alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Bernice M. Olson et al., Respondents, v. City of New York, Appellant. City of New York (Board of Transportation of the City of New York), Appellant, v. Bernice Olson et al., Respondents. (Action No. 1.) Mildred Fanelli et al., Respondents, v. City of New York, Appellant, and Albert Olson et al., Respondents. (Action No. 2.)

The City of New York, a defendant in consolidated Action No. 1, and the City of New York, acting by the board of transportation of the City of New York, a plaintiff in said action, appeal from an order made at Trial Term, Queens County, dated February 14, 1955, severing consolidated Action No. 1 from Action No. 2." Consolidated Action No. 1 and Action No. 2 previously had been consolidated by an order made at Special Term, Queens County, dated October 18, 1954. Order dated February 14, 1955, reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and order dated October 18, 1954, reinstated. The fact that the respondents Olson were represented by different attorneys, in their capacities as plaintiffs and defendants, does not warrant the severance of the actions consolidated by an outstanding order of a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction. *(Shea*v. *Benjamin,*275 App. Div. 1003.) Wenzel, Acting P. J., Schmidt, Beldock, Murphy and Ughetta, JJ., concur.
##### 



Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | I, Patrick L. Beach, the President of GP3 Asset Acquisition, LLC, the
manager of Captec Franchise Capital Partners L.P. IV (the Partnership),
certify that:                                                                                
|
| | (1) The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Partnership for the
period ended June 30, 2003 which this certification accompanies fully
complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|
| | (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Partnership.                                                                                 

/s/ Patrick L. Beach
Patrick L. Beach
President
GP4 Asset Acquisition, LLC
August 14, 2003
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 Trey Resources, Inc. ("the Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("the Report"), I, Mark
Meller, certify, 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 my knowledge and
belief, 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.


                                             Date: November 15, 2007


                                             By /s/ Mark Meller
                                             ------------------------------
                                             Mark Meller
                                             President, Chief Executive Officer
                                             and Principal Financial Officer
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**721 CAF 14-00126**  PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, VALENTINO, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF MARY E. COUNTRYMAN, ALSO KNOWN AS MARY E. CONLEY, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

V ORDER
WILLIS C. COUNTRYMAN, JR., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

PAUL B. WATKINS, FAIRPORT, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
RUTHANNE G. SANCHEZ, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN, WATERTOWN.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Jefferson County (Peter A. Schwerzmann, A.J.), entered December 23, 2013 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order, among other things, awarded petitioner custody of the subject children. It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in the decision at Family Court.

Entered: June 12, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
### .•,hTi,lENTO r " . OP':RAI;Qi-'i : 

# HARDY DIAGNOSTIC S Augus t 16,201 0 Aloh aLey Actin g Associat e Director , X-5 0 U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Ave . S E W86-31 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 Dea r Ms . Ley , W e wer e informe dtoday , b y th e Sant aMari aEconomi c Developmen t Commissio n tha

t th e additio n o f

aflight fromSant aMari at o Denve r i s bein g considered . i woul d[ike t

o voic e m y wholehearte dsupport

fo r llii s plan . Ou r

busines s i s locate dclos e t o th e S M airport

an dw e hav e 17 5 employees . No t onl y d o man y o f

ou r employee s hav e t o frequently fly eastward , bu t i n addition , w e get

man y visitor s (customer s an dvendors ) tha t woul dmak e goo dus e o f thi s ne w destination . Than k yo u fo r supportin g thi s ne w destinatio n tlia t woul dagrea t

improvemen t

an d economi c stimulu s t o ou r surroundin g area . Sincerely , 

# fllM/ h Ja y Hardy Presiden t

Hard y Diagnostics ~ 143 0 Wes t McCo y Lan e - Sant

a Maria , C

A 9345 5 - " (805 ) 346-276 6 5ales@HardvDiagnostic5.co m - www.HardyDiagno5tics.co m Pag e 1 o f 1
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 25, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-40974 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSE OSCAR OCHOA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. M-02-CR-181-1

-------------------- Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Jose Oscar Ochoa appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Ochoa complains that his sentence was improperly enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) based on a prior conviction. He argues that the sentencing provision is unconstitutional. Ochoa thus contends that his sentence should not exceed the maximum terms ofNo. 02-40974 -2- imprisonment and supervised release prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Ochoa acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
###### Editorial Note on Part 240

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 240 appear at 57 FR 36501, Aug. 13, 1992, and 57 FR 47409, Oct. 16, 1992.

#### § 240.16c-1 Brokers.

Any transaction shall be exempt from section 16(c) of the Act to the extent necessary to render lawful the execution by a broker of an order for an account in which the broker has no direct or indirect interest.
**Exhibit 35.2**

 

**Servicer Compliance Statement of Deere Credit Services, Inc.**

 

I, Steven N. Owenson, Senior Vice President and Controller of Deere Credit Services, Inc., state:

 

A review of Deere Credit Services, Inc.’s activities for the period from July 24, 2019 (the date of issuance of the John Deere Owner Trust 2019-B transaction subject to the requirements of Regulation AB) through November 3, 2019 (the “Reporting Period”) and of Deere Credit Services, Inc.’s performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of July 24, 2019 among John Deere Capital Corporation, John Deere Receivables LLC and John Deere Owner Trust 2019-B has been made under my supervision, and to the best of my knowledge based on such review, Deere Credit Services, Inc. has fulfilled all its obligations under all relevant agreements in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 
| Date: January 10,   2020 | * * | Deere Credit   Services, Inc.     |
|-------------------------------|----------|----------------------------------------|
|                          |     |                                   |
| * *                      | * * | * *                               |
|                          | By:      | */s/   Steven N. Owenson*              |
|                          |     | Steven N. Owenson                      |
|                          |     | Senior Vice President   and Controller |

 

----
3401.604-70 Contract clause.       Contracting officers must insert a clause substantially the same as the clause at 3452.201–70 (Contracting Officer's Representative (COR)), in all solicitations and contracts for which a COR will be (or is) appointed.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 3401.6—Career Development, Contracting Authority, and Responsibilities
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. William Wurzler, Appellant.

Present — Poster, P. J., Heffernan, Brewster, Santry and Bergan, JJ.
### §1862o–3. Sharing research results

An investigator supported under a Foundation award, whom the Director determines has failed to comply with the provisions of section 734 of the Foundation Grant Policy Manual, shall be ineligible for a future award under any Foundation supported program or activity. The Director may restore the eligibility of such an investigator on the basis of the investigator's subsequent compliance with the provisions of section 734 of the Foundation Grant Policy Manual and with such other terms and conditions as the Director may impose.

(Pub. L. 110–69, title VII, §7011, Aug. 9, 2007, 121 Stat. 680.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the America COMPETES Act, also known as the America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science Act, and not as part of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950 which comprises this chapter.

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

#### Definitions

For definitions of terms used in this section, see section 7001 of Pub. L. 110–69, set out as a note under section 1862o of this title.
### §2331. Classification of property

#### (a) Property within each community

Immediately upon passage of this chapter, or, in the case of Los Alamos, upon its inclusion within this chapter, the Commission shall classify all real property (including such improvements and such fixtures, equipment and other personal property incident thereto as it may deem appropriate) within each community in accordance with such classifications as shall insure reasonably similar treatment for reasonably similar property. The classification shall be made by such procedures, consistent with this subchapter, as it shall determine.

#### (b) Property at or in vicinity of each community

The Commission may, but shall not be required to, classify any other real property at or in the vicinity of the community, whether within or outside of that community.

#### (c) Residential structures within each community

Prior to the date any residential property is first offered for sale at Los Alamos, the Commission shall further classify each residential structure within the community of Los Alamos either as a single family house, a duplex house, an apartment house, a dormitory, or as a residential structure containing two or more separate single family units and shall post, at the offices of the Commission at Los Alamos, a list, available for public inspection at reasonable times, showing the classification of each such residential structure. For the purposes of this chapter, each such residential structure will thereafter be deemed to be a single family house, a duplex house, an apartment house, a dormitory, or a residential structure containing two or more separate single family units in accordance with its classification. In determining the classification of each such residential structure containing two or more single family units, the Commission shall consider (1) the practicability of selling separately the single family units, and (2) the insurability of mortgages under section 1715n(a) of title 12.

(Aug. 4, 1955, ch. 543, ch. 4, §41, 69 Stat. 475; Pub. L. 87–719, §§7, 8, Sept. 28, 1962, 76 Stat. 664.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1962—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 87–719, §7, inserted ", or, in the case of Los Alamos, upon its inclusion within this chapter" after "chapter".

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 87–719, §8, added subsec. (c).

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

#### Transfer of Functions

Atomic Energy Commission abolished and functions transferred by sections 5814 and 5841 of this title. See also Transfer of Functions notes set out under those sections.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

CHRISTIAN PARKER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D20-1503

[October 29, 2020]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Bernard I. Bober, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 06-020346CF10A.

George E. Reres of ReresLaw, LLC, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CIKLIN, FORST and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
§ 1101.12 Request to correct or amend a record. ( a ) Any individual may submit a request for correction of or amendment to a record to the Section. The request should be made either in person or by mail addressed to the PA Officer who processed the individual's request for access to the record, and to whom is delegated authority to make initial determinations on requests for correction or amendment.
( b ) Since the request, in all cases, will follow a request for access under § 1101.6, the individual's identity will be established by his or her signature on the request.
( c ) A request for correction or amendment should be in writing. The envelope containing the request should be marked “Privacy Act Amendment Request” on the lower left hand corner. The request should include the following: ( 1 ) First, the letter should state that it is a request to amend a record under the Privacy Act of 1974.
( 2 ) Second, the request should identify the specific record and the specific information in the record for which an amendment is being sought.
( 3 ) Third, the request should state why the information is not accurate, relevant, timely, or complete. Supporting evidence may be included with the request.
( 4 ) Fourth, the request should state what new or additional information, if any, should be included in place of the erroneous information. Evidence of the validity of new or additional information should be included. If the information in the file is wrong and needs to be removed rather than supplemented or corrected, the request should make this clear.
( 5 ) Fifth, the request should include the name, address, and telephone number (optional) of the requester.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on September 17, 2004, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), ANSI Accredited Standards Committee “C50” (“C50 Committee”), by its Secretariat, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (“NEMA”), has filed written notification simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the name and principal place of business of the standards development organization and (2) the nature and scope of its standards development activities.  The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.                 

Pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place of business of the standards development organization is: ANSI Accredited Standards Committee “C50”, Rosslyn, VA.  The nature and scope of the C50 Committee's standards development activities are: Standards related to rotating electrical equipment. C50 Committee maintains two standards relating to motors and generators.  The standards developed by C50 Committee are published by NEMA.

Dorothy B. Fountain, 

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 04-26618  Filed 12-2-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
#### §§ 31.1-31.2 [Reserved]
**Exhibit      32.1**

|   | (1) | The                Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company                as of and for the period(s) covered in the                Report. |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                November 2,                2006 |   |   |
|------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|

|   | By:    | /s/                Richard M. Lavers   |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------|
|   |   | Richard                M. Lavers       |
|   |   | Chief                Executive Officer |

----

**Exhibit      32.2**

|   | (1) | The                Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company                as of and for the period(s) covered in the                Report. |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                November 2,                2006 |   |   |
|------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|

|   | By:    | /s/                Colleen A. Zuhl     |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------|
|   |   | Colleen                A. Zuhl         |
|   |   | Chief                Financial Officer |

----

----
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-6718

JERVON L. HERBIN, Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus JANET C. HOEFFEL, Staff Attorney, D.C. Public Defender Service; JO-ANN WALLACE, Director, D.C. Public Defender Service; ANITA M. JOSEY, Deputy Director, D.C. Public Defender Service; MICHELLE A. ROBERTS, Chairperson, D.C. Public Defender Service Board of Trustees; CONSTANCET. O'BRYANT, Vice Chairperson, D.C. Public Defender Service Board of Trustees; FRANCIS D. CARTER, Member, D.C. Public Defender Service Board of Trustees; ANTHONY MATTHEWS, Staff Attorney, D.C. Public Defender Service; KARIN H. CATHER, Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney,Loudoun County, Virginia; OWEN D. BASHAM, Deputy Commonwealth's Attorney, Loudoun County, Virginia; STEVE SIMPSON, Sheriff, Loudoun County, Virginia; KENNETH FOGNANO, Detective/Investigator, Loudoun County Sheriff's Department; JEROME L. HICKMAN, Lieutenant, Loudoun County Sheriff's Department; JOHN BUCKMAN, Sergeant, Loudoun County Sheriff's Department;MARK DAVIS, Lieutenant, Loudoun County Sheriff's Department, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-98-233-AM)2 Submitted: November 5, 1998 Decided: November 19, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jervon L. Herbin, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Jervon Herbin appeals from the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Herbin v. Hoeffel , No. CA-98-233-AM (E.D. Va. Mar. 25, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED