alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(A) OF THE EXCHANGE ACTI, Panagiotis Zafet, Chief Executive Officer and Co-Chairman of the Board of Seanergy MaritimeCorp., certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Seanergy Maritime Corp.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:     a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;     b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, 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 registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors:     a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: November 7, 2007 /s/ Panagiotis Zafet   Panagiotis Zafet   (Principal Executive Officer)  
20
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 154 (Friday, August 8, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 46271]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18381]


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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Notice of Agreement Filed

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following 
agreement under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit 
comments on agreements to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, 
Washington, DC 20573, within ten days of the date this notice appears 
in the Federal Register. Copies of agreements are available through the 
Commission's Web site (http://www.fmc.gov) or contacting the Office of 
Agreements (202) 523-5793 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2b5f594a4f4e4a454a47525842586b4d4648054c445d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5e2a2c3f3a3b3f303f32272d372d1e38333d70393128">[email protected]</span></a>).
    Agreement No.: 201170-001.
    Title: The Los Angeles and Long Beach Port Infrastructure and 
Environmental Programs Cooperative Working Agreement.
    Parties: Port of Los Angeles and Port of Long Beach.
    Filing Party: C. Jonathan Benner, Esq.; Troutman Sanders, LLP; 401 
9th Street, Suite 1000; Washington, DC 20004-2134.
    Synopsis: The agreement would lay out in additional detail the 
areas in which the Ports have agreed to discuss and cooperate to 
improve environmental, safety and security objectives, particularly 
their respective Clean Truck Programs. The parties request expedited 
review.

    By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.

    Dated: August 5, 2008.
Karen V. Gregory,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-18381 Filed 8-7-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### STATE ex rel. KREBS v. JUNOD.*

No. 1216.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Oct. 5, 1933.

Geo. M. Wallace, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.

Chas. A. Holcombe, of Baton Rouge, for ap-pellee.

*

For opinion refusing rehearing, see 151 So. 646.

ELLIOTT, Judge.

This is an ancillary and companion suit to that bearing the number 8338 on the Docket of the District Court and entitled ¡State ex rel. Bernard L. Krebs v. Jess S. Cave, State Treasurer, 150 So. 62, and in which we have j.ust ruled on an exception and remanded the case for further proceedings. In the present case the averments of Bernard L. Krebs, are practically the same, except that the process is prayed for against A. L. Junod, the person next in authority to Jess S. Cave, state treasurer. The suit was filed at the same time as the other and has the same purpose and object in view.

A. L. Junod, assistant treasurer, appeared in response to the alternative writ of mandamus issued to him, and urged against plaintiff’s petition an exception that it disclosed no right or cause of action, but at the same time, reserving all his. rights under the exception, he filed an answer, putting at issue relator’s alleged right to examine the records. The court did not act on the exception, but after hearing the merits rendered judgment on the merits, making the alternative writ peremptory.

Junod has appealed. There is no motion to dismiss, but we do not think that A. L. Junod, assistant treasurer, has any appellate authority or standing in this court as to the issue put forward in his answer.

The record of suit No. 8338, entitled State ex rel. Krebs v. Jess S. Cave, State Treasurer, shows that Cave in his capacity as state treasurer appeared in that suit at the samo time that A. L. Junod, assistant state treasurer, appeared in this one. It thus appears that Jess S. Cave, state treasurer, -had returned and resumed his official status, which left Junod without any in the presence of his chief.

The record in the present case shows that Jess S. Cave, state treasurer, was present when the case was tried in the lower court, and as he has, when present, the authority of the office of state, treasurer, it is our conclusion that A. L. Junod has no official status, which we can recognize in this controversy between Krebs and the state treasurer concerning the enforcement of Act No. 242 of 1912, as amended. The treasurer, Cave, has constitutional authority to remove Junod at pleasure, and it may be, for all we know, he is not now assistant treasurer; but suppose him to be such, the record indicating the presence of Gave, the authority of the office is vested in him.

For these reasons, acting ex officio, the ap•peal taken by A. L. Junod herein is dismissed, at his cost.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, CR. NO. 09-20225

v. JUDGE: ROBERT CLELAND

SCOTT SAMONEK,

Defendant.

/ 

EX-PARTE ORDER ALLOWING LAPTOP AND/OR FLASHDRIVE INTO 

PLACE OF DETENTION

Upon Defendant’s need to view electronic discovery material in the facility 

housing defendant, and the Court being aware of the refusal of detention facilities to 

allow a laptop into their facility without a court order;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that attorney Daniel Dena shall be allowed to 

visit defendant at his place of incarceration (currently the Sanilac County Jail) and 

enter the facility with a laptop computer for the purpose of reviewing discovery 

material in the above-captioned matter. In the alternative, a flash drive containing 

discovery materials may be mailed to the Sanilac County Jail, and the Defendant 

shall be permitted to view the electronic discovery materials in the normal manner 

set by jail policy. 

Case 2:09-cr-20225-RHC-PJK ECF No. 86, PageID.554 Filed 05/18/23 Page 1 of 2
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a private and confidential area shall be 

provided for the inmate visit.

s/Robert H. Cleland

HONORABLE ROBERT CLELAND

United States District Court Judge

Entered: May 18, 2023

Respectfully submitted,

FEDERAL DEFENDER OFFICE

s/Daniel Dena

DANIEL DENA

Attorney for Defendant

613 Abbott Street, Suite 500

Detroit, Michigan 48226

313-967-5834

E-mail: Daniel_Dena@fd.org

Dated: May 10, 2023

Case 2:09-cr-20225-RHC-PJK ECF No. 86, PageID.555 Filed 05/18/23 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit No. 99.2
Form 10-K
Headway Corporate Resources, Inc.
File No. 1-16025

    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 Headway Corporate  Resources,  Inc.
(the  "Company") on Form 10-K for the period  ending  December 31, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I,  Philicia  G.  Levinson,  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;
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 29, 2003                      By:   /s/ Philicia G. Levinson
                                                Chief Financial Officer


A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Headway  Corporate  Resources,  Inc.  and will be retained by it and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Billy Joe Clark v. State

No. 25454.

November 7, 1951.

*424Hon. Henry King, Judge Presiding.

*Charles W. Tessmer,*Dallas, for appellant.

*Henry Wade,*Criminal District Attorney, *Charles S. Potts,*Assistant Criminal District Attorney, Dallas, and *George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, of Austin, for the state.

WOODLEY, Judge.

The conviction is for burglary; the punishment, six years in the penitentiary.

Appellant sought a continuance contending that he had no counsel and for that reason had been unable to have his witnesses subpoenaed. He objected to having a court appointed attorney and complained that he had employed Charles W. Tessmer to represent him after his case had been called that morning. He alleged that his attorneys needed more time to prepare his defense.

The overruling of the motion for continuance was alleged as error in appellant’s motion for new trial. The state controverted the motion and alleged that Mr. Tessmer had been the attorney of record for appellant for some two weeks or more prior to the trial, and had been notified of the March 21st setting of the case on March 8. No testimony appears to have been heard on the issue raised on the motion for new trial.

It appears that appellant was represented on the trial both by the court-appointed attorney and by Mr. Tessmer, the attorney of his choice, and that the absent witnesses named in his motion appeared and testified.

Appellant concedes that the motion for continuance is equitable in nature and one addressed to the discretion of the trial court. We are unable to agree that an abuse of such discretion is shown.

The manager of a White’s Auto Store in Dallas testified that he left the store closed at about 8 o’clock P.M. on December 6, 1950, and returned shortly before 8 o’clock the following *425morning, when he discovered that the store had been burglarized.

A television set missing from the store was sold by appellant to W. R. Cothran the latter part of December.

Appellant’s confession was offered in evidence wherein he said that he and one Burks broke into the store about 10 P.M. on December 6 and sold the television set and other property taken by them from the store to Cothran.

Appellant did not testify but offered testimony to the effect that he was at another and different place during the night in question.

The indictment contained no allegation as to whether the burglary was committed at night or in the daytime and the trial court in his charge did not define daytime but authorized a conviction upon a finding of an entry by force and breaking, either in the night or daytime.

The indictment is in approved form and we see no error in the court’s charge in so submitting the case to the jury.

It is unnecessary that we consider the sufficiency of the record to raise the issues herein discussed.

No error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,

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 May 24, 2011

p0516 

# Order

May 24, 2011

142437

ALPHA INVESTMENT, L.L.C., ALPHA DIAGNOSTIC CLINIC, P.C., and ALPHA MEDICAL CL INICS, P.C., Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants,

and

ABDALRAHMAN KATRANJI, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant- Appellee,

v SC: 142437 COA: 291939 Wayne CC: 06-610358-CK ALPHA REAL ESTATE, L.L.C., ALPHA CLINIC, P.C., and FIROZA B. VAN HORN, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs/ Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants,

and

ALPHA PROPERTIES, L.L.C., Third-Party Defendant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the December 7, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented shou ld be reviewed by this Court.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Frederick AVILA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 72-1950.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Nov. 3, 1972.

*277David L. DeLoach, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellant.

William D. Keller, U. S. Atty., Joseph H. Golant, Eric A. Nobles, Asst. U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before CHOY and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges, and JAMESON,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable William J. Jameson, Sr., United States District Judge for the District of Montana, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Frederick Avila was convicted by a jury on three counts of possession with intent to distribute and distribution of amphetamines in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a). Avila appeals, advancing three principal contentions: (1) his arrest was without probable cause, (2) a warrant to search his garage was issued without probable cause, and (3) there was error in allowing an informant to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. We affirm.

Avila argues that the two-pronged test of *Aguilar*and *Spinelli*was not met. We do not agree. It is true that the informant was of untested reliability, but probable cause to arrest can still be shown if the underlying facts and circumstances from which the informant drew his conclusions are sufficiently verified to find reliability. Musgrove v. Eyman, 435 F.2d 1235, 1238 (9th Cir. 1971); *accord,*United States v. Jimenez-Badilla, 434 F.2d 170, 172 (9th Cir. 1970). Verification in the instant case was similar to that in *Mus-grove*and *Jimenez-Badilla.*The arresting officers observed each step of Avila’s criminal act, then arrested him.

Avila’s attack of the warrant for search of his garage is without merit. The reliability of the informant was confirmed by the arrest and the probability of drugs within the garage was substantiated by the observations of the arresting officers.

Avila’s third contention is also futile. There was no waiver by the informant. of his Fifth Amendment privilege. Avila’s counsel attempted to raise issues of the informant’s past criminal activities on cross-examination. Since these issues had not been raised on direct *278examination, the informant had not waived his privilege, Semler v. United States, 332 F.2d 6 (9th Cir. 1964), and he properly asserted it on cross-examination.

Affirmed.
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






Gil Boosidan, Chief Executive Officer and Director of Suspect Detection Systems, Inc. (the “Registrant”), certifies, under the standards set forth and solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.




Dated: May 13, 2011By:
/s/ Gil BoosidanName: Gil BoosidanTitle :  Chief Executive Officer and Director (Principal Executive Officer)


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Steven J. GRAHAM and Michelle Graham, Appellants, v. BANK MIDWEST, Respondent.

No. WD 52388.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Nov. 12, 1996.

David H. Cook, Independence, for appellants.

Jay Shadwiek, Kansas City, for respondent.

Before SPINDEN, P.J., and SMART and EDWIN H. SMITH, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Steven and Michelle Graham appeal the summary judgment entered in favor of Bank Midwest in its action on promissory notes. Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS OF ORYX  TECHNOLOGY  CORP. FOR THE YEAR ENDED FEBRUARY 29,
2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              FEB-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 MAR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   FEB-29-2000
<CASH>                                         4,529
<SECURITIES>                                     989
<RECEIVABLES>                                     90
<ALLOWANCES>                                      40
<INVENTORY>                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               5,695
<PP&E>                                           782
<DEPRECIATION>                                   520
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 5,989
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            734
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             89
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                      22,253
<OTHER-SE>                                         0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   5,989
<SALES>                                          755
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 755
<CGS>                                            808
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  3,544
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (2,623)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (2,623)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   613
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (2,012)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.13)


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2





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 Quarterly Report of NovaBay Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Thomas J. Paulson, 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date: August 11, 2010





/s/ Thomas J. PaulsonThomas J. PaulsonChief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CertificationPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**

** **

Pursuant to U.S.C. Section 1350 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of StoneTan China Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to suchofficer’s knowledge, that:

 

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterended June 30, 2008 of the Company fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

 
| August 4, 2008 |  /s/ Richard Tan                                   |
|---------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|
|                |        Name:  Richard Tan |
|                |        Title:             | Chief Executive Officer, President and   Director (Principal Executive and   Principal Financial Officer) |

 

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

I, M. Carroll Benton, Secretary and Treasurer of Insynq, Inc., (the "Company"),
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that:

     (1)  the Annual Report of Form 10-KSB of the Company for the fiscal year
          ended May 31,2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements
          of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
          U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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


Dated: September 20, 2002





/s/M.Carroll Benton
-------------------
M.Carroll Benton, Secretary and Treasurer
#### Andrew ENTREVIA v. Max FISHER et al. *

No. 1309.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

May 8, 1934.

St. Clair Adams and St. Clair Adams, Jr., both of New Orleans, for appellants Clayton and Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co.

H. H. Richardson, of Bogalusa, for appel-lee.

*

 Rehearing denied June 11, 1531

ELLIOTT, Judge.

In this case, .for the reasons given in the case entitled Grant Penton v. Max Fisher et al., 155 So. 35, the judgment appealed from herein is affirmed. Defendants-appellants to pay the costs in both courts.