alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold the following meeting during the week of March 26, 2007: 

A Closed Meeting will be held on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 at 2 p.m. 

Commissioners, Counsels to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters may also be present. 

The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a) (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10) permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting. 

Commissioner Nazareth, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the closed meeting in a closed session. 

The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Wednesday, March 28, 2007 will be: 

Formal orders of investigation; 

Institution and settlement of injunctive actions; 

Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an enforcement nature; 

Resolution of litigation claims; and 

Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings. 

At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items. 

For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact: 

The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400. 

Dated: March 21, 2007. 

Florence E. Harmon, 

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. E7-5429 Filed 3-22-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
#### In the Matter of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Appellant, v Eric Blumen, Respondent.

[635 NYS2d 483]

—Motion by the respondent for reargument of an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated May 10, 1993, which was determined by a decision and order of this Court dated October 17, 1994.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is

*549Ordered that the motion is granted, and upon reargument, the decision and order of this Court dated October 17, 1994 (208 AD2d 752), is recalled and vacated, and the following decision and order is substituted therefor.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim, the petitioner appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty, J.), dated May 10, 1993, as denied, without a hearing, that portion of the petition which requested a permanent stay of arbitration.

Ordered that, upon reargument, the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

This Court has been informed by the attorney for the respondent that the underlying arbitration hearing was held on August 29, 1993, which resulted in a judgment entered September 7, 1994, in favor of the respondent. The parties having proceeded to arbitration, the appeal must be dismissed *(see, Matter of Beagle [MVAIC],*19 NY2d 834). Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Ritter, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.
#### UNIVERSAL GRAIN COMPANY OF N. J., PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. UNITED INDUSTRIAL SYNDICATE, INC., DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

May 25, 1964. Denied.

*Messrs. Eannoch, Weisman, Myers, Stein & Besser*and *Mr. Irwin I. Kimmelman*for the petitioner.

*Messrs. Simon, Jaffe & Dentsman*for the respondent.

On petition for certification to Superior Court, Appellate Division.
No. 48604.

#### Protest 677119-G of Commercial Iron Works (Portland, Oreg.).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The merchandise was described on the invoice as:

> Bridge transmitter mounted on column all polished brass, pattern No. 5, twin dials, 14" clear dia. 16" outside diameter, with opal dial protected by plate glass cover. Fitted with oil lamp and provision for electric lamp for illuminating dials.

This description was found to be not out of line with that given by the customs officials and the witnesses who testified at the trial herein. One witness described the merchandise as consisting of a pedestal and gears inside, levers, and wires running down to the engine room, to signal the engine room, generally located on each side of the captain’s bridge of the vessel. It has two handles or levers and a “dial that is marked ‘Full ahead,’ ‘Half ahead,’ ‘Stop,’ ‘Stand by,’ ‘Half astern,’ ‘Full astern.’ ” The operation of the lever located on the deck transmits instructions to the engine room, “and he is answered from the engine room back to the bridge again, to confirm it.” The gears are inside the case, between the two glass faces. On redirect examination one of the witnesses testified that this transmitter is for doeking a ship and it is what they call a “docking telegraph,” and instead of the annunciator being in the engine room it is back on the poop deck of the ship, but that otherwise it is constructed exactly the same as one running to the engine room. Following *United States*v. *Dyson Shipping Co.*(29 C. C. P. A. 148, C. A. D. 184) the bridge transmitter was held dutiable at *27%*percent under paragraph 372 as claimed.
#### ELIZABETH KROOG, WIDOW OF HENRY KROOG, DECEASED, RESPONDENT, v. KEYSTONE DAIRY COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLANT.

Argued November 20, 1918

Decided February 6, 1919.

Oil appeal from the Supreme Court, in which the following *per curiam*was filed:

• “This is a workmen’s compensation case heard in the Hudson County Court of Common Pleas, resulting in a determination in favor of Elizabeth Kroog, widow of Henry Kroog. Henry Kroog was a salesman and driver of one of the defendant’s wagons. On the 8th of September, 1916, he was killed while driving a horse and wagon onto a weighing scale at the ice depot belonging to the Mountain lee Company at Perry street and Ravine road at the Erie railroad in Jersey City. As he was driving onto the scale, he was standing up in the wagon, and was heard to say ‘Whoa’ suddenly; the horse stopped and the decedent was accidently thrown or fell out of the wagon onto the ground, his head striking an iron rail at the side of I he scale, causing death. The defence was that his death was the result of natural causes, such as heart failure. This is the only point in the case. The judgment of the Common Pleas Court is supported by the evidence, and this, under the statute, on questions of fact, is conclusive and binding. The judgment of the Common Pleas Court is affirmed, with costs.”

Por the appellant, *M. Casewell Heine.*

Por the respondent, *William R. Gannon.*

Pee Ctjeiam.

The judgment under review' will be affirmed, for the reasons sol forth in the opinion of the Supreme Court.

*634
      *For affirmance*— The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Swayze, Trenchard, Minturn, Kalisch, Gardner, JJ. 7.

*For reversal*— Parker, Williams, JJ. *2.*
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Danny Matos, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 461]

—Judgment, Supreme *278Court, Bronx County (Dominic Massaro, J.), rendered July 8, 1992, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 20 years to life and 5 to 15 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

At a hearing on defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict, it was revealed for the first time that the trial prosecutor, in arranging for the security of an incarcerated witness, had notified the prosecutor in charge of the case against the witness, in another county, of the fact of this witness’s "cooperation.” We reject defendant’s argument that this constituted the type of cooperation agreement or leniency promise required to be disclosed to the defense *(cf., People v Cwikla,*46 NY2d 434). On the contrary, "there is nothing to indicate that [the witness’s] co-operation was bargained for, directly or indirectly” *(People v Piazza,*48 NY2d 151, 163). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman, Asch and Williams, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Stephon Love Smith, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 63]

—Judgment, *252Supreme Court, New York County (Antonio Brandveen, J.), rendered January 3, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that evidence of uncharged crimes was improperly admitted is unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law, defendant having failed to object to the testimony in question or otherwise make his position known after the court made no ruling on the prosecution’s motion for a prospective ruling with respect to some of such testimony (CPL 470.05 [2]; *cf., People v Fleming,*70 NY2d 947), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. If we were to review it, we would find that the evidence that defendant and three companions were observed by police watching and sometimes following passersby, while suspicious, was not proof of a crime *(see, People v Flores, 210*AD2d 1, *Iv denied*84 NY2d 1031). Also unpreserved is defendant’s argument that the uncharged crimes evidence was heightened by the prosecutor’s summation comment that defendant and his companions "were stalking people, they were walking around and looking for easy targets, somebody to rob”, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. If we were to review it, we would find that the comment, in context, was fair response to the defense summation that challenged the evidence of stalking as suspect on the basis of the argument that the police did nothing to stop it as they believed no crime had as yet been committed.

The victim’s testimony concerning the injuries he sustained during the attack was properly elicited to establish the element of force *(see, People v Graham,*182 AD2d 521). There was no *Rosario*violation since the undisclosed prisoner property voucher form did not relate to any testimony elicited by the People *(see, People v Melendez,*178 AD2d 366, 367, *lv denied*79 NY2d 950). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Ross, Williams and Tom, JJ.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 12, 2022

No. 04-22-00387-CR

EX PARTE Franklin Jose Velasquez MARTINEZ,

From the County Court, Kinney County, Texas

Trial Court No. 10369CR

Honorable Roland Andrade, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The State’s motion for extension of time to file its brief is GRANTED. Appellee’s brief is 

due September 20, 2022.

_________________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 12th day of September, 2022.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court

FILE COPY
#### Penson & Co. *v.*United States

No. 7317.

Invoice dated Walsall, England, April 25, 1946.

Certified April 29, 1946.

Entered at New York, N. Y., May 29, 1946.

Entry No. 764440.

(Decided June 26, 1947)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson (Sidney Mandell*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

ANITA MENDELSON,

Claimant-Appellant,

v.

ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee.

______________________ 

2014-7030

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 13-1594, Chief Judge Bruce E. 

Kasold.

______________________ 

ON MOTION

______________________ 

O R D E R

Anita Mendelson moves without opposition to withdraw her appeal.

Upon consideration thereof,

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

(1) The motion is granted. The appeal is dismissed.

Case: 14-7030 Document: 23 Page: 1 Filed: 11/20/2014
2 MENDELSON v. MCDONALD

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs. 

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole 

Daniel E. O’Toole 

Clerk of Court

s21

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: November 20, 2014

Case: 14-7030 Document: 23 Page: 2 Filed: 11/20/2014
Before the Second Division,

May 8, 1961

No. 65589.

#### J. W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. of Phila. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 299021-K, etc. (Philadelphia).

*466Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Schmidt Pritchard & Co. et al.*(47 C.C.P.A. 152, C.A.D. 750), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
#### Commonwealth *v.*Newman, Appellant.

Submitted November 11, 1968.

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

*Melvin Dildine,*Assistant Defender, and *Herman I. Pollock,*Defender, for appellant.

*Roger F. Cox*and *James D. Crawford,*Assistant District Attorneys, *Richard A. Sprague,*First Assistant District Attorney, and *Arlen Specter,*District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

January 15, 1969:

Opinion

Pee Cueiam,

Order affirmed.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v HARRY C. WRIGHT, JUNIOR, Recruit, U. S. Army, Appellant

12 USCMA 202, 30 CMR 202

No. 14,405

Decided February 17, 1961

*First Lieutenant Jerome D. Meeker*argued the cause for Appellant, Accused. With him on the brief was *Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Herrod.*

*First Lieutenant Jerome Nelson*argued the cause for Appellee, United States. With him on the brief were *Lieutenant Colonel James G. Mc-Conaughy*and *Captain William A. Zeigler.*

Opinion of the Court

George W. Latimer, Judge:

Accused pleaded guilty and, in accordance with his plea, was convicted of escape from confinement, larceny, robbery, and kidnaping, in violation of Articles 95, 121, 122, and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC §§ 895, 921, 922, and 934, respectively. He was sentenced to dishonorable discharge, total forfeitures, confinement at hard labor for five years, and reduction to the lowest enlisted grade. Intermediate appellate authorities affirmed, and thereafter we granted accused’s petition for review.

This is a companion case to and arises out of the same facts involved in United States v Picotte, 12 USCMA 196, 30 CMR 196, decided this day. Petitioner committed these offenses in conjunction with that accused and another soldier, and we elected to hear arguments limited to the same issue before us in that instance. For the reasons set forth in that opinion, accused’s assignment of error must be resolved adversely to him.

The decision of the board of review is affirmed.

Chief Judge Quinn concurs.

*203Ferguson, Judge

(concurring in the result) :

I concur in the result.

For the reasons stated in my separate opinion in United States v Picotte, 12 USCMA 196, 30 CMR 196, this day decided, I join in the affirmance of the decision of the board of review.
<PAGE>


                                                                      Exhibit 21

                         Subsidiaries of the Registrant


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                Legal Name of Entity                      Jurisdiction of Organization             Ownership Interest
-----------------------------------------------------    --------------------------------    --------------------------------
<S>                                                        <C>                               <C>
Virginia Commerce Bancorp, Inc (registrant)                         Virginia
       Virginia Commerce Bank                                       Virginia                              100%
          Northeast Land and Development Corp                       Virginia                              100%
       VCBI Capital Trust I                                         Delaware                    100% of voting securities
       VCBI Capital Trust II                                        Delaware                    100% of voting securities
       VCBI Capital Trust III                                       Delaware                    100% of voting securities
</TABLE>
---



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



I, George Polyhronopolous, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1)

the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Sunergy, Inc. for the period ended March 31, 2009 (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 Sunergy, Inc.



|                    |  |                                                                |  | 
|------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|Dated: May 20, 2009 |  |                                                               
|                    |  |                                                               
|                    |  |                                                               
|                    |  | /s/ George Polyhronopolous                                     | 
|                    |  | George Polyhronopolous                                        
|                    |  | Treasurer, Secretary and Director                             
|                    |  | (Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
|                    |  | Sunergy, Inc.                                                 





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 Sunergy, Inc. and will be retained by Sunergy, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



---
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

In connection with this Report on Form 10-Q of Summit Financial Services Group, Inc. (the
Company), for the quarter ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report ), I, Steven C. Jacobs, Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, do hereby certify, to 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; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Steven C. Jacobs                                
|Steven C. Jacobs                                    
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|Dated: May 15, 2009
#### In the Matter of JAMES E. HENNEBERRY, JR., an attorney at law.

April 24, 1967.

Respondent suspended from practice for six months and until further order of the Court. Opinion reported at 49 *N. J.*210.
#### In the Matter of Estate of Peter G. Fox.

Motion denied. Application by Henry C. Adams for an order to show cause why, etc. Application denied.
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.1

COMPANYS OFFICERS CERTIFICATE

GRACECHURCH CARD FUNDING (NO. 2) PLC
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

The undersigned officer of Gracechurch Card Funding (No. 2) PLC, a public
limited company incorporated in England and Wales (the Issuer), hereby
certifies on behalf of the Issuer and on his own behalf for purposes of the
$900,000,000 Class A Floating Rate Asset-Backed Notes, the $50,000,000 Class B
Floating Rate Asset-Backed Notes and the $50,000,000 Class C Floating Rate
Asset-Backed Notes (together, the Notes), as follows:



|1. |  | I am a duly appointed, qualified and acting Director of the Issuer;                                                                                                                                                                             
|-- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  
|2. |  | I am duly authorized to execute and deliver this Officers Certificate on
behalf of the Issuer; and                                                                                                                                             
|  
|3. |  | To the best of my knowledge, the Issuer has complied with all conditions
and covenants under the Relevant Documents for the issue of Notes for the
period between October 24, 2002 and the end of the Issuers fiscal year on
December 31, 2002.

Capitalized terms used and not defined herein shall have the meanings assigned
to such terms in the Registration Statement related to the above-referenced
issue of Notes.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed my
name this 15th day of July, 2003.

|    |  |                                                
|--- |  | -----------------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Richard Francis Sommers                    
|    |  | Name: Richard Francis Sommers
Title:   Director