alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Drake and others *against*Barrymore.

NEW-YORK,

May, 1817.

In tresspass jointly plead not them! against 330 evidence, diet atakenVer|ainat the othtresspassCtiona-f teésStorhcfficers ac!aírtíatiretito ttoyTrenot°en’ v'wenjeof ajmthe general is stie"

IN ERROR, on. *certiorari*to a justice’s court. *Barrymore*brought in an action of trespass, * before the justice, against *Drake,*Corwin, and *Curry,*for taking and carrying away the plaintiff’s hog. The defendants in the court below pleaded not § < y* At the trial, the plefttiff proved that *Drake,*one of the defendants, came to his house alone, and carried away the P^a‘ntlff’s hog, without showing any privity or command of the °^er *wo defendants. *Corwin*and *Curry,*the other defendants thereupon insisted, that they ought to be acquitted; but the justice decided, that as they had pleaded jointly with Drake, they were to be considered as all guilty of the trespass proved SgBinSt him*

The defendants then offered to prove, that *Corwin*and *Curry*were trustees of a school district, and had regularly issued a warrant to *Drake,*as collector of that district, and that he took the hog by virtue of that warrant. This evidence was objected to, and overruled by the justice, on the ground that it was inadmissible under the general issue. 'A judgment was given for the plaintiff, against all the defendants, for the value of the hog, with costs. The return further stated, that “ the plaintiff then released and discharged the said Co *Twin*and *Curry,*of and from the recovery so had against them.’’

*Per Curiam.*

The justice erred in deciding, that upon a joint plea of not guilty, two of the defendants could not be acquitted, though there was no evidence against them. (1 *Chitty, Pl. 75.*3 *East Rep.*62. *Cowp.*610.) There is a distinction in this respect,' between a joint plea of the *general issue,*and a joint plea-of *justification.*In the latter case, if the plea is not supported as to all, neither of the defendants can be protected under it. *(Schemerhron and others*v. *Trip,*2 *Caines Rep.*108. 1 *Saund.*28. *n.*(2.)

As to the second point, the justice decided correctly, that the justification, under the collector’s warrant, could not be admitted under a plea of not guilty. It is not a case within the statute, allowing to certain public officers that privilege; and the act relative to common schools, which creates these officers, is' *167silent in this respect. The judgment must therefore be reversed on the first ground. - - -

In returning that the plaintiff had released two of the defend~ ants from the judgment, the justice went beyond his office. The plaintiffs in error have no opportunity of controverting that fact, or questioning its legal effect. We cannot therefore, take notice of it on this record.

Judgment reversed.
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 Zevotek, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2010, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Robert Babkie, President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer
and Director 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 result of operations of the Company.





Dated:  February
18, 2011





/s/
      Robert BabkieRobert
      Babkie, President, Chief Executive Officer,
                  Chief
      Financial Officer and Director
                  (Principal
      Executive and Principal Financial and Accounting
  Officer)
|                            |                                                                                                                            |
|----------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 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 Partnership. |

|                             |                                                    |
|-----------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|
|                        |                                               |
| Date: November 5, 2010 | /s/ Joseph A. Mills                                |
|                        | Joseph A. Mills                                    |
|                        | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Eagle Rock |
|                        | Energy G&P, LLC, General Partner of Eagle Rock |
|                        | Energy GP, L.P., General Partner of Eagle Rock     |
|                        | Energy Partners, L.P.                              |
#### Gina Scibelli, Respondent, v Eugene G. Herman, D.M.D., P.C., Respondent, and Total Dental Care of Suffolk, P.C., Appellant.

[856 NYS2d 126]

The Supreme Court correctly denied the motion of the defendant Total Dental Care of Suffolk, P.C. (hereinafter Total Dental), pursuant to CFLR 4404 (a) to set aside the jury verdict. The court’s marshaling of evidence in its charge to the jury was balanced (see *People v Barren,*240 AD2d 586 [1997]; *see also Shainwald v Barasch,*29 AD3d 337 [2006]). The court properly exercised its discretion in limiting the jury’s reconsideration of its inconsistent verdict to the question of apportionment of fault between Total Dental and the nonparty Stony Brook Hospital *(see Soto v Famulari,*28 AD3d 639 [2006]; *Mateo v 83 Post Ave. Assoc.,*12 AD3d 205, 206 [2004]). The evidence at trial provided a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences to support the jury’s conclusions. Accordingly, the verdict in favor of the plaintiff and against Total Dental was supported by legally sufficient evidence *(see Cohen v Hallmark Cards,*45 NY2d 493, 499 [1978]; *Courtney v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J.,*45 AD3d 801 [2007]). Moreover, upon review of the trial record, we find that the verdict was based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence presented to the jury, and thus it was not against the weight of the evidence *(see Lolik v Big V Supermarkets,*86 NY2d 744 [1995]; *Nicastro v Park,*113 AD2d 129 [1985]). Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Angiolillo and Balkin, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1

 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


     In connection with the accompanying amended Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of
Velocity Asset Management, Inc. for the period ended December 31, 2004, I, John
C. Kleinert, President and Chief Executive Officer, hereby certifies pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

1.   Such amended Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31,
     2004, 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 such amended Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for
     the year ended December 31, 2004, fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Velocity
     Asset Management, Inc.


Dated:  August 10, 2005                 /s/ JOHN C. KLEINERT
                                        --------------------------------------
                                        John C. Kleinert, President and
                                        Chief Executive Officer
#### STATE EX REL. JAY BURK v. IRVING W. BEAUDOIN.1

February 3, 1950.

No. 35,167.

*187
      *A. M. Joyce,*for relator.

*Irvmg W. Becmdom, pro se.*

Reported in 40 N. W. (2d) 885.

Per Curiam.

By this proceeding in prohibition, relator seeks to restrain respondent from sitting as the acting judge of the municipal court of South St. Paul after the filing of an affidavit of prejudice upon the trial of relator for a misdemeanor. The questions raised by the proceeding are so simple that they appear from the answers given herein without stating them.

Prohibition is the proper remedy to restrain a judge from acting in a matter where he is disqualified by an affidavit of prejudice. Payne v. Lee, 222 Minn. 269, 24 N. W. (2d) 259; State ex rel. Olson v. Schultz, 200 Minn. 363, 274 N. W. 401.

There is no statute authorizing the disqualification of a judge of the municipal court of South St. Paul by the mere filing of an affidavit of prejudice. 27 M. S. A. p. 316, and §§ 488.01 to 488.30. The statute relative to disqualification of judges of the district court by the mere filing of an affidavit of prejudice (§ 542.16) by its terms applies only to district courts and has no application to municipal courts. State ex rel. Nichols v. Anderson, 207 Minn. 78, 289 N. W. 883.

Section 488.16, authorizing a change of venue from one municipal court having jurisdiction throughout the county to another, has no application to a prosecution for a violation of a city ordinance, as here, for the reason that the application of the statute is expressly limited to *civil*actions.

Relator’s claim that respondent is not the duly qualified judge of the court will not be inquired into in a proceeding in prohibition. A proceeding in quo warranto by the state is the proper remedy. State ex rel. Derusha v. McMartin, 42 Minn. 30, 43 N. W. 572.

Writ discharged with costs to respondent.
#### In the Matter of Joseph R., Alleged to be a Person in Need of Supervision, Appellant.

[852 NYS2d 805]

The only issue raised by the appellant concerns that portion of the order of disposition which placed him in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services of the County of Westchester for a period of 12 months for placement in a residential treatment facility. Since the placement period has expired, the appeal must be dismissed as academic *(see Matter of Nicholas*
      *652
      *R.,*36 AD3d 923 [2007]; *Matter of Ricky*A., 11 AD3d 532 [2004]; *Matter of Mary Veronica R.,*10 AD3d 400 [2004]; *Matter of Jeffrey McG.,*8 AD3d 571 [2004]; *Matter of Brandon S.,*305 AD2d 609, 610 [2003]). Rivera, J.P., Skelos, Santueci and Leventhal, JJ., concur.
1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of SXC Health Solutions Corp.;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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and we 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)
    
    designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;c)
    
    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; andd)
    
    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
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 the registrants board of directors:
 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.
 Date:
    August 5, 2010By:
    /s/ Mark ThiererMark ThiererChief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

(Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Cal Dive International, Inc. (the Company) for the period ending September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Quinn J. Hébert, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Brent D. Smith, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, 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) 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.





Dated:   October 29, 2010







| |                                                
| | -----------------------------------------------
| | /s/ Quinn J. Hébert                            
| | Quinn J. Hébert                                
| | Chairman, President and
Chief Executive Officer







| |                                                                
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------
| | /s/ Brent D. Smith                                             
| | Brent D. Smith                                                 
| | Executive Vice President,
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer





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



This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Case 2:11-cr-00101-JLL Document 16 Filed 11/09/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 42
Case 2:11-cr-00101-JLL Document 16 Filed 11/09/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 43
Redesigning the National Household 

Education Survey (NHES)

Andrew Zukerberg

NCES
NHES Overview

• Conducted approximately every 2 years since 

1991

• RDD/CATI survey, representative of non 

institutionalized households in US

• Only major household based survey from NCES

• Covers everything that happens outside of 

traditional school

– Home schooling, adult education, after school activities, 

school readiness, child care and more
Why redesign?

Year of 

survey

Number of completed Screeners

Unit 

response 

rate (percent)

Type of unit nonresponse (percentage distribution)

Refusals Maximum calls

Other 

nonresp

onse

1991 60,322 81.0 84 7 9 1993 63,844 82.1 68 15 181

1995 45,465 73.3 84 9 7 1996 55,838 69.9 83 10 7 1999 55,929 74.1 76 17 7 2001 48,385 67.5 74 18 8 2003 32,049 61.7 76 16 8 2005 58,140 64.2 77 15 8 2007 54,034 52.5 86 10 4
Objectives

• Conducted a bias study in 2007 that indicated 

little evidence for bias, but some potential 

coverage issues in our RDD design

• Wanted to improve response rates

• Success= higher overall response rate, 

maintain data quality
Challenges

• Impact of mode change on question wording

• Screening a rare population (2-stage design)

• Limited field period (end of school year)
Constraints

• Budget (thought in person collection would be 

too expensive)

• Timing (had planned to test in 2010)

– Seasonality of data – need to collect late in school 

year
Testing

• 4 Screener packages (screenout, core, 

engaging, bilingual)

• 2 topical questionnaires (ECPP, PFI)

• Early phone follow up

• Alternate non response follow up (Fedex, 

Phone)

• Varying incentive amounts

– Modified design (less aggressive mail / phone non 

response procedures than a full scale)

Current Status

• Pilot closed out in December 2009

• Analyzing results now

• Some interesting response / coverage trade 

off issues

• Large scale field test planned for January 

2011
Contact Information

• Andrew Zukerberg

• Andrew.zukerberg@ed.gov
Exhibit 31.1

                                 CERTIFICATION

I, Laurence Moskowitz, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of Medialink Worldwide Incorporated;

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 13(a)-15(e) and 15(d)-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; and

      c)    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 the 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; and

      b)    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.

Date: March 26, 2004

 /s/ Laurence Moskowitz
-------------------------------
Name: Laurence Moskowitz
Title: Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Ricardo Khayatte, Jr., certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of IndieMV Media Group, Inc.;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statements 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 small business issuer’s other certifying officers 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 that has materially affected, or is reasonable likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.  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 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 reasonable 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.