alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Motors Insurance Corporation, Appellant. Ronald Lewis, Respondent.

[634 NYS2d 189]

—In a *635proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate an uninsured motorist arbitration award, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Newmark, J.), dated June 9, 1994, which denied the petition.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The appellant has not demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent procured his award of uninsured motorist benefits through fraud *(see, Imgest Fin. Establishment v Shearson Lehman Hutton,*172 AD2d 291). Accordingly, it has not established that the arbitrator’s award should be vacated pursuant to CPLR 7511 (b) (1) (i).

The arbitrator was fully aware of the appellant’s contentions with respect to the respondent’s alleged fraud, but nevertheless concluded that the respondent was entitled to an award. It is well settled that the "[c]ourts are reluctant to disturb the decisions of arbitrators lest the value of this method of resolving controversies be undermined [and] * * * it is imperative that the integrity of the process, as opposed to the correctness of the individual decision be zealously safeguarded” *(Matter of Goldfinger v Lisker,*68 NY2d 225, 230; *see also, Matter of Siegel [Lewis],*40 NY2d 687). Moreover, the appellant never established that the respondent’s claim was excluded by the language of the underlying policy. Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly denied the petition. O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.
No. 40233.

#### Protests 36693-G, etc., of Joseph, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the merchandise in question was held dutiable as follows: (1) fabrics or articles composed wholly or in chief value of artificial silk the same as those passed upon in Abstract 37230 at 60 percent under paragraph 31; (2) embroidered wearing apparel in part of lace or trimmings at 75 percent under paragraph 1430, *Glemby’s*v. *United States,*(13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 533, T. D. 41397) followed; (3) artificial flowers the same as those passed upon in *Robinson-Goodman*v. *United States*(17 C. C. P. A. 149, T. D. *50543473) at 60 percent under paragraph 1419; (4) silk wearing apparel or silk articles the same as those involved in Abstract 29972 at 60 percent under paragraph 1210; and (6) hats in chief value of straw the same as those passed upon in *Stern*v. *United States*(12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 514, T. D. 40701) at 50 percent under paragraph 1406.
EXHIBIT 23.1
                                                                    ------------


            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the inclusion in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of First Mutual
Bancshares, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2004 and to the incorporation
by reference in the First Mutual Bancshares, Inc. 2000 Stock Option and
Incentive Plan Registration Statement on Form S-8 filed July 7, 2000, of our
report dated February 18, 2005 with respect to the consolidated statements of
financial condition of First Mutual Bancshares, Inc. and subsidiaries as of
December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the related consolidated statements of income,
shareholders' equity and cash flows for the three years ended December 31, 2004.



/s/ Moss Adams LLP
-------------------------
Everett, Washington
March 11, 2005
No. 53613.

protests 104530-K, etc. (New York).

#### Abercrombie & Fitch Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
- aa:
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.


SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE


SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





CERTIFICATION OF CUSTODIAN





In connection with the Annual Report of Turner Valley Oil & Gas, Inc. ., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), on 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Christopher Paton-Gay , Sole Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that to my knowledge:





(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





Dated: March 31, 2004


|/s/Christopher Paton-Gay                             
|-----------------------------------------------------
|Christopher Paton-Gay
president/director/Sole Officer
|        | **Search**  |         **Index**  |         **Home**  |         **Glossary**  |         **Contact Us**          |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|        |
|   |
|        |

**Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry    Methyl Parathion Expert Panel Report**April 24-25, 1997Atlanta, Georgia****
Contents
- Panel Members  Charge to the Expert PanelIssues: 
Environmental fate and biomonitoring
- Correlation of environmental and biological         data  Appropriateness of relocation criteriaDecontamination criteria
- Clinical evaluations as a component of response  Example of detailed protocol/practice standard         for physicians diagnostic and laboratory evaluationHealth education and risk communication strategies
- Resources in the Literature  **Send comments to Leslie Campbell (lca2@cdc.gov)**
Note: While the original publication dates on some of ATSDR's documents may not appear to be current, the information in the documents is valid and may still provide relevant information.

 This page last updated on July 26, 2001   Wilma López / wbl8@cdc.gov

ATSDR Home  |  Search  |  Index  |  Glossary  |  Contact UsAbout ATSDR  |  News Archive  |  ToxFAQs  |  HazDat  |  Public Health AssessmentsPrivacy Policy  |  External Links Disclaimer  | AccessibilityU.S. Department of Health and Human Services
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION** **PURSUANT TO**

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

 

I, Michael A. Carrazza, certify that,

 

| 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019 of Patriot National Bancorp, Inc.; and |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| 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. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

 

| Date: June 8, 2020 |   |   |   |   |   | /s/ Michael A. Carrazza                                                                        |
|-------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                    |   |   |   |   |   | Michael A. Carrazza                                                                            |
|                    |   |   |   |   |   | Chairman of the Board of Directors

and Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer) |
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit 

No. 22-40012 

Summary Calendar 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Ramon Alexis Castro-Rodriguez, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 7:21-CR-1638-1 

Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ramon Alexis 

Castro-Rodriguez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in 

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States 

v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Castro-Rodriguez has not filed a 

*

 Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

July 18, 2022 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 22-40012 Document: 00516398065 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/18/2022
No. 22-40012 

2 

response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the 

record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the 

appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, 

counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused 

from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. 

Case: 22-40012 Document: 00516398065 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/18/2022
Before the Second Division,

December 11, 1947

No. 52068.

#### O. W. Foster & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 611767-G, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
November 28, 1955

No. 59521.

protests 197325-K and 226927-K.

#### C. J. Tower & Sons *v.*United States,

Plaintiff’s application for rehearing granted.
(Reap. Dec. 10489)

#### Gitkin Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 721135.

(Decided April 16, 1963)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

Counsel for the parties have submitted the above-enumerated appeal for reappraisement for decision on stipulation, on the basis of which I find and hold that export value, as defined in section 402 (b), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, is the proper basis for the determination of the values of the merchandise involved and that such values are the invoice unit values.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
#### Herman Goodman v. State.

181 So. 892.

Opinion Filed June 8, 1938.

*H. V. McClellan,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*Cary D. Landis,*Attorney General, and *Tyrus A. Norzvood,*Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Per Curiam.

The writ of error brings for review judgment of conviction in the Circuit Court of Calhoun County under an information charging as follows: “that Herman Goodman on August 28, 1937, in said' County and State, did unlawfully, knowingly and willfully resist, obstruct and oppose J. K. Musgrove, the Sheriff of Calhoun County aforesaid, in the lawful execution of a legal duty, to-wit: proceeding to arrest one Carl Shiver for committing a felony, by offering to do violence to the person of said J. K. Musgrove; Contrary to the Statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Florida.”

The only question presented for our determination is whether or not the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict and judgment. A reading of the transcript' convinces us that the evidence was amply sufficient to support the conviction and 'that there is no reversible error dis*673closed by the record. So, the judgment should be and is affirmed.

So ordered.

Affirmed.

Whitfield, Terrell, Brown, Buford and Chapman, J. J., concur.
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 the Quarterly Report of General Steel Holdings, Inc. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2008 as filed
      with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each
      of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby
      certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:





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





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





Dated:
                November 14, 2008
            By:Zuosheng
                Yu(Chief
                Executive Officer)
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 131 (Tuesday, July 9, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 41185]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16462]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment on Surplus Property 
Release at Brunswick Executive Airport in Brunswick, ME

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Request for Public Comments.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of Title 49, U.S.C. 47153(d), notice is 
being given that the FAA is considering a request from Midcoast 
Regional Redevelopment Authority to waive the surplus property 
requirements for approximately 3.47 acres of airport property located 
at Brunswick Executive Airport in Brunswick, ME.
    It has been determined through study and master planning that the 
subject parcel will not be needed for aeronautical purposes and would 
better serve the airport if used for aviation compatible, non-
aeronautical revenue generation. Full and permanent relief of the 
surplus property requirements on this specific parcel will allow the 
airport and its tenant on this parcels to enter into a long-term lease 
and begin making infrastructure improvements. All revenues through the 
leasing of the parcel will continue to be subject to the FAAs revenue-
use policy and dedicated to the maintenance and operation of the 
Brunswick Executive Airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 8, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this document to Mr. Barry J. Hammer at the 
Federal Aviation Administration, 12 New England Executive Park, 
Burlington, Massachusetts 01803, Telephone 781-238-7625.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Documents are available for review by 
appointment by contacting Mr. Marty McMahon, Telephone 207-798-6512 or 
by contacting Mr. Barry J. Hammer, Federal Aviation Administration, 16 
New England Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts, Telephone 781-
238-7625.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts on June 17, 2013.
Mary T. Walsh,
Manager, Airports Division, New England Region.
[FR Doc. 2013-16462 Filed 7-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
No. 53049.

#### James G. Biddle Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 47352-K, etc. (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the issue herein is the same in all material respects as that presented in *Mamary Bros., Inc.*v. *United States*(21 Cust. Ct. 135, C. D. 1142). 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 involved. The protests were sustained to this extent.
#### In the Matter of Donald I., Appellant, v Teresa K., Respondent.

[634 NYS2d 255]

—Peters, J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Schenectady County (Griset, J.), entered June 20, 1994, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 5, to adjudicate petitioner as the father of a child born to respondent.

Petitioner, an inmate at a State correctional facility, commenced this proceeding to obtain an order of filiation regarding a child born to respondent on September 30, 1990. Notwithstanding respondent’s opposition to such order at the parties’ first appearance before Family Court, blood tests were ordered. At their next appearance before Family Court, the court discussed with the parties and their counsel the results of the tests. During a colloquy between petitioner and the court, it was explained to petitioner that both the HLA and DNA test results showed scientifically that he could not be the father. Petitioner disagreed with such results, vowed to "fight it” and even advised that he would file an appeal should the court dismiss the petition. Counsel for the Department of Social Services requested a dismissal of the petition as a result of the blood grouping tests, which was granted by the court. This appeal by petitioner ensued.

We find that there must be a reversal since Family Court erred in dismissing the petition solely on the basis of the results of blood grouping tests. While Family Court Act § 532 permits the results of blood grouping tests to be received in evidence, such evidence must be admitted in the context of a fact-finding hearing. Here, despite petitioner’s protestations, no hearing was conducted *(see, Matter of Juliet C. v Gerald B.,*202 AD2d 196; *Matter of Burns v Craven,*192 AD2d 1130). Clearly, "petitioner’s task of attacking the accuracy of both the HLA and DNA tests, and of establishing [his] paternity * * * by clear and convincing evidence, will surely be monumental. Yet, [while] the task is formidable, a hearing should not [have been] precluded” *(Matter of L. I. v E. T. R.,*155 Misc 2d 74, 79).

Mikoll, J. P., White, Casey and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs, and mat*863ter remitted to the Family Court of Schenectady County for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court’s decision.
EXHIBIT 32.a



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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Boston Capital Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc.. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John P. Manning, Chief Executive 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 to the best of my knowledge, after due inquiry:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)-15 or 15(d)-15 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and                  
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    |                                                                                                                                                  
|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Fund.



|                |  |                        
|--------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date:           |  |                        
|August 22, 2005 |  | /s/ John P. Manning    
|                |  |                        
|                |  | John P. Manning        
|                |  | Chief Executive Officer
|                |  |                        
|                |  |                        



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

Case No. CIV S-04-2700 GEB DAD 

1

Stevens & 

O’Connell LLP

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

CHARLES J. STEVENS (CSBN 106981) 

TODD M. NOONAN (CSBN 172962) 

STEVENS & O’CONNELL LLP 

400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1400 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Telephone: (916) 329-9111 

Facsimile: (916) 329-9110 

OF COUNSEL: 

DAVID SCHLITZ 

FREDERICK MICHAUD (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 

BAKER BOTTS LLP 

1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20004-2400 

Telephone: (202) 639-7700 

Facsimile: (202) 639-7890 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

THE RAINLINE CORPORATION 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

THE RAINLINE CORPORATION, 

Plaintiff, 

 v. 

CENTRAL STRIPING SERVICE, INC., 

JAMES LESNIEWSKI, SUSAN 

LESNIEWSKI, 

Defendants. 

Case No. CIV.S-04-2700 GEB DAD 

STIPULATION RE FILING OF FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

WHEREAS plaintiff The RainLine Corporation (hereinafter “RainLine”) filed its original 

Complaint on December 22, 2004; 

WHEREAS on March 11, 2005, the parties filed a Joint Status Conference Statement 

advising the Court that plaintiff might seek to amend the Complaint; 

WHEREAS on March 21, 2005, the Court issued its Order Continuing Status (Pretrial 

Scheduling) Conference, giving plaintiff until April 29, 2005, to file any motion for leave to 

amend; 

Case 2:04-cv-02700-GEB-DAD Document 16 Filed 04/28/05 Page 1 of 2
 

STIPULATION RE FILING OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

Case No. CIV S-04-2700 GEB DAD 

2

Stevens & 

O’Connell LLP

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

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between plaintiff RainLine 

and defendant Central Striping Service, Inc., through their respective counsel, that RainLine may 

file its First Amended Complaint, a copy of which is attached hereto. 

Dated: April __, 2005 STEVENS & O’CONNELL LLP 

By:____________/s/_____________________ 

TODD M. NOONAN 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

THE RAINLINE CORPORATION 

Dated: April __, 2005 WEULE, BALLARD & MONDO, LLP 

 By:___________/s/_________________________ 

 JOHN C. TEAL, JR. 

 Attorneys for Defendant 

 CENTRAL STRIPING SERVICE, INC. 

ORDER 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: April 28, 2005 

 /s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr. 

 GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. 

 United States District Judge 

Case 2:04-cv-02700-GEB-DAD Document 16 Filed 04/28/05 Page 2 of 2
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. MARCUS LEON HAYES, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

*Mr. Donald J. Crecca*for the petitioner.

*Mr. Joseph P. Lordi*and *Mr. Alan 8ilber*for the respondent.

May 28, 1968.

Denied.