alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(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 this Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and
for the period covered by this Report.
 Dated:  May 14, 2010
    By:
    /s/ Mark S. AllioMark S. AllioChairman of the Board, President and
Chief Executive OfficerDated: May 14, 2010
    By:
    /s/ Therese Ann LiutkusTherese Ann Liutkus, CPATreasurer and Chief Financial Officer
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: November 10, 2016 522890 

________________________________

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

NEW YORK ex rel. TALIB 

ALSAIFULLAH,

Appellant,

v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, as Acting 

Commissioner of Corrections 

and Community Supervision,

Respondent.

________________________________

Calendar Date: September 20, 2016

Before: Garry, J.P., Egan Jr., Rose, Devine and Mulvey, JJ.

__________

Talib Alsaifullah, Coxsackie, appellant pro se.

__________

Appeal from an order and judgment of the Supreme Court

(Feldstein, J.), entered January 21, 2016 in Franklin County,

which, among other things, denied petitioner's application, in a

proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.

Order and judgment affirmed. No opinion.

Garry, J.P., Egan Jr., Rose, Devine and Mulvey, JJ.,

concur.
-2- 522890 

ORDERED that the order and judgment is affirmed, without

costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
G-18(B) Periodic Statement Fee-Inclusive APR Sample

Fee-Inclusive APR 

The Fee-Inclusive APRs in this table are the APRs that you paid this period when transaction or fixed fees are taken into 

account as well as interest. 

Type of Balance Interest Charges 

Transaction or 

Fixed Fees Fee-Inclusive APR 

Purchases $6.31 $0.00 14.99% 

Cash Advances $4.58 $10.90 58.42% 

Balance Transfers $0.00 $23.55 36.00%
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Brian W. Coderre, certify that:

 

1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report onForm 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 of Universal Access GlobalHoldings Inc.;

 

2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.  Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s)and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b)Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c)Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.  The registrant’s othercertifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):

 

(a)All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

(b)Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

Date: August 14, 2003

 
| /S/ Brian W. Coderre    |
|-------------------------|
| Brian W. Coderre        |
| Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

----
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 3
Federal Reserve Bank of: Philadelphia

## Filings received during the week ending November 26, 2005

|Filer | Filing Type | Filing Proposal | End of Comment Period
|----- | ----------- | --------------- | ---------------------
|NONE 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for First Quarter of 2006 (January 1, 2006 - March 31, 2006)

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
## COURT OF APPEALS

SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO

MANDATE

THE STATE OF TEXAS

To the 69th District Court of Moore County, Greeting:

BEFORE our Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas, on July 30,

2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

Fernando Hernandez, Jr. a.k.a. Fernando Junior Hernandez v. The State of Texas

Case Number: 07-14-00417-CR Trial Court Number: 5056

was determined and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated July 30, 2015, it is ordered, adjudged

and decreed that the appeal is abated and the cause is remanded to the 69th District

Court of Moore County, Texas for further proceedings in accordance with this Court’s

opinion entered this day.

o O o

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of said Court of

Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things to have it duly

recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Honorable Justices of our said Court, with the seal thereof

annexed, at the City of Amarillo on July 30, 2015

.



# Vivian Long

VIVIAN LONG, CLERK
Editorial Note on Part 151
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 151 appear by USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49236, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59784, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 151.13-5 Cargo segregation—tanks. ( a ) The configurations listed in this paragraph refer to the separation of the cargo from its surroundings and list the various degrees of segregation required. Paragraphs and (2) of this section explain the symbols used in lines 1 and 2, in order, under the tank segregation column of Table 151.05. ( 1 ) Segregation of cargo from surrounding waters (Line 1 of Table 151.05). i = Skin of vessel (single skin) only required. Cargo tank wall can be vessel's hull. ii = Double skin required. Cargo tank wall cannot be vessel's hull. NA = Nonapplicable for this case. Independent tanks already have such segregation built in through design.
( 2 ) Segregation of cargo space from machinery spaces and other spaces which have or could have a source of ignition (Line 2 of Table 151.05). i = Single bulkhead only required. Tank wall can be sole separating medium. ii = Double bulkhead, required. Cofferdam, empty tank, pumproom, tank with Grade E Liquid (if compatible with cargo) is satisfactory.
( b ) [Reserved]
( c ) If a cofferdam is required for segregation purposes and a secondary barrier is required for low temperature protection by § 151.15-3(d)(4), the void space between the primary and secondary barriers shall not be acceptable in lieu of the required cofferdam.
[CGFR 70-10, 35 FR 3714, Feb. 25, 1970, as amended by CGD 75-59, 45 FR 70273, Oct. 23, 19805; CGD 96-041, 61 FR 50731, Sept. 27, 1996]
# C_2015127EN.01001701.xml

| 20.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/17

---

Judgment of the General Court of 3 March 2015 — Bial-Portela v OHIM — Isdin (ZEBEXIR)

(Case T-366/11 RENV) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark ZEBEXIR - Earlier Community word mark ZEBINIX - Relative grounds for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 127/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Bial-Portela & Ca, SA (São Mamede do Coronado, Portugal) (represented by: B. Braga da Cruz and J. Pimenta, lawyers)

Applicant:

a

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Geroulakos, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Isdin, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: P. López Ronda, G. Macias Bonilla and G. Marín Raigal, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 April 2011 (Case R 1212/2009-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Bial-Portela & Ca, SA and Isdin, SA.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 6 April 2011 (Case R 1212/2009-1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 6 April 2011 (Case R 1212/2009-1);

| 2. | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those of Bial-Portela & Ca, SA; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those of Bial-Portela & Ca, SA;

a

| 3. | Orders Isdin, SA to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Isdin, SA to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S BALANCE SHEETS AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 (UNAUDITED) AND DECEMBER 31,
1995, AND STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS (UNAUDITED) FOR THE THREE AND NINE MONTHS
ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND 1995 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       3,439,731
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,715
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,454,446
<PP&E>                                         392,795
<DEPRECIATION>                                  83,103
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,571,108
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,190,685
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,466
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,971,506
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,571,108
<SALES>                                          7,378
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                35,798
<CGS>                                            6,524
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   83,031
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               811,157
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             443,923
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,347,224)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,347,224)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,347,224)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.43)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.43)


</TABLE>
###### Editorial Note on Part 154

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 154 appear part 154 appear by CGD-95-072, 60 FR 50466, Sept. 29, 1995, CGD-96-041, 61 FR 50732, Sept. 27, 1996, USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49235, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 154.1822 Shipping document: Copy for transfer terminal.

While a vessel is moored at a transfer terminal, the master shall ensure that at least one copy of the shipping document is given to the terminal's person in charge of cargo transfer.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

EH/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

YONG SANG KIM,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 09-10088

D.C. No. 1:07-CR-00541-HG

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Hawaii

Helen Gillmor, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 15, 2009** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Yong Sang Kim appeals from the 36-month sentence imposed following his

guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to operate an illegal gambling business,

FILED

JAN 11 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
EH/Research 2 09-10088

operating an illegal gambling business, and conspiracy to commit money

laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1955 and 1956(a)(1)(A)(I). We have

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Kim contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to give an

adequate statement of reasons for the sentence imposed and by failing to consider

all relevant factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Kim also contends that his

sentence is substantively unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to

comport with the goals of sentencing. The record demonstrates that the district

court thoroughly explained its reasons for the sentence in light of the 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) sentencing factors, and that given the totality of the circumstances, the

sentence imposed is substantively reasonable. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d

984, 991-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc); see also United States v. Mohamed, 459

F.3d 979, 988-89 (9th Cir. 2006). 

AFFIRMED.
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.042-2 General requirements. ( a ) The requirements of this subpart provide for a standard life raft skid for use on ocean and coastwise vessels in conjunction with the stowage of Type A rafts which may be used on such vessels.
( b ) Life raft skids shall be constructed and arranged so as to properly support a Type A life raft in the stowed position and permit the launching of the life raft directly into the water without the application of any force other than that necessary to release the gripping arrangement and operate the release mechanism.
( c ) Arrangements other than those specified by this subpart will be given special consideration.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          12,609
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,630
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (323)
<INVENTORY>                                      2,537
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                31,068
<PP&E>                                         581,438
<DEPRECIATION>                                 236,482
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 376,875
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           30,297
<BONDS>                                        146,435
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         31
<COMMON>                                           165
<OTHER-SE>                                     188,245
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   376,875
<SALES>                                         99,539
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               100,333
<CGS>                                           60,811
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   75,020
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   131
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                26,047
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,939
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (16,903)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (16,903)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (16,903)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.11)
        

</TABLE>
#### § 176.112 Total persons permitted.

The cognizant Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection (OCMI) determines the total number of persons permitted to be carried on a vessel. In determining the total number of persons, the OCMI may consider the total weight of passengers, crew, and variable loads; stability restrictions and subdivision requirements of the vessel; the vessel's route, general arrangement, means of escape, and lifesaving equipment; minimum manning requirements; and the maximum number of passengers permitted in accordance with § 176.113 of this part.

[USCG-2007-0030, 75 FR 78087, Dec. 14, 2010]
|EXHIBIT 32.1
|------------



|CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as Chief Executive Officer of Belcrest Capital Fund LLC (the Fund), that based on his knowledge:

|(a) | the Quarterly Report of the Fund on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   
|(b) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of the Fund for such period.                                       
|   



|Date: August 8, 2008
|--------------------



| | /s/ Thomas E. Faust Jr.Thomas E. Faust Jr.Chief Executive Officer
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Fund and will be retained by the Fund and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**EXHIBIT 23.2**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-135402 on Form S-8 and Registration Statement No. 333-158376 on Form S-3 of our report dated April 15, 2010 relating to the consolidated financial statements of First Federal Bancshares of Arkansas, Inc. which includes an explanatory paragraph regarding the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of First Federal Bancshares of Arkansas, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2010.

 
| /s/   Deloitte & Touche LLP |   |
|--------------------------------------|--------|
| Little   Rock, AR                    |   |
| March 15,   2011                |   |

 

----
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-02-00588-CR

NO. 03-02-00589-CR

Cathy Lynn Gilstrap, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, 368TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NOS. 02-528-K368 & 02-529-K368, HONORABLE BURT CARNES, JUDGE PRESIDING

Appellant Cathy Lynn Gilstrap pleaded guilty to indictments accusing her of theft. The 

district court adjudged her guilty in both causes. In number 02-528-K368, the court assessed punishment 

at incarceration in a state jail for eighteen months. In number 02-529-K368, the court assessed punishment 

at imprisonment for ten years, probated, to begin when sentence in the other cause is completed. In both 

causes, the punishment assessed was agreed to by appellant in a plea bargain agreement. Appellant filed 

general notices of appeal.

As part of her plea bargains, appellant promised not to appeal. This promise is binding 

when, as here, the court follows the agreed punishment recommendation. Blanco v. State, 18 S.W.3d 

218, 220 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). Furthermore, appellant=s general notice of appeal does not comply with 

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(b)(3) and thus does not invoke this Court=s jurisdiction. Whitt v. 
2

State, 45 S.W.3d 274, 275 (Tex. App.CAustin 2001, no pet.); see Cooper v. State, 45 S.W.3d 77, 79 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (rule 25.2(b) limits every appeal in a plea bargain, felony case).

The State=s motions to dismiss are granted and the appeals are dismissed for want of 

jurisdiction. Counsel=s motions to withdraw are dismissed.

 

Lee Yeakel, Justice

Before Justices Kidd, B. A. Smith and Yeakel

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: October 24, 2002

Do Not Publish