alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The State *against*Zaccur Prall.

An order of filiation is a judicial act, and must be executed by the justices jointly and not separately. Therefore an order of filiation though agreed upon when the justices were together, yet if it was signed by them separately, and in the absence of each other, will be quashed.

On a *certiorari*to justices and overseers removing an order of filiation and maintenance — the justices in answer to a rule on them, for that purpose, certified “ that they met *191and agreed on the sum of sixty-two and a half cents to bo paid by the father, and thirty-seven and a half cents by the mother, in case she should not take care of the child herself, and made a rough draft of the order, but could not say whether they signed if or not; one of the justices took it home with him, and from it drew the order now sent up, and signed it himself, and forwarded it to the other justice, who also signed it, and forwarded it to the overseer of the poor; that the said justices signed it separately in the absence of each other; that in drawing this order a mistake was made by inserting sixty-seven and a half, instead of sixty-two and a half cents, for the father to pay, which mistake was afterwards discovered and corrected; the justice who drew the order and made the correction thought "they were together when it was corrected; the other justice thought it was likely they were together.”

*Saxton,*for the defendant, moved to quash the order, and insisted, that the making of.the order, was a judicial act delegated to two justices, by the statute; that they must execute it jointly; that the signing of the order by one in the absence of the other was erroneous. 1 *Cox, N. J. Rep.*

Ewing, c. J.

The statute has authorized two justices to take examinations and make orders of filiation and maintenance. The authority given by the statute must be strictly pursued. The making of the order is a judicial act, and must be executed by the justices jointly, and not separately, as the cases referred to fully proved. Although the justices met, and agreed on the sum, yet it was necessary they should be together and act jointly in every part of the duty assigned them, until they had completely executed their authority, bv signing the order. The order before us having been signed by each justice in the absence of the other is erroneous, and must be quashed. It appears, also, that in the order as signed, and delivered to the overseer of *192the poor, an error was committed by inserting sixty-seven, instead of sixty-two and a half cents, which was afterwards corrected. The justices think it likely they were together when this correction was made. This circumstance does not alter the law, but rather proves the wisdom of the rule requiring a joint execution of the authority, for if the justices had been together -at the time the order was signed, this mistake in all probability would not have been made.

Let the order be quashed.
#### COOK v. BENTLEY.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Fifth Department.

January 18, 1894.)

Action by Harris Cook against Herbert Bentley.

No opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal upon the ground of nonservice of printed papers granted, unless the appellant cause the papers to be served within 60 days, and pay the respondent $10 costs of the motion.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 180 (Tuesday, September 21, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 52480]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-20374]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Human Genome Research Institute; Notice of Closed 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Inherited Disease Research Access 
Committee CIDR.
    Date: November 5, 2021.
    Time: 11:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Human Genome Research Institute, National 
Institutes of Health, 6700B Rockledge Drive, Suite 3100, Room 3185, 
Bethesda, MD 20892-6908 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Barbara J. Thomas, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Human Genome Research 
Institute, National Institutes of Health, 6700B Rockledge Drive, 
Suite 3100, Room 3185, Bethesda, MD 20892-6908, 301-402-8837, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#274546554546554609534f484a465467494e4f09404851"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9bf9fae9f9fae9fab5eff3f4f6fae8dbf5f2f3b5fcf4ed">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.172, Human 
Genome Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 15, 2021.
David W. Freeman,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-20374 Filed 9-20-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
CARMEN LOZANO,

Appellant,

v.

MACYS AND MACY'S SELF 

INSURED,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-798

_____________________________/

Opinion filed September 23, 2014.

An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims.

Charles M. Hill III, Judge.

Date of Accident: March 5, 2010.

Kimberly A. Hill of Kimberly A. Hill, P.L., Fort Lauderdale, William Haro of 

Richard E. Zaldivar, P.A., Miami, for Appellant.

Mark A. Touby and Charlie Martinez of Charlie Martinez, P.A., Miami Lakes, for 

Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

VAN NORTWICK, WETHERELL, AND MAKAR, JJ., CONCUR.
In  October  1996  AET  entered  into a  Licensing  Agreement  with  OX2  Engine
(Distribution) Ltd, hereinafter  referred to as the "Grantor",  for the right to
manufacture, distribute and market the OX2 engine.

Page two items 2.1, 2.1.1 and 2.1.2.  of the Agreement deals  specifically  with
the issuance of AET common  shares to the Grantor.  To date,  20,000,000  shares
have been issued,  however,  the Agreement  calls for an  additional  19,000,000
shares to be issued after certain events take place.

It is now the Grantor's  opinion that this  issuance of additional  shares could
have a negative  effect on AET's ability to  commercialise  the OX2 engine.  The
Grantor feels that AET and its public shareholders could incur financial harm if
these additional 19,000,000 shares were issued.

In  consideration  for  the  excellent  performance  by AET in  it's  effort  to
commercialise the OX2 engine and for the strong support shareholders of AET have
given the  company,  the Grantor has made a decision to rescind  that portion of
the  Licensing  Agreement,   calling  for  the  future  issuance  of  additional
19,000,000 shares.

AET  has  received  an  executed  amendment  to the  1996  Licensing  Agreement,
effectively  cancelling  AET's  commitment  to issue the  additional  19,000,000
shares as called for in article 2.1.2 of the Licensing Agreement between AET and
the Grantor in consideration for a sum of $100 US.

The  amendment  to the  Licensing  Agreement  has been  accepted  by AET and the
consideration of US$100 has been paid.




The Common Seal of
OX2 Engine (Distribution) LTD.



---------------------------------
Director/Officer
Laurie Harrison



The Common Seal of
Advanced Engine Technologies, Inc.




---------------------------------
Director/Officer
Murray J. Bailey
EXHIBIT 32.1



Certification of Chief Executive Officer and President (Principal Financial Officer) pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



We, David C. Collins and Nicholas R. Schacht, certify that the periodic report, to which this Statement is attached, fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the periodic report to which this Statement is attached, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the registrant at the dates and for the periods indicated.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Statement as of the date first written below.



|                    |  |  |  |                              
|------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------
|Dated: May 10, 2004 |  |  |  |                              
|                    |  | 
|                    |  |  |  | /s/    DAVID C. COLLINS      
|                    |  |  |  |                              
|                    |  |  |  | David C. Collins             
|                    |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer      
|                    |  | 
|                    |  |  |  | /s/    NICHOLAS R. SCHACHT   
|                    |  |  |  |                              
|                    |  |  |  | Nicholas R. Schacht          
|                    |  |  |  | President                    
|                    |  |  |  | (Principal Financial Officer)
Exhibit 23.1


                         Consent of Independent Auditors

    We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-13875), pertaining to the Non-Plan Options, the 1996 Equity
Incentive Plan, as amended, and the Non-Employee Directors' Stock Option Plan,
as amended, of our report dated March 10, 2000 with respect to the consolidated
financials statements of Hot Topic, Inc. included in the Annual Report on Form
10-K for the fiscal year ended January 29, 2000 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

                                                          /s/  Ernst & Young LLP

Los Angeles, California
April 24, 2000
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
Westell Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned Chief Executive
Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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:



|(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 result of operations of the Company as of and for the
periods covered in the Report.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Richard S. Gilbert 
|Richard S. Gilbert     
|Chief Executive Officer
|January 24, 2011       
|                       
|/s/ Brian S. Cooper    
|Brian S. Cooper        
|Chief Financial Officer
|January 24, 2011       

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been
provided to Westell Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Westell Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q and shall not be considered filed as part of the Form 10-Q.



28
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v George DeJesus, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Rothwax, J.), rendered on April 10, 1984, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders, 52*AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal. Concur—Ross, J. P., Asch, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         6,633
<SECURITIES>                                   2,438
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2,041
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (15)
<INVENTORY>                                    2,415
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               314
<PP&E>                                         8,840
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (4,136)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 20,296
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,536
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       7
<OTHER-SE>                                     16,903
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   20,296
<SALES>                                        6,797
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               6,797
<CGS>                                          (4,688)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  (4,688)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (4,944)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (279)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,402)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (67)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,469)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,469)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.36)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.36)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION


I, Theodore E. Charles, certify that:

1.   I have  reviewed  this report on Form 10-Q of Investors  Capital  Holdings,
     Ltd.;

2.   Based on my  knowledge,  this  annual  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 annual report;

3.   Based on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
     information included in this annual 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(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 annual report is being prepared; and

     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.


Date:  February 14, 2006

/S/ THEODORE E. CHARLES
------------------------------------
Theodore E. Charles,
Chairman, President,
Chief Executive Officer and Director
(principal executive officer)
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk March 8, 2011

p0228 

# Order

March 8, 2011

142092

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 142092 COA: 293733 Macomb CC: 2008-005176-FH LARRY DONELL FORBES, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the September 23, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

Z AHRA 

### , J., did not participate because he was on the Court of Appeals panel.
EXHIBIT 10.1

                                ELDERTRUST
                             AMENDMENT NO. 1
                                   TO
                 1999 SHARE OPTION AND INCENTIVE PLAN

     ElderTrust, a Maryland real estate investment trust (the Company),
hereby amends the terms of the ElderTrust 1999 Share Option and Incentive
Plan (the 1999 Plan) as follows:

     1.     Section 5(a)(iv)(B) of the 1999 Plan is hereby deleted in its
entirety and replaced with the following new Section 5(a)(iv)(B):

        (B)(I) In the form of Shares that are not then subject to
restrictions under any Company plan and that have been beneficially owned
by the participant for at least six months, or (II) through the withholding
by the Company of Shares that are otherwise issuable upon exercise of the
Share Option, in each case if permitted by the Administrator in its
discretion.  Such surrendered or withheld Shares shall be valued at Fair
Market Value on the exercise date.

     2.     In all other respects the 1999 Plan is unchanged.


     This Amendment No. 1 to 1999 Share Option and Incentive Plan was duly
adopted and approved by the Board of Trustees of the Company on March 27,
2003.


                                        /s/ D. Lee McCreary, Jr
                                        -----------------------
                                        D. Lee McCreary, Jr.
                                        Secretary
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lila Wingate, Appellant.

Memorandum: Defendant was convicted of perjury in the second degree and of falsely reporting an incident in the third degree, based on statements she made to Department of Social Services officials that she never received her public assistance check. Defendant urges that the statements she made to a welfare fraud investigator during an interview, and an affidavit she signed swearing that she did not receive the check, should have been suppressed because her waiver of her *Miranda*rights was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary. We find that the record fully supports the conclusion of the hearing court that defendant made her statements in a noncustodial setting, although *Miranda*warnings were given, and that her statements were voluntary *(People v Bentley,*106 AD2d 825, 826; *People v Accavallo,*57 Misc 2d 264). (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court, Burke, J. — perjury, second degree, and falsely reporting an incident, third degree.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Doerr, Boomer and Schnepp, JJ.
387 P.2d 804

#### STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Gregorio Pena CALDERA, Appellant.

No. 1369.

Supreme Court of Arizona, Bn Bane.

Dec. 19, 1963.

Robert W. Pickrell, Atty. Gen., Charles N. Ronan, County Atty., for appellee.

Charles B. Tanner, Phoenix, for appellant.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was charged with illegal possession of a narcotic drug pursuant to *103A.R.S. § 36-1002. He pleaded not guilty and was duly tried. The evidence established that defendant was seen by the arresting officers sitting in a car near the house of a narcotics peddler. A narcotics agent was in the driver’s seat of the car. As the officers shined a spotlight on the car the defendant put something in his mouth. One of the officers ran to the car, opened the door and prevented defendant from swallowing. Defendant spit out the object and the other officer retrieved it. The object was similar to a child’s balloon. It was used as a wrapper around a small packet which contained heroin.

Counsel for defendant made a motion to suppress the evidence on which the court reserved ruling but denied the motion at the end of all the evidence. Counsel for defendant also made a motion for directed verdict at the end of all the evidence on the same ground which was also denied. Defendant then changed his plea of not guilty to a plea of guilty. Defendant was sentenced to an indeterminate term of from S to 10 years.

Appellant filed his notice of appeal in pro-pria persona and counsel was appointed by the trial court, pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-161, to handle his appeal. Counsel advised this court by written communication that he has been unable to find grounds upon which an appeal could be based. This court ordered the appeal be submitted. On examination of the record, including the transcript of testimony, we find no error.

Affirmed.

BERNSTEIN, C. J., UDALL, V. C. J., and STRUCKMEYER, JENNINGS and LOCKWOOD, JJ., concur.
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

I, Charles R. Waldron, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the quarterly report of Learning Tree International, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 3, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Learning Tree International, Inc.

August 11, 2009



By:

/s/    CHARLES R.
WALDRONCharles R. Waldron Chief Financial Officer


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