alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Old City Iron Works *v.*Belmont.

Opinion delivered May 7, 1928.

*226*J. R.*Wilson, for appellant.

*Coulter*& *Coulter,*for appellee.

Kirby, J.,

(after stating the facts). Appellant contends that there was no express or implied warranty of the condition of the second-hand drilling rig sold to appellee, and that the court erred in holding otherwise and awarding appellee damages for ¡breach of an implied warranty, and offsetting the award against the amount which appellant was entitled to and allowed to recover upon its claim.

The note sued on recites that it is given for the purchase price of the following described property, this day delivered to H. B. Belmont, itemizing it, a reservation of title in the property till paid for, permitting it to be moved to a described location, but not elsewhere without written consent of appellant; also that, as additional security for the obligation, the maker is assigning to the appellant company an interest of $9,000 in a judgment and decree recovered in the Ouachita Chancery Court in the case of *Belmont*v. Johnson, 172 Ark. 851, 291 S. W. 77, on appeal to the Supreme Court; and “it is further stipulated that said assignment of an interest in said judgment as additional security for the above obligation shall be executed as a separate instrument;” purports to contain the entire contract or agreement of sale, and was signed and acknowledged by appellee, and contains no mention of a warranty of the .condition of the property sold. There is no allegation of the pleadings or claim made by appellee that the warranty was omitted by mistake, nor of misrepresentations made or fraud practiced inducing appellee to sign the contract, and the warranty cou'ld not be incorporated in the contract by parol evidence. *Schneider*v. Fairmon, 128 Ark. 425, 194 S. W. 251.

It is undisputed that the property, the drilling rig, was second-hand, known to be such by the parties; that it was examined and inspected by appellee before his purchase thereof, and, under the circumstances, there was no implied warranty as to the condition or quality of the *227property purchased. *Yellow Jacket Mining Co.*v. *Tegarden,*104 Ark. 573, 149 S. W. 518; *Case Threshing Machine Co.*v. *Bailey,*89 Ark. 108, 115 S. W. 949; *Hartin Com. Co.*v. *Pelt,*76 Ark. 177, 88 S. W. 929; *Colchord Machinery Co.*v. *Loy-Wilson Foundry*& *Machinery Co.,*131 Mo. App. 540, 110 S. W. 630; note 29 A. L. R. 1231; 24 R. C. L. 1705; 35 Cyc. 408.

It follows that the court erred in holding otherwise and in adjudging damages to appellee for a breach of an implied warranty and setting-off the amount of such recovery against appellant’s judgment for the balance of the purchase money due on the drilling rig and open account for machinery and supplies furnished the appel-lee.

The judgment on the cross-complaint is accordingly reversed, and the cause dismissed, and a judgment in appellant’s favor for the said amount found to he due is affirmed, and judgment will he entered here accordingly. It is so ordered.
----

EXHIBIT 31.1

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Jeffrey Simon, certify that:

I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB of WiFiMed Holdings Company, Inc.;

1.                  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;

2.                  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;

3.                  The registrant's other certifying officer(s) 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

4.                  The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditor 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: May 19, 2006

/s/ Jeffrey Simon                                

Jeffrey Simon

Chief Executive Officer
#### Thomas Charles LAMBERT and Elmer SMITH v. STATE of Arkansas

CR 85-116

692 S.W.2d 238

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered July 8, 1985

*William R. Simpson, Jr.,*Public Defender, *Jacquelyn C. Gregan,*Deputy Public Defender, by: *Donald K. Campbell,*Deputy Public Defender, for appellant.

*Steve Clark,*Att’y Gen., by: *Connie Griffin,*Asst. Att’y Gen., for appellee.

Darrell Hickman, Justice.

Thomas Lambert and Elmer Smith escaped from the Wrightsville Unit of the Department of Corrections on August 14,1983. They both pleaded guilty to the *409charge of escape. Due to the circumstances surrounding the escape, the trial court was convinced they should not receive severe sentences and suspended their sentences. However, the state subsequently realized that, according to Ark. Stat. Ann. § 41-803 (Supp. 1983), neither should have received a suspended sentence, because Smith had four prior convictions and Lambert more than one. The state’s first motion to correct the sentence was denied. However, their motion for reconsideration, filed May 30, 1984, was granted and the judge corrected the first sentence so that Lambert received a six year sentence and Smith eight years.

On appeal the appellants argue that the trial court had lost jurisdiction to correct the sentences. The law is clear that the trial court had no authority to suspend the sentences. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 41-803 (5) is mandatory: “The court *shall not suspend*imposition of sentence. . .if it is determined, pursuant to Section 1005 [41 -1005], that the defendant has previously been convicted of two (2) or more felonies.” (Italics supplied.)

We have long held that *valid*sentences cannot be modified once execution of the sentence has begun. *Nelson*v. *State,*284 Ark. 156, 680 S.W.2d 91 (1984); *Coones v. State,*280 Ark. 321, 657 S.W.2d 553 (1983); *Rogers*v. *State,*265 Ark. 945, 582 S.W.2d 7 (1979); *Fletcher*v. *State,*198 Ark. 376, 128 S.W.2d 997 (1939); *Emerson v. Boyles,*170 Ark. 621, 280 S.W. 1005 (1926). However, we have not applied that rule to an illegal sentence. The general rule is that if the original sentence is illegal, even though partially executed, the sentencing court may correct it. *In re Bonner,*151 U.S. 242 *(1893); People v. Grimble,*116 Cal. App. 3d 678, 172 Cal. Rptr. 362 (1981); *State v. Fountaine,*199 Kan. 434, 430 P.2d 235 (1967); 4 Wharton’s Criminal Procedure § 611 (1976). In this case the court imposed what amounts to a void sentence — one beyond its authority. See *In re Bonner, supra.*It does not matter that no objection was made at the time since the court was acting in excess of its authority and that was a question of subject matter jurisdiction which cannot be waived by the parties. *Coones*v. *State, supra.*

The fact that a notice of appeal had been filed did not preclude the trial court from acting. *Glick v. State,*283 Ark. 412, 677 S.W.2d 844 (1984); *Andrews*v. *Lauener, 229*Ark. 894, 319 S.W.2d 805 (1958); *Fletcher*v. *State, supra; Robinson*v. *410
      *Arkansas Loan & Trust Co.,*72 Ark. 475, 81 S.W. 609 (1904).

Affirmed.

Dudley, J., not participating.
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 00166**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  00166\00166_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 00166\00166_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file

00166\Certification Statement_00166.pdf Plant certification statement x 00166\00166_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

00166\00166_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 00166\00166_ICR CoverLetter.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database
. 2 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
EXHIBIT 32



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 Cross Timbers Royalty Trust (the Trust) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
its knowledge:



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



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



|               |  |                                         |  |                    
|-------------- |  | --------------------------------------- |  | -------------------
|               |  | Bank of America, N.A.,                 
|               |  | Trustee for Cross Timbers Royalty Trust
|               |  |                                        
|April 29, 2005 |  | By                                      |  | /S/ NANCY G. WILLIS
|               |  |                                         |  | Nancy G. Willis    
|               |  |                                         |  | Vice President
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>   5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM - FORM
10-KSB AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL 
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                             DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       129,860
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                354,880
<ALLOWANCES>                                  60,000
<INVENTORY>                                  119,203
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             553,083
<PP&E>                                     4,234,621
<DEPRECIATION>                             2,166,065
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             2,639,941
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      3,362,524
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                    4,283
<COMMON>                                      21,191
<OTHER-SE>                               (1,429,552)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               2,639,941
<SALES>                                       29,147
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              29,147
<CGS>                                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                401,959
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             546,676
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           173,964
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (546,776)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 129,100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (675,876)
<DISCONTINUED>                             (546,676)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              305,886
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                               (916,666)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.43)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.43)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Deloris G. Michael,

Plaintiff,

V. Case No. 2:18-cv-131

Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Michael H. Watson

Defendant. Magistrate Judge Jolson

ORDER

On July 20,2018, United States Magistrate Judge Jolson Issued a Report and

Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that the Court overrule Plaintiff Deloris G.

Michael's ("PialntlfT') statement of errors and affirm the Commissioner of Social

Security's ("Commissioner") non-dlsablllty finding. ECF No. 14.

The R&R notified the parties of their right to file objections to the R&R pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). R&R 13, ECF No. 14. The R&Rfurther advised the parties

that the failure to object to the R&Rwithin fourteen days would result In a waiver of the

right to de novo review by the District Judge and waiver of the right to appeal the

decision of the District Court adopting the R&R. Id. The deadline for filing such

objections has passed, and no objections were filed.

Having received no objections, the R&R Is ADOPTED. Plaintiffs statement of

errors Is OVERRULED and the Commissioner's decision Is AFFIRMED. The clerk Is

directed to enter judgment In favor of the Commissioner.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

MICHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
25182034.1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

YANJUN XU, 

Defendant. 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No. 1:18-CR-00043 

Judge Timothy S. Black 

DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR 

PRETRIAL DISCLOSURE OF 404(b) 

EVIDENCE OF OTHER CRIMES, 

WRONGS, OR ACTS

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), Defendant Yanjun Xu, by and through 

counsel, hereby requests the United States Attorney to provide counsel pretrial disclosure of 

evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts as set forth in that rule. 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Ralph W. Kohnen

Ralph W. Kohnen (0034418) 

Jeanne M. Cors (0070660) 

Robert K. McBride (pro hac vice)

Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP 

425 Walnut Street, Suite 1800 

Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-3957 

Telephone: (513) 381-2838 

Fax: (513) 381-0205 

kohnen@taftlaw.com

cors@taftlaw.com 

rmcbride@taftlaw.com

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT 

Case: 1:18-cr-00043-TSB Doc #: 49 Filed: 06/11/19 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 318
25182034.1 

MEMORANDUM 

Defendant Yanjun Xu, respectfully requests pretrial disclosure of evidence of other 

crimes, wrongs, or acts pursuant to Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Ralph W. Kohnen

Ralph W. Kohnen (0034418) 

Jeanne M. Cors (0070660) 

Robert K. McBride (pro hac vice)

Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP 

425 Walnut Street, Suite 1800 

Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-3957 

Telephone: (513) 381-2838 

Fax: (513) 381-0205 

kohnen@taftlaw.com

cors@taftlaw.com 

rmcbride@taftlaw.com

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on June 11, 2019 a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically. 

Notice of this filing will be sent to all parties in this case by operation of the Court’s CM/ECF 

system. Parties may access this filing through the Court’s system. 

/s/ Ralph W. Kohnen

Case: 1:18-cr-00043-TSB Doc #: 49 Filed: 06/11/19 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 319
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASENovember 16, 2000

 

POINT WEST VENTURES, L.P. ANNOUNCESTHIRD QUARTER FINANCINGS

                   SAN FRANCISCO, CA - (November 16, 2000) Point West Ventures, L.P., a majority ownedaffiliate of Point West Capital Corporation (NASDAQ: PWCC) today announced that it closedthree new financings during the third quarter of 2000. The financings included Acteva,Inc., Home Director, Inc., and Icras, Inc.

                   Point West Ventures, L.P. purchased a $50,000 convertible note from Acteva, Inc.,www.acteva.com, as a follow on investment. Acteva is a provider of event managementservices for corporations and event organizers. For single events or enterprise widesolutions, the company provides pre-event marketing and promotion services, onlineregistration and payment collection, and post event evaluation and e-merchandise services.Acteva is a privately held company and is headquartered in San Francisco, CA.

                   Additionally, Point West Ventures purchased $500,000 of convertible preferred stock ofHome Director, Inc., www.homedirector.com. Home Director is a provider of home networking and technologyproducts for consumers. Its products support high-speed Internet connections, residentialgateways, Web-enabled appliances and devices, and other Internet-based services. HomeDirector is based in Morrisville, NC.
                   Finally, Point West Ventures purchased $500,000 of convertible preferred stock of Icras,Inc., www.icras.com, aprovider of end to end wireless solutions for the enterprise marketplace. Icras recentlyacquired ILT, Inc., a provider of mobile applications and services for the enterpriseasset management market. These services will be offered under Icras Solutions, whichinclude application software, mobile engineering and implementation, and support services.Icras is located in Sunnyvale, CA.
                   Based in San Francisco, Point West Ventures provides capital and expertise to promisinginformation technology start-ups located throughout the United States. Its areas of focusinclude telecommunications, Internet infrastructure, and e-commerce. Point West Venturesprovides capital mainly to mezzanine and later stage private growth companies. Moreinformation about Point West Ventures is available at www.pointwestventures.com.
(KEYWORD CALIFORNIA AND INDUSTRY KEYWORD: Venture Capital, Internet,E-commerce). 

CONTACTS: POINT WEST VENTURES, SAN FRANCISCO.Chris P. Rodskog, 415/394-9467

cpr@pointwestcapital.com
* *

**EXHIBIT 23.3**

**  **

** **

**Consentof Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-144870, 333-176733, 333-183882and 333-205836) and Form S-3 (File No. 333-200422) of Lakeland Industries, Inc. of our report dated April 18, 2016, relating toour audit of the financial statements of Weifang Lakeland Safety Products Co., Ltd., which appears in Amendment No. 1 on Form10-K/A to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Lakeland Industries, Inc. for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2016.

 * *

* *

*/s/Shanghai Mazars Certified Public Accountants*

ShanghaiMazars Certified Public Accountants

Shanghai,China

 

February17, 2017
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
  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 J. Davino

Christopher J. Davino 
President and Chief Executive Officer
June 28, 2010/s/ John A. Stone

John A. Stone 
Chief Financial Officer
June 28, 2010
----

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANTTO 

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

(18 U.S.C. SECTION1350)

 

 

In connection with the QuarterlyReport of 2000 New Commerce, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), on Form10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Jake Bottay, Chief Financial Officer ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to my knowledge: 

 

(1) The Report fully complies withthe requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and 

 

(2) The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresult of operations of the Company. 

 

 

 

***/s/ Jake Bottay                   ***

Jake Bottay

Dated:  October 27, 2005

----
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-09-00716-CV

In re Walter Lee Hall Jr.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Relator Walter Lee Hall, Jr. has filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking relief

from the trial court’s order signed January 31, 2008. Hall already attempted to file a direct appeal

from that order, but filed his notice of appeal too late, resulting in a dismissal for want of

jurisdiction. See Hall v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, No. 03-08-00488-CV (Tex. App.—Austin

Dec. 12, 2008, pet. denied). In his petition, Hall asked for expedited consideration of his issues.

After delay due to Hall’s having filed an insufficient affidavit of indigence, we now have turned to

the merits of his complaint. We grant the motion for expedited consideration and deny the petition

for writ of mandamus. We further caution Hall that he may be subject to sanctions for filing

frivolous proceedings should he file similar pleadings in this or any other proceeding in the future.

See Tex. R. App. P. 45, 52.11. 

__________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton and Waldrop

Filed: March 9, 2010
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4495 Engrossed in House (EH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4495

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 100 North Taylor Lane in Patagonia, Arizona, as the ``Jim Kolbe Post 
                               Office''.

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

SECTION 1. JIM KOLBE POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 100 North Taylor Lane in Patagonia, Arizona, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Jim Kolbe Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Jim Kolbe 
Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives February 2, 2010.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
111th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4495

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 100 North Taylor Lane in Patagonia, Arizona, as the ``Jim Kolbe Post 
                               Office''.
```