alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Release No. 86474 / July 25, 2019

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING 

File No. 3-15982

In the Matter of

MORGAN STANLEY AND CO. LLC; ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO

MORGAN STANLEY ABS CAPITAL I INC.; ENTER AN ORDER APPROVING 

and MORGAN STANLEY MORTGAGE OR DISAPPROVING PLAN OF

CAPITAL HOLDINGS LLC DISTRIBUTION

Respondents.

On May 31, 2019, pursuant to Rule 1103 of the United States Securities and Exchange 

Commission’s (“Commission”) Rules on Fair Fund and Disgorgement Plans (“Rules”), 17 

C.F.R.§ 201.1103, the Commission published a Notice of Proposed Plan of Distribution and 

Opportunity to Comment (“Notice”)1for the distribution of monies placed into a Fair Fund in the 

above-captioned matter. The Notice invited public comment on the proposed plan of distribution

(“Plan”) through July 1, 2019, and the Commission received one public comment (the 

“Comment”).

Rule 1104 of the Rules, 17 C.F.R. § 201.1104, provides in relevant part, “[t]he order 

approving or disapproving the plan should be entered within 30 days after the end of the final 

period allowed for comments on the proposed plan unless the Commission or the hearing officer, 

by written order, allows a longer period for good cause shown.”

Thirty days from the end of the final period for comments on the Plan will lapse on July 

30, 2019. The Division requests additional time to present its recommendation to the 

 

1

 Exchange Act Rel. No. 85998 (May 31, 2019).
2

Commission regarding the Comments and the Plan and has demonstrated good cause to extend 

the thirty-day time period, provided in Rule 1104 of the Rules, with entry of an order extending 

time to approve or disapprove the Plan until November 30, 2019.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 1104 of the Rules,2for good cause 

shown, the time for entering an order approving or disapproving the Plan is extended to 

November 30, 2019.

For the Commission, by its Secretary, pursuant to delegated authority.

Vanessa A. Countryman

Secretary

 

2

 17 C.F.R. § 201.1104.
United States Bankruptcy Court 

Eastern District of Virginia 

________________ Division 

In re: 

Case Number ________________ 

Debtor(s) Chapter ____

ORDER

 A hearing was held on ______________________, pursuant to the Order Setting Hearing 

entered by the Clerk.

 The debtor(s) appeared at the hearing. 

 The debtor(s) did not appear at the hearing. 

 Counsel for the debtor(s) appeared at the hearing. 

 For the reasons stated on the record from the bench, the Court ORDERS: 

 The debtor(s) shall cure the following deficiency(ies) on or before ____________________

see attached Exhibit A: 

Failure to timely cure each deficiency listed above will result in the above-captioned 

bankruptcy case being dismissed without further notice or hearing. 

 The case is dismissed because the debtor(s) failed to appear at the hearing; and it is further 

 The case is dismissed; and it is further 

ORDERED that the debtor(s) pay the balance of the filing fee in the amount of 

$______________ to the Clerk of Court within 14 days of the date of this order; and it is further 

ORDERED that dismissal of this case revests the property of the estate in the entity in 

which such property was vested immediately before the commencement of the case. The trustee 

need not file a final report unless property or money was administered. 

Date: ____________________ _________________________________ 

United States Bankruptcy Judge 

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER 

ENTERED ON DOCKET: ___________________ 

[opursosethrg ver. 07/18] 

Alexandria

Anthony F Ford

Kim A Kieklak 18-12013-BFK

7

August 28, 2018

✔

✔

-0.00-

Sep 7 2018 /s/ Brian F. Kenney

September 10, 2018

Case 18-12013-BFK Doc 31 Filed 09/10/18 Entered 09/10/18 09:02:16 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 2
Exhibit A 

Case 18-12013-BFK Doc 31 Filed 09/10/18 Entered 09/10/18 09:02:16 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.2

The following certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and pursuant to SEC Release No. 33-8238 is being furnished to
the SEC rather than filed either as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure statement, and is not to be incorporated by reference into the Report or any other filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof,
regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing. The following certification shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to the
liabilities of Section 18 or Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended

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

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002

I, Raymond Cook, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of STEC, Inc. (the Company), certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1) the
Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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/ RAYMOND COOK                    
|Raymond Cook Chief
Financial Officer

November 3, 2009
SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA
(0) I947A J.

statutory good time and 150 days for work or study pursuant to NRS 209.4465, and 540 days for participation in programs pursuant to NRS 209.449. Based upon our review of the record on appeal, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying the petition because appellant failed to demonstrate that he was entitled to any additional credits and failed to demonstrate a violation of a constitutional right. SeeNRS 209.4465; NRS 209.449. Docket No. 62031

In his motion filed on August 14, 2012, appellant claimed that he should have received 2,128, rather than 835, days of presentence credit for time served because that was the amount credited to his concurrent sentence in a later case. Appellant failed to demonstrate that the district court relied on mistaken assumptions regarding his criminal record that worked to his extreme detriment. See Edwards v. State, 112 Nev. 704, 708, 918 P.2d 321, 324 (1996). Appellant also failed to demonstrate that his sentence was facially illegal or that the district court lacked jurisdiction. See id. We therefore conclude that the district court did not err in denying appellant's motion. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgments of the district court AFFIRMED.



### Hardesty J.cc: Hon. David B. Barker, District Judge Terrance L. Oliver Attorney General/Las Vegas Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA
(0) 1947A 3
# L_2009014EN.01S00301.xml

| 20.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 14/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 14/s3

---

NOTE TO THE READER

The institutions have decided no longer to quote in their texts the last amendment to cited acts.

Unless otherwise indicated, references to acts in the texts published here are to the version of those acts currently in force.

---
Robert S. Westermann (VSB No. 43294)

Franklin R. Cragle, III (VSB No. 78398)

HIRSCHLER FLEISCHER, P.C.

The Edgeworth Building

2100 East Cary Street

Post Office Box 500

Richmond, Virginia 23218-0500

Telephone: 804.771.9500

Facsimile: 804.644.0957

E-Mail: rwestermann@hirschlerlaw.com

fcragle@hirschlerlaw.com

Counsel for BMST, Inc. and Mark Beltrami

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

RICHMOND DIVISION

)

In re: )

)

DIGITAL INK, INC., and ) Case No. 18-30056-KLP

CHRISTOPHER DAVID McGINNIS, )

) Chapter 7

Debtors. )

)

)

HARRY SHAIA, JR., TRUSTEE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. ) Adv. Pro. No. 18-03098-KLP

)

BMST, INC., et al., )

)

Defendants. )

)

BMST, INC.’S AND MARK BELTRAMI’S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT TO 

AVOID TRANSFERS, IMPRESS SUCCESSOR LIABILITY, AND OBTAIN AN ORDER 

OF SUBSTANTIVE CONSOLIDATION

Defendants, BMST, Inc. and Mark Beltrami (together, the “BMST Defendants”), by

counsel, pursuant to Rule 7012 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and Rule 12(b)(6) 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for the reasons set forth in BMST, Inc.’s and Mark 

Beltrami’ Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss Complaint to Avoid Transfers, 

Case 18-03098-KLP Doc 10 Filed 11/02/18 Entered 11/02/18 10:04:01 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 3
2

Impress Successor Liability, and Obtain an Order of Substantive Consolidation filed 

contemporaneously herewith, seeking dismissal of all Counts asserted against the BMST 

Defendants, request that the Court enter an Order: (i) granting this Motion to Dismiss; (ii) 

dismissing Counts V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, and XI, with prejudice, and (iii) granting such other and 

further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Dated: November 2, 2018 Respectfully submitted

BMST, INC. and MARK BELTRAMI

 /s/ Franklin R. Cragle, III

 Counsel

Robert S. Westermann (VSB No. 43294)

Franklin R. Cragle, III (VSB No. 78398)

HIRSCHLER FLEISCHER, P.C.

The Edgeworth Building

2100 East Cary Street

Post Office Box 500

Richmond, Virginia 23218-0500

Telephone: 804.771.9500

Facsimile: 804.644.0957

E-Mail: rwestermann@hirschlerlaw.com

fcragle@hirschlerlaw.com

Counsel for BMST, Inc. and Mark Beltrami

Case 18-03098-KLP Doc 10 Filed 11/02/18 Entered 11/02/18 10:04:01 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 3
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on November 2, 2018, a true and complete copy of the foregoing 

Motion was filed and served electronically using the Court’s ECF System and was also sent by email and first class mail, postage prepaid, as follows:

Kimberly A. Taylor, Esq.

William A. Broscious, Esq.

Kepley Broscious & Biggs, PLC

2211 Pump Road

Richmond, Virginia 23233

(ktaylor@kbbplc.com)

 Counsel for Harry Shaia, Jr., Trustee

Robert A. Canfield, Esq.

Canfield Wells & Kruck, LLP

4124 E. Parham Road

Henrico, Virginia 23228

(bob@cwkllp.com)

 Counsel for Christopher McGinnis

 /s/ Franklin R. Cragle, III

 Counsel

Case 18-03098-KLP Doc 10 Filed 11/02/18 Entered 11/02/18 10:04:01 Desc Main

 Document Page 3 of 3
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4734 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4734

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 171 South Maple Street in Dana, Indiana, as the ``Ernest `Ernie' T. 
                          Pyle Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 18, 2019

Mr. Bucshon (for himself, Mr. Visclosky, Mrs. Walorski, Mr. Banks, Mr. 
 Baird, Mrs. Brooks of Indiana, Mr. Pence, Mr. Carson of Indiana, and 
Mr. Hollingsworth) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                 the Committee on Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 171 South Maple Street in Dana, Indiana, as the ``Ernest `Ernie' T. 
                          Pyle Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. ERNEST ``ERNIE'' T. PYLE POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 171 South Maple Street in Dana, Indiana, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Ernest `Ernie' T. Pyle Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Ernest 
`Ernie' T. Pyle Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
#### In the Matter of the Application and Petition of J. Edward Simmons and Others, Constituting the Board of Water Supply of the City of New York, Respondents, to Acquire Real Estate, etc., in the City of Yonkers, etc. Hill View Reservoir, Section No. 1, Parcel No. 4 David H. King, Jr., Appellant.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Burr, Thomas, Carr and Putnam, JJ., concurred; Jenks, P. J., not voting.
### §832a–1. Repealed. Pub. L. 88–426, title III, §305(36), Aug. 14, 1964, 78 Stat. 427

Section, Pub. L. 87–330, title II, §200, Sept. 30, 1961, 75 Stat. 728, prescribed the compensation of the Administrator, Bonneville Power Administration, and is prescribed by section 5316 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective on first day of first pay period which begins on or after July 1, 1964, see section 501 of Pub. L. 88–426.
Exhibit  23.1

Independent  Auditors'  Consent
 We  consent  to  the  incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
333-38722,  333-39822  and  333-42356  on  Form  S-3  of  Green  Mountain  Power
Corporation of our reports dated February 25, 2004 relating to the consolidated
financial  statements  and  2003  and 2002 information included in the financial
statement  schedule  of Green Mountain Power Corporation as of and for the years
ended December 31, 2003 and 2002 appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Green  Mountain  Power  Corporation  for  the  year  ended  December  31,  2003.


/s/DELOITTE  &  TOUCHE  LLP

March  10,  2004
#### § 104.31 Application of this subpart.

Subpart D applies to preschool, elementary, secondary, and adult education programs or activities that receive Federal financial assistance and to recipients that operate, or that receive Federal financial assistance for the operation of, such programs or activities.

[45 FR 30936, May 9, 1980, as amended at 65 FR 68055, Nov. 13, 2000]
§ 222.184 What information must an application contain? An application for an emergency or modernization grant must contain the following information: ( a ) The name of the school facility the LEA is proposing to repair, construct, or modernize.
( b ) ( 1 ) For an applicant under section 8003(b) of the Act, the number of federally connected children described in section 8003(a)(1) enrolled in the school facility, as well as the total enrollment in the facility, for which the LEA is seeking a grant; or
( 2 ) For an applicant under section 8002 of the Act, the total enrollment, for the preceding year, in the LEA and in the school facility for which the LEA is seeking a grant, based on the fall State count date.
( c ) The identification of the LEA's interest in, or authority over, the school facility involved, such as an ownership interest or a lease arrangement.
( d ) The original construction date of the school facility that the LEA proposes to renovate or modernize.
( e ) The dates of any major renovations of that school facility and the areas of the school covered by the renovations.
( f ) The proportion of Federal acreage within the geographic boundaries of the LEA.
( g ) Fiscal data including the LEA's— ( 1 ) Maximum bonding capacity;
( 2 ) Amount of bonded debt;
( 3 ) Total assessed value of real property available to be taxed for school purposes;
( 4 ) State average assessed value per pupil of real property available to be taxed for school purposes;
( 5 ) Local real property tax levy, in mills or dollars, used to generate funds for capital expenditures; and
( 6 ) Sources and amounts of funds available for the proposed project.
( h ) A description of the need for funds and the proposed project for which a grant under this subpart L would be used, including a cost estimate for the project.
( i ) Applicable assurances and certifications identified in the approved grant application package.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1810-0657) (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7707(b))
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           1,248
<SECURITIES>                                     8,932
<RECEIVABLES>                                      365
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      9,661
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                21,040
<PP&E>                                             758
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,846
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  23,659
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,597
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            73
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,047
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    23,659
<SALES>                                         72,631
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                72,631
<CGS>                                           62,845
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   62,845
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                47,292
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,029
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,187
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (43,722)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,542)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (46,264)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (11.71)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (11.71)


</TABLE>
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 Telco-Technology,
Inc.  (the  "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended  March
31,  2004,  as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission
(the  "Report"), the undersigned certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-
Oxley  Act  of 2002, to the best of the undersigned's  knowledge,
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
results of operations of the Company.



Dated:  May 13, 2004             By:/s/ Donald R. McKelvey
                                 Donald R. McKelvey,
                                 Chairman  of  the  Board   and
                                 President



Dated:  May 13, 2004             By:/s/ Donald R. McKelvey
                                 Donald R. McKelvey,
                                 Principal Financial Officer
#### Pringle & Brodie Machinery Company, Appellee, v. Grand Trunk Western Railway Company, Appellant.

Gen. No. 15,111.

*Vebdicts—when not disturbed.*A verdict will not be set aside on review as against the weight of the evidence unless clearly and manifest; ly so.

Action commenced before justice of the peace. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. E. E. Newlin, Judge, presiding.

Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1908.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed July 15, 1910.

Gr. W. Kretzinger, Jr., for appellant.

George W, Woodbury, for appellee.

*627Mr. Justice Smith

delivered the opinion of the court.

This action was brought before a justice of the peace for damages sustained by the plaintiff, appellee, by reason of the negligence of the servants of the defendant, appellant, in unloading a machine belonging to appellee from a wagon into a freight depot of appellant.

On appeal to the Circuit Court a jury was waived, and the cause was tried before the court, resulting in a finding and judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $83.68, to reverse which this appeal is prosecuted.

Uo propositions to be held as law were submitted to the court. The case seems to have been tried without much regard to the rules of evidence, and we find no assignment of error on the rulings of the court on evidence.

In our opinion the evidence tends to show that when goods were delivered to the defendant at its freight depot the servants of the defendant assisted the driver of the wagon in unloading the same into the depot of the defendant. The plaintiff sent a machine to the defendant’s depot weighing from 700 to 1200 pounds to be shipped over the defendant’s road. The machine was sent to defendant’s depot in an express wagon capable of carrying 4000 pounds. The wagon with the machine in it was backed up to defendant’s freight house, and the servants of the defendant, in endeavoring to pry up one side of the machine for the purpose of putting under it rollers in order to roll the machine off the wagon, tipped over the machine and it fell out of the wagon to the ground and was broken. The driver was standing in the front end of the wagon in his proper place ready to assist in pushing the machine off the wagon after the rollers had been placed under it. The evidence, we think, sustains the action and the right to recover against the defendant for the damages occasioned to the machine by the careless and improper handling by the defendant’s servants. The amount of damages found by the court, $83.68, is not excessive. The judgment is therefore affirmed.

*Affirmed,*
§ 200.65 Determining equitable participation of teachers and families of participating private school children. ( a ) From the proportional share reserved for equitable services under § 200.77(d), an LEA shall ensure that teachers and families of participating private school children participate on an equitable basis in services and activities under this subpart.
( b ) After consultation with appropriate private school officials, the LEA must provide services and activities under paragraph (a) of this section either— ( 1 ) In conjunction with the LEA's services and activities for teachers and families; or
( 2 ) Independently.
[84 FR 31675, July 2, 2019]