alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### M. M. PLUNKETT *vs.*DANIEL PENNINGER.

Where a judgment has been rendered in a County Court upon a *ca. sa.*bond, the defendant has a right to appeal to the Superior Courtj and the ease will be considered *de novo*in that court.

Appeal from tlie Superior Court of Cabarrus, at the Spring Term, 1855, his Honor, Judge Manly, presiding.

A *carpías ad satisfaciendwn,*with a bond for the appearance of the defendant, were returned into the County Court of Ca-barrus, whereupon an issue of fraud was made up, and tried by a jury on Tuesday of the term, which issue was found in favor of the defendant. On a subsequent day the defendant was called, and failing to appear, on motion of plaintiff’s counsel, a judgment for the debt and costs was rendered against him and his sureties. Afterwards, on Saturday of that term, the defendant appeared in open court, and moved to be permitted to take the oath for the relief of insolvent debtors, also, that the judgment theretofore rendered, be set aside; both which motions were refused by the court, whereupon the defendant appealed to the Superior Court.

In the Superior Court the judgment below was reversed and a *procedendo*ordered to issue, from which judgment the plaintiff appealed to this Court.

*V. O. Barringer,*for the plaintiff.

*JET. G. Jones,*for the defendant.

Battle, Jl

After the judgment was rendered against him in the County Court, the defendant had an undoubted right to appeal from it at any time during the same term. Rev. Stat. ch. 4, sec. 1. That right was not at all affected by the attempt of the defendant to have it vacated in the County Court. The effect of the appeal was to vacate the judgment in the County Court, and to constitute the cause as it stood in that Court to be disposed of *de novo*in the Superior Court. In the judgment of the latter Court we cannot discover any error. After the *368issues of fraud were found in bis favor, the defendant had a right to be allowed to take the oath for the relief of insolvent debtors and to be then discharged, and in the order of the Superior Court to that effect, there is no error. This opinion will be certified, to the end that the Superior Court may proceed to enforce its judgment.

PeR CukiAM. Judgment affirmed.
Processing Diagram

[ CBI ]
Processing Diagram

[ CBI ]
<PAGE>   1
EXHIBIT 15
----------

LETTER RE: UNAUDITED INTERIM FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Cintech Solutions, Inc.:

We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited condensed interim
financial information of Cintech Solutions, Inc. (formerly Cintech
Tele-Management Systems, Inc.) for the periods ended December 31, 2000 and 1999,
as indicated in our report dated January 26, 2001; because we did not perform an
audit, we expressed no opinion on that information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended December 31, 2000, is
incorporated by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 33-95366 and 333-94661
on Form S-8.

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

"/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP"

Cincinnati, Ohio
February 12, 2001
#### State, Respondent, vs. Kusak, Appellant.

*May 21*

June *16, 1943.*

*Gene Posner*of Milwaukee, for the appellant.

For the respondent there was a brief by the *Attorney General, James J. Kerwin,*district attorney of Milwaukee county, and *Andrew W. Brunhart,*special assistant district attorney, and oral argument by *Mr. Brunhart.*

Rosenberry, C. J.

In the complaint the defendant was charged with nonsupport of his wife and eight children, ranging in age from fifteen years to two years. The only claim made upon this appeal is that the evidence does not sustain the *438finding of the trial court that the failure of the defendant to furnish support was wilful.

We have carefully reviewed the evidence and there is ample evidence in the record to sustain the finding of the trial court. No useful purpose would he served by setting it out in detail. The court found the defendant guilty and suspended judgment for two years, placed the defendant on probation subject to the provisions of the law of this state and the rules and orders of the municipal court for the city and county of Milwaukee. Judgment was entered on September 18, 1941. The appeal was taken September 14, 1942, four days before the time for appeal expired.

It appeared upon oral argument that the main .reason for the appeal was the fact that the defendant now has a good job and but for the judgment standing against him he might be promoted and for that reason a reversal of the judgment is sought. The defendant has been at large during the entire period and apparently has taken a different attitude toward his duty in regard to the support of his family. However that may be, this court cannot aót as a court of pardon. When upon examination of the record it appears that the finding of the trial court is amply supported by :the evidence, this court cannot do otherwise than affirm the judgment. Whether the circumstances entitle the defendant to be relieved of the sentence of the court is a matter for the consideration of the governor in the exercise of the pardon power.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
p. 1 

# OAR Box 

# 1828 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 43 ) ll-K-(B)-3 1 Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 7

Printed 11/12/200811:12:49AM Sheet 43 of 325P. 2 

# A 

# ~83~2 7 H-K-(B)-3 1
INCORPORATION

O F LO W - BT UGASIFICATIO N

(LBG ) INT O TH E IFCA M MODEL . Lette r fro

m E . Medine , EE

A t o A . Wehe , EPArSASD . Januar y 3 , 1980 . THI S INFORMATION

CA N B E FOUND I

N DOCKE T A-79-02 , ITE

M II-K-(B)-3 1
1

Kelly, Shaheerah

From: Eric Albright [ealbright@environcorp.com]

Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 10:12 AM

To: Kelly, Shaheerah

Cc: Shane Young

Subject: SPI-Anderson call tomorrow

Shaheerah:

  

I know you had a list of topics you wanted to cover, but I can provide some information on the items you raised this

morning.

  

The existing boiler will be decommissioned and dismantled after the new cogeneration unit is up and running.  While the

new unit is going through shakedown and commissioning, there will be periods when both units are operating, but the

new unit will not be generating electricity during those periods.

  

There are eight existing kilns at the facility, and the cogeneration unit project does not include any new kilns.

  

There is painting associated with routine maintenance operations, and construction of the cogeneration unit will include

painting, but there are no ongoing painting operations at the facility.

  

I think it will save time if we have Shane Young, the manager of the Anderson facility, on our call tomorrow at about 2:15

PM PDT.  I can set up a call‐in number for us all to use, or I can conference Shane in after you call me.  Let me know what

works best for you.

  

Thanks.

  

Eric

  

Eric Albright, PE | Senior Manager

ENVIRON International Corporation

19020 33rd Avenue W, Suite 310 | Lynnwood, WA 98036 

T: +1 425 412 1804 | F: +1 425 412 1840 | M: +1 206 909 0591

ealbright@environcorp.com

  

This message contains information that may be confidential, privileged or otherwise protected by law from 

disclosure. It is intended for the exclusive use of the Addressee(s). Unless you are the addressee or authorized 

agent of the addressee, you may not review, copy, distribute or disclose to anyone the message or any 

information contained within. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender by electronic 

reply to email@environcorp.com and immediately delete all copies of the message.
**EXHIBIT32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

**Pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

**(18U.S.C. 1350)**

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18U.S.C. 1350), the undersigned officer of Boston Restaurant Associates, Inc., aDelaware corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to the best of suchofficer’s knowledge and belief, that:

 

(1)                                  TheQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 25, 2004 (the“Form 10-Q”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  Theinformation contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all materialsrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Dated:September 1, 2004 | /s/ Fran Ross           |   |
|------------------------------|-------------------------|--------|
|                         | Fran Ross               |
|                         | Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

This certification shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes ofSection 18 of the Securities Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to theliability of that section.  Suchcertification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into anyfiling under the Securities Act or the Securities Exchange Act.

 

----
SECTION 302
CERTIFICATION

I, Daniel Clozza, certify that:

I have reviewed this annual report on
Form 20-F/A of Forum National Investments Ltd.;

Based on my knowledge, this annual
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 annual report;

Based on my knowledge, the financial
statements, and other financial information included in this annual 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 annual report;

The company's other certifying officers
and I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the
registrant and we have:

Designed such disclosure controls 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 annual report is
being prepared;

Designed such internal control over
financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting
to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting
and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles.

Evaluated the effectiveness of the
company'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 annual report based on such
evaluations; and

Disclosed in this report any change in
the company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during
the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal control over
financial reporting: and

The company's other certifying officers
and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control
over financial reporting, to the company's auditors and the audit committee of
the company's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):

All significant deficiencies and
material weakness in the design or operation of internal control of financial
reporting which are reasonably likely to affect the registrant's ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

Any fraud, whether or not material, that
involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the
registrant's internal controls over financial reporting.

|Date:
  October 26, 2012 | /s/
  Daniel Clozza                                  
|------------------------ | -----------------------------------------------------
|                         | Daniel
  Clozza, Chief Executive Officer and Director

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-8012

DARREN BANNING,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior 

District Judge. (3:08-cv-00651-REP)

Submitted: November 17, 2010 Decided: December 2, 2010

Before WILKINSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David B. Hargett, HARGETT LAW, PLC, Glen Allen, Virginia, for 

Appellant. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, III, Assistant Attorney 

General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Darren Banning seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. 

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record 

and conclude that Banning has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

DISMISSED
Exhibit 99.10  CONSENT OF DONALD GERVAIS  I consent to the inclusion in the Annual Report on Form 40-F of Agnico Eagle Mines Limited for the year ended December 31, 2017 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 29, 2018 (the Annual Report) of my name and the information that I have approved of as a qualified person under the Canadian Securities Administrators National Instrument 43-101 in the Annual Information Form of Agnico Eagle Mines Limited dated March 23, 2018 (the AIF) filed as part of the Annual Report.  I also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form F-10 (registration no. 333-221636), Form F-3D (registration no. 333-215096) and Form S-8 (registration nos. 333-130339 and 333-152004) of the reference to my name and the above-mentioned information in the AIF.  March 29, 2018/s/   Donald GervaisDonald   GervaisTechnical   Services Manager at Canadian Malartic Corporation
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeals of

-- ) ) Raytheon Company ) ) ) Under Contract Nos. FA8807-06-C-0004 ) NOOO 19-06-C-03l0 ) W900KK-07-D-0001 ) NOO 104-08-G-A300 ) N00383-05-G-500H ) Wl5P7T-07-C-M204 ) Wl5P7T-08-P203 ) APPEARANCES FORTHE APPELLANT:

APPEARANCES FORTHE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA Nos. 57576, 57679 58290, 60137

Paul E. Pompeo, Esq. Lauren J. Schlanger, Esq.

Arnold & Porter LLP Washington, DC E. Michael Chiaparas, Esq.

DCMA ChiefTrial Attorney Stephen R. Dooley, Esq.

Senior Trial Attorney Alexander M. Healy, Esq. Kathleen P. Malone, Esq.

Trial Attorneys Boston, MA ORDER OF DISMISSAL The dispute which is the subject ofthe appeals having been settled, the appeals are hereby dismissed with prejudice subject to reinstatement only in the event the settlement is not consummated. Any request to reinstate the subject appeal must be filed within 180 days ofthe date ofthis Order. Dated: 12 October 2016

MARKN. Administrative Judge Acting Chairman Armed Services Board ofContract AppealsI certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCA Nos. 57576, 57679, 58290, 60137, Appeals ofRaytheon Company, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:

2 JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
**EXHIBIT
32.1**
 
 **CERTIFICATION**
 **Pursuant
to 18 United States Code Section 1350**
 
 
 The
undersigned hereby certifies that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the
quarter ended March 31, 2005 of Nanobac Pharmaceuticals, Incorporated (the
"Company") filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in such
report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.
  
 /s/ John
D. Stanton
 
 John D
Stanton
 Chief
Executive Officer
 May 12,
2005
  A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Nanobac Pharmaceuticals, Incorporated and will be retained by it and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-2000
<CASH>                                         220,562
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,786,400
<ALLOWANCES>                                   159,560
<INVENTORY>                                  8,169,607
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            17,165,681
<PP&E>                                      13,167,956
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,494,154
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              27,985,089
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       12,344,657
<BONDS>                                      4,657,838
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     6,849,609
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,073,865
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                27,985,089
<SALES>                                     31,402,954
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            31,402,954
<CGS>                                       20,168,656
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               25,439,312
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,252,817
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             674,287
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,036,538
<INCOME-TAX>                                   909,775
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,126,763
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,126,763
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.40


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-1497 

DONALD SULLIVAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CARSON SMITH, individually and in his capacity

as Sheriff of Pender County, North Carolina;

MAJOR KEITH D. HINKLE; CAPTAIN MARK SLOAN,

individually and in their capacities as

officers of the Sheriff’s Department of Pender

County, North Carolina; DEPUTY E. S. WYRICK,

JR.; DEPUTY REED; DEPUTY GONZALES; JOE DOE, I;

JOHN DOE, II; JOHN DOE III; JANE DOE,

individually and in their capacities as

deputies in the Sheriff’s Department of Pender

County, North Carolina; COUNTY OF PENDER;

MAGISTRATE DELORES R. HELMS, individually and

in her capacity as an officer of the court for

the Fifth Judicial District of North Carolina,

Defendants - Appellees,

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief

District Judge. (7:04-cv-00026-FL)

Submitted: December 21, 2006 Decided: December 28, 2006

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
- 2 -

Donald Sullivan, Appellant Pro Se. James Redfern Morgan, Jr.,

WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Winston-Salem, North

Carolina; David J. Adinolfi, II, Assistant Attorney General,

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Donald Sullivan appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Sullivan v.

Smith, No. 7:04-cv-00026-FL (E.D.N.C. Mar. 28, 2006). We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### The State of Iowa, Appellee, v. George Johnson *et al.,*Appellants.

Appeal in Criminal Cases: Record : review.

*Appeal from Pollc District Court.*— Hon. W. F. Conrad, Judge.

Wednesday, May 14, 1891.

The defendants were indicted for the crime of nuisance committed by beeping ior sale and selling intoxicating liquors contiary to law, and were tried and convicted. They *appeal.*

Affirmed.

No appeal anee for either party.

Eobinson, J.

This cause has been twice submitted to this court. The opinion filed on the first submission’ was withdrawn,, for the reason that *<*ne of the two transcripts of the n cord which were on file did not reach the court. The case was again submitted on the two transcripts. We have examined both of them, and find that they do not together present a complete record of the case. They show the indictment, trial, a part of the evidence, judgment and the taking of an appeal. The .evidence submitted shows that the defendants were guilty of the crime charged, and, also', that they were persistent and fiagr mt violators of the law. There seem to be claims on the part of the defendants of a former adjudication, but the evidence in regard to it is not ci ntained in the transcript submitted to us.

Objections were made to the testimony of certain witnesses, on the ground that due notice that it would be offered was not given ; but the notices served are not shown by the record before us, and, tlieref re, we cannot determine their sufficiency. Other objections were made, but, so far as we are able to judge, they were without merit. We are unable W discover any error ip the record prejudicial to the appellants.

The judgment of the district court is, therefore, affirmed.