alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### George B. Cluett and others, *Respondents, v.*The Rochester German Insurance Company, *Appellant.*

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Learned, P. J.
Before the Third Division,

February 28, 1952

No. 56442.

protest 178156-K (New York).

#### Vintage Wines, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of Lancers Rose Wine in bottles or jugs similar in all material respects to that the subject of Abstract 53224, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 06-1016 

________________________________________________________________________ 

EMPLOYMENT 

 Agreement Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and ARMENIA 

Effected by Exchange of Notes at 

Yerevan September 20 and December 30, 2005, and 

January 26, 2006 

 

Note: Revisions made only to information on cover pages, as 

 indicated. 
 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.” 
ARMENIA 

 Employment 

Agreement effected by exchange of notes at 

 Yerevan September 20 and December 30, 2005, 

 and January 26, 2006; 

 Entered into force October 16, 2006.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD P. FOSTER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-01-2194 WBS JFM P

vs.

D. L. RUNNELS,

Defendants.

 /

RONALD P. FOSTER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-01-2365 GEB DAD P

vs.

D. L. RUNNELS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

RONALD P. FOSTER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-1113 DFL JFM P

vs.

D. L. RUNNELS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Case 2:04-cv-02557-RRB-EFB Document 53 Filed 08/30/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

RONALD FOSTER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-1193 GEB JFM P

vs.

D. L. RUNNELS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

RONALD FOSTER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2557 RRB PAN P

vs.

M. D. MCDONALD, et al.,

Defendants. 

 /

RONALD FOSTER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-0148 GEB JFM P

vs.

E. MERAZ, et al., ORDER

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed letters in each of the abovecaptioned cases requesting information concerning the status of his partial payments of the filing

fee for each action. Plaintiff has also filed requests in each case to consolidate the actions for

purposes of fee payment.

Plaintiff was assessed a $150.00 filing fee in each of the above cases. He is

hereby informed that as of August 11, 2006, the status of payment in each case is as follows:

Case No. CIV S-01-2194 WBS JFM P – Paid in full

Case No. CIV S-01-2365 GEB DAD P – Paid in full

Case 2:04-cv-02557-RRB-EFB Document 53 Filed 08/30/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

Case No. CIV S-03-1113 DFL JFM P – paid $61.20; bal. due $ 88.80

Case No. CIV S-03-1193 GEB JFM P – paid $63.31; bal. due $86.69

Case No. CIV S-04-2557 RRB PAN P – paid $54.98; bal. due $95.02

Case No. CIV S-05-0148 GEB JFM P – paid $53.53; bal. due $96.47.

Plaintiff is further informed that the court will not consolidate any of the above

cases, or the payment orders issued, simply for purposes of payment of the filing fees. His

request to do so is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 29, 2006.

12

fost2557.fees

Case 2:04-cv-02557-RRB-EFB Document 53 Filed 08/30/06 Page 3 of 3
Case 2:04-cv-01921-DFL-GGH   Document 12    Filed 05/12/05   Page 1 of 2

Case 2:04-cv-01921-DFL-GGH   Document 12    Filed 05/12/05   Page 2 of 2

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2012-07-26T23:08:04-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
**Exhibit 31.1**
I, John W. Eaves, certify that:
 1.  I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Arch Western Resources, LLC;  2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;  4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e) and have:
 (a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;  (b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and
 5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):
 (a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  (b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: May 12, 2005   /s/ John W. Eaves     John W. Eaves
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v JAMES C. DUES, Private, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

19 USCMA 130, 41 CMR 130

*131No. 22,463

December 12, 1969

*Commander E. M. Fulton, Jr.,*JAGO, USN, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel Charles J. Keever,*USMC, was on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

PER Curiam:

In this case, as in United States v Johnson, 18 USCMA 436, 40 CMR 148; United States v Newton, 18 USCMA 562, 40 CMR 274; and United States v Conner, 19 USCMA 74, 41 CMR 74, the president erred to the substantial prejudice of the accused in his instructions on sentence, when he failed to tell the court that, when voting on proposed sentences, it should begin with the lightest proposal and continue in this manner until a sentence is adopted by the concurrence of the required number of members. A rehearing on sentence is required.

The decision of the board of review is reversed. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy. A rehearing on sentence may be ordered.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM SEC FORM 10K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1996             OCT-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1996             OCT-31-1995
<CASH>                                         2281000                 2218000
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  8026000                 7350000
<ALLOWANCES>                                     43000                   44000
<INVENTORY>                                    7169000                 5667000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              18717000                16824000
<PP&E>                                        11756000                11340000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 5437000                 4952000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                25139000                23302000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          8733000                 8397000
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                       1592000                 1592000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  25139000                23302000
<SALES>                                       97158000               101462000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              97158000               101462000
<CGS>                                         86473000                92098000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 95384000                99970000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               13000                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                2381000                 2235000
<INCOME-TAX>                                    950000                  886000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1431000                 1349000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1431000                 1431000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.29                    1.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.29                    1.21
        

</TABLE>
##### 



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 PrimeEnergy Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for
the period ending December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, Beverly A. Cummings, 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. /s/ Beverly A. CummingsChief Financial OfficerMarch 31, 2005
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4830 

To strengthen the authority of the United States Secret Service to investigate 

various crimes related to digital asset transactions and to counter 

transnational cyber criminal activity, including unlicensed money transmitting businesses, structured transactions, and fraud against financial 

institutions, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 29, 2024 

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO (for herself, Mr. GRASSLEY, and Ms. KLOBUCHAR) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To strengthen the authority of the United States Secret 

Service to investigate various crimes related to digital 

asset transactions and to counter transnational cyber 

criminal activity, including unlicensed money transmitting businesses, structured transactions, and fraud 

against financial institutions, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Combatting Money 

5 Laundering in Cyber Crime Act of 2024’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4830 IS

1 SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE 

2 INVESTIGATIVE AUTHORITIES. 

3 Section 3056(b) of title 18, United States Code, is 

4 amended— 

5 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘or’’ after 

6 ‘‘871’’ and inserting ‘‘, or 1960’’ after ‘‘879’’; and 

7 (2) in paragraph (3)— 

8 (A) by inserting ‘‘structured transactions,’’ 

9 after ‘‘devices,’’; 

10 (B) by striking ‘‘federally insured’’; and 

11 (C) by inserting ‘‘, as defined in section 

12 5312 of title 31’’ after ‘‘institution’’. 

13 SEC. 3. FINCEN EXCHANGE. 

14 Section 310(d)(3)(A) of title 31, United States Code, 

15 is amended, in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking 

16 ‘‘5 years’’ and inserting ‘‘10 years’’. 

17 SEC. 4. INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS. 

18 Section 7125(b) of the Otto Warmbier North Korea 

19 Nuclear Sanctions and Enforcement Act of 2019 (22 

20 U.S.C. 262p–13 note) is amended by striking ‘‘6’’ and in21 serting ‘‘10’’. 

22 SEC. 5. REPORT. 

23 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after the 

24 date of enactment of this Act, the Government Account25 ability Office shall conduct a study and submit to the ap26 propriate committees of Congress a report on the impleVerDate Sep 11 2014 21:42 Aug 23, 2024 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S4830.IS S4830

ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4830 IS

1 mentation of section 6102 of the Anti-Money Laundering 

2 Act of 2020 (title LXI of division F of the William M. 

3 (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for 

4 Fiscal Year 2021 (Public Law 116–283; 134 Stat. 4552)). 

5 (b) FOCUS.—In conducting the study under sub6 section (a), the Government Accountability Office shall 

7 focus on evaluating the ability of law enforcement to iden8 tify and deter money laundering in cyber crimes. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
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 International Monetary Systems, Ltd.
("Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission ("Report"), I, Danny W Weibling,
Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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.








/s/ Danny W
Weibling





Danny W
Weibling


Principal
Financial Officer





April 7,
2009











This
Certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed “filed” by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, whether made before or after the
date of this Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language
contained in such filing. A signed original of this written statement required
by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
PZN 2014 10K EX 10.29






Exhibit 10.29
        
AMENDMENT, DATED DECEMBER 2, 2014, TO
AMENDED AND RESTATED 2006 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN
(Subject to Stockholder Approval)


This amendment (the “Amendment”) to the Pzena Investment Management, LLC Amended and Restated 2006 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), is made and entered into effective as of December 2, 2014.


RECITALS
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of Pzena Investment Management, Inc., the Managing Member of Pzena Investment Management, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Company”) desires to amend the Plan in accordance with the authority granted by the Plan’s terms.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan shall be amended as follows:
		
	1.
	Section 2.13 of the Plan shall be deleted and replaced with the following sentence:




2.13    Fair Market Value of a Class B Unit on any given date means such value as the Committee, in its sole discretion, shall determine in good faith using any reasonable method; provided that in the case of a determination of the exercise price of an Option, such determination shall be made in a manner which permits the Option to be exempt from the application of Section 409A of the Code. In making a determination of Fair Market Value, the Committee shall take into account the information available with respect to the value of the Company, which factors may include (but are not limited to) (i) if the Class A Stock is listed for trading on the New York Stock Exchange or any other national securities exchange, the closing price per share of Class A stock on the applicable exchange on that date (or, if no closing price is reported, the last reported sale price) and (ii) discounts for lack of marketability of the Class B Units or waivers of benefits under the Tax Receivable Agreement, dated October 30, 2007, by and among Pzena Investment Management, Inc., the Company and the Continuing Members and Existing Members named on the signature pages thereto.  
2.  Except as specifically amended by this Amendment, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.
    


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed as of the date first above written
PZENA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, LLC
		
	By:
	Pzena Investment Management, Inc., its Managing Member


By: ___________________________________
Name: Richard S. Pzena
Title: Chief Executive Officer
---

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

The undersigned, Greg Pelling, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

(1)         
 the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of CounterPath Solutions, Inc. for the
three-month period ended July 31, 2007 (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 CounterPath
Solutions, Inc.

Date: September 14, 2007.

/s/ Greg
Pelling
Greg Pelling Chief Executive Officer and Director (Principal
Executive Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to CounterPath
Solutions, Inc. and will be retained by CounterPath Solutions, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
#### In the Matter of Timothy Kelley, Respondent, v Thomas A. Coughlin III, et al., Appellants.

[634 NYS2d 394]

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel the respondents to provide the petitioner with adequate medical care at Green Haven Correctional Facility, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Pagones, J.), entered May 9, 1994, which granted the petition.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed.

The petitioner commenced this proceeding to compel the respondents to provide him with adequate medical care at Green Haven Correctional Facility (hereinafter Green Haven). The respondents moved to dismiss the proceeding, *inter alia,*on the ground that Green Haven was providing the petitioner with adequate medical care.

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s finding, the respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition was timely *(see,*CPLR 7804 [c], [f|; *see also, Matter of New York State Bldrs. Assn, v State of New York,*98 Misc 2d 1045, 1048). Moreover, the respondents were not "deliberately indifferent” *(People ex rel. Hall v LeFevre,*60 NY2d 579) to the petitioner’s medical needs. For example, medical appointments had been scheduled for the petitioner and were rescheduled upon his return from the Attica Correctional Facility (hereinafter Attica). The petitioner had spent time in both the Green Haven and Attica infirmaries where his medical needs and questions were addressed on a *533daily basis. The petitioner had a consultation with an ear, nose, and throat specialist in November 1993, and Green Haven’s Health Service Director provided him with medical documentation and explained his medical records to him. In view of these efforts by the respondents, the court should have granted the motion to dismiss the petition.

In view of the foregoing, we need not address the parties’ remaining contentions. Mangano, P. J., O’Brien, Ritter, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Derrick Newton, Also Known as Derick Newton, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 962]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Nicholas Iacovetta, J.), rendered March 31, 1994, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 4 to 8 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s constitutional speedy trial motion was properly denied *(People v Taranovich,*37 NY2d 442, 445). "The record indicates that substantial parts of the [22-month] delay were justified, mostly due to defendant’s pretrial applications and motions” *(People v Garcia,*208 AD2d 425, *lv denied*84 NY2d 1031), and relatively little delay was attributable to the People.

We have considered defendant’s remaining argument and find it to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.