alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v *434Cecil Steed, Also Known as Salahudin Rahim, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (Meehan, J.), rendered July 9, 1984, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, in part, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress certain statements.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The hearing court determined that certain statements made by the defendant should be suppressed because they were obtained prior to the administration of *Miranda*warnings. The defendant contends, therefore, that subsequent statements, though given after he was warned of his constitutional rights, must also be suppressed *(see, People v Bethea,*67 NY2d 364; *People v Chapple,*38 NY2d 112). However, the record demonstrates that the post *-Miranda*statements were not the product of a continuous interrogation *(cf., People v Bethea, supra; People v Chapple, supra).*To the contrary, although both statements were elicited by the same police officer, approximately four hours elapsed between the time at which each statement was made, during which time no interrogation occurred. Thus, assuming, arguendo, that the initial statements were elicited in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights, there was "such a definite, pronounced break in the interrogation that the defendant may be said to have returned, in effect, to the status of one who is not under the influence of questioning” *(People v Chapple, supra,*at 115; *see also, People v Mahoney,*122 AD2d 815, *lv denied*68 NY2d 1002). Accordingly, suppression of the post-Miranda *stat*ements was properly denied.

Following the determination of the motion to suppress, the defendant pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the first degree and admitted that, with intent to cause serious physical injury, he had caused the death of the victim by shooting him with a gun. Thereafter, during the preparation of the presentence report, the defendant apparently denied that he had actually fired the fatal shot. However, at the time of the sentencing, the defendant did not move to withdraw his plea or otherwise renew his purported claim of innocence. Thus, the defendant’s contention that the court should have made *further*inquiry regarding his belated denial of guilt and given him an opportunity to move to withdraw his plea is not preserved for appellate review *(see, People v Pellegrino,*60 NY2d 636).

*435Finally, we perceive no basis for modification of the sentence *(see, People v Kazepis,*101 AD2d 816). Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Niehoff and Lawrence, JJ., concur.
#### JOHNSON v. HARDWOOD DOOR & TRIM CO.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.

June 18, 1894.)

Attachment—Vacating—Decision on Merits op Action.

An attachment against a foreign corporation will not be vacated on the motion of a junior attaching creditor on an affidavit that the claim of the senior attaching creditor arose out of a contract which was void by the laws of defendant’s domicile, as the grounds of such motion involve the merits of the action.

Appeal from special term, Kings county.

Action by George W. Johnson against the Hardwood Door & Trim Company. From an order denying a motion to vacate an attachment, Herbert E. Millhollen, a junior attaching creditor, appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before BROWN, P. J., and DYKMAN and CULLEN, JJ.

Robert F. Little, for appellant.

Frederick P. Bellamy, for respondent.

CULLEN, J.

This is an appeal from an order denying the motion -of the appellant, a junior attaching creditor, to vacate the plaintiff’s attachment. The action is on contract, and the defendant a foreign corporation. The appellant sought to vacate the attachment on proof by affidavit that the original consideration, out of which the obligation in suit sprang, was the purchase by the defendant, from plaintiff's assignor, of certain shares of the defendant’s own-capital stock; and it also, by proof, showed that such a purchase was, by the law of Pennsylvania (the domicile of defendant), void. The motion was denied oh the ground that the court would not, on such an application, pass upon the merits of the action. We think that this position was correct. The general rule is that on a motion to vacate an attachment the court will not try the cause itself, and •determine whether the plaintiff can succeed or not. Brown v. Wigton (Sup.) 18 N. Y. Supp. 490; Paper Co. v. Johnson, Id.; Rowles v. Hoare, 61 Barb. 266. There are some exceptions to this rule, but •this cause plainly is not one. On the contrary, the rule should here *798be given full force. The defendant is a foreign corporation, and has not appeared in the action. If the attachment should be vacated, the plaintiff will not only be deprived of his security, but also of the right to try his cause of action, for the court has acquired no jurisdiction of the defendant but by the attachment. The rights of the appellant can be entirely protected by another course. Under the authority of Lee v. Pfeffer, 25 Hun, 97, he may apply to intervene in this action, and, on being made a defendant, contest the validity of the plaintiff’s claim in the ordinary manner, by answer and trial. The order appealed from should be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



                               KYLE L. TINGLE, CPA




To Whom It May Concern:                                           March 18, 2002


The firm of Kyle L. Tingle, CPA, LLC consents to the inclusion of his report of
March 18, 2002 accompanying the audited financial statements of Huile' Oil &
Gas, Inc., as of December 31, 2001 and 2000, and the related statements of
income, stockholder's equity, and cash flows for the years then ended, and the
period October 24, 1997 (inception) through December 31, 2001, in the Form 10KSB
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Very truly yours,


/s/ Kyle L. Tingle

Kyle L. Tingle, CPA, LLC




P.O. Box 50141, Henderson, Nevada 89016, Phone: (702) 434-8452,
Fax: (702) 436-4218, e-mail: Ktingle@worldnet.att.net
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5895 

To limit the effect of legal releases in certain civil actions, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 28, 2010 

Ms. WATERS (for herself, Mr. CONYERS, and Mr. JACKSON of Illinois) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To limit the effect of legal releases in certain civil actions, 

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 ‘‘Gulf Coast Oil Spill 

5 Legal Liabilities and Claims Act of 2010’’. 

6 SEC. 2. LIMITATIONS ON EFFECT OF LEGAL RELEASES IN 

7 CERTAIN CIVIL ACTIONS. 

8 No settlement, legal release, or other agreement shall 

9 extinguish or limit liability in a civil action for significant 

10 harm arising from a discharge into waters off the shore 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5895 IH

1 of the United States of a substance that contaminates a 

2 marine or coastal environment or endangers public health, 

3 if such settlement, legal release, or agreement is entered 

4 into under coercion or duress or is entered into in ex5 change for any benefit other than a settlement of claims 

6 pending. 

7 SEC. 3. AMENDMENT TO CLASS ACTION FAIRNESS ACT. 

8 Title 28, United States Code, is amended— 

9 (1) in section 1711(2), by inserting ‘‘, but does 

10 not include an action brought by a State or subdivi11 sion of a State on behalf of its citizens’’ before the 

12 period; 

13 (2) in section 1332(d)(1)(B), by inserting ‘‘, 

14 but does not include an action brought by a State 

15 or subdivision of a State on behalf of its citizens’’ 

16 before the semicolon; and 

17 (3) in section 1332(d)(11)(B)(ii)— 

18 (A) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of sub19 clause (III); 

20 (B) by striking the period at the end of 

21 subclause (IV) and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and 

22 (C) by adding at the end the following: 

23 ‘‘(V) the claims are made by a State or subdivi24 sion of a State on behalf of its citizens.’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
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 this Amended Yearly Report of GoldSpring, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Robert Faber, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to the best
of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec.
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)  The Amended 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 this Amended Report fairly presents, in all
     material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
     Company.


June 23, 2004                                   /s/ Robert Faber
                                                -------------------------------
                                                    Robert Faber
                                                    Principal Financial Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                           PROVINCE HEALTHCARE COMPANY

                           CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO

       RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED,
               AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Report of Province Healthcare Company (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on the date hereof (the
"Report"), Martin S. Rash, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and
Christopher T. Hannon, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) that:

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

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

Date: August 9, 2004,

                                                  /s/  Martin S. Rash
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Martin S. Rash
                                                  Chief Executive Officer

                                                  /s/ Christopher T. Hannon
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Christopher T. Hannon
                                                  Chief Financial Officer
China Packaging Technologies, Inc. - Exhibit 10.11 - Filed by
   newsfilecorp.com






Exhibit 10.11 

Form of Purchase Agreement 

(English Summary) 

	Parties to Contract 	
                         Shengda
      Color as Buyer and Wuxi Rongcheng Paper Co., Ltd. as Vendor 

	 	
       

	Details of Products 	
                         The
      standard, amount and price depend on the Buyer’s order and will be
      confirmed by the Vendor. 

	 	
       

	Standard of Quality 	
                     
         According to the GB13024-91 or the agreement of the two
      parties. 

	 	
       

	Location of Purchase 	
                     
         Warehouse of the Vendor. 

	 	
       

	Inspection Standards 	
                     
         According to the GB13024-91 or the agreement of the two
      parties. 

	 	
       

	Time limit of objection 	
                         The
      Buyer should send a written notice to the Vendor if the products are found
      less than the contract-amount nor can fit the quality standards at the
      very moment the Buyer receive the products. 




	Methods of Payment 	1. 	
      Pay on the 20th of the month when the order is
      placed; pay on the 20th of next month. Monthly payment at 60
      days. 

	  	2. 	
      Pay by Bank Acceptance or telegraphic money order.
# DHS Component Websites

The following list contains the major operational components that currently make up the Department of Homeland Security.
                - www.dhs.gov  - U.S. Department of Homeland Security
                - www.cisa.gov  - Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency
                - www.cbp.gov  - U.S. Customs and Border Protection
                - www.fema.gov  - Federal Emergency Management Agency
                - www.fletc.gov  - Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
                - www.ice.gov  - U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
                - www.secretservice.gov  - U.S. Secret Service
                - www.tsa.gov  - Transportation Security Administration
                - www.uscg.mil  - U.S. Coast Guard
                - www.uscis.gov  - U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

06/27/2020

0 / 2000To protect your privacy, please do not include any personal information in your feedback. Review our Privacy Policy.
EXHIBIT 12.2
                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Cameron Richardson, Chief Financial Officer of Aurora Metals (BVI) Limited,
certify that:

1) I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 20-F of Aurora Metals (BVI)
Limited;

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 Company as of,
and for, the periods presented in this report;

4) The Company's other certifying officers 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 Company 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 Company, 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) deleted

c) evaluated the effectiveness of the Company'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

d) disclosed in this report any change in the Company's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by this annual
report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the Company's internal control over financial reporting; and

5) The Company's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
Company's auditors and the audit committee of the Company's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
Company'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 Company's internal control over
financial reporting.

June 27, 2005                 By: (s)Cameron Richardson
                              -------------------------
                              Cameron Richardson Chief Financial Officer and
                              Director
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001044066
<NAME>                        Jevic Transportation, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.000
<CASH>                                         4,354
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  23,757
<ALLOWANCES>                                   1,426
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               32,619
<PP&E>                                         121,612
<DEPRECIATION>                                 34,858
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 120,634
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          22,130
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       72,031
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,185)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   120,634
<SALES>                                        109,480
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               109,480
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  100,699
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (92)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             541
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                8,332
<INCOME-TAX>                                   3,237
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            5,095
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   5,095
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.47
        


</TABLE>
Interim Decision #2464

MATTER OF NEVAREZ

In Visa Petition Proceedings

A

- 20292676

Decided by Board January 16, 

### Ins

(1) Petitioners and applicants for immigration benefits are required by 8 CFR 103.2(b) to provide certif ed English translations of any foreign language documents they submit; the Service should likewise provide certified English translations of relevant foreign documents it submits in evidence in such proceedings. (2) Where the crucial evidence submitted by the Service in connection with the revocation of approval of the visa petition to accord beneficiary immediate relative classification is beneficiary's $.fiiclavit before the U.S. Consul in Monterrey, Mexico on November 12, 1974, and the document is in Spanish and no translation has been provided, the record is

rem on appeal, by the Board fur a proper translation of the affidavit and for a new decision based on the completed record.

ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: Pro se

The United States citizen petitioner applied for immediate relative classification for the beneficiary as her spouse under section 201(b) of theImmigration and Nationality Act. The petition was approved on December 11, 1973. However, as a result of a consular inquiry into the bona fides of the marital relationship, on October 31, 1975 the districtdirector revoked approval of the petition on the ground that the beneficiary had Entered into the marriage for the sole purpose of obtaining immigration benefits. The petitioner appeals from the district director's revocation. The record will be remanded to the district director for further proceedings. The district director's decision to revoke approval of the petition is based on a sworn statement, executed by the beneficiary before the United States Consul in Monterrey, Mexico on November 12, 1974 to the effect that he only desired to immigrate to the United States and had no intentions of establishing a life with the petitioner. However, on August 20, 1975 the beneficiary recanted his earlier statement and attested that it had not been given voluntarily. On appeal, the petitioner maintains that her marriage to the beneficiary is valid and subsisting and that they intend to live together as husband and wife. The crucial evidence submitted by the Service is the beneficiary's

550Interim Decision 46z4tiu


### damaging affidavit before the United States consul. However, thisdocument is in Spanish and no translation has been provided. Petitioners and applicants for immigration benefits are required by regulation to provide certified English translations of any foreign language documents they submit, 8 CFR 103.2(b). The Service should likewise provide certified English translations of relevant foreign language documents it submits. Accordingly, 

### the record will be remanded to the district director for a proper translation of the beneficiary's November 12, 1974 affidavit and for a 

### new decision based on the completed record. ORDER: The record is remanded to the district director for further proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion.

551
<TABLE> <S> <C>


        <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2001
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                          25,647
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  273,824
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (32,750)
<INVENTORY>                                    102,947
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               183,277
<PP&E>                                       4,731,854
<DEPRECIATION>                                (226,780)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,923,921
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,808,929
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    310,000
<COMMON>                                        54,197
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,923,921
<SALES>                                        562,957
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               562,957
<CGS>                                          519,139
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               664,655
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              51,839
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (716,494)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (716,494)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.03)




</TABLE>