alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

   Schedule of Year-To-Date Principal and Interest Distributions
                           to
                  Certificateholders

                                                                  Ending
Class          Interest         Principal      Losses            Balance
<S>              <C>               <C>           <C>              <C>
A1               3530800       3378988.76           0       620621011.24
A2             348833.33                0           0           60000000
CE            1515322.14                0           0           12799900
M1             315972.22                0           0           52000000
M2                185150                0           0           27600000
M3             137666.67                0           0           23600000
P               91989.03                0           0                100
RI                     0                0           0                  0
RII                    0                0           0                  0
RIII                   0                0           0                  0

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32 - CEO AND CFO CERTIFICATION


Exhibit 32.1

Statement Furnished Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned are the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
OBN Holdings, Inc. (the "Company").  This Certificate is made pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.  This Certification accompanies
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended
December 31, 2007 (the "10-Q Report").

The undersigned certifies that the 10-Q Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and that the information contained in the 10-Q Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company on the dates and for the periods presented therein.


Date: May 18, 2009                     /s/ ROGER N. SMITH
                                       --------------------------------
                                           Roger N. Smith
                                           Chief Executive Officer

Date: May 18, 2009                    /s/ LARRY TAYLOR
                                      ---------------------------------
                                           Larry Taylor
                                           Chief Financial Officer
#### Ramon Ramos, Plaintiff, v Wheel Sports Center, Defendant.

Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County,

October 24, 1978

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Blumenfeld & Fraiden*for plaintiff. *Melvin M. Reiss*for defendant.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Anthony J. Mercorella, J.

In this nonjury action plaintiff purchaser is seeking to recover from defendant vendor the sum of $893 representing the payment made by plaintiff for a motorcycle.

The parties entered into a sales contract wherein defendant agreed to deliver a motorcycle to plaintiff by June 30, 1978, for the agreed price of $893. The motorcycle was subsequently stolen by looters during the infamous power blackout of July 11, 1977.

It is uncontroverted that plaintiff paid for the motorcycle in *647full; was given the papers necessary for registration and insurance and did in fact register the cycle and secure liability insurance prior to the loss although license plates were never affixed to the vehicle. It is also conceded that the loss occurred without any negligence on defendant’s part.

Plaintiff testified that defendant’s salesman was informed that plaintiff was leaving on vacation and plaintiff would come for the cycle when he returned. He further testified that he never saw or rode the vehicle. From the evidence adduced at trial it is apparent that plaintiff never exercised dominion or control over the vehicle.

Defendant’s president testified that he had no knowledge of what transpired between his salesman and plaintiff, nor why the cycle was not taken prior to its loss.

The sole issue presented to the court is which party, under the facts disclosed, bears the risk of loss?

It is the opinion of this court that defendant must bear the risk of loss under the provisions of subdivision (3) of section 2-509 of the Uniform Commercial Code.

This section provides that "the risk of loss passes to the buyer on his receipt of the goods if the seller is a merchant”. Section 2-103 (subd [1], par [c]) states that receipt of goods means taking physical possession of them.

The provision tends more strongly to hold risk of loss on the seller than did the former Uniform Sales Act (1955 Report of NY Law Rev Comm, p 489). Whether the contract involves delivery at the seller’s place of business or at the situs of the goods, a merchant seller cannot transfer risk of loss and it remains on him until actual receipt by the buyer, even though full payment has been made and the buyer notified that the goods are at his disposal. The underlying theory is that a merchant who is to make physical delivery at his own place continues meanwhile to control the goods and can be expected to insure his interest in them (McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book *62 1⁄2,*Uniform Commercial Code, Official Comment No. 3 to § 2-509, p 442; 50 NY Jur, Sales, § 72).

The court is also of the opinion that no bailee-bailor relationship, constructive or otherwise, existed between the parties.

Accordingly, let judgment be entered in favor of plaintiff for the sum of $893, together with interest, costs and disbursements.
(Reap. Dec. 10167)

#### Hoenig Plywood Corporation *v.*United States

Entry No. 948796-1/2.

(Decided February 8, 1962)

*Sharp <& Bogan*for the plaintiff.

*William S. Orrick, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Kao, Judge:

The instant appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

> IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between Counsel for Plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General, Attorney for the United States, subject to the approval of the Court:

> 1. That the merchandise subject of the present appeal for reappraisement is limited to 37,127 square feet of oil-treated hardboard on invoice No. 5653 manufactured by the Norsk Wallboardfabrikk A.S. in Norway and imported by Plaintiff herein ;

> 2. That the said merchandise was erroneously appraised as oil-tempered hardboard at N.K.- 6.95 per square meter, less 20 percent, less 2% percent, plus $1.50 per 1,000 square feet export packing.

> 3. That at the time of exportation, such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale for home consumption in accordance with Sec. 402(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, at N.K. 3.50 per square meter, less 5 percent, less 15 percent, less 2% percent, plus $1.50 per 1,000 square feet export packing, and that there was no higher export value.

> *5534. That as to all other merchandise covered by the invoices pertaining to the present appeal for reappraisement Plaintiff hereby abandons its appeal, and that the present appeal for reappraisement is deemed submitted upon the foregoing stipulations.

Upon the agreed facts, I find foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402a (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, to be the proper basis for determining the value of the merchandise covered by said appeal and that such value was N.K. 3.50 per square meter, less 5 per centum, less 15 per centum, less *2y2*per centum, plus $1.50 per 1,000 square feet export packing.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8454 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8454

  To amend title 10, United States Code, to add to matters covered by 
            counseling in the Transition Assistance Program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 17, 2024

  Ms. Jacobs introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 10, United States Code, to add to matters covered by 
            counseling in the Transition Assistance Program.

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

SECTION 1. COUNSELING IN THE TRANSITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM REGARDING 
              SEXUAL ASSAULT, SEXUAL OR GENDER HARASSMENT, AND INTIMATE 
              PARTNER VIOLENCE.

    Section 1142(b) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by 
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(20) Information concerning health care (including mental 
        health care) furnished by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to 
        veterans and members of the Armed Forces who have survived 
        sexual assault, sexual or gender harassment, or intimate 
        partner violence.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Jerles Investment Company, Inc., E. B. Leatherman, Clerk, Circuit Court, Dade County, and S. H. Lester, v. Mae Wells, also known as Lillie Mae Wells, a widow, individually, and together with Richard Wells, Jr., as heirs of R. M. Wells, deceased, E. B. Malone, trading and doing business as Miami Mattress Mfg. Co., and Lillie Mae Wells, individually and as guardian for the said Richard Wells, Jr., her son, a minor, and D. C. Coleman, as Sheriff of Dade County, Florida, in his capacity as Administrator of the estate of R. M. Wells, deceased.

177 So. 313.

Division A.

Order Filed November 30, 1937.

*Marion E. Sibley*and *Whitfield & Whitfield*(of Tallahassee) for Appellants;

*Knight & Greene*and *Waller & Meginniss,*for Appellees.

Terrell, J.

This cause came on to be heard on application for Supersedeas and was thoroughly presented by counsel on both sides. The purpose of supersedeas is to preserve the status of the res pending litigation in the Appellate Court. If the record presents a controverted *137question for decision material to complainant’s right in the res and supersedeas will preserve that right, it should he granted but on the other hand if it is shown that it permits the status of the res out of which the right grows to be changed adversely to complainant’s right, it should be denied.

To grant the supersedeas in this case would render moot the question involved in the order appealed from and would materially change the status of the res as affecting the asserted rights of cross complainants in it. Hathaway v. Munroe, 97 Fla. 28, 119 So. 149.

The application is accordingly denied.

It is so ordered.
May 26, 1953

No. 57368.

protest 187701-K.

#### B. M. Heede, Inc. *v.*United States,

Plaintiff’s application for rehearing granted.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. WILLIAM COUNCIL, A/K/A JOHNNY WILLIE DAVIS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Argued May 9, 1967

Decided June 5, 1967.

*342
      *Mr. Myron P. Maurer*argued the cause for appellant.

*Mr. Richard B. McQlynn,*Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for respondent *(Mr. Brendan T. Byrne,*Essex County Prosecutor, attorney).

The opinion of the court was delivered

Per Curiam.

Defendant was indicted for the murder of one Jake C. McKenzie on June 6, 1965. After a six-day trial the jury found him guilty of manslaughter and he was sentenced to State Prison for seven to ten years. He has appealed directly to this Court under *R. R.*1:2-1 (c).

The verdict was amply justified on the evidence, and no suggestion to the contrary is made on this review. In fact there was substantial evidence which would have supported a verdict of a higher degree of criminal homicide, if such conclusion had been reached by the jury.

The only ground of appeal asserted by defendant is that a portion of the trial court’s charge on the subject of self-defense was erroneous. When such a criticism is made, an appellate tribunal does not treat excerpts from a charge in isolation; the charge is examined as a whole and if on such study prejudicial error does not appear the verdict must stand. *State v. Hipplewith,*33 *N. J.*300, 317 (1960). We have examined the entire charge here, particularly as it deals with the matter of self-defense, and although it is not as clear or as comprehensive as it might have been, we cannot say that it reveals prejudicial error.

Affirmed.

*For*affirmance—Chief Justice Weintraub and Justices Jacobs, Francis, Proctor, Hall, Sciiettino and Haneman—7.

*For*reversal—None.
EXHIBIT 32 - CEO AND CFO CERTIFICATION


Exhibit 32.1

Statement Furnished Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned are the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
OBN Holdings, Inc. (the "Company").  This Certificate is made pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.  This Certification accompanies
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended December
31, 2007 (the "10-Q Report").

The undersigned certifies that the 10-Q Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and that the information contained in the 10-Q Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company on the dates and for the periods presented therein.


Date: May 13, 2009                     /s/ ROGER N. SMITH
                                       --------------------------------
                                           Roger N. Smith
                                           Chief Executive Officer

Date: May 13, 2009                    /s/ LARRY TAYLOR
                                      ---------------------------------
                                           Larry Taylor
                                           Chief Financial Officer
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 the Annual Report of
CenterPoint Energy Transition Bond Company, LLC (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 2009 (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Marc Kilbride, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 Company.








/s/
      Marc KilbrideMarc
      KilbrideVice
      President and Treasurer(Principal
      Financial Officer)March 30,
      2010
PUBLIC LAW 111–318—DEC. 18, 2010 124 STAT. 3455 

Public Law 111–318 

111th Congress 

An Act 

To limit access to Social Security account numbers. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Social Security Number Protection 

Act of 2010’’. 

SEC. 2. SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER PROTECTION. 

(a) PROHIBITION OF USE OF SOCIAL SECURITY ACCOUNT NUMBERS ON CHECKS ISSUED FOR PAYMENT BY GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 205(c)(2)(C) of the Social Security 

Act (42 U.S.C. 405(c)(2)(C)) is amended by adding at the end 

the following: 

‘‘(x) No Federal, State, or local agency may display the Social 

Security account number of any individual, or any derivative of 

such number, on any check issued for any payment by the Federal, 

State, or local agency.’’. 

(2) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by this subsection shall apply with respect to checks issued after the 

date that is 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act. 

(b) PROHIBITION OF INMATE ACCESS TO SOCIAL SECURITY

ACCOUNT NUMBERS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 205(c)(2)(C) of the Social Security 

Act (42 U.S.C. 405(c)(2)(C)) (as amended by subsection (a)) 

is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(xi) No Federal, State, or local agency may employ, or enter 

into a contract for the use or employment of, prisoners in any 

capacity that would allow such prisoners access to the Social Security account numbers of other individuals. For purposes of this 

clause, the term ‘prisoner’ means an individual confined in a jail, 

prison, or other penal institution or correctional facility pursuant 

to such individual’s conviction of a criminal offense.’’. 

(2) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by this subsection shall apply with respect to employment of prisoners, 

Definition. 

42 USC 405 note. 

42 USC 1305 

note. 

Social Security 

Number 

Protection Act of 

2010. 

Dec. 18, 2010 

[S. 3789] 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with PUBLAW
124 STAT. 3456 PUBLIC LAW 111–318—DEC. 18, 2010 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 3789: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 156 (2010): 

Sept. 28, considered and passed Senate. 

Dec. 8, considered and passed House. 

Æ 

or entry into contract with prisoners, after the date that is 

1 year after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Approved December 18, 2010. 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with PUBLAW
#### Emma J. Nicholls, *Respondent, v.*Phebe L. Wentworth, *Appel*lant.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, costs to abide event. Opinion by Macombee, J.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-18-00387-CV

In the Interest of H.M.P., Minor Child

On Appeal from the

25th District Court of Lavaca County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 2017-06-23582CV

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED. Costs of the appeal are adjudged 

against appellant, although she is exempt from payment due to her inability to pay 

costs.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

November 8, 2018
No. 52696.

protests 140200-K, etc. (New York).

#### Roche-Organon, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by'

Cole, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise in question is the same in all material respects as the estrogenic hormone passed upon in *Roche-Organon*v. *United States*(35 C. C. P. A. 99, C. A. D. 378). The claim at 10 percent under paragraph 34 was therefore sustained.
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Damon Brown, Respondent.

[633 NYS2d 171]

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (William Donnino, J.), entered December 20, 1994, which granted defendant’s motion to suppress physical evidence and a statement, unanimously affirmed.

The hearing court’s findings that defendant did not match the broadcast description of a man with a gun closely enough to have justified the stop and frisk that led to recovery of the gun sought to be suppressed and that the officers’ testimony that defendant reached into his coat pocket was incredible and, in any event, descriptive of only innocuous conduct that could not have given rise to reasonable suspicion, were not "manifestly erroneous”, and thus should not be disturbed on appeal *(People v Vasquez,*166 AD2d 194, 195, *lv denied*77 NY2d 845; *People v Bond,*116 AD2d 28, 31, *lv denied*68 NY2d 767). Defendant’s statement that the gun was for his protection, made to the police immediately after his arrest, was properly suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree *(Wong Sun v United States,*371 US 471). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Kupferman, Williams and Tom, JJ.
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  the  Annual  Report  of  Big  Flash   Corporation(the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2002, as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Edward F. Cowle, Principal Accounting Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C.  Sec. 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Sec. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

     (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/ Edward F. Cowle
---------------------------------
Edward F. Cowle
Principal Accounting Officer
September 30, 2004

     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 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.  The foregoing  certifications  are  accompanying  the
     Company's Form 10-KSB solely pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
     Act of 2002  (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,  chapter 63 of title
     18,  United  States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-KSB
     or as a separate disclosure document.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 11 (Thursday, January 18, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 2280]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-577]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Notice of Meeting, Notice of Vote, Explanation of Action Closing 
Meeting and List of Persons to Attend

January 11, 2007.
    The following notice of meeting is published pursuant to Section 
3(a) of the Government in the Sunshine Act (Pub. L. No. 94-409), 5 
U.S.C. 552b

Agency Holding Meeting:  Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Date and Time: January 18, 2007, 1 p.m.

Place: Room 2C, Commission Meeting Room, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be Considered: Non-Public Litigation Matters.

Contact Person for More Information: Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, 
Telephone (202) 502-8400.
    Chairman Kelliher and Commissioners Kelly, Spitzer, Moeller, and 
Wellinghoff voted to hold a closed meeting on January 18, 2007. The 
certification of the General Counsel explaining the action closing the 
meeting is available for public inspection in the Commission's Public 
Reference Room at 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The Chairman and the Commissioners, their assistants, the 
Commission's Secretary and her assistant, the General Counsel and 
members of his staff, and a stenographer are expected to attend the 
meeting. Other staff members from the Commission's program offices who 
will advise the Commissioners in the matters discussed will also be 
present.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-577 Filed 1-17-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P