alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Accounting of Ben Steckman et al., as Executors of Jacob Calmus, Deceased. Cohen & Seigel, Individually and as Attorneys for Executors, Appellants; Fannie Calmus, Respondent.

In a final accounting proceeding, the attorneys for the executors, in their own behalf and as such attorneys for the executors, appeal from so much of a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Richmond County, dated September 16, 1959, judicially settling the executor’s account, as limited the attorneys’ compensation to the sum of $500. The fundamental claim of error is that the Surrogate disregarded: (1) an alleged oral “ agreement” by the executors to pay $1,500 to the attorneys for their services; and (2) the value of the realty devised by the decedent’s will. Decree insofar as appealed from affirmed, without costs. While the executors’ account alleges the “.agreement” mentioned, Schedule C-l thereof left the matter of the fixation of the attorneys’ fees to the Surrogate under section 231-a of the Surrogate’s Court Act. Under the circumstances, the Surrogate was free to determine for himself the fair and reasonable value of the services rendered by the attorneys. It appears that the Surrogate conducted a hearing, but we find no indication that he disregarded the value of the real property as an operative factor in fixing the compensation allowed. After distribution and payment of administration expenses the net cash amount remaining in the estate is $2,800. Under the circumstances of this case, the Surrogate properly exercised his discretion in fixing $500 as the full compensation of the attorneys for their services (of. *Matter of*Wilson, 147 Mise. 542). Nolan, P. J., Beldoek, Ughetta, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 1 7

- 1 1686 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 8:14−cr−00102−MSS−AAS−1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus LONZINE ADAMS , Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida

________________________ ( April 10, 2018 )
Before TJOFLAT , NEWSOM and HULL , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Thomas Burns , appointed counsel for Lonzine Adams in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and

Case: 17-11686 Date Filed: 04/10/2018 Page: 1 of 22 filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is
GRANTED , an d Adams ’s conviction s and sentence s are AFFIRMED

. Accordingly, we DENY Adams’s motion for the appointment of new counsel as

moot. Case: 17-11686 Date Filed: 04/10/2018 Page: 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.01

August 6, 2009

The
certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 (the Report) of El Paso Electric Company (the Company) for the purpose of
complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

David W. Stevens and David G. Carpenter, each certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | 1. | such Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act; 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/ David W. StevensDavid W. StevensChief Executive Officer/s/ David G. CarpenterDavid G. CarpenterSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### 1601.103 Applicability.

The FAR is generally applicable to contracts negotiated in the FEHBP pursuant to 5 U.S.C. chapter 89. The FEHBAR implements and supplements the FAR where necessary to identify basic and significant acquisition policies unique to the FEHBP.
##### 



Exhibit 32 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 Emerson Radio Corp., (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Geoffrey P. Jurick, Chief Executive Officer, and Kenneth
A. Corby, Chief Financial Officer, of the Company each hereby certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (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 consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates
presented and the consolidated result of operations of the Company for the
periods presented. Dated: August 5, 2004 By:
    
    /s/ Geoffrey P. JurickGeoffrey P. JurickChief Executive OfficerBy:
    
    /s/ Kenneth A. CorbyExecutive Vice President andChief Financial Officer
 The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,
Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of
the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Emerson Radio Corp. and
will be retained by Emerson Radio Corp. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
### §2008o. Repealed. Pub. L. 115–334, title VI, §6601(a)(1)(D), Dec. 20, 2018, 132 Stat. 4775

Section, Pub. L. 87–128, title III, §379A, as added Pub. L. 107–171, title VI, §6023, May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 370; amended Pub. L. 110–234, title VI, §6020, May 22, 2008, 122 Stat. 1172; Pub. L. 110–246, §4(a), title VI, §6020, June 18, 2008, 122 Stat. 1664, 1934, related to historic barn preservation.
188 So. 155

#### STATE v. CARLSON.

No. 35244.

April 3, 1939.

Preston L. Savoy, of Lake Charles, and Lottinger & O’Neal, pf Houma, for appellant.

David M. Ellison, Atty. Gen., James O’Connor, Asst. Atty. Gen., and C. V. Patti-son, Dist. Atty., and Colemán D. Reed and John H. Martin, Asst. Dist. Attys., all of Lake Charles, for the State.

PONDER, Justice.

The defendant, E. A. Carlson, was convicted of the crime of grand larceny. *503The defendant’s counsel filed a motion for a new trial which was overruled by the lower court. From the extracts of the minutes of the lower court in this case it appears that the defendant’s counsel excepted to the overruling of the motion for a new trial and reserved a bill. The defendant’s counsel did not prepare a formal bill of exception and present it to the lower court for its signature and per curiam. The defendant was sentenced to the penitentiary to serve a term of not less than one, nor more than three years. The defendant’s counsel appealed. Bills of exceptions must be prepared and presented to the trial court for its signature 'and per curiam before an appeal is taken. Articles 542 and 543, Code of Criminal Procedure; State v. Barrett, 137 La. 535, 68 So. 945; State v. Snowden, 174 La. 156, 140 So. 9.

The defendant’s counsel contends that there was no evidence on which the lower court could sustain a verdict of guilty. We find1 testimony copied in the record but it cannot be considered by this court because it is not annexed to and made a part of a formal bill of exception. State v. Simmons, 118 La. 22, 42 So. 582.

There being no formal bill of exception prepared and presented to the trial court for its signature and per curiam, no assignment of error, and no error on the face of the record the conviction and sentence must be affirmed. State v. Festervand, 189 La. 226, 179 So. 297.

For the reasons assigned the conviction and sentence are affirmed.

HIGGINS, J., absent.
SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


IceSolv, Inc. - a Pennsylvania corporation which was formed in June 1993.

Cannon Sline, Inc. -- a Pennsylvania corporation formed by merger of 
Oliver B. Cannon & Son, Inc. & Sline Industrial Painters, Inc.

IMCON Painters, Inc. - a Texas corporation which was formed in October, 1996.

Mansfield Industrial Coatings, Inc. - a Mississippi corporation which 
was acquired by Canisco Resources, Inc. on April 22, 1998.  For further 
information, see the 8-K filing dated May 7, 1998.

Other notes:

(1)	Canisco Resources, Inc. is the survivor by merger of Canisco 
Resources, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Nuclear Support Services, Inc., 
a Virginia corporation and NSS of Delaware, Inc. a Delaware corporation.  
Shareholder approval of the merger of these entities was received at a 
Special Meeting of Shareholders held March 29, 1996.  The merger was 
effective May 24, 1996.

(2)	NSS Numanco, Inc. - The stock of NSS Numanco, Inc. was sold to 
Nuvest L.L.C. of Tulsa, Oklahoma effective February 25, 	1996.

(3)	Henze Services, Inc. - Substantially all the assets of Henze were 
sold to Harley Industries, Inc. of Tulsa, Oklahoma in June, 1996.

Exhibit 22
Case: 1:12-cr-00087 Document #: 43 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:81
Case: 1:12-cr-00087 Document #: 43 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 2 of 16 PageID #:82
Case: 1:12-cr-00087 Document #: 43 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 3 of 16 PageID #:83
Case: 1:12-cr-00087 Document #: 43 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 4 of 16 PageID #:84
Case: 1:12-cr-00087 Document #: 43 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 5 of 16 PageID #:85
Case: 1:12-cr-00087 Document #: 43 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 6 of 16 PageID #:86
Case: 1:12-cr-00087 Document #: 43 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 7 of 16 PageID #:87
Case: 1:12-cr-00087 Document #: 43 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 8 of 16 PageID #:88
Case: 1:12-cr-00087 Document #: 43 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 9 of 16 PageID #:89
Case: 1:12-cr-00087 Document #: 43 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 10 of 16 PageID #:90
Case: 1:12-cr-00087 Document #: 43 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 11 of 16 PageID #:91
Case: 1:12-cr-00087 Document #: 43 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 12 of 16 PageID #:92
Case: 1:12-cr-00087 Document #: 43 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 13 of 16 PageID #:93
Case: 1:12-cr-00087 Document #: 43 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 14 of 16 PageID #:94
Case: 1:12-cr-00087 Document #: 43 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 15 of 16 PageID #:95
Case: 1:12-cr-00087 Document #: 43 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 16 of 16 PageID #:96
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-1862

ALVEDA INGRAM RICHARDSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MARCIA G. SHEIN,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

FEDERAL CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS LAW CENTER,

INCORPORATED,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA97-3439-CCB)

Submitted: December 22, 1999 Decided: January 13, 2000

Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Alveda Ingram Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. Joshua R. Treem,

SCHULMAN, TREEM, KAMINKOW & GILDEN, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Alveda Richardson appeals the district court’s order denying

her motion for summary judgment and granting Marcia Shein’s crossmotion for summary judgment in Richardson’s legal malpractice and

breach of contract action. 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. See Richardson v. Shein, No. CA-97-3439-CCB (D. Md. May 27, 1999). 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
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-7142

DARL D. ALT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr.,

District Judge. (CA-00-592)

Submitted: December 15, 2000 Decided: January 4, 2001

Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darl D. Alt, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM

Darl D. Alt appeals the district court’s order dismissing

without prejudice his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint. Alt also seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing without prejudice his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A.

§ 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000) for failure to exhaust state

remedies. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. See Alt v. West Virginia, No. CA-00-592 (S.D.W.

Va. Aug. 8, 2000).

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
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME, CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET, CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS FOR THE FORM 10-K DATED DECEMBER 31, 1995 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000922224
<NAME> PP&L RESOURCES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    7,121,825
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    346,418
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         692,606
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                     1,330,837
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,491,686
<COMMON>                                         1,594
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                    1,512,380
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                          1,083,135
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>               2,597,109
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          295,000
<PREFERRED>                                    171,375
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         2,828,728
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                              21,145
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                  68,000
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                   30,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                    138,624
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                81,017
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>               3,260,688
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                9,491,686
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                    2,751,798
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                           261,620
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   1,916,402
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   2,178,022
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        573,776
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               2,537
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 576,313
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       225,892
<NET-INCOME>                                   350,421
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                     27,768
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  322,653
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                       263,645
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                      213,413
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         692,259
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.05
        

</TABLE>
EPA Reg. No. 228-606 

(formerly 1812-458)
#### In the Matter of John C. Hill, an Attorney, Respondent. Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Petitioner.

First Department,

December 8, 1960.

*Raymond P. Whearty*of counsel *(Eric Nightingale,*attorney), for petitioner.

*John C. Hill,*respondent in person.

*Per Curiam.*

The respondent was admitted to practice in 1948. He is charged with (1) engaging in the practice of issuing worthless checks; (2) (a) having received numerous summonses for traffic violations and having delayed in responding, to same despite communications sent to him by the court requesting him to do so and (b) having assaulted a police officer; (3) having *15converted the proceeds of a $40 check given him by a client for payment of corporate franchise taxes; (4) having converted the proceeds of a $75 check given to him by a client to be paid to the client’s wife; (5) having failed to appear at a criminal trial as directed by the court for summation in behalf of his client and falsely representing to the court the reason for such absences; and (6) having given false, contradictory and conflicting testimony before the Grievance Committee.

Charges 1, 2 and 5 are sufficiently supported by the evidence. We accept the Referee’s findings that Charges 3 and 4 be dismissed.

Although the Referee recommended that Charge 6 be dismissed we find that charge to have been amply sustained. The giving of false testimony before the Grievance Committee called to make inquiry as to his conduct cannot be condoned. The over-all conduct of the respondent requires us to find him guilty of professional misconduct and accordingly he should be suspended for a period of two years.

Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente and Bergan, JJ., concur.

Respondent suspended for a period of two years.
EXHIBIT 3(a)
                   CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT

                               OF

                   CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION 

                               OF

                     EMERSON RADIO CORP.





        Emerson Radio Corp., a corporation duly organized and existing 
under the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the "Corporation"),
does hereby certify that: 



I.   The proposed amendment of the Certificate of Incorporation of the
Corporation, set forth below, was duly adopted in accordance with the 
provisions of Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of 
Delaware.



II.     Article numbered Fourth, Section A. of the Corporation's Certificate 
of Incorporation is amended to read in its entirety as follows:



        "A.  The total number of shares of all classes of stock which 
the Corporation shall have authority to issue is eighty five million 
(85,000,000) consisting of:

                (a) ten million (10,000,000) shares of Preferred Stock, 
par value one cent ($.01) per share (the "Preferred Stock"); and


                (b) seventy-five million (75,000,000) shares of Common 
Stock, par value one cent ($.01) per share (the "Common Stock").



        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said Emerson Radio Corp. has caused this 
certificate to be signed by Eugene I. Davis, its President, this 14th day of 
February, 1996.





                                     By:/s/ Eugene I. Davis
                                            Eugene I. Davis, President
#### Jupiter Express *&*Cargo Agency, S. A., Respondent, v. L. & S. Fruit & Produce, Inc., Appellant.

Order, entered on March 4, 1964, denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of prosecution, unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellant, and the motion granted, with $10 costs. No adequate excuse has been given for the delay or for the failure to submit an affidavit of merits. *(Sortino*v. *Fisher,*20 A D 2d 25.) Further, plaintiff has failed to proceed with the commission to take the testimony of its president in Cuba although authorized to do so on June 28, 1962. Concur — Botein, P. J., McNally, Eager, Steuer and Staley, JJ.
### §7b–2. Privacy

#### (a) Treatment as financial institutions

Notwithstanding section 509(3)(B) of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act [15 U.S.C. 6809(3)(B)], any futures commission merchant, commodity trading advisor, commodity pool operator, or introducing broker that is subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission under this chapter with respect to any financial activity shall be treated as a financial institution for purposes of title V of such Act [15 U.S.C. 6801 et seq.] with respect to such financial activity.

#### (b) Treatment of CFTC as Federal functional regulator

For purposes of title V of such Act [15 U.S.C. 6801 et seq.], the Commission shall be treated as a Federal functional regulator within the meaning of section 509(2) of such Act [15 U.S.C. 6809(2)] and shall prescribe regulations under such title within 6 months after December 21, 2000.

(Sept. 21, 1922, ch. 369, §5g, as added Pub. L. 106–554, §1(a)(5) [title I, §124], Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A–411.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, referred to in text, is Pub. L. 106–102, Nov. 12, 1999, 113 Stat. 1338. Title V of the Act is classified principally to chapter 94 (§6801 et seq.) of Title 15, Commerce and Trade. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title of 1999 Amendment note set out under section 1811 of Title 12, Banks and Banking, and Tables.
<PAGE>
                                                                    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 Federal Screw Works (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Quarterly
Report"), I, Thomas ZurSchmiede, President and Chief Executive 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:

         (1) The Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
78o(d)); and

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


November 13, 2003
                                        /s/ Thomas ZurSchmiede
                                        ----------------------------------
                                        Thomas ZurSchmiede, President and Chief
                                        Executive Officer of Federal Screw Works
#### Richard F. Ahleim et al., Respondents, v. State of New York, Appellant.

(Claim No. 40347.)

Case held, decision reserved, and matter remitted to the Trial Judge for further proceedings in accordance with the memorandum. Upon the making of such finding the case is directed to be restored to the calendar of this court. Memorandum: Separate findings should be made as to the amount awarded for the direct taking and the amount allowed as consequential damages. (See *Wineburgh*v. *State of New*York, 20 A D 2d 961.) (Appeal from judgment of Court of Claims for claimants in an action for damages for permanent appropriation of realty.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Henry, Noonan and Del Yecchio, JJ.