alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Asa Richards et al. v. Alexander Johnston.

*Damages to mill-owner from delaying logs.*

Damages for injury to a mill-owner by hindering him in June from getting logs down stream to supply bis mill, include also the resulting injury of keeping his mill idle during later months.

Error to Lapeer.

Submitted June 11-15.

Decided June 22.

Trespass on the case. Defendants bring error.

Affirmed.

*298*Moore & Bentley*and *W. W. & M. N. Stickney*for plaintiffs in error.

*Geer & Williams*for defendant in error.

Graves, J.

The parties are mill-owners on tbe Flinfe river, Jobnston being a short distance lower down than plaintiffs in error. It appears that tbe stream in tbe vicinity of tbe mills is not uniformly capable of floating logs when in its natural state during tbe summer months. In June, 18J9, Jobnston bad a large quantity of mill logs in tbe river above Richards’ mill which be needed to get down in season to supply tbe operations of bis mill, and be attempted to take them down in tbe forepart of that month, but failed. He complains in this action that be was prevented by means-of Richards’ dam and canal and personal interference, and that be was thereby damaged and chiefly by bis mill being forced to remain idle for tbe want of logs. He obtained a. verdict for damages and Richards brought error.

Several objections appear in tbe record in regard to evidence. They required that tbe grounds relied on should be explained; but this was omitted and we cannot say they afford any basis for charging error.

On tbe argument it was conceded that Jobnston was entitled to recover on account of tbe hindrance suffered in getting down logs in June ; but it was claimed that tbe substantial objection to tbe verdict was that tbe circuit judge allowed recovery for hindrance during July and August,, whereas during that period tbe use of tbe stream for running logs was excluded by want of water and hence that the-condition of tbe river at that time did not permit a right of' floatage nor give rise to any right in Jobnston to complain of obstructions thereto on tbe part of Richards.

This position appears to be a misapprehension of the-proceedings. There was evidence tending to show that Jobnston would have run down all tbe logs in June had it; not been for tbe interference of Richards, and tbe claim made was that tbe injury consisted, not in any interference, with tbe use of tbe stream in July and August, but in the; *299enforced idleness of the mill in these months by reason of the detention of the logs by what occurred in June.

No requests in regard to damages were made; neither was the charge on that subject excepted to and we discover no ground on which a charge of error in relation thereto-could be based. The jury were fairly instructed and there-is nothing to authorize any disturbance of the result.

The judgment is affirmed with costs.

The other Justices concurred.
Exhibit 10.12    December 29, 2008  Donald
R. Dancer  Dear
Don:  Reference
is made to the Severance Agreement, dated October 29, 2007,  entered into by and between you and
International Rectifier Corporation (the Severance Agreement).  The
purpose of this letter is to supplement the terms of the Severance Agreement to
include terms and conditions designed to make any payments pursuant to the
Severance Agreement compliant with Section 409A of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, as amended (including the Treasury Regulations and other
published guidance related thereto) (Section 409A).  Your
Severance Agreement is hereby modified as follows; capitalized terms used but
not defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Severance
Agreement:  1.             Severance.  Subject to the conditions of payment
described in Section 10 relating to specified employees, any Cash
Severance payable pursuant to Section 2(b) of the Severance Agreement
shall be paid in a cash lump sum on the 60thday following
your separation from service, provided you have promptly executed and
delivered (and not revoked) a Release Agreement within 50 days of your
termination; provided, however, that if you fail to execute and
deliver such release, or you revoke such release, you shall not be paid any
Cash Severance pursuant to the Severance Agreement.  For this purpose, a separation from service
shall be defined within the meaning of Treasury Regulation Section 1.409A-1(h)(1),
without regard to the optional alternative definitions available thereunder.  Except
as modified hereby, your Severance Agreement remains unmodified.  Please indicate your agreement with the
foregoing by signing where indicated below.  Regards,  INTERNATIONAL
  RECTIFIER CORPORATIONBy:Its:
   Assistant SecretaryAcknowledged
  and agreed:Donald
  R. DancerDate:
NIST Privacy Framework

An Enterprise Risk Management Tool 

CONTACT | privacyframework@nist.gov 

LEARN MORE | Visit www.nist.gov/privacyframework 

Why a Privacy Framework

The challenge 

It is a challenge to design, operate, 

or use technologies in ways that are 

mindful of diverse privacy needs in 

an increasingly connected and 

complex environment. Inside and 

outside the U.S., there are 

multiplying visions for how to 

address these challenges. 

Why good cybersecurity doesn’t 

solve it all 

While good cybersecurity practices

help manage privacy risk by

protecting people’s information,

privacy risks also can arise from how 

organizations collect, store, use, and

share this information to meet their

mission or business objective, as

well as how individuals interact with 

products and services. 

Addressing the privacy challenge 

The U.S. Department of Commerce

is developing a forward-thinking 

approach that supports innovation

and strong consumer privacy 

protections. The National Institute of 

Standards and Technology (NIST) is 

leading the development of a 

voluntary privacy framework as an

enterprise risk management tool for 

organizations while the National 

Telecommunications and 

Information Administration is leading 

the development of a set of privacy 

principles, and coordinating with the 

International Trade Administration to 

ensure consistency with international

policy objectives.

What is the NIST Privacy Framework 

• NIST aims to collaboratively develop the Privacy

Framework as a voluntary, enterprise-level tool

that could provide a catalog of privacy outcomes

and approaches to help organizations prioritize

strategies that create flexible and effective

privacy protection solutions, and enable

individuals to enjoy the benefits of innovative

technologies with greater confidence and trust.

• It should assist organizations to better manage

privacy risks within their diverse environments

rather than prescribing the methods for managing

privacy risk.

• The framework should also be compatible with

and support organizations’ ability to operate

under applicable domestic and international legal 

or regulatory regimes. 

NIST’s Collaborative Process 

• NIST has a long track record of successfully and

collaboratively working with the private sector

and federal agencies to develop guidelines and

standards. With experience in developing the

Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure

Cybersecurity (Cybersecurity Framework) and

extensive privacy expertise, NIST is well

positioned to lead the development of this

framework.

• NIST will model the approach for this framework

based on the successful, open, transparent, and

collective approach used to develop the

Cybersecurity Framework.

• NIST will convene and work with industry, civil

society groups, academic institutions, Federal

agencies, state, local, territorial, tribal, and

foreign governments, standard-setting

organizations, and others, conducting extensive

outreach through a series of workshops and

requests for public comment. 

FACT S HEET | September 2018
Exhibit
      32.2




**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF 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 the Quarterly Report of Composite Technology Corporation (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008, as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      Domonic J. Carney, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to
      18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002, that, to the best of my 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 result of operations of the
                Company.








/s/
                Domonic J. CarneyDomonic
                J. CarneyChief
                Financial Officer
Order entered April 7 , 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 15

- 00036

- CV

JOHN C. GOLFIS , ET AL. , Appellant s

V.

EDWARD “LANNY” HOULLION, INDIVIDUAL LY AND AS GENERAL PARTNER OF H OULLION FAMILY, L , ET AL. , Appellee s

O n Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 12

- 13053



### O RDER

We GRANT appellees’ April 4, 2016 third motion for an extension of time to file a brief.

Appellees shall file a brief by MAY 2, 2016 . We cautio n appellees that no further extension of

time will be granted absent extraordinary circumstances.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
Exhibit 13.1

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

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 on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003 of ABB Ltd (the "Company") as filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Commission") on the date hereof (the "Report") and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, I, Jürgen Dormann, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, that:

(1)    the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

|By:    |  | /s/JÜRGEN DORMANN       |  | 
|------ |  | ----------------------- |  | 
|Name:  |  | Jürgen Dormann          |  | 
|Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer |  | 
|Date:  |  | September 24, 2004      |  | 

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to ABB Ltd and will be retained by ABB Ltd and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
[Cite as State v. Charbeneau, 2015-Ohio-4532.]

 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

 TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO 

BUTLER COUNTY 

STATE OF OHIO, : 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2015-05-082 

: D E C I S I O N 

 - vs - 11/2/2015 

: 

 

MICHAEL L. CHARBENEAU, : 

 Defendant-Appellant. : 

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

Case No. CR2014-02-0257 

Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Government Services Center, 315 

High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for plaintiff-appellee 

Fred S. Miller, Baden & Jones Bldg., 246 High Street, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for defendantappellant 

 Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} This cause came on to be considered upon a notice of appeal, the transcript of 

the docket and journal entries, the transcript of proceedings and original papers from the 

Butler County Court of Common Pleas, and upon a brief filed by appellant's counsel. 

{¶ 2} Counsel for defendant-appellant, Michael L. Charbeneau, has filed a brief with 

this court pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), which (1) 
Butler CA2015-05-082 

indicates that a careful review of the record from the proceedings below fails to disclose any 

errors by the trial court prejudicial to the rights of appellant upon which an assignment of 

error may be predicated; (2) lists two potential errors "that might arguably support the 

appeal," Anders at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; (3) requests that this court review the record 

independently to determine whether the proceedings are free from prejudicial error and 

without infringement of appellant's constitutional rights; (4) requests permission to withdraw 

as counsel for appellant on the basis that the appeal is wholly frivolous; and (5) certifies that 

a copy of both the brief and motion to withdraw have been served upon appellant. 

{¶ 3} Having allowed appellant sufficient time to respond, and no response having 

been received, we have accordingly examined the record and find no error prejudicial to 

appellant's rights in the proceedings in the trial court. The motion of counsel for appellant 

requesting to withdraw as counsel is granted, and this appeal is dismissed for the reason that 

it is wholly frivolous. 

PIPER, P.J., RINGLAND and HENDRICKSON, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                             114,651
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      681,772
<ALLOWANCES>                                        (5,538)
<INVENTORY>                                        465,870
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,290,910
<PP&E>                                           1,773,996
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (1,268,356)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,207,694
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,027,608
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                         1,759,149
<OTHER-SE>                                      (1,068,447)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,207,694
<SALES>                                          1,265,801
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,265,801
<CGS>                                              948,645
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,334,749
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     5,419
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   2,072
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (76,439)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (76,439)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (76,439)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.01)


</TABLE>
##### 



Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (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.
 Name:
    
    /s/ Maria R. Scheker

Maria R. SchekerTitle:
    
    Chief Accounting OfficerDate:
    
    November 14, 2007
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kristian Lopez, Appellant.

[825 NYS2d 775]

Appeal by the defendant from (1) an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Morgenstern, J.), rendered March 23, 2004, revoking a sentence of conditional discharge previously imposed by the same court upon a finding that he had violated a condition thereof, and resentencing him upon his previous conviction of criminal contempt in the second degree under Queens County indictment No. 58042/03, upon his plea of guilty, and (2) a judgment of the same court, also rendered March 23, 2004, convicting him of resisting arrest under Queens County indictment No. 13913/04, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the amended judgment and the judgment are affirmed.

The defendant’s contentions regarding the factual sufficiency and the voluntariness of his pleas of guilty to criminal contempt in the second degree and resisting arrest, and the court’s alleged failure to conduct a hearing with regard to his violation of the terms of his conditional discharge, are improperly raised on the appeal from the amended judgment *(see People v Satiro,*28 AD3d 497 [2006]; *People v Christie,*236 AD2d 482 [1997]; *People v Smith,*203 AD2d 495 [1994]), or are unpreserved for appellate review since the defendant never sought to withdraw or set aside his pleas of guilty in the court of first instance and did not deny his violation of the conditional discharge or seek a hearing with respect thereto *(see People v Toxey,*86 NY2d 725 [1995]; *764
      *People v Lopez,*71 NY2d 662 [1988]; *People v Pellegrino,*60 NY2d 636 [1983]; *People v Thompson,*28 AD3d 498 [2006]; *People v Bevins,*27 AD3d 572 [2006]; *People v Matos,*27 AD3d 485 [2006]; *People v Zaborowski,*16 AD3d 1058 [2005]). Under the circumstances of this case, we decline to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction to review any of these issues. Florio, J.E, Mastro, Rivera and Spolzino, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Reggie Vega, Appellant.

[971 NYS2d 462]—

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Gavrin, J.), rendered October 15, 2007, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. By decision and order of this Court dated October 25, 2011, the matter was remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, to hear and report on the defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea of guilty, and the appeal was held in abeyance in the interim (see *People v Vega,*88 AD3d 1022 [2011]). The Supreme Court has now submitted its report. Justice Skelos has been substituted for former Justice Florio (see 22 NYCRR 670.1 [c]).

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant claims that his plea of guilty was rendered involuntary because his attorney was ineffective in that he failed to advise the defendant of a prior plea offer that the defendant would have accepted. “To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based upon the defense counsel’s failure to advise the defendant with respect to an offer of a plea agreement, a defendant must demonstrate that a plea offer was made, that defense counsel failed to inform him [or her] of that offer, and that he [or she] would have been willing to accept the offer” (P*eople v Goldberg,*33 AD3d 1018, 1019 [2006] [internal quotation marks omitted]; *see People v Fernandez,*5 NY3d 813 [2005]; *People v Rogers,*8 AD3d 888, 890-891 [2004]; *see also Missouri v Frye,*566 US —, —, 132 S Ct 1399, 1408-1409 [2012]). Here, at the hearing conducted upon remittitur, the defendant failed to meet his burden of establishing that Vincent Siccardi, the attorney who represented him during the plea negotiation process, failed to convey a particular offer to him. The defendant and his wife, on one hand, and Siccardi, on the other, offered contradictory testimony as to whether a particular offer was conveyed to the defendant by Siccardi, giving rise to a credibility issue which the Supreme Court resolved in Siccardi’s favor. “ ‘The credibility determinations of a hearing court are entitled to great deference on appeal, and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record’ ” *(People v Davis,*103 AD3d 810, 811 [2013], quoting *People v Martinez,*58 AD3d 870, 870-871 [2009]; *see People v Prochilo,*41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]; *People v Condon,*100 AD3d 920, 920 [2012]; *People*
      *943
      *v Wilson,*96 AD3d 980, 981 [2012]; *People v Marinus,*90 AD3d 677, 678 [2011]). We see no reason to disturb the Supreme Court’s credibility determinations in this regard. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly, in effect, denied the defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea of guilty. Rivera, J.E, Skelos, Dickerson and Lott, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,

Respondent

v.

LISA FERRERI A/K/A LISA A

. FERRERI,

Petitioner :
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
: No. 832 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 30th day of May, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
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  quarterly   report  of  Vasomedical,   Inc.  and
subsidiaries (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending August 31, 2009,
as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the
"Report"),  I, Jun Ma, as President and Chief Executive  Officer of the Company,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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, as amended; and

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


                                         /s/ Jun Ma
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                         Jun Ma
                                         President & Chief Executive Officer

Dated: October 15, 2009


                                                                    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  quarterly   report  of  Vasomedical,   Inc.  and
subsidiaries (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending August 31, 2009,
as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the
"Report"),  I, Tarachand Singh, as Chief Financial  Officer and Secretary of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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, as amended; and

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


Dated: October 15, 2009

                                      /s/ Tarachand Singh
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Tarachand Singh
                                      Chief Financial Officer