alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Flexible Business Systems, Inc., Respondent, v Dag Media, Inc., et al., Appellants.

[853 NYS2d 907]

In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, this Court’s power is as broad as that of the trial court, and it may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that in a close case the trial judge had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses *(see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford,*60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; *Narendra v Thieriot,*41 AD3d 442, 443 [2007]).

Where, as here, the parties set down their agreement in a clear, complete document, their writing should be enforced according to its terms *(see Bailey v Fish & Neave,*8 NY3d 523, 528 [2007]; *South Rd. Assoc., LLC v International Bus. Machs. Corp.,*4 NY3d 272, 277 [2005]; *W.W.W. Assoc. v Giancontieri,*77 NY2d 157, 162 [1990]). The Supreme Court correctly determined that the defendants, rather than the plaintiff, breached the parties’ written agreement. The plaintiff was obligated under the contract, inter alia, to convert two specific software files to a new accounting program. However, the contract expressly warranted that any work performed thereunder was subject to the limitations of the new program. The plaintiff established by a preponderance of the credible evidence that it converted the *809two files to the extent the data in those files could be accommodated by the new program. Accordingly, the Supreme Court did not err in finding in favor of the plaintiff on its cause of action alleging breach of contract.

The plaintiff also established, by a preponderance of the credible evidence, that the defendants were liable to it for outstanding amounts due on unpaid invoices under a theory of account stated.

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Fisher, J.P., Dillon, McCarthy and Belen, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.01


                        Consent of Independent Auditors


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Form S-3 (No. 333-64228) and on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-69552, 333-55886 and
333-55884) of AtheroGenics, Inc., of our report dated February 8, 2002, with
respect to the financial statements of AtheroGenics, Inc. included in the
Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2001.


                                       /s/ Ernst & Young LLP



Atlanta, Georgia
March 29, 2002
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
unaudited Consolidated Financial Statements of ADE Corporation for the six
months ended October 31, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1997
<CASH>                                          70,968
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,058
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     29,015
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               129,080
<PP&E>                                          20,693
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 161,187
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,033
<BONDS>                                          4,982
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           111
<OTHER-SE>                                     136,003
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   161,187
<SALES>                                         65,047
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                65,047
<CGS>                                           28,103
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                30,894
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 751
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,801
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,380
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,421
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,513
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.44
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**


**CERTIFICATION
      OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO**


**RULE
      13a-14(b)/15d-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
      AND**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350**





In
      connection with the Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of Eugene Science,
      Inc.
      (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Byung Ho Hoang, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
      pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
      of
      1934 and 18 U.S.C. 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:





(1)
      The
      Amended 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 Amended Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.





Date:
                August 18, 2008
            
            /s/
                Byung Ho HoangByung
                Ho HoangChief
                Financial Officer(Principal
                Financial Officer)





This
      certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b)
      under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and shall
      not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934.
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
  (1)
    
    The Form 10-Q 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 Form
10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.
 Date: August 14, 2008
    /s/ Miguel B. FernandezMiguel B. FernandezChief Executive Officer
Case 3:11-cv-00745-PGS-DEA Document 144 Filed 08/07/12 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 4666
Case 3:11-cv-00745-PGS-DEA Document 144 Filed 08/07/12 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 4667
Case 3:11-cv-00745-PGS-DEA Document 144 Filed 08/07/12 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 4668
Case 3:11-cv-00745-PGS-DEA Document 144 Filed 08/07/12 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 4669
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5141 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5141

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the alternative 
minimum tax treatment of incentive stock options, thereby changing the 
  taxable event from the exercise of the stock option to the sale of 
                                 stock.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 23, 2004

 Ms. Lofgren introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the alternative 
minimum tax treatment of incentive stock options, thereby changing the 
  taxable event from the exercise of the stock option to the sale of 
                                 stock.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX TREATMENT OF INCENTIVE 
              STOCK OPTIONS.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (b) of section 56 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to adjustments applicable to 
individuals) is amended by striking paragraph (3).
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to incentive stock options exercised in 2000 or 
thereafter regardless of when such options were granted.
    (c) Waiver of Limitations.--If refund or credit of any overpayment 
of tax resulting from the application of the amendment made by 
subsection (a) is prevented at any time before the close of the 1-year 
period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act by the 
operation of any law or rule of law (including res judicata), such 
refund or credit may nevertheless be made or allowed if claim therefor 
is filed before the close of such period.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>


Exhibit 31.2
------------

I, Brian J. Kearns, Chief Financial Officer, certify that:


1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of MedQuist Inc.;


2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of
    a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
    statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
    were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;


3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
    information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
    the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
    registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;


4.  The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
    establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
    in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:


       a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
          disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
          supervisions, 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 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 controls over financial reporting, to the
    registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of
    directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):


       a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
          operation of internal controls 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: August 12, 2003




Brian J. Kearns
--------------------------------
Brian J. Kearns
Chief Financial Officer






                                       28
1 

### FILED January 14, 19

99 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

BARRY ALAN SPRUCE, ) C/A NO. 03A01-9807-CV-00211 ) Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ) ) ) v. ) APPEAL AS OF RIGHT FROM THE ) KNOX COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ) ) ) ) LORI JEAN SPRUCE, ) ) HONORABLE RICHARD R. BAUMGARTNER, Defendant-Appellant.) JUDGE, By Interchange



### OPINI ON AND ORDER ON PETI TION FOR RE HEARI NG
The appellant has filed a petition for rehearing pursuant to the provisions of Rule 39, T.R.A.P. In partial support of her petition, the appellant relies upon documents in a supplemental record certified to us by the trial court clerk on December 7, 1998 -- some 13 days after our opinion was released . It should also be noted that the appellant failed to obtain our permission or the permission of the trial court to supplement the record. SeeRule 24(e), T.R.A.P. Having said all of this, we2

hasten to add that there is nothing in the supplemental record that changes our basic holdings, i.e. , that the appellant’s Rule 60 motion is an attempt to render the trial court’s divorce judgment of April 14, 1994, invalid and ineffective; that the motion was not timely filed; and that the appellant failed to show a proper basis for Rule 60 relief. Accordingly, the petition for rehearing is DENIED with costs taxed to the appellant. IT IS SO ORDERED.

ENTER:

_________________________ Charles D. Susano, Jr., J.
CONCUR:

________________________ Houston M. Goddard, P.J.

________________________ Don T. McMurray, J.
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 17 CFR 240.13(a)-14(a)
(SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION)
      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 China Healthcare Acquisition Corp., 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 China Healthcare Acquisition Corp.s disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period
covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any changes in China Healthcare Acquisition Corp.s
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during China Healthcare
Acquisition Corp.s most recent fiscal year that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, China Healthcare Acquisition Corp.s internal
control over financial reporting.
  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 China Healthcare Acquisition Corp.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 China Healthcare Acquisition Corp.s internal controls
over financial reporting.
 Date:
June 4, 2007
    
    /s/ Alwin TanAlwin Tan, Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 136 (Friday, July 17, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 34746]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16977]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. NJ08-3-002]


Southwestern Power Administration; Notice of Filing

July 10, 2009.
    Take notice that on July 6, 2009, the Southwestern Power 
Administration filed revision to its non-jurisdictional open access 
transmission tariff, that incorporate changes to its Attachment O--
Transmission Planning Process, pursuant to the Commission's May 21, 
2009 Order, 127 FERC 61,173 (2009).
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. 
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of 
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e5a3a0b7a6aa8b898c8b80b69095958a9791a583809786cb828a93"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="470102150408292b2e292214323737283533072122352469202831">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on July 27, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-16977 Filed 7-16-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
## **EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**AlphaPro Tech, Ltd.**

 

Alpha Pro Tech, Ltd.

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Alpha Pro Tech, Ltd. (the “Company) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Lloyd Hoffman, Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003, that:

 

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.78m or 78o (d));and

 

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

 

 
| DATE:  | August 4, 2004 |                     | BY: | /s/ Lloyd  Hoffman |
|--------|----------------|--------------------------|-----|--------------------|
|   |           | LLOYD  HOFFMAN           |
|   |           | CHIEF  FINANCIAL OFFICER |

 

1

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shaon ARCH, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-2953.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued April 12, 2013.

Decided April 18, 2013.

*615Rita M. Rumbelow, Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Madison, WI, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Brian T. Fahl, Attorney, Federal Defender Services of Eastern Wisconsin, Incorporated, Milwaukee, WI, Michael W. Lieberman, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Defender Services, Madison, WI, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge, RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge and JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge.

ORDER

Shaon Arch pleaded guilty to one count of illegally possessing a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). A PSR was prepared, which calculated Arch’s base offense at 14 because he had prior drug convictions that did not meet the definition of a controlled substance violation under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2. The probation office later submitted an addendum to the PSR, increasing Arch’s base level from 14 to 20 pursuant to § 2K2.1(a)(4). This increase was based on a prior drug conviction for conspiracy in Cook County Circuit Court in Chicago, Illinois. The probation office relied on a copy of the underlying indictment, which charged Arch with delivering cocaine in violation of the relevant Illinois complied statutes, in making this increase. The district court accepted the elevated U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range and sentenced Arch to 84 months’ imprisonment, followed by 3 years of supervised release.

Arch now contends the elevated base offense level in the addendum was improper because the underlying indictment includes counts that were later dismissed. In other words, the district court could not reasonably rely on the document to increase his sentence under § 2K2.1(a)(4) because the document did not explain whether Arch had been convicted of a distribution offense, which satisfies § 4B1.2, or a possession offense, which might not.

At oral argument, Arch’s counsel presented the Court with a newly-discovered document that shows Arch’s charges from the drug conspiracy indictment were amended. The parties then stated that they were in agreement the case should be remanded to determine whether the newly-discovered document would have affected Arch’s sentence. In light of this document and the parties’ agreement, we REMAND this case for further consideration.