alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### BURNETT et al. v. JOHNSTON et al.

No. 989.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

March 8, 1932.

Johnson & Kantrow, of Baton R.ouge, for applicant.

Wm. Carruth Jones, of Baton Rouge, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

In this case, the plaintiff brought a personal injury suit claiming of the defendants, Francis L. Johnston and Hartford Indemnity Company, damages on account of personal injury.

The defendants appeared and attacked the constitutionality of Act No. 55 of 1930, under which the plaintiff had brought them into court. The lower court acting on the attack overruled the contention of the defendant and held that the act was constitutional. After the court had thus ruled, the defendant further appeared and prayed that the plaintiff be required to give bond for costs under Act No. Ill of 1926. The plaintiff resisted, and the court held that the request for such bond had come too late under the letter of the law in question.

The defendant then alleging that there was no appeal that they could take from the ruling that would give them adequate relief, and that they were irreparably injured by the ruling, applied to this court for writs of mandamus and certiorari to compel the court to require the plaintiff to give bond for costs under Act No. Ill of 1926.

Alternative writs issued as prayed for. The respondent judge for return denies that this court has authority to issue the writs prayed for, and, further answering, returns that his ruling was correct and that the writs prayed for should be denied.

As the case, under the Constitution of this state, would be appealed to this court, in case an appeal is taken, it is our opinion that we have jurisdiction, but we agree with the respondent judge that his ruling was correct. The law, Act No. Ill of 1926, section 1, provides: “That the defendant before pleading in all cases * * * may by motion demand and require the plaintiff 3⁄8 ** **to give security for the cost in such case,” etc.

The defendant had, by pleading, attacked the constitutionality of the law under which the plaintiff had brought them into court. This was a pleading within the sense and meaning of Act No. Ill of 1926. The lower court overruled their plea to the constitutionality, and defendants then applied to the court under Act No. Ill of 1926 to require bond for costs. The court properly held that this request came too late.

*49For these reasons the alternative writ heretofore issued is now recalled and set aside, and the prayer for mandamus and certiorari is refused, at relator’s costs.
<PAGE>   1


                                 EXHIBIT (15)(b)


<PAGE>   2




                                                                 Exhibit (15)(b)





April 27, 2001


Consumers Energy Company:

We are aware that Consumers Energy Company has incorporated by reference in its
Registration Statements No. 333-89363 its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March
31, 2001, which includes our report dated April 27, 2001 covering the unaudited
interim financial information contained therein. Pursuant to Regulation C of the
Securities Act of 1933, that report is not considered a part of the registration
statement prepared or certified by our firm or a report prepared or certified by
our firm within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.


Very truly yours,


/s/ Arthur Andersen LLP
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1998
<CASH>                                           4,099
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   82,765
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     40,207
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               139,264
<PP&E>                                         198,900
<DEPRECIATION>                                  58,384
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 362,465
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           94,094
<BONDS>                                        130,128
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           110
<OTHER-SE>                                     107,334
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   362,465
<SALES>                                        454,930
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               454,930
<CGS>                                          380,971
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  380,971
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                48,276
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,737
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 17,946
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,102
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             12,844
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,844
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.24
        

</TABLE>
No. 77-714.

#### Daley *v.*United States.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice White would grant certiorari.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350

I, Frank Slootman, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Data
Domain, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007, 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Data Domain, Inc.



|                       |  |     |  |                        
|---------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Date: November 1, 2007 |  | By: |  | /s/ FRANK SLOOTMAN     
|                       |  |     |  | Frank Slootman         
|                       |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>


                                                                   Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



To the Shareholders of Protection One, Inc.:

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference in this Form 10-K of our report dated March 9, 2001, into the
Company's previously filed Registration Statement File Numbers 033-83494,
033-99220, 033-95702, 033-97542, 333-02828, 333-02892, 333-20245, 333-24493,
333-50383, 333-64021, 333-77295, 333-30328 and 333-40158.


Arthur Andersen LLP

Kansas City, Missouri,
March 29, 2001
#### People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Herbert L. Wright, et al., Defendants-Appellants.

Gen. No. 50,415.

First District, Third Division.

September 29, 1966.

Richard L. Handel and Wexman, Handel and Kipnis, of Chicago (Ronald L. Barnard, of counsel), for appellants; Daniel P. Ward, State’s Attorney of Cook County, of Chicago (Elmer C. Kissane and Albert J. Armonda, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellee.

Opinion by

JUSTICE SCHWARTZ.

Not to be published in full.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-28-1996
<CASH>                                           1,749
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   65,861
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,311
<INVENTORY>                                     49,583
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               116,568
<PP&E>                                          71,785
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,515
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 301,069
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          104,226
<BONDS>                                        143,536
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,105
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   301,069
<SALES>                                      1,045,161
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,050,206
<CGS>                                          935,719
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,021,075
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   272
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,850
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              23,955
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,904
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,053
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,851
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    219
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,070
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6697

ORANIE GALINDO FORBES,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

DAN L. DOVE, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Margaret B. Seymour, District

Judge. (CA-01-30-7-24BG)

Submitted: August 15, 2002 Decided: August 20, 2002

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Oranie Galindo Forbes, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Oranie Galindo Forbes appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. We have

reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. See Forbes v. Dove, CA-01-30-7-24BG (D.S.C. Apr.

11, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 159 (Friday, August 15, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 48003]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18912]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i> 11281]


Indiana Disaster Number IN-00020

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 5.

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

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Indiana 
(FEMA-1766-DR), dated 06/08/2008.
    Incident: Severe Storms, Flooding, and Tornadoes.
    Incident Period: 05/30/2008 through 06/27/2008.
    Effective Date: 08/06/2008.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 08/07/2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the President's major disaster 
declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of 
Indiana, dated 06/08/2008, is hereby amended to include the following 
areas as adversely affected by the disaster.

Primary Counties:
    Adams, Benton, Fountain, Gibson, Hendricks, Jay, Marion, 
Montgomery, Posey, Switzerland, Wabash.

    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

James E. Rivera,
Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8-18912 Filed 8-14-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
#### Commonwealth *v.*Johnson, Appellant.

*Criminal law*— Murder—Manslaughter.

On the trial of an indictment for murder, a conviction of murder of the first degree will be sustained where there is evidence tending to show that the prisoner went to the room of a man with whom he had a quarrel about fifteen minutes to half an hour before, and deliberately *175discharged a pistol at this man, but in doing so shot and killed another person. In such a case it would be manifest error for the court to direct a verdict of manslaughter.

The court comments on disregard of the rules as to assignments of error.

Argued Oct. 21, 1907.

Appeal, No. 328, Jan. T., 1907, by defendant, from judgment of O. *&*T. Phila. Co., Nov. T., 1906, No. 624, on verdict of guilty of murder of the first degree in case of Commonwealth v. William H. Johnson.

Before Mitchell, C. J., Fell, Brown, Mestrezat, Potter, Elkin and Stewart, JJ.

Affirmed.

Indictment for murder.

Before Ralston, J.

At the trial it appeared that on October 20, 1906, the prisoner had a quarrel with a man named John Pritchett. About a quarter of an hour to half an hour afterward the prisoner went to Pritchett’s room and discharged a pistol at him, but shot and killed Rebecca Johnson. The prisoner claimed that he shot at Pritchett because the latter ivas about to shoot at him.

The court submitted the case to the jury defining the various degrees of homicide, including manslaughter.

Verdict of guilty. The defendant was sentenced to death.

*Errors assigned*were in the following form :

1. That the learned court erred in refusing to give the jury instructions for manslaughter.

2. That the court erred in declining the instructions asked for by tho defendant.

3. That the court erred in overruling the defendant’s motion for a new trial.

4. That the court erred in permitting hearsay testimony set out in the bill of exceptions.

*Hugh*Roberts, for appellant.

*Joseph H. Taulane,*assistant district attorney, and *Samuel P. Rotan,*district attorney, for appellee, were not heard.

November 4, 1907:

Per Curiam,

The assignments of error are in such manifest violation of *176the rules of court that they ought strictly to be disregarded. Counsel should understand by this time that rules of court are made for the certainty and facilitation of business, and compliance with them is the first requisite to entitle parties to a hearing even in a case of homicide.

But even if properly assigned the complaints of error here are totally devoid of merit. The first, that the judge refused *“*to give the jury instructions for manslaughter,” is not correct in fact unless it is meant that he should have directed a verdict of manslaughter which would, have been manifest error.

That the shot which killed the deceased was aimed at another person does not in any way vary the nature and degree of the crime.

Judgment is affirmed and record remitted to the court below for execution.
<PAGE>
                                                                    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 on Form 10-Q of Panhandle Eastern Pipe
Line Company, LP (the "Company") for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Thomas F. Karam, as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
hereby 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/ THOMAS F. KARAM
-------------------
Name: Thomas F. Karam
Title: Chief Executive Officer
Date: August 13, 2004

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhibit 10.5
                                                                    ------------


                   CIT Commercial Services         T: 212 382-7000
                   1211 Avenue of the Americas
                   New York, NY 10036


CIT [GRAPHIC OMITTED]

                                                                    May 13, 2003


Westwater Industries, LLC
1 Palmer Terrace
Carlstadt, NJ 07072

Ladies and Gentlemen:

We refer to the Accounts Receivable Financing Agreement between us dated January
24, 2002, as amended and supplemented (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used
herein and not defined herein shall have the same meanings as set forth in the
Agreement.

This letter shall confirm that pursuant to mutual consent and understanding,
effective as of the even date herewith, the first sentence in Section 9.1 of the
Agreement shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:

"Upon acceptance by us, this Agreement shall become effective as of January 24,
2002 and shall continue in full force and effect until August 31, 2004 (the
"Initial Term"), and from year to year thereafter, unless sooner terminated as
herein provided."

To compensate us for the use of our in-house legal department and facilities in
documenting this amendment, you hereby agree to pay us a Documentation Fee equal
to $135.00. Said amount shall be due and payable upon the date hereof and may be
changed by us, at our option, to your account under the Agreement on the due
date thereof.

Except as herein specifically provided, the Agreement remains in full force and
effect in accordance with its terms and no other changes in the terms or
provisions of the Agreement is intended or implied. If you are in agreement with
the foregoing, please so indicate by signing and returning to us the enclosed
copy of this letter.

                                       Very truly yours,

                                       THE CIT GROUP/COMMERCIAL SERVICES, INC.

                                       By: /s/ ANTHONY MONTEMARANO
                                           -----------------------
                                       Name:   Anthony Montemarano
                                       Title:  Vice President
<PAGE>

Read and Agreed to:

WESTWATER INDUSTRIES, LLC

By: /s/ ROBERT A. LEVINSON
    ----------------------
Name:   Robert A. Levinson
Title:  Chairman, President & CEO



                                        2
EXHIBIT 32.1

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


      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  the  undersigned  President  and  Chief  Executive
Officer of the Company certifies that, to his knowledge:

1.    The  Company's  Form  10-QSB  for the  quarter  ended  June 30,  2004 (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/ Denis M. O'Donnell, M.D.
                                     -------------------------------------
                                     Denis M. O'Donnell, M.D.
                                     President and Chief Executive Officer
                                     Dated:  August 16, 2004
Exhibit 32

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

In connection with the Annual Report of Oryx Technology Corp. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the year ending  February 28, 2005 as filed with the  Securities
and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the  "Report"),  I,  Philip  J.
Micciche,  Chief Executive  Officer and Chief Financial  Officer of the Company,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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



/s/  Philip J. Micciche
---------------------------
Philip J. Micciche
Chief Executive Officer
And Chief Financial Officer


May 27, 2005
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 FLM Minerals Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended February 28, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Xin Chen, Chief Executive Officer and 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated this 13th day of April, 2010








XIN CHENXin ChenChief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer