alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
H. Res. 9

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

January 7, 1997.

Resolved, That unless otherwise ordered, before Monday,

May 12, 1997, the daily meetings of the House shall be at

2 p.m. on Mondays; at 11 a.m. on Tuesdays and Wednesdays; and at 10 a.m. on all other days of the week; and that

from Monday, May 12, 1997, until the end of the first session, the daily meetings of the House shall be at noon on

Mondays; at 10 a.m. on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays; and at 9 a.m. on all other days of the week.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Cheryl Dunn, Respondent.

—Kane, J. P.

Appeal from an order of the County Court of Ulster County (Vogt, J.), entered October 9, 1984, which granted defendant’s motion to suppress evidence.

On September 28, 1983, State Police Investigator George Rebhan appeared before a Town Justice in the Town of Lloyd seeking a search warrant that would allow the police to obtain a blood sample from defendant, who was then unconscious. Defendant had been involved in a fatal car accident and Rebhan asserted that there was cause to believe that she was intoxicated at the time. The Town Justice signed the warrant and a blood-alcohol test was performed. This test revealed that defendant had a blood-alcohol level of .19% and, accordingly, she was indicted for the crime of vehicular manslaughter.

In due course, defendant moved to suppress the results of the blood test. Following a suppression hearing, County Court, *inter alia,*found that the application for the warrant was not subscribed or sworn to by Rebhan. Based upon these findings of fact, the court concluded that the search warrant was not obtained in compliance with the dictates of CPL 690.35 and, as such, was invalid. Defendant’s motion was thus granted and this appeal by the People ensued.

Under the State and Federal Constitutions, no search warrant may be issued except upon probable cause "supported by oath or affirmation” (NY Const, art I, § 12; US Const 4th Amend). Moreover, CPL 690.35 (1) provides, in pertinent part, that: "An application for a search warrant may be in writing *864or oral. If in writing, it must be made, *subscribed and sworn to*by a public servant” (emphasis supplied).

The application for a warrant herein contains no indication that it was sworn to *(cf. People v Sullivan,*56 NY2d 378). Furthermore, the Town Justice testified at the suppression hearing that Rebhan did not orally swear to the contents of his statement submitted in support of the application for the search warrant. Since the application did not comply with the constitutional or statutory requirements set forth above, County Court properly granted defendant’s motion *(see, People v Coburn,*85 Misc 2d 673). We have examined the People’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit in the context of this case.

Order affirmed. Kane, J. P., Main, Yesawich, Jr., Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 31.2
CERTIFICATION
I, Robert L. Miller, certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB of CVF Technologies Corporation; 2.  Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report; 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded 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 periodspresented in this report; 4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining 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 suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  b.  evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, 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 financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fiscalfourth quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely 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 recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 a.  all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of whichare reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarizeand report financial information; and  b.  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: May 16, 2005         /s/ Robert L. Miller   Robert L. Miller,   Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 32.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND**

**CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

 

Eachof the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, inhis capacity as an officer of Force Protection, Inc. (the “Company”),that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q/Afor the period ended September 30, 2007, fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. § 78m or 78o(d)) and that the informationcontained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company. This writtenstatement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as anexhibit to such Form 10-Q/A. A signed original of this statement has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 
|                           |                                                                 |
|--------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date:  September 30, 2008 | /s/ MICHAEL MOODY                                                    |
|                           | **Michael Moody  President and Chief Executive Officer**             |
|                           |                                                                 |
| Date:  September 30, 2008 | /s/ FRANCIS E. SCHEUERELL, JR.                                       |
|                           | **Francis E. Scheuerell, Jr.  Interim Chief Financial Officer** |

 

Thisexhibit shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 or otherwise subject to the liabilities of thatSection, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by reference in any filings underthe Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, whether madebefore or after the date hereof and irrespective of any general incorporationlanguage in any filings.

 

----
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           12-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                12-31-1999
<CASH>                                         939,493
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   32,490
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               974,983
<PP&E>                                          45,991
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,568
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,020,953
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           56,590
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        250
<COMMON>                                        17,500
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,020,953
<SALES>                                        761,300
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               761,300
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  482,507
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,208
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                281,844
<INCOME-TAX>                                   122,454
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   179,390
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01


</TABLE>
#### SPARKS v. CITY OF NORTH TONAWANDA.

(Supreme Court, Trial Term, Niagara County.

October 12, 1907.)

Damages—Personal Injuries—Excessive Verdict.

In an aution for personal injuries, where plaintiff, a young married woman 29 years old, in good health, about six months advanced in pregnancy, sustained injuries from which she suffered pain for twelve days, when she was delivered of twins, after which she was confined to her bed for two weeks, and to her room for six weeks more, and to the house for five months more, and the injuries interfered with her comfort and capacity to do housework, and she continued to have pain, and was under medical treatment up to the time of the trial, 16 months after the accident, and the results of her injuries would be permanent to some extent, and she would continue to suffer some pain and physical impairment, a verdict of $3,375 is not excessive.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 15, Damages, §§ 357— 396.]

Action by Anna Sparks against the city of North Tonawanda. Judgment for plaintiff. On motion for new trial, motion denied.

Norman D. Fish, for plaintiff.

Lewis T. Payne, for defendant.

POUND, J.

Plaintiff, a young married woman, fell on a defective sidewalk on Oliver street, in the city of North Tonawanda, on the 14th *45day of May, 1906. At the time of the accident she was 29 years of -age, in good health, the mother of three children. The evidence tends to establish that, as a result of her fall, plaintiff sustained injuries, and that, as a result of such injuries, from the time of the accident she suffered pain for 12 days, when she was prematurely delivered of twin children, she being about six months advanced in pregnancy; that after such miscarriage she was confined to her bed for two weeks, then to her room for six weeks; that it was five or six months after that before she got out of the house; that she continued to have pain in her right side, and still continues to suffer pain and physical impairment which interfere with her comfort and her capacity to do housework; that she has been and is still under medical treatment for internal injuries resulting from the accident and the consequent miscarriage. The evidence of plaintiff’s physicians justifies the conclusion that the results of her injuries will to some extent be permanent, and that she will continue for some time by reason thereof to suffer some pain and physical impairment. The jury had the opportunity to witness plaintiff’s-appearance as indicative of health or otherwise, and it tended to confirm the evidence of the plaintiff and her physicians.

I fail to discover any reason for holding that the verdict is excessive, and the motion for a new trial must therefore be denied.
#### HENDERSON, Appellant, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO., Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

October 16, 1907.)

Action by John Henderson against the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

August 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

131259 Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

CITY OF DETROIT, Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 131259 

 COA: 266143 
 Wayne CC: 05-516082

COMMERCIAL LAW LAND, L.L.C.,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 12, 2006 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

s0821 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

August 29, 2006 

 Clerk
Minute Si. Form (0697)

United States District Court, Northern District of Mlinois

Nameetavimet ote | James B. Moran | Stat ater Owe
CASE NUMBER 03 C 5693 DATE 5/13/2004
CASE USA vs. JENKENS & GILCHRIST, P.C.
TITLE
[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented.]
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
DOCKET ENTRY:
qd) Oo Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) Oo Brief in support of motion due
(6)) a Answer brief to motion due . Reply to answer briefdue___.
(4) Q Ruling/Hearingon____—ssetfor__—_—at.
(5) im) Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__—_—ssetfor__—_att
(6) Qo Pretrial conference[held/continued to] (set for/re-set for]on__—_—esetfor__—sat__
(7) Q Trial[set for/re-set for]on___—at
(8) oO [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing) held/continuedto__-at__
(9) Qa This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to)
OFRCP4(m) (Local Rule 41.1 0) FRCP41(a)(1) 1 FRCP41(a)(2).
(10) IM [Otherdocket entry) Enter Memorandum Opinion And Order. The Motion to dismiss and to quash

is denied, Status hearing held and continued to 8/4/04 at 11:00 a.m.

ai @ [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]
No notices required, advised in open court.
No notices required,
Notices mailed by judge's staff.
Notified counsel by telephone, MAY ? 1 4 200
VW | Docketing to mail notices. () D Z_
Mail AO 450 form, tuned Loriisias'n anda)
Copy to judge/magistrate judge. wuaT9 L)
courtroom 94:9 Hd €1 AV O02
LG deputy's
initials —
jme.zecgived in
Se

‘Sat od



é

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION ayer
DecKETED
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) MAY

) 14 2004
Petitioner, )
)

vs. ) No. 03 C 5693

)
JENKENS & GILCHRIST, P.C., a )
professional corporation, )
)
Respondent. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Respondent Jenkins & Gilchrist, P.C. have moved to dismiss the government’s petition
to enforce its summonses and respondent seeks to quash the summonses. We previously ruled
that the summoned identities were not privileged. The remaining contentions essentially

mirror those raised before Judge Matthew F. Kennelly in United States y. Sidley Austin Brown

& Wood LLP, 03 C 9355, in the Northern District of Minois. Judge Kennelly rejected those
contentions on April 28, 2004, in a full and careful opinion. We agree with his analysis.

Accordingly, we deny the motion to dismiss and to quash.

BR. Moran

JAMES B. MORAN
Senior Judge, U. S. District Court

Mex 13,2004,
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Nat'l Clonal Germplasm Rep - Tree Fruit & Nut Crops & Grapes: Davis, CA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Orders & ServicesSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us






Grape SSR Fingerprintingheadline bar Main


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Wheat Health, Genetics, and Quality Research: Pullman, WA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Pacific West Area Pullman, Washington WHGQ People & Locations







Kent  Evans
                        Wheat Health, Genetics, and Quality Research

                        




                        
                        Plant Pathologist
                        Phone: (509) 335-8715
                        
                        
                        Fax: (509) 335-2553(Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
(May 14, 1985)

#### In the Matter of Alexander Kushner, an Attorney, Respondent. Grievance Committee for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts, Petitioner.

Proceeding, pursuant to statute (Judiciary Law, § 90 [4]), by the Grievance Committee for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts (1) to suspend the respondent Alexander Kushner, an attorney and counselor-at-law admitted to practice by this court on December 19, 1962, immediately from the practice of law based upon his conviction of a “serious crime”, and (2) to authorize the petitioner to commence a proceeding to discipline respondent for professional misconduct in connection with his conviction in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County, upon his guilty plea of false swearing in the fourth degree, and on other charges of professional misconduct.

Application granted. The respondent is suspended from the practice of law immediately and shall remain suspended until the further order of this court. The Grievance Committee for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts is authorized to commence a proceeding.

The petition served with this application is deemed served and the respondent shall serve his answer thereto within 20 days after service of a copy of the order entered on this decision.

The issues which may be raised are referred to Daniel Scannell, Esq., 181-45 Midland Parkway, Jamaica, New York 11432 as Special Referee to hear and to report, together with his findings on each issue. Robert H. Straus, Esq., Chief Counsel to the Grievance Committee, 210 Joralemon Street, Brooklyn, New York 11201 is hereby appointed as attorney for the petitioner in this proceeding. Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Mangano, Gibbons and Brown, JJ., concur.