alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In Equity.

The Court adopted this rule, where an injunction, bill ami answer have been read, and the injunction dissolved, and no replication nor commissions within two terms after, thebill shall lie dismissed for want of prosecution ; and accordingly, many injunction bills were dismissed ai this term for want of prosecution upon the above rule.

Also in a case before the Court, where the complainant |liUj died, it was said *by Mr. Moore,*and conceded *per curiam,*that since t,lie act of 1786, if the complainant dies, the defendant is not thereby out of Court, or the suit abated; but it is continued in Court for two terms next following, by the force of that act; and at either of these two next terms, complainant’s representatives may-come into Court, and move to be made parties, and be admitted parties on record to carry on the suit ; and within *187these two terms, there is no necessity for a bill of *revi-■cor*— but if the party applying is not the legal representative entitled to carry on the suit, his application may he controverted by the. other party, and drawn into the judgment of the Court by plea, as well as if there was a bill of *revivor.*And the Court seemed to incline, that if the interest of the complainant had gone by devise or will, or other legal transfer, to any other person than to him who is constituted by law, that then such person must state that circumstance to the Court in a bill to he brought for the purpose.

*Note*— Vide *Avery*v. *Branch, post*369. Anonymous, post *451, Dayson*v. - 2 *Hay.*296.
No. 90-6214.

#### Diemer *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
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

In connection with the Annual Report of Galaxy Energy Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending November 30, 2005, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Christopher S. Hardesty, Chief 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, 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/ CHRISTOPHER S. HARDESTY
------------------------------------------
Christopher S. Hardesty
Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 31.2

SARBANES-OXLEY SECTION 302(a) CERTIFICATION

Principal Financial Officer

I, Calvin L. Kantonen, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report of First American Scientific Corp.;

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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer 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 registrant 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 registrant, 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 registrant'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; and

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant'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 registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

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

|Date: February 8, 2005 | /s/ Calvin L.  Kantonen                  
|---------------------- | -----------------------------------------
|                       | Calvin L. Kantonen                       
|                       | President and Principal Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
      THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED
MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>  1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                1,082
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                        20,340
<ALLOWANCES>                          2,344
<INVENTORY>                           2,226
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     11,118
<PP&E>                               13,281
<DEPRECIATION>                        5,990
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       33,763
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                13,431
<BONDS>                              10,446
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 3,277
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                                151
<OTHER-SE>                            9,488
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         33,763
<SALES>                               6,248
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      9,346
<CGS>                                 1,800
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         8,878
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        190
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      306
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         468
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     468
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                            468
<EPS-BASIC>                           .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                          (.08)
<FN>
Amounts inapplicable or not disclosed as a separate line on the Statement of
Financial Position or Statement of Operations are reported as -0- herein.
* Notes and accounts receivable are reported net of allowances for doubtful
accounts on the Statement of Financial Position.
</FN>



</TABLE>
Exhibit
32.2 CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 
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 Speedus Corp. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas M. Finn,
Treasurer and Chief 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, that: (1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of
  Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange of 1934, 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:
November 14, 2006By:
/s/ Thomas M. FinnName:
Thomas M. FinnTitle:
Treasurer and Chief Financial and Accounting Officer 23
Exhibit 21.1 

 

**Subsidiaries of**

**Apple HospitalityTwo, Inc.**

**At December 31, 2005**

**(The state of incorporation or organization of each subsidiary**

**is Virginia, except as noted)**

 

A. Direct Subsidiaries 

 

AHT Carolina GP, Inc. 

AHT Carolina LP, Inc. 

AHT Redmond, Inc. 

AHT Res I GP, Inc. 

AHT Res II GP, Inc. 

AHT Res III GP, Inc. 

AHT Res I LP, Inc. 

AHT Res IILP, Inc. 

AHT Res III LP, Inc. 

AHT Residence Inn II GP, Inc.

AHT Residence Inn II LP, Inc. 

AHT-SPE I GP, Inc. 

AHT-SPE II GP, Inc. 

Apple Hospitality Management, Inc. 

Apple Res III Corporation * 

Apple Suites, Inc. 

 

B. Indirect Subsidiaries (held through direct subsidiaries or other indirect subsidiaries)

 

AHM Carolina GP, Inc. 

AHM Carolina LP, Inc. 

AHM Carolina Limited Partnership 

AHM Res I GP, Inc. 

AHM Res II GP, Inc. 

AHM Res I LP, Inc. 

AHM Res II LP, Inc. 

AHM Res I Limited Partnership 

AHM Res II Limited Partnership 

AHM-SPE I, Inc. 

AHT Carolina Limited Partnership 

AHT Residence Inn II Limited Partnership 

AHT-SPE I Limited Partnership

AHT-SPE II Limited Partnership 

Apple Suites Advisors, Inc.

Apple Suites General, Inc. 

Apple Suites LP, Inc. 

Apple Suites Management, Inc. 

Apple Suites-MO, LLC 

Apple Suites Pennsylvania Business Trust ** 

Apple Suites REIT LimitedPartnership 

Apple Suites SPE I, Inc. 

Apple Suites SPE II,Inc. 

Apple Suites SPE III, Inc. 

Apple Suites SPE IV, Inc.

Apple Suites SPE V, Inc. 

Apple Suites SPE Holding, Inc. 

Apple Suites Services General, Inc. 

Apple Suites Services Limited, Inc. 

Apple Suites Services Limited Partnership 

Marriott Residence Inn Limited Partnership * 

Marriott Residence Inn II Limited Partnership * 

Marriott Residence Inn USALimited Partnership * 

Residence Inn III LLC * 

 
*State of organization is Delaware. **State of organization is Pennsylvania.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of First American Scientific Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Cal Kantonen, Chief 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, 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|   
|    | Dated this 12th day of February, 2009                                                                                                                
|   

CALKANTONENCal KantonenChief Financial Officer















---
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNews Releases1998

# Arkansas Plants Rated "Superior" in Three Areas "Good" in One in Latest NRC  Assessment

----

----

RIV: 98-09

February 20, 1998

**ARKANSAS PLANTS RATED "SUPERIOR" IN THREE AREAS "GOOD" IN ONE IN LATEST NRC ASSESSMENT**

The Arkansas Nuclear One nuclear power plant has received performance ratings of "superior" in plant operations, maintenance and plant support, and "good" in engineering in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's latest systematic assessment of licensee performance (SALP).

The SALP report was recently issued to Entergy Operations, Inc., operator of the twin reactor facility situated near Russellville, Arkansas. It evaluates plant safety performance from July 7, 1996, through January 3 of this year.

NRC and Entergy officials will discuss the report during a meeting set for 11 a.m. March 4 in the Reeves E. Ritchie Training Facility in Russellville. The meeting will be open for public observation. NRC officials will be available afterwards to speak with reporters, state and local officials, and members of the public.

NRC systematic assessment reports rate licensees in four functional areas--plant operations, maintenance, engineering, and plant support--and assigns ratings of Category 1, 2, or 3 corresponding to superior, good or adequate safety performance. The ANO report rates the plant "Category 1" in plant operations, maintenance and plant support, indicating superior performance. It rates engineering as "Category 2" indicating good safety performance. ANO was given the following scores on the current SALP and previous SALP in 1996:

In his cover letter to the report, NRC Regional Administrator Ellis W. Merschoff said, "Performance in the plant operations area continued to be superior. Management involvement and support, coupled with superior operating practices and highly skilled operators, contributed to the safe operation of the facility."

Safety performance in maintenance improved to a superior level because of the high quality of maintenance and surveillance implementation, as well as continuing improvements in plant material condition.

Mr. Merschoff said, "Engineering effectively responded to a number of complex issues during this period with comprehensive, well-founded plans and actions, and consistently provided strong support to operations and maintenance. However, an increase in the number and significance of engineering performance deficiencies warrants increased attention."

The reduction in accumulated radiation dose owing to overall reduction in plant radiation levels was a noted strength in the plant support area, which retained a superior rating.

Editors: A copy of the full SALP report is available from this office on request. It also will be available in electronic format on the NRC Office of Public Affairs Internet home page at http://www.nrc.gov/OPA.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Titus Stephens, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[632 NYS2d 906]

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: There is no merit to the contention of defendant that County Court erred in denying his motion for new counsel without making further inquiry regarding the reasons for the motion *(see, People v Rancka,*193 AD2d 1123, 1124, lv *denied*82 NY2d 725; *People v Kirkland, 177*AD2d 946, 946-947, *lv denied 79*NY2d 859; *see generally, People v Sides,*75 NY2d 822, 824).

*855The court properly denied discovery of documents and notes that formed the basis of the laboratory report concluding that the substance sold by defendant to the undercover officer was cocaine. Those documents and notes were not discoverable under article. 240. Rather, they constitute *Rosario*material and were properly made available to defendant at trial *(see, People v Christopher,*101 AD2d 504, 525, *revd on other grounds*65 NY2d 417; *see also, People v Strong,*60 AD2d 792).

Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the read-back of testimony of certain defense witnesses requested by the jury during deliberations "was not in compliance with CPL 310.30, written jury procedure” *(see, People v Goldbeck,*218 AD2d 670), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice *(see,*CPL 470.15 [6] [a]).

Lastly, we conclude that the sentence imposed is neither unduly harsh nor severe. "The mere fact that defendant was ultimately sentenced to a term of incarceration greater than that offered as a part of the plea bargain does not render his sentence harsh or excessive” *(People v Bradley*[appeal No. 1], 184 AD2d 1041, *lv denied*80 NY2d 927). Moreover, "the mere fact that other cases, decided under differing factual circumstances, reveal a lesser sentence for the same crime does not warrant disturbing the trial court’s exercise of discretion” *(People v Quezada,*145 AD2d 950, 951; *see also, People v Hoppe,*47 AD2d 571). (Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Harvey, J. — Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present — Lawton, J. P., Fallon, Callahan, David and Boehm, JJ.
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of First American Scientific Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Brian Nichols, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

Dated this 18th day of February, 2004.

| | /s/ Brian Nichols                    
| | -------------------------------------
| | Brian Nichols
Chief Executive Officer















---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          11,099
<SECURITIES>                                     2,455
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,996
<ALLOWANCES>                                       404
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                17,748
<PP&E>                                           1,527
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  20,938
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,151
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             6
<OTHER-SE>                                      25,142
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    20,938
<SALES>                                          7,021
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,021
<CGS>                                            2,687
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,964
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (286)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        20
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (306)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (306)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
- 931 - 

### N ebraska 

### S upreme 

### C ourt 

### A dva nc e 

### S 303 N ebraska 

### R eport STATE v . M c GIN Cite as 303 Neb. 931



### S tate of 

### N ebraska 

### , appellee 

### , v



### .

D a nn y 

### J. M c 

### G i nn 

### , ap ___ N.W.2d ___ Filed August 23, 2019. No. S

- 18

- 744.

suppleme n tal opi n 

### Appeal from the District Court for Holt County, M ark 

### D K ozisek 

### , Judge, on appeal thereto from the County Court for Holt County, K ale 

### B

. B urdi c k 

### , Judge. Former opinion modi

fied. Motion for rehearing overru Forrest F. Peetz, of Peetz Law, P.C., L.L.O., for appellant. Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Nathan A. Liss, for appellee.
H eavi c a n 

### , C.J., M iller 

### ‐ L erma n 

### , C assel 

### , S ta c 

### P

apik 

### , and F reude n ber g 

### ,

P er 

### C uriam 

### This case is before us on a motion for rehearing filed by the appellee, State of Nebraska, concerning our opinion in State v. McGinn

. 1 

### We overrule the motion, but we modify the opinion as follows: In the analysis section, we withdraw the last paragraph 2 

### and substitute the following:

1 State v. McGinn, ante p. 224, 928 N.W.2d 391 (2019).
2 Id. at 234, 928 N.W.2d at 398. Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/ 09/27/2019 09:09 AM CDT- 932 - 

### N ebraska 

### S upreme 

### C ourt 

### A dva nc e 

### S 303 N ebraska 

### R eport STATE v . M c GIN Cite as 303 Neb. 931 

### In this matter, because we consider all evidence admit

ted by the trial court, erroneously or not, we consider the breath test in our double jeopardy analysis. Considering the breath test, the evidence was sufficient to sustain a guilty verdict for a violation of § 60

- 6,196(1)(c) as charged. As such, double jeopardy does not forbid a remand for a new trial. Therefore, in consideration of all of the above, we reverse the district court’s decision affirming the county court’s conviction and remand the cause to the district court with directions to remand the matter to the county court for a new trial. In the sole paragraph of the conclusion section, we withdraw the last sentence 3 

### and substitute the following: “Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s decision affirming the county court’s conviction, but determine double jeopardy does not require dismissal of this action.” The remainder of the opinion shall remain unmodified. F ormer opi n io n modifi 

### M otio n for reheari ng overr

3 Id.
A B C

Total(thousand tons) 

### 493,159 509,000 518,500 5.14% 1.87% Sugar (thousand ton) 

### 31,304 33,100 32,700 4.46% -1.21% Anhydrous ethanol (million liters) 

### 7,466 6,950 8,300 11.17% 19.42% Hydrous ethanol (million liters) 

### 13,076 14,536 12,750 -2.50% -12.29% Total ethanol (million liters) 

### 20,542 21,486 21,050 2.47% -2.03% TRS(thousand tons) 

### 67,830 71,260 70,207 3.50% -1.48% Kg of TRS / ton of sugarcane 

### 137.54 140.0 135.40 -1.55% -3.28%

sugar1 

### 48.44% 48.75% 48.88% ethanol2 

### 51.56% 51.25% 51.12% Sugar available for exports(thousand tons) 

### 22,119 24,000 23,500 6.24% -2.08% Ethanol exports(million liters) 

### 1,768 1,700 2,550 44.23% 50.00% Source: UNICA. Note: TRS ist acronym used to "Total Recoverable Sugars"; 1sugarcane used to sugar production; 2 sugarcane used to ethanol production. Data of 2011/2012 harvest season are final values. The 1 stestimate for the 2012/2013 sugarcane harvest season was released on April 12, 2012; the 1 streview was released on September 20 of that year. SUGARCANE QUALITY

SUGAR & ETHANOL PRODUCTION SHARE Share (%) MARKET 1streview 2012/2013

PRODUCTION 

### Products

ESTIMATE FOR 2012/2013 SUGARCANE HARVEST OF BRAZILIAN SOUTH-CENTRAL REGION
2011/2012 harvest season 1stestimate 2012/2013 SUGARCANE CRUSHING Variation (%) C/A C/B