alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22
- 0089 IN THE MATTER OF: H.R., A Youth. **ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including October 31, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 26 2022

09/26/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0089
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE 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 Perini Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ronald N. Tutor, Chairman and Chief Executive 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:  May 8, 2009 | /s/Ronald N. Tutor                   |
|--------------------|--------------------------------------|
|               | Ronald N. Tutor                      |
|               | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Perini Corporation and will be retained by Perini Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Darius Washington, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of burglary in the second degree and petit larceny, arguing that his sentence of three to nine years on the burglary conviction was harsh and excessive. We find no abuse of discretion by the sentencing court.

We have examined defendant’s remaining contentions on appeal and find them lacking in merit. (Appeal from judgment of Niagara County Court, Hannigan, J.—burglary, second degree.) Present—Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Lowery, JJ.
<PAGE>

                                                                            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 (the "Report") of Powell
Industries, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 31, 2003
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I,
Thomas W. Powell, President and Chief Executive 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 represents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.

Date:    August 29, 2003                        /s/   THOMAS W. POWELL
                                                -------------------------------
                                                Thomas W. Powell
                                                President and Chief Executive
                                                Officer
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS 

No. 21-1799V 

UNPUBLISHED 

AMANDA BRESHEARS, 

 Petitioner, 

v. 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES, 

 Respondent. 

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: September 6, 2022 

Special Processing Unit (SPU); 

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; 

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; 

Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) 

 

Laura Levenberg, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner. 

Austin Joel Egan, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. 

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

 On September 2, 2021, Amanda Breshears filed a petition for compensation under 

the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the 

“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”) as a 

result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine she received on November 9, 2018. Petition at 1. 

Petitioner further alleges that her injury lasted for more than six months. Petition at ¶10. 

The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. 

 On September 2, 2022, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he 

concedes that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 

4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, Respondent states that “petitioner has satisfied the criteria 

set forth in the revised Vaccine Injury Table (‘Table’) and the Qualifications and Aids to 

1 Because this unpublished Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required 

to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-Government Act 

of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government 

Services). This means the Ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance 

with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, 

the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that 

the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access. 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease 

of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa (2012). 
2

Interpretation (‘QAI’), which afford petitioner a presumption of causation if the onset of 

GBS occurs between three and forty-two days after a seasonal flu vaccination and there 

is no more likely alternative diagnosis and no apparent alternative cause.” Id. at 9.

 In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that 

Petitioner is entitled to compensation. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/Brian H. Corcoran 

 Brian H. Corcoran 

 Chief Special Master
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 20, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-20142

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SANTIAGO BARAJAS-MADRIGAL, also known as Santiago Barrajas, also

known as Santiago Madrigal Barajas, also known as Santiago M.

Barajas,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:04-CR-341-ALL

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

Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Santiago Barajas-Madrigal (Barajas) pleaded guilty to

illegal reentry after deportation and was sentenced to 30 months

of imprisonment, three years of supervised release, and a $100

special assessment.

Barajas argues for the first time on appeal that the

district court erred in ordering him to cooperate in the

collection of a DNA sample as a condition of supervised release
No. 05-20142

-2-

and that this condition should therefore be vacated. This claim

is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it is not ripe for

review. See United States v. Riascos-Cuenu, 428 F.3d 1100,

1101-02 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed (Jan. 9, 2006)

(No. 05-8662). 

Barajas’s constitutional challenge to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is

foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224,

235 (1998). Although Barajas contends that Almendarez-Torres was

incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court

would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi v. New

Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), we have repeatedly rejected such

arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. 

See United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.),

cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Barajas properly concedes

that his argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and

circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for

further review. 

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART.
EXHIBIT 31(a)

I, Thomas M. Patrick, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of North Shore Gas Company;

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(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 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(s) 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

(b)	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.

 

Date:  February 9, 2004

  /s/  Thomas M. Patrick
<PAGE>



                                                                  Exhibit 12 (a)
                              J. C. Penney Company, Inc.
                            and Consolidated Subsidiaries

         Computation of Ratios of Available Income to Combined Fixed Charges
                       and Preferred Stock Dividend Requirement






                                                52 weeks              53 weeks
                                                  ended                 ended
                                                Oct. 30,              Oct. 31,
     ($ Millions)                                 1999                  1998
                                                ________              ________

     Income from continuing operations          $    827              $    963
        (before income taxes, before
        capitalized interest, but after
        preferred stock dividend)

     Fixed charges

     Interest (including capitalized
     interest) on:

        Operating leases                             225                   180
        Short term debt                              133                   106
        Long term debt                               551                   555
        Capital leases                                 2                     6
        Credit facility                               -                     -
        Other, net                                    (3)                   -
                                                _________             ________
     Total fixed charges                             908                   847

     Preferred stock dividend, before taxes           36                    38

     Combined fixed charges and preferred       _________             ________
        stock dividend requirement                   944                   885

     Total available income                     $  1,771              $  1,848
                                                ========              ========
     Ratio of available income to combined
        fixed charges and preferred stock
        dividend requirement                         1.9                   2.1
                                                ========              ========



     The interest cost of the LESOP notes guaranteed by the Company is not
     included in fixed charges above.

     The Company believes that, due to the seasonal nature of its business,
     ratios for a period of time other than a 52 week period are inappropriate.
Exhibit 12



     PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES
                         TOTAL ENTERPRISE

        Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges


                                                     Millions of Dollars
                                                 ---------------------------
                                                 Three Months Ended March 31
                                                 1998                   1997
                                                 ---------------------------
                                                         (Unaudited)
Earnings Available for Fixed Charges
  Income before income taxes                     $452                    493
  Distributions in excess of (less than)
    equity in earnings of less-than-
    fifty-percent-owned companies                   2                     (5)
  Fixed charges, excluding capitalized
    interest and the portion of the
    preferred dividend requirements of a
    subsidiary not previously deducted
    from income*                                   77                     90
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 $531                    578
============================================================================

Fixed Charges
  Interest and expense on indebtedness,
    excluding capitalized interest               $ 51                     59
  Capitalized interest                             13                      9
  Preferred dividend requirements of
    subsidiary and capital trusts                  13                     29
  One-third of rental expense, net of
    subleasing income, for operating leases        10                      9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 $ 87                    106
============================================================================
Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                6.1                    5.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Includes amortization of capitalized interest totaling approximately
 $4 million and $3 million in 1998 and 1997, respectively.


Earnings available for fixed charges include, if any, the company's equity in
losses of companies owned less than fifty percent and having debt for which
the company is contingently liable.  Fixed charges include the company's
proportionate share, if any, of interest relating to the contingent debt.

In 1990 and 1988, respectively, the company guaranteed a $400 million bank
loan and $250 million of notes payable for the Long-Term Stock Savings Plan
(LTSSP), an employee benefit plan.  In 1994, the notes payable were
refinanced with a $131 million term loan, and the $400 million loan was
amended in 1994, 1995, and again in 1997.  Consolidated interest expense
included a minimal amount of interest related to LTSSP borrowings in both
the first quarter of 1998 and 1997.
EXHIBIT 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public
Accounting Firm

Legacy Reserves LP

Midland, TX

We hereby consent to the incorporation
by reference in the registration statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-149251 and
333-150111) and Form S-8 (No. 333-144586) of Legacy Reserves LP of our reports
dated March 5, 2009, relating to the consolidated financial statements and the
effectiveness of Legacy Reserves LPs internal control over financial reporting
appearing in the Partnerships annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2008.

/s/ BDO Seidman, LLPHouston, TXMarch 5, 2009

---
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 this quarterly report of Possis Medical, Inc. on Form 10Q for
the period ended January 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof ("the Report"), I, Jules L. Fisher, 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
         Possis Medical, Inc.





Date: March 10, 2008           By:  /s/ Jules L. Fisher
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    JULES L. FISHER
                                    Vice President of Finance and Chief
                                    Financial Officer


                                       29
UNITED STATES
                      SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                            Washington, D.C. 20549

                                   Form 13F

                             Form 13F COVER PAGE

Report for the Calendar Year or Quarter Ended:  June 30, 1999

Check here if Amendment [    ]; Amendment Number: ____
    This Amendment (Check only one.): [    ] is a restatement.
                                      [    ] adds new holdings entries.

Institutional Investment Manager Filing this Report:

Name:      The Plaza Corporation
Address:   One Tower Square
           Hartford, Connecticut 06183

Form 13F File Number:              28-4684

The institutional investment manager filing this report and the person by whom
it is signed hereby represent that the person signing the report is authorized
to submit it, that all information contained herein is true, correct and
complete, and that it is understood that all required items, statements,
schedules, lists, and tables, are considered integral parts of this form.

Person Signing this Report on Behalf of Reporting Manager:

Name:      Ernest J. Wright
Title:     Secretary
Phone:     (860) 277-4345

Signature, Place, and Date of Signing:

/s/ Ernest J. Wright            Hartford, Connecticut       August 16, 1999
--------------------

Report Type (Check only one.):

[   ] 13F  HOLDINGS  REPORT.   (Check  here  if  all  holdings  of  this
      reporting manager are reported in this report.)

[ X ] 13F NOTICE. (Check here if no holdings reported are in this report,
      and all holdings are reported by other reporting manager(s).)

[   ] 13F COMBINATION REPORT. (Check here if a portion of the holdings for
      this reporting manager are reported in this report and a portion are
      reported by other reporting manager(s).)

List of Other Managers Reporting for this Manager:

Form 13F File Number 28-2427
Name:  Citigroup Inc.
#### Matthew J. Tosti, Plaintiff, *v.*Mary H. Bradner et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Trial Term, Suffolk County,

November 10, 1955.

*Keyles & Sommer*for plaintiff.

*Howard M.*Finkelstein, guardian ad litem for Robert G. Hague, an infant, defendant.

*Julian D. Heath,*guardian ad litem for unknown infant defendants and attorney for unknown defendants in military service.

Howard T. Hogan, J.

In this action pursuant to article 15 of the Real Property Law, the plaintiff prays for a judgment (1) barring all claim by the defendants to any estate or interest in the property described in the complaint, and (2) adjudging the plaintiff to be the owner of an absolute and unencumbered title in fee to said property. One guardian ad litem has been appointed for an infant'defendant and another has been appointed to represent unknown defendants.

The evidence submitted satisfies the court that the plaintiff is entitled to the judgment prayed for in the complaint.

The guardian ad litem for the infant defendant Robert Gerard Hague, contends that the infant’s right to redeem that portion of the property described in the complaint which was formerly owned by a parent of the infant had not expired when this action was commenced. Said property was sold for taxes to the County of Suffolk in November, 1951, and a quitclaim deed was delivered to the plaintiff in December, 1954. This action was commenced *641in April, 1955. The infant’s guardian urges that although the Suffolk County Tax Act provides for a period of redemption of 36 months after the date of the tax sale (Suffolk County Tax Act, § 49, added by L. 1929, ch. 152), the infant who had the right to enter upon the real property during said three years should be granted the additional two years for redemption allowed to an occupant (Tax Law, §§ 137, 152-a, 152-b) because his disability was responsible for his failure to make an entry upon the property.

It has been held *(Levy*v. *Newman,*130 N. Y. 11) that the statutes providing for the redemption of lands sold to enforce the collection of taxes are applicable (p. 13) “ *to infants and persons under disabilities, unless they are excepted from their*operation.” (Italics supplied.)

The term *‘1*occupant ’ ’ has been defined by section 134 of the Tax Law to be “ a person who has lawfully entered upon the land so occupied, and is in possession of the same to the exclusion of every other person.”

Clearly the infant was not an occupant of the property. Therefore the three-year period for redemption applied.

The guardian ad litem for unknown parties defendant has requested that it be expressly provided in any judgment entered herein that the rights of unknown defendants presently in military service are not barred thereby. The rights of such persons are adequately protected by the Military Law and such judgment cannot impair those rights.

Submit judgment on notice.