alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### John A. Discipio, Respondent, v Ann Z. Sullivan, as Administrator of the Estate of Gail A. Sullivan, Deceased, Appellant.

[786 NYS2d 924]

Lahtinen, J. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Williams, J.), entered July 15, 2004 in Saratoga County, which denied defendant’s motion to remove the action to the Surrogate’s Court of Westchester County.

Thirty-seven days after Gail A. Sullivan signed a contract to purchase property in Saratoga County owned by plaintiff, she passed away. Less than two months later, defendant was issued letters of administration by Westchester County Surrogate’s Court and demanded that plaintiff cancel the contract. Rejecting defendant’s demand, plaintiff scheduled a closing and, when defendant failed to appear, commenced this action for breach of contract.

Following joinder of issue, defendant moved pursuant to CFLR 325 (e) to transfer the action to Westchester County Surrogate’s Court. Supreme Court denied the motion and defendant appeals.

Although CFLR 325 (e) expresses a preference for removal to Surrogate’s Court of all matters affecting the administration of a decedent’s estate, we do not find that Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying defendant’s motion *(see Wain v Catón,*224 AD2d 863, 864 [1996]).

Peters, J.P., Carpinello and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Hubble Servicing Mission

The Crew

Space shuttle Atlantis’ S T S-125 mission 

crew members, from the left are Mission 

Specialists Mike Massimino and Michael 

Good; Pilot Gregory C. Johnson; 

Commander Scott Altman; and Mission 

Specialists Megan McArthur, John 

Grunsfeld and Andrew Feustel. During the 

11-day mission, crew members will conduct 

five spacewalks to upgrade NASA’s Hubble 

Space Telescope. 

The Mission

Atlantis’ S T S-125 mission is the fifth and final 

shuttle flight to service Hubble. Upgrades will 

include the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph and the 

Wide Field Camera 3. A flight spare known as the 

Science Instrument Command and Data Handling 

system will replace one that failed on Hubble last 

year. This will be the third trip to Hubble for veteran 

astronaut John Grunsfeld and the second for Scott 

Altman and Mike Massimino. This is the 126th space 

shuttle mission and the 30th mission for Atlantis. 

The Hubble Space Telescope has been in orbit for 

19 years. Space shuttle Discovery launched Hubble 

in 1990 and additional upgrades and repairs 

were done between 1993 and 2002. The enhanced 

technologies that will be added during S T S-125 

will provide astronomers with improved data about 

the universe and ensure the orbiting observatory 

operates through at least 2014. 

www.nasa.g o v
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned officer of Dale Jarrett Racing Adventure, Inc. (the
"Company"), hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the
Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the six months ended
December 31, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 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/ Timothy B. Shannon
                                 ----------------------
                                 Timothy B. Shannon
                                 Chief Executive Officer

April 12, 2005




                             CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned officer of Dale Jarrett Racing Adventure, Inc. (the
"Company"), hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the
Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the six months ended
December 31, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 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/ John Ervin
                                 ----------------------
                                 John Ervin
                                 Chief Financial Officer

April 12, 2005
#### S. F. York *v.*S. S. Doyle et al. Same *v.*John W. Doyle et al.

Adverse Possession of Land Gives Legal Title.

Twenty years’ uninterrupted adverse possession gives the holder a perfect legal title.

APPEAL FROM FLEMING CIRCUIT COURT.

September 21, 1866.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Williams :

We think the court allowed S. F. York all the credits he is entitled to under the pleadings and proof.

S. S. Doyle avers in his answer that he is able and willing to convey the legal title of the land sold to York when the purchase price is paid; he sets out an uninterrupted adverse possession of more than twenty years of himself and those'under whom he claims.

York does not aver in any of his pleadings that Doyle’s title is in anywise defective, and no defect is either suggested or proved; it must, therefore, be regarded as sound.

York has failed to show either concealment or misrepresentation as to the previous sale of the two tracts of three acres each, or the sale of the eight-acre tract, and there is nothing in the case indicating that he does not get the full amount of acres which he purchased without those small tracts.

Wherefore, the judgments are affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1







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 AIMS Worldwide, Inc. a Nevada corporation (the Company), on Form 10-KSB for the annual period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Gerald Garcia Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to my knowledge:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and



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







/s/ Gerald Garcia Jr.

Gerald Garcia Jr.

Chief Executive Officer

Date: April 15, 2004
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

January 5, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

JOHN CHARLES FLETCHER, 

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 09-6284

(D.C. No. 5:09-CR-00021-M-1)

ORDER

Before KELLY, HARTZ, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.

Defendant John Fletcher appeals the district court’s September 28, 2009 Order entered

in his criminal case that granted Defendant’s unopposed motion for psychiatric examination.

Under Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i), the ten-day deadline for filing a notice of appeal

in this criminal case expired on Tuesday, October 13, 2009. See Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(3).

Defendant filed a pro se notice of appeal in the district court on December 10, 2009, which

was well beyond the ten-day deadline. Although non-compliance with the time limit in Rule

4(b)(1)(A)(i) is not considered jurisdictional, the United States has properly raised the

timeliness issue by filing a motion to dismiss and has requested dismissal of the appeal. See

United States v. Garduno, 506 F.3d 1287, 1290-91 (10th Cir. 2007).

Appellate Case: 09-6284 Document: 01018342524 Date Filed: 01/05/2010 Page: 1
-2-

Accordingly, the United States’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The appeal is

DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court,

Elisabeth A. Shumaker, Clerk

Kathleen T. Clifford

Attorney - Deputy Clerk

Appellate Case: 09-6284 Document: 01018342524 Date Filed: 01/05/2010 Page: 2
<PAGE>




                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

                        REPORT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS ON
                          FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULE

TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF HARRIS INTERACTIVE INC.

Our audits of the consolidated financial statements referred to in our report
dated July 25, 2003 appearing in the 2003 Annual Report on Form 10-K, also
included an audit of the financial statement schedule listed in Item 15(a)(2) of
this Form 10-K. In our opinion, this financial statement schedule presents
fairly, in all material respects, the information set forth therein when read in
conjunction with the related consolidated financial statements.





                        /S/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

                        Rochester, New York
                        July 25, 2003






















                                       1
National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

(2) NASA contracts sourced in the state in FY21; see FY21 NASA Economic Impact Report (3) Categories are not additive. For more information on FY21 Sample Obligations, please visit: NASA Acquisition Internet Service (NAIS)

(1) For more information please visit: Value of NASA 

NASA Overall State Impact(1)

• Jobs Supported 48

• Economic Output $8,464,000 

• State Tax Revenue $253,000 

Moon to Mars Campaign State Impacts

• Jobs Supported 3

• Economic Output $511,000 

• State Tax Revenue $16,000 

Investments in Climate Change Research & 

Technology State Impacts

• Jobs Supported 18

• Economic Output $3,175,000 

• State Tax Revenue $98,000 

Sample Obligations(3)

Business $943,437 

• Other Than Small Business $0 

• Small Business $943,437 

 – 8(A) Program $0 

 – Economically Disadvantaged Women 

 Owned Small Business $0 

 – Historically Underutilized Business 

 (HUBZone) $124,999 

 – Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small

 Business $0 

 – Small Business Innovative Research $879,057 

 – Small Disadvantaged Business $189,379 

 – Veteran Owned Small Business $64,380 

 – Woman Owned Small Business $0 

 – Small Business Only $0 

Educational $3,128,568 

Government $0 

Non-profit Institutions $0 

Leading State-based NASA Business 

Contractors

Nanomatronix, LLC $754,058 

WattGlass, Inc. $124,999 

Stem Resources LLC $64,380 

Leading State-based NASA Education Funding 

University of Arkansas $3,128,568 

Space Grant Consortium 

University of Arkansas at Little Rock $800,000 

ARKANSAS

FY21 State Procurement Investments (2) $2.9 M
For more information about the

Economic Impact Report

for your state, go to:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NASA Headquarters

300 E Street, SW

Washington, DC 20546

www.nasa.gov/centers

www.nasa.gov

James Webb Space Telescope

Cycle 1 Hours of Access

NASA Astronauts

(Former)

Richard Covey

Scott Parazynski

There are 3 NASA federal jobs and 30* contractors in the state 

of Arkansas. 

For every NASA federal job located in Arkansas, an additional 

15** jobs are supported in the state economy. For every million 

dollars’ worth of economic output generated by NASA federal 

jobs, an additional $4.9** million worth of output is sustained 

throughout the state economy.

* Indirect effects are the purchases of goods and services by 

government agencies and private sector contractors, as well as by 

the industries that supply them.

** Multiplier based on IMPLAN Input Output (I-O) model. To learn more, 

please visit: https://blog.implan.com/understanding-implan-multipliers

ARKANSAS

48

NASA Jobs

Supported

Two Arkansas suppliers contributed to NASA’s Artemis 

program. An example of the state’s contributions is the 

electrical cables and harnesses for NASA’s Orion Spacecraft.

A concept design of a crew transportation vehicle (CTV) for 

Artemis crewed missions.

Arkansas Institutions

30.3

Hours
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-0227

_____________________________

GREG D. MCFARLANE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County.

William E. Davis, Judge.

January 16, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROWE, RAY, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant; Greg D. McFarlane, 

pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Brooke Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for 

Appellee.
REMUNERATION REVIEW


                              For: Richard Justice


                          Date effective: 1 August 1999


Base Salary          $129,000      p.a.

Allowances            $48,000      $24k for Vehicle
                                   $24k for home and office use etc
                    ---------
Fixed Portion        $177,000


Variable Pay          $30,000      100% on BKI group achievement of NPAT budget
     (paid 1/4ly)
                    ---------
Sub Total            $207,000

OTE Bonus             $10,000      Paid only on BKI group annual NPAT budget
                                   achieved
                    ---------                            ($2m CAD to 31/3/2000)
TOTAL                $217,000      p.a.
                    =========


In addition an "over-achieve" bonus is available if the Group Net Profit After
Tax exceeds $3m CAD. 15% of the excess profits above the budgeted level will be
allocated to the executive team in proportion to the respective fixed of each
person's package.


Next review proposed to be effective 1 August 2000.



Accepted: /s/  R. Justice
          -----------------------


Date:     28/10/99
#### Forrest DARBY, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. US DEPT OF DEFENSE, et al., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 02-16125.

D.C. No. CV-00-00661-RLH/LRL.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 24, 2003.*

Decided Sept. 10, 2003.

Forrest Darby, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Barbara L. Herwig, Esq., Freddi Lip-stein, Esq., Vincent M. Garvey, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before CHOY, FARRIS, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Forest Darby appeals the district court’s summary judgment for defendants. The district court determined that the state secrets privilege invoked by the Department of Defense precluded litigation on Darby’s First and Fifth Amendment claims. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and, upon de novo review, we affirm.

*814The parties are familiar with the background facts and proceedings, which need not be recited.

After this court examined *in camera*the materials that the district court previously-reviewed *in camera,*we affirm the finding of the district court for the reasons given in its order dated March 4, 2002. Because the state secrets privilege was properly invoked, the information covered by the privilege cannot be considered. *See Kasza v. Browner,*133 F.3d 1159, 1166-69 (9th Cir.1998). Therefore, Darby’s claims based upon the First Amendment and Fifth Amendment fail.

Darby argues that he is entitled to a hearing pursuant to Executive Orders 10865 and 12958. The district court correctly determined that Executive Order 10865 applies to the denial or revocation of security clearance classifications, and does not apply to the denial of access to a military base. Furthermore, Executive Order 12958 prescribes a uniform system for classifying, safeguarding, and declassifying national security information, and does not apply to the denial of access to a military base.

Darby argues that the district court erred in permitting certain redactions in two internal Department of Defense e-mail memos that Darby obtained pursuant to his requests under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). The redaction in the e-mails, which were prepared in the pre-decisional phase of the Department of Defense investigation, was permissible under Exemption 5 of the FOIA, which exempts disclosure of an agency’s deliberative process, and Exemption 7(C) of the FOIA, which protects the names of non-government individuals interviewed during a government investigation. 5 U.S.C. § § 552(b)(5), 552(b)(7)(C).

We have considered Darby’s remaining arguments and additional citations and find them unpersuasive.. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### ROBERT E. OLSEN v. AIRCO, INC.

June 19, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
Exhibit 99.1



CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of Toyota Motor
Corporation, a Japanese corporation (the Company), does hereby certify that, to such officers knowledge:



|1. |  | The accompanying Annual Report of the Company on Form 20-F for the period ended March 31, 2003 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|-- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. |  | Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|-- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/    HIROSHI
OKUDAName:

Hiroshi OkudaTitle:

Chairman of the BoardDate:

July 31, 2003




By:

/s/    RYUJI
ARAKIName:

Ryuji ArakiTitle:

Executive Vice President, Member of the BoardDate:

July 31, 2003






(A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Toyota Motor Corporation and will be retained by Toyota Motor Corporation and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.)
Exhibit 11

OURPETS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE

For the years ended December 31, 2008 and December 31, 2007



|                                                                                    |  |      |            |   |      |   |            |  
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ---- | ---------- | - | ---- | - | ---------- | -
|                                                                                    |  | 2008 |            |   | 2007 |  
|Net income (loss)                                                                   |  | $    | (1,728,198 | ) |      | $ | 186,886    |  
|Preferred Stock dividend requirements                                               |  |      | (27,720    | ) |      |   | (72,600    | )
|                                                                                    |  |      |            |   |      |   |            |  
|Net income (loss) attributable to common stockholders                               |  | $    | (1,755,918 | ) |      | $ | 114,286    |  
|                                                                                    |  |      |            |   |      |   |            |  
|Weighted average number of common and dilutive common equivalent shares outstanding |  |      | 15,257,050 |   |      |   | 17,680,760 |  
|                                                                                    |  |      |            |   |      |   |            |  
|Net income (loss) per common share                                                  |  | $    | (0.12      | ) |      | $ | 0.01       |  
|                                                                                    |  |      |            |   |      |   |            |
##### 



Exhibit 12.1 Sify Limited
Certification of Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to Section 302 of
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 I, R. Ramaraj, Chief Executive Officer and Managing Director of Sify Limited, certify
that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Sify Limited;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of
the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the
period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented
in this report;4.
    
    The companys other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) for the company and have:  a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
that material information relating to the company, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the companys disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosures and controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by
this report based on such evaluation; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the companys internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual
report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,
the companys internal control over financial reporting; and  5.
    
    The companys other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the companys auditors
and the audit committee of the companys board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely
to adversely affect the companys ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the companys internal control over
financial reporting. Date: June 30, 2005
    /s/ R. RamarajR RamarajChief Executive Officer
and Managing Director