alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Inter-Atlantic Financial,
Inc.;
 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 registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;
 4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange
Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
    5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):
    /s/ D. James DarasName: D. James DarasTitle: Chief Financial Officer
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4120

To prohibit further extension or establishment of any national monument

in Idaho without full public participation and an express Act of Congress,

and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 19, 1996

Mrs. CHENOWETH (for herself and Mr. CRAPO) introduced the following bill;

which was referred to the Committee on Resources

A BILL

To prohibit further extension or establishment of any national monument in Idaho without full public participation and an express Act of Congress, 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. LIMITATION ON FURTHER EXTENSION OR ES4 TABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL MONUMENTS IN

5 IDAHO.

6 No extension or establishment of a national monu7 ment may be undertaken in Idaho after the date of enact-
2

•HR 4120 IH

1 ment of this Act without full public participation and an

2 express Act of Congress.

Æ
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Bennie BROWN, Appellant. Bennie BROWN, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. 67850, 70481.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.

Feb. 11, 1997.

Robert E. Steele, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for Appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Fernando Bermudez, Asst. Attorney General, Jefferson City, for Respondent.

Before AHRENS, C.J., CRANDALL, J., and ELLIS, Special Judge.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Bennie Brown, appeals from the judgment entered on convictions of three counts of robbery in the first degree, one count of attempted robbery in the first degree, three counts of robbery in the second degree, two counts of attempted robbery in the second degree, and four counts of armed *626criminal action. The trial court sentenced him to terms of imprisonment of life on three counts, of fifteen years on four counts, of thirty years on four counts, and of ten years on two counts. Defendant also appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

As to defendant’s direct appeal, we have reviewed the record and find that no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. The judgment entered on defendant’s convictions is affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

The judgment of the court on defendant’s Rule 29.15 motion is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous; no error of law appears. An opinion would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-32263) of Chase Manhattan Bank USA, National
Association and JPMorgan Chase Bank of our report dated March 29, 2002 relating
to the assertion made by management of The CIT Group/Sales Financing, Inc. (the
Company) surrounding the Company's compliance with the minimum servicing
standards identified in the Mortgage Banker's Association of America's Uniform
Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2001, which report appears as Exhibit 93.2 of this Form 10-K.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

New York, NY
March 29, 2002
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

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

_______________________________________ __ Clerk June 8, 2010

jam 

# Order

June 8, 2010

140997

PAULA ANN NICE,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 140997

COA: 295543 MICHAEL KENNETH FRY,

Defendant-Appellant.

___________________ ________________

On order of the Chief Justice, defe ndant-appellant having failed to pay the partial filing fee as required by the order of April 29, 2010, the Cl erk of the Court is hereby directed to close this file.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3993 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3993

     To allow depository institutions to offer negotiable order of 
withdrawal accounts to all businesses, to repeal the prohibition on the 
    payment of interest on demand deposits, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 2, 1996

  Mr. Metcalf (for himself, Mr. McCollum, Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. Baker of 
    Louisiana, Mr. Lazio of New York, and Mr. Orton) introduced the 
  following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Banking and 
                           Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To allow depository institutions to offer negotiable order of 
withdrawal accounts to all businesses, to repeal the prohibition on the 
    payment of interest on demand deposits, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Small Business Banking Act of 
1996.''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS RELATING TO SAVINGS AND DEMAND DEPOSIT ACCOUNTS AT 
              DEPOSITORY INSTITUTIONS.

    (a) Now Accounts Authorized for All Businesses.--Section 2 of 
Public Law 93-100 (12 U.S.C. 1832(a)(2)) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 2. WITHDRAWALS BY NEGOTIABLE OR TRANSFERABLE INSTRUMENTS FOR 
              TRANSFERS TO THIRD PARTIES.

    ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any depository 
institution (as defined in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance 
Act) may permit the owner of any deposit or account on which interest 
or dividends are paid to make withdrawals from such deposit or account 
by negotiable or transferable instruments for the purpose of making 
payments to third parties.''.
    (b) Repeal of Prohibition on Payment of Interest on Demand 
Deposits.--
            (1) Section 19 of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 371a) 
        is amended by striking subsection (i).
            (2) The first sentence of section 5(b)(1)(B) of the Home 
        Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1464(b)(1)(B)) is amended by 
        striking ``savings association may not--'' and all that follows 
        through ``(ii) permit any'' and inserting ``savings association 
        may not permit any''.
            (3) Section 18 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 
        U.S.C. 1828) is amended by striking subsection (g).
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ANTHONY WARD,

Petitioner, Civil Action No. 2:09-cv-12669

v. HON. LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF

THOMAS BIRKETT,

Respondent.

______________________/

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

This habeas matter is before the Court because Petitioner Anthony Ward filed a

“Motion for Reconsideration” [ECF No. 43], asking the Court to reconsider its decision

denying him habeas relief. See Ward v. Birkett, No. 2:09-cv-12669, 2013 WL 1285259 (E.D.

Mich. Mar. 28, 2013). For the reasons that follow, the Motion is denied.

First, under the Court’s Local Rule 7.1, motions for reconsideration “must be filed

within [fourteen] days after entry of the judgment or order.” E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(1).

Petitioner’s Motion was signed and dated April 9, 2013, and filed with the Court on April 12,

2013. The Court’s Opinion and Order was issued on March 28, 2013. Applying the prisoner

mailbox rule, the Court deems Petitioner’s motion to have been filed on April 9, 2013.

Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 273 (1988); Cook v. Stegall, 295 F.3d 517, 521 (6th Cir.

2002). With that, the Court finds that Petitioner’s Motion was filed in a timely manner.

Second, motions for reconsideration may be granted when the moving party shows

a “palpable defect by which the court and the parties and other persons entitled to be heard

2:09-cv-12669-LPZ-CEB Doc # 49 Filed 05/01/13 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 997
2

on the motion have been misled [and] that correcting the defect will result in a different

disposition of the case.” E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3). A “palpable defect” is a “defect which

is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest or plain.” Olson v. Home Depot, 321 F. Supp. 2d

872, 874 (E.D. Mich. 2004) (Gadola, J.) (citation omitted). However, a motion for

reconsideration which presents the same issues already ruled upon by the Court, either

expressly or by reasonable implication, will not be granted. Ford Motor Co. v.

Greatdomains.com, Inc., 177 F. Supp. 2d 628, 632 (E.D. Mich. 2001) (Cleland, J.) (citation

omitted); see also Hence v. Smith, 49 F. Supp. 2d 547, 553 (E.D. Mich. 1999) (Gadola, J.)

(same).

Finally, in his Motion, Petitioner raises the same arguments raised in his Habeas

Petition. The Court thoroughly considered Petitioner’s arguments outlined in his Habeas

Petition, rejected them, and found that his incarceration was constitutionally sound. And,

after a careful review of Petitioner’s re-alleged claims in the instant Motion, the Court

concludes that, because Petitioner is merely presenting issues which the Court already ruled

upon, either expressly or by reasonable implication, when it denied his Habeas Petition, the

Motion is denied.

 Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration [ECF No. 43] is denied.

S/Lawrence P. Zatkoff 

LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DATED: May 1, 2013

2:09-cv-12669-LPZ-CEB Doc # 49 Filed 05/01/13 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 998
Exhibit 32.2

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with
the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd. (Company) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael O. Matthews,
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, 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.

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.



|                      |  |     |  |                                           
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | ------------------------------------------
|Dated: April 29, 2009 |  | By: |  | /s/ Michael O. Matthews                   
|                      |  |     |  | Michael O. Matthews                       
|                      |  |     |  | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1 

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF 

UNION SECURITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK 

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 

§ 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

 

In connection with the annual report ofUnion Security Life Insurance Company of New York (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, P. BruceCamacho, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge: 

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

2.     The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company. 

 

Date:March 10, 2006 

 

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 andis not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure.
Exhibit 32.1




                                WRITTEN STATEMENT
                                       OF
               CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

     The  undersigned  hereby  certify that, to the best of the knowledge of the
undersigned, the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended June 30,
2007 filed by PHC,  Inc.  with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  fully
complies  with the  requirements  of  Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the  information  contained  in the report  fairly
presents,  in all material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of
operations of the issuer.



Date:  October 4, 2007                   By:   /s/  Bruce A. Shear
                                         __________________________
                                                    Bruce A. Shear, President
                                                    and Chief Executive Officer

Date:  October 4, 2007                   By:   /s/  Paula C. Wurts
                                         __________________________
                                                    Paula C. Wurts,
                                                    Chief Financial Officer


                                       70
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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 Registrant as of the dates and for the
periods expressed in the Report.
  By:
    
    /s/ Philip Cook
    
    
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Thomas F. DardenPhilip Cook
Senior Vice President  Chief Financial Officer
    
    
    
    
    
    Thomas F. Darden
President and Chief Executive Officer
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3935

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise

trade for each of the vessels HIGH HOPES and HIGH HOPES II.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 31, 1996

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

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a

certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for each

of the vessels HIGH HOPES and HIGH HOPES II.

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

3 That notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine

4 Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), section 8 of the Act of

5 June 19, 1886 (46 App. U.S.C. 289), and section 12106

6 of title 46, United States Code, the Secretary of Transpor7 tation may issue a certificate of documentation with ap8 propriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise
2

•HR 3935 IH

1 trade for each of the vessels HIGH HOPES (United

2 States official number 935174) and HIGH HOPES II

3 (United States official number 959439).

Æ
<PAGE>

                                   Exhibit 23

                               Consent of KPMG LLP

The Board of Directors
Southern Financial Bancorp, Inc.

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-68706 on Form S-8, of Southern Financial Bancorp, Inc. of our report dated
January 22, 2003, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Southern
Financial Bancorp, Inc. as of December 31, 2002 and 2001, and the related
consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income, changes in
stockholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year
period ended December 31, 2002, which report appears in the December 31, 2002
annual report on Form 10-K of Southern Financial Bancorp, Inc.

                                 /s/ KPMG LLP

Richmond, Virginia
March 28, 2003
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 09-20349

VALENTINE BALOGUN,

Defendant.

_________________________/

ORDER TERMINATING AS MOOT DEFENDANT’S “MOTION TO FIRE COUNSEL” 

Defendant Valentine Balogun filed a notice of appeal in this matter on March 1,

2010. On June 28, 2010, Defendant filed in this court a pro se “Motion to Fire Counsel.” 

Three days later, the Sixth Circuit granted a similar motion which Defendant had filed on

appeal. Because the Sixth Circuit has granted the relief requested in Defendant’s June

28 motion, the court will terminate that motion as moot. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s June 28, 2010, “Motion to Fire Counsel” [Dkt.

# 49] is TERMINATED AS MOOT. 

S/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: July 12, 2010

I I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

on this date, July 12, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C3 ORDERS\09-20349.BALOGUN.FireCounsel.wpd
174 La. 265

#### PIPES v. GALLMAN.

No. 31540.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 1, 1932.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 29, 1932.

George Wesley Smith, of Rayville, and Stirling Parkerson, of New Orleans, for plaintiff in error.

Theus, Grisham, Davis & Leigh, of Monroe, for defendant in error.

O’NIELL, C. J.

This is one of the cases referred to in the opinion handed down today in" Pipes v. Gallman (No. 31539) 140 So. 40, where the facts of the ease and the issues tendered are explained. The defendant in this case has raised an additional issue by filing a motion to dismiss this proceeding because the petitioner did not annex to his petition for the writ of certiorari and review copies of the briefs filed in the Court of Appeal. The reason why the briefs were not attached to the petition in this case, manifestly, is that copies of similar briefs were attached to the petition for the writ of certiorari and review in the case No. 31539. Be that as it may, the rule (section 5 of rule XIII) which provides that a-petition for a writ of certiorari and review shall be accompanied by copies of all of the briefs filed in the Court of Appeal, is intended for the convenience and information ,of the court, to enable the court to determine readily whether the case should be brought up for decision by this court. A failure to obey the rule might justify our refusing to issue the writ, but it could not justify our dismissing the proceeding after issuing the writ and having before us the briefs filed in the Court of Appeal.

The amount of the judgment rendered by the district court appears to be correct, and is not especially contested. Miss Jessie *44Pipes was riding on the front seat of the car at the time of the accident and was very seriously injured. Her scapula or shoulder blade and a rib were fractured, and one of her kidneys was so injured that it had to be removed. The allowance of $4,000 for such injuries is not excessive. The amount allowed her father for medical, surgical, and sanitarium bills is in accord with the evidence.

The judgment of the Court of Appeal is annulled, and the judgment rendered by the district court is reinstated and affirmed, at the cost of the defendant.
#### David MINTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 51064.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Oct. 31, 1995.

Rebecca L. Kurz, Asst. Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Breek K. Burgess, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before SMART, P.J., and LOWENSTEIN and HANNA, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

From a judgment denying request for relief without evidentiary hearing, under Rule 24.035 to set aside guilty pleas for second degree murder and armed criminal action, the court determined the motion was not timely filed. Appeal dismissed.
Lexaria Corp. Exhibit 10.1 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com









Mr. Jeff Paikin 
400-69 John St. South 
Hamilton, ON L8N
2B9 
P - 905-777-0000 

April 10, 2014 

Dear Mr. Paikin,



This letter confirms your appointment to, and your acceptance
of, your role as a member of Lexaria Corp.'s Advisory Board for a period of not
less than one year, but to be determined by certain performance thresholds as
noted below.

As an advisor to Lexaria Corp, you agree to make available to
the Board of Directors of Lexaria and to myself as President/CEO of Lexaria,
your time and expertise as required to assist us to evaluate opportunities and
procedures in the legal marijuana sector. We would expect your expertise in the
areas of project evaluation; building selection; finance and such other areas as
you feel best represent your abilities. 

In return for your agreeing to assist us in this manner, we
will pay to you the following schedule of compensation for your participation on
our Advisory Board, to a total of 525,000 restricted common shares. Any/all
shares issued must be in compliance with all Canadian and US regulations, and
you must remain a member of our Advisory Board at the time of each compensation
award. 

The table below represents milestones to be achieved at the
building location known to you and to Lexaria Corp, but not disclosed herein due
to reasons of competitiveness within the industry. It is understood that the
plant will be outfitted and designed to produce medical marijuana under Health
Canada’s MMPR program. 


	Shares On 
Signing 	Shares On 
Municipal
      
Approval 	Shares On Health 
Canada
      
Approval 	Shares on 
First 
Harvest
    	Shares on 
$5,000,000 in
      
Plant Revenue 
	110,000 	55,000 	110,000 	165,000 	137,500
  







We very much appreciate your time and expertise and believe you
can make a valuable contribution to Lexaria's success.

If this is acceptable to you, please sign this letter as
specified below, and return to me via scan at bossbunka@gmail.com, at your
earliest convenience. 

Yours Truly, 

Chris Bunka 
CEO 
Lexaria Corp 

________________________
 Accepted: Jeff Paikin