alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Position Description for Bull Cook from attached reference. 

BULL COOK see CAMP ATTENDANT 

CAMP ATTENDANT, bull cook; choreman. Performs various duties 

about a mining, construction, or other camp, such as disposing of garbage, 

keeping camp area clean, sweeping and tidying sleeping quarters and 

making beds, carrying water for use at camp, and cutting firewood.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0641

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

THOMAS JERRY HILL,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including October 28, 2024, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 23 2024

09/23/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0641
Applied Signal Technology, Inc.
  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

In connection with the Report of Applied Signal Technology, Inc. (the Company)
  on Form 10-Q for the period ended August 3, 2007, as filed with the Securities
  and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James E. Doyle,
  Chief Financial 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 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 contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
  respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

|/s/ James E. Doyle
---------------------------------------------  | Date:
          September 10, 2007
-------------------------------
|----------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------
|James E. Doyle
        Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
#### George B. Raymond, Plaintiff, *v.*George F. Davy, Defendant.

City Court of New York, Special Term, Bronx County,

August 20, 1936.

*389*Morrison & Lynn,*for the plaintiff.

*L. T. Fetzer,*for the defendant.

Schackno, J.

Upon the foregoing papers this motion for an order striking out the answer of the defendant, and for summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant, is granted.

The cause of action set forth in the complaint is for merchandise sold and delivered to the defendant by plaintiff’s assignor, G. B. Raymond & Co., a domestic corporation. Attached to the complaint, and made a part thereof, is a schedule setting forth and numbering the respective items of the merchandise claimed to have been sold and delivered, and the agreed price and reasonable value of each of such items. In order to create an issue of such allegations of the complaint the defendant, by a verified answer, was called upon to indicate specifically the items, if any, which he disputes in respect of delivery, reasonable value or agreed price (Civ. Prac. Act, § 255-a); he has failed to do so.

The denial, upon information and belief, of each and every allegation of the paragraphs of the complaint in which the foregoing allegations are set forth does not create an issue. *(Weinstein*v. *Ken-Wel Sporting Goods Co., Inc.,*231 App. Div. 51; *Dairymen’s League Co-op.*Assn., *Inc., v. Levy Dairy Co.,*225 id. *475;International Milk Co., Inc.,*v. *Cohen,*219 id. 308; appeal dismissed, 245 N. Y. 564.) The motion is granted and the answer of the defendant is stricken out, and the clerk of this court is directed to enter judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant for the sum of $1,002.20, with interest thereon from June 28,1935, together with the costs and disbursements of this action, provided that the plaintiff at the time of the entry of such judgment files in the office of the clerk of this court the original assignment, photostatic copy of which is annexed to the moving papers, from G. B. Raymond & Co. to George B. Raymond, bearing date June 28, 1935.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order
Lansing, Michigan



### September 10, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 

### 132926 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices



### v SC: 132926 COA: 271221 Saginaw CC: 98-016374-FC JONATHAN JOE JONES, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 6, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

K ELLY 

### , J., would grant leave to appeal.

s0830 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.

September 10, 2007

Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2008 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2008

     To require the pre-release drug testing of Federal prisoners.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 26, 2000

 Mr. Ashcroft introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To require the pre-release drug testing of Federal prisoners.

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

SECTION 1. MANDATORY PRE-RELEASE DRUG TESTING OF FEDERAL PRISONERS.

    (a) In General.--Section 3624 of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(g) Mandatory Pre-Release Drug Testing.--The Attorney General 
shall direct the Bureau of Prisons to establish and implement a 
mandatory drug testing program under which--
            ``(1) each prisoner shall be required to submit to a drug 
        test for the use of a controlled substance (as defined in 
        section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)), 
        which shall be administered by the Bureau of Prisons not less 
        than 30 days and not more than 60 days prior to the scheduled 
        date of release of that prisoner under this section; and
            ``(2) if a prisoner tests positive for the use of a 
        controlled substance pursuant to a drug test administered in 
        accordance with paragraph (1)--
                    ``(A) the Bureau of Prisons shall promptly notify 
                the Attorney General of the test results; and
                    ``(B) the Attorney General shall, not later than 
                the scheduled date of release of the prisoner under 
                this section, issue an arrest warrant for the prisoner, 
                if the Attorney General has reasonable cause to 
                believe, based on the test results, that the prisoner 
                has violated section 1791 of this title, section 404 of 
                the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 844), or any 
                other provision of Federal law.''.
    (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated for fiscal year 2000 $2,000,000 to carry out section 
3624(g) of title 18, United States Code, as added by this section, 
which amount shall be used by the Attorney General to establish an 
office within the Department of Justice for the investigation and 
prosecution of prisoners for whom an arrest warrant is issued under 
section 3624(g)(2)(B)(i) of title 18, United States Code, as added by 
this section.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 23.1

                       INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT

The Stockholders and Board of Directors
Whittman-Hart, Inc.:

    We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements on
Forms S-1 (No. 333-18059) and S-8 (No. 333-03523) of Whittman-Hart, Inc. of our
reports dated February 7, 1997, relating to the balance sheets of
Whittman-Hart, Inc. as of December 31, 1996 and 1995, and the related
statements of earnings, stockholders' equity, cash flows and the related
financial statement schedule for each of the years in the three-year period
ended December 31, 1996, which report appears in the December 31, 1996 Form
10-K of Whittman-Hart, Inc.  These financial statements and financial statement
schedule and our reports thereon are included herein.

                                                          KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

Chicago, Illinois
March 28, 1997
Item 1. N/A

Item 2.        Disposition of Assets

On July 23, 2001, REII Incorporated (the "Company") disposed of One (1)
residential building lot held for investment purposes.
Naples Inc.

        The total selling price of the one residential building lot
        is follows:

        5330 Hunter Blvd. Golden Gate FL 34116        $ 23,000.00

                                                       ----------
        Gross Sales prices                            $ 23,000.00


       Cost of Sales Action                           $  1,634.03.
                                                       ----------
       Net Income from Sale                           $ 21,365.97

       The Historical value of this property as carried on the company's
 books was $ 9000.00 thereby showing a net profit on this transaction of
 $12,365.97
 The income from this sale will be used to reduce company debt.
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Omega Ventures Group, Inc.
on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, John Hickey, Principal Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of
     operations of the Company.



Date: August 14, 2006         /S/ John Hickey
                              ------------------------------------------
                              John Hickey, Principal Executive Officer
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 17, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-51541

Conference Calendar

ANTONIO STEELE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

DANIEL VALENZUELA; DR. SHERI TALLEY,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:03-CV-100 

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

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Antonio Steele, Texas prisoner # 923537, has filed a motion 

for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. The

district court denied Steele’s IFP motion and certified that the

appeal was not taken in good faith. By moving for IFP, Steele is

challenging the district court’s certification. See Baugh v.

Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). 

In district court, Steele contended that the defendants had

violated his First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights by

failing to provide proper and effective medical treatment
No. 05-51541

-2-

consistent with his religious beliefs. Steele’s medical records,

together with his own allegations, show that Steele received

medical treatment for his skin condition. Steele’s disagreement

with the course of that medical treatment does not constitute

deliberate indifference. See Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320,

321 (5th Cir. 1991). Steele has not addressed the district

court’s determination that defendants Morris, Shabaaz, Smith, and

Valenzuela could not be held liable as supervisory officials. 

Therefore, these claims are deemed abandoned. See Hughes v.

Johnson, 191 F.3d 607, 613 (5th Cir. 1999).

Steele has not shown that the district court’s certification 

was incorrect. The instant appeal is without arguable merit and

is thus frivolous. Accordingly, Steele’s request for IFP status

is denied, and his appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See Howard

v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. 

The dismissal of Steele’s appeal as frivolous by this court

counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v.

Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Steele previously

accumulated two § 1915(g) strikes. See Steele v. Glenn, No.

04-51277 (5th Cir. May 26, 2006) (unpublished) (dismissing appeal

as frivolous after district court dismissed complaint for failure

to state a claim). Accordingly, Steele is barred from proceeding

IFP in any civil action or appeal brought while he is

incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under

imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).
No. 05-51541

-3-

MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) BAR

IMPOSED.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2036 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 431
106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2036

  To make permanent the moratorium on the imposition of taxes on the 
                               Internet.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 7, 2000

  Mr. Smith of New Hampshire introduced the following bill; which was 
                          read the first time

                            February 8, 2000

            Read the second time and placed on the calendar

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To make permanent the moratorium on the imposition of taxes on the 
                               Internet.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT MORATORIUM ON IMPOSITION OF TAXES ON THE INTERNET.

    Section 1101(a) of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency 
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999 is amended by striking ``during 
the period beginning on October 1, 1998, and ending 3 years after the 
date of the enactment of this Act'' and inserting ``after September 30, 
1998''.
                                     

                                                       Calendar No. 431

106th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 2036

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

  To make permanent the moratorium on the imposition of taxes on the 
                               Internet.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            February 8, 2000

            Read the second time and placed on the calendar
```
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



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Integrated Security Systems, Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:



The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, as amended, for the quarter ended December 31, 2009 (the Form 10-Q) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-Q.





April 22, 2010

/s/ SHARON DOHERTY

Sharon Doherty

Chief Financial Officer

Principal Financial Officer





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



The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to Form 10-Q pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-B and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
#### Kobacker Furniture Company, Inc., Plaintiff, *v.*Benjamin Huggins, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Chemung County,

September 25, 1936.

*Leroy Stein,*for the plaintiff.

*George A. King,*for the defendant.

Personius, J.

This is an action in replevin under an unrecorded conditional sales contract, copy of which is presented on this motion. The property sold consisted of household furniture exempt under section 665 of the Civil Practice Act. Though the answer denies the material allegations of the complaint, it also affirmatively alleges the purchase and does not claim it was not conditional or that the purchase price was fully paid.

For an affirmative defense, the answer alleges that the defendant filed a petition in involuntary bankruptcy, was adjudicated bankrupt and that among the assets listed was exempt household furniture, including the goods in question. The defendant claimed this exemption and listed the plaintiff as a creditor in the amount here claimed.

In his opposing affidavit the defendant asserts that if the sale was conditional, the contract not being recorded, title to the goods passed to the trustee in bankruptcy. This might be true of nonexempt property *(General Motors Acceptance Corp.*v. *Raz Delivery, Inc.,*238 App. Div. 277), but it is not true of exempt property. A trustee is vested with the title of the bankrupt *“*except in so far as it is to property which is exempt.” (Bankruptcy Act, U. S. Code, tit. 11, § 110.) “ Under the various sections of the Bank*533ruptcy Act which refer to exemptions * * * the Supreme Court of the United States has held that the title to exempt property remains in the bankrupt, and does not pass to the trustee.” *(Matter of*Cunningham, 15 F. [2d] 700, 701; *Matter of Firestone,*2 Fed. Supp. 96; *Lockwood*v. *Exchange Bank,*190 U. S. 294.) As between the parties, it is immaterial that the conditional sales contract was not recorded. The property being exempt, the trustee in bankruptcy took no title to or interest therein.

The motion must, therefore, be granted, with ten dollars costs.
EXHIBIT 23.1




                     CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS




We  hereby  consent  to  the  incorporation  by  reference in the Prospectuses
constituting  part  of the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 33-11920,
33-15793,  33-17614,  33-21984,  33-23058,  33-25634,  33-31319,  33-45847,
33-69230, 33-55347, 33-46292, 33-59567, 333-11703 and 333-11703-01) and to the
incorporation  by  reference  in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos.
2-80978,  33-4042,  33-27203,  33-29498, 33-46968, 33-51691, and 333-08005) of
our  report  dated  February  4,  1997  appearing on page F-2 of Triton Energy
Limited's  Annual  Report  on  Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1996.





Price  Waterhouse  LLP
Dallas,  Texas
March  18,  1997
#### E. Lawrence Levin, Respondent, *v.*Eleto Realty Corporation, Appellant.*

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

March 6, 1936.

*Miller & Caniell,*for the appellant.

*E. Lawrence Levin,*for the respondent.

*

 Revg. 157 Misc. 180; leave to appeal to Appellate Division denied by Appellate Term March 24, 1936, and by Appellate Division April 15,1936.

Per Curiam.

The facts presented do not justify a holding that the failure of the landlord to supply a new lock or to supply other mouldings on the door was the proximate cause for the loss which occurred. The evidence does not establish that the loss in the manner testified to could have been reasonably anticipated so as to impose further duty to repair the condition complained of.

Judgment reversed, with thirty dollars costs, and complaint dismissed on the merits.

All concur. Present — Lydon, Hammer and FrankenthaJJ.