alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
H. Res. 913 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

January 15, 2008. 

Resolved, That a committee of two Members be appointed by the Speaker on the part of the House of Representatives to join with a committee on the part of the Senate to notify the President of the United States that a 

quorum of each House has assembled and Congress is ready 

to receive any communication that he may be pleased to 

make. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
Exhibit
      23.1





Consent
      of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
      of
      Span-America Medical Systems, Inc. of our report dated December 20 ,
      2007,
      included in the 2007 Annual Report to Shareholders of Span-America Medical
      Systems, Inc.





Our
      audits also included the financial statement schedule of Span-America Medical
      Systems, Inc. listed in Item 15(a) for the years ended September 29, 2007,
      September 30, 2006, and October 1, 2005. This schedule is the responsibility
      of
      the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based
      on
      our audits. In our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above,
      when considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole,
      presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth
      therein.





We
      also
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
      S-8 No. 33-32896) pertaining to the Span-America Medical Systems, Inc. 1987
      Stock Option Plan and in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-84374)
      pertaining to the Span-America Medical Systems, Inc. 1991 Stock Option Plan
      and
      in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-70533) pertaining to the
      Span-America Medical Systems, Inc. 1997 Stock Option Plan and in the
      Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-75656) pertaining to the Span-America
      Medical Systems, Inc. 2000 Restricted Stock Plan and in the Registration
      Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-146659) pertaining to the Span-America Medical
      Systems, Inc. 1997 Stock Option Plan and 1991 Stock Option Plan and in the
      Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-146660) pertaining to the Span-America
      Medical System, Inc. 2007 Equity Incentive Plan of our report dated December
      20,
      2007 with respect to the financial statements incorporated herein by reference,
      and our report included in the preceding paragraph with respect to the financial
      statement schedule included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Span-America
      Medical Systems, Inc.











/s/
      ELLIOTT DAVIS, LLC








Greenville,
      South Carolina


December
      28 ,
      2007
#### Linden Trans-Mix Corporation, Plaintiff, *v.*Larry Griffin et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Monroe County,

January 21, 1957.

*Walter S. Forsyth*for plaintiff.

*Thomas Aloi*for defendants.

G. Robert Witmer, J.

Plaintiff has moved for summary judgment in its action to recover the sum of $3,905 paid by it to defendants in April, 1956 as the cash payment under a contract wherein defendants were to' procure certain gravel pit *189equipment for plaintiff with such cash and with the proceeds of a $10,000 conditional sales agreement executed or to he executed by plaintiff. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants represented that they had already arranged with a bank to accept such conditional sales paper and advance the money thereon, but that in fact they had not made such arrangements, and were not able to carry out their agreement. Plaintiff alleges that as a consequence the contract was terminated, and plaintiff demanded the return of its $3,905 payment; but defendants have failed and refused to pay the same.

Defendants deny that they made the representation claimed by plaintiff, and assert that the failure and refusal of plaintiff to secure appropriate credit on the conditional sales paper was the cause of their inability to perform the contract. Defendants also set up a counterclaim, alleging that after it was found that the conditional sales paper could not be financed, the original contract was terminated by mutual agreement, and a new oral contract was made whereby plaintiff would pay the $10,000 balance in cash as the equipment was delivered.

Plaintiff’s motion against this counterclaim is granted, because the counterclaim is insufficient in law by reason of the Statute of Frauds, there having been no payment and no delivery referable to such alleged oral contract (Personal Property Law, § 85). Defendants’ contention that the original payment of $3,905 made under the written contract was, pursuant to the new oral agreement, applied on the latter is also insufficient as a matter of law, as is the contention that a piece of equipment was delivered and accepted by plaintiff under the original contract, and applied on the new oral contract. (Such acceptance is, however, denied by plaintiff.) Any payment or part performance must be clearly referable to the oral contract, in order to take it out of the Statute of Frauds, and must be made thereunder, not prior thereto. *(Young*v. *Ingalsbe,*208 N. Y. 503; *Maher*v. *Randolph,*275 N. Y. 80; *Russeks Fifth Ave., Inc.,*v. *Kaplan,*106 N. Y. S. 2d 661.)

The motion for the entry of summary judgment against defendants in the sum of $3,905 for the money advanced under the original contract, however, is denied.

Defendants contend that the contract was terminated by reason of the fault of the plaintiff, and that before its termination defendants expended the said $3,905 or the major part thereof in the performance of their part of the contract for the plaintiff. A question of fact is raised in that respect, which this court may not resolve on this motion.

Submit order accordingly.
EXHIBIT 31.2
                              FORM OF CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14 AND 15d-14
              UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Jon Carlson, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly  report on Form 10-QSB of National  Healthcare
Technology, Inc.;

2. Based on my  knowledge,  this  quarterly  report  does not contain any untrue
statement of 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 quarterly  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 quarterly report;

4. As the registrant's  certifying officer I am responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-14 and 15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the registrant and I have:

      (a)  designed  such  disclosure  controls  and  procedures  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 quarterly report is
      being prepared; and

      (b) evaluated the  effectiveness of the registrant's  disclosure  controls
      and procedures and presented my conclusions about the effectiveness of the
      disclosure  controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by
      the report; and

      (c)  disclosed  in this  report any changes in the  registrant's  internal
      control over  financial  reporting that occurred  during the  registrant's
      most recent  fiscal  quarter (the small  business  issuer'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;

5. As the  registrant's  certifying  officer I have disclosed,  based on my most
recent  evaluation,  to the registrant's  auditors and the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

      (a) all material  weaknesses,  as well as significant  deficiencies 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, have been disclosed;
      and

      (b) any fraud, whether or not material,  that involves management or other
      employees  who  have  a  significant  role  in the  registrant's  internal
      controls.

Date: November 18, 2006

/s/ Jon Carlson
----------------------------------
Name: Jon Carlson
Title: Chief Financial Officer
(July 29, 2002)

#### Cecilia Aguilar, Appellant, v Robert A. Knutson, Respondent.

[747 NYS2d 517]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Palmieri, J.), dated July 25, 2001, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3216 to strike the note of issue and dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In a certification order dated April 5, 2000, the Supreme Court, sua sponte, directed the plaintiff to serve and file a note of issue within 90 days, and warned that the failure to comply may serve as a basis for dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3216. Counsel for both parties signed the order. This had the same effect as a valid 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216 *(see Werbin v Locicero,*287 AD2d 617; *Seletsky v St. Francis Hosp.,*263 AD2d 452, 453; *Safina v Queens-Long Is. Med. Group,*238 AD2d 395; *Longacre Corp. v Better Hosp. Equip. Corp.,*228 AD2d 653). Thus, having received a 90-day notice, the plaintiff was required either to file a note of issue within 90 days or to move pursuant to CPLR 2004 prior to the default date for an extension of time within which to comply *(see Werbin v Locicero, supra; Pollucci v Rizzo,*261 AD2d 594; *Safina v Queens-Long Is. Med. Group, supra; Scott v Columbia Mem. Hosp.,*134 AD2d 792; *Salerno v Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. at Columbia Presbyt. Med. Ctr.,*88 AD2d 637, 638). The plaintiff did neither.

To avoid dismissal upon the defendant’s motion, the plaintiff was required to show a justifiable excuse for the delay and a meritorious cause of action *(see*CPLR 3216 [e]; *Werbin v Locicero, supra; Pollucci v Rizzo, supra; Papadopoulas v R.B. Supply Corp.,*152 AD2d 552). Since the plaintiff failed to offer any excuse to justify the 14-month delay after the 90-day notice in *563filing the note of issue, and she did not offer an affidavit of merit, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion. Prudenti, P.J., S. Miller, O’Brien, McGinity and Crane, JJ., concur.
### JUDGMENT 

## Court of Appeals First District of Texas

NO. 01

- 14

- 00203

- CR

RICHARD CHARLES RIET TE , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee
Appeal from the 183rd District Court of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 1395252 ).

This case is an appeal from the final judgment signed by the trial court on February 25, 2014. After submitting the case on the appellate record and the arguments properly raised by the parties, the Court holds that the trial court’s judgment contains no reversible error. Accordingly, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below for observance.

Judgment rendered January 22, 2015

.
Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Higley, and Brown. Opinion delivered by Justice Higley.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

July 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

130687 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 130687 

 COA: 263452 

Wayne CC: 01-002771-01 

CORNELL MCCREARY,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 10, 2006 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

s0724 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

July 31, 2006 

 Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 849 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 House Calendar No. 164
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 849

                          [Report No. 110-475]

  Providing for the consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill 
(H.R. 2761) to extend the Terrorism Insurance Program of the Department 
                of the Treasury, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 6, 2007

    Mr. Arcuri, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for the consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill 
(H.R. 2761) to extend the Terrorism Insurance Program of the Department 
                of the Treasury, and for other purposes.

    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2761) to extend 
the Terrorism Insurance Program of the Department of the Treasury, and 
for other purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, and to consider 
in the House, without intervention of any point of order except those 
arising under clause 10 of rule XXI, a motion offered by the chairman 
of the Committee on Financial Services or his designee that the House 
concur in the Senate amendment with the amendment printed in the report 
of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. The Senate 
amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. The motion shall 
be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial 
Services. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
motion to its adoption without intervening motion or demand for 
division of the question.
    Sec. 2.  During consideration of the motion to concur pursuant to 
this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous 
question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the motion to 
such time as may be designated by the Speaker.
                                                 House Calendar No. 164

110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 849

                          [Report No. 110-475]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

  Providing for the consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill 
(H.R. 2761) to extend the Terrorism Insurance Program of the Department 
                of the Treasury, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            December 6, 2007

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
**BOVIE
          MEDICAL CORPORATION**
 
 EXHIBIT
          32.2
 
 Certification
          Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 
 In
          connection with the Annual Report of Bovie Medical Corporation (the “Company”)
          on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
          and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Andy Makrides, Chief Financial
          Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 USC §1350 as adopted pursuant to section 906 of
          the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that (1) the Annual 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 annual report fairly presents,
          in
          all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the
          Company.
 
 
 Date:
          March 28, 2006
 
 
 
 /s/
                    Andy MakridesChief
                    Financial Officer,
 
 
 A
          signed
          original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
          Act has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company
          and
          furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
          request.
**Exhibit 23****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Forms S-8 No.333-72254 and 333-67438) pertaining to the Schawk, Inc. 1991 Outside Directors’ Formula StockOption Plan and the 2001 Equity Option Plan, respectively, of our reports dated March 15, 2007,with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Schawk, Inc., Schawk, Inc.management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Schawk, Inc., included in the AnnualReport (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2006.Ernst & Young LLPChicago, Illinois
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Kevin Hall

v. Civil No. 08-cv-494-PB

Steven Markiewicz

O R D E R

Kevin Hall is hereby granted in forma pauperis status.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: April 21, 2009

cc: Kevin Hall, pro se

Case 1:08-cv-00494-PB Document 16 Filed 04/21/09 Page 1 of 1
#### In the Matter of Michael C. Coppola et al., Respondents, v Good Samaritan Hospital Medical Center, Respondent, and Town of Islip, Appellant.

[744 NYS2d 718]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review a determination of the Planning Board of the Town of Islip, dated June 4, 2001, which granted the application of the respondent Good Samaritan Hospital Medical Center for a building permit, the Town of Islip appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Whelan, J.), dated July 16, 2001, as denied its motion to dismiss the petition pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (3), (5), and (7), and to impose a sanction upon the petitioners pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

No appeal lies as of right from a nonfinal order in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 *(see*CPLR 5701 [6] [1]; *Matter of Bartolomeo*v *Spain,*286 AD2d 498; *Matter of Cotty v Board of Fire Commrs. of Selden Fire Dist.,*262 AD2d 639). The appellant did not seek leave to appeal and we decline to treat the notice of appeal as an application for leave to appeal. O’Brien, J.P., Krausman, Schmidt and Cozier, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Philip A. Brimmer

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-00346-PAB

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. ENRIQUE LOPEZ-CORONA,

Defendant.

_____________________________________________________________________

ORDER SETTING TRIAL DATES AND DEADLINES

_____________________________________________________________________

This matter has been scheduled for a three-day jury trial on the docket of Judge

Philip A. Brimmer in the U.S. District Courthouse, Courtroom A701, 7th Floor, 901 19th

Street, Denver, Colorado, to commence on November 7, 2011 at 8:00 a.m. It is

ORDERED that all pretrial motions shall be filed by September 30, 2011 and

responses to these motions shall be filed by October 7, 2011. It is further

ORDERED that expert witness disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 16 shall

be made no later than seven days before the deadline for filing pretrial motions and any

challenges to such experts shall be made by the pretrial motion filing deadline. It is

further

ORDERED that disclosures regarding rebuttal expert witnesses shall be made

one week after the deadline for filing pretrial motions and any challenges to such

experts shall be made no later than two weeks after the pretrial motions deadline. It is

further
2

ORDERED that a Trial Preparation Conference is set for November 3, 2011 at

1:00 p.m. in Courtroom A701. Lead counsel who will try the case shall attend in

person. 

The parties shall be prepared to address the following issues at the Trial

Preparation Conference:

1) jury selection;

2) sequestration of witnesses;

3) timing of presentation of witnesses and evidence;

4) anticipated evidentiary issues;

5) any stipulations as to fact or law; and

6) any other issue affecting the duration or course of the trial. 

DATED September 7, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

 s/Philip A. Brimmer 

PHILIP A. BRIMMER

United States District Judge
No. 72-6143.

#### McGann *v.*United States.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02270-WJM-CBS

MRS. REBECCA RENEE CRONE, and

MR. TIMOTHY CRONE,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES, D.H.S. DEFENDANTS,

MS. HOLLY MCBEE -- DEFENDANT, 

MR. MATTHEW GRAFT -- DEFENDANT,

MR. ROCCO MECONI -- DEFENDANT,

ROGER MCKISSACK, and

TRACEY MCKISSACK,

Defendants.

ORDER 

Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer 

This civil action comes before the court sua sponte, regarding the parties’ and the

court’s failure to include Defendants Roger and Tracey McKissack on their certificates of

mailing. Pursuant to the Order of Reference dated September 1, 2011 (Doc. # 2), this matter

was referred to the Magistrate Judge to conduct proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a) and (b). 

Defendants Roger and Tracey McKissack were named in both the original Complaint

and the Amended Complaint. (See Docs. # 1 and # 44). Defendants Roger and Tracey

McKissack also filed a Motion to Dismiss on December 21, 2011 that included their address. 

(See Doc. # 42). The court having reviewed the entire docket in the case and being

sufficiently advised in the premises, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of the Court shall add to the court’s certificate of mailing Defendants

Roger and Tracey McKissack’ address, 460 County Rd. 103, Florence CO 81226, and the

Case 1:11-cv-02270-WJM-CBS Document 60 Filed 04/10/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

other contact information included on the “McKissack Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

Plaintiffs’ Complaint” (Doc. # 42). 

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail copies of Docs. # 44, # 45, # 46, # 48,

#49, # 50, # 51, # 52, # 53, # 54, # 55, # 57, # 58, and # 59 to Defendants Roger and Tracey

McKissack. 

3. Defense counsel shall add Defendants Roger and Tracey McKissack to their

certificate of mailing. 

Dated at Denver, Colorado this 10th day of April, 2012. 

BY THE COURT:

 s/Craig B. Shaffer 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 1:11-cv-02270-WJM-CBS Document 60 Filed 04/10/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2