
      Note
      is governed by and is to be construed in accordance with the law of the State
      of
      Texas.




Payee
            
            Power3
              Medical Products, Inc.
            
            Date/s/ Steven B. RashSteven B. Rash
            
            /s/ John P. Burton
              By: John P. Burton
            
            December 31, 2006Its:
                CFO
Supreme Court of the United States

Office of the Clerk

Washington, DC 20543-0001

Scott S. Harris

Clerk of the Court

December 12, 2016 (202)479-3011

Clerk

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

P.O. Box 12308

Capitol Station

Austin, TX 78711

Re: Richard Warren Paige, Jr.

v. Texas

No. 16-6356

(Your No. WR-72, 964-02)

Dear Clerk:

The Court today entered the following order in the above-entitled case:

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

Sincerely,

Scott S. Harris, Clerk

iECfclVfcD IK

'OURTOcrODIMlMAl APPpAJC

w: 91 ?m

Abel Acosta, Clerk
---

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Lake Victoria Mining
Company, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the nine month period ended
December 31, 2014, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, David Kalenuik, President and 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

| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or Section 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.

|Dated: | February 17, 2015 | By:                                   | /s/ David Kalenuik
|------ | ----------------- | ------------------------------------- | ------------------
|       |                   | David Kalenuik                       
|       |                   | President and Chief Executive Officer
|       |                   | (Principal Executive Officer)        

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Environmental Protection Agency

          - [FRL-12304-01-R8]

# AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

# ACTION:

Notice of final order on petition.

# SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator signed an order dated July 31, 2024, granting in part and denying in part a petition dated April 1, 2024, from the Center for Biological Diversity. The petition requested that the EPA object to a Clean Air Act (CAA) operating permit issued by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment's Air Pollution Control Division (Division) to HighPoint Operating Corporation for its Anschutz Equus Farms 4-62-28 NWNW oil and gas production facility located in Weld County, Colorado.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Julie Merkel, EPA Region 8, telephone number: (406) 457-5042, email address:                         *merkel.julie@epa.gov*. The final order and petition are available electronically at:                         *https://www.epa.gov/​title-v-operating-permits/​title-v-petition-database.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The EPA received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity dated April 1, 2024, requesting that the EPA object to the issuance of operating permit no. 20OPWE423, issued by the Division to HighPoint Operating Corporation for the Anschutz Equus Farms 4-62-28 NWNW oil and gas production facility in Weld County, Colorado. On July 31, 2024, the EPA Administrator issued an order granting in part and denying in part the petition. The order itself explains the basis for the EPA's decision.

Sections 307(b) and 505(b)(2) of the CAA provide that a petitioner may request judicial review of those portions of an order that deny issues in a petition. Any petition for review shall be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th circuit no later than December 17, 2024.

Dated: October 9, 2024.

KC Becker,

Regional Administrator, Region 8.

[FR Doc. 2024-24179 Filed 10-17-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
#### Litzen, Appellant, vs. Eggert and another, Respondents.

*March 13*

June *12, 1941.*

*122For the appellant there were briefs by *Wallrich & Aschen-brener,*and oral argument by *L. J. Brunner,*all of Shawano.

For the respondents there were briefs by *Benton, Bosser, Becker & Parnell,*attorneys, and *David L. Fulton*of counsel, all of Appleton, and oral argument by *A. W. Parnell.*

The following opinion was hied April 15, 1941:

Fritz, J.

On this appeal the appellant, Floyd L. Litzen, contends that the court erred (1) in submitting to the jury the question of assumption of risk as to lookout; (2) in refusing to give plaintiff's requested instruction regarding a guest’s assumption of his host’s negligent lookout; and also ■ (3) in entering judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint. On the other hand, the respondents, Alfred’Eggert and his insurer, contend that Litzen’s appeal is improper and must be dismissed; that his remedy if any is by *mandamus;*that the mandate upon the first appeal has become the law of the case and that the verdict is no longer open to question or attack. Respondents’ contentions must be sustained.

The first and the second errors assigned by appellant on this appeal are in relation to rulings during the course of the trial as to which Litzen could have had a review if he had noticed a motion for that purpose or taken a cross-appeal on the first appeal, instead of seeking then, as he did, to have this court affirm the order granting the new trial. Upon the determination of that appeal by the mandate reversing the order granting the new trial in each case and directing the entry of judgment upon the verdict as rendered, there was no longer open for consideration by the trial court any other question presented by the record which could have been litigated upon that appeal. *Tomberlin v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. R. Co.*211 Wis. 144, 246 N. W. 571, 248 N. W. 121; *State ex rel.**123*Roberts Co. v. Breidenbach,*222 Wis. 136, 266 N. W. 909; *State ex rel. Littig v. Superior Court,*231 Wis. 58, 285 N. W. 419; *Monahan v. Fairbanks-Morse Mfg. Co.*150 Wis. 512, 137 N. W. 748. Upon the entry of judgment subsequent to the mandate the only question which can be reviewed by this court is whether the judgment entered is in accordance with the mandate. If the trial court did not follow the mandate in entering the judgment, the remedy of the party aggrieved is not by an appeal, — but solely by *mandamus.*As we said in *Barlow & Seelig Mfg. Co. v. Patch,*236 Wis. 223, 225, 295 N. W. 39, “The sole remedy of defendant is an original action invoking the supervisory power of this court to compel the lower court to follow its mandate. *Falk v. Wisconsin Tax Comm.*204 Wis. 518, 235 N. W. 925; *Miswald-Wilde Co. v. Armory Realty Co.*213 Wis. 354, 251 N. W. 450.” Consequently, unless and until such supervisory power is invoked there can be no review in relation to the assignment of error that the court erred in entering judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint.

*By the Court.*— Appeal dismissed.

A motion for a rehearing was denied, with $25 costs, on June 12, 1941.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Brian Irwin, Appellant.

[774 NYS2d 237]

Appeal from a judgment of the Jefferson County Court (Kim H. Martusewicz, J.), rendered December 19, 2001. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of assault in the first degree (three counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, intimidating a witness in the first degree and intimidating a witness in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of, inter alia, three counts of assault in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.10 [1]-[3]) for stabbing the victim *1123in the left arm and right hand. We reject defendant’s contention that the evidence is legally insufficient to establish the element of serious physical injury. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see *People v Thompson,*72 NY2d 410, 413 [1988], *rearg denied*73 NY2d 870 [1989]), and according the People the benefit of every favorable inference (see *People v Ford,*66 NY2d 428, 437 [1985]), we conclude that there is a “valid fine of reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence at trial” *(People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Medical evidence established that, as a result of the stabbing, the victim lost two liters of blood before he was attended to by emergency medical personnel, and thus the jury could properly find that if the “injuries had been left untreated [the victim] could have bled to death” *(People v Jeanty,*268 AD2d 675, 678 [2000], *lv denied*94 NY2d 949 [2000]). Furthermore, the victim’s wounds required surgery and, although the victim was unavailable to testify, photographs depicting the sutured wounds to the victim’s arm and hand were admitted in evidence. We conclude that the jury could reasonably infer from that evidence that the sutured wounds resulted in permanent scars *(see generally People v Gagliardo,*283 AD2d 964 [2001], *lv denied*96 NY2d 901 [2001]). We have reviewed the contentions contained in defendant’s pro se supplemental brief and conclude that they are without merit. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Pine, Hurlbutt and Scudder, JJ.
**Exhibit 32.2**

** **

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

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Power3 MedicalProducts, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31,2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, John P. Burton, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2. The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 
|                      | By:                                          | /s/ John P. Burton                     |   |
|---------------------------|----------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|                      | Name:                                        | John P. Burton Chief Financial Officer |
|                      |                                         |
| Date: April 28, 2006 | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |

 

1

----