alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Hilla B. Darden v. State

No. 25585.

December 19, 1951.

*528Hon. Willis M. McGregor, Judge Presiding.

*Al Templeton, F. T. Gauen, Jr.*and *W. R. Sessions,*Dallas, for appellant.

*George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was found guilty of a charge of burglary and the jury’s verdict recites that he had theretofore been twice convicted of burglary, as charged in the indictment. A life sentence in the penitentiary was assessed as a consequence of this finding.

The record contains no bills of exception and no statement of facts. A brief filed by attorneys other than those who represented appellant on the trial of the case attacks the sufficiency of the indictment to allege the former convictions. There is no complaint of the indictment so far as it alleges the primary offense and states the date of the commission of the offenses as October 26, 1950. A further paragraph in the indictment alleges that H. B. Darden, “who. is hereinbefore charged,” was theretofore convicted on May 9, 1949 of a burglary committed on January 18, 1949, and that such conviction was final. Another paragraph followed alleging that Hilla Buster Darden, “who is hereinbefore charged,” had a final conviction for burglary on January 15, 1947, for a burglary committed on September 4, 1946.

It is the contention on this appeal that the indictment is invalid insofar as it attempts to allege the former convictions and, therefore, the judgment against him fixing a life sentence is void.

The indictment first named Hilla B. Darden. The following paragraph alleging the prior conviction of H. B. Darden says in effect that he is the person hereinabove charged. It could mean nothing other than that the H. B. Darden in that conviction is the same person as the Hilla B. Darden on trial. The next *529paragraph names Hilla Buster Darden and the above quoted allegation could mean nothing other than that he is the same person as H. B. Darden and as Hilla B. Darden.

What the evidence shows on the subject is not to be found in the record but we must presume that it was sufficient to show he was the identical person formerly charged and convicted of the offense of burglary. If the proof challenges this it should have been brought before this court for consideration.

We think the language is sufficient to show that the first offense and final conviction dated January 15, 1947, was before the offense on January 18, 1949, and that the final conviction in that case dated May 9, 1949, was prior to the commission of the offense for which he was on trial in the case before us. We cannot consider matters other than those which we find in the record. This appears to be regular and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Thomas G. WOLFIN, Jr., Appellant.

No. 70097.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

Jan. 7, 1997.

Gary E. Brotherton, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, for Appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Christine M. Blegen, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, for Respondent.

Before RHODES RUSSELL, P.J., and SIMON and KAROHL, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Thomas G. Wolfin, Jr., appeals from the sentences imposed after a jury verdict finding him guilty of driving while intoxicated, § 577.010 RSMo 1994 and two misdemeanor counts of resisting arrest, § 575.150 RSMo 1994, in the circuit court of Ste. Genevieve County. He was sentenced to seven years imprisonment, sixty days jail time, and two $250 fines.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. A memorandum, solely for the use of the parties involved, has been provided explaining the reasons for our holdings.
#### Gustav Obendorfer and Leopoldine Obendorfer, Respondents, v. The City of New York and The Empire State Surety Company, Appellants.

Judgment reversed and complaint dismissed as to defendant The City of New York, with costs in this court and in the court below. Judgment affirmed, with costs, as to the defendant The Empire State Surety Company. No opinion. Settle order on notice.
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the annual report of Veracity Management Global, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the six months ended December 31, 2010 (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Marc L. Baker, Acting 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:





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.





/s/ Marc L. Baker





Marc L. Baker


Acting Chief Financial Officer


Dated: February 14, 2011





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Veracity Management Global, Inc. and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
178 La. 176

#### SNELL v. AMITE OIL CO.

No. 32236.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 30, 1933.

S. S. Reid, of Amite, for appellant.

Burns & Pierson, of Poncbatoula, for ap-pellee.

OVERTON, Justice.

This is a suit to foreclose a mortgage by executory process, alleged to have been executed by defendant, through its president, by virtue of a resolution of its board of directors. An order of seizure and sale was granted plaintiff. Defendant has appealed suspensively from this order. Its complaint is that it does not appear in tbe manner prescribed by law that its president was authorized to grant the mortgage.

To enable the president of a corporation to bind it he must be authorized to do so. Such authority is generally granted by a resolution of the corporation’s board of directors. The law expressly provides the degree of proof necessary to establish the granting of the requisite authority for the purpose of obtaining executory process. It provides that: “In all applications for exec-utory process against property mortgaged by a corporation, a copy of the resolution of the Board of Directors authorizing the execution of the mortgage on behalf of the corporation, .taken from the copy certified by the secretary and attached to the original act of mortgage, and certified by the notary before whom the Act was passed, or from the mortgage or conveyance records, when the records show that the copy filed for record was certified by the secretary, and certified by the recorder, shall be sufficient evidence of the authority of the officer or agent to execute same. * * *” Act No. 148 of 1910, p. 226.

There is in this case no1 resolution, certified to by the secretary of the corporation and by the notary, or by the recorder, as provided by the act — in fact no resolution of the board of directors was attached to the petition for executory process, or otherwise ap*71pears in the record, although it is alleged that one was attached.

In these circumstances nothing remains to be done but to set aside the order of execu-tory process. Bank of Leesville v. Wingate, 123 La. 386, 48 So. 1005.

For these reasons, the order of executory process is set aside, and the application therefor is dismissed at plaintiff’s costs.
178 La. 499

#### CITY OF NATCHITOCHES v. I. D. NELKIN et al.

No. 32645.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 2, 1934.

Russell B. Gahagan, M. L. Dismukes, and S. R. Thomas, both of Natchitoches, for City of Natchitoches.

W. Peyton Cunningham, of Natchitoches, for I. D. Nelkin and others.

BRUNOT, Justice.

In this matter a writ of certiorari issued and, in response thereto, the judge has filed a return together with his reasons for judgment, and the issues presented by the application and the return are submitted for our consideration. •

The city of Natchitoches, through its proper officials, adopted Ordinance Nd. 363, which prohibits and penalizes “gambling with cards for money” within the corporate limits of that city.

The city of Natchitoches has less than 5,000 population and, therefore, it could not avail itself of the provisions of Act No. 125 of 1920. The charter powers of the city are limited, and there is -no contention that the power to prohibit and penalize gambling with cards for money can be found in its charter, but the city relies upon Act No. 17 of 1926 as a sufficient delegation of such power to maintain-the validity of its ordinance.

The defendants are members of the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks. They were charged, under the ordinance, with gambling with cards for money in the lodge rooms of the Elks’ Home, within the corporate limits of the city of Natchitoches. They were tried in the city court, were found guilty, and were given an alternative sentence of fine or imprisonment. The case was appealed to the district court. Such appeals are triable de novo in the appellate court. On appeal, the validity of Ordinance No. 363 was questioned and the uneonstitutionality of Act No. 17 of 1926 was pleaded. The trial judge held Act No. 17 of 1926 to be broader than its title and, therefore, unconstitutional, and, for that reason, he avoided the conviction and sentence and discharged the accused.

Act No. 17 of 1926 is nothing more than a penal statute of the state. It does not pretend to delegate any power whatever to the city of Natchitoches; hence, the defendants are without interest in pleading the unconsti-*65tutionálity of the act, and, as the city of Natchitoches was without power to pass its Ordinance No. 363, that ordinance is null and void. The convictions and sentences under it should he set aside and the defendants should be discharged.

For these reasons, in so far as the judgment of the district court decrees Act No. 17 of 1926 to be unconstitutional, it is avoided and reversed; but in all other respects it is affirmed, at relator’s cost
Exhibit 13.2







CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002







In connection with the Annual Report of Migenix Inc. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the year ended April 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Arthur J. Ayres, Sr. Vice President Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1)

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



(2)

The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.









Arthur J. Ayres

Arthur J. Ayres

Sr. Vice President Finance and Chief Financial Officer

October 31, 2005



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.
```
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

     In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of  School4Chauffeurs,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter  ending June 30, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jeffery
E. Jones, President 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 results of operations
          of the Company.

Date: April 6, 2010

                                        By: /s/ JEFFERY E. JONES
                                            ___________________________
                                                Jeffery E. Jones
                                                President
```
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATIONS*



I, Michael E. Golden, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of PanAmerican Bancorp;



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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.

The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) 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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer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



(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

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



(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer'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 small business issuers internal control over financial reporting



Date:

March 16, 2005





/s/MICHAELE. GOLDEN

Michael E. Golden

President and Chief Executive Officer
CERTIFICATION OF TREASURER
PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Ashley B. Bloom,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as adopted
pursuant  to Section  906 of the  Sarbanes-  Oxley Act of 2002,  that the Annual
Report of Capitol  First  Corporation  on Form  10-KSB for the fiscal year ended
September  30, 2003 fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 and that information  contained in
such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB fairly  presents in all material  respects the
financial condition and results of operations of Capitol First Corporation.

                                                    By: /s/ Ashley B. Bloom
                                                        -------------------
                                                    Name:   Ashley B. Bloom
                                                    Title:  Treasurer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

PAULINE COLEMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY,

Defendant.

 /

Case No. 09-12833

Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR REVIEW OF CLERK’S

DECISION REGARDING COSTS

Defendant Ford Motor Company (“Defendant”) moves for the Court to review the

Clerk of the Court’s decision on June 4, 2010, denying Defendant’s request for costs after

prevailing in this action. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court grants Defendant’s

motion and awards it costs in the amount requested.

On July 17, 2009, Plaintiff Pauline Coleman (“Plaintiff”) filed a three-count

Complaint against Defendant, her former employer. Defendant filed a motion for

summary judgment on March 12, 2010. Because the motion and attached exhibits

contained confidential medical information concerning Plaintiff, Defendant filed its

motion and subsequent reply brief under seal. The Court granted Defendant’s motion in

an opinion and order filed on May 17, 2010.

On June 3, 2010, Defendant filed its Bill of Costs seeking costs in the amount of

$1,680.10 for court reporter fees incurred for depositions taken during discovery. The

Clerk of the Clerk declined to tax costs, however, because it could not verify that the

transcripts of those depositions for which court reporter fees were sought were used in
support of Defendant’s summary judgment motion. (Doc. 25.)

The deposition transcripts at issue were in fact submitted by Defendant in support

of its motion for summary judgment. Defendant therefore is entitled to an award in its

favor of the costs associated with those transcripts which amounts to $1,680.10. 28

U.S.C. § 1920(2). Accordingly, the Court taxes costs of $1,680.10 against Plaintiff and in

favor of Defendant.

SO ORDERED.

DATE: July 22, 2010 s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to: 

Lance W. Mason, Esq.

Elizabeth P. Hardy, Esq.

Sonja L. Lengnick, Esq.

Thomas G. Kienbaum, Esq.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



Board of Directors
SigmaTron International, Inc.


We have issued our report dated June 25, 2004 accompanying the consolidated
balance sheet of SigmaTron International, Inc. at April 30, 2004, and the
related statements of operations, stockholders' equity and cash flows for the
year then ended, included in the Annual Report of SigmaTron International, Inc.
and Subsidiaries and Affiliate, SMT Unlimited L.P., on Form 10-K for the year
ended April 30, 2004. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of
said report in the Registration Statements of SigmaTron International, Inc. and
Subsidiaries and Affiliate on Forms S-8 (File No. 33-20147 and 333-52044).

                                              /S/ GRANT THORNTON LLP

Chicago, Illinois
July 20, 2004
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the quarterly report of Veracity Management Global, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 (the
“Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof, I, Marc L. Baker, Acting 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:





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.





/s/ Marc L. Baker
 
 Acting Chief
Financial Officer
  Dated:
November 20, 2009





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Veracity Management Global, Inc. and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
Exhibit 32


Certification of Principal Executive and 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 Quarterly Report of Coyote Resources, Inc. a Nevada corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Guy Martin, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.


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


/s/ Guy MartinGuy MartinPrincipal Executive Officer, Principal Financial OfficerApril 16, 2013
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 515 Introduced in House (IH)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 515

  To amend title 18, United States Code, to prevent Federal prisoners 
  from engaging in activities to increase their strength or fighting 
                        ability while in prison.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 13, 1995

  Ms. Pryce introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 18, United States Code, to prevent Federal prisoners 
  from engaging in activities to increase their strength or fighting 
                        ability while in prison.

    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 ``Prison Security Enhancement Act of 
1995''.

SEC. 2. PRISON SECURITY.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 303 of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following new section:
``Sec. 4048. Strength-training of prisoners prohibited
    ``The Bureau of Prisons shall take care that--
            ``(1) prisoners under its jurisdiction do not engage in any 
        activities designed to increase their physical strength or 
        their fighting ability; and
            ``(2) that all equipment designed for this purpose be 
        removed from Federal correctional facilities.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
chapter 303 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at 
the end the following new item:

``4048. Strength-training of prisoners prohibited.''.
                                 <all>
```