alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Richard K. LeBLOND et al., Appellants, v. Haig M. BOYAJOHN et al., Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. Term, 1936.

*920Stapp, Gourley, Ward & Ward, of Miami, for appellants.

Batchelor & Dyer, of Miami, for appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed on motion of counsel for the respective parties.
Exhibit 32.1

TAYLOR CAPITAL GROUP, INC.

Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906

of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Taylor Capital Group, Inc. (the Company) hereby certify
that:

(i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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



|                   |  |  |  |                                        
|------------------ |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------
|Dated: May 8, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ BRUCE W. TAYLOR                    
|                   |  |  |  | Bruce W. Taylor Chief Executive
Officer
|                   |  | 
|Dated: May 8, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ ROBIN VANCASTLE                    
|                   |  |  |  | Robin VanCastle Chief Financial
Officer



45
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 the Treasury

###### United States Mint 

# ACTION:

Notification of United States Mint American Legacy Collection® Price. 

# SUMMARY:

The United States Mint is setting the price for its 2008 United States Mint American Legacy Collection. 

In accordance with 31 U.S.C. 9701(b)(2)(B), the United States Mint is establishing the price of this set to reflect the content of the set, production costs, and other relevant factors. 

Therefore, effective October 27, 2008, the United States Mint will commence selling the 2008 United States Mint American Legacy Collection at $100.00. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Andrew Brunhart, Deputy Director; United States Mint; 801 Ninth Street, NW.; Washington, DC 20220; or call 202-354-7200. 

Dated: October 3, 2008. 

Edmund C. Moy, 

Director, United States Mint.

[FR Doc. E8-24150 Filed 10-9-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810-02-P
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.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:

*Name:*                         Advisory Committee for Mathematical and Physical Sciences (66)                    

*Date/Time:*                         November 5, 2008 2 p.m.-4 p.m.; November 6, 2008 8 a.m.-6 p.m.; November 7, 2008 8 a.m.-3 p.m.                    

*Place:*                         National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230, November 5 Room 1005; November 6, Room 375; November 7, Room 1235.                    

*Type of Meeting:*                         Open.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Dr. Morris L. Aizenman, Senior Science Associate, Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Room 1005, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. (703) 292-8807.                    

*Purpose of Meeting:*                         To provide advice and recommendations concerning NSF science and education activities within the Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences.                    

*Agenda:*

Briefing to new members about NSF and Directorate (11/5).

Update on current status of Directorate.

Report of NSF Advisory Panel on Light Source Facilities Subcommittee.

Meeting of MPSAC with Divisions within MPS Directorate.

Discussion of MPS Long-term Planning Activities.

*Summary Minutes:*                         May be obtained from the contact person listed above.                    

Dated: October 6, 2008.

Susanne E. Bolton,

Committee Management Officer.

 [FR Doc. E8-24067 Filed 10-9-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 32.2


                                  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)



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), the
undersigned officer of AMERICAN TECHNICAL CERAMICS CORP., a Delaware corporation
(the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2003 (the
"Form 10-Q") 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-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





             Dated: February 12, 2004             /S/ANDREW R. PERZ
           ----------------------------       ---------------------------
                                                Chief 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 or its staff upon request.
#### Bozo Martin FRANICEVICH, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. PLAQUEMINES PARISH DEMOCRATIC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE et al., Defendants and Appellants.

No. 18879.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Nov. 15, 1947.

Sam Monk Zelden, of New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellee.

Leander H. Perez, of New Orleans, and Bruce Nunez, of Arabi, for defendants-appellants.

JANVIER, Judge.

The facts of this case and the legal questions presented are identical with those which we considered in Yuratich v. Plaquemines Parish Democratic Executive Committee et al., 32 So.2d 647, with the sole exception that in this case Bozo Martin Franicevich, the contestee, desired to be a candidate for the Democratic nomination for the position of Police Juror for the Fourth Ward instead of the Tenth Ward.

For the reasons given in the Yuratich case, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed that the judgment of the District Court be annulled and set aside, and that the ruling of the Plaquemines Parish Democratic Executive Committee, holding that Bozo Martin Franicevich did not qualify according to law, be and it is reinstated, and therefore, it is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that Bozo Martin Franicevich be and he is *655declared to be ineligible to become a candidate for the Democratic nomination for the office of member of the Police Jury for the Fourth Ward of the Parish of Plaque-mines; appellee to pay all costs.

Reversed.
#### Edwin MOORE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charles FOTI, Criminal Sheriff for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 76-2491

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 26, 1977.

Harold Douglas, New Orleans, La., for petitioner-appellant.

Harry Connick, Dist. Atty., William L. Brockman, Asst. Dist. Atty., New Orleans, La., for respondent-appellee.

Before BROWN, Chief Judge, and GEW-IN and MORGAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 Rule 18, 5th Cir., see *Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al.,*5th Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, a prisoner in Orleans Parish, Louisiana, seeks relief from further prosecution for first degree murder on the ground that he has previously been put in jeopardy for the same offense. Appellant and two others, all juveniles at the time of the crime, were indicted for first degree murder, punishable by death. Pursuant to a plea bargain reached by appellant and the prosecutor, the state district court accepted a guilty plea to second degree murder and imposed a sentence of life imprisonment. When appellant later challenged his sentence, the Louisiana Supreme Court held that “the district court did not have jurisdiction to accept a plea of guilty and impose a sentence on a fifteen year old for second degree murder” and remanded. State *ex rel. Moore v. Warden,*308 So.2d 749, 752 (La.1975). On remand the state reinstituted first degree murder proceedings. After unsuccessfully seeking writs of habeas corpus from the state supreme court, appellant sought habeas relief in federal district court.

The district court denied relief on the grounds that appellant previously had not been placed in jeopardy and that his *68successful challenge to his sentence reinstated the government’s right to prosecute on the greater offense. The district court was correct. Since the state court did not have jurisdiction to accept the plea and impose sentence, appellant has not been placed in jeopardy. *Serfass v. United States,*420 U.S. 377, 391, 95 S.Ct. 1055, 1064, 43 L.Ed.2d 265, 276 (1975); *Kepner v. United States,*195 U.S. 100, 133, 24 S.Ct. 797, 49 L.Ed. 114, 126 (1904); *Ball v. United States,*163 U.S. 662, 669, 16 S.Ct. 1192, 1194, 41 L.Ed. 300, 302 (1896). Moreover, appellant’s successful challenge to his plea-bargained sentence is a tacit repudiation of the bargain, allowing the government to prosecute him on the greater charge. *Martinez v. Estelle,*527 F.2d 1330, 1331-32 (5th Cir. 1976); *Arechiga v. Texas,*469 F.2d 646, 647 (5th Cir. 1972); *Harrington v. United States,*444 F.2d 1190, 1194 (5th Cir. 1971).

The instant appeal involves only the narrow double jeopardy question of the legality of further prosecution, not the question of the legality of sentence if appellant is found guilty in such prosecution.

JUDGMENT 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
the Quarterly Report of North Pittsburgh Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, A. P.
Kimble, Senior Vice President and Chief 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 Sections 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: November 9, 2006 |  |                                                                 
|                       | 
|                       |  | /s/ A. P. Kimble                                                
|                       |  | A. P. Kimble                                                    
|                       |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial and Accounting Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to North Pittsburgh
Systems, Inc. and will be retained by North Pittsburgh Systems, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11




                NORTH PITTSBURGH SYSTEMS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                Statement of Computation of Earnings per Share

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                           For the Three Months                    For the Six Months
                                                              Ended June 30                          Ended June 30
                                                   --------------------------------     ---------------------------------
                                                         2001              2000              2001              2000
                                                   -------------      -------------     ---------------   ---------------
<S>                                                <C>                <C>               <C>               <C>
Net Earnings                                       $   2,559,000        $ 3,276,000        $  4,033,000      $5,712,000
                                                   =============      =============     ===============   ===============
Weighted average common
       shares outstanding                             15,005,000         15,005,000          15,005,000      15,005,000
                                                   =============      =============     ===============   ===============
Basic and diluted earnings
       per share of common stock                   $         .17      $         .22     $           .27   $         .38
                                                   =============      =============     ================  ===============
</TABLE>
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

$782,893.49 IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY, 

Defendant.

_____________________________________________________________________

ORDER FOR WARRANT FOR ARREST OF PROPERTY IN REM

_____________________________________________________________________ 

Plaintiff has instituted the in rem action herein and requested issuance of 

process. It appears to the Court from the Verified Complaint filed herein that the Court 

has jurisdiction over the defendant property, and it appears, for the reasons and causes 

set forth in the Verified Complaint, that there is probable cause to believe the defendant 

property is subject to a decree of forfeiture, and that a Warrant for Arrest of the 

defendant property should enter.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND DECREED that a Warrant for Arrest of 

Property In Rem for the defendant property shall issue as prayed for and that the United 

States Marshals Service and/or any other duly authorized law enforcement officer is 

directed to arrest and seize the defendant property as soon as practicable, and to use 

whatever means may be appropriate to protect and maintain it in your custody until 

further order of this Court;

THAT pursuant to Rule G(4)(C) of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or 

Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions, the United States shall post notice on an 

Case No. 1:11-cv-02613-DME-MEH Document 1-1 filed 10/06/11 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 2
2

official internet government site for at least 30 consecutive days, stating that all persons 

claiming or asserting an interest in the defendant property must file their Claims with the 

Clerk of this Court pursuant to Rule G of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or 

Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions within sixty (60) days of the first date of 

publication of notice, and shall serve and file their Answers to the Verified Complaint 

within twenty one (21) days after the filing of their Claims with the Office of the Clerk, 

United States District Court for the District of Colorado, with a copy sent to Assistant 

United States Attorney Martha A. Paluch, United States Attorney's Office, 1225 17th

Street, Suite 700, Denver, Colorado 80202.

DONE at Denver, Colorado, this day of _________, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

______________________________

U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge

Case No. 1:11-cv-02613-DME-MEH Document 1-1 filed 10/06/11 USDC Colorado pg 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Christine M. Arguello

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02608-CMA-KMT

PAULA FLEMING,

Plaintiff,

v.

USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

This matter is before the Court on the parties’ Stipulation for Dismissal With

Prejudice (Doc. # 26), signed by the attorneys for the parties involved. The Court being

fully informed in the premises, it is hereby

ORDERED that this action and all claims therein are DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE, each party to pay her or its own costs and attorneys’ fees.

DATED: April 25 , 2012

BY THE COURT:

_______________________________

CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO

United States District Court Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02608-CMA-KMT Document 27 Filed 04/25/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 199 (Tuesday, October 14, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 60715]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-24230]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending 
Nominations and Related Actions

    Nominations for the following properties being considered for 
listing or related actions in the National Register were received by 
the National Park Service before September 27, 2008.
    Pursuant to section 60.13 of 36 CFR Part 60 written comments 
concerning the significance of these properties under the National 
Register criteria for evaluation may be forwarded by United States 
Postal Service to the National Register of Historic Places, National 
Park Service, 1849 C St., NW., 2280, Washington, DC 20240; by all other 
carriers, National Register of Historic Places, National Park 
Service,1201 Eye St., NW., 8th floor, Washington, DC 20005; or by fax, 
202-371-6447. Written or faxed comments should be submitted by October 
29, 2008.

J. Paul Loether,
Chief, National Register of Historic Places/National Historic Landmarks 
Program.

COLORADO

Jefferson County

North Fork Historic District (Boundary Increase), Six parcels of 
land along Co. Rds. 96 and 126 between South Platte and Pine Grove, 
Pine Grove, 08001028.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

District of Columbia

Petworth Gardens (Apartment Buildings in Washington, DC, MPS), 124, 
126, 128, and 130 Webster St., NW., Washington, DC, 08001029.

IOWA

Dubuque County

Dubuque Millworking Historic District (Dubuque, Iowa MPS), White, 
Jackson, Elm between E. 6th and E. 11th Sts., Dubuque, 08001030.

NEW HAMPSHIRE

Merrimack County

Old North Cemetery, North State St., Concord, 08001031.

NEW YORK

Delaware County

West Delhi Prebyterian Church, Manse, and Cemetery, 18 and 45 
Sutherland Rd., West Delhi, 08001032.

Kings County

New York Congregational Home for the Aged, 123 Linden Blvd., 
Brooklyn, 08001033.

New York County

Garment Center Historic District, Roughly bounded by Sixth Ave. on 
the E., Ninth Ave. on the W., W. 35th St. on the S., and W. 41st St. 
on the N., New York, 08001034.

Yates County

Sampson Theatre, 130-136 E. Elm St., Penn Yan, 08001035.

WISCONSIN

Shawano County

Tigerton Village Hall and Engine House, 215 Cedar St., Tigerton, 
08001036.

[FR Doc. E8-24230 Filed 10-10-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P
#### Rudolph O. Collins, Appellant, v Stanley Vickers, Respondent.

[744 NYS2d 672]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered March 14, 2001, which dismissed the complaint against defendant in his capacity as court-appointed receiver of real property in foreclosure, which property prior to being taken in the foreclosure proceeding was owned by plaintiff, unanimously affirmed, without costs, and without prejudice to the timely filing of objections to the receiver’s accounting, if said accounting has not already *321been approved. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered on or about February 22, 2001, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed within the appeal from the judgment.

While the failure to seek permission to sue a receiver appointed in foreclosure proceedings is not a fatal jurisdictional error (see, *Copeland v Salomon,*56 NY2d 222, 228), permission must still be obtained, even if nunc pro tunc (see, *Bankers Fed. Sav. v Off W. Broadway Devs.,*227 AD2d 306). Plaintiff has offered no excuse for his failure to seek the requisite permission earlier, nor has he shown why the alternative offered by defendant, i.e., plaintiff’s withdrawal of his lawsuit and filing of objections to defendant’s receivership accounting, was not viable. Further, he has not offered any specifics as to why defendant’s receivership was deficient. Under such circumstances, permission to sue defendant was properly denied.

Since the record is unclear as to whether the accounting was actually approved, our decision is without prejudice to the filing of timely objections to the accounting if court approval remains outstanding. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.
178 La. 90

#### STATE v. PERISSE.

No. 32430.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 30, 1933.

Johnston Armstrong, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Gaston L. Porterie, Atty. Gen., and Eugene Stanley, Dist. Atty., and Niels F. Hertz, Asst. Dist. Atty., both of New Orleans, for the State.

ODOM, Justice.

The defendant was indicted for manslaughter and on trial was found guilty of involuntary homicide, with recommendation for leniency. Whereupon he was sentenced to imprisonment in the Louisiana state penitentiary at hard labor for a term of not less than two nor more than four years. He appealed to this court.

The record discloses no bill of exception and no assignment of errors. After conviction, defendant moved for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the law and the evidence. Such motions present nothing for review. Citation of authority is unnecessary to support the proposition that in criminal cases, where the record discloses no bills of exception or assignment of errors and where there is found only a motion for new trial on the ground that the verdict is contrary to the law and the evidence, the case presents nothing for review and the verdict of the jury and sentence imposed by the court must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.