alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v ARTHUR E. OGDEN, Jr., Private, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

20 USCMA 193, 43 CMR 33

No. 23,067

December 11, 1970

*Captain John N. Stafford,*USMCR, and *Commander E. M. Fulton, Jr.,*JAGC, USN, were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

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

*194Opinion of the Court

Darden, Judge:

The appellant in this case chose to be represented by appointed counsel after being advised by the military judge of his right to select either a civilian lawyer or military counsel of his own choice. The military judge did not commit error in failing to inform Ogden of the privilege to have appointed counsel associated with civilian or selected military counsel should Ogden choose either one. United States v Turner, 20 USCMA 167, 43 CMR 7 (1970).

The record in this instance reflects that defense introduced evidence after findings of a prior civilian conviction for housebreaking. The appellant also acknowledged his fraudulent enlistment in the Marine Corps. Because he was tried for a seven months’ absence without leave committed before the effective date of the pertinent Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1969 (effective January 1, 1969), provision —though he was tried after that date —limiting instructions were required. United States v Worley, 19 USCMA 444, 42 CMR 36 (1970).

Ogden may have been prejudiced at trial by this instructional omission for the seriousness of the earlier misdeeds is manifest. There has been reduction of the court-imposed sentence at all levels of appellate review; however, the effect of the instructional omission was not considered. Corrective action is required. United States v Rodriguez, 17 USCMA 54, 37 CMR 318 (1967).

The decision of the United States Navy Court of Military Review as to sentence is reversed. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General for submission to the Court of Military Review for reconsideration of the sentence in light of this opinion.

Chief Judge Quinn concurs.

Ferguson, Judge

(concurring in part and dissenting in part) :

I concur in part and dissent in part.

I agree with my brothers that corrective action as to sentence is required because of the failure of the president to limit the court’s consideration of evidence of misconduct, introduced after findings. United States v Worley, 19 USCMA 444, 42 CMR 46 (1970); United States v March, 19 USCMA 476, 42 CMR 78 (1970). However, I disagree with their holding that the military judge did not commit prejudicial error when he failed to fully comply with the procedural requirements of United States v Donohew, 18 USCMA 149, 39 CMR 149 (1969). For the reasons set forth in my separate opinion in United States v Turner, 20 USCMA 167, 43 CMR 7 (1970), I would reverse the decision of the Court of Military Review and direct that a rehearing may be ordered.
```

                                                                    EXHIBIT 13.2

    CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 USC SS.1350,
         AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SS.906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the annual report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2006 of Metalink Ltd. (the "Company") as filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Commission") on the date hereof (the
"Report"), and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Yuval Ruhama, Chief Financial
Officer, certify 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 Company.

Date: May 29, 2007

                                                 By: /s/ Yuval Ruhama
                                                 --------------------
                                                 Name: Yuval Ruhama
                                                 Title: Chief Financial Officer
```
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.2
Project 750 Program Overview
PROJECT 750 AWARDS UNDER
SIX FLAGS ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION
LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN


The objective of the Project 750 Awards under the Six Flags Entertainment Corporation Long-Term Incentive Plan ("Project 750 Awards") is to provide management and other key employees with an equity incentive to achieve $750 million of Modified EBITDA in a calendar year (the “EBITDA Target”) by December 31, 2020. The Project 750 Awards also provide for the grant of dividend equivalent rights equal in value equal to any dividends on the common stock from the award issuance date through the date shares, if any, are issued under the Project 750 Award. An aggregate of 900,000 shares (not including dividend equivalent rights) would be issued if the EBITDA Target is achieved in calendar 2020, to the extent provided in the applicable Project 750 Award agreement.
The Project 750 Awards provide management with incentive to reach the EBITDA Target earlier by providing: (a) a 15% early achievement bonus (1,035,000 total shares) if the EBITDA Target is met for calendar year 2019 and (b) a 35% early achievement bonus (1,215,000 total shares) if the EBITDA Target is met for calendar years 2017 or 2018, all to the extent provided in the applicable Project 750 Award agreement. If the EBITDA Target is met for the first time in calendar year 2021 and there has been no early achievement bonus or partial achievement award (as described in the Project 750 Award agreement), the number of shares awarded to each participant will be equal to 50% of the base award.
A minimum achievement hurdle of $725 million applies and any overperformance above $725 million would be credited to the immediately subsequent calendar year.
The terms and conditions of the Project 750 Awards are set forth in a separate Project 750 Award agreement that shall apply in the event of any conflict with this Project 750 Program Overview.
**CONFORMED**

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

          In connection with the Annual Report of Connecticut Bancshares, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Michael J. Hartl, Senior Vice President and 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.     | To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of andfor the period covered by the Report. |

 

|   | /s/ MICHAEL J. HARTL                                                                                                                 |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |                                                                                                                                      |   |
|   | **Michael J. Hartl  Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (principal accounting and financial officer)  March 24, 2003** |   |
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

B.K., the Mother,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES and GUARDIAN AD 

LITEM,

Appellees.

No. 4D22-583

[August 8, 2022]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. 

Lucie County; Robert B. Meadows, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

562021DP000079A.

Ashley Nicole Minton of Minton Law, P.A., Fort Pierce, for appellant.

Andrew Feigenbaum, Appellate Counsel, Children’s Legal Services, 

West Palm Beach, for appellee Department of Children and Families.

Sara Elizabeth Goldfarb, Statewide Director of Appeals, and Sarah Todd 

Weitz, Senior Attorney, Statewide Guardian Ad Litem Office, Tallahassee, 

for appellee Guardian Ad Litem Program.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, KUNTZ and ARTAU, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
March 22, 1945

No. 50066.

Suit 4484.

#### *Ti Hang Lung & Co.*v. *United States.*

C. D. 843 affirmed February 7, 1945. C. A. D. 301.
-1- 

Barabino v. Fleetwood [Proposed] Order to Continue Final Pretrial Conference 

Case No. CIV.S-04-2359 MCE PAN 

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

27

28

Sharon L. Kinsey, (SBN 187285) 

KINSEY CONSUMER LAW CENTER 

16400 Bonney Road 

Watsonville Ca. 95076 

Telephone: (831) 274-2417 

Facsimile: (831) 274-2512 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

ROBERT BARABINO 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

CALIFORNIA EASTERN DISTRICT - SACRAMENTO DIVISION 

ROBERT BARABINO, 

 

Plaintiff, 

 v. 

DAN GAMEL, INC.; FLEETWOOD 

ENTERPRISES, INC., FLEETWOOD 

MOTOR HOMES OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

INC., 

Defendants. 

Case No.: 2:04-cv-2359-MCE-PAN 

 

ORDER TO CONTINUE PRETRIAL 

CONCERENCE DATE 

PROPOSED ORDER 

Good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: 

That the PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER dated March 30, 2005, is modified 

as follows: 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

Case 2:04-cv-02359-MCE-EFB Document 96 Filed 06/14/06 Page 1 of 2
-2- 

Barabino v. Fleetwood [Proposed] Order to Continue Final Pretrial Conference 

Case No. CIV.S-04-2359 MCE PAN 

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

27

28

The Final Pretrial Conference is continued from July 3, 2006 to July 31, 2006 at 

01:30 p.m. The parties shall file a Joint Pretrial Statement not later than July 17, 2006. 

Dated: June 14, 2006

__________________________________ 

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-02359-MCE-EFB Document 96 Filed 06/14/06 Page 2 of 2
#### Evelyn Underwood et al., Appellants, v American Telephone and Telegraph Co. et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

[635 NYS2d 493]

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs’ appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Becker, J.), dated June 27, 1994, which granted the motions of the defendants American Telephone and Telegraph Co., AT&T Information Systems, Inc., and Leon and Barbara Weinstein for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, and (2) a judgment of the same court, entered August 11,1994, which dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants American Telephone and Telegraph Co. and AT&T Information Systems, Inc. The plaintiffs’ notice of appeal from so much of the order dated June 27, 1994, as granted the motion of American Telephone and Telegraph Co. and AT&T Information Systems, Inc., is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the judgment.

*624Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the provision of the order dated June 27, 1994, which granted the motion of American Telephone and Telegraph Co. and AT&T Information Systems, Inc., for summary judgment is vacated, and the motion of the defendants American Telephone and Telegraph Co. and AT&T Information Systems, Inc., is denied; and it is further,

Ordered that the provision of the order dated June 27, 1994, which granted summary judgment to the defendants Leon Weinstein and Barbara Weinstein is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The proof presented by the plaintiffs, and the defendants American Telephone and Telegraph Co. and AT&T Information System, Inc. (hereinafter collectively AT&T) as to the installation, ownership, and maintenance of certain telephone wires "create[s] questions of fact which cannot be resolved as a matter of law” *(see, Freeman Lbr. Co. v Dutton Lbr. Corp.,*220 AD2d 641). Therefore, summary judgment should not have been granted to AT&T.

We have examined the plaintiffs contentions as to the defendants Leon and Barbara Weinstein and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Miller and Florio, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 50 (Thursday, March 15, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 12170]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4720]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-341-000]


Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation; Notice of Proposed 
Changes in FERC Gas Tariff

March 9, 2007.
    Take notice that on March 6, 2007, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line 
Corporation (Transco) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, First Revised Thirty-Second Revised 
Sheet No. 28B and Second Substitute Thirty-Third Revised Sheet No. 28B, 
to become effective February 9, 2007 and March 1, 2007, respectively.
    Transco states that copies of the filing are being mailed to 
affected customers and interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of 
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). 
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on 
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0f494a5d4c40616366616a5c7a7f7f607d7b4f696a7d6c21686079"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b1f7f4e3f2fedfddd8dfd4e2c4c1c1dec3c5f1d7d4c3d29fd6dec7">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-4720 Filed 3-14-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**Exhibit 31.2**
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, James A. Yost, certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of HLI OperatingCompany, Inc.;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant 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 thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;
          b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
          c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case ofan annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and
     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
          a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely 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 otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting.   /s/ JAMES A. YOST James A. Yost
|   | 1. | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | To      my knowledge, the information contained in the 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 the    Report. |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  March      5, 2010 |   | By:    | /s/      Salvatore      R. DeFrancesco, Jr. |    |
|-------------------------------------|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------|--------------|
|                                |   |   | Salvatore      R. DeFrancesco, Jr.          |
|                                |   |   | Treasurer      and Chief FinancialOfficer   |

----
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

HOANG MONG LE,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2522 LKK DAD P

vs.

JOHN ASHCROFT, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, who is represented by counsel, filed an amended application for a writ

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On May 27, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Neither party has filed

objections to the findings and recommendations.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02522-LKK -DAD Document 18 Filed 08/05/05 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

1. The findings and recommendations filed May 27, 2005, are adopted in full; 

2. Respondents’ February 28, 2005, motion to dismiss is granted; and

3. This action is dismissed as moot.

DATED: August 5, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/le2522.801

Case 2:04-cv-02522-LKK -DAD Document 18 Filed 08/05/05 Page 2 of 2
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### Census Bureau 

          - [Docket No.: 061213333-6333-01] 

# AGENCY:

U.S. Census Bureau, Commerce. 

# ACTION:

Notice; COMMERCE/CENSUS-10, “American Community Survey.” 

# SUMMARY:

The Department of Commerce (Commerce) publishes this notice to announce the effective date of a Privacy Act System of Records notice entitled COMMERCE/CENSUS-10, “American Community Survey.” 

# DATES:

The system of records becomes effective on January 17, 2007. 

# ADDRESSES:

For a copy of the system of records please mail requests to Gerald W. Gates, Chief Privacy Officer, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC 20233, 301-763-2515. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gerald W. Gates, Chief Privacy Officer, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC 20233, 301-763-2515. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On June 29, 2006, the Commerce Department published and requested comments on a proposed new Privacy Act System of Records notice entitled COMMERCE/CENSUS-10, “American Community Survey.” No comments were received in response to the request for comments. By this notice, the Department is adopting the proposed system as final without changes effective January 17, 2007. 

Dated: January 10, 2007. 

Brenda Dolan, 

Department of Commerce Freedom of Information and Privacy Act Officer.

[FR Doc. E7-492 Filed 1-16-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510-07-P