alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Emma A. Taylor, as Executrix, etc., of Royal A. Johnson, Deceased, Respondent, v. New York Life Insurance Company, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concurred.
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Michael L. Heider, certify that:

- I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of OshKosh B'Gosh, 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:

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

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):

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 registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 99.1

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

I, Michael Leeb, the Chief Executive Officer of Skyline Multimedia
Entertainment, Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my
knowledge:

(1)      the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the fiscal year
         ended June 30, 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: October 10, 2002

                                                  /s/ Michael Leeb
                                                  ----------------
                                                  Name: Michael Leeb
                                                  Title: Chief Executive Officer
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Election Commission

# AGENCY:

Federal Election Commission. 

# Date and Time:

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 at 10 a.m. 

# Place:

999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC. 

# Status:

This meeting will be closed to the public. 

# Items To Be Discussed:

Compliance matters pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g.  Audits conducted pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g, 438(b), and Title 26, U.S.C. Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or arbitration. Internal personnel rules and procedures or matters affecting a particular employee. 

# Person to Contact for Information:

Mr. Robert Biersack, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220. 

Mary W. Dove, 

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. E8-18980 Filed 8-15-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6715-01-M
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Petitioner

v.

MICHAEL R. BARNA,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 392 EAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 24th day of October, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 749 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 749

 To provide that professional baseball teams, and leagues composed of 
          such teams, shall be subject to the antitrust laws.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 31, 1995

  Mr. Torres introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide that professional baseball teams, and leagues composed of 
          such teams, shall be subject to the antitrust laws.

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

SECTION 1. FINDING.

    The Congress finds that the business of providing for profit public 
baseball games between teams of professional baseball players in a 
league and between such teams of rival leagues is in, or affects, 
interstate commerce.

SEC. 2. APPLICATION OF ANTITRUST LAWS TO PROFESSIONAL BASEBALL.

    The antitrust laws shall apply to the business of providing for 
profit public baseball games between teams of professional baseball 
players and to leagues composed of teams of professional baseball 
players.

SEC. 3. DEFINITION.

    For purposes of this Act, the term ``antitrust laws'' has the 
meaning given it in subsection (a) of the first section of the Clayton 
Act (15 U.S.C. 12(a)), except that such term includes section 5 of the 
Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45) to the extent that such 
section 5 relates to unfair methods of competition.

SEC. 4. APPLICATION OF SECTION 2.

    Section 2 shall not apply with respect to conduct occurring before 
the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
```

                                                                    Exhibit 34.3

             Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Board of Directors of
Trivin, Inc.

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying
"Assessment of Compliance", that FDI Collateral Management (the "Company"), a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Trivin, Inc., complied with the servicing criteria
set forth in Item 1(i), 4(i), and 4(ii) of Item 1122(d) of the Securities and
Exchange Commission's Regulation AB applicable for the Company as of, and for
the four-day period ending March 31, 2006. Management is responsible for the
Company's compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to
express an opinion on management's assertion about the Company's compliance
based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with standards of the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining,
on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the servicing
criteria specified above and performing such other procedures as we considered
necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination provides a
reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal
determination on the Company's compliance with servicing criteria.

As discussed in management's report, the Company determined that servicing
criteria 1(ii), 1(iii), 1(iv), 2(i), 2(ii), 2(iii), 2(iv), 2(v), 2(vi), 2(vii),
2(vii)(A), 2(vii)(B), 2(vii)(C), 2(vii)(D), 3(i), 3(i)(A), 3(i)(B), 3(i)(C),
3(i)(D), 3(ii), 3(iii), 3(iv), 4(iii), 4(iv), 4(v), 4(vi), 4(vii), 4(viii),
4(ix), 4(x), 4(x)(A), 4(x)(B), 4(x)(C), 4(xi), 4(xii), 4(xiii), 4(xiv) and 4(xv)
of Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB are
not applicable to the activities performed by the Company with respect to the
Title Administration Agreement dated February 5, 2002 being serviced.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned servicing criteria as of, and for the four-day period ending
March 31, 2006 is fairly stated, in all material respects.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Hartford, Connecticut
June 16, 2006
```
Exhibit 24.2

POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOWN ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT, that the undersigned, David Hadley constitutes and appoints Yehoram Uziel and Robert E. Kassel, or either of them, his true and
lawful attorney-in-fact and agent, each with full power of substitution and resubstitution, for him and in his name, place and stead, in any and all capacities, to sign the
Form 10-KSB, Annual Report of Soligen Technologies, Inc., a Wyoming Corporation, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2001, and any amendments or supplements thereto,
and to file this Power of Attorney and the Form 10-KSB, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection therewith with the Securities and Exchange Commission granting
unto each of said attorney-in-fact and agent full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the
premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that each of said attorney-in-fact and agent may do or
cause to be done by virtue hereof.

Dated
this 22st day of June 2001

|Signature                              |  |  |  | 
|-------------------------------------- |  |  |  | 
|                                       |  |  |  | 
|/s/ David HadleyDavid Hadley, Director |  |  |  | 

---

QuickLinks
#### Nellie I. Ensley, Respondent, v. Interborough Rapid Transit Company, Appellant.

Motion denied, with costs. Present — Woodward, Jenks, Hooker, Gaynor and Rich, JJ.
#### W. C. Stansbury v. State.

No. 25077.

January 3, 1951.

No attorney of record on appeal for appellant.

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

WOODLEY, Judge.

This appeal is from the judgment entered nunc pro tunc in Cause No. 14,509, correcting a judgment theretofore entered which, according to the court’s finding, contained an erroneous statement as to the punishment assessed by the trial judge upon appellant’s plea of guilty.

The facts concerning the judgment and its entry are set out in our Cause No. 24,874. See Ex Parte Stansbury, 155 Tex. Cr. R. 73; 231 S.W. 2d 431.

There is no statement of facts in this record, in the absence of which we must assume that the court’s findings regarding the entry and rendition of judgment are correct.

The court had the power and duty to order entry of the judgment that he had theretofore actually rendered in order to make the minutes of the court speak the truth. See Bennett v. State, 80 Tex. Cr. R. 652, 662, 194 S.W. 145.

There are no bills of exception, and the proceedings appear to be regular.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the court.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**P&F INDUSTRIES, INC.**

**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 P&F Industries, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Richard A. Horowitz, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, that:

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

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

 
| /s/ Richard A. Horowitz     |   |
|-----------------------------|--------|
| Richard A. Horowitz         |
| Principal Executive Officer |
|                        |
|                        |
| May 14, 2007                |

 

1

----
GARDNER
    DENVER, INC.
    COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
    (Dollars in thousands)
  YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,2009


2008


2007


2006


2005Earnings:Net (loss) income before income taxes

$
(138,394
)


234,997



269,658



201,721



96,672Fixed charges


38,896



33,709



33,034



43,530



35,746Total (loss) earnings, as defined

$
(99,498
)


268,706



302,692



245,251



132,418Fixed Charges:Interest expense

$
28,485



25,483



26,211



37,379



30,433Rentals - portion representative of interest


10,411



8,226



6,823



6,151



5,313Total fixed charges

$
38,896



33,709



33,034



43,530



35,746Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges (deficiency in the coverage
    of fixed charges by earnings before fixed charges)

$
(138,394
)


8.0
x


9.2
x


5.6
x


3.7x
#### William Ehrlich, Respondent, v. Lewis Realty and Construction Company and Others, Appellants.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion.
#### Henry Weinstein and Helena Weinstein, Respondents, *v.*John O’Leary, Appellant.

First Department,

October 23, 1908.

Pleading—bill of particulars—damage to personal property and freehold.

In an action to recover for injuries to personal property and to a freehold, a ME of particulars of damage is peculiarly appropriate, and a plaintiff who is able to estimate the gross sum, should be required to state the details.

Appeal by the defendant, John O’Leary, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 10th day of January, 1908, denying the defendant’s motion for a bill of particulars, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 22d day of January, 1908, resettling the prior order.

*Samuel P. Goldman,*for the appellant.

*Samuel*Fine, for the respondents.

Per Curiam :

The action is for damages to personal property and for injury to the freehold, and is a case in which a bill of particulars is peculiarly appropriate. The plaintiffs have been able to estimate the gross damage which they deem themselves to have suffered, and should find' no difficulty in stating the details thereof.

*268The order appealed from must, therefore, be; reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted except as to the sixth -item of particulars demanded.-

Present — Patterson, P. J., Ingraham, LauGhlin, Clarke and Scott, Jj.

Order reversed, with ten dollars- costs and disbursements, and motion granted except as stated -in opinion.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 5, 2019

s0529 

# Order

Clerk June 5, 2019

158408

In re ROBERT E. WHITTON REVOCABLE

TRUST.

_________________________________________

MOLLY MICHALUK,

Petitioner

- Appellant,

v SC: 158408

COA: 337828

Oakland PC: 2016

- 372116

- TV

EDDIE WHITTON and RICHARD WHITTON,

Successor Trustees of the ROBERT E. WHITTON

REVOCABL E TRUST,

Respondents

- Appellees.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 9, 2018

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral

argument on the application. MCR 7.305(H)(1).

The appellant shall file a supplemental brief within 42 days of the date of this

order addressing whether the Oakland Probate Court had jurisdiction to entertain the

request for declaratory relief in light of McLeod v Mc Leod , 365 Mich 25 (1961). In

addition to the brief, the appellant shall electronically file an appendix conforming to

MCR 7.312(D)(2). In the brief, citations to the record must provide the appendix page

numbers as required by MCR 7.312(B)(1). The appel lees shall file a supplemental brief

within 21 days of being served with the appellant’s brief. The appellees shall also

electronically file an appendix, or in the alternative, stipulate to the use of the appendix

filed by the appellant. A reply, if any, must be filed by the appellant within 14 days of

being served with the appellees’ brief. The parties should not submit mere restatements

of their application papers.

The Probate and Estate Section of the State Bar of Michigan is invited to file a

brief amicus curiae. Other persons or groups intere sted in the determination of this issue

may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.
NO. SCPW-11-0000741

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

MICHAEL J. MATSUKAWA, Petitioner,

vs.

STATE OF HAWAI#I 2011 REAPPORTIONMENT COMMISSION; and

SCOTT NAGO, CHIEF ELECTION OFFICER, STATE OF HAWAI#I,

Respondents.

 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

AND JUDICIAL REVIEW

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, Duffy, and McKenna, JJ.)

Upon consideration of the petition for a writ of

mandamus and judicial review filed by petitioner Michael J.

Matsukawa, the answer by respondents 2011 State of Hawai#i

Reapportionment Commission and the Chief Election Officer, and

oral argument, we conclude that the 2011 Final Reapportionment

Plan is constitutionally invalid. The Hawai#i Constitution,

article IV, section 4, expressly mandates that only permanent

residents be counted in the population base for the purpose of

reapportionment. The 2011 Final Reapportionment Plan disregards

this constitutional mandate by including non-permanent residents

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPW-11-0000741

04-JAN-2012

03:05 PM
in the population base that the Reapportionment Commission used

to allocate the members of the state legislature among the basic

island units. Therefore, pursuant to our power under the Hawai#i

Constitution, article IV, section 10, to correct any error in a

reapportionment plan,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of

mandamus and judicial review is granted. The 2011 Final

Reapportionment Plan for the state legislature is hereby

invalidated. The 2011 State of Hawai#i Reapportionment

Commission shall prepare and file a new reapportionment plan

that: (1) allocates the members of the state legislature among

the basic island units by using a permanent resident population

base, and then (2) apportions the members among the districts

therein as provided by article IV, section 6. The Chief Election

Officer shall rescind the publication of the 2011 Final

Reapportionment Plan for the state legislature. An opinion will

follow.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, January 4, 2012. 

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.

/s/ James E. Duffy, Jr.

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

2
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary 

          - [DoD-2006-OS-0030] 

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense. 

# ACTION:

Notice to delete a System of Records. 

# SUMMARY:

The Defense Threat Reduction Agency is deleting a system of records notice from its existing inventory of records systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. 

# DATES:

                        This proposed action will be effective without further notice on March 5, 2008 unless comments are                               ( print page 6485)                            received which result in a contrary determination.                     

# ADDRESSES:

Send comments to the Freedom of Information and Privacy Office, Defense Threat Reduction Agency, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6201. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Brenda Carter at (703) 767-1771. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The Office of the Secretary of Defense systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the                     **Federal Register**                     and are available from the address above.                 

Dated: January 30, 2008. 

L.M. Bynum, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

## Deletion 

## HDTRA 004 

### System name:

Nuclear Weapons Accident Exercise Personnel Radiation Exposure Records (August 24, 2005, 70 FR 45592). 

### Reason:

                        The Defense Threat Reduction Agency does not have a mission requirement to maintain these records. However, these records are maintained under the DoD System of Records F044 AF SG O, United States Air Force Master Radiation Exposure Registry. Published in the                         **Federal Register**                         on November 18, 2003, in Volume 68, Page Number 65042.                     

[FR Doc. E8-1940 Filed 2-1-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001-06-P