alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT
32.2


CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with this annual report
of Profire Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended March
31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"),
I, Andrew Limpert , 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.











Date:
            June
      29, 2010
            
            By:
            /s/
      Andrew LimpertAndrew
      LimpertChief
      Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT 32.2****CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, theundersigned officer of Xenonics Holdings, Inc (the “Company”) hereby certifies that, to the best ofher knowledge:     (i) the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the fiscal year ended September30, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and     (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.        Dated:  December 14, 2006 /s/ Donna G. Lee        Donna G. Lee        Chief Financial Officer
Order entered October 9 , 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 19
- 00833
- CV TSM DEVELOPMENT, LLC , Appellant

V. PLANO ICE HOUSE, LLC , Appellee On Appeal from the 36 6th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 366
- 05099
- 2017



### O RDER Before the Court is appellant’s October 3, 2019 opposed motion to extend time to file its opening brief

. We GRANT the motion and ORDER appellant’s opening brief be filed no later than November 4, 2019

.
/s/ BILL WHITEHILL JUSTICE
**Exhibit 32.1**
  **SECTION
1350 CERTIFICATION**
  The
undersigned hereby certifies that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Trinity
Partners Acquisition Company Inc. (the “Registrant”) for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the “Report”), 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 Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Registrant.
  Dated: March 31,
2005
   ****/s/ Lawrence
    BursteinLawrence BursteinPresident
      and Treasurer(Principal
      Executive and Financial Officer)
U.S. District Court for the Northern District Of Illinois

Attorney Appearance Form

Case Title: Case Number: 

An appearance is hereby filed by the undersigned as attorney for:

Attorney name (type or print): 

Firm:

Street address: 

City/State/Zip:

Bar ID Number: Telephone Number: 

 Yes No

 Yes No

 Yes No

 Yes No

(See item 3 in instructions)

Email Address:

Are you acting as lead counsel in this case?

Are you acting as local counsel in this case?

Are you a member of the court’s trial bar?

If this case reaches trial, will you act as the trial attorney? 

If this is a criminal case, check your status. Retained Counsel

Appointed Counsel 

If appointed counsel are you 

a Federal Defender

CJA Panel Attorney

______________________________________________________________________

In order to appear before this ourt an attorney must either be a member in good standing of this ourt’s

general bar or be granted leave to appear pro hac vice as provided for by local rules 83.12 through 83.14.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Under 28 . . §1746, this

statement under perjury has the same force and effect as a sworn statement made under oath.

Executed on

Attorney signature: S/

(Use electronic signature if the appearance form is filed electronically.)

Revised 8/1/2015

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 3 Filed: 06/26/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:36
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Loura Hall","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/loura-hallnasa-gov\/","title":"Voleak Roeum","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"9V8AiAeVSd\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/voleak-roeum\/\">Voleak Roeum<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/voleak-roeum\/embed\/#?secret=9V8AiAeVSd\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Voleak Roeum” — NASA\" data-secret=\"9V8AiAeVSd\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/voleak-roeum-.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":750}
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Karl B. Hille","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/khille\/","title":"NASA Engineer Earns Goddard Innovation Award for Sun-studying Photon Sieves","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"6sHXfMKfzi\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people-of-nasa\/goddard-people\/denis-innovation-award\/\">NASA Engineer Earns Goddard Innovation Award for Sun-studying Photon Sieves<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people-of-nasa\/goddard-people\/denis-innovation-award\/embed\/#?secret=6sHXfMKfzi\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA Engineer Earns Goddard Innovation Award for Sun-studying Photon Sieves” — NASA\" data-secret=\"6sHXfMKfzi\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/dennis231114-00001-copy.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":801}
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT DANIEL DE JESUS GUER R A REGALADO, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 12-72191 Age n c y No. A088-448-871 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d

M ay 13, 2015 ** B e fore : LEAVY, C ALLAHAN, a nd M . SM ITH, C i rc uit Judge s. Danie l De Je sus Gue rra -R e ga la do, a native and c itiz e n of El Sa lva d or, pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ orde r dism issing his a ppe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s de c ision de ny ing his a pplic at ion for withholding of rem o v a l a nd prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Against Torture



# FIL ED M AY21 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).(“ C AT” ). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w for substa ntia l e vide nc e the a ge nc y ’ s fa c tua l findings, W ak k ary v . Holde r , 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th C ir. 2009), a

n d we de ny

the pe t ition for re vie w. In support of his withholding of re m ova l c l a im , Gue rra -R e ga la do a rgue d to the a ge nc y that he e sta

b l ishe d pa st pe rse c ution a nd a fe ar of future pe rse c ution from ga ngs on a c c ount of his me m be rship in thre e pa

rtic u la r soc ia l groups, a ll re late d to Gue rra -R e ga la do’ s fam ilia l tie s to his ga ng-m e m be r unc l e . The re c ord doe s not c om

pe l the c onc lusion tha

t Gue rra -R e g a la do e sta

blishe d pa st pe rse c ution or a c l e ar proba

bility of future pe rse c ution on a c c ount of his me m be rship in a

ny of the s e thre e soc ia l groups. Se eZe tino v . Holde r , 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th C ir. 2010) (“ An a lie n’ s de sire to be fre e from ha ra ssm e nt by

c rim ina ls m otiva

t e d by the ft or ra ndom viole nc e by

ga ng m e m be rs be ars no ne xus to a

prote c te d ground.” ); se ealso Parussimov a v . Muk ase y , 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th C ir. 2009) (“ [t] he R e a l ID Ac t re quire s tha t a prote c te d ground re pre se nt ‘ one c e ntra l re a son’ for an a sy lum a p plic ant's pe rse c ution” ). Thus, Gue rra -R e ga l a do’ s withholding of re m ova l c la im

fa ils. Gue rra -R e ga la do doe s not m ake any argum e nts c ha lle nging thea g e nc y ’ s de nia l of his C A T c la im . Se eMartine z-Se rrano v . IN

S, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th

1 2 - 7 2 1 9 1 2C ir. 1996) (“ Issue s ra ise d in a brie f that a

re not supporte d by

argum e nt a

re de e m e d a ba ndone d.” ). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

1 2 - 7 2 1 9 1 3
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Eluid Lira

, * From the 259 th District Court

of Jones County,

Trial Court No. 0 12008

.
Vs. No. 11

- 20

- 00 14 8

- CR * March 25 , 20 2 1

The State of Texas

, * Opinion by Bailey

, C. J. (P anel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter , J. , and Wright, S.C.J., sitting by assignment ) (Williams, J., not participating)

Both the opinion and judgment of this court dated March 11, 2021, and entered

in the minutes of this court at Volume 43 are withdrawn. The opinion and judgment of this court dated March 25, 2021

, designating the opinion as published

, are substituted therefor.

11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Eluid Lira, * From the 259th District Court

of Jones County,

Trial Court No. 012008

.
Vs. No. 11

- 20

- 00148

- CR * March 25, 2021

The State of Texas, * Opinion by Bailey, C.J. (P anel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter , J. , and Wright, S.C.J., sitting by assignment ) (Williams, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial

court for fu rther proceedings.
1

The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1847

___________

Jessie J. Johnson, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Harvey Yates, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: March 27, 2007

Filed: March 28, 2007

___________

Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jessie Johnson appeals the district court’s1

 dismissal of his complaint against

Harvey Yates, a judge in the Circuit Court of Phillips County, Arkansas. Johnson

alleged that Judge Yates knew that a defendant in Johnson’s state-court lawsuit was

lying to the court at a hearing, but failed to hold the defendant in contempt of court.

We agree with the district court that Judge Yates was protected by absolute judicial

immunity. See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991) (per curiam).

Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF NextGen 1.7.1.1

Eastern Division

Demetrius Johnson

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−04156

Honorable Sara L. Ellis

Reynaldo Guevara, et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Thursday, June 1, 2023:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis: Telephone conference held.

Parties' joint motion to resolve disputes pertaining to the deposition of Plaintiff's expert

Dr. Nancy Steblay [252] is granted as stated on the record. Unopposed motion for leave to

file under seal [253] is granted. Defendants' unopposed motion to extend expert discovery

schedule [255] is granted. Defendants granted (4) four hours to depose Dr. Steblay. As

discussed, the Plaintiffs are required to produce data to Defendants by 6/8/2023. The

Court modifies the summary judgment briefing schedule: Defendants' motion for

summary judgment is due by 11/3/2023; response by 12/4/2023; reply by 1/5/2024.

Ruling date set for 1/10/2024 is stricken and reset to 5/1/2024 at 9:30 a.m. Defendant's

response to Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment is due by 6/12/2023;

Plaintiff's reply is due by 6/19/2023. Ruling date set for 8/1/2023 at 9:30 a.m. to stand.

Attorneys/Parties should appear for the hearing by calling the Toll−Free Number: (866)

434−5269, Access Code: 8087837. Throughout the telephonic hearing, each speaker will

be expected to identify themselves for the record before speaking. Please note that the

conference call−in will be used by all cases that are on the court's calendar for the said

date, therefore counsel must be in a quiet area while on the line and must have the

telephone muted until your case is called. Members of the public and media will be able to

call in to listen to this hearing (use toll free number). Persons granted remote access to

proceedings are reminded of the general prohibition against photographing, recording, and

rebroadcasting court proceedings. Violation of these prohibitions may result in sanctions,

including removal of court−issued media credentials, restricted entry to future hearings,

denial of entry to future hearings, or any other sanctions deemed necessary by the Court.

Mailed notice(rj, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 258 Filed: 06/01/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:6097
refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 258 Filed: 06/01/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:6098
#### Frederick Epeye NGUEA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-1400.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 17, 2004.

Decided Dec. 20, 2004.

Danielle Beach-Oswald, Noto *&*Oswald, PC, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. Wendtland, Assistant Director, Saul Greenstein, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

*258Before LUTTIG and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Frederick Epeye Nguea, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) affirming, without opinion, the immigration judge’s denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.

In his petition for review, Nguea challenges the immigration judge’s determination that he failed to establish his eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” *INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 483-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Nguea fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that he seeks.

Additionally, we uphold the immigration judge’s denial of Nguea’s request for withholding of removal. “Because the burden of proof for withholding of removal is higher than for asylum — even though the facts that must be proved are the same — an applicant who is ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).” *Camara v. Ashcroft,*378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir.2004). Because Nguea fails to show that he is eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the higher standard for withholding of removal.*

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We also deny Nguea’s motion for acceptance of supplemental documentation and his motion for stay of removal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED*

*

 Nguea does not challenge the denial of his request for protection under the Convention Against Torture in his petition for review.
ANSI/NIST-ITL WORKSHOP 

JANUARY 28-30, 2013 

PRESENTED BY: BILL REDMAN 

MR. 

Military Applications of 

Biometrics 
Conceptual Framework 

Peace Conflict Continuum Wa

Major Operations and Campaigns 

Military Engagement, Security Cooperation, and Deterren

Crisis Response and Limited Contingency Operations 

Biometrics have utility across the conflict contand range of military operations 
Security Cooperation 

Peace Conflict Continuum Wa

Major Operations and Campaigns 

Military Engagement, Security Cooperation, and Deterren

Crisis Response and Limited Contingency Operations 
Military Engagement, Security Cooperation, and Deterrenc

Crisis Response 

Peace Conflict Continuum Wa

Major Operations and Campaigns 

Crisis Response and Limited Contingency Operations 
Cooperation, and Deterrenc

Peace Conflict Continuum Wa

Major Operations and Campaigns 

Military Engagement, Security 

Crisis Response and Limited Contingency Operations 

Limited Contingency 
Major Operations and Campaigns 

Military Engagement, Security Cooperation, and Deterren

Crisis Response and Limited Contingency Operations 

Major Operations 

Peace Conflict Continuum Wa

IED Recovered 

IED Detonated Weapons Cache Seized 

Detained for 

Suspicious Activity 

? 

Detained on Site 

In US as Tourist 

? 

In military 
Campaigns

Military Engagement, Security Cooperation, and Deterren

Campaigns 

Peace Conflict Continuum Wa

Major Operations and 

Crisis Response and Limited Contingency Operations 

Aisne-Marne Cemetery: 

6,610 graves. 4,097 of them 

unidentified 

Each Party to a conflict is requthe persons under its jurisdictliable to become prisoners of widentity card showing the ownfirst names, rank, army, regimor serial number or equivalenand date of birth. The identity furthermore, bear the signatuprints, or both, of the owner...Convention 
Generalities of Biometric Systems for M

Uses 

• Compatible with US military communication 

system(s) 

• Portable
#### William Pickersgill, Jr. v. Francis W. Riker.

*Assignment*— Compulsory *execution of trust.*

Where an assignee for the benefit of creditors holds the assigned property during the period allowed him to file his bond, and then instead of filing it, relinquishes his trust and at once attaches the goods as a creditor, other creditors over whom he has thereby obtained an undue advantage, should proceed under Act 198 of 1879 to compel a proper execution of the trust, and the attachment proceedings will meanwhile be stayed.

Appeal from Calhoun. (Hooker, J.)

Jan. 16.

Jan. 18.

Injunction bill, to restrain defendant from proceeding to enforce an attachment lien against a stock of goods which had been assigned to him by his father for the benefit of the latter’s creditors, but which he had himself levied upon as a creditor after holding them for over ten days as assignee and then renouncing the trust without having filed his assignee’s bond. The bill was dismissed below, but the injunction left in force until an appeal could be taken and decision had thereon. Complainant appeals.

Decree changed.

*A.*M. *Culver*for complainant.

*Rienzi Loud*for defendant

Marston, J.

Agreeing with the complainant that defendant obtained an undue advantage, yet following the cases of *Fuller v. Hasbrouch*46 Mich. 78, and *Coots v. Radford*47 Mich. 87, we are of opinion the complainant should proceed under the statute to compel a proper execution of the trust. If the relief asked for is granted in the present case it will result in the present complainant’s obtaining a preference, and thus perhaps compel other proceedings to be commenced to set aside the same. It is better that the entire matter be disposed of in one case for the benefit of all the creditors.

*99The cause will be remanded to the court below, where a reasonable time may be allowed the complainant to bring in such other parties as he may be advised, and amend his bill of complaint. The proofs already in will stand and further may be taken should any of the parties desire. The attachment proceedings on the part of the defendant will be stayed during the progress of the cause. Costs to abide the result.

The other Justices concurred.