alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**REPORT of****INDEPENDENTCERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS**

To the Shareowners and Board of Trustees  Idaho Tax-Exempt Fund  We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities of the  Idaho Tax-Exempt Fund, a series of shares of the Saturna Investment Trust,including  the schedules of investments as of November 30, 2002, and the relatedstatements  of operations for the year then ended, the changes in net assets for each of  the two years then ended, and the financial highlights for the five years then  ended. These financial statements and financial highlights are theresponsibility  of the Trust’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion  on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audits.  We conducted our audits in accordance with auditing standards generallyaccepted in the United States of America.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtainreasonable  assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are  free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis,  evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements.  Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of November 30,  2002, by correspondence with the custodian and broker. Our audit also includes assessing  the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management,  as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe  that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.   In our opinion the financial statements and financial highlights referred to  above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position ofIdaho  Tax-Exempt Fund as of November 30, 2002, the results of its operations for the  year then ended, the changes in net assets for each of the two years thenended,  and the financial highlights for each of the five years then ended, inconformity  with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
 /s/ signature    Tait, Weller & Baker
December 13, 2002
#### UNITED STATES v. AMAN et al.

No. 52-CR-321.

United States District Court N. D. Illinois, E. D.

Jan. 12, 1953.

*431Otto Kerner, Jr., U. S. Atty., Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff.

Frank J. McAdams, Jr., Chicago, Ill., for defendant.

PERRY, District Judge.

The defendants have been named in five counts of an indictment, which charges violation of Sections 659 and 2314, Title 18 U.S.C.A. Defendant, James Aman, moves the Court to grant an order allowing the defendant to inspect the minutes of the Grand Jury; in the alternative, he prays that the Court exercise its prerogative and inspect the minutes of the Grand Jury. The motion is not supported by an affidavit. Upon information and belief, the defendant alleges that the Government did not offer to the grand jurors any competent and admissible evidence whatsoever which implicated this defendant.

 There is a strong but not an irrebuttable presumption that the grand jury has faithfully discharged its duty. Cox v. Vaught, 10 Cir., 52 F.2d 562. By virtue of the provisions of Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S. C.A., the Court has the power to permit disclosure of the grand jury minutes upon a proper showing by the defendant that matters occurring before the grand jury may constitute grounds for dismissal of the indictment. In view of the strong presumption of regularity of grand jury proceedings, this power is to be exercised sparingly in extreme cases only when the defendant advances facts, upon a sworn affidavit or sworn testimony, which clearly reflect a prejudicial irregularity in the grand jury proceedings. Such is not the case before the bar.

The Court has before it no facts, by affidavit or otherwise, which show any irregularity, or that the indictment was returned solely upon hearsay or other illegal or inadmissible evidence. The motion recites, upon the information and belief of the defendant, the mere conclusion that only hearsay evidence was submitted to the grand jurors. This is certainly not sufficient to warrant the Court in giving serious consideration to a review of the grand jury proceedings in the instant case. Cox v. Vaught, supra. U. S. v. American Medical Association, D.C., 26 F.Supp. 429. To allow the motion on this type of showing would impair our system of criminal jurisprudence. It could be used to “open the way for an exploratory expedition for the purpose of obtaining the Government’s evidence, and pave the way for numerous dilatory tactics”, as is stated in the opinion of the Circuit Court of this Seventh Circuit in the case of U. S. v. Molasky, 118 F.2d 128, 132.

Accordingly, the motion 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**

|   | 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, as of, and for the periods presented in the                Report. |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/                Henry Fong                                                                |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Henry                Fong                                                                    |
|   | Principal                  Executive Officer andPrincipal                  AccountingOfficer |
|   | May                16, 2006                                                                  |
H. Res. 318

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

July 15, 2003.

Resolved, That the election contest relating to the office

of Representative from the Sixth Congressional District of

Tennessee is dismissed.

Attest:

Clerk.
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**
  Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the
          Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Xedar Corporation
          (the
“*Company*”) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge,
          that:
  (i) the
          accompanying Amendment Number 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A of
          the Company for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the “*Report*”) fully
          complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d),
          as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
          and
  (ii) the
          information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
          the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 By:
                /s/
                    Steven M. BraggNovember  2,
                    2007
                
                Steven
                    M. BraggChief
                    Financial OfficerXedar
                    Corporation
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 349 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 349

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to empower individuals 
  with disabilities to establish their own supplemental needs trusts.

    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 ``Special Needs Trust Fairness Act of 
2015''.

SEC. 2. FAIRNESS IN MEDICAID SUPPLEMENTAL NEEDS TRUSTS.

    (a) In General.--Section 1917(d)(4)(A) of the Social Security Act 
(42 U.S.C. 1396p(d)(4)(A)) is amended by inserting ``the individual,'' 
after ``for the benefit of such individual by''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to trusts established on or after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.

            Passed the Senate September 9, 2015.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
114th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 349

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to empower individuals 
  with disabilities to establish their own supplemental needs trusts.
```
-1- 

### STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED June 9, 2015

v No. 321037 Montcalm Circuit Court JIM EDD BROWN, LC No. 2013-017855-FH

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: H OEKSTRA , P.J., and O’C ONNELL and M URRAY , JJ.

P ER C URIAM

. Defendant, Jim Edd Brown, appeals as of right his sentences fo r two counts of resisting or obstructing a police officer, MCL 750.81d(1), and one count of domestic assault, MCL 750.81(2). As part of his sentence, the trial court assessed d efendant $800 in general court costs. We affirm.
“[C]ourts may impose costs in criminal cases only where such c osts are authorized by statute.” People v Cunningham , 496 Mich 145, 149; 852 NW2d 118 (2014) (quotation marks and citation omitted). It is undisputed in this case that neit her MCL 750.81d(1) nor MCL 750.81(2) independently authorizes court costs. Thus, the tria l court’s imposition of costs was invalid under Cunningham

. However, on October 17, 2014, after the Michigan Supreme Court ’s decision in Cunningham , the Legislature passed MCL 796.1k. 2014 PA 352. As applicab le to defendant, MCL 769.1k(1)(b)( iii ) states:
(1) If a defendant enters a plea of guilty or nolo contendere o r if the court determines after a hearing or trial that the defendant is guilt y, both of the following apply at the time of the sentencing or at the time en try of judgment of guilty is deferred pursuant to statute or sentencing is delayed pursuant to statute:

* * *
(b) The court may impose any or all of the following:

* * *-2- ( iii ) Until 36 months after the date the amendatory act that added subsection (7) is enacted into law, any cost reasonably related to the actual cos ts incurred by the trial court without separately ca lculating those costs involved in the particular

case . . . .
This statute applies to all c osts imposed before June 18, 2014 , and “provides for an award of certain costs that are not independently authorized by the statute for the sentencing off ense . . . .” People v Konopka , ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2015); slip op at 6. In this case, the trial court imposed defendant’s costs on February 20, 2014, and it is within the time period contemplated by MCL 769.1k(1)(b)( iii ). Therefore, we conclude t hat the trial court did not plainly err by authorizing these costs. And, unlike in Konopka , defendant does not specifically challenge the lack of reasoning for the costs imposed. See id . at ___; slip op at 8. We conclude that reversal is not warranted.

Affirmed.

/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra /s/ Peter D. O’Connell /s/ Christopher M. Murray
EXHIBIT 32

                         SALIVA DIAGNOSTIC SYSTEMS, INC.
                               September 30, 2002

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350

I, Leo  Ehrlich,  President  and Chief  Financial  Officer of Saliva  Diagnostic
Systems, Inc., hereby certify, to my knowledge:

            (1)   that the  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of Saliva  Diagnostic
                  Systems,  Inc. for the quarterly period ended on September 30,
                  2002 filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the
                  date hereof at File No. 0-21284 (the "Report")  fully complies
                  with  the   requirements   of  Section  13(a)  or  15(d),   as
                  applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

            (2)   that the information  contained in the Report fairly presents,
                  in all material respects,  the financial condition and results
                  of operations of Saliva Diagnostic Systems, Inc.

The foregoing  certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.
1350 and is not being  filed as part of the Report or as a  separate  disclosure
document.

Dated:  March 5, 2004
                                       /s/ Leo Ehrlich
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Leo Ehrlich
                                       President & Chief Financial Officer
#### WESTINGHOUSE AIR BRAKE CO. v. CHRISTIANSEN ENGINEERING CO.

(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.

March 21, 1903.)

1. Contempt—Order Imposing Fine—Suspension.

An order Imposing punishment on a defendant for contempt of court in violating an injunction granted by an interlocutory decree being reviewable by appeal, its operation will not be suspended until final hearing in the case.

On Motion for Suspension of an Order Imposing a Fine for Contempt.

Wm. A. Jenner, for the motion.

Fred’k. H. Betts, opposed.

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

There have been conflicting decisions by the Circuit Court of Appeals as to the review of an order punishing for contempt in disobedience of an injunction (Nassau Electric Co. v. Sprague Co., 95 Fed. 415, 37 C. C. A. 146; Gould v. Sessions, 67 Fed. 163, 14 C. C. A. 366); but the action of the court in the most recent case before it (October term, 1900) indicates that the rule laid down in the case of Gould v. Sessions is the one which will be followed. In this last case an interlocutory decree had been granted with an injunction, and the defendant had been fined for violating the injunction. Upon a writ of error the court reviewed the order on the *633merits and affirmed it. Cary Co. v. Acme Co., 108 Fed. 873, 48 C. C. A. 118.

Under these circumstances, the application to suspend the operation of the order imposing fine until final hearing is denied. The order, however, is modified by directing that the amount of fine which it directs shall be paid to the United States, shall be deposited with the clerk of the court, to be retained by him until final disposition of the case.
**STATSURE        DIAGNOSTIC SYSTEMS, INC. FORMERLY SALIVA DIAGNOSTIC SYSTEMS,        INC.**

**SEPTEMBER        30, 2005**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. §1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|  | (1) | the                Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of StatSure Diagnostic Systems, Inc.                for                the quarter ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and                Exchange                Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements                of                Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange                Act of                1934; and |
|--|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | (2) | the                information contained in the such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A                of                StatSure Diagnostic Systems, Inc. for the quarter ended September                30, 2005                fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition                and                results of operations of StatSure Diagnostic Systems,                Inc. |
|--|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:March                6, 2007 |                                                                                       |                  |
|------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------|
|                          |                                                                                  |             |
|                                    |                                                                                            | /s/ Steve M. Peltzman |
|                               | Steve                  M. PeltzmanChief                  Executive Officer                 |
|                               | (principal                  executive officerand                  duly authorized officer) |

----
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 288 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 288

 Directing the Secretary of Transportation to transmit to the House of 
 Representatives not later than 14 days after the date of the adoption 
of this resolution all physical and electronic records and documents in 
 his possession related to any use of Federal agency resources in any 
     task or action involving or relating to Members of the Texas 
 Legislature in the period beginning May 11, 2003, and ending May 16, 
    2003, except information the disclosure of which would harm the 
           national security interests of the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 19, 2003

Mr. Green of Texas (for himself, Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. Frost, Mr. Sandlin, 
 Mr. Doggett, Mr. Hinojosa, Mr. Ortiz, Mr. Lampson, Mr. Stenholm, Mr. 
    Bell, Mr. Reyes, Mr. Edwards, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, and Mr. 
 Rodriguez) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
           the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Directing the Secretary of Transportation to transmit to the House of 
 Representatives not later than 14 days after the date of the adoption 
of this resolution all physical and electronic records and documents in 
 his possession related to any use of Federal agency resources in any 
     task or action involving or relating to Members of the Texas 
 Legislature in the period beginning May 11, 2003, and ending May 16, 
    2003, except information the disclosure of which would harm the 
           national security interests of the United States.

    Resolved, That the Secretary of Transportation is directed to 
transmit to the House of Representatives not later than 14 days after 
the date of the adoption of this resolution all physical and electronic 
records and documents in his possession related to any use of agency 
resources in any task or action involving or relating to Members of the 
Texas Legislature in the period beginning May 11, 2003, and ending May 
16, 2003, except information the disclosure of which would harm the 
national security interests of the United States.
                                 <all>
```
```

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Registration
Statements  listed below of WHX Corporation of our reports dated April 11, 2003,
relating to the  Consolidated  Financial  Statements of WHX  Corporation and the
condensed  financial  statements of WHX Corporation  (Parent Only) respectively,
and our report dated February 28, 2003, except as to Note R which is dated as of
March 26, 2003,  relating to the  financial  statements  of  Wheeling-Pittsburgh
Corporation, which appear in this Form 10-K/A.

On Form S-3:

            File No. 33 - 54831

            File No. 33 - 63845

On Form S-8:

            File No. 33 - 54801

            File No. 33 - 56281

            File No. 333 - 64217

            File No. 333 - 36985

            File No. 333 - 64784

New York, New York
April 29, 2003
```
#### Barry R. SCHOTZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Craig APKER, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 11-17096.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.*

Filed Dec. 31, 2012.

Barry R. Schotz, Safford, AZ, pro se.

Jane L. Westby, Assistant U.S., USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Federal prisoner Barry R. Schotz appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Schotz contends that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) unlawfully refused his request for a transfer to a Residential Re-entry Center (“RRC”). We review the denial of a section 2241 habeas petition de novo and findings of fact for clear error. *See Reynolds v. Thomas,*603 F.3d 1144, 1148 (9th Cir.2010). Schotz’s contention fails be*513cause the district court did not clearly err in concluding that Schotz did not make a direct request for placement in an RRC. In light of this conclusion, we do not reach Schotz’s argument that the BOP violated 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) by failing to consider him for RRC placement before the end of his sentence.

Schotz’s motion to take judicial notice of several documents that he filed with this court is denied, and the government’s motion to strike these documents is granted.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.