alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Marika Tolz, Appellant, v Richard Valente et al., Respondents.

[835 NYS2d 604]—

In an action pursuant to Debtor and Creditor Law article 10 to set aside a transfer as fraudulent, the plaintiff, Marika Tolz, as trustee for the bankruptcy estate of the defendant Richard Valente, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Spinner, J.), dated March 31, 2006, which granted the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel disclosure.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion to compel disclosure is denied.

Judgment creditors Vincent Volpes and Mary Volpes commenced this action, inter alia, to set aside a conveyance of real property from the defendant Richard Valente to his wife, the defendant Cheryl Valente, as a fraudulent conveyance. Thereafter, Richard Valente filed for bankruptcy relief pursuant to chapter 7 of the 1978 United States Bankruptcy Code (11 USC) and Marika Tolz was duly appointed trustee. By order dated June 2, 2003, the Supreme Court ordered her substituted as the plaintiff in this action. The defendants then moved pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel the plaintiff to respond to outstanding discovery demands, inter alia, for the Volpes’ financial records and to compel them to appear for depositions. The Supreme Court granted the motion and directed the trustee to provide the requested disclosure. We reverse.

The Supreme Court erred in directing the plaintiff trustee to produce documents and witnesses over which she has no control. The trustee was correctly “substituted as plaintiff in this action” since the trustee is the only proper party to maintain the action and does so for the benefit of the estate as a whole *(see*
      *738
      *Matter of Daniele Laundries, Inc.,*40 BR 404 [1984]; *In re Pappas,*239 BR 448 [1999]). As a result, the Volpes were relegated to the status of general creditors of the estate *(see American Hardware Supply Co. v Rubin,*70 AD2d 648 [1979]; *Koch Ref. v Farmers Union Cent. Exch., Inc.,*831 F2d 1339 [1987], *cert denied*485 US 906 [1988]) who are neither represented by the trustee nor under her control. Accordingly, she cannot be compelled to produce or sanctioned for failing to produce information which she does not possess *(see Sagiv v Gamache,*26 AD3d 368 [2006]; *Gatz v Layburn,*9 AD3d 348 [2004]; *Corriel v Volkswagen of Am.,*127 AD2d 729 [1987]) or witnesses that she does not control *(see Moriates v Powertest Petroleum Co.,*114 AD2d 888 [1985]). Schmidt, J.P., Mastro, Carni and Dickerson, JJ., concur.
#### Andrew J. Di Paola et al., Constituting the Board of Appeals of the City of Glen Cove, Respondents, v. Joseph M. Reilly et al., Constituting the Common Council of the City of Glen Cove, Appellants.

In a proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the former Civil Practice Act: (a) to declare invalid a resolution of the Common Council of the 'City of Glen Cove, terminating the petitioners’ terms *of*office as members of said city’s Board of Appeals; and (b) for related injunctive relief, the members of the Common Council appeal from an order of the Supreme Count, Nassau County, made July 16, 1962 upon the court’s decision, which sustained the petition, found the resolution to be *“*in direct conflict with Section 81 of the General City Law ”, and declared the resolution *to*be unconstitutional and void. Order reversed on the law, without costs, and petition dismissed, without costs. No questions of fact were presented or considered. We may assume, without deciding, that the court below was correct in holding that article 4, section 12 of the Building Zone Ordinance of the City of Glen Cove (relating to the city’s Board of Appeals) was inconsistent with section 81 of the General City Law, in that the ordinance provided that one member of the Board of Appeals *“*shall be a member of the Planning Board.” Nevertheless, we think it was error to hold that the invalidity of such portion of the ordinance also invalidated the commencement date fixed for the terms of office of the members of the Board of Appeals. The ordinance contained the usual separability clause which can be found in most modern legislative enactments. As Chief Judge Cardozo observed in *People*v. *Mancuso*(255 N. Y. 463, 474): *“ ‘*The question is in every case whether 'the Legislature, if partial invalidity had been foreseen, would have wished the statute to be enforced with the *911invalid part exscinded, or rejected altogether ’ In determining the separability of a statute, the test is twofold: the Legislature must have intended that the act be separable; and the act must be capable of separation in fact (2 Sutherland, Statutes and .Statutory Construction [3d ed.], § 2404). The inclusion, of a separability clause raises a presumption that the Legislature intended the act to be divisible *(Williams*v. *Standard Oil Co.,*278 U. S. 235, 242). There can be no serious doubt that the portion of the ordinance in this case, which established a commencement date for the terms of office of members of the Board of Appeals, is separable from the requirement that one member of such board “shall be a member of the Planning Board.” We agree with appellants that the ordinance was intended to establish successive three-year teños beginning May 1, 1953; that the terms of the respondents’ predecessors would have terminated on May 1, 1962; and that the appointment of respondents was valid only for the residue of the holdover terms of their predecessors (Public Officers Law, § 5). Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur. [35 Misc 2d 269.]
### §§551 to 568. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Sections 551 to 568 of this title, which were comprised of act June 10, 1930, ch. 436, §§1–18, 46 Stat. 531, as amended, known as the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 1930, were transferred to sections 499a to 499r of chapter 20A of this title.
#### Devorah Bock, Appellant, v. Noah A. Bock, Respondent.

Motion by appellant for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
1850.104-2 General. ( a ) Requests for the exercise of residual powers shall be sent to the Headquarters Office of Procurement, Program Operations Division for review and processing. The NASA Administrator is the approval authority for the Memorandum of Decision.
[80 FR 36722, June 26, 2015]
#### Feature Sports, Inc., Respondent, v. Telescript-CSP, Inc., et al., Defendants, and Hyman L. Federman et al., Appellants.

Order, entered on August 29, 1960, vacating defendants’ notice of examination before trial, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. No opinion. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Valente and McNally, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          120275
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             341
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                107310
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     449272
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          452566
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            439032
<LOANS>                                        1929001
<ALLOWANCE>                                      24520
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3192017
<DEPOSITS>                                     2706059
<SHORT-TERM>                                    116047
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              31251
<LONG-TERM>                                      24642
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         49799
<OTHER-SE>                                      264219
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 3192017
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  40123
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                14048
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                  1627
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 55798
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               20651
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                1593
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            33554
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      763
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  27453
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  16877
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       16877
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     11050
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.44
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.73
<LOANS-NON>                                      9,059
<LOANS-PAST>                                     2,983
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   165
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  18698
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 24050
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      446
<RECOVERIES>                                       153
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                24520
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             24520
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
#### Melvin Beecher, Appellant, v. James A. Hughes, Respondent.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. (Appeal from judgment of Niagara Trial Term for defendant for no cause of action in an automobile negligence action.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
Exhibit 99.2

 

 

CFO 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 Reliability Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Max T. Langley, 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:

 

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 result of operations of the Company.
#### 1852.216-90 Allowability of legal costs incurred in connection with a whistleblower proceeding.

As prescribed in 1816.307-70(g), use the following clause:

# Allowability of Legal Costs Incurred In Connection with a Whistleblower Proceeding (JUL 2023)

Pursuant to section 827 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal year 2013 (Pub. L. 112-239), notwithstanding FAR clause 52.216-7, Allowable Cost and Payment—

(1) The restrictions of FAR 31.205-47(b) on allowability of costs related to legal and other proceedings also apply to any proceeding brought by a contractor employee submitting a complaint under 10 U.S.C. 4701, entitled “Contractor employees: protection from reprisal for disclosure of certain information;” and

(2) Costs incurred in connection with a proceeding that is brought by a contractor employee submitting a complaint under 10 U.S.C. 4701 are also unallowable if the result is an order to take corrective action under 10 U.S.C. 4701.

(End of clause)

[79 FR 43961, July 29, 2014, as amended at 79 FR 51501, Aug. 29, 2014; 80 FR 61994, Oct. 15, 2015; 88 FR 47808, July 25, 2023]
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 32.1
                      18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION


I hereby 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 the accompanying Form 10-KSB of Spectrum Laboratories, Inc., (the
"Company") for the annual period ended December 25, 2004 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 that the information contained in this Form 10-KSB
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.

Dated: April 11, 2005



/s/ Roy T. Eddleman
----------------------------
Roy T. Eddleman
Chief Executive Officer
Spectrum Laboratories, Inc.
#### 12.215 Notification of overpayment.

If the contractor notifies the contracting officer of a duplicate payment or that the Government has otherwise overpaid, the contracting officer shall follow the procedures at 32.604.

[73 FR 54001, Sept. 17, 2008]
#### Maryan Restaurant, Inc., Appellant, v. Juliet Miller et al., Respondents.

Order, entered on December 27, 1962, denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion therefor granted. This is an action to recover possession of 42 promis*813spry notes. The notes are payable to plaintiff. Max Miller is president and sole stockholder of the plaintiff. His wife, the defendant, is not and never was a record stockholder, director or officer of the plaintiff. The Millers are separated and a suit for a separation decree is pending. Defendant claims she and her husband are the sole stockholders and officers of the plaintiff. Also pending' is nn action by the defendant against her husband for conversion and misappropriation of corporate funds. The sole issue here is who is entitled to possession of the notes belonging to the corporation. Assuming the validity of the claims made by defendant, she has failed to establish any legal right to possession of the notes. We decide no other question. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, McNally, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
#### 1309.403 Definitions.

The designees authorized as the Debarring and Suspending Officials are set forth in CAM 1301.70.
### **CHAPTER 8—THE COOLY TRADE**
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 12

     THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY and SUBSIDIARIES
               COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                      (In Millions, Except Ratio Amounts)
                                  (Unaudited)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                           Nine Months Ended
                                                             September 30,
                                                         ---------------------

                                                           1999         1998
                                                         --------     --------
<S>                                                      <C>          <C>
Earnings:

  Pre-tax income                                         $  1,405     $  1,444

  Add:
    Interest and fixed charges,
      excluding capitalized interest                          226          220

    Portion of rent under long-term
      operating leases representative
      of an interest factor                                   139          144

    Amortization of capitalized interest                        4            3

  Less:  Undistributed equity in earnings
         of investments accounted for
         under the equity method                                9           12
                                                         --------     --------


  Total earnings available for fixed charges             $  1,765     $  1,799
                                                         ========     ========

Fixed charges:

  Interest and fixed charges                             $    236     $    232

  Portion of rent under long-term operating
    leases representative of an interest factor               139          144
                                                         --------     --------

  Total fixed charges                                    $    375     $    376
                                                         ========     ========

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                           4.71x        4.78x
</TABLE>
----

|  | 1. | The Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2014, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014 (“accompanied 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 accompanied report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition and results of operations of Capital Southwest Corporation. |
|--|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  August 7, 2014 | By:    | /s/ Kelly Tacke         |  |
|----------------------------|--------|-------------------------|--|
|                       |   | Kelly Tacke             |  |
|                       |   | Chief Financial Officer |  |

----
(January 19, 1979)

#### In the Matter of Gerald J. Laurence, an Attorney and Counselor at Law.

— Pursuant to the rules of this court governing the conduct of attorneys (22 NYCRR 691.9) Gerald J. Laurence, an attorney and counselor at law, admitted to practice in this court on October 18,1939 under the name Jacob L. Finkelstein, has submitted his resignation from the Bar of the State of New York, dated November 28, 1978, requesting that his resignation be *689accepted and that his name be struck from the roll of attorneys and counselors at law. The movant has been charged with engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in that he conspired to confer and did confer benefits upon public servants upon agreements or understandings that the public servants’ actions, decisions or exercise of discretion would thereby be influenced (offering and giving bribes to public officials). The movant admits that he could not successfully defend himself on the merits against such charges. Resignation accepted; the clerk of this court is directed to strike the name of Gerald J. Laurence (Jacob L. Finkelstein) from the roll of attorneys and counselors at law, forthwith. Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Damiani, Titone and Suozzi, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 12 (Thursday, January 21, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6343-6344]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-01125]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration


Requests for Proposals for Insulin Reimportation and Personal 
Prescription Drug Importation

AGENCY: Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Food and Drug 
Administration (FDA).

ACTION: Notice; requests for proposals.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On September 24, 2020, the Department issued two requests for 
proposals for the reimportation of insulin and the personal importation 
of prescription drugs on its website. The Department is issuing this 
Notice to include a revised version of the September 24, 2020 proposals 
in the Federal Register.

DATES: Proposals submitted in response to the requests for proposals 
shall be accepted and reviewed on a rolling basis, and until further 
notice.

ADDRESSES: Responses to the requests for proposals should be submitted 
to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3f56524f504d4b7f57574c11585049"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="670e0a17081513270f0f1449000811">[email protected]</span></a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nick Uehlecke, 200 Independence Ave 
SW, Washington, DC 20201; or by email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a9c0c4d9c6dbdde9c1c1da87cec6df"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6b02061b04191f2b030318450c041d">[email protected]</span></a>; or by 
telephone at 1-877-696-6775.

[[Page 6344]]


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 24, 2020, the Department issued 
two requests for proposals for the reimportation of insulin and the 
personal importation of prescription drugs on its website. The 
proposals were issued consistent with FDA's authorities under sections 
801 and 804 of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. 381, 384. 
The Department is issuing this Notice to include revised versions of 
these proposals in the Federal Register.

    Dated: January 13, 2021.
Alex M. Azar II,
Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
[FR Doc. 2021-01125 Filed 1-19-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4150-26-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-05-00050-CR

Teodoro Benavides, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 331ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 2044396, HONORABLE FRED A. MOORE, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

A jury found appellant Teodoro Benavides guilty of burglary of a habitation. See Tex.

Pen. Code Ann. § 30.02 (West 2003). The jury assessed punishment, enhanced by two previous

felony convictions, at forty-five years’ imprisonment.

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is

frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no

arguable grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State, 573

S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974);

Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1969). Appellant received a copy of counsel’s brief and filed both a pro se written

response and a pro se brief.
2

We have reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, the pro se response, and the pro se

brief. We agree that the appeal is frivolous. We find nothing in the record that might arguably

support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, No. PD-300-04, 2005 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1969, at *7-

8 (Tex. Crim. App. Nov. 16, 2005). Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

__________________________________________

G. Alan Waldrop, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Pemberton and Waldrop

Affirmed

Filed: February 16, 2006

Do Not Publish
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Annual Report of MDI, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael Sweet,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my 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/
      Michael SweetMichael
      SweetPrincipal
      Financial OfficerApril
      24, 2008