alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.1



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 Bay Banks of Virginia, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending March 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the
undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Treasurer (principal financial officer) of the Company hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that based on their knowledge and
belief: 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 as of and for the periods covered in the Report.



|                                                                         
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ AUSTIN L. ROBERTS, IIIAustin L. Roberts, III, Chief Executive Officer
|                                                                         
|/s/ RICHARD C. ABBOTTRichard C. Abbott, Treasurer                        



May 27, 2003
#### Orlando Balbes, Respondent, v City of New York, Appellant.

[946 NYS2d 153]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Larry S. Schachner, J.), entered April 18, 2011, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Summary judgment was properly denied in this action where plaintiff sustained injuries when he tripped and fell while crossing within the crosswalk at an intersection. Deposition testimony, photographs of the roadbed where plaintiff fell, and Department of Transportation records, together with reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, present triable issues as to whether defendant created an immediate hazardous condition by performing milling and resurfacing work at the subject intersection at about the time of plaintiffs fall *(see Yarborough v City of New York,*10 NY3d 726 [2008]).

The record also presents triable issues as to whether plaintiff had a reasonable opportunity to observe and avoid what defendant contends was an “open and obvious” condition that could not be deemed inherently dangerous. The record shows that plaintiffs trip and fall occurred at midnight, in an area of the intersection that purportedly lacked sufficient lighting, and while plaintiff was walking in the company of others and had his vision of the road ahead blocked by a friend who was walking in front of him. Although plaintiff was aware of the recent milling and stripping of the old road surface, factual issues exist as to whether the circumstances at the time, including the light*479ing conditions, permitted plaintiff to appreciate the degree of the depression hazard that was present *(compare Baynes v City of New York,*81 AD3d 423 [2011]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Moskowitz, Acosta and Abdus-Salaam, 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 Bay Banks of Virginia, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the
Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that based on his knowledge and belief: 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 as of and for the periods covered in the Report.



|                                               
|-----------------------------------------------
|/s/ Austin L. Roberts, III                     
|Austin L. Roberts, III, Chief Executive Officer
|& Principal Financial Officer                  



April 27, 2005



22
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON

JULIE K. BULLOCK,

Plaintiff,

v. 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY,

Defendant.

Case No. 2:14-cv-00873-KI

JUDGMENT

Merrill Schneider

Schneider Kerr & Gibney Law Offices

P.O. Box 14490

Portland, OR 97293

Attorney for Plaintiff

S. Amanda Marshall

United States Attorney

District of Oregon

Page 1 - JUDGMENT

Case 2:14-cv-00873-KI Document 21 Filed 05/06/15 Page 1 of 2
Ronald K. Silver

Assistant United States Attorney

1000 SW Third Ave., Suite 600

Portland, OR 97201-2902

John C. Lamont

Special Assistant United States Attorney

Office of the General Counsel

Social Security Administration

701 Fifth Ave., Suite 2900 M/S 221A

Seattle, WA 98104-7075

Attorneys for Defendant

KING, Judge:

Based on the record, IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the decision of the

Commissioner is affirmed and this case is dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 6th day of May, 2015. 

 /s/ Garr M. King 

Garr M. King

United States District Judge

Page 2 - JUDGMENT

Case 2:14-cv-00873-KI Document 21 Filed 05/06/15 Page 2 of 2
#### The First National Bank of Jersey City, Appellant, *v.*Peter Lenk et al., Respondents.

(Argued October 6, 1890;

decided October 14, 1890.)

Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme Cout in the first judicial department, made June 6, 1890, which reversed an order of Special Term reviving and continuing this action.

*William G. Wilson*for appellant.

*Maurice Untermyer*for respondents.

Agree to affirm; no opinion.

All concur, except Ruger, Ch. J., not voting.

Order affirmed.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Section 302 Certification

I, Austin L. Roberts, III, certify that:

1. I have reviewed
this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Bay Banks of Virginia, Inc.;

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. I
am 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 my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including
its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me 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 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 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and;

5. 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.



|                                      |  |                        
|------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------
|/s/ Austin L. Roberts, III            |  | Dated: November 6, 2006
|Austin L. Roberts, III                |  |                        
|President and Chief Executive Officer |  |                        



21
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DAMION GLENROY DAVIS,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 369 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 2nd day of January, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          25,126
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           9,555
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  1,362,052
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                      1,451,034
<ALLOWANCE>                                     12,847
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,935,113
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,501,530
<SHORT-TERM>                                   490,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             72,922
<LONG-TERM>                                    689,658
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           341
<OTHER-SE>                                     180,662
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               2,935,113
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 79,841
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               71,104
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               150,945
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              50,827
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             104,036
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           46,909
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    2,613
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               1,356
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 36,680
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 18,918
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      18,918
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,644
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .41
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.49
<LOANS-NON>                                      3,693
<LOANS-PAST>                                     5,209
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  8,902
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                11,873
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    2,370
<RECOVERIES>                                     1,947
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               12,847
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            12,425
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            422


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1




Certification
Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63


of
Title 18 of the United States Code




In
connection with the annual report of CNS Response, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, George Carpenter, 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 to the best of my knowledge:




1.
            
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange2.
            
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.




/s/
      George CarpenterGeorge
      CarpenterChief
      Executive OfficerDecember
      20, 2010
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
 Cotton Ginning Research: Stoneville, MS
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Southeast Area Stoneville, Mississippi Cotton Ginning Research People & Locations







Ronald W Edwards

(Ron)
                        Cotton Ginning Research

                        




                        
                        Engineering Technician
                        Phone: (662) 686-3099
                        
                        
                        Fax: (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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF E. COM INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         590,333
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,800
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    338,590
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               962,912
<PP&E>                                         393,515
<DEPRECIATION>                                  82,127
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,412,750
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          227,104
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,293,359
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,268,146
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,412,750
<SALES>                                         26,795
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                26,795
<CGS>                                           22,718
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  457,409
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  53
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (443,966)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (453,332)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (443,966)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.19)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.1

Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) or Rule 15d-14(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934

I, Richard Stewart, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Achieve Life Sciences, Inc.; and

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.

Date: May 23, 2018



/s/ Richard StewartRichard StewartChairman and Chief Executive Officer
1 The Honorable Stephen M. Reasoner, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable John F. Forster, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. ___________ No. 96-1729

___________ Merlin Hagen, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Larry Norris, Director, * Eastern District of Arkansas. Arkansas Department of * Correction, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: December 12, 1996 Filed: December 16, 1996

___________ Before FAGG, WOLLMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Merlin Hagen, an Arkansas inmate, appeals from the district court's 1 order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have carefully reviewed the record and the parties' submissions on appeal, and conclude that the district court's decision was clearly correct, and that an extended discussion is not warranted. Hagen's pro se objection to no argument disposition of this case is denied. The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.-2- A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
(15 Misc. Rep. 21.)

#### SHEEHY v. UTAH, N. & C. STAGE CO.

(Superior Court of New York City,

General Term.

December 18, 1895.)

Appeal— Matters not Presented to Trial Court.

A city ordinance to which the attention of the trial court was not called will not be considered for the first time on appeal for the purpose of reversing the judgment.

Appeal from jury term.

Action by Michael Sheehy against the Utah, Nevada & California Stage Company for personal injuries. From a judgment entered on a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $6,500, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before FREEDMAN, McADAM, and (HLDERSLEEVE, JJ.

Walter Alexander, for appellant.

G-. Washbourne Smith, for respondent.

FREEDMAN, J.

There was no error in the denial of defendant’s motion for a dismissal of the complaint at the close of plaintiff’s case and at the close of the whole case. The questions relating to defendant’s negligence and plaintiff’s contributory negligence were, upon the facts as they appeared, for the jury; and the verdict as rendered cannot be said to be against the evidence or against the weight of the evidence; nor should it be disturbed as excessive. The instruction given to the jury, that, if they found that the driver of the mail wagon was driving faster than at the rate of five miles an hour, it was a violation of section 1932 of the law known as the “Consolidation Act,” and that the jury might take it into consideration as bearing upon the question of defendant’s negligence, does not call for reversal. The defendant took only a general exception to it. No ordinance of the common council in conflict with that section was brought to the attention of the trial judge, and, consequently, if any such ordinance does exist, and were otherwise available, it cannot be introduced on appeal for the first time for the purpose of reversing the judgment. Porter v. Waring, 69 N. Y. 250. The instruction as given left it to the jury to find whether defendant’s driver was driving faster than at the rate of five miles an hour, and, if he did, what effect such driving had, under all the other circumstances, upon the question of defendant’s negligence. Thus considered, the instruction did not involve error. The charge as a whole was more favorable to the defendant than the defendant was entitled to, for it gave to defendant’s driver, as the driver of a mail wagon, as matter of law, *778the right of way as against the plaintiff while driving a street-railroad car,—a proposition which it would be difficult to substantiate if it became necessary. Upon the whole case, substantial justice seems to have been done, and no ground appears to exist for reversing the judgment or order appealed from.

The judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.