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

[633 NYS2d 658]

—Yesawich Jr., J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Mathews, J.), rendered February 25, 1994, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of grand larceny in the fourth degree.

As the result of his misappropriation of moneys given to him to complete a home improvement project for a customer, defendant was charged by superior court information with the crime of grand larceny in the fourth degree. After his arraignment, he filed a petition in bankruptcy. Thereafter, in satisfaction of the charge specified in the superior court information as well as the District Attorney’s promise not to pursue other matters in which defendant assertedly had misappropriated funds from four other customers, defendant pleaded guilty to grand larceny in the fourth degree. In accordance with the plea agreement, he was sentenced to a term of five years’ probation and was ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $5,221.18 to all of the customers from whom he took money.

On appeal, defendant contends, *inter alia,*that County Court erred in ordering him to pay restitution because such order is barred by the automatic stay which resulted from his filing of a petition in bankruptcy (11 USC § 362). We disagree. While restitution constitutes a "debt” within the meaning of the United States Bankruptcy Code (see, *In re Robinson,*776 F2d 30, 33-34, *revd on other grounds sub noun. Kelly v Robinson,*479 US 36; *see also, In re Cancel,*85 Bankr 677), and the collection or enforcement of a "debt” is barred by the automatic stay upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition (see, 11 USC § 362 [a] [2], [6]), the automatic stay is not applicable to "the commencement or continuation of a criminal action or proceeding against the debtor” (11 USC § 362 [b] [1]). Inasmuch as County Court ordered restitution in connection with a criminal proceeding which was pending against defendant at the time of filing of his bankruptcy petition and in accordance with a plea agreement voluntarily entered into by him after the filing of said petition, defendant may not rely upon the automatic stay to nullify that portion of the judgment ordering restitution.* We *728have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we find no reason to disturb County Court’s judgment.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Casey and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

*

 Although defendant may seek to invoke the automatic stay to enjoin the authorities from collecting payments under the restitution order, this is a matter which defendant should pursue in Bankruptcy Court via an adversary proceeding (see, *e.g., In re Cancel,*85 Bankr 677, *supra).*
No. 61919.

#### B. L. Lemke & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 311459-K (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *B. L. Lemke & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(39 Cust. Ct. 253, C. D. 1937), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 12

- 00500

- CR

Chadwick BENJAMIN a/k/a Chad Anthony Benjamin,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 396th District Court, Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1239333D

The Honorable George William Gallagher, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI

, JUSTICE BARNARD , AND JUSTICE MARTINEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED September 25, 2013.

_____________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
No. 52366.

protests 512072-G, etc. (New York).

#### St. George Textile Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
EXHIBIT 13.2

ALESTRA, S. DE R.L. DE C.V.

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICER

I, Patricio E. de la Garza, the Chief Financial and Administrative Officer of Alestra, S. de R.L. de C.V. (the Company), hereby
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:

1. the Companys annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2008, to which this statement is filed as an exhibit (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.

Date: March 31, 2009



Alestra, S. de R.L. de C.V.By:

/s/ Patricio E. de la GarzaPatricio E. De la GarzaChief Financial and Administrative Officer


This certification accompanies the report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and
shall not, except as to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. This certification will not be deemed to be
incorporated by reference into any filing under the securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporated it by reference.
113.5° W 113° W

36.5° N s,
Grand Canyon
+) MroueTens National Park
MILES
anaes
NE36113B1
NW36113B1
KK SW36113B2
AS SE36113B2 | SW36113Bt
re,
NW36113A3_| ica
Ae ;
fa | NE36113A3 | NW36113A2
v Fi Hualapai
{ | SW36113A3 Reservation
é
36°N a 7 |
Sy Xi (en |
**EXHIBIT        21**

**SUBSIDIARIES**

| **Legal                    name**                                 | **Jurisdiction                    of incorporation** |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                              |                                                 |
| NDS                    Limited                                    | Great                    Britain                     |
| News                    Datacom Limited                           | Great                    Britain                     |
| NDS                    Technologies Israel Limited                | Israel                                               |
| NDS                    Americas, Inc.                             | Delaware                                             |
| NDS                    Asia Pacific Limited                       | Hong                    Kong                         |
| Orbis                    Technology Limited                       | Great                    Britain                     |
| OpenBet                    Software Limited                       | Great                    Britain                     |
| Digi-Media                    Vision Limited                      | Great                    Britain                     |
| NDS                    Asia Pacific Pty Limited                   | Australia                                            |
| NDS                    Marketing Israel Limited                   | Israel                                               |
| NDS                    Beijing Information Technology Company     | China                                                |
| NDS                    Denmark A/S                                | Denmark                                              |
| NDS                    Technologies France SAS                    | France                                               |
| SVP                    LA LLC                                     | Delaware                                             |
| NDS                    Services Pay-TV Technology Private Limited | India                                                |

----
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v JAMES A. STATON, Jr., Private, U. S. Army, Appellant

17 USCMA 238, 38 CMR 36

No. 20,315

August 25, 1967

*Colonel Daniel T. Ghent, Captain Stephen Arinson,*and *Captain Paul V. Melodía*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel David Rarick, Major John F. Webb, Jr.,*and *Captain William R. Steinmetz*were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

PER Curiam:

This action involves the same question raised in United States v DuBay, 17 USCMA 147, 37 CMR 411. Pursuant to the holding in that case, the petition for review is granted; the decision of the board of review is reversed; and the record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army. The procedures outlined in *DuBay*should be followed.
Before the Third Division,

March 8, 1944

No. 49251.

#### Protest 70323-K of Louis Wolf & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Strauss*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 342, C. D. 710), which record was incorporated herein, it was held that these articles are used chiefly for utilitarian purposes on the table or in the household. The claim at 40 percent under paragraph 339 was sustained.
EX-4.7



 Exhibit 4.7 

Summary of BSA Plan 
 Similar to
share options, non-employee warrants, or BSAs, entitle a holder to exercise the warrant for the underlying vested shares at an exercise price per share determined by our board of directors and at least equal to the fair market value of an ordinary
share on the date of grant. In addition to any exercise price payable by a holder upon the exercise of any non-employee warrant, non-employee warrants need to be subscribed for at a price at least equal to ten percent (10%) of the exercise
price of the underlying ordinary shares, which subscription price is meant to reflect at least the fair market value of the applicable warrants on the date of grant. There is no legal limitation to the size of the non-employee warrant pool. 

Administration. Pursuant to delegations granted at our annual shareholders’ meeting, our board of directors determines the recipients,
dates of grant and exercise price of non-employee warrants, the number of non-employee warrants to be granted and the terms and conditions of the non-employee warrants, including the period of their exercisability and their vesting schedule. The
board of directors has the authority to extend the post-termination exercise period of non-employee warrants after the end of the term of office. 

Non-Employee Warrants. Our non-employee warrants are generally granted subject to a vesting schedule providing for either:
(1) 1/24th at the expiration of each month following the date of grant, subject to continued service, if granted to the advisory board members, or (2) 1/3 to be vested on the date of grant and 1/3 to vest each year following the date of
appointment of the relevant director, if granted to the independent directors, in both cases subject to continued service. The term of non-employee warrants is ten years from the date of grant or, in the case of death or disability of the
beneficiary during such ten-year period, six months from the death or disability of the beneficiary. Unless a longer period is specified in the notice of grant or otherwise resolved by the board of directors, a non-employee warrant shall remain
exercisable for one month following a beneficiary’s termination with the Company. 
 Non-employee warrants may be transferred to any person and may be
exercised by their holder at any time subject to vesting and any other grant conditions, as applicable. 
 Change in Control. Most of
our non-employee warrants provide that in the event of a change in control, as defined in the relevant grant documents, unvested warrants will automatically vest in full. 

Initial Public Offering. Certain non-employee warrants granted by us became immediately exercisable upon completion of our
initial public offering.
No. 56012.

protests 171582-K, etc. (New York).

#### D. C. Andrews *&*Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
EXHIBIT 32


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

     The undersigned, Stephen M. Siedow, the Chief Executive Officer, President
and Chief Financial Officer of MNS Eagle Equity Group, Inc. (the "Company"),
DOES HEREBY CERTIFY, that:

     1.   The Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December
          31, 2004 (the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of
          Section 13(a) 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.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this statement
this 4th day of January, 2006.


                             By: /s/ Stephen M. Siedow
                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                     Stephen M. Siedow, Chief Executive Officer,
                                     President and Chief Financial Officer


     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to MNS Eagle Equity Group, Inc. and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or it staff upon
request.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 
 CERTIFICATION OF SOLE OFFICER
 
 In connection with the Annual Report of First Auto, Inc. a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), on 10-KSB for the February 28, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Dan Sifford, Chief Operating 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 result of operations of the Company.
 
 /s/ Dan Sifford
 Dan Sifford
 Chief Operating Officer
 September 11, 2003
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

October 31, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 129064 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 129064 

 COA: 252396 

Oakland CC: 02-186761-FH 

DONALD MARTIN SHEARS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 24, 2005 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

l1024 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 31, 2005 

Clerk
**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. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8324 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8324

 To designate the United States courthouse annex located at 310 South 
 Main Street in London, Kentucky, as the ``Eugene E. Siler, Jr. United 
                       States Courthouse Annex''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 8, 2024

    Mr. Rogers of Kentucky introduced the following bill; which was 
     referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the United States courthouse annex located at 310 South 
 Main Street in London, Kentucky, as the ``Eugene E. Siler, Jr. United 
                       States Courthouse Annex''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EUGENE E. SILER, JR. UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE ANNEX.

    (a) Designation.--The United States courthouse annex located at 310 
South Main Street in London, Kentucky, shall be known and designated as 
the ``Eugene E. Siler, Jr. United States Courthouse Annex''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the United States 
courthouse annex referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a 
reference to the ``Eugene E. Siler, Jr. United States Courthouse 
Annex''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Mayflower Investment Company v. A. Brill, doing business under the name of Brill Electric Company; Continental Construction Company, a Florida Corporation; London Operating Company, a Florida Corporation, and McDonald Electric Co., Inc., a Florida Corporation.

180 So. 754.

Division B.

Opinion Filed April 28, 1938.

*A. M. Reder*and *Thomas H. Anderson,*for Appellant;

No appearance for Appellees.

Per Curiam.

In a previous order of this Court petition for rehearing was denied, but the Court has, upon further consideration of said petition, reached the conclusion that a rehearing should be granted. It appears that the cause below was dismissed by the court without notice to the intervenor, appellant here, and that the intervenor had a vital interest in the cause, and was entitled to notice. It is true that Section 70 of the 1931 Chancery Act provides that petition for rehearing shall be filed within twenty days, whereas this petition to vacate the order dismissing the *531cause was not filed until several months had elapsed. However, the petition to vacate alleged that the defendant had no notice and was without knowledge of the decree of dismissal until shortly before the petition to vacate was filed. It is contended by the appellant that inasmuch as it had been allowed to intervene in the cause below, after due notice to all parties, and had been allowed to file its bill of intervention, setting up its interest in the subject matter of the suit, that it had acquired a vested interest in such subject matter of the suit of which it could not be deprived, by order of dismissal, granted on the motion of the complainant, without notice to or knowledge of, the appellantintervenor, and that therefore the said order of the court dismissing the cause was void, or at least voidable, as to appellant.

In view of these circumstances, and in view of the importance of the question presented the Court has decided to vacate its order denying rehearing, and does hereby grant a rehearing in this cause, upon briefs and without oral argument. Appellant is granted twenty days in which to file its brief on this rehearing and appellees are granted fifteen days thereafter in which to file a reply brief.

It is so ordered.

Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur.

Ellis, C. J., and Terrell, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.

Buford, J., dissents.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.§1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Balanced Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund on Form 10-Q for the
period ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, to the best of 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 Balanced Series.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                                                                           
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Robert J. Enck                                                                                                                         
|Robert J. Enck                                                                                                                             
|President and Chief Executive Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of Balanced Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund
|                                                                                                                                           
|/s/ Brent Bales                                                                                                                            
|Brent Bales                                                                                                                                
|Chief Financial Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of Balanced Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund              

Date: November 26, 2008