alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[File No. 7054]

#### MARY MOREHOUSE, for the use and benefit of R. J. Sailer, Appellant, v. ERLING PAULSON and Dunn County, North Dakota, a Municipal Corporation, Appellees.

(28 NW2d 616)

Opinion filed July 9, 1947.

Rehearing denied September 10, 1947

*W. E. Esterly,*for appellant.

*E. L. Malloy, J. K. Eches,*and *Machoff, Kellogg*& *Muggli,*for appellees.

Per Curiam :

Appellant in her brief states:

> “The same points of law are involved in this case as are involved in the companion case of Mary Morehouse for the use and benefit of R. J. Sailer v. Paul E. Paulson, so we do not deem it necessary to set forth the argument 'and citation of authority in this case, but will kindly refer the Honorable Court to the argument and citation of authority in the companion case in as much as the same law is applicable to both cases and the fact situations are almost identical.”

Respondents in their brief state:

> “This brief contains Respondents’ arguments in both of the above cases. These cases were tried together, and the issues are practically identical. The Appellant also has argued both cases in one brief, that is, in his brief in the Paul Paulson Case. *525The facts in these cases are brief and are practically undisputed.”

In this case there appear to he no taxes delinquent for 1934 nor for 1935 nor hail tax for 1930; but in other respects the years are the same. In some minor matters, unimportant in detail, there are differences — description of parties defendant, and of the land, the amount of taxes for the years stated, etc.; but otherwise the cases are identical. The issues are the same; the principles involved are the same; the testimony, briefs, and records are the same and thus our decision is the same.

Reversed.

ChexstiaNsoN, Ch. J., and Burr, Nuessle, Burke and Morris, JJ., concur.
Exhibit  32.1

                Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer
                         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec.1350

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Sec.1350, I, the undersigned
Chief  Executive Officer of American Ecology Corporation (the "Company"), hereby
certify,  based  on  my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the
Company  for  the period ended March 31, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with
the  requirements  of  Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934  and  that  information  contained  in  the  Report fairly presents, in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.



/s/ Stephen A. Romano
---------------------
Stephen  A.  Romano
April  30,  2004




<PAGE>
#### Commonwealth, By et al. v. Standard Oil Company of Kentucky.

(Decided January 14, 1915.)

Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court (Chancery, No. 2).

Taxation — Action by Revenue Agent to Recover on Omitted Assessment. — In this action by a revenue agent to recover taxes on property omitted from assessment, the ruling of the lower court in dismissing the proceeding was erroneous in view of the ruling of this court in Commonwealth v. Ewald Iron Co., 153 Ky., 116.

A. S. BULLITT and MATT J. HOLT for appellant.

HUMPHREY, MIDDLETON & HUMPHREY for appellee.

*150Opinion op the Court by

Judge Nunn

Reversing.

This action was by a Revenue Agent to recover taxes on property omitted from assessment. The lower court sustained a motion to dismiss without prejudice. The ruling was made in attempted compliance with an Act of 1912, directing dismissal of such actions where there is a lack of diligence in prosecution. The Revenue Agent appeals.

Since then this court has construed the Act referred to. Commonwealth v. Ewald Iron Co., 153 Ky., 116. It is conceded by appellee that the lower court erred in dismissing the action, in view of the ruling in the Ewald ease.

The judgment is reversed for proceedings in conformity with the Ewald case.
EXHIBIT
      23





CONSENT
      OF STONEFIELD JOSEPHSON, INC.,


INDEPENDENT
      REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM








As
      independent registered public accountants, we hereby consent to the
      incorporation by reference of our report included in this Form 10-K, into the
      Company’s previously filed Registration Statements on Form S-3, File No.
      333-30351 and File No. 333-03613, and Registration Statements on Form S-8,
      File
      No. 333-71197, File No. 333-107458, and File No. 333-132955.











STONEFIELD
      JOSEPHSON, INC.





Los
      Angeles, California


September
      1, 2006
No. 1,674.

#### CLARK et al., Respondents, *v.*GRAND OPERA HOUSE CO. et al., Appellants.

*Appeal from District Court, Silver Bow County; H. C. Smith, Judge.*

Decided October 14, 1903.

*567
      *Mr. Charles*O'Donnell, and *Mr. J. L.*Wines, for Appellants.

Per Curiam.

This cause having been set for hearing this day, and it appearing that no briefs have been filed herein; it is ordered that this appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed.
#### In the Matter of Supplementary Proceedings: Ray Daniels, Judgment Creditor, *v.*Harry Becker, Judgment Debtor.

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

October 5, 1936.

*650
      *Abraham Maranov,*for the judgment creditor.

*Ann U. Berman,*for the judgment debtor.

Wendel, J.

The judgment creditor attempted to institute proceedings by the service of a subpoena on a witness, Junior Clothing Company. The question is whether independent proceedings under article 45 of the Civil Practice Act can be instituted by the service of a subpoena of the judgment creditor’s attorney upon a witness when no proceeding for the examination of the judgment debtor or third party has been instituted.

Section 774 declares that proceedings may be instituted under this article: 1. By order of the court. 2. By subpoena of the judgment creditor’s attorney, served upon the judgment debtor, a third party or a witness. 3. By warrant issued as in this article provided.

Section 774 further provides that “ Examinations of the debtor, third party and witnesses may be had simultaneously or separately, and the close of one or more of such examinations shall not affect the proceedings not concluded.”

Article 45 of the Civil Practice Act provides the procedure for the examination of the judgment debtor (§ 775), the procedure for the examination of a third party (§ 779), and procedure for examination of witnesses (§ 782).

Turning our attention to section 782 we find that the examination of witnesses by subpoena is limited as follows: *“*Until the close of the examination of the judgment debtor or third party or within six months thereafter.” This portion of section 782 envisages only three situations: 1. A pending examination of the judgment debtor. 2. A pending examination of a third party. 3. A period of six months after the close of an examination of the judgment debtor or third party.

Thus the conclusion is inescapable that the particular section (782) governs the general section (774). There is no conflict between section 782 and that portion of section 774 which seems to sanction *651a proceeding instituted by service of a subpoena upon a witness at any time. Such a subpoena may be issued only where permitted by section 782, that is, within six months after the examination of the judgment debtor or third party has been closed. As for the portion of section 774 which permits simultaneous or separate examinations of the debtor, third party and witnesses, the word “ examinations ” is not synonymous with the word *“*proceedings.”

In this case the judgment creditor has issued a subpoena to a witness where no proceeding has been instituted against a judgment debtor or third party. Such a course has not been approved by article 45 of the Civil Practice Act.

Motion to reargue motion to vacate the subpoena is, therefore, granted, and upon reargument the original determination is adhered to.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification**

 

**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)**

 

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Entrust, Inc., a Maryland corporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that: 

 

This Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2002 (the“Report”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company. 

 

 

 

Date: January 21, 2004
<PAGE>

                                                                 Exhibit 10.18.2


          RESOLVED, that the Board authorizes the reapproval of the
performance goals established under the 1995 Union Carbide Performance
Incentive Plan (the "Plan"), effective upon the reapproval of the performance
goals under the Plan by the Stockholders.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 88 (Friday, May 7, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 25259]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-10826]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE


Board of Governors of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 
Institute (PCOR)

AGENCY: Government Accountability Office (GAO).

ACTION: Notice on letters of nomination.

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

SUMMARY: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act gave the 
Comptroller General of the United States responsibility for appointing 
19 members to the Board of Governors of the Patient-Centered Outcomes 
Research Institute. In addition, the Directors of the Agency for 
Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institutes of Health, 
or their designees, are members of the Board. The Comptroller General 
is required to make appointments not later than 6 months after the date 
of enactment of the Act. Board members must meet the qualifications 
listed in Section 6301 of the Act. For these appointments, I am 
announcing the following: Letters of nomination and resumes should be 
submitted by June 30, 2010 to ensure adequate opportunity for review 
and consideration of nominees prior to appointment. Letters of 
nomination and resumes can be sent to either the e-mail or mailing 
address listed below.

ADDRESSES: Nominations can be submitted by either of the following:
    E-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b7fff4e0d8c5dcd1d8c5d4d2f7d0d6d899d0d8c1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="91d9d2c6fee3faf7fee3f2f4d1f6f0febff6fee7">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Mail: GAO Health Care, Attention: National Health Care Workforce 
Commission Nominations, 441 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20548.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: GAO: Office of Public Affairs, (202) 
512-4800.

[Sec. 5101, Pub. L. 111-148]

Gene L. Dodaro,
Acting Comptroller General of the United States.
[FR Doc. 2010-10826 Filed 5-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1610-02-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 10.6

Pinnacle Bankshares Corporation

Base Salaries of Executive Officers of the Registrant

As of March 27, 2009, the following are the base salaries (on an annual basis) of the executive officers of Pinnacle Bankshares Corporation:



|                                                                |  |   |        
|--------------------------------------------------------------- |  | - | -------
|Robert H. Gilliam, Jr.President and Chief Executive Officer     |  | $ | 192,400
|                                                                |  |  
|                                                                | 
|Carroll E. SheltonSenior Vice President                         |  | $ | 118,560
|                                                                |  |  
|                                                                | 
|Bryan M. LemleySecretary, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer |  | $ | 104,400
|                                                                |  |
II

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2140

To amend the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 to establish

within the Department of State an Under Secretary of State for Security.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 2, 2000

Mr. GRAMS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Foreign Relations

A BILL

To amend the State Department Basic Authorities Act of

1956 to establish within the Department of State an

Under Secretary of State for Security.

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

3 SECTION 1. UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SECURITY.

4 (a) ESTABLISHMENT OF POSITION.—Section 1(b) of

5 the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 (22

6 U.S.C. 2651a(b)) is amended—

7 (1) by inserting ‘‘(1)’’ after ‘‘UNDER SECRE8 TARIES.—’’; and

9 (2) by adding at the end the following:
2

•S 2140 IS

1 ‘‘(2) Of the number of Under Secretaries of State au2 thorized by paragraph (1), there shall be in the Depart3 ment of State an Under Secretary of State for Security

4 who shall—

5 ‘‘(A) carry out such responsibilities as the Sec6 retary of State may assign; and

7 ‘‘(B) report directly to the Secretary of State.’’.

8 (b) REPORT.—Not later than 30 days after the date

9 of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall sub10 mit a report to the Committee on Foreign Relations of

11 the Senate and the Committee on International Relations

12 of the House of Representatives setting forth the respon13 sibilities assigned to the Under Secretary of State for Se14 curity pursuant to section 1(c)(2)(A) of the State Depart15 ment Basic Authorities Act of 1956, as added by sub16 section (a).

Æ
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

January 9, 2009 

1215 

Order 

 

January 9, 2009 

137449 

GRIEVANCE ADMINISTRATOR, 

Petitioner-Appellee, 

v SC: 137449 

 ADB: 06-174-GA 

LAWRENCE E. SCHULTZ, 

Respondent-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal is considered, and it is 

DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed 

by this Court. 

 HATHAWAY, J., not participating.
<PAGE>   1
                        APPLIED SIGNAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.

                                  EXHIBIT 11.1

                   COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE

                      (In thousands except per share data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                      THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                  --------------------------
                                                  JANUARY           FEBRUARY 
                                                  31, 1997          2, 1997
                                                  --------          --------
<S>                                               <C>                <C>
Number of shares:
Weighted average outstanding common                  7,978             7,628
Dilutive common stock equivalents of:
Stock options (treasury stock method)(1)              136               154
                                                  --------           -------
                                                     8,114             7,782
                                                  ========           =======
Net income (loss)                                 $    861           $   150
Net income (loss) per common share                $    .11           $   .02
</TABLE>



(1)      Effect of assumed exercise of all dilutive stock options and assumed
         repurchase of shares from proceeds.  Common equivalent shares from
         stock options are excluded from the computation for the three months
         ended July 28, 1996 as their effect is anti-dilutive.






                                                                           20
Exhibit 32.1


                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                                (18 U.S.C. 1350)


     In connection with the Report of Prepaid Card Holdings, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Bruce
Berman, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Company, certify, pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), 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 results of operations
          of the Company.

                         Date:     August 6, 2009
                                   --------------

                         \s\ Bruce Berman
                         ----------------
                         Bruce Berman
                         Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
Unassociated Document


    
      [Letterhead
of ComVest Capital, LLC]

       

      May 13, 2009

    

    ClearPoint
Business Resources, Inc.

    1600
Manor Drive, Suite 110

    Chalfont,
PA  18914

    


    Re:  Waiver
Letter

     

    Dear
Sirs:

     

    Reference
is made to the Revolving Credit and Term Loan Agreement dated as of June 20,
2008 (the “Loan
Agreement”) by and between ComVest Capital, LLC (the “Lender”) and
ClearPoint Business Resources, Inc. (the “Borrower”).  All
capitalized terms used herein without definition have the respective meanings
ascribed to them in the Loan Agreement.

    


    The
Borrower has advised the Lender that the Borrower is in default of payments
required to be made under the Borrower’s outstanding Amended and Restated
Promissory Note issued to Blue Lake Rancheria (the “Blue Lake Note”),
totaling approximately $572,743.84, and that the Borrower proposes to make such
payments through the delivery of 900,000 shares of Common Stock pursuant to the
Escrow Agreement dated as of April 14, 2008.  Such continuing payment
defaults under the Blue Lake Note constitute an event of default under the Blue
Lake Note and an Event of Default under Section 7.01(e) of the Loan
Agreement.

     

    Effective
May 1, 2009, the Lender hereby waives (i) such Event of Default and any other
Event of Default consisting or arising out of the aforedescribed event of
default under the Blue Lake Note and (ii) all remedies available to the Lender
as a result of the Event of Default, provided that such payments due under the
Blue Lake Note are paid solely in shares of Common Stock.

     

    This
waiver is effective only in the specific instance, and is not to be construed as
a waiver of (or agreement to waive) any Event of Default unrelated to the event
of default under the Blue Lake Note.

     

    
      
        	 	
                Very
      truly yours,

                 

                COMVEST CAPITAL, LLC

              	 
	 	 	 	 
	
                 

              	
                By:
      

              	/s/ Norm
      Stayton	 
	 	 	Name:
      Norm Stayton	 
	 	 	Title:
      Senior Vice President 	 
	 	 	 	 


      

    

     

    
      
        	
                      
                  Acknowledged,
      Confirmed and Agreed To:

                

                 

                
                  CLEARPOINT
      BUSINESS RESOURCES, INC.

                

              
	 	 	 
	By:
      	/s/ John
      G. Phillips	 
	 	Name:
      John G. Phillips	 
	 	Title:
      CFO
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 Annual Report of Bluefly, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, E. Kenneth Seiff,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

     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.

/s/ E. Kenneth Seiff
-----------------------
E. Kenneth Seiff
Chief Executive Officer


March 29, 2004
**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 REII Incorprated (the “Company”) on Form
10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Daniel Ollech,
President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and
Secretary of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 and 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:
      May 16, 2005
    By:/s/ Daniel OllechDaniel
      OllechPresident,
      Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and
      Secretary
**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 

I, James D. Calver, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge, the Quarterly Report of Hooper Holmes, Inc., on Form 10-Q for the quarter March 31, 2006 fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of HooperHolmes, Inc. 

Dated: June 29, 2006 

 

This certification shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) or otherwise subject to the liability of Section 18 of the Exchange Act. Such certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference. 

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