alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Tex. & Pac. R’y Co. v. J. W. Wever.

(No. 1988.)

Appeal from Bowie County.

Todd & Hudgins, counsel for appellant.

No counsel appeared for appellee.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 60. *Warehouseman; extent of liability of; case stated.*Appellee had shipped to him at New Boston, Texas, over appellant’s line of railway, a lot of flour and. salt. He paid freight on the goods and received them from the company, executing his receipt therefor. Some of the goods he removed from the depot, but a portion of them, by permission of appellant’s agent, he left in appellant’s depot, because he did not then have room for them in his store. A few days thereafter the depot and its contents, including these goods, were destroyed by Are. Appellee brought this suit to recover of appellant the value of said goods, $199.75, and recovered judgment for said value and costs. *Held:*Appellant’s liability for the goods as a common carrier ceased with the delivery of the goods at the point of destination. Its liability, therefore, must be measured by the rules governing warehousemen. A warehouseman is not liable for goods destroyed by Aré unless it be proved that the loss was occasioned by his neglect, or the neglect of his agents, employees or servants, and the burden of making this proof devolves upon the plaintiff. [2 W. Con. Rep. § 86.] A warehouseman is not an insurer. He is only bound to exercise ordinary diligence, or that care which prudent persons usually take of their own property. [W. & W. Con. Rep. § 412.]

§61. *Negligence of warehouseman; sufficient proof*of.'' The evidence as to the negligence of appellant’s em-' ployees in relation to the fire tends to prove that the fire. ■ was caused from sparks emitted from one of appellant’s passing engines, which sparks ignited cotton on appel-; *86lanfc’s platform, and the fire communicated therefrom to the depot and consumed it. This engine passed the depot at an unusual rate of speed, and, when immediately opposite the cotton on the platform, emitted a large quantity of sparks, and the cotton was discovered almost immediately to be on fire. *Held,*this evidence sufficiently proved negligence.

November 11, 1885.

Affirmed.
##### 



Exhibit 10.3


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 Annual Report of IONA
Technologies PLC (the Company) on Form 20-F for
the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Daniel Demmer, 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 the Report
    fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
    condition and results of operations of the Company.

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.



| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | /s/ DANIEL DEMMER      
| |                        
| | Daniel Demmer          
| | Chief Financial Officer

Date: April 4, 2003
#### G., C. *&*S. F. R’y Co. v. Mrs. E. T. Bell.

(No. 6530.)

Appeal from Johnson County.

J. W. Teeey, counsel for appellant.

Ceane & Ramsey, counsel for appellee,

June 4, 1890.

Opinion by

Will-son, J.

§ 119. *Statement of facts; when stricken out on appeal, not ground for reversal.*At the last term of this court the statement of facts contained in the record was stricken out upon motion of appellee because not properly authenticated by the trial judge. Appellant now moves to reverse the judgment for the alleged reason that he has been deprived of a statement of facts without fault on his part. This motion is not maintainable, and is overruled. [Sayles’ Civil St., art. 1379a; Collins v. Kay, 69 Tex. 366; Railway Co. v. Underwood, 67 Tex. 594.] In the absence of a statement of facts, none of the assignments of error can be determined, and the judgment is . ^

Affirmed.
Exhibit 99.8







|CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
|--------------------------------------------------------



December 29, 2015



The Board of Directors of Merus Labs International Inc.



We consent to the inclusion in this annual report on Form
40-F of our Independent Auditors’ Report of Registered Public Accounting Firm dated December 3, 2015 on the
consolidated financial statements of Merus Labs International Inc. and its subsidiaries comprising the consolidated statement
of financial position as at September 30, 2015 and 2014, the consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive income
(loss), changes in equity and cash flows for the years then ended and a summary of significant accounting policies and other
explanatory information which is incorporated by reference in this annual report on Form 40-F of Merus Labs International
Inc. and its subsidiaries for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2015.



We also consent to the incorporation by reference of such report
in the Registration Statement (No. 333-205589) on

Form F-10 of Merus Labs International Inc. filed with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission.







Chartered Professional Accountants

Licensed Public Accountants
**Exhibit 32.2**

**Certificationof the Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-Kof PRAECIS PHARMACEUTICALS INCORPORATED (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31,2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Edward C. English, as Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuantto § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of myknowledge:

1.                The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.                Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| /s/ EDWARD  C. ENGLISH |                     |
|------------------------|--------------------------|
| Name:                  | Edward C. English        |   |
| Title:                 | Chief Financial  Officer |   |
| Date:                  | March 17,  2006     |   |

 

----
EXHIBIT 32.2



BEA SYSTEMS, INC.



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

Pursuant to Section 906 of the SarbanesOxley Act of 2002



In connection with the periodic report of BEA Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended January 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, William M. Klein, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code,
that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods
indicated.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: April 14, 2004



/s/    WILLIAM M. KLEINWilliam M. KleinChief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 23.2



                   CONSENT OF LARRY E. NUNN & ASSOCIATES, LLC

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration  Statement
on Form S-8 (registration number 333-53863),  and in the related Prospectus,  of
Unified  Financial  Services,  Inc. of our report  dated  January 31, 2003, with
respect to the consolidated  financial  statements of the Company as of December
31, 2002 and for the years ended  December  31, 2002 and 2001,  appearing in the
Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003.


/s/ Larry E. Nunn & Associates, L.L.C.
Columbus, Indiana
February 29, 2004





























                                       -7-
<PAGE>
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case therefore is submitted without oral argument. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 3/19/96 TENTH CIRCUIT

CARL EUGENE HOWARD, ) ) Plaintiff-Appellant, ) ) vs. ) No. 96-3000 ) (D.C. No. 95-CV-3514) MICHAEL A. NELSON, Warden, ) (D. Kan.) D. DONLEY, Unit Team/Hearing Officer, ) K. DUTTON, CSI - Correctional Officer, ) and THE STATE OF KANSAS, ) ) Defendants-Appellees. )

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before TACHA, BALDOCK, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges. **

Plaintiff Carl Eugene Howard, appearing pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ.1 In his complaint, Plaintiff apparently requests both § 1983 and habeas corpus

relief. Plaintiff fails to state a claim regardless of how we construe his complaint.

2 The district court denied Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and thus before us as an initial matter is Plaintiff’s renewed motion. While we agree with the district court’s assessment that the appeal is meritless, that determination necessarily requires us to consider the merits of the complaint. See Dotson v. United States , 287 F.2d 868 (10th Cir. 1961). Accordingly, we grant Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dispose of the appeal on the merits. 2 P. 12(b)(6). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Plaintiff alleges that he was disciplined after an administrative hearing with a twenty dollar fine and a reduction in good-time credits. 1 According to Plaintiff, the evidence presented at the hearing was insufficient to support the hearing board’s findings and thus, he was denied due process. We review the sufficiency of the complaint de novo and will uphold a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) dismissal if it appears that Plaintiff can prove no set of facts that would entitle him to relief. In making this determination, we accept all factual allegations of the complaint as true. Roman v. Cessna Aircraft Co. , 55 F 3d 542, 543 (10th Cir. 1995). Applying this standard and construing the pro se complaint liberally, we affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in the district court’s order of dismissal. 2
AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court, Bobby R. Baldock Circuit Judge
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 82 (Wednesday, May 17, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H5087-H5088]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                        FISCAL YEAR 1996 BUDGET

  (Mr. LAZIO of New York asked and was given permission to address the 
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Speaker, we are at a point where we are 
about to make history. We will soon vote on the budget resolution that 
contains a strong moral message. That message is that the status quo is 
unacceptable. A $4.7 trillion debt is unacceptable. Annual deficits 
close to $200 [[Page H5088]] billion are unacceptable. And continuing 
to saddle our children with a mountain of debt they cannot afford to 
pay is unacceptable.
  This budget proposal represents a historic change in the direction of 
our country. It moves us from a government that is too intrusive, 
wasteful and debt ridden to a smaller, more efficient government that 
costs less and is responsive to State and local needs. This budget is a 
gateway to the future presenting a new vision of government. It moves 
authority out of Washington and helps empower every individual 
American.
  It cuts taxes for America's families, seniors, and small businesses. 
It restores hope. It promises opportunity for the next generation. It 
protects Social Security. It increases spending on Medicare by over $80 
billion. And it saves it from bankruptcy. It will result in a higher 
net rate of savings and a higher standard of living for everyone. And 
should not everybody celebrate that?
  Mr. Speaker, it is in the best interest that I strongly urge my House 
colleagues to support this resolution. It is for the children.

                          ____________________
```
Department of the United States Air Force LogoBiography
                  United States Air ForceMaj. Gen. Arthur W. Vanaman
            MAJOR GENERAL ARTHUR W. VANAMANArthur William Vanaman was born in Millville, N.J., in l892. He graduated from Drexel Institute of Technology with a bachelor of science degree in electrical engineering in 19l5 and received an honorary doctor of science degree from Drexel in June 1942. After graduation (l915-l6) he did postgraduate work at the Postgraduate School of the Westinghouse Electric Company.
Enlisting in the Aviation Section of the Signal Enlisted Reserve Corps, General Vanaman completed flying school and on Dec. 22, 1917, was commissioned a first lieutenant in the Signal Officers reserve Corps. He took the advanced aeronautical engineering course at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1918. On July 1, 1920, he was commissioned a first lieutenant in the Air Service, Regular Army. During his early career in the Air Corps he specialized in engineering assignments.
Going to Air Service Command headquarters at Dayton, Ohio, in 1930, General Vanaman became chief of Procurement Engineering and assistant chief of Procurement for the Air Corps. He graduated from the Air Corps Engineering School in 1930, the Air Corps Tactical School in 1935, the Army Industrial College in 1936 and the Army War College in 1937. Appointed assistant air attache in Berlin, Germany, General Vanaman moved to Air Corps headquarters at Washington, D.C., as secretary of the Air Staff in August 1941.
The following March General Vanaman was named commanding general of the Air Corps Materiel Center at Wright Field, Dayton, Ohio. In April 1943 he was appointed commanding general of the Oklahoma City Air Service Command at Tinker Field, Okla., and the following March assumed command of the San Antonio Air Service Command at Kelly Field, Texas.
In May 1944 General Vanaman went to Eighth Air Corps headquarters in England as assistant chief of staff for intelligence. Shot down over German territory in June 1944, he was captured and remained a prisoner of war for a year.
Joining the Air Technical Service Command in June 1945, General Vanaman assumed command of the Mobile ATSC at Brookley Field, Ala., and became commanding general of the Sacramento ATSC at McClellan Field, Calif., the following January. He was designated commandant of the Industrial College of the Armed Forces at Fort McNair, Washington, D.C., in April 1948, and in June 1952 returned to McClellan Air Force Base, Calif., as commanding general of the Sacramento Air Materiel Area, Air Materiel Command.
His decorations include the Distinguished Service Medal, Legion of Merit with two oak leaf clusters, Bronze Star Medal and the Belgian Croix de Guerre with Palms.
(Up to date as of May 31, 1954)Department of the Air Force Logo
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 92 (Wednesday, June 7, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5629]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

    MEDICARE AND SOCIAL SECURITY USED TO BALANCE PROPOSED GOP BUDGET

  (Mr. STUPAK asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, having spent the last week in my district, 
it is obvious to me and to the 130,000 seniors in northern Michigan 
that the Republican budget proposals are wrong. In their budget 
resolution, they want to balance the budget on the backs of our 
seniors, veterans, and college students.
  The Republicans want to cut $282 billion from Medicare over the next 
several years. They say they must cut $282 billion to save Medicare. 
Yet Medicare fund trustee Stanford G. Ross has testified that Medicare 
needs $130 billion to remain solvent. Not $282 billion. Why the extra 
$152 billion? The Republicans want that money to pay for the tax breaks 
they are giving to large corporations and the top 1 percent of the 
wealthiest Americans, the millionaires and the billionaires, while they 
slash Medicare.
  You know what else? The GOP plan as passed by the other body says 
that they will pass a balanced budget by 2002, but when you look at the 
bill, they still have a $113 billion deficit. You know where they are 
going to make it up? By borrowing from the Social Security trust fund.
  Mr. Speaker, the Republicans have broken their contract by using 
Medicare to balance the budget and by using Social Security to balance 
the budget.

                          ____________________
```
S96Y1334.

#### IN THE MATTER OF EDDIE S. CASTLEBERRY.

(475 SE2d 912)

Per curiam.

Eddie S. Castleberry petitioned for voluntary suspension of his license to practice law in the State of Georgia..Castleberry was convicted on five counts of an indictment in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia charging him with viola*51tions of Sections 2 and 1951 of Title 18 of the United States Code. Castleberry admits that the offenses for which he was convicted involve his participation in paying money to a public official for the purpose of influencing the official’s conduct. He further admits that bis conviction constitutes a violation of Standard 66 of Bar Rule 4-102 (d), subjecting him to the provisions of Bar Rule 4-106. Castle-berry asks that his petition be accepted pending termination of the appeal of his conviction. The special master recommends that Castle-berry’s petition be accepted.

Decided July 15, 1996.

*William P. Smith III, General Counsel State Bar, E. Duane Cooper, Assistant General Counsel State Bar, for*State Bar of Georgia.

*Michael Abbott,*for Castleberry.

We accept Castleberry’s petition for voluntary suspension from the practice of law pending termination of his appeal. Bar Rule 4-106. Castleberry is reminded of his duties under Bar Rule 4-219 (c) to give timely notice to his clients of his inability to represent them, take all actions necessary to protect the interests of his clients, and certify to this Court that he has satisfied the requirements of that rule.

*Voluntary suspension accepted.*

*All the Justices concur.*
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                             McLEODUSA INCORPORATED

                      COMPUTATION OF LOSS PER COMMON SHARE
                  (AMOUNTS IN MILLIONS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                    Three Months Ended    Six Months Ended
                                                                         June 30,             June 30,
                                                                   --------------------  -------------------
                                                                     1999       1998       1999       1998
                                                                   ---------  ---------  ---------  --------
<S>                                                                <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>
Computation of weighted average number of
 common shares outstanding:
Common shares, Class A, outstanding at the
 beginning of the period (A).....................................     148.9      125.0      127.4     123.6
Common shares, Class B, outstanding at the
 beginning of the period (B).....................................       ---        ---        ---       ---
Weighted average number of shares issued
 during the period (A)...........................................       0.9        0.3       13.7       1.3
                                                                     ------     ------    -------    ------
Weighted average number of common shares.........................     149.8      125.3      141.1     124.9
                                                                     ======     ======    =======    ======
Net loss.........................................................    $(61.4)    $(29.8)   $(108.9)   $(60.1)
                                                                     ======     ======    =======    ======
Loss per common share............................................    $(0.41)    $(0.24)   $ (0.77)   $(0.48)
                                                                     ======     ======    =======    ======
</TABLE>

(A) All shares have been adjusted to give effect to the two-for-one stock split
    effected in the form of a stock dividend effective July 26, 1999.

(B) The Class B common stock, $.01 par value per share is convertible on a one-
    for-one basis at any time at the option of the holder into Class A common
    stock.  As of June 30, 1999, all shares of Class B common stock have been
    converted into shares of Class A common stock.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 81 (Tuesday, May 16, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1041]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                 HONORING TEMPLE BETH-EL OF CO-OP CITY

                                 ______

                          HON. ELIOT L. ENGEL

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, May 16, 1995
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, this year, one of the leading religious 
institutions in my district, Temple Beth-El of Co-Op City is 
celebrating its silver anniversary.
  Temple Beth-El is one of the original religious institutions opened 
when Co-Op City was established over a quarter of a century ago. But, 
this temple takes its mission a step further. Its officers and members 
work not only on the religious needs of the community, but are active 
participants in the social and civic fabric of Co-Op City.
  They are to be commended for their work. I join with all the 
residents of Co-Op City in wishing Temple Beth-El a very happy 25th 
birthday.

                          ____________________
```