alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Jas. Mattingly *v.*Sophia Helm.

Statute of Limitations — Construction — Pre-existing Causes of Action — Amendments in Conflict with State and Federal Constitutions.

The statutory bar provided for by chapter 63, Rev. Stat., did not embrace pre-existing causes of action.

Act of 1858 in Conflict with State Constitution.

The Act of 1858, by which it was attempted to make the provisions of chapter 63, *supra,*extend to all cases whether the right of action accrued before or after the adoption of the Revised Statutes, is in conflict with the Constitution of this State.

Act of 1862 in Conflict with United States Constitution.

The Act of March 15, 1862, is in conflict with the Constitution of the United States.

APPEAL FROM BRECKINRIDGE CIRCUIT COURT.

June 12, 1867.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Peters:

Appellee brought this actiou in the court below, on the 27th of March, 1861, against appellant, on a note executed by him to Crawford Lowery in May, 1841, due in May, 1844, and assigned by Lowery to appellee in 1855.

The law and facts were submitted to the judge, and a trial was had in the court below of the several issues presented by the pleadings, which resulted unfavorably to appellant, and he now seeks to reverse the judgment rendered against him.

No bill of exceptions is presented in the record, and we are not informed what evidence was introduced in the court below.

Two propositions, however, are relied upon by the counsel for appellant for a reversal:

1st. The Statute of Limitations.

2d. Whether or not the prosecution of the two actions by appellee against appellant, for the collection of this debt which he refers to in his answer, would not be sufficient to stop the running of the statute, if it was otherwise available as a defense to this action, we need not now stop to consider, as we are satisfied that defense is not made out.

The statutory bar provided for by chapter 63, Rev. Stat., did not *583embrace pre-existing causes of action. the Act of 1858 by which it was attempted to make the provisions of *chapter*63, *supra,*extend to and embrace all cases whether the right of action bad accrued before or after the adoption of the Revised Statutes was decided by this court to> be in conflict with the *thirty-seventh section*of the second article of the Constitution of Kentucky. Chiles *&*Thomas v. Monroe, 4 Met. 72.

Tbe act approved 15th March, 1862, entitled, an *“Act to amend chapter*63, *Rev. St at.,*entitled, f *limitations of*action/ *”*was decided by this court to be in conflict with tbe Constitution of tbe United States. Berry & Johnson *v.*Randall, 4 Met. 292. So that when this action was brought there was no Statute of Limitations which could bar it.

As to tbe second proposition, it is sufficient to say appellant is the only obligor in the note sued on; tbe judgment referred to in his answer is not against him; even if it could be regarded as available for any purpose to appellee it cannot affect him — and consequently it cannot shield him from the payment of a debt which he alone promised by his writing to pay.

Wherefore, the judgment is 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 accompanying Annual Report of Health Systems
Solutions, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ending
December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Susan Baxter Gibson, Principal 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, to the best of my knowledge,
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 fully presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Company.

By:   /s/ Susan Baxter Gibson
      -------------------------
      Susan Baxter Gibson
      Principal Financial Officer
      March 28, 2005
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. CANDIDO TORRES.

June 21, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.
Exhibit 13.1



Certifications required by Rule 13A-14(B) or Rule 15D-14(B)



Certification



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, the undersigned officers of Trintech Group PLC (the Company), hereby certify that the Companys Annual Report on Form
20-F for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained
in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



| |  |                        
| |  | -----------------------
| |  | /s/ Cyril McGuire      
| |  | CYRIL MCGUIRE          
| |  | Chief Executive Officer
| | 
| |  | /s/ Maurice Hickey     
| |  | MAURICE HICKEY         
| |  | Chief Financial Officer



May 12, 2006



The foregoing certification is being furnished
solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure to this statement



A signed original of this written statement required by 18 U.S.C. § 1350 has been provided to Trintech Group PLC and will be retained by Trintech Group PLC and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 31, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
130182 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: 130182 COA: 257557 Wayne CC: 02-014804-01 HANS LEE THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

By order of October 18, 2006 , the application for leave to appeal the November 1, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in ab eyance pending the decision in People v Smith (Docket No. 130353). On order of the Court, the case having been decided on June 20, 2007, 478 Mich 292 (2007), the application is again considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the ques tions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

K ELLY
, J., would remand this case for correc tion of the judgment of sentence.

p1024 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 31, 2007

Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 213 (Thursday, November 4, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 68008]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28052]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD


Sunshine Act Meetings: November 2010

Time and Dates

All meetings are held at 2:30 p.m.:
    Monday, November 1;
    Tuesday, November 9;
    Wednesday, November 10;
    Tuesday, November 16;
    Wednesday, November 17;
    Thursday, November 18;
    Tuesday, November 23;
    Tuesday, November 30.

PLACE: Board Agenda Room, No. 11820, 1099 14th St., NW., Washington DC 
20570.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Pursuant to Sec.  102.139(a) of the Board's 
Rules and Regulations, the Board or a panel thereof will consider ``the 
issuance of a subpoena, the Board's participation in a civil action or 
proceeding or an arbitration, or the initiation, conduct, or 
disposition * * * of particular representation or unfair labor practice 
proceedings under section 8, 9, or 10 of the [National Labor Relations] 
Act, or any court proceedings collateral or ancillary thereto.'' See 
also 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(10).

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Lester A. Heltzer, Executive 
Secretary, (202) 273-1067.

    Dated: November 2, 2010.
Lester A. Heltzer,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-28052 Filed 11-2-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7545-01-P
Motion granted and Abatement Order filed March 22 , 202 2

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 2 1

- 00 344

- CV

CHRISTOPHER DANIEL CORNAY , Appellant

V.
LAUREN ELIZABETH CORNAY , Appellee
On Appeal from the 280 th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2021

- 29054

ABATEMENT ORDER On February 16, 2022, appell ant filed what is styled as a motion to dismiss but essentially requests the court to abate the appeal and permit proceedings in the trial court to effectuate the parties’ agreement to compromise and settle their dispute. Consistent with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(2)(C), the motion is

a ccompanied by an agreement signed by the parties, as well as their attorneys. Construing the motion as a request to abate the appeal and permit proceedings in the trial court to effectuate the parties’ agreement, the court hereby GRANTS the2

motion. The p arties are instructed to have a supplemental clerk’s record filed in this Court within 10 days of any action taken in the trial court showing the action taken regarding effectuating the parties’ agreement

. The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, an d removed from this court’s active docket for ninety days from the date of this order. The appeal will be reinstated on this court’s active docket at that time, or when the parties file a motion to dismiss the appeal or other dispositive motion. The court will also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by any party, or the court may reinstate the appeal on its own motion.
PER CURIAM
Panel c onsists of Justices Jewell, Zimmerer, and Hassan.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

AETHER SYSTEMS, INC.

CERTIFICATION

 

I, David C.Reymann, certify that:

 

1.               Ihave reviewed this report on Form 10-K of Aether Systems, Inc.;

 

2.               Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.               Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.               Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand we have:

 

(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures,or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;

 

(b) *[reserved]*

 

(c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(d) disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth quarter in thecase of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likelyto materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and 

 

5.                    Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s Board ofDirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b)  Any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date:                    March 15, 2005

 
|     | /s/ David C. Reymann       |   |
|----------|----------------------------|--------|
| * * | *Chief  Financial Officer* |

 

----
Exhibit 13.2

 

**CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the annual report on Form 20-F of CryptoLogic Limited (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned certifies solely for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:

 

(1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 

| Date: | June 29, 2009 | /s/ Stephen Taylor _______________________________ |
|-------|---------------|----------------------------------------------------|

Stephen Taylor

Chief Financial Officer

 

*This certification is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date of the Report), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.*
#### Greenhow *v.*Boyle.

A paper purporting to be a bill of exchange, having a blank for the payee’s name, may bo filled up at any time by a *bona fide*holder; but until it is so filled up, a suit will not lio on it against the acceptor. *57In an action for money had and received, &c., by the drawer against the acceptor of such blank bill, the bill is not sufficient evidence to support the suit.

*Saturday, January*20, 1844.

APPEAL from the *Knox*Circuit Court.

Sullivan, J.

— This was an action of assumpsit, by the appellee against the appellant, on an instrument of writing purporting to be a bill of exchange, by which Boyle, the drawer, requested Greenhow, the acceptor, to pay to- or order 1,000 dollars. The declaration contains four special counts. The first and second are upon bills drawn by the appellee on the appellant payable to *S. N.*and *E. P. Bowman*or order, and accepted by the appellant. The third is on a bill'payable to the order of the drawer, also accepted by the appellant. The fourth is on a bill payable to blank and accepted by the appellant.' There are also counts for money had and received, money lent and advanced, &c. Plea, non assumpsit. Verdict and judgment for the appellee.

It is admitted by the counsel that, on the trial of the cause, •the only evidence offered was an instrument of writing drawn by Boyle, and addressed to Greenhow, by which the latter was directed to pay to-or order 1,000 dollars ; that it was accepted by the drawee payable at a bank in Louisville, and that it was indorsed *S. N.*and *E. P.*Bowman, and *Robert Mosely.*The appellant objected to the evidence, but the Court overruled the objection.

The only doubt about this case is, whether the paper offered and received in evidence, was admissible under the common counts.

In the imperfect state in which it was when offered, it did not support either of the special counts. If a bill of exchange, or what purports to be a bill of exchange, be issued with a blank for the payee’s name, any *bona fide*holder may insert his name, either before or after acceptance, but until the blank be filled up, it is not a bill. *Cruchley*v. Clarance, 2 & S. *90.*—Crutchly v. Mann, 5 Taunt. *529.*—Atwood v. Griffin, 2 Carr. & P. *368.*—Gibson *et al.*v. *Minet et al.*1 H. *Bl.*569.—Rex v. Randall, Russ. & Ry. Cr. Cas. 195. *Id.*193. We think it follows, that it was not sufficient evidence support -the common counts. If the paper was no bill,' it cannó t be made to have the effect of one, so long as it re*58mains incomplete. Generally, an acceptance of a bill of exchange, complete and having the proper parties, is evi-j dence of money had and received by the acceptor to the use of the drawer. But we can find no case in which the principle has been applied to the acceptance of a blank bill.

*S.*Judah, for the appellant.

J. Whitcomb, for the appellee.

*Per Curiam.*

— The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.
CERTIFICATION
OF ACTING PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING OFFICER
 PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  The
undersigned, Patrick A. McGowan, the Acting Principal Accounting Officer of
TapImmune Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to his or her knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information
contained in the Annual Report on Form 10-K, as amended, fairly presents in all
material respects the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
  Date: May
8, 2009
  By:       /s/ Patrick
McGowan
 Patrick A. McGowan
 Secretary, Treasurer, Chief Financial
Officer,
 Acting Principal Accounting Officer and
a director
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear
in typed form within the electronic version 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.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 4329

_____________________________
K HALAF M ILLER , Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. Mark Borello, Judge.

August 5, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. R AY , C.J., and K ELSEY and W INOKUR , JJ., concur.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Khalaf Miller, pro se , Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
No. 14,320.

#### The Central Union Telephone Company *v.*Hopper et al.

Filed June 26, 1890.

From the La Porte Circuit Court.

*A. A. Thomas*and *J. H. Baker,*for appellant.

*J. H. Bradley, J. A. Thornton*and *J. H. Orr,*for appellees.

Olds, J.

This was a proceeding to compel the appellant, as a common carrier of telephone messages, by mandate, to furnish telephonic service to the appellees, who were engaged in business in Michigan City. The pleadings are substantially the same, and the questions involved are the same, and arise in substantially the same manner as those presented and decided in the case of the *Central Union Telephone Company*v. *State, ex*rel., 123 Ind. 113. The same questions were also involved and considered at length, and the authorities reviewed in the case of the *Central Union Telephone Company*v. *State, ex rel.,*118 Ind. 194, and we do not deem it necessary to set out the record, and state the manner in which the questions arise. On the authority of the cases herein cited, this case must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
| 1.     |      | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Progress Energy, Inc. as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2011; and                                                                                                                   |
|--------|--------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |
| 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. |

| Date: March 17, 2011 | By:                                          | /s/ Mark F. Mulhern |   |
|----------------------|---------------------------------------------------|---------------------|--------|
|                 | Mark F. Mulhern                                   |
|                 | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

----