alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### SPALDING *v.*MANASSE. SAME *v.*SAME. SAME v. VANACKER. SAME *v.*SAME. SAME v. YANADA. SAME *v.*FARWELL. SAME *v.*COHN.

EEROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS.

Nos. 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 284, 285.

Argued April 25,1889. —

Decided May 13, 1889.

No error can he examined in the rulings of the court at the trial of a cause by the court without a jury by agreement of parties, if there is no alle- • gation in the record that the stipulation was in writing, as required by the statute. *Bond*v. *Dustin,*112 U. S. 604, and *Dundee Mortgage Co.*v. *Hughes,*124 U. S. 157, followed.

These were suits against a collector of customs to recover back duties paid under protest. Judgment in each case for plaintiff, to which defendant sued out a writ of error. The case is stated in the opinion.

*Mr. Assistant Attorn*y General Maury*for plaintiff in error in each case.

*Mr. Percy L. Shmnorn*for defendants in error.

Me. Chief Justice Eullee

delivered the opinion of the court.

*66All of these cases were tried by the court without a. jury, by agreement of the parties, as alleged in the record; but therq is no allegation that the stipulation was in writing, as required by the statute; and, under the ruling in *Bond*v. *Dustin,*112 U. S. 604, and *Dundee Mortgage Company*v. Hughes, 124 U. S. 157, no error can be examined in the rulings of the court at the trial. Ve can only inquire whether the declarations were respectively sufficient to sustain the judgments. As there appears to be no érror in this regard, the judgments are severally

Affirmed..
Exhibit 13.2



GPC Biotech AG



Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as Enacted Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002



GPC Biotech AG (the Company) is filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission, on the date hereof, its annual report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 (the Report). Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as enacted pursuant to the requirements of Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Mirko Scherer, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify 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 Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



Date: March 31, 2005





|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ MIRKO SCHERER      
|Mirko Scherer          
|Chief Financial Officer



A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Edward George, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Marasco, J.), rendered June 25, 1984, convicting him of arson in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that certain omissions from the trial court’s charge to the jury were erroneous and prejudicial is not persuasive. This issue was not preserved for appellate review. In addition, the defendant was not entitled to have the affirmative defense to arson in the third degree *(see,*Penal Law § 150.10 [2]) charged to the jury, since he did not establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, all of the basic elements of that defense *(see,*Penal Law § 25.00 [2]; *see also, People v Watts,*57 NY2d 299).

The defendant’s trial counsel afforded him "meaningful representation” *(People v Satterfield,*66 NY2d 796, 799; *People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 147). We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J. P., Niehoff, Rubin and Eiber, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                               EXHIBIT 32(a)

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




         I, John C. Hunter III, Chief Executive Officer of Solutia Inc. (the
"Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

         (1)      the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the
                  quarterly period ended June 30, 2003, (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.



Dated:  August 14, 2003



                                        /s/ John C. Hunter III
                                        --------------------------------
                                        John C. Hunter III
                                        Chief Executive Officer





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 Solutia Inc.
and will be retained by Solutia Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-2041

EUGENE ALLEN,

Petitioner,

versus

JOHN D. ASHCROFT, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A77-710-258)

Submitted: April 19, 2004 Decided: June 4, 2004

Before MICHAEL, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, Arlington, Virginia, for

Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Michael

S. Raab, Colette G. Matzzie, Civil Division, UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Eugene Allen, a native and citizen of Sierre Leone,

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board”)

order affirming the immigration judge’s oral decision denying

Allen’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal and

withholding under the Convention Against Torture. We have reviewed

the administrative record, the Board’s order, and the immigration

judge’s decision and find substantial evidence supports the

conclusion that Allen failed to establish the past persecution or

well-founded fear of future persecution necessary to establish

eligibility for asylum. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2003) (stating

that the burden of proof is on the alien to establish eligibility

for asylum); INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992)

(same). We will reverse the Board only if the evidence “‘was so

compelling that no reasonable fact finder could fail to find the

requisite fear of persecution.’” Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325

n.14 (4th Cir. 2002) (quoting Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483-84).

We do not find the record so compelling as to reverse the Board.

We further find no error in the immigration judge’s

application of the law. In addition, we find the Board did not

violate Allen’s right to due process. 

We deny Allen’s petition for review. We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
- 3 -

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5858 

To amend the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 to authorize 

a fire station construction grant program for 5 years, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 26, 2010 

Mr. FILNER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Science and Technology 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act 

of 1974 to authorize a fire station construction grant 

program for 5 years, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Firefighting Invest5 ment, Renewal, and Employment Act’’ or the ‘‘FIRE 

6 Act’’. 

7 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION. 

8 Section 33(e) of the Federal Fire Prevention and 

9 Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2229) is amended by add10 ing at the end the following: 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5858 IH

1 ‘‘(3) CONSTRUCTION OF NON-FEDERAL FIRE

2 STATIONS.—In addition to the amounts authorized 

3 under paragraph (1), there are authorized to be ap4 propriated to the Director for competitive grants for 

5 modifying, upgrading, or constructing non-Federal 

6 fire stations $210,000,000 for each of fiscal years 

7 2011 through 2015.’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
# Rights and Responsibilities of a Green Card Holder (Permanent Resident)

Being a permanent resident means that you have new rights and responsibilities.

As a permanent resident (Green Card holder), you have the right to:
                    - Live permanently in the United States provided you do not commit any actions that would make you removable under immigration law
                    - Work in the United States at any legal work of your qualification and choosing. (Please note that some jobs will be limited to U.S. citizens for security reasons)
                    - Be protected by all laws of the United States, your state of residence and local jurisdictions

As a permanent resident, you are:
                    - Required to obey all laws of the United States and localities;
                    - Required to  file your income tax returns  and report your income to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service and state taxing authorities;
                    - Expected to support the democratic form of government (“support” does not include voting. Permanent residents cannot vote in federal, state, or local elections.); and
                    - Required to register with the Selective Service, if you are a male age 18 through 25.

For more information, see the Maintaining Permanent Residence and International Travel as a Permanent Resident pages.

**More Information**
                    - Welcome to the United States: A Guide for New Immigrants  (PDF, 3.57 MB)
                    - How Do I Get a Reentry Permit?  (PDF, 667.32 KB)

**Forms**
                    - Green Card Based Forms
                    - I-90, Application to Replace Permanent Resident Card
                    - I-131, Application for Travel Document

**Other USCIS Links**
                    - Green Card Resources
                    - How Do I Help My Relative Become a Lawful Permanent Resident?  (PDF, 577.38 KB)
                    - How Do I Renew or Replace My Permanent Resident Card?  (PDF, 550.19 KB)
                    - "How Do I" Guides for Permanent Residents

**Non-USCIS Links**
                    - IRS: Taxation of Resident Aliens

07/15/2015

0 / 2000To protect your privacy, please do not include any personal information in your feedback. Review our Privacy Policy.
#### Calvert Fire Insurance Company et al., Plaintiffs, v Special Risk Covers, Inc., et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents. North Atlantic Insurance Company, Limited, et al., Third-Party Defendants-Appellants, et al., Third-Party Defendant.

— Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (David H. Edwards, Jr., J.), entered May 3, 1985, which denied third-party defendants’ motion, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) and (8), to dismiss the third-party complaint against them on the grounds of improper service and failure *244to state a third-party claim or, alternatively, to stay the third-party action pursuant to CPLR 7503 (a) on the ground of the arbitrability of the dispute, unanimously reversed, on the law, third-party defendant’s motion granted and the third-party complaint dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8), with costs.

Calvert and Cavalier (Calvert) hired Facultative to act as general managing agent, authorizing Facultative to issue insurance policies in the name of Calvert. Facultative arranged for reinsurance by third-party defendants (Reinsurers). The agreement provided for automatic reinsurance on certain policies issued by Facultative for Calvert, but, if the gross revenues of an insured company exceeded $25,000,000, the Reinsurers had to receive full details for their approval before being bound.

Facultative issued policies to two companies with revenues greater than $25,000,000. Those two companies collected under Calvert policies issued by Facultative. Calvert alleges that Facultative failed to submit the required information to the Reinsurers and, as a result, the Reinsurers refused to pay Calvert money they might otherwise have owed.

Facultative denies it neglected to submit the required material. It commenced a third-party action against Reinsurers by service upon the law firm of D’Amato and Lynch. Under article 12 of the reinsurance treaty between Calvert and the Reinsurers, service may be made upon the Reinsurers through D’Amato and Lynch.

While Calvert and the Reinsurers intended their treaty exclusively to bind each other to the stated method of service, it had no application to others. Anyone else wishing to start an action had to follow the normal procedure for service. *(See,*CPLR 310, 311, 318.) Facultative failed to do that. Therefore, the court did not have in personam jurisdiction over the Reinsurers, and, accordingly, we grant the requested dismissal. (CPLR 3211 [a] [8].)

Facultative claims proper service under a theory of agency, but it would seem that as the object of a lawsuit by Calvert, it cannot simultaneously act as Calvert’s agent in a related action. Nor can it claim proper service as a third-party beneficiary of the treaty. Service could have easily been effected through the State Superintendent of Insurance. (Insurance Law § 1212.) Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Ross, Milonas, Kassal and Rosenberger, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001043497
<NAME>                        Creditrust
<MULTIPLIER>                       1,000
<CURRENCY>                           US$
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          47,659
<SECURITIES>                                    33,250
<RECEIVABLES>                                   68,016
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                           3,343
<DEPRECIATION>                                     879
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 153,571
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,098
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           104
<OTHER-SE>                                      90,670
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   153,571
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,024
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,644
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (148)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 543
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,985
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,555
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,430
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,430
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .28
        


</TABLE>
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 amended annual report of Trycera Financial, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A-4 for the year ended December 31, 2004, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

Date:  December 12, 2005
-------------------------------------
/s/ Bryan Kenyon
Bryan Kenyon, Chief Financial Officer
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , 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.

December 22, 2015

s1214 

# Order

Clerk December 22, 2015

151032

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 151032

COA: 317382

Wayne CC: 12

- 003028

- FC

NORWOOD WITHERSPOON, a/k/a NORMAN

WITHERSPOON,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 18, 2014

judgment 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.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 (AS ADOPTED

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)



In connection with the annual report of The Quantum Group, Inc.(the Company) on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ending October 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Donald B. Cohen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge and in my capacity as an officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



1.

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 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 Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.





Signed on March 21, 2007



/s/Donald B. Cohen

Donald B. Cohen

Chief Financial Officer of The Quantum Group, Inc.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> CHINESE RENMINBI

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                            SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                             .12048
<CASH>                                     223,390
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                           22,395,753
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                              4,128,109
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        41,713,021
<PP&E>                                   5,587,371
<DEPRECIATION>                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          47,397,853
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   23,707,369
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                     3,568
<OTHER-SE>                              13,960,913
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            47,397,853
<SALES>                                 51,162,869
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        51,162,869
<CGS>                                   46,435,229
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           46,435,229
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          98,182
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         (5,364,826)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     (3,031,909)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                            (3,031,909)
<EPS-BASIC>                                 (.70)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (.70)


</TABLE>