alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lance P., Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Harrington, J.), rendered March 28, 1985, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Dismissal of the indictment in furtherance of justice *(see,*CPL 210.40) is not warranted under the circumstances of this case, where the defendant sold a significant quantity of cocaine to an undercover police officer. Nor is the defendant entitled to dismissal of the indictment on constitutional grounds, as the alleged misconduct of law enforcement offi*334cials, even if true, cannot be characterized as "so egregious and deprivative” as to have violated the defendant’s due process rights *(see, People v Isaacson,*44 NY2d 511, 519; *People v Smith,*106 AD2d 670; *People v Johnson,*64 AD2d 821).

The defendant was not entitled to a sentence of lifetime probation in return for his cooperation with law enforcement officials in the absence of an on-the-record promise, made at the time of entry of his guilty plea, that he would receive that particular sentence *(see, People v Danny G.,*61 NY2d 169; *People v Frederick,*45 NY2d 520; *People v Selikoff,*35 NY2d 227, cert *denied*419 US 1122).

We have examined the *pro se*appellant’s remaining claims and find them either to be unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Rubin and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, R. Scot Sellers, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Archstone-SmithOperating Trust (the “registrant”). 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this quarterly report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cashflows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:
 a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervisionto ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s boardof trustees (or persons performing the equivalent function);
 a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial data; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.        BY:      /S/ R. SCOT SELLERS            R. Scot Sellers     *Chief Executive Officer*  
Date: August 6, 2004
107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 7

JOINT RESOLUTION

Recognizing the 90th birthday of Ronald Reagan.

Whereas February 6, 2001, is the 90th birthday of Ronald

Wilson Reagan;

Whereas both Ronald Reagan and his wife Nancy Reagan

have distinguished records of public service to the United
2

•HJ 7 EH

States, the American people, and the international community;

Whereas Ronald Reagan was twice elected by overwhelming

margins as President of the United States;

Whereas Ronald Reagan fulfilled his pledge to help restore

‘‘the great, confident roar of American progress, growth,

and optimism’’ and ensure renewed economic prosperity;

Whereas Ronald Reagan’s leadership was instrumental in extending freedom and democracy around the globe and

uniting a world divided by the Cold War;

Whereas Ronald Reagan is loved and admired by millions of

Americans, and by countless others around the world;

Whereas Ronald Reagan’s eloquence united Americans in

times of triumph and tragedy;

Whereas Nancy Reagan not only served as a gracious First

Lady but also led a national crusade against illegal drug

use;

Whereas together Ronald and Nancy Reagan dedicated their

lives to promoting national pride and to bettering the

quality of life in the United States and throughout the

world; and

Whereas the thoughts and prayers of the Congress and the

country are with Ronald Reagan in his courageous battle

with Alzheimer’s disease: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That the Congress, on behalf of the American people, ex-
3

•HJ 7 EH

1 tends its birthday greetings and best wishes to Ronald

2 Reagan on his 90th birthday.

Passed the House of Representatives February 6,

2001.

Attest:

Clerk.

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 7

JOINT RESOLUTION

Recognizing the 90th birthday of Ronald Reagan.
216 La. 986

#### C. W. GREESON CO. et al. v. HARNISCHFEGER CORPORATION.

No. 39714.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 13, 1950.

Rehearing Denied March 20, 1950.

Bullock & Bullock, Shreveport, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Thomas M. Hayes, Jr., Theus, Grisham, Davis & Leigh, Monroe, for defendant-appellee.

PONDER, Justice.

In this suit the plaintiffs are seeking to recover damages from the defendant for alleged defects in a dragline excavator, which they had purchased from the defendant and for the loss of the use of the machine for a period of sixty days on account of the defects in the machine.

The plaintiffs sought to interpose this claim for damages by way of reconvention in a suit brought by the defendant against them for the balance due on the purchase price of the machine. The lower court refused to entertain the demand for damages as a reconventional demand and it was docketed and proceeded with in the lower fcourt as a separate suit.

In this suit for damages service was made on a purported representative of the defendant corporation. The service was contested and the court, on motion of counsel for the plaintiffs, ordered service to be made on the Secretary of State.

The defendant corporation entered a plea challenging the jurisdiction of the court ratione personae. The plaintiffs petitioned the court in these proceedings for an attachment to protect the plaintiffs’ rights in the suit alleging that the defendant was a nonresident corporation, obtained an order of court appointing a curator to represent the defendant and seized the rights and in*366terests of the corporation in the suit it had filed against the plaintiffs seeking to recover the balance due on the purchase price of the machine. The lower court sustained the plea to its jurisdiction ratione personae and the plaintiffs’ demand for a personal judgment against the defendant was dismissed. The plaintiffs applied to this court for writs which were denied on the ground that they had an adequate remedy by appeal. Plaintiffs have appealed.

The defendant has moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the judgment is interlocutory and that there is no appeal from the judgment in the absence of any showing of irreparable injury.

The plaintiffs’ suit was instituted to recover a personal judgment for damages and the attachment proceedings were brought to protect the plaintiffs’ interests in the suit because the lower court had refused to entertain it as a reconventional demand. The attachment proceedings are ancillary. The judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ suit for damages is final and the plaintiffs are entitled to an appeal. Article 565, Code of Practice. The fact that the ancillary proceedings have not been disposed of does not alter the fact that the judgment is final. No further steps can be taken to secure a judgment for personal damages in the lower court and the plaintiffs’ only remedy is by appeal.

For the reasons assigned, the motion is denied.
Picture 1     CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM   We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement of Cannabis Sativa, Inc. and subsidiaries (the “Company”) on Form S-8 (No. 333-219564), pertaining to the Company’s registration of shares of the Company’s 2017 Stock Plan of our report dated April 4, 2018, on our audits of the consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2017 and 2016, and for each of the years in the two-year period ended December 31, 2017, which report is included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K filed on April 4, 2018.   Picture 1 Hall & Company Certified Public Accountants & Consultants, Inc.  Irvine, CA April 4, 2018
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22 - 0665 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. SCOTT ALAN LEHRKAMP,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of the State’s Unopposed Motion to Supplement the Record on Appeal, submitted by the Appellee, and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is granted, and the Clerk of the Supreme Court is ordered to add the Lewis and Clark County Justice Court documents to the record filed in Supreme Court Case State v. Lehrkamp , DA 22 - 0665 to the instant case .

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

June 19 2024

06/19/2024

Case Number: DA 22-0665
Exhibit 99.7
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(A) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 40-F of Petroflow Energy, Ltd;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 represent in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in
this report;4.
    
    The issuers other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(c)
and 15d-15(e)) for the issuer and have:
 a.)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
that material information relating to the issuer, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;b.)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the issuers disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
this disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; andc.)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the issuers internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by this annual report
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, this
issuers internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the issuers auditors and the
audit committee of the issuers board of directors (or persons performing 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 issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; andb.)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or the other
employees who have a significant role in the issuers internal control over
financial reporting.
 PETROFLOW ENERGY LTD.
RegistrantBy:
    /s/   Duncan MoodieName:
    Duncan MoodieTitle:
    Chief Financial Officer
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C. 20549

                                     FORM 15

             Certification and Notice of Termination of Registration
    under 12(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or Suspension of Duty
               to File Reports Under Sections 13 and 15(d) of the
                        Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

                         Commission File Number: 1-14328


                        TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY CORP.
             ------------------------------------------------------
             (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)


                                One Tower Square
                           Hartford, Connecticut 06183
                                 (860) 277-0111
          -------------------------------------------------------------
          (Address, including zip code, and telephone number, including
             area code, of registrant's principal executive offices)


                 Class A Common Stock, par value $.01 per share
            --------------------------------------------------------
            (Title of each class of securities covered by this Form)


                         6 3/4% Notes Due April 15, 2001
              8.08% Trust Preferred Securities of Subsidiary Trust
                (and registrant's guaranty with respect thereto)
                8% Trust Preferred Securities of Subsidiary Trust
                (and registrant's guaranty with respect thereto)
   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   (Titles of all other classes of securities for which a duty to file reports
                      under Section 13(a) or 15(d)remains)

      Please place an X in the box(es) to designate the appropriate rule
provision(s) relied upon to terminate or suspend the duty to file reports:

      Rule 12g-4(a)(1)(i)       [X]        Rule 12h-3(b)(1)(ii)      [ ]
      Rule 12g-4(a)(1)(ii)      [ ]        Rule 12h-3(b)(2)(i)       [ ]
      Rule 12g-4(a)(2)(i)       [ ]        Rule 12h-3(b)(2)(ii)      [ ]
      Rule 12g-4(a)(2)(ii)      [ ]        Rule 15d-6                [ ]
      Rule 12h-3(b)(1)(i)       [X]

      Approximate number of holders of record as of the certification or notice
date: 1

      Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
Travelers Property Casualty Corp. has caused this certification/notice to be
signed on its behalf by the undersigned duly authorized person.

Dated as of: April 20, 2000                  BY:   /s/ James Michener
                                                 --------------------------
                                                       James Michener
                                                       Secretary
EXHIBIT
32





CERTIFICATION





Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of Barzel Industries Inc., (the “Company”), does hereby
certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:





The
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the annual period ended November 29, 2008 (the
“Form 10-K”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information
contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








Dated:
      February 27, 2009
            
            /s/
      Corrado De GasperisCorrado
      De Gasperis
              (Principal
      Executive Officer)Dated:
      February 27, 2009
            
            /s/
      Corrado De GasperisCorrado
      De Gasperis
              (Principal
      Financial Officer)








A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission.
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

In re: Jonathan Scott Baker and Shannon 

Compton d/b/a American Outdoor 

Transportation

No. 06-13-00118-CV

Original Mandamus Proceeding

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Morriss, 

Justice Carter and Justice Moseley 

participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that Relators’ petition for writ of 

mandamus should be granted. We direct the trial court to set aside its order granting a new trial, 

to set aside the order of nonsuit, and to enter judgment for Relators on the jury’s verdict.

RENDERED JANUARY 7, 2014

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
193 La. 400

#### STATE v. BONNER.

No. 35374.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 26, 1939.

Rehearing Denied July 14, 1939.

McBride & Goff, of Ruston, for appellant.

David M. Ellison, Atty. Gen., James O’Connor, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Truett L. Scarborough, Dist. Atty., of Ruston, for the State.

PONDER, Justice.

While this appeal was not consolidated with the defendant’s application for the writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and review, La.Sup., 190 So. 621, yet, both counsel for the defendant and counsel for the State in their arguments and in their briefs treated them as. though they were consolidated. The only question that can be considered on the appeal is the question of constitutionality or legality of the parochial ordinance, No. 188, which the defendant was convicted of violating. With regard to an appeal on the question of constitutionality of a state statute, the appellate jurisdiction of this, court extends only to cases where the statute is declared unconstitutional. But with regard to an appeal on the question of constitutionality or legality of a penalty imposed by a parish or municipality, this, court has appellate jurisdiction if the constitutionality or legality of the ordinance imposing the penalty is in contest, no matter how the question was decided in the lower court. It is so declared in the 5th paragraph of section 10 of Article *7*of the Constitution. In cases where the appellate jurisdiction is founded only upon, the fact that the constitutionality or legality of a fine or other penalty imposed by a parish or municipality is in contest, the only question that can be considered is the question of constitutionality or legality of *626the ordinance imposing the penalty. State v. Zurich, 49 La.Ann. 447, 21 So. 977; State v. Hohn, 50 La.Ann. 432, 23 So. 966; State v. Faber, 50 La.Ann. 952, 24 So. 662; Ruston v. Fountain, 118 La. 53, 42 So. 644; Shreveport v. Mackie, 140 La. 724, 73 So. 842; Downs, Tax Collector, v. Dunn, 162 La. 747, 111 So. 82; Town of Waterproof v. Towles, 180 La. 168, 156 So. 211; City of Shreveport v. Gregory, 186 La. 407, 172 So. 435.

As a matter of convenience, we have disposed of all of the complaints of the appellant in our decision in the case of State v. Bonner, La.Sup., 190 So. 621, as if that case and this were consolidated. For the reasons given in that case,

The conviction and sentence are affirmed.
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 Annual Report of All American Pet Company, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Barry Schwartz, Chief Executive
Officer and Principal Financial and Accounting 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.



| | /S/ Barry Schwartz                                
| | --------------------------------------------------
| | Barry Schwartz                                    
| | CEO and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer
| |                                                   
| | Date: June 17, 2013
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of Americ a

V .

Juan Rosario

Case No . 04-cr-211-01-SM

ORDER

Defendant Rosario's motion to continue the final pretrial conference an d

trial is granted (document 16) . Trial has been rescheduled for the April 2006

trial period. Defendant Rosario shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights not later

than January 31, 2006 . On the filing of such waiver, his continuance shall be

effective .

The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18

U .S .C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances.

Final Pretrial Conference : March 24, 2006 at 10:30 a.m.

Jury Selection : April 4, 2006 at 9 :30 a .m.

Case 1:04-cr-00211-SM Document 17 Filed 01/24/06 Page 1 of 2
SO ORDERED .

January 24, 2006

cc : Stephen Wight, Esq .

Clyde R.W . Garrigan, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Steven Y McAuliffe

Chief Judge

2

Case 1:04-cr-00211-SM Document 17 Filed 01/24/06 Page 2 of 2