alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 16.1 Definitions. ( a ) The term *Secretary* means the Secretary of the Interior and his authorized representatives.
( b ) The term *Bureau* means the Bureau of Indian Affairs, acting through the Commissioner of Indian Affairs and his authorized representatives, including field officials who are responsible for matters affecting properties in which a restricted interest is owned by an Indian of the Five Civilized Tribes.
( c ) The term *Field Solicitor* means the Regional Solicitor, Southwest Region, Page Belcher Federal Building, P.O. Box 3156, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74101.
( d ) The term *Indian of the Five Civilized Tribes* means an individual who is either an enrolled member of the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, or Seminole Tribes of Oklahoma, or a descendant of an enrolled member thereof.
( e ) The term *restricted interest* means an interest owned in real or personal property subject to restraints upon alienation imposed either by Federal statute or by administrative action authorized by Federal statute. Although this term includes property subject to restraints which may be removed by administrative action, its use in this part refers primarily to property subject to restraints which State courts have jurisdiction to remove in proceedings such as those specified in § 16.2.
[37 FR 7082, Apr. 8, 1972, as amended at 50 FR 12529, Mar. 29, 1985]
§ 603.4 Standards used to Maintain Records. ( a ) Records Maintained by the NCPC shall contain only such information about an Individual as is relevant and necessary to accomplish a purpose NCPC must accomplish to comply with relevant statutes or Executive Orders of the President.
( b ) Records Maintained by the NCPC and used to make a determination about an Individual shall be accurate, relevant, timely, and complete to assure a fair determination.
( c ) Information used by the NCPC in making a determination about an Individual's rights, benefits, and privileges under federal programs shall be collected, to the greatest extent practicable, directly from the Individual. In deciding whether collection of information about an Individual, as opposed to a third party is practicable, the NCPC shall consider the following: ( 1 ) Whether the information sought can only be obtained from a third party;
( 2 ) Whether the cost to collect the information from an Individual is unreasonable compared to the cost of collecting the information from a third party;
( 3 ) Whether there is a risk of collecting inaccurate information from a third party that could result in a determination adverse to the Individual concerned;
( 4 ) Whether the information collected from an Individual requires verification by a third party; and
( 5 ) Whether the Individual can verify information collected from third parties.
( d ) The NCPC shall not Maintain Records describing how an Individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution unless the maintenance of the Record is expressly authorized by statute or by the Individual about whom the Record is Maintained or pertinent to and within the scope of an authorized law enforcement activity.
### §1219. Statement of origin of disease or injury: limitations

A member of an armed force may not be required to sign a statement relating to the origin, incurrence, or aggravation of a disease or injury that he has. Any such statement against his interests, signed by a member, is invalid.

(Added Pub. L. 85–56, title XXII, §2201(31)(A), June 17, 1957, 71 Stat. 160; amended Pub. L. 87–651, title I, §107(c), Sept. 7, 1962, 76 Stat. 509.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

#### 1962 Act

Sections 1218 and 1219 are restated, without substantive change, to conform to the style adopted for title 10.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1962—Pub. L. 87–651 substituted "Statement of origin of disease or injury: limitation" for "Statement against interest void" in section catchline, and "A member of an armed force may not be required to sign a statement relating to the origin, incurrence, or aggravation of a disease or injury that he has. Any such statement against his interests, signed by a member, is invalid" for "No person in the Armed Forces may be required to sign a statement of any nature relating to the origin, incurrence, or aggravation of any disease or injury he may have. Any such statement against his own interest, whenever signed, is of no force and effect."

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective Jan. 1, 1958, see section 2301 of Pub. L. 85–56, 71 Stat. 172.
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 Cosine Communications, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2010 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Terry R. Gibson, Director, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer 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, to
my knowledge:




(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.





/s/  Terry R.
    GibsonTerry
      R. GibsonDirector,
      Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial OfficerNovember
      4, 2010
#### Alyce Bardel, Respondent, v Vaios Tsoukas et al., Appellants.

[823 NYS2d 543]

In an action, inter alia, for the return of a down payment on a contract for the sale of real property, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Minardo, J.), dated March 31, 2005, which denied their motion to vacate a judgment of the same court dated September 28, 2004, or to set aside the award of motion costs and certain interest in the judgment.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the motion which was to set aside the award of motion costs in the judgment, and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Richmond County, for entry of an appropriate amended judgment.

The plaintiff commenced this action, inter alia, to recover a $3,500 down payment she made on a contract for the sale of real property. By order dated January 4, 2002, the Supreme Court held that the contract was null and void, and directed the defendants to return the plaintiffs down payment and to reimburse her $350 for title costs. The defendants did not pay the ordered amounts, but appealed to this Court after purportedly *406posting an undertaking. By decision and order dated March 3, 2003, this Court affirmed the Supreme Court’s order *(see Bardel v Tsoukas,*303 AD2d 344 [2003]). The plaintiff served the defendants with a copy of the decision and order of this Court with notice of entry, and sent a letter demanding the return of her down payment. However, the ordered payments were still not made. Consequently, the plaintiff entered a judgment on the January 4, 2002 order. However, when served with the judgment, the defendants still did not make the ordered payments, but rather made the motion at bar to vacate the judgment and to set aside the award of motion costs and certain interest in the judgment. The Supreme Court denied such relief. We modify only as to the issue of $100 in motion costs.

Contrary to the defendants’ characterization both before the Supreme Court and on appeal, the judgment at issue is not a “default judgment.” Thus, none of the arguments and analysis concerning the judgment are relevant. Indeed, with the exception of the argument concerning the award of motion costs, none of the defendants’ arguments have merit. The defendants are correct that the award of motion costs by the court deciding the motion must be express *(see Matter of Baker,*284 NY 1 [1940]; CPLR 8106). Here, given the absence of such an express award in an order deciding a motion, the Supreme Court erred in taxing motion costs in the judgment *(see Matter of Baker, supra;*CPLR 8106). Miller, J.P., Ritter, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.2

Statement of Chief Financial Officer under 18 U.S.C. § 1350

I, James A Clark, the chief financial officer of
Critical Path, Inc. (the Company), certify for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code that, to the best of my knowledge,



| | (i) | the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006 (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                  
|------------------
|/s/ James A. Clark
|James A. Clark    

August 14, 2006

A signed original of this written statement required by 18 U.S.C. § 1350 has been provided to Critical Path, Inc. and will be retained by Critical Path, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Annunziata and Overton 

Argued at Norfolk, Virginia 

WILLIE ROOSEVELT MORRING 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 0821-96-1 JUDGE NELSON T. OVERTON 

 APRIL 29, 1997 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK 

Luther C. Edmonds, Judge 

 Wesley A. Murphy for appellant. 

 Leah A. Darron, Assistant Attorney General 

(James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General, on 

brief), for appellee. 

 Willie Roosevelt Morring was convicted of possession of a 

concealed firearm in violation of Code § 18.2-308 and possession 

of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of Code 

§ 18.2-308.2. He appeals, contending that the evidence is 

insufficient to support the convictions. 

 The parties are fully conversant with the record in the 

cause, and because this memorandum opinion carries no 

precedential value, no recitation of the facts is necessary. 

 On appeal, the evidence must be viewed in a light most 

favorable to the Commonwealth and given all inferences fairly 

deducible therefrom. See Higginbotham v. Commonwealth, 216 Va. 

349, 352, 218 S.E.2d 534, 537 (1975). Furthermore, the 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

credibility of the witnesses and the weight assigned their 

testimony are matters exclusively for the fact finder. See

Coppola v. Commonwealth, 220 Va. 243, 252, 257 S.E.2d 797, 803 

(1979). Indeed, if the fact finder believes a defendant did not 

tell the truth, he may reject the defendant’s testimony and infer 

that the defendant lied to conceal guilt. See Black v. 

Commonwealth, 222 Va. 838, 840, 284 S.E.2d 608, 609 (1981). 

 The trial court in this case believed the testimony of the 

police officers. The officers testified that Morring was 

reaching in an area where a loaded gun was later found. The 

court rejected Morring’s own testimony that contradicted the 

officers’ and may have inferred guilt from his lying. The 

evidence amply supports a conviction for possession of a 

concealed weapon. 

 Affirmed.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No s . 23

- 1169 & 23

- 1170

___________

I n re: The Hertz Corporation, et al.,

Reorganized Debtors

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Indenture Trustee

, Appellant in No. 23

- 1169

v.

The Hertz Corporation; Dollar Rent A Car, Inc.; Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc.;

Donlen Corporation; DTG Operations, Inc.; DTG Supply, LLC; Firefly Rent A Car LLC;

Hertz Car Sales LLC; Hertz Global Services Corporation; Hertz Local Edition Corp.;

Hertz L ocal Edition Transporting, Inc.; Hertz System, Inc.; Hertz Technologies, Inc.;

Hertz Transporting, Inc.; Rental Car Group Company, LLC; Smartz Vehicle Rental

Corporation; Thrifty Car Sales, Inc.; Thrifty, LLC; Thrifty Insurance Agency, Inc.;

Thrifty Rent A Car System, LLC; and TRAC Asia Pacific, Inc.

U.S. Bank National Association, as Indenture Trustee

, Appellant in No. 23

- 1170

v.

The Hertz Corporation

Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court

for the District of Delaware

(No. 21

- 50995)

Bankruptcy Judge: Honorable Mary F. Walrath

Argued on October 25, 2023

Before: KRAUSE, PORTER, and AMBRO, Circuit JudgesORDER

The opinion and judgment filed in appeal No. 23

- 1169 on September 10, 2024 are

hereby vacated. The caption of the opinion and judgment has been revised to reflect that

the documents apply to both Nos. 23

- 1169 and 23

- 1170. The Clerk shall file the

amended opinion and judgment in both appeals. As the substance of the opinion and

judgment have not change d , Appellee’s petition for rehearing remains due on October 15,

2024.

By the Court,

s/ Thomas L. Ambro

Circuit Judge

Dated: September 25, 2024

L mr/ cc: All Counsel of Record
§ 115.406 Who provides an address of record for a minor's supervised account? ( a ) The custodial parent or the legal guardian must provide an address to the BIA and this address will be the address of record for the minor's supervised account. Where applicable, a parent or legal guardian must provide a copy of the custodial order or guardianship order from a court of competent jurisdiction when providing the address of record for the minor's supervised IIM account.
( b ) The emancipated minor must provide his or her address of record to the BIA.
( c ) Upon receipt of the change of address of record from the parent or legal guardian, the BIA must provide the change of the address of record to the OTFM.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

# USS Fort Worth Arrives in Jakarta for First Southeast Asia Port Visit

By MC2 Antonio P. Turretto RamosUSS Fort Worth

                JAKARTA, Indonesia  –              

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

USS Fort Worth

USPACOM

LCS
#### Samuel Wormser v. William Gehri and Another.

Motion granted, with fen dollars costs.
EXHIBIT 32.1



Statement of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

as Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Knight Capital Group, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Thomas M. Joyce, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:



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



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



/s/    THOMAS M. JOYCEName: Thomas M. Joyce Title: Chief Executive Officer Date: August 9, 2006




This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
### §10102. Purpose of reserve components

The purpose of each reserve component is to provide trained units and qualified persons available for active duty in the armed forces, in time of war or national emergency, and at such other times as the national security may require, to fill the needs of the armed forces whenever more units and persons are needed than are in the regular components.

(Added Pub. L. 103–337, div. A, title XVI, §1661(a)(1), Oct. 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 2970; amended Pub. L. 108–375, div. A, title V, §511, Oct. 28, 2004, 118 Stat. 1877.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in section 262 of this title, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 103–337, §1661(a)(2)(A).

#### Amendments

2004—Pub. L. 108–375 struck out ", during and after the period needed to procure and train additional units and qualified persons to achieve the planned mobilization," after "whenever".

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective Dec. 1, 1994, except as otherwise provided, see section 1691 of Pub. L. 103–337, set out as a note under section 10001 of this title.
■
	



■
	







	







	

	

		

	


	

		








		
	





	



	
		






 
!

"##	


 
		!


$


	%
&
'(%&'(
'
('(





	
		
	



	







%&'(
'(







)	*)+##),,,)%&'(
	


	

)







	















	



$










"##)	
$
"-##*



"-##-.


/







*-	






&	



)	
0


	
	



	

%&'(
		

	






"##)	


	



	




	




0









 %&'(!
	 %
&
')

(!
0




	

%&'()
*)+##),,,)%&'(0

	


	0%&'(
12'3-"-#4&
$3

5+--")#-#46







7

	


	

/




	


	
	




)



%&'(
12'3-"-#4&
$3

5+--"


7


8
"-##-
	



	


"##)	





(




	
	




(	




)

	


"##)		

	






	


.	
	

4#

	



	





	
	

/9#










	$

"#



	
	





	

3





/
	









	
/

	
	




	


	
	
	



)*)+55)):%;1


	
	

(	
/



)
	

	&












	

	

&
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting
Firm





To the Board of Directors of CoreLogic, Inc.:



We have examined management’s assertion,
included in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance, that CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc. (the "Company"),
an indirect subsidiary of CoreLogic, Inc. complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and
Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for all loans for commercial mortgage loan outsourcing customers for which the Company served
as the commercial tax service provider (the "Platform"), as of December 31, 2012 and for the year then ended, only including
1122(d)(1)(iv),

1122(d)(2)(v), 1122(d)(2)(vi), 1122(d)(2)(vii),
1122(d)(4)(xi), 1122(d)(4)(xii) and 1122(d)(4)(xiii), which the Company has determined are applicable to the servicing activities
performed by it with respect to the Platform. Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria.
Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion based on our examination.



Our examination was conducted in accordance
with attestation standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining,
on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other
procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of selected servicing activities related
to the Platform, and determining whether the Company performed those selected activities in compliance with the applicable servicing
criteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by
this report. Our procedures were not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent
to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by
this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal
determination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.



In our opinion, management’s assertion
that the Company complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2012
for all loans for commercial mortgage loan outsourcing customers for which the Company served as the commercial tax service provider
is fairly stated, in all material respects.



/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP



February 6, 2013











PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 2001 Ross
Avenue, Suite 1800, Dallas, Texas 75201

T: (214) 999-1400, F: (214) 754-7991,
www.pwc.com/us
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Michael John Brumley, Appellant

No. 06-22-00093-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the County Court of Burleson

County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 24,604). 

Memorandum Opinion delivered by Chief 

Justice Morriss, Justice Stevens and Justice 

van Cleef participating. 

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find reversible error in the judgment of 

the court below. Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s judgment convicting Brumley of the 

Class A misdemeanor offense of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. We remand the 

cause to the trial court with instructions to reform the judgment of conviction to reflect a 

conviction of the Class B misdemeanor offense of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated 

and to conduct a new punishment hearing attendant to the post-reformation conviction.

We note that the appellee, The State of Texas, pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED DECEMBER 20, 2022

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk