alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Omar Johnson, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 952]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (George Roberts, J.), rendered on or about February 1, 1994, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no non-frivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to CPL 460.20, defendant has the right to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application *180to the Chief Judge of that Court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that Court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within thirty (30) days after service of a copy of this order, with notice of entry.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the Judge or Justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other Judge or Justice. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman and Williams, JJ.
No. 61394.

protests 259822-K, etc. (New York).

#### Edward P. Paul & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of figures or figurines similar in all material respects to those passed upon in *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.*v. *United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 15, C. A. D. *517458), the items of merchandise marked with the letter “A” were held dutiable as follows: (a) As to the items entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption prior to May 28, 1950, at 20 percent under paragraph 1547 *(a);*and (b) as to items entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption subsequent to May 28, 1950, at 10 percent under said paragraph 1547 (a), as modified by the Annecy Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T. D. 52373), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T. D. 52476).
EXHIBIT 32

 

Section 1350 Certifications

 

 

	I, Andrew K. Walker, certify that this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Allied Bancshares, Inc. for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 containing financial statements fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that information contained in this quarterly report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Allied Bancshares, Inc.

 

 

s/Andrew K. Walker                                                                  

President and Chief Executive Officer 

 

Date: August 13, 2004 

	I, Richard E. Bell, certify that this quarterly report on Form 10-KSB of Allied Bancshares, Inc. for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 containing financial statements fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that information contained in this quarterly report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Allied Bancshares, Inc. 

 

s/Richard E. Bell                                                                       

Chief Accounting Officer and Chief Financial Officer 

Date: August 13, 2004

						

 

26

<PAGE>
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 51 (Friday, March 16, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 12595]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4852]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Meeting of the Land Between the Lakes Advisory Board

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Land Between The Lakes Advisory Board will hold a meeting 
on Thursday, April 5, 2007. Notice of this meeting is given under the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2.
    The meeting agenda includes the following:

(1) Welcome/Introductions
(2) Board Discussion on Public Comments Received
(3) Strategies for Environmental Education
(4) Brandon Spring Group Center Program Presentation
(5) Discussions with Students Visiting Brandon Spring Group Center

    The meeting is open to the public. Written comments are invited and 
may be mailed to: William P. Lisowsky, Area Supervisor, Land Between 
The Lakes, 100 Van Morgan Drive, Golden Pond, Kentucky 42211. Written 
comments must be received at Land Between The Lakes by March 29, 2007, 
in order for copies to be provided to the members at the meeting. Board 
members will review written comments received, and at their request, 
oral clarification may be requested at a future meeting.

DATES: The meeting will be held on April 5, 2007, 8:30 a.m. to 3:15 
p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Brandon Spring Group Center 
at Land Between The Lakes, Kentucky, and will be open to the public.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharon Byers, Advisory Board Liaison, 
Land Between The Lakes, 100 Van Morgan Drive, Golden Pond, Kentucky 
42211, 270-924-2002.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: None.

    Dated: March 9, 2007.
William P. Lisowsky,
Area Supervisor, Land Between The Lakes.
[FR Doc. E7-4852 Filed 3-15-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)



In connection with the Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2018 (the “Report”) of Oxford Square Capital Corp. (the “Registrant”),
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Jonathan H. Cohen, the Chief Executive Officer of the
Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|/s/ Jonathan H. Cohen   | 
|----------------------- | 
|Name: Jonathan H. Cohen | 
|Date:   May 2, 2018     |
EXHIBIT 32.1



Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)







In connection with the Quarterly Report of Elderwatch, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Allan Weiss, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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, as amended; and

(2)

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



By/s/ Allan Weiss

Allan Weiss

President, Chief Executive Officer





Date:  May 12, 2006
Exhibit 31.2

Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


I, Stephen A. Hozie, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q/A of American Home Mortgage
      Investment Corp.;

2.    Based on my knowledge, this 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
      report;

3.    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
      information included in this 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 report;

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

      a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
         disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
         supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
         Registrant, including its consolidated 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 and
         procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
         effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
         of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

      c) disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant's internal
         control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant's
         most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is
         reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant's internal
         control over financial reporting; and

5.    The Registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
      our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,
      to the Registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the Registrant's
      board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

      a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
         operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
         reasonably likely to adversely affect the 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 who have a significant role in the Registrant's internal
         control over financial reporting.



      /s/ Stephen A. Hozie
-----------------------------------
Stephen A. Hozie
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
April 29, 2005
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Guy Patterson, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 385]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.), rendered November 16, 1993, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf, People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Krausman and Gold-stein, JJ., concur.
(Reap. Dec. 8527)

#### Chelsea Import Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 7753.

(Decided January 20, 1956)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

*515JohNSON, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the market value of the merchandise at the time of exportation to the United States covered by the Appeal to Reappraisement enumerated above at which time such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade for home consumption including costs of containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise ready for shipment to the United States was the invoice units of value set forth under Column 11 in German currency, packed.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that there was no higher export value for merchandise such or similar to the merchandise herein at the time of exportation thereof.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the Appeal to Re-appraisement enumerated above may be submitted for decision on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by section 8 of the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values were the invoice units of value set forth under column 11 in German currency, packed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4873 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4873

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prohibit allowance of the 
  advanced manufacturing production credit for components produced by 
                      foreign entities of concern.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 31, 2024

  Mr. Brown (for himself, Mr. Cassidy, Mr. Scott of Florida, and Mr. 
    Ossoff) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prohibit allowance of the 
  advanced manufacturing production credit for components produced by 
                      foreign entities of concern.

    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 Tax Dollars for American 
Solar Manufacturing Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON ALLOWANCE OF ADVANCED MANUFACTURING PRODUCTION 
              CREDIT FOR COMPONENTS PRODUCED BY FOREIGN ENTITIES OF 
              CONCERN.

    (a) In General.--Section 45X(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(5) Prohibition on allowance of credit for components 
        produced by foreign entities of concern.--No credit shall be 
        allowed under subsection (a) with respect to any eligible 
        component which is produced by a foreign entity of concern (as 
        defined in section 9901(8) of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry 
        National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (15 
        U.S.C. 4651(8))).''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to components produced and sold after the date of enactment of this 
Act.
                                 <all>
```
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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California

Michael A. Sweet, No. Civ. S 04-2703 FCD PAN P

Plaintiff, Findings and Recommendation

vs.

O.C. O’Connor, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoApril 13, 2005, the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint

with 60 days leave to amend. He did not. 

Accordingly, the court hereby recommends that this action be

dismissed without prejudice. Local Rule 11-110; Fed. R. Civ. P.

41(b). 

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), these

findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to this case. Within 20 days after being

served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may

Case 2:04-cv-02703-FCD-EFB Document 8 Filed 06/30/05 Page 1 of 2
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

file written objections. The document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” 

The district judge may accept, reject, or modify these findings

and recommendations in whole or in part.

Dated: June 29, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02703-FCD-EFB Document 8 Filed 06/30/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 64931.

#### E. D. Magnus & Associates, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 58/25452-10422 and 58/25453-10423 (Chicago).

*386Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of photoflash lamps the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstract 64250, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
l)ISMISS; Opinion tiled September 27, 2012

In The 

## (!nurt uf ptica1 .fiftI! Jitrirt nf 

## ixzi at 1a11w5 No. 05-00-01592-CV
KANEB PIPE LINE OPERATING PARTNERSHIP, L.P. AND SUPPORT TERMINAL SERVICES, INC., Appellants V. GRACE ENERGY CORPORATION, Appellee On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 97-05135 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices FitzGerald. Murphy. and Fillmore Opinion By Justice FitzGerald ByorderdatedMay 7, 2001

, this Courtabatedthe appeal because appellee filed abankruptcy petition. Before the Court are the parties’jointmotion to reinstatethe appeal,joint motionto vacate the trial courts judgment consistent with the parties’ agreement, andjoint motion for immediate issuance ofthe mandate. We REINSTATEthe appeal. We grantthe parties’ joint motion to vacate the trial court’s judgment. We vacate the trial court’s amended final judgment signed on August 

### 30, 2000 and dismiss the case. We DIRECT the Clerk ofthis Court to issue the mandate forthwith.

ERRYYTrZcERALD JUSTICE 001 592F.P05

## (uiirt uf i%iprahi fift1! Outrtrt nt 

## !rxw it 

## lat1a JUDGMENT KANEB PIPE LINE OPERATING Appeal from the 191st Judicial District 

### Court PARTNERSHIP, L.P. AND SUPPORT of I)allas County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. 97- TERMINAL SERVICES, INC., Appellants 05135). OpiniorL delivered by Justice FitzGerald. No. 05-00-0i592-CV V. Justices Murphy and Fillmore, participating. GRACE ENERGY CORPORATION, Appellee Based onthe Court’s opinion ofthis date, the August 30, 2000 amendedjudgmentof

### thetrial court is VACATED 

### and the case is DISMISSED. It is ORDERED that the parties’ beat’ their own costs ofthe appeal. .Judgment entered September 27, 2012.

1’ %ERRY P FjAtD— JUSTICE
#### Shaw, Licitra, Exsenberg, Esernio and Schwartz, P. C., Respondent, v Joseph Gelb, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 212]

—In an action to recover attorneys’ fees, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Brien, J.), entered February 24, 1994, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the sum of $96,326.13.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff agreed to represent the defendant in a criminal matter and in a related civil case in Federal court. According to the plaintiff, the parties agreed that the plaintiff would be paid on an hourly basis at the reduced rate of $150 per hour. Crediting the testimony of the plaintiff’s witness and its documentary evidence, including time records indicating the services performed by various attorneys, the court awarded judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the evidence submitted was sufficient to support the judgment. The time records *332were properly admitted into evidence pursuant to the business records exception to the hearsay rule *(see,*CPLR 4518 [a]; *People v Kennedy,*68 NY2d 569). The records indicated which attorney worked on the defendant’s cases, the tasks performed, and the time spent on each task, on a daily basis.

In addition, the defendant’s expressions of satisfaction with the plaintiff’s efforts on his behalf, as contained in the documentary evidence, belie the defendant’s assertions at trial and on appeal that the plaintiff’s work was wastefull or unnecessary.

Accordingly, judgment was properly granted in favor of the plaintiff. Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
# C_2007222EN.01000201.xml

| 22.9.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/2

---

List of ships that were refused access to Community ports between 1 October 2006 and 31 August 2007, pursuant to Article 7b of Council Directive 95/21/EC on the port State control of ships

(2007/C 222/02)

Under Article 7b(1) of Council Directive 95/21/CE of 19 June 1995 on the port State control of ships (1), ships which have been detained several times shall be refused access to the ports of the Member States (2).

1

2

The table below gives the list of ships that were refused access to Community ports between 1 October 2006 and 31 August 2007.

| Name of ship | IMO number | Type of ship | Flag |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| HAJ YAMAK (3) | 7312684 | Bulk carrier | Georgia |
| KHALDOUN | 7610270 | Bulk carrier | Syrian Arab Republic |
| MALBORK | 7725520 | Bulk carrier | Georgia |
| TRINITY | 7614965 | Bulk carrier | Cambodia |

Name of ship

IMO number

Type of ship

Flag

HAJ YAMAK (3)

3

7312684

Bulk carrier

Georgia

KHALDOUN

7610270

Bulk carrier

Syrian Arab Republic

MALBORK

7725520

Bulk carrier

Georgia

TRINITY

7614965

Bulk carrier

Cambodia

---

(1)  Last amended by Directive 2001/106/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 19, 22.1.2002, p. 17).

1

(2)  The first paragraph of Article 7b reads:

2

‘A Member State shall ensure that a ship in one of the categories of Annex XI, section A, is refused access to its ports, except in the situations described in Article 11(6), if the ship:

either:

| — | flies the flag of a State appearing in the black list as published in the annual report of the MOU, and |
| --- | --- |

—

flies the flag of a State appearing in the black list as published in the annual report of the MOU, and

| — | has been detained more than twice in the course of the preceding 24 months in a port of a State signatory of the MOU, |
| --- | --- |

—

has been detained more than twice in the course of the preceding 24 months in a port of a State signatory of the MOU,

or:

| — | flies the flag of a State described as “very high risk” or “high risk” in the black list as published in the annual report of the MOU, and |
| --- | --- |

—

flies the flag of a State described as “very high risk” or “high risk” in the black list as published in the annual report of the MOU, and

| — | has been detained more than once in the course of the preceding 36 months in a port of a State signatory of the MOU. |
| --- | --- |

—

has been detained more than once in the course of the preceding 36 months in a port of a State signatory of the MOU.

The refusal of access shall become applicable immediately the ship has been authorised to leave the port where it has been the subject of a second or third detention as appropriate.’.

(3)  Ships for which the access refusal order was subsequently lifted in accordance with the procedures described in part B of Annex XI to Directive 95/21/EC.

3

---