alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                           5
<LEGEND>

This schedule  contains  summary  financial  information  extracted from Shelter
Properties  VI 2000 Third  Quarter  10-QSB and is  qualified  in its entirety by
reference to such 10-QSB filing.

</LEGEND>

<CIK>                               0000730013
<NAME>                              Shelter Properties VI
<MULTIPLIER>                                           1,000


<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                      JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                        SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                                 1,333
<SECURITIES>                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            306
<ALLOWANCES>                                               0
<INVENTORY>                                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                           0 <F1>
<PP&E>                                                56,134
<DEPRECIATION>                                        30,961
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        28,566
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                      0 <F1>
<BONDS>                                               24,736
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<COMMON>                                                   0
<OTHER-SE>                                             2,402
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                               0
<SALES>                                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       8,499
<CGS>                                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                              0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       8,048
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     1,733
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                            0
<INCOME-TAX>                                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        0
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                             451
<EPS-BASIC>                                            10.54 <F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              0
<FN>

<F1> Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet. <F2> Multiplier is 1.

</FN>


</TABLE>
#### § 17.251 The Subcommittee on Academic Affairs.

There is established within the Special Medical Advisory Group authorized under the provisions of 38 U.S.C. 7312 a Subcommittee on Academic Affairs, and the Subcommittee shall advise the Secretary, through the Under Secretary for Health, in matters pertinent to achieving the objectives of programs for exchange of medical information. The Subcommittee shall review each application for a grant and prepare a written report setting forth recommendations as to the final action to be taken on the application.

[42 FR 54804, Oct. 11, 1977. Redesignated at 61 FR 21966, May 13, 1996, as amended at 62 FR 17072, Apr. 9, 1997]
#### Domenico De Marco, Appellant, *v.*Henry Mass et al., Respondents.

Appeal from an order granted at Special Term.

John Palmieri, for appellant.

I. Henry Harris, for respondents.

*828
      *Per Curiam.*

It was proper ,to grant to the defendant Henry-Mass leave to serve the amended answer and to vacate the judgment against him. But because of the fact that he elected only to take advantage of the defense, which he now seeks to avail himself of, after a fair and full trial and the entry of judgment thereon, such relief should only have been granted upon payment of full costs and all disbursements, as taxed in the -judgment-roll, and ten dollars’ costs of motion.

The order appealed from must, therefore, be modified. Defendant must pay all such costs, disbursements and motion costs, and as so modified said order is affirmed, without costs ■ or disbursements to either party.-

Present: Fitzsimoes, Oh. J., Coexan and O’Dwyer, JJ.

Order modified, and as modified affirmed, without costs.
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 11-419 

________________________________________________________________________ 

DEFENSE 

 Agreement Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and the RUSSIAN FEDERATION 

Signed at Moscow July 6, 2009 

with 

Exchange of Notes 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
RUSSIAN FEDERATION 

Defense 

 Agreement signed at Moscow July 6, 2009; 

 Entered into force April 19, 2011. 

 With exchange of notes.
NEGLIGENCE.

[Hamilton Circuit Court,

February Term, 1885.]

Cox, Smith and Swing, JJ.

#### † Jennie Johns v. The City of Cincinnati.

1. City not Liable for Damages, if Proceedings Authorized by Special Act.

Where a board of improvements of a city construct a street under acts of the legislature, such acts are evidence, as the city is exhonorated by them, from liabilities for resulting damages to abutting property.

2. May Become Liable by Acceptance of Improvement.

But the city may become liable by taking possession of the improvement, and using it after completion.

Error to the Superior Court of Cincinnati. -

A. G-. Collins, for plaintiff in error.

City Solicitor, *contra.*

Swing, J.

In an action for damages to the plaintiff’s premises by overflow of water, caused by the alleged negligence of the city to keep Columbia avenue, in Cincinnati, in repair, the answer set out that said avenue was being constructed under certain acts of the legislature, that said city had no control over the same, but the same had been wholly under the control of the state, and its authorized agents, the board of city improvements. The jury found for the city.

*Held :*There was no error in the action of the court,' in permitting the several acts passed by the legislature, in relation to the avenue, to go to the jury; that the several acts were not unconstitutional.

While the city should not respond in damages, for the acts of the state and her. agents, if said improvements had been completed, and the city had accepted and used it as a street, no formal turning over by the state, or acceptance by the city, would be necessary to render the city liable, if the city took possession. These matters being questions for the jury, and the jury having found for the city, the verdict will not be d stubbed. *Affirmed.*
#### Julius Engel et al., Respondents, *v.*Bianca Dicter, Appellant.

Appeal from judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of' Flew York, borough of Manhattan.

William Barnes, for appellant.

Charles L. Hoffman, for respondents.

*794
      *Per Curiam.*

The evidence of statements of the defendant was competent. The witness being the adverse party, it was competent, even though she had been called by the plaintiffs, to show her earlier statements as admissions. Code Civ. Pro., § 838.

In proving admissions it is not necessary to call the attention •of a witness to the time and place of the statement. As there was no reference to defendant’s condition at the trial and no application for an adjournment, the learned justice was right in ■denying the motion for a new trial, and particularly so in view of the fact that the judgment should not have been otherwise than it is, even if the defendant had contradicted the evidence which it is asserted she would have contradicted.

This court has, however, no jurisdiction to review the order appealed from, as an appeal does not lie from such an order. There was no error requiring reversal. The judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs, and the appeal from the order is dismissed.

Present: Tbuax, P. J., Scott and Dttgbo, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, and appeal dismissed.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2
 SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 906 CERTIFICATIONS
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
  1.
    
    this Form 10-Q for the period ended January 31, 2008 fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    the information contained in this Form 10-Q for the period ended January 31, 2008
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Thor Industries, Inc.
 Date: March 10, 2008
    
    /s/
    
    Walter L. Bennett

Walter L. BennettExecutive Vice President,Secretary and Chief Financial Officer(principal financial and accounting officer)
 27
Exhibit
32.1


CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the quarterly report of Communication Intelligence Corporation
(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2008,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Guido DiGregorio, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act
of 2002, that to the best of 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.





Date:
October 28, 2008





By: /s/
Guido D. DiGregorio


Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer
#### Elias Guthmann, Respondent, *v.*Marie Meuer et al., Executors, etc., of Henry William Meyer, Deceased, Appellants.

Appeal from a judgment entered upon verdict and order denying new trial.

Theall & Beam (Alex. Thain, of counsel), for appellants.

Guggenheimer, Dntermyer & Marshall (Moses Weinman, of counsel), for respondent.

Hascall, J.

Plaintiff had a verdict upon his claim for $450, alleged to be due as a commission upon procuring a purchaser for certain real estate.

*811We are forced to the conclusion that the minds of the parties, vendor and purchaser, did not meet so as to give rise to the claim of plaintiff. There was still a dispute over taxes, which was the reason why no contract of purchase and sale was signed. Ro proof of the terms of defendants’ trust was made in the case, although defendants admit that they were executors and trustees under a will.

The court is asked to maintain, as a contract, a written communication, from one of the defendants to the plaintiff, setting forth the terms upon which she was willing to sell her property. This paper (Exhibit A) could only be binding, if binding at all, on Mrs. Moyer, and, at best, was only a letter of instruction — a notice to a broker. Ro liability is shown by all the defendants, individually, or as personal representatives. If they were liable as executors, could they have sold and conveyed realty, in such capacity? If as trustees, there is nothing set out in the complaint, showing that they could act otherwise than jointly; hence Mrs. Meyer’s signature, or Mr. Cramer’s, could not bind all, and all of the defendants as trustees would not be liable.

It may be that the defendants had power, as trustees, to make a contract; but none is alleged nor proven; so that the court, at Trial Term, could not judicially determine whether the defendants had authority to make an alleged agreement, as executors or otherwise, to bind their trust estate. The court -could not infer the existence of power, and could not know of it unless the authority or direction were contained in the will, and that properly pleaded.

We think that it was error to hold otherwise, and that, under the proofs, it was, at most, a question of personal liability of Mrs. Meyer only, that should have gone to the jury, even if it had been held that the letter (Exhibit A) was a complete and valid instrument of agreement. It seems to us that error in interpretation of the negotiations and status of the parties led to errors in the charge, and that, upon the close of plaintiff’s case, his complaint should have been dismissed.

Judgment and order appealed from reversed and new trial ordered, with costs and disbursements to the appellants to abide the event.

McCarthy and O’Dwyer, JJ., concur.

Judgment and order reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellants to abide event.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Parliamentary Elections in Bangladesh

# 											Parliamentary Elections in Bangladesh									

Press Statement

Matthew Miller, Department Spokesperson

January 8, 2024

The United States supports the people of Bangladesh and their aspirations for democracy, freedom of peaceful assembly, and freedom of expression.  The United States notes the Awami League party won a majority of seats in the January 7, 2024 parliamentary elections.  The United States remains concerned by the arrests of thousands of political opposition members and by reports of irregularities on elections day.  The United States shares the view with other observers that these elections were not free or fair and we regret that not all parties participated.

The United States condemns violence that took place during elections and in the months leading up to it.  We encourage the Government of Bangladesh to credibly investigate reports of violence and to hold perpetrators accountable.  We also urge all political parties to reject violence.

Looking ahead, the United States remains committed to partnering with Bangladesh to advance our shared vision for a free and open Indo-Pacific, to supporting human rights and civil society in Bangladesh, and to deepening our people-to-people and economic ties.   

Tags

BangladeshBureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and LaborBureau of South and Central Asian AffairsCivil SocietyEconomic AffairsElectionsHuman RightsHuman Rights and DemocracyIndo-PacificOffice of the Spokesperson

Back to Top
```

[107th Congress Public Law 160]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ160.107]

[[Page 116 STAT. 123]]

Public Law 107-160
107th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
   3698 Inner Perimeter Road in Valdosta, Georgia, as the ``Major Lyn 
McIntosh Post Office Building''. <<NOTE: Apr. 18, 2002 -  [H.R. 1432]>> 

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 3698 
Inner Perimeter Road in Valdosta, Georgia, shall be known and designated 
as the ``Major Lyn McIntosh Post Office Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Major Lyn McIntosh Post 
Office Building''.

    Approved April 18, 2002.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 1432:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
                                                        Vol. 147 (2001):
                                    Dec. 19, 20, considered and passed 
                                        House.
                                                        Vol. 148 (2002):
                                    Mar. 22, considered and passed 
                                        Senate.

                                  <all>
```
HomeAnti-Corruption and Transparency...Anti-Corruption and Transparency

# Anti-Corruption and Transparency

125 items

        -    Department of Justice Release  		Arizona Resident Indicted for Federal Bank Fraud	  January 16, 2024 
        -    Department of Justice Release  		Fall River Man Indicted for Identity Theft Offenses	  January 12, 2024 
        -    Media Note  		One Year Anniversary of #WithoutJustCause Political Prisoners Initiative	  January 11, 2024 
        -    Department of Justice Release  		Florida Man Charged with Passport Card Fraud, Bank Fraud, Identity Theft	  January 5, 2024 
        -    Press Statement  		Countering Houthi Maritime Attacks	  Matthew MillerDecember 28, 2023 
        -    Department of Justice Release  		Slovakian Man Accused of Running Darknet Market Selling Drugs and Personal Information	  December 21, 2023 
        -    Press Statement  		New Listings Under the Section 353 Corrupt and Undemocratic Actors Report	  Matthew MillerDecember 21, 2023 
        -    Press Statement  		Concern with Hungary’s Sovereign Defense Authority Law	  Matthew MillerDecember 20, 2023 
        -    Remarks  		Deputy Secretary Verma’s Remarks at the UN Convention Against Corruption Conference of the State Parties	  Richard R. VermaDecember 11, 2023Private Sector ForumAtlanta, Georgia 
        -    Fact Sheet  		Leveraging Tools to Promote Accountability and Counter Global Corruption	  December 11, 2023 

previous page123456…13next page

Back to Top
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                            5

<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    Dec-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                         Mar-31-2000
<CASH>                               1,425,214
<SECURITIES>                         000
<RECEIVABLES>                        000
<ALLOWANCES>                         000
<INVENTORY>                          000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     1,425,214
<PP&E>                               000
<DEPRECIATION>                       000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       1,425,214
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                685,491
<BONDS>                              000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                000
<PREFERRED>                          000
<COMMON>                             000
<OTHER-SE>                           739,723
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         1,425,214
<SALES>                              000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     1,073,015
<CGS>                                000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     145,978
<LOSS-PROVISION>                     000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      927,037
<INCOME-TAX>                         000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  927,037
<DISCONTINUED>                       000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                      000
<CHANGES>                            000
<NET-INCOME>                         927,037
<EPS-BASIC>                          21.48
<EPS-DILUTED>                        21.48




</TABLE>
**
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, CoreyHenry, certify that: 

1.    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and allreports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2021-1 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”); 

2.    Based on myknowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3.    Based on my knowledge, all of thedistribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports; 

4.    Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of RegulationAB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and 

5.    All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria forasset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included inthis report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwisedisclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Wells FargoBank, N.A. and Computershare Trust Company, N.A. 

 
By: 
/s/ Corey Henry
Name: Corey HenryTitle: 
President and Chief Executive Officer

SantanderDrive Auto Receivables LLC, as Depositor
 (senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)Date: March 31, 2022**
41814.

#### SHORT et al. v. GENERAL ELECTRIC CREDIT CORPORATION.

Bell, Presiding Judge.

Redi-Mill Corporation entered into an agreement in writing with defendants by which Redi-Mill leased to defendants certain equipment for a rental to be paid in monthly installments. Redi-Mill Corporation assigned its rights in the lease contract to General Electric Credit Corporation, the plaintiff in this action. Thereafter defendants defaulted in payment of installments of rent due under the agreement. Plaintiff declared all of the remaining rent at once due and payable as provided by the contract, and brought *477this action to recover the amount of the remaining unpaid rent plus interest and attorney’s fees. In their answer defendants pleaded as their defense the breach of Redi-Mill Corporation’s warranty of the suitability of the equipment for the purpose for which it was leased. *Held:*

Submitted February 9, 1966

Decided April 6, 1966.

*Telford, Wayne & Greer, Joe K. Telford, Dent Bostick,*for appellants.

*Robinson, Thompson, Buice & Harben, B. Carl Buice,*for appellee.

The issue in this case is settled by the unambiguous terms of the quoted paragraph of the contract: “Lessor may assign or otherwise transfer this lease and the rent due or to become due thereunder and when so assigned or transferred, it shall be free of any counterclaim, offset, defense or cross complaint as against such assignee, Lessee reserving such remedies hereunder solely against the Lessor. The term ‘Lessor’ whenever used in this lease includes Lessor’s successors and assigns”

The paragraph means simply that the lessor and any assignee or successor of the lessor (each of whom in turn succeeded to the title “lessor”) could transfer its rights in the contract free from claims and defenses which the lessee might have against the transferor lessor. The lessee could assert those claims and defenses only against the transferor lessor and not against the transferee lessor. In other words, the claims and defenses the lessee might have against the lessor do not follow or go with the instrument to any assignee of the lessor. Thus, defendants’ answer stated no defense as against this plaintiff who was an assignee of the original lessor, and the trial court did not err in sustaining plaintiff’s general demurrer, striking the defendants’ answer, and entering judgment for the plaintiff.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Jordan and Eberhardt, JJ., concur.*