alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
##### 



1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Argo-Tech Corporation;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 registrant as of, and for, the periods
presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer 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 registrant 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 registrant, 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 registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure 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 registrants internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that
has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of registrant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 registrant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 registrants internal control over
financial reporting.
  By:
    
    /s/ John S. GloverJohn S. GloverVice President and CFO
 21
Case 2:15-cr-01471-SMM Document 3 Filed 10/02/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-cr-01471-SMM Document 3 Filed 10/02/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-cr-01471-SMM Document 3 Filed 10/02/15 Page 3 of 3
NO. 07-04-0109-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL D

	APRIL 20, 2004

	______________________________

	IN THE INTEREST OF T.R.M. AND H.S.M., CHILDREN

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 223RD DISTRICT COURT OF GRAY COUNTY;

	NO. 31036; HONORABLE LEE WATERS, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before QUINN and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.

	MEMORANDUM OPINION

	Appellant Shannon Luster, appearing pro se, filed with the District Clerk of Gray County, in Cause No. 31036 pending in the 223rd District Court of that county, a document entitled Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 306a(5) Motion. The District Clerk forwarded the motion to this court, considering that it could be interpreted as a bona fide attempt to invoke this court’s jurisdiction.  See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615 (Tex. 1997). While the motion did not meet the requirements for a notice of appeal, it contained a notation “Notice of Appeal” at the bottom of each page. The relief requested in the motion was of a nature to be addressed by the trial court, not an appellate court.  The motion did not state the date of the judgment or order appealed from or state clearly that appellant desired to appeal.  Tex. R. App. Proc. 25.1(d).  Additional information from the District Clerk indicated that no appealable order of the type referred to in the motion had been entered by the trial court in that cause number, and further indicated that the trial court had addressed the relief expressly requested in the motion.

	The motion was received by this court on March 11, 2004.  By letter dated March 26, 2004, the clerk of this court directed appellant to file, within ten days, a response stating the date of the judgment or order appealed from and containing the information required by Rule 25.1(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Appellant was advised that failure to respond could result in dismissal of the appeal.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3.  That date has passed and no response has been received.

	All parties have had more than ten days’ notice that dismissal could result from appellant’s failure to comply with the rules and this court’s orders. Tex. R. App. Proc. 42.3(c).  Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 

							James T. Campbell

							        Justice
NO. 07-10-00077-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL D

JULY 20, 2010

STEFAN KLIMAJ, APPELLANT

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

 FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

NO. 2008-449,836; HONORABLE LARRY B. "RUSTY" LADD, JUDGE

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.

**ON MOTION TO DISMISS**

Appellant Stefan Klimaj has filed a motion to dismiss his appeal and a document entitled “Withdrawal of Notice of Appeal.”  By the latter document, appellant prays for dismissal of his appeal.  Both documents are signed by appellant and his attorney.  Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a).  

No decision of this court having been delivered to date, we grant the motion to dismiss.  Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.  No motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith.

								James T. Campbell

									Justice

Do not publish.

2
#### Phillips *v.*State.

Opinion delivered July 7, 1930.

*Hal L. Norwood,*Attorney General, and *Robert F. Smith,*Assistant, for appellee.

Hart, C. J.

Noel Phillips prosecutes this appeal from a judgment convicting him of seduction. It is conceded, and the testimony of the prosecuting witness established the crime, but it is insisted that there is not sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict because there is no corroboration of the testimony of the prosecuting witness. In such cases before conviction can be had, it is necessary for the testimony of the prosecutrix to- be corroborated both as to the promise of marriage and the intercourse. *Brooks*v. *State,*126 Ark. 98 ; *McMaster*v. *State,*163 Ark. 194 ; *71
      *Dooms*v. *State,*164 Ark. 50 ; *Taylor*v. *State,*174 Ark. 800 ; *Sloan*v. *State,*172 Ark. 44.

The evidence shows that a child was born to the prosecuting witness on the 6th of February, 1929. Other evidence than her own testimony tended to show that for about a year before that time the defendant had been keeping company with the prosecutrix and that she had ceased to go with other boys. She was also making preparations for her wedding. Her father had the defendant arrested after he discovered his daughter’s condition, and the defendant, through the deputy sheriff, made a proposition to the father that he would marry his daughter if the father would cause him to be released. A physician also testified that the defendant came to him with a proposition to cause a miscarriage of the prosecuting witness.

Under the authorities above cited these facts were sufficient to corroborate the testimony of the prosecuting witness. We have carefully examined the record. It shows that the defendant had a fair trial, and that his theory of the case was fully covered by the instructions given by the court. The instructions asked by him and refused were fully covered by those'given. We find no prejudicial error in the record, and the judgment will therefore be affirmed.
#### The State *v.*Pearce.

if a man have criminal intercourse with a married woman, the offence is adultery and not fornication.

*Wednesday, May*12.

ERROR to the *Johnson*Circuit Court.

Blackford, J.

Indictment against the defendant for living in open and notorious fornication with *Elizabeth Shaffer.*Plea, not guilty. On the trial, the defendant proved that he was *319married to the woman named in the indictment. Witnesses were then offered, on the part of the state, to show that this woman had a husband living at the time the defendant married her, and that this fact was known to the defendant at the time, of his marriage. This testimony was objected to, and the objection sustained. Verdict'and judgment for the defendant. There is no error in these proceedings. The evidence rejected might have proved the defendant guilty of adultery, but it could not have proved him guilty of fornication. Jacob’s Law Die. Tit. Adultery. The question whether the defendant could be again tried, had the testimony been improperly rejected, need not be examined.

Wick, for the state.

*Fletcher*and Brozan, for the defendant.

*Per*Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed with costs.

(1)

 If a man be indicted as an accessary to a felony, and he be proved to be guilty as a principal, he must be acquitted, because the minor offence is merged in the greater, R. v. Gordon, 1 Leach, 515.—Arch. C. L. 449. So, if a man be indicted’for a misdemeanor in burning his own house which was adjoining other houses, and it be proved that, in consequence of the burning of the defendant’s house, the adjoining houses were burnt, the defendant must be acquitted; the misdemeanor being metged in the felony. Isaac’s case, 2 Russ. on C. 1659.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 March 20, 2019 d0313

Order 

Clerk

March 20, 2019

158169

ARTHUR CHAPMAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 158169

COA: 335678

Wayne CC: 15-010270-NO

OFFICER D. MACK,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 19, 2018 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral 

argument on the application. MCR 7.305(H)(1).

The appellant shall file a supplemental brief within 42 days of the date of this 

order addressing: (1) whether the appellant’s gross negligence claim should have been 

dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, MCR 

2.116(C)(8); and (2) whether the appellant’s intentional tort claims were barred by 

governmental immunity because there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding 

whether the appellee acted in good faith and without malice. In addition to the brief, the 

appellant shall electronically file an appendix conforming to MCR 7.312(D)(2). In the 

brief, citations to the record must provide the appendix page numbers as required by 

MCR 7.312(B)(1). The appellee shall file a supplemental brief within 21 days of being 

served with the appellant’s brief. The appellee shall also electronically file an appendix, 

or in the alternative, stipulate to the use of the appendix filed by the appellant. A reply, if 

any, must be filed by the appellant within 14 days of being served with the appellee’s 

brief. The parties should not submit mere restatements of their application papers.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000
<CURRENCY>                                 U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          24,204
<SECURITIES>                                   172,739
<RECEIVABLES>                                  652,456
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (1,538)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,140
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 854,001
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,475
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           40,000
<PREFERRED>                                      1,000
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                     811,525
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   854,001
<SALES>                                         14,154
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,154
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   925
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,229
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,229
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  130,130
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  130,130
        

</TABLE>
Case 2:15-cr-01541-DGC Document 4 Filed 11/17/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-cr-01541-DGC Document 4 Filed 11/17/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-cr-01541-DGC Document 4 Filed 11/17/15 Page 3 of 3
EXHIBIT 99.3


Exhibit 99.1 CERTIFICATIONS UNDER SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of  2002,  each  of the
undersigned   certifies   that  this  annual  report  fully  complies  with  the
requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934
and that information contained in this periodic report fairly represents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of CalPetro
Tankers (IOM) Limited.



                                                      /s/ Tor Olav Troim
                                                      -----------------------
                                                      Tor Olav Troim
                                                      President
                                                      (Chief Executive Officer)



                                                      /s/ Kate Blankenship
                                                      -----------------------
                                                      Kate Blankenship
                                                      Director
                                                      (Chief Financial Officer)


                                                      Date:  June 30, 2003
#### Johnson, Assignee, *v.*Collins and Another.

IN a suit by the assignee of an obligation for the payment of money against the obligor, the defendant, under the plea of payment with a set-off, proved payments to the obligee before the assignment to an amount exceeding the obligation: *Held,*that the defendant could not have a verdict for the overplus; such payments affecting the. assignee no further than to bar his recovery.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Richard Di Donato, Individually and On 

Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Insys Therapeutics, Inc.; et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-16-00302-PHX-NVW

ORDER

Pursuant to Lead Plaintiff’s Consent Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Insys 

Therapeutics, Inc., from this Action With Prejudice, Subject to Provision of Class Notice 

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) (Doc. 311) and Notice of No Objections to 

Lead Plaintiff’s Consent Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Insys Therapeutics, Inc., from this 

Action With Prejudice (Doc. 337) and for good cause shown,

IT IS ORDERED granting Lead Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 311).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing Insys Therapeutics, Inc., with prejudice.

Dated this 14th day of May, 2020.

Case 2:16-cv-00302-NVW Document 338 Filed 05/15/20 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 99.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of EFC Bancorp, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report), I, JamesJ. Kovac, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of myknowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.                                       TheReport fully complies 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 as of and forthe period covered by the Report.

 

 
|   | By:                     | /s/ James J. Kovac |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------------------|--------|
|   | James J. Kovac          |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |
|   | May 14, 2003            |

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 hasbeen provided to EFC Bancorp, Inc. and will be retained by EFC Bancorp, Inc.and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 206 (Friday, October 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63625-63626]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25494]


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

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Notice

October 22, 2014.

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m., Wednesday, October 29, 2014.

PLACE: The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004 (entry from F Street 
entrance).

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The Commission will consider and act upon the 
following in open session: Secretary of Labor v. Black Beauty Coal Co., 
Docket Nos. LAKE 2008-378-R, et al. (Issues include whether the 
Administrative Law Judge erred in concluding that the resumption of 
mining in an area following a roof fall

[[Page 63626]]

in that area constituted a violation and whether an on-shift 
examination of another area was required.)
    Any person attending this meeting who requires special 
accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language 
interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. 
Subject to 29 CFR 2706.150(a)(3) and 2706.160(d).

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Emogene Johnson (202) 434-9935/
(202) 708-9300 for TDD Relay/1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

Emogene Johnson,
Administrative Assistant.
[FR Doc. 2014-25494 Filed 10-22-14; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6735-01-P
#### Ewing and Another *v.*Harris and Others.

In chancery.

*Saturday, June*6.

BILL in chancery to set aside a conveyance of real estate, executed to *Harris*by the other defendants. The bill stated that the grantors, at the time the deed was executed, were indebted to the complainants in a certain sum of money, of *72which the grantee had notice; that the conveyance was without consideration, and was made by the grantors and received by the grantee, for the purpose of defrauding the complainants out demands. ^ was a^so staied that the complainants afterwards obtained judgments for the *debts before*a justice of the peace; took out executions thereon which were returned *nulla bona;*and filed transcripts of the judgments in the clerk’s office of the Circuit Court.

The answers denied all fraud; but the allegations of the bill, in the opinion of the Court, were sustained by the depositions.

*The Court*set aside the conveyance as fraudulent and void as to creditors.
EXHIBIT 32(a)

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 United Rentals, Inc. and United Rentals (North America),
Inc. (the Companies) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Michael J. Kneeland, Chief Executive Officer of the Companies, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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, as amended (15 U.S.C. 78m); and
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                          
|--------------------------
|/S/    MICHAEL J.
KNEELAND
|Michael J. Kneeland       
|Chief Executive Officer   

October 28, 2008

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version
of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Companies and will be retained by the Companies and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.