alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
         SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     I, Keith L. Walton, Treasurer, of Birch Financial, Inc. (the
"Registrant"), certify that:

     1.   I have reviewed this Amended Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A-1 of the
Registrant;

     2.   Based on my knowledge, this Annual Report does 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
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
this Annual Report;

     3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this Annual Report, fairly present in all
material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash
flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
Annual Report;

     4.   I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14)
for the Registrant and I have:

     a)   designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
          material information relating to the Registrant, including its
          consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within
          those entities, particularly during the period in which this
          Annual Report is being prepared;

     b)   evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant's disclosure
          controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the
          filing date of this Annual Report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

     c)   presented in this Annual Report my conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on
          My evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

     5.   I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the
Registrant's auditors and the audit committee of Registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent function);

     a)   all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
          internal controls which could adversely affect the Registrant's
          ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data
          and have identified for the Registrant's auditors any material
          weaknesses in internal controls; and

     b)   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
          other employees who have a significant role in the Registrant's
          internal controls.

Dated:  August 17, 2005              Signature:/s/Keith L. Walton
                                     Keith L. Walton
                                     Treasurer
No. 51853.

#### Manne & Weill et al. *v.*United States,

protests 622308-G, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). The claim at 50 percent ad valorem under paragraph 915, plus any additional duty applicable under paragraph 924, was therefore sustained.
##### 



Exhibit 10.36

AMENDMENT NO. 1
TO
UNFAIR COMPETITION AND NONSOLICITATION AGREEMENT

This Amendment No. 1 to Unfair Competition and Nonsolicitation Agreement
(Amendment), is made as of August 21, 2006, by and between Automotive Lease
Guide (alg), Inc. (formerly known as Santa Acquisition Company). (ALG), and
Raj Sundaram (Employee).

WHEREAS, ALG and Employee entered into that certain Unfair Competition And
Nonsolicitation Agreement, dated as of May 25, 2005 (the Agreement); and

WHEREAS, ALG and Employee desire to amend certain provisions of the
Agreement as provided below;

NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration and in consideration of
the promises and conditions contained herein, the parties hereby agree as
follows:

1.     Section 1(b) is hereby amended by deleting the words following the
termination of Mr. Sundarams employment with the Company and inserting
the following:



| |                                                                                                                                                                  
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | after Mr. Sundarams cease to be employed by the Company or any
of its affiliates, including but not limited to DealerTrack
Holdings, Inc. and DealerTrack, Inc.

2.     No Other Modification. Except as expressly provided herein, this
Amendment does not in any way change, modify, delete or amend any of the
provisions of the Agreement, and all such provisions shall remain in full
force and effect.

3.     Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by California law.

4.     Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in two or more
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which
together shall constitute one and the same instrument.



---



##### 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be
executed and delivered by their respective duly authorized officers as of the
date first above written.

| |                                      
| | -------------------------------------
| | Automotive Lease Guide (alg), Inc.   
| |                                      
| |                                      
| | By: 
        Name:
        Title:    
| |                                      
| |                                      
| | /s/ Raj Sundaram
     Rajesh Sundaram
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<PAGE>

<ARTICLE>         BD
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE HOENIG
GROUP INC. SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND NOTES THERETO.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                             SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                    23,400,980
<RECEIVABLES>                             24,846,152
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                                0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                              0
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                       23,018,589
<PP&E>                                     1,740,560
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            79,210,423
<SHORT-TERM>                                  17,958
<PAYABLES>                                15,943,777
<REPOS-SOLD>                                       0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                                0
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                                 0
<LONG-TERM>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                     108,840
<OTHER-SE>                                44,165,155
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              79,210,423
<TRADING-REVENUE>                                  0
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                       1,485,235
<COMMISSIONS>                             60,880,396
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                      0
<FEE-REVENUE>                              5,975,677
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 0
<COMPENSATION>                            17,355,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            8,040,987
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                               4,622,302
<EPS-BASIC>                                    .54
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    .49



</TABLE>
No. 50827.

#### Protest 46361-K of H. & S. Pogue Co. (Cleveland).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the ease within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83, decided February 5, 1945.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York maijket at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on each of the entries. The protest was sustained to this extent.
(Reap. Dec. 10885)

#### Elof Hansson, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. M-1159.

(Decided January 27, 1965)

*Sharp & Bogan to?*the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Rao, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the undersigned, subject to the approval of the Court:

> 1. That the subject merchandise consists of hardboard exported from Sweden as to which the Secretary of the Treasury issued a finding of dumping, published in 89 TD 197, TD 53567, made pursuant to the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.O., 160, etseq.).

> 2. That pursuant to Section 168 of said Antidumping Act, the appraiser reported the purchase price (Sec. 162) and the foreign market value (Sec. 164) as to the merchandise listed on Schedule A attached hereto and made a part hereof.

> 3. That pursuant to Sections 500 and 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, the appraiser appraised all of the merchandise in the appeals for appraisement enumerated on Schedule A for regular duty purposes.

> 4. That the plaintiff duly filed appeals for reappraisement as to the values referred to in the above paragraphs Nos. 2 and 3.

> 5. That at the times relevant herein the purchase price and the foreign market value under the said Antidumping Act are as specified in the aforesaid Schedule A attached hereto.

> 6. That as to all other items of merchandise not identified on Schedule A, the appraiser’s reports of purchase price and of foreign market value are correct.

> 7. That the appraiser’s findings of value under the provisions of Section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, are correct.

> 8. That said appeals are submitted for decision upon this stipulation and said Schedule A.

Upon the agreed facts, I find foreign market value, as defined in section 164 of the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C. § 164), for the merchandise described in schedule A, annexed to this decision and made a part hereof, and the purchase price thereof, within section 162 of said act (19 U.S.C. § 162), to be as indicated in said schedule. As to all other items of merchandise not identified in schedule A, I find the foreign market values and purchase prices to be as reported by the appraiser. In all other respects, the values of all merchandise are as returned'by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
[RBS GREENWICH CAPITAL GRAPHIC OMITTED]

                                         Greenwich Capital Financial
                                         Products, Inc.
                                         600 Steamboat Road
                                         Greenwich, Connecticut 06830

                                         Telephone: 203.625.2700
                                         Facsimile: 203.618.2134

                                         www.gcm.com

July 1, 2006


Anthracite Capital, Inc.
40 East 52nd Street
New York, NY 10022

Re: Master Repurchase Agreement, dated July 8, 2002, between Anthracite Capital,
Inc., as seller ("Seller") and Greenwich Capital Financial Products, Inc., as
buyer ("Buyer") as supplemented by that certain Annex I to Master Repurchase
agreement dated as of July 8, 2002 ( as further amended, supplemented or
modified from time to time, collectively, the "Repurchase Agreement").

Dear Rob Friedberg,

GCFP has agreed to the extension of the Scheduled Repurchase Date, in
accordance with Section 3(e) of the Repurchase Agreement, for an additional 364
day period to July 6, 2007.

In addition, GCFP has also agreed to the extension of the Commitment Period, in
accordance with Section (1) of the Repurchase Agreement, to December 23, 2006.


Sincerely,
/s/ Lance W. Haberin
------------------------
Lance W. Haberin
Vice President


Cc: Mr. Robert Bull - Sidley & Austin
    Ms. Janice DeJulio - Blackrock
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1017 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1017

To provide for budgetary reform by requiring a balanced Federal budget 
                and the repayment of the national debt.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 4, 1999

 Mr. Schaffer introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
Committee on the Budget, and in addition to the Committee on Rules, for 
a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
                          committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for budgetary reform by requiring a balanced Federal budget 
                and the repayment of the national debt.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``American Debt Repayment Act''.

SEC. 2. BALANCED BUDGET REQUIREMENT.

    Beginning with fiscal year 2000 and for every fiscal year 
thereafter, budgeted outlays shall not exceed budgeted revenues.

SEC. 3. REDUCTION OF NATIONAL DEBT.

    (a) In General.--Beginning with fiscal year 2000 and for every 
fiscal year thereafter, actual revenues shall exceed actual outlays in 
order to provide for the reduction.
    (b) Amount.--The amount of reduction required by this subsection 
shall be equal to the amount required to amortize the debt over the 
next 30 years in order to repay the entire debt by the end of fiscal 
year 2029.

SEC. 4. WAIVER.

    Congress may waive the provisions of this Act for any fiscal year 
in which a declaration of war is in effect.

SEC. 5. MAJORITY REQUIREMENT FOR REVENUE INCREASE.

    No bill to increase revenues shall be deemed to have passed the 
House of Representatives or the Senate unless approved by a majority of 
the total membership of each House of Congress by a rollcall vote.

SEC. 6. REVIEW OF REVENUES.

    Congress shall review actual revenues on a quarterly basis and 
adjust outlays to assure compliance with this Act.

SEC. 7. DEFINITION.

    In this Act--
            (1) the term ``revenues'' shall include all revenues of the 
        United States excluding borrowing; and
            (2) the term ``outlays'' shall include all outlays of the 
        United States excluding repayment of debt principal.
                                 <all>
```
Case No. 8,326.

#### LEWIS v. MANDEVILLE.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 360.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Nov. Term, 1806.

Witness — Attendance—Attachment.

Quaere, whether the court can issue an attachment for a witness residing at Winchester, in Virginia, less than one hundred miles from this place.

Mr. Taylor, for plaintiff, offered the deposition of Anthony Moore, taken in Alexandria, de bene esse, under the laws of Virginia, and stated that the witness was a person employed in transporting the mail, and that his residence is near Winchester, not one hundred miles distant. That he does not know where he now is, but that he is not in the district. A subpoena has been issued and return served. These facts being admitted, THE COURT (DUCKETT, Circuit Judge, absent) suffered the deposition to be read, not having decided, and being still doubtful whether an attachment can properly issue and run into the state of Virginia, within one hundred miles, but intimated that they would hear an argument in a full court, on a motion for a new trial, on the ground of admitting improper evidence. Voss v. Luke [Case No. 17,014]; Woods v. Young [Id. 17,994]; Park’s Adm’r v. Willis [Id. 10,-716].
#### The Georgia Railroad *&*Banking Co. *vs.*Moon *et al.*

1. Where, upon a bill in equity for the recovery of land and an accounting for rents, issues and profits thereof to be made by an executrix of an estate and the heirs of the decedent, a verdict was found in favor of the complainant, but requiring it to pay to the estate a certain sum of money, whereupon the complainant moved for a new trial, which was refused and it excepted, but the bill of exceptions was not served upon one of the substantial defendants, this was a fatal defect, and the writ of error must be dismissed.

2. Such a defect could not be cured by an amendment making such defendant in the court below a party plaintiff in error on motion, especially where her counsel objected in open court.

December 12, 1887.
{"agency":"FERC","generated":"2015-04-22 16:09:04","items":[{"id":"1","parent":null,"text":"Reporting Quarter","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-year","label":"Reporting Year","options":[{"label":"2011","value":"2011"},{"label":"2012","value":"2012"},{"label":"2013","value":"2013"},{"label":"2014","value":"2014"},{"label":"2015","value":"2015"}],"value":"2015"},{"type":"select","name":"2-1-quarter","label":"Reporting Quarter","options":[{"label":"Q1","value":"Q1"},{"label":"Q2","value":"Q2"},{"label":"Q3","value":"Q3"},{"label":"Q4","value":"Q4"}],"value":"Q2"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-1","parent":"1","text":"Ten Oldest Requests","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-1-oldest","label":"Ten Oldest","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"10"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-3","parent":"1","text":"","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-3-closed","label":"Ten Oldest Closed","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"4"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-2","parent":"1","text":"FOIA Requests Information","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/08\/21","fields":[{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-component","label":"Component","options":[],"value":["FERC"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-received","label":"Received","options":[],"value":["40"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-processed","label":"Processed","options":[],"value":["26"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-backlog","label":"Backlog","options":[],"value":["14"]}],"multiple":true}],"year":"2015","quarter":"Q2"}
### MEMORANDUM

TO: Record

FROM: Lisa Biddle, U.S. EPA

DATE: March 31 , 2015

SUBJECT: Information about Underground Injection for Disposal Wells in New York

State (DCN SGE 00726 )

I n November 2013 , EPA Office of Water (EPA OW) communicated with EPA Region 2

regarding Class II underground injection control wells (UICs) in New York State. EPA Region 2

reported the no UICs in New York are approved to take shale gas produced water. At the time of

the correspondence (November 12, 2013) there were six permitted disposal wells in New York

state, three that received fluids from gas storage operations and three that received fluids from

conventional gas production wells.
S02A0689.

#### WEBB v. THE STATE.

(566 SE2d 680)

Sears, Presiding Justice.

The appellant, Sallie Webb, appeals from her conviction for the *426malice murder of General Lee Chambers.1 On appeal, Webb contends that the evidence is insufficient to support her conviction, that three jurors should have been stricken because of their relationship to her, and that the trial court erred in charging on intent. We conclude that these contentions have no merit, and affirm her conviction.

Decided July 15, 2002

Reconsideration denied September 16, 2002.

*Cassandra M. Ford,*for appellant.

1. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude that the evidence would have authorized a rational trier of fact to find that Ms. Webb planned the murder of her sister’s estranged husband, found gunmen to shoot the victim, provided them with a gun, and drove them to the victim’s home on the night of the crime. Accordingly, the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction of malice murder.2

2. Ms. Webb contends that three of the jurors who served on her jury were disqualified under OCGA § 15-12-135 (a) by reason of their consanguinity to her. The record, however, contains no evidence that any of the jurors were related to Ms. Webb. For this reason, this contention is without merit.

3. Ms. Webb contends that the trial court erred by charging the jury that “[a] *specific*intent to commit the crime charged is an essential element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt.” More particularly, Ms. Webb contends that the use of the word “specific” renders the charge an incorrect statement of the law. However, because Ms. Webb did not object to the trial court’s charge or reserve her right to object to it, she is procedurally barred from raising this issue on appeal.3 Moreover, Ms. Webb does not state how the charge at issue was incorrect, and we conclude that the charge was not misleading or confusing and that the charge considered as a whole covered the relevant principles of law.4

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Thompson, J, who is disqualified.*

*427*Fredric D. Bright, District Attorney, Wilson B. Mitcham, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, ThurbertE. Baker, Attorney General, Jennifer S. Gill, Assistant Attorney General,*for appellee.

1

 The crime occurred on April 4,1987, and following a trial by jury, Ms. Webb was found guilty of malice murder and sentenced to life in prison on January 26,1988. On February 22, 1988, Webb filed a motion for new trial. The court reporter certified the trial transcript on June 23, 1997, and on October 16, 2001, the trial court denied Webb’s motion for new trial. | On November 9, 2001, Webb filed a notice of appeal, and on January 23, 2002, the appeal was docketed in this Court. The appeal was submitted for decision without oral arguments on March 18, 2002.

2

*Jackson v. Virginia,*443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).

3

*Turner v. State,*272 Ga. 441, 442 (531 SE2d 354) (2000).

4

 See generally *Berry v. State,*267 Ga. 476, 481 (480 SE2d 32) (1997) (specific intent to kill is required to convict of malice murder).