alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 4.1







 


THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON


NEW YORK’S FIRST BANK-FOUNDED 1784 BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON


 


 


2 HANSON PLACE, 12TH FLOOR, BROOKLYN,
N.Y. 11217


 


 


 


March 26, 2015


 


Hennion & Walsh, Inc.


2001 Route 46, Waterview Plaza


Parsippany, New Jersey 07054


 


Smart Trust, Tax Free Income Trust, Series
19


 


Dear Sirs:


The Bank of New York
Mellon is acting as trustee for Smart Trust, Tax Free Income Trust, Series 19 set forth above (the “Trust”).
We enclosed a list of the Securities to be deposited in the Trust on the date hereof. The prices indicated therein reflect our
evaluation of such Securities as of close of business on March 25, 2015, in accordance with the valuation method set forth in the
Trust Indenture and Agreement. We consent to the reference to The Bank of New York Mellon as the party performing the evaluations
of the Trust Securities in the Registration Statement (No. 333-201738) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission with respect
to the registration of the sale of the Trust Units and to the filing of this consent as an exhibit thereto.


 


 


Very truly yours,


 


/s/ GERARDO CIPRIANO________________


Gerardo Cipriano


Vice President
- back to main page
#### ELNORA ADAMS, *ET AL.,*PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. STANLEY ROSOL AND LILLIAN ROSOL, PARTNER t/a BUSHEL AND A PECK FARM, DEFENDANTS-PETITIONERS.

*Messrs. Harth & Enright*and *Mr. William W. Murphy*for the petitioners.

*Mr. Herbert F. Savoye, Jr.*for the respondents.

March 26, 1968.

Denied.
No. 46762.

#### Protest 65293-K of Rohner, Gehrig & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

An examination of the official papers failed to disclose any reason for disturbing the action of the collector, which was held presumptively correct. The protest was therefore overruled.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVEOFFICER**

**PURSUANTTO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Anthony Piscitelli, certify that:

 

     1. I have reviewed this quarterly reporton Form 10-Q of American Defense Systems, Inc.;

 

     2. Based on my knowledge, this reportdoes not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respectto the period covered by this report;

 

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

 

     4. The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

          (a) designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

          (b) evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

          (c) disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

     5. The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

 

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

 

          (b) anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

 

Date:  May 15, 2008

 
|   | /s/ Anthony Piscitelli                           |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------|
|   | Anthony  Piscitelli                              |
|   | Chief Executive  Officer, President and Chairman |

 

----
#### In the Matter of Cheryl Busbee, Respondent, v Richard Higgins, as Commissioner of the New York State Division of *178Housing and Community Renewal, et al., Respondents, and Ken-Rob Company, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 298]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Schoenfeld, J.), entered January 3, 1994, which denied respondent-appellant’s motion to renew with respect to two prior orders of the same court and Justice entered February 21, 1991 and March 25, 1992, which had, in pertinent part, deemed petitioner’s Fair Market Rent Appeal to be timely filed, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying respondent-appellant-landlord’s motion to renew as movant failed to offer a reasonable excuse for not previously submitting to respondent Division of Housing and Community Renewal its DC-2 form in conjunction with petitioner’s Fair Market Rent Appeal *(see, Foley v Roche,*68 AD2d 558, 568). The form was ultimately located in landlord’s own stored file. This proceeding has now been pending since 1984. It is time for it to be put to rest. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman and Williams, JJ.
No. 50507.

#### Protests 57733-K, etc., of W. E. Browne Decorating Co. et al. (New York).

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 case 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 market 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 protests were sustained to this extent.
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

Robert Elmer Barber,

Petitioner, No. Civ. S 04-1844 MCE PAN P

vs.

McGregor W. Scott, et al.,

Respondents.

-oOoPetitioner requests appointment of counsel on the grounds he

is indigent and lacks legal training and the law is complex. 

There is no absolute right to appointment of counsel in

habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th

Cir. 1996). However, whenever the court determines the interests

of justice so require, representation may be provided for any

financially eligible person who is seeking relief under section

18 U.S.C. § 2254. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). Unless an 

evidentiary hearing is necessary, the decision to appoint counsel 

Case 2:04-cv-01844-MCE -EFB Document 28 Filed 10/04/05 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

is discretionary. Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th

Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 838 (1984); Rule 8(c), Rules

Governing § 2254 Cases. 

In deciding whether to appoint counsel the court exercises

discretion governed by a number of factors, including the

likelihood of success on the merits and the applicant’s ability

to present his claims in light of their complexity. Weygandt v.

Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983); see also, LaMere v.

Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987). Ordinarily the

presumption of regularity in the state’s procedures for confining

prisoners suggests a lack of likely success and counsels against

appointment of counsel. See Maclin v. Freake, 650 F.2d 885, 887

(7th Cir. 1981). As a general rule, the court will not appoint

counsel unless the applicant shows his claim has merit in fact

and law. Id. Even if the applicant overcomes this hurdle, the

court will not appoint counsel if the law is settled and the

material facts are within the petitioner’s possession, viz., they

do not require investigation outside the prison walls. Id. at

887-88. 

Here, petitioner alleges he was prosecuted in violation of

the double jeopardy clause and the ex post facto clause, the jury

improperly was instructed and the evidence was insufficient to

support his conviction. The law governing this issue is settled. 

Neither factual development nor legal insight are required 

because these proceedings are limited to claims that already were

identified and presented to the California Supreme Court. There

Case 2:04-cv-01844-MCE -EFB Document 28 Filed 10/04/05 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

is, on the record before the court, no reason to believe

appointment of counsel would be of significant benefit. 

Petitioner’s August 18, 2005, request for the appointment of

counsel therefore is denied.

So ordered.

Dated: October 4, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01844-MCE -EFB Document 28 Filed 10/04/05 Page 3 of 3
#### NATIONAL SIDING CORP., PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. MICHAEL DI TRIANI, DEFENDANT AND LILLIAN H. HELLINGHAUSEN, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

See same case below: 99 *Super.*64.

*Mr. Luke F. Binetti*for the petitioner.

*Mr. Louis Asarnow*for the respondent.

March 26, 1968.

Granted.
No. 65559.

#### S. Berger Co. *v.*United States,

protest 59/7921 (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of fiber or hemp articles similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 63552, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
ex10-3.htm


Exhibit 10.3


 



AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF GOODS


 


THIS AGREEMENT made on this 17 day of December, 2014, between


 


ILLUMITRY CORP. a company incorporated under the Nevada State Law on 17 day of October, 2014 and having its registered office at Ayasa, 53 Yerevan, Armenia 0015 (hereinafter referred to as the SELLER, which expression shall, unless it be repugnant to the context or meaning thereof, be deemed to mean and include its successors and assigns) of the ONE PART and


 


MARIYAN Atelier and Shop of Fabric (hereinafter referred to as the BUYER which expression shall, unless it be repugnant to the context or meaning thereof, be deemed to mean and include its successors and assigns) of the OTHER PART.


 


DESCRIPTION OF GOODS


 


Products of embroidery (hereinafter called the 'said goods') include several options of implementations and ways of using. The one way is the Buyer will supply different fabric too the Seller for making special embroidery on it. Another way is the Seller preparing for The Buyer embroidered patches, where the Buyer will responsible for the design of embroidered patches. Also the Buyer's option is supply to the Seller garments on which the Seller is required to make embroidery, such as national clothes, workware, garments for marketing activities.


 


THE PARTIES HERETO agree to abide as under:


 


1. Purchase price


The Seller undertakes to sell the Buyer and the Buyer undertakes to buy from Seller the said goods at a price of from USD 5-100 per one embroidery model which will depend on the complexity of embroidery


 


2. Payment conditions


 


The Buyer must pay to the seller before picking up the said goods.


 


3. Delivery


The Seller will prepare the said goods and the Buyer we have to pick them up from the place of seller's production..


 


4. Supplying conditions


The Buyer's responsibilities is to supply to the Seller the saw materials, if need, for the specific order.


 


5. Risks and benefits


 


The risk and benefit will pass from the Seller to the Buyer upon picking up of the said goods.







SIGNED AND DATED on 17th of December, 2014 By The Seller


 


 





	By the Seller	 	By the Buyer
	 	 	 
	ILLUMITRY CORP.	 	MARIYAN Atelier and Shop of Fabric
	Sasuntsi Davit Street, Yerevan, Armenia	 	Armenia, 0010, Yerevan, Vardanants St., 7 Building
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	/s/ Arusyak Sukiasyan                	 	/s/ Mariyan Atelier
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





The undersigned, Terence Yap, the Chief Financial Officer of CHINA SECURITY & SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY, INC. (the Company), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:



1. The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for
the period ended June 30, 2007 (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



2. Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this statement this 1stday of November 2007.



/s/ Terence YapTerence YapChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to China Security & Surveillance Technology, Inc. and will be retained by China Security & Surveillance Technology, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



The forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing





---
McGladrey &
Pullen


Certified Public
Accountants


























Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement (No.
333-10981) on Form S-3 of Patriot National Bancorp, Inc. of our reports dated
March 31, 2009 relating to our audits of the consolidated financial statements
and internal control over financial reporting, included in the Annual Report on
Form 10-K of Patriot National Bancorp, Inc. for the year ended December 31,
2008.














/S/
McGladrey & Pullen, LLP





New
Haven, Connecticut


March
31, 2009

























McGladrey
& Pullen, LLP is a member firm of RSM International,
 an
affiliation of separate and independent legal
entities.
#### John Meehan, *Respondent, v.*The Mayor, etc., of the City of New York, *Appellants.*

Judgment reversed, new trial granted, costs to abide event. Opinion by Dwight, J.
Page 1 of 2

1022 Airport Parkway, Cheyenne, WY 82001

September 28, 2012

US Department of Transportation 

Docket Operations, M-30

West Building ground floor, Room W12-140

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20590

Regarding Docket Number FAA-2008-0930:

Great Lakes Aviation is petitioning for an extension of Exemption No. 9758A. This

exemption from § 121.434(c)(1)(ii) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, allows Great 

Lakes to substitute a qualified and authorized check airman in place of an FAA inspector to 

observe a qualifying pilot in command (PIC) who is completing the initial or upgrade training 

specified in § 121.424 during at least one flight leg that includes a takeoff and a landing. 

PUBLIC INTEREST AND SAFETY

Great Lakes feel that there have been no changes in the conditions and reasons relative to 

public interest and safety that were the basis for granting of the original exemption.

QUALIFICATION OF OPERATING EXPERIENCE OBSERVERS.

Great Lakes Aviation proposes that the process for qualifying operating observers under 

this exemption remain unchanged.

PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES FOR CONDUCT OF OBSERVATIONS.

Great Lakes Aviation proposes that the practices and procedures for conduct of 

observations under this exemption remain unchanged.
Page 2 of 2

CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS.

Great Lakes Aviation proposes that the conditions and limitations associated with this 

exemption remain unchanged.

SUMMARY, FOR PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER:

1. The rule from which exemption is sought: 

§ 121.434(c)(1)(ii) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR).

2. A brief description of the nature of the exemption sought:

This exemption would allow Great Lakes Aviation to continue substituting a qualified 

and authorized line check airman or aircrew program designee for an FAA inspector,

to observe a qualifying pilot in command (PIC) who is completing initial or upgrade 

training specified in § 121.424 during at least one flight leg that includes a takeoff 

and a landing. 

CLOSING NOTES:

Because this requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on

this petition would be detrimental to Great Lakes Aviation, we ask that consideration be

given to not publishing a summary of this petition in the Federal Register.

Great Lakes Aviation further proposes that the extension of this exemption be granted by

October 31, 2010, prior to expiration of the current exemption.

If there are any questions or concerns, we may be contacted as follows. Thank-you for 

your assistance in this matter!

David C. Hoffmeister

Director of Training, Great Lakes Aviation

office 307.432.7250 dhoffmeister@flygreatlakes.com

fax 307.432.7251

Tory A. Meisel

Director of Operations, Great Lakes Aviation

office 307.432.7210 tmeisel@flygreatlakes.com
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-523

_____________________________

GEORGE C. PUGH,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Mark Borello, Judge.

June 4, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WETHERELL, RAY, and WINSOR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

George C. Pugh, pro se, Appellant.
2

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Jennifer J. Moore, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8241 

To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to require the Chairman 

of the Securities and Exchange Commission to semiannually testify before 

Congress with regard to the activities of the Commission. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 2, 2024 

Mrs. WAGNER (for herself, Mr. GARBARINO, Mr. MEUSER, Mr. HUIZENGA, 

and Mr. EMMER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to require 

the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission to semiannually testify before Congress with regard 

to the activities of the Commission. 

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 ‘‘SEC Transparency Act 

5 of 2024’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 8241 IH

1 SEC. 2. SEMIANNUAL TESTIMONY TO CONGRESS REGARD2 ING ACTIVITIES OF THE SECURITIES AND EX3 CHANGE COMMISSION. 

4 Section 4 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 

5 U.S.C. 78d) is amended by adding at the end the fol6 lowing: 

7 ‘‘(l) SEMIANNUAL TESTIMONY TO CONGRESS.—The 

8 Chairman of the Commission shall, not less than once 

9 every 6 months after the date of the enactment of this 

10 subsection, testify before the Committee on Financial 

11 Services of the House of Representatives and the Com12 mittee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the 

13 Senate on the activities of the Commission. At least once 

14 annually, the Commissioners shall join the Chairman with 

15 respect to testifying pursuant to the preceding sentence.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Before the Third Division,

January 3, 1940

No. 42938.

#### Protest 995870-G of Wood, Niebuhr & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

No evidence was offered in support of the claim made. On the record presented the protest was overruled.
(Reap. Dec. 8525)

#### B. & S. Prod. Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 719932, etc.

(Decided January 20, 1956)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiff.

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

Mollison, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule *“A,”*hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon a stipulation of fact entered into by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto.

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 items of merchandise enumerated in schedule “B,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, and that such values were as set forth in said schedule “B.”

I further find the cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the items of merchandise enumerated in schedule “C,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, and that such values were as set forth in said schedule “C.”

Insofar as the appeals relate to all other merchandise, they are hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.

Schedule “B”

*Items Foreign value*

21 DM 7.40 pe doz., less 2%, plus cost of cases, as invoiced

22 DM 7.70 “

24 DM 8.10 “

26 DM 9.70 “

27 DM 10.50 “

28 DM 12.00 “

81 DM 5.90 “

99 DM 12.80 “

30/800/4 DM 0.80 “

*513Schedule “C”

*Items Cost of 'production*

12 DM 9.60 per doz., less 41J4, % plus cost of cases, as invoiced

15 DM 9.00 “ “

16 DM 10.50 “ “

40 DM 8.80 “ “

41 ' DM 8.80 “ “

42 DM 8.80 “ “

43 Invoiced unit price, plus cost of cases, as invoiced

44 *tt tt a tt a tt*

45 46 DM 9.40 per doz., DM 9.40 “ less *4:1%%,*plus costs of cases, as invoiced *tt tt tt tt it tt it ((*

47 Invoiced unit price, plus cost of cases, as invoiced

63 DM 7.10 per doz., less 41H%, plus cost of cases, as invoiced

64 DM 7.00 *ft tt tt tt (< tt u u*

65 DM 7.25 *(t ti tt tt tt tt tt a*

66 DM 6.70 *a tt a a tt tt tt tt*

68 DM 8.60 *tt tt tt tt tt it tt tt*

161 DM 7.25

162 DM 6.90

265 Invoiced unit price, plus cost of cases, as invoiced

265/2

511
#### CITY OF EAST ORANGE, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. DWIGHT R. G. PALMER, COMMISSIONER, *ETC., ET ALS.,*DEFENDANTS-PETITIONERS.

*Mr. Arthur J. Sills, Mr. Alan B. Handler, Mr. David A. Biederman, Messrs. Pindar, McElroy, Connell <& Foley*and *Miss Sonia Napolitano*for the petitioners.

*Mr. Jack Okin*and *Mr. Norman E. Scull*for the respondents.

February 13, 1968.

Granted.
No. 46192.

#### Protests 754986-G (A), etc., of Santo Aliotta & Son et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
#### In the Matter of CECIL W. GOODE, an attorney-at-law.

November 6, 1967.

Suspension lifted and respondent restored to the practice of law.