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

- 22-0000056

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ‘ I

STATE OF HAWAI ‘ I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

MELISSA FAY, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-22-0000056; CASE NO. 2DTA-21-00637)

ORDER ACCEPTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna, Eddins , Ginoza, and Devens, JJ.) Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Melissa Fay’s application for writ of certiorari filed on January 9, 2024, is accepted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that no oral argument will be heard in this case. Any party may, within ten days and pursuant to Rule 34(c) of the Hawai ‘ i Rules of Appellate Procedure, move for retention of oral argument. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ʻ i, February 23, 2024. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Todd W. Eddins /s/ Lisa M. Ginoza /s/ Vladimir P. Devens Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-22-0000056 23-FEB-2024 10:14 AM Dkt. 5 OGAC
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**(Subsection (a) and (b) of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code)**

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code), the undersigned officer of Alexander’s, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

The Annual Report on Form 10-K for year ended December 31, 2008**(the “Report”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

|              |   |   |
|-------------------|--------|--------|
| February 23, 2009 |   |   | /s/ Steven Roth |
|              |   | Name:  | Steven Roth |
|              |   | Title: | Chief Executive Officer |
|                   |        |        |  |  |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>  THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
          FROM THE MARCH 31, 2000 BALANCE SHEET, STATEMENTS OF
          INCOME AND STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
          ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
<PERIOD-TYPE> YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END> DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END> MAR-31-2000

<S>                                         <C>
<CASH>                                           105
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  4,724
<ALLOWANCES>                                      43
<INVENTORY>                                   18,445
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              24,529
<PP&E>                                        48,995
<DEPRECIATION>                                11,547
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                62,703
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          4,868
<BONDS>                                       33,931
<COMMON>                                      14,808
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<OTHER-SE>                                     6,411
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  62,703
<SALES>                                        7,061
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               7,061
<CGS>                                          3,350
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  3,350
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               2,085
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               667
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  984
<INCOME-TAX>                                     396
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              588
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                     588
<EPS-BASIC>                                    .09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    .09


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

**Pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(18 U.S.C. 1350)**

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

(1)   TheQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 30, 2006 (the “Form10-Q”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(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 , 2006 |   | /s/ George R. Chapdelaine             |   |
|---------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|                      |   | George R. Chapdelaine                 |
|                      |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

This certification shall not be deemed “filed” forpurposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act, or otherwise subject tothe liability of that section.  Suchcertification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into anyfiling under the Securities Act or the Securities Exchange Act.

----
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Harvey R. Blau, Chief Executive Officer, certify that:



| |  |                         
| |  | ------------------------
| |  | /s/HARVEY R. BLAU       
| |  | Name: Harvey R. Blau    
| |  | Date: September 13, 2004

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

---



QuickLinks
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 23

                          Independent Auditors' Consent


Board of Directors
Aeroflex Incorporated:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
33-75496, 33-88868, 33-88878, 333-42399, 333-42405, 333-64611, 333-90173,
333-31654, 333-53626, 333-53622 and 333-61094) on Form S-8 and (No. 333-53618)
on Form S-3 of Aeroflex Incorporated of our report dated August 10, 2001,
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Aeroflex Incorporated and
subsidiaries as of June 30, 2001 and 2000, and the related consolidated
statements of earnings, stockholders' equity and comprehensive income, and cash
flows and related schedule for each of the years in the three-year period ended
June 30, 2001, which report appears in the June 30, 2001 annual report on Form
10-K of Aeroflex Incorporated.




                                       KPMG LLP


Melville, New York
September 28, 2001
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (File Nos. 333-49301 and 333-58038) and the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-44764, 333-42385, and 333-62030) of Affiliated
Computer Services, Inc. of our report dated July 30, 2002 relating to the
consolidated financial statements and our report dated July 30, 2002 relating to
the financial statement schedule, which appear in this Annual Report on Form
10-K.

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

Dallas, Texas
September 18, 2002
mb_8k1005ex102.htm


Exhibit 10.1



 


 


 


VOTING AGREEMENT


 


Each of the undersigned directors of Monroe Bancorp (“Monroe”) hereby agrees in his or her individual capacity as a shareholder to vote his or her shares of Monroe Common Stock that are registered in his or her personal name (and agrees to use his or her reasonable efforts to cause all additional shares of Monroe Common Stock owned jointly by him or her with any other person or by his or her spouse or over which he or she has voting influence or control to be voted) in favor of the Agreement and Plan of Merger by and between Old National Bancorp and Monroe, dated October 5, 2010 (the “Agreement”).  In addition, each of the undersigned directors hereby agrees not to make any transfers of shares of Monroe with the purpose of avoiding his or her agreements set forth in the preceding sentence and agrees to cause any transferee of such shares to abide by the terms of this Voting Agreement.  Each of the undersigned is entering into this Voting Agreement solely in his or her capacity as an individual shareholder and, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Voting Agreement, nothing in this Voting Agreement is intended or shall be construed to require any of the undersigned, in his or her capacity as a director of Monroe, to act or fail to act in accordance with his or her fiduciary duties in such director capacity. Furthermore, none of the undersigned makes any agreement or understanding herein in his or her capacity as a director of Monroe.  Notwithstanding any contrary provision herein, this Voting Agreement shall be effective from the date hereof and shall terminate and be of no further force and effect upon the earliest of (a) the consummation of the Merger (as defined in the Agreement); (b) the termination of the Agreement in accordance with its terms; or (c) the taking of such action whereby a majority of Monroe’s Board of Directors, in accordance with the terms and conditions of Section 5.06 of the Agreement, withdraws its favorable recommendation of the Agreement to its shareholders.  This Voting Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be an original, but such counterparts shall together constitute one and the same instrument.


 


Dated this 5th day of October, 2010.


 







 



	/s/ Bradford J. Bomba, Jr., M.D.	  	/s/ Steven R. Crider
	
Bradford J. Bomba, Jr., M.D.

	  	
Steven R. Crider


	  	  	  
	/s/ Mark D. Bradford	  	/s/ Joyce Claflin Harrell
	
Mark D. Bradford

	  	
Joyce Claflin Harrell


	  	  	  
	/s/ James D. Bremner	  	/s/ Paul W. Mobley
	
James D. Bremner

	  	
Paul W. Mobley


	  	  	  
	/s/ James G. Burkhart	  	/s/ Charles R. Royal, Jr.
	
James G. Burkhart

	  	
Charles R. Royal, Jr.
#### P. Weed, Appellant, v. Bowman *et al.,*Appellees.

Fraudulent Conveyance: transfer of sheriff’s certificate of SALE : CONSIDERATION.

*Appeal from Butter District Court.—*Hon. G. W. Ruddick, Judge.

Tuesday, May 19, 1891.

Action in equity to enjoin the sale of certain lands claimed by the plaintiff on execution in favor of Bowman Bros. & Burr and against P. Weed. Trial was had upon the merits, and a decree entered dismissing the plaintiff’s petition, from which he *appeals.*

Reversed.

*Bemenway & Grundy,*for appellant.

*E. L. Smalley,*for appellees.

Given, J.

I. The questions and controlling facts in this case are identical with those in *Austin v. Bowman,*81 Iowa, 277, and relate to the same title and judgment. The plaintiff’s cl-dm of title is the same as that of the plaintiff Austin, except that Austin claimed under a deed from this plaintiff, «hile the plaintiff claims under title in himself. The evidence upon the question as to whether there was a. redemption from the Brett mortgage sale may be different, but we conclude from it. as from tl-at in the former case, that the purchase of the sheriff’s certificate of sale was in good faith, and not a redemption. The conclusion in the former case was in favor of the title of the-plaintiff as against this judgment, and following that decision, with which we are still content, we think the decree herein should be in favor of the plaintiff, and that the decree of the district court should be REVERSED.^
##### 



Exhibit 31.1 Certification Pursuant To
Section 302 Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002 I, John P. Mitola, certify that:  1.
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Electric City Corp. (the
Corporation).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 Corporation as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    The Corporations other certifying officers 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 Corporation 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 Corporation, 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 Corporation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; andc.
    Disclosed in this report any change in the Corporations internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the Corporations most
recent fiscal quarter (the Corporations fourth fiscal quarter in the case of
an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the Corporations internal control over financial
reporting; and  5.
    The Corporations other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
Corporations auditors and the audit committee of the Corporation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 Corporations ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; andb.
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the Corporations internal control
over financial reporting. Date: June 13, 2005 /s/ John P. MitolaJohn P. MitolaChief Executive Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

                          Independent Auditors' Consent

The Board of Directors and Shareholders
K-Tron International, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(Nos. 333-52523, 333-26531, 33-07921 and 33-39039) on Form S-8 of K-Tron
International, Inc. of our report dated February 10, 2003 with respect to the
consolidated balance sheet of K-Tron International, Inc. and subsidiaries as of
December 28, 2002 and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in
shareholders' equity, and cash flows for the year ended December 28, 2002, and
the related financial statement schedule, which report appears in the January 3,
2004 Annual Report on Form 10-K of K-Tron International, Inc. and to the
reference to our firm under the heading "Selected Financial Data" in the Form
10-K.

Our report refers to our audit of the disclosures added to revise the fiscal
2001 consolidated financial statements, as more fully described in Note 7 to the
consolidated financial statements. However, we were not engaged to audit,
review, or apply any procedures to the fiscal 2001 consolidated financial
statements other than with respect to such disclosures.

                                            KPMG LLP

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
March 31, 2004
VII

Private Calendar No. 22

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 785

[Report No. 106–959]

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 29, 2000

Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

OCTOBER 11, 2000

Referred to the Private Calendar and ordered to be printed

AN ACT

For the relief of Francis Schochenmaier and Mary Hudson.

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

3 SECTION 1. RELIEF OF FRANCES SCHOCHENMAIER.

4 The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay, out of any

5 moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to

6 Frances Schochenmaier of Bonesteel, South Dakota, the

7 sum of $60,567.58 in compensation for the erroneous un8 derpayment to Herman Schochenmaier, husband of

9 Frances Schochenmaier, during the period from Sep-
2

•S 785 RH

1 tember 1945 to March 1995, of compensation and other

2 benefits relating to a service-connected disability incurred

3 by Herman Schochenmaier during military service in

4 World War II.

5 SEC. 2. RELIEF OF MARY HUDSON.

6 Notwithstanding section 5121(a) of title 38, United

7 States Code, or any other provision of law, the Secretary

8 of Veterans Affairs shall not recover from the estate of

9 Wallace Hudson, formerly of Russellville, Alabama, or

10 from Mary Hudson, the surviving spouse of Wallace Hud11 son, the sum of $97,253 paid to Wallace Hudson for com12 pensation and other benefits relating to a service-con13 nected disability incurred by Wallace Hudson during ac14 tive military service in World War II, which payment was

15 mailed by the Secretary to Wallace Hudson in January

16 2000 but was delivered after Wallace Hudson’s death.

17 SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON FEES.

18 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not more than a total of 10 per19 cent of the payment required by section 1 or retained

20 under section 2 may be paid to or received by agents or

21 attorneys for services rendered in connection with obtain22 ing or retaining such payment, as the case may be, any

23 contract to the contrary notwithstanding.
3

•S 785 RH

1 (b) VIOLATION.—Any person who violates subsection

2 (a) shall be fined not more than $1,000.

Passed the Senate September 28 (legislative day,

September 22), 2000.
Private Calendar No. 22

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 785

[Report No. 106–959]

AN ACT

For the relief of Francis Schochenmaier and Mary

Hudson.

OCTOBER 11, 2000

Referred to the Private Calendar and ordered to be

printed
# L_2015067EN.01003201.xml

| 12.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 67/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 67/32

---

Corrigendum to Directive 2012/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 establishing a single European railway area

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 343 of 14 December 2012
  )

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 343 of 14 December 2012

On page 58, first subparagraph of Article 55(3):

for:

‘3.   ..., where relevant, be appointed under clear and transparent rules which guarantee their independence by the national cabinet or council of ministers or by any other public authority which does not directly exert ownership rights over regulated undertakings.’

,

read:

‘3.   ..., where relevant, be appointed, under clear and transparent rules which guarantee their independence, by the national cabinet or council of ministers or by any other public authority which does not directly exert ownership rights over regulated undertakings.’

;

on page 62, Article 65, first paragraph:

for:

‘... repealed with effect from 15 December 2012, ...’,

read:

‘... repealed with effect from 17 June 2015, ...’.

---
#### M’Kinnie’s ex’rs *v.*Oliphant’s ex’rs.

Per Williams,

the only Judge in Court, trover, trespass, deceit, or any other action of the like nature, will lie against executors, where the thing itself has been used so as to go into and increase the testator’s estate, so that the benefit thereof comes to the possession of the executor, otherwise where the thing is destroyed, as if a man take my bullock and eat him. The case of *Hambly*& Trott, in *Cowper,*is not law; and further, I never knew a case in *Cowper*to be received as law in our Courts.

Note. — Vide *Decraw*v. *Mone’s ex’rs, post*21. *Clark*v. *Hill, past*308. *Avery*v. *Moore’s ex’rs. post*362. In the last case cited, the article of property for which the action was brought, did not go into and increase the estate of the testator ; but it was decided that that made no difference. The Editor has it from good authority, that the expression attributed to Judge Williams in this case, that he *“*never knew a case in *Cowper*to be received as law in our Court?,” is a mis,’ fake, and was never used *by*him.
#### SAMUEL T. CARROW *v.*THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF BEAUFORT COUNTY.

(For tile Syllabus, seo the next preceding case of *French*and *McRae*v. *The Commissioners of Few Ilanover, ante,*page 692 )

Civil AotioN for an Injunction, beard before Moore, *J.,*at Pali Term, 1875, of the Superior Court of Beaotoet county.

The action was brought by the plaintiff in his own behalf, and in behalf of all other tax payers, &c., to restrain the collection by the defendant, the Board of Commissioners of Beaufort county, of the excess of tax levied by the defendant over and above the amount allowed by law.

The following are the facts found by the court: The defendant has levied a tax which, together with the State tax of 40 cents on the $100 valuation, amounts to $1.14 on the $100 valuation, being an excess of 47^- cents over and above the supposed limitation in the Constitution of 66-J cents on $100 valuation.

The levy made by the defendant on property is absolutely necessary to pay the expenses of the county, and that 26f cents, the unappropriated portion of the supposed limitation not taken by the State, is not sufficient to pay as much as one-third of the expense of the county for one year.

There is an existing debt against the county, contracted since 1868 of about $8,000. The current expense of the county from year to year is from $13,000 to $15,000.

The defendant endeavored to obtain possession of the revenue act before the General Assembly adjourned, but failed to do so, and could not ascertain to what extent the supposed limit had been exhausted.

The defendant has observed the equation, and levied a tax of $3.42 on the poll. The tax levied does not exceed double the State tax.

Upon the hearing the court granted an order to the follow*701ing effect: that the defendant be enjoined from collecting for county purposes beyond twenty-six and two-thirds cents upon the hundred dollars valuation of property, and eighty cents upon the poll.

From this order the defendant appealed.

*Fowle.*for appellant.

*Gilliam c& Pruden,*contra.

RodMAN J.

The only question presented in this case, is decided in *French*and *McRae*v. *Commissioners of New Han*over, at this term. It is unnecessary to repeat°the reason there stated.

Pee Cukiam. Judgment accordingly.