alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph P. O’Sullivan, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

June 16, 1978

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Mark Lemle Amsterdam*for appellant.

*Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney (Robert M. Pitler*and *Jerrold Tannenbaum*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

*Per Curiam.*

Judgment of conviction rendered June 20, 1977 (Eiber, J.) affirmed.

*53Defendant, a devotee and practitioner of the art of tattooing, was served with a summons for tattooing an unidentified female on a public street, in violation of section 181.15 of the New York City Health Code. That section prohibits all tattooing of human beings, except by licensed medical doctors for medical purposes. It was enacted after a trial period during which regulation of the practice proved ineffective as a means of coping with hepatitis, an ailment which has frequently resulted from tattooing.

Although section 181.15 of the New York City Health Code has heretofore been held constitutional *(Grossman v Baumgartner,*17 NY2d 345), defendant contends that *Grossman v Baumgartner*failed to deal with First Amendment rights. Whether tattooing be an art form, as suggested by the defendant, or a "barbaric survival, often associated with a morbid or abnormal personality,” as suggested by four Justices of the Appellate Division *(Grossman v Baumgartner,*22 AD2d 100, 102), we do not deem it speech or even symbolic speech. However, even pure speech may be subject to reasonable regulation in the public interest *(Cox v Louisiana,*379 US 536, 545; *Adderley v Florida,*385 US 39, 48; *People v Radich,*26 NY2d 114, 118-119; *People v Street,*20 NY2d 231, 235), and defendant’s right to engage in tattooing is not paramount to the public’s right to good health. Nor may defendant escape valid regulation by labeling his art form symbolic speech *(United States v O’Brien,*391 US 367, 376-377). When the object of legislation is not the suppression of free expression but the promotion of public health, there is no constitutional violation even if there is some incidental interference with liberty or property *(Chiropractic Assn. of N. Y. v Hilleboe,*12 NY2d 109, 115).

Concur: Dudley, P. J., Hughes and Tierney, JJ.
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

MIGUEL E. DIAZ,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2375 MCE JFM P

vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

By order filed March 31, 2005, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed and thirty days

leave to file an amended complaint was granted. The thirty day period has now expired and

plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s order.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed

without prejudice. See Local Rule 11-110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02375-MCE -JFM Document 30 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

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: August 5, 2005.

12

diaz2375.fta

Case 2:04-cv-02375-MCE -JFM Document 30 Filed 08/05/05 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1



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 this Quarterly Report
of East Coast Diversified Corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2012, as
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Kayode Aladesuyi, Chief Executive Officer (Principal
Executive Officer) of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|(1) | Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2012, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2012, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |     |                                                                                                          | 
|----------------------- | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|Date: November 19, 2012 | By: | /s/ Kayode Aladesuyi                                                                                     | 
|                        |     | Kayode Aladesuyi                                                                                         | 
|                        |     | Chief Executive Officer
        (Principal Executive Officer)
        East Coast Diversified Corporation | 
|                        |     |                                                                                                          |
# C_2007275EN.01002901.xml

| 16.11.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 275/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 275/29

---

Communication from the Minister for Economic Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands on the basis of Article 3(2) of Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons

(2007/C 275/13)

The Minister for Economic Affairs hereby gives notice that an application has been received for authorisation to prospect for hydrocarbons in block G11 as indicated on the map appended as Annex 3 to the Mining Regulation (Mijnbouwregeling) (Government Gazette (Staatscourant) 2002, No 245).

Mijnbouwregeling

Staatscourant

With reference to the Directive 94/22/EC mentioned in the introduction and Article 15 of the Mining Act (Mijnbouwwet) (Bulletin of Acts and Decrees (Staatsblad) 2002, No 542), the Minister for Economic Affairs hereby invites interested parties to submit a competing application for authorisation to prospect for hydrocarbons in block G11 of the Dutch continental shelf.

Mijnbouwwet

Staatsblad

The Minister for Economic Affairs is the competent authority for the granting of authorisations. The criteria, conditions and requirements referred to in Articles 5(1), 5(2) and 6(2) of the above-mentioned Directive are set out in the Mining Act (Bulletin of Acts and Decrees 2002, No 542).

Applications may be submitted during the 13 weeks following the publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union and should be sent to: De Minister van Economische Zaken, ter attentie van J.C. De Groot, directeur Energiemarkt, ALP/562, Postbus 20101, 2500 EC Den Haag, Nederland.

Official Journal of the European Union

Applications submitted after the expiry of this period will not be considered.

A decision on the applications will be taken not later than twelve months after this period has expired.

Further information can be obtained from the following telephone number: (31-70) 379 77 62 (contact person: E.J. Hoppel).

---
No. 44070.

#### Protest 989593-G of C. H. Powell Co. (Boston).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

On the record presented the protest was overruled.
Exhibit 11


                             OPEN DOOR ONLINE, INC.
                   COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE


For the year ended December 31:                         2000           1999
                                                     ----------     -----------

Income (Loss) as reported                            $ (877,695)    $  (606,058)

Income tax expense                                           --              --
                                                     ----------     -----------
Net income (loss)                                    $ (877,695)    $  (606,058)
                                                     ==========     ===========

Basic earnings per share                             $    (0.08)    $     (0.11)
                                                     ==========     ===========

Diluted earnings per share                           $    (0.08)    $     (0.11)
                                                     ==========     ===========

Weighted average shares outstanding:                 11,155,000       5,432,863
                                                     ==========     ===========

Fully diluted average shares outstanding:            11,155,000       5,432,863
                                                     ==========     ===========
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 33-31236) pertaining to the 2000 Stock Plan and the Directors' Stock
Option Plan of Hotel Reservations Network, Inc. of 1) our report dated January
22, 2001 (except for Note 14, as to which the date is March 13, 2001), with
respect to the consolidated financial statements of Hotel Reservations Network,
Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2000 and the period from May 11, 1999
through December 31, 1999 and 2) our report dated November 22, 1999 with respect
to the combined financial statements of TMF, Inc. (d/b/a Hotel Reservations
Network) and HRN Marketing Corp. for the period from January 1, 1999 through May
10, 1999, both of which are included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the
year ended December 31, 2000.


/s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Dallas, Texas
March 27, 2001
Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TOSECTION 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 September30, 2020 (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. CohenName: Jonathan H. CohenDate: October28, 2020
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                        5
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                         DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                           DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                           0
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    0
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 0
<PP&E>                                           0
<DEPRECIATION>                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            0
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                   540,000
<OTHER-SE>                               (540,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     0
<SALES>                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 0
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  0
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              0
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                     0
<EPS-BASIC>                                      0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT      21**

**Subsidiaries      of the Registrant**

| Parent                         |                        |                                  |
|-------------------------------------|-----------------------------|---------------------------------------|
|                                |                        |                                  |
| First Mutual Bancshares, Inc.  |                        |                                  |
|                                |                        |                                  |
|                                | Percentage                  | Jurisdiction                or        |
| Subsidiaries                   | of                Ownership | State                of Incorporation |
|                                |                        |                                  |
| First Mutual Bank              |  100%                  | Washington                       |
|                                |                        |                                  |
| First Mutual Services (1)      | 100%                        | Washington                       |
|                                |                        |                                  |

| (1) | This                corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of First Mutual Bank. First                Mutual Services (FMS) engages in the sale of mutual funds and annuities.                PRIMEVEST Financial Services functioned as the broker dealer and                is                responsible for the sale and delivery of securities. As of December                1999,                the company decided to discontinue directly offering investment products                to its customers. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### John B. Johnson, *Respondent, v.*Catharine Williams, *Executrix, etc.,*and another, *Appellants.*

Judgment affirmed. Opinion by ' Daniels, J.
**Exhibit32.1**

 

Certificationof Litigation Trustee Pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350,As Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q of Information Resources, Inc. Litigation Contingent Payment RightsTrust for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), theundersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuantto § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of theirknowledge:

 

(1)           The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ JOSEPH P. DURRETT |   |
|-----------------------|--------|
| Joseph P. Durrett     |
| Litigation Trustee    |
| May 4, 2005           |

 

This certification accompanies the Reportpursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except tothe extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by theRegistrant for purposes of § 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended.

 

 

1

----
No. 52352.

protest 496040-G (New York).

#### Lilienthal & Grossman, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). The claim at 50 percent ad valorem under paragraph 915, plus any additional duty applicable under paragraph 924, was therefore sustained.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23



                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



To the Board of Directors

Lumenon Innovative Lightwave Technology, Inc.



        We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements
on Form S-3, as amended, and Form S-8 dated May 3, 2001 and August 20, 2001
respectively, of Lumenon Innovative Lightwave Technology, Inc. (the
"Corporation") of our report dated August 8, 2001, relating to the consolidated
balance sheets of the Corporation as of June 30, 2001, and 2000, and the
related consolidated statements of operations, cash flows and stockholders'
equity for the years ended June 30, 2001 and 2000, the six-month period ended
June 30, 1999, and for the periods from inception (March 2, 1998) to June 30,
1998 and to June 30, 2001, which report appears in the June 30, 2001, annual
report on Form 10-K of the Corporation. We also consent to the reference to our
firm under Item 14 in such Annual Report on Form 10-K.



/s/ KPMG LLP

KPMG LLP

Chartered Accountants
Montreal, Canada
September 28, 2001
Before the Second Division,

May 27, 1953

No. 57353.

petitions 6866-R and 6918-R (San Juan, P. R.).

#### Damian del Moral *v.*United States,

Rao, Judge:

The two petitions listed above, which were consolidated for the purposes of trial, were filed with the collector of customs at the port of San Juan, Puerto Rico, for the remission of additional duties assessed against several importations of Edam cheese from Holland.

It appears from the record in this case that the involved entries were made at the subport of Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, by Mrs. Bertha F. Mellowes, petitioner’s secretary, who was in charge of customs matters for petitioner. Prior to filing these entries, Mrs. Mellowes, as was her usual practice, proceeded to the customhouse to consult the then appraiser, Julius. L. Pietrantoni. She presented to him all the invoices and all the papers pertaining to these entries and requested information as to value. Pursuant to her request, the appraiser advised Mrs. Mellowes as to the price per 100 units, less allowable discounts and nondutiable charges.

At the time of these conferences, neither Mrs. Mellowes nor the appraiser noticed that the shipper had deducted from the invoice prices a 5 per centum buying commission and a cash discount of 3 per centum. Although the so-called buying commission was not a deductible item, and the cash discount was reflected in the invoice prices, the appraiser approved the proposed entered figures, in the making of which Mrs. Mellowes had inadvertently deducted an additional 3 per centum cash discount, and had failed to add back the 5 per centum buying commission.

The appraiser testified that at the time the entries were filed he did not notice the mistake. If he had, he would have given Mrs. Mellowes an opportunity to amend the entries because she had made a complete disclosure to him, and her good faith was evident. When he did discover the error, it was too late for petitioner to amend. The merchandise was, therefore, appraised at the invoiced prices per 100 kilograms, less 3 per centum cash discount, less nondutiable charges. Since the appraised values exceeded the entered values, additional duties for *463undervaluation were assessed, pursuant to .the provisions of section 489 of the Tariff Act of 1930.

We are satisfied from the evidence in this ease that the undervaluation of the importations here involved occurred by reason of an honest mistake on the part of petitioner’s employee. In entering the merchandise at less values than those returned by the appraiser, petitioner was without intent to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise.

The petitions are, therefore, granted. Judgment will be entered accordingly.
#### Hugh Riner, E. D. Tison and Richard Grant v. State.

179 So. 404.

Opinion Filed March 11, 1938.

On Rehearing March 11, 1938.

*E. Snow Martin,*for Plaintiff in Error, Tison.

*Cary D. Landis,*Attorney General, and *Roy Campbell*and *Tyrus A. Norwood,*Assistant Attorneys General, for the State.

Per Curiam.

The Court having heretofore granted a Petition for Rehearing to the Plaintiff in Error, E. D. Tison, and having further, considered the cause upon the Transcript of the Record of the judgment of the Circuit Court and upon additional briefs .and argument submitted upon the rehearing, and being now fully advised in the premises, it is ordered and adjudged by the Court that the judgment entered herein by this Court on July 29, 1937, *244affirming the judgment of the Circuit Court, should be and is now hereby reaffirmed, and it is so ordered.

Ellis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell, Brown, Buford and Chapman, J. J., concur.
#### Gentzel Corporation Appeal.

Argued November 22, 1968.

Before Bell, C. J., Jones, Cohen, Eagen and O’Brien, JJ.

*Louis F. Floge,*with him *Charles C. Brown, Jr., Roy Wilkinson, Jr.,*and *Love & Wilkinson,*and *Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis,*for appellant.

*George F. Baer Appel,*with him *Robert K. Kistler, David A. Franklin,*and *Miller, Kistler, Lee and Campbell,*and *Townsend, Elliott & Munson,*for appellees.

January 15, 1969:

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Order affirmed.

Mr. Justice Roberts took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
[if !vml]>[endif]>
[if !vml]>[endif]>
You havereached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC)Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC.Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of catalogingand locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications.  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the eventthat publications are no longer available from the original publishing agencysite. (Historical purposes)
**Title:****Trends in thewell-being of Americas children and youth**** 
SuDocNumber:HE1.63:
ItemNumber:0445-M-01(online)
CGPSystem Number: 000597298
 
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003**