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

Bethesda MD20892

goodspew@mail.nih.gov 

June 2023

Back to Top
#### Swift *against*Hopkins.

no7ap°peaf aft “DgSaencmtiMt‘ agents it will be vate contract.-

Hi ERROR, on *certiorari*to a justice’s court.

*Hopkins,*the defendant in error,

brought an action against *Swift,*the plaintiff in- error, in the court below, for services performed, money paid, &c., and it was proved, at the trial, that the plaintiff below* being paymaster of a regiment of militia* in the town of *Paris,-*and being at *Albany,*on the subject of pay due to the militia, was employed by the defendant to go to certain persons in *Madison*and *Oneida*counties, to procure certain certificates, relating to the payment of the militia, and to bring them to *Albany,*which was done by the plaintiff. It did not appear what was the defendant’s office,, or whether he had any, when he so employed the plaintiff, but after obtaining the certificates, he was at *Paris,*and there paid the militia. The defendant admitted that he had employed the plaintiff to do the service, which he had performed to his satisfaction ; and on being asked by the plaintiff why he did not pay him, he' replied, that he could not make it a charge against the government,. Judgment was given for the plaintiff below, the defendant in error..

*Per Curiam.*

Unless the contractor shows distinctly that, in making the contract, he expressly, or ostensibly, acted as a public agent, it must be deemed a private contract* The return does not show that *Swift*assumed to act- in ,an official capacity when he made this contract: and the reason assigned by him for refusing to pay, was, that he could not make a charge of it against the government, is decisive to show that it was a private contract.

Judgment affirmed.
#### John Vislocky, Respondent, v City of New York et al., Appellants.

Submitted October 5, 2009;

decided November 24, 2009

Reported below, 62 AD3d 785.

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
The District Court of the 13th Judicial District. County of Yellowstone.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. RONALD MASCARENA, Defendant.

CAUSE NO. DC-07-163 DECISION

On October 9, 2009, the defendant was sentenced to a commitment to the *46Department of Corrections for a period of three (3) years, for violation of the conditions of a suspended sentence, for the offense of Failure to Register as a Violent Offender, a felony. It is the recommendation of the Court that the Defendant be screened for the Pre-Release Program and upon acceptance follow all requirements and provisions. If not accepted, the Defendant will be placed at a Department of Corrections Facility or a State Correctional Institution for custody, care and treatment.

On May 6,2010, the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The defendant was present via videoconference and was represented by Eric Olson. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana provides that “the sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive.” (§46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

Done in open Court this 6th day of May, 2010.

DATED this 26th day of May, 2010.

Chairperson, Hon. Blair Jones, Member, Hon. Richard Simonton and Member, Hon. Ray Dayton.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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.

_________________________________________ Clerk November 20, 2012

t1113 

# Order

November 20, 2012

145891

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 145891

COA: 308949

Allegan CC: 11

- 017094

- FC

LEONARD EMERY NULL,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 8, 2012 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 984 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 984

     To amend the Exchange Rates and International Economic Policy 
Coordination Act of 1988 to clarify the definition of manipulation with 
              respect to currency, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 10, 2005

   Ms. Snowe introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
    referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend the Exchange Rates and International Economic Policy 
Coordination Act of 1988 to clarify the definition of manipulation with 
              respect to currency, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Fair Currency Practices Act of 
2005''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS RELATING TO INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL POLICY.

    (a) Bilateral Negotiations.--Section 3004(b) of the Exchange Rates 
and International Economic Policy Coordination Act of 1988 (22 U.S.C. 
5304(b)) is amended in the second sentence by striking ``and (2)'' and 
inserting ``or (2)''.
    (b) Definition of Manipulation.--Section 3006 of the Exchange Rates 
and International Economic Policy Coordination Act of 1988 (22 U.S.C. 
5306) is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(3) Manipulation of rate of exchange.--For purposes of 
        this Act, a country shall be considered to be manipulating the 
        rate of exchange between its currency and the United States 
        dollar if there is a protracted large-scale intervention in one 
        direction in the exchange markets. The Secretary may find that 
        a country is manipulating the rate of exchange based on any 
        other factor or combination of factors.''.
    (c) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of 
this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury shall undertake an examination, 
and submit a report to Congress, regarding the trade surplus of the 
People's Republic of China. The Secretary shall examine why the trade 
surplus with the United States and other countries reported by the 
People's Republic of China differs from the trade surplus reported by 
the other countries. The report shall also quantify the differences 
between the trade surplus reported by the United States and other 
countries and what is reported by the People's Republic of China.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 31.1

SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION



I, John C. Belden, certify that:



I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of OCTuS, Inc.;



1.  Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;



2.  Based on my knowledge, the consolidated financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report.



3.  The small business issuer'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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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 small business issuer'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; and



(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and



4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer'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 small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.





|Date:  March 18, 2004 | By: /s/ John C. Belden
John C. Belden
Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
|--------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





---
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RANDY LEE SELLARS

No. 547P05

ORDER

The Attorney General’s petition for discretionary review is allowed, pursuant to our general supervisory authority under Article IV, Section 12 of the Constitution of North Carolina, for the limited purpose of (1) vacating that portion of the Court of Appeals opinion ordering remand to the trial court for resentencing and (2) remanding to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of *State v. Timothy Earl Blackwell,*361 N.C. 41, — S.E.2d — (2006). The Court of Appeals opinion remains undisturbed in all other respects.

By Order of the Court in Conference, this 19th day of December, 2006.

s/Timmons-Goodson. J. For the Court
Exhibit 32.2



Certification of Chief Financial Officer Required by Rule 13a-14(b)

and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code



I, Robert M. Qualls, the Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Controller of Mosaic Global Holdings Inc.,
certify that (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the Quarterly Period ended September 30, 2004 of Mosaic Global Holdings Inc. fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the
information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Mosaic Global Holdings Inc.



November 9, 2004



|                    
|--------------------
|/s/ Robert M. Qualls
|Robert M. Qualls
July 30, 2015

In accordance with the enclosed Memorandum Opinion, below is the judgment in the numbered cause set out herein to be entered in the Minutes of this Court as of the 30th day of July, 2015.

10-14-00033-CR	VERNON O’DELL TAYLOR, JR. v. THE STATE OF TEXAS - ON APPEAL FROM THE 220TH DISTRICT COURT OF HAMILTON COUNTY - TRIAL COURT NO. CR-07716 – AFFIRMED - Memorandum Opinion by Justice Scoggins:

	“This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record of the Court below, and the same being considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that there was no error in the judgment, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed by the Court that the judgment be in all things affirmed, and that the appellant pay all costs in this behalf expended and that this decision be certified below for observance.”

# image1.png
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6618

RICHARD RONALD KPORLOR,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

D. ROBINSON, Manassas A.O.C. Correction

Officer,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District

Judge. (CA-03-973)

Submitted: August 12, 2004 Decided: August 18, 2004

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard Ronald Kporlor, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Richard Ronald Kporlor appeals the district court’s

orders dismissing without prejudice his action filed under 42

U.S.C. § 1983 (2000), for failure to comply with the filing fee

order and denying his motion construed as a motion to reconsider

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). We have reviewed the record and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated

by the district court. See Kporlor v. Robinson, No. CA-03-973

(E.D. Va. Feb. 11, 2004 & Mar. 23, 2004). 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.

AFFIRMED
#### Tyrone HURT, Appellant v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Appellee.

No. 06-5250.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Oct. 30, 2006.

Tyrone Hurt, Washington, DC, pro se.

R. Craig Lawrence, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: GINSBURG, Chief Judge, and ROGERS and KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judges.

*JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed August 22, 2006, be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed the complaint *sua sponte*under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), because the allegations lack an arguable basis either in law or fact. See *Neitzke v. Williams,*490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989); *Crisafi v. Holland,*655 F.2d 1305 (D.C.Cir.1981).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.
Exhibit 10.26


 


REDACTED


 


AMENDMENT TO ENERGY
MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT


 


This Amendment (“Amendment”)
to Energy Management Agreement is entered into by and between KGen Hot Spring
LLC (“Owner”) and Fortis Energy Marketing & Trading GP, successor in
interest to The Cincinnati Gas &  Electric
Company (“Energy Manager”).


 


WHEREAS, Owner and
Energy Manager are parties to that certain Energy Management Agreement dated
August 17, 2004 (the “Agreement”);


 


WHEREAS, the
parties hereto desire to extend the term of the Agreement and to revise the
Monthly Management Fee under the Agreement; and


 


WHEREAS, the
parties hereto desire to amend the Agreement as provided herein.


 


NOW THEREFORE, for
and in consideration of the agreements herein made and other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged,
the parties hereto agree to amend the Agreement as follows:


 


1.                         Section
2.2, Term, is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:


 


“The term of this
Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date, shall continue in effect for
three (3) years from the Effective Date (the “Initial Term”), and shall be
extended for an additional period (“Term Extension”) through and including
August 31, 2010. The parties shall agree on further Term Extensions at least
forty-five (45) days prior to the end of any Term Extension.”


 


2,                         Section
6.1, Management Fees, is amended by adding the following sentence
between the parenthetical phrase, “(the “Monthly Management Fee”)” and the
word, “Payment”:


 


“Notwithstanding the
foregoing, effective as of September 1, 2007, the Monthly Management Fee shall be equal to the greater
of (i) [* * *] (“Fixed Dollar Portion”) or (ii) [* * *] of the monthly
Generation Margin.”


 


3,                         Except as
amended hereby, all terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full
force and effect.


 


_________


***
Certain information on this page has been omitted and filed separately with the
SEC. Confidential treatment has been requested with respect to the omitted
portions.


 


1

















 


IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment to Energy Management
Agreement in multiple originals, effective as of July 25, 2007.


 


	
  KGen
  Hot Spring LLC

  	
  Fortis
  Energy Marketing & Trading GP

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
  /s/ James H. Sweeney
  III

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ William David Duran

  
	
  Name:

  	
  James H. Sweeney III

  	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
  William David Duran

  
	
  Title:

  	
  Senior Vice President —
  Energy Management

  	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
  Managing Director

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Frank Vickers

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
  Frank Vickers

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
  Managing Director

  



 


2
<PAGE>

                                                                    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

I, Terence W. Tsang, in my capacity as Executive Vice-President, Chief Operating
Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of Ashworth, Inc. (the
"Registrant"), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of
my knowledge:

      1. the Quarterly Report of the Registrant, on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended January 31, 2005 (the "Report"), to which this certification is attached
as an exhibit fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
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
Registrant.

Dated: March 11, 2005            /s/Terence W. Tsang
                                 Terence W. Tsang
                                 Executive Vice-President, Chief Financial
                                 Officer and Treasurer
Exhibit 31.2Cronos Global Income Fund XIVRule 13a-14 Certifications     I, John Kallas, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Cronos Global Income Fund XIV (the“Partnership”);     2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this annual report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the Partnership as of, and for, the periods presented in this annualreport;     4. The other certifying officer of Cronos Capital Corp. (“CCC”), the General Partner of thePartnership, and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Partnership and wehave:          (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe Partnership, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;and          (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Partnership’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and          (c) disclosed in this report any change in the Partnership’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the Partnership’s most recent fiscal quarter (the Partnership’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the Partnership’s internal control over financialreporting.     5. CCC’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the Partnership’s auditors and the Audit Committeeof Partnership’s Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):          (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect thePartnership’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and          (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the Partnership’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: March 16, 2007   /s/ JOHN KALLAS   John Kallas  Chief Financial Officer of CCC