alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|                                        |
|----------------------------------------|
|                                        |  |  |
| Wells Fargo Bank, National Association | U.S. Bank Trust National Association, |
| As Indenture Trustee                   | As Owner Trustee |
| Attn:  Marianna C. Stershic  | Attn: Ed Janis |
| Sixth Street and Marquette Avenue      | 190 South LaSalle Street, 7th Floor |
| MAC N9311-161                          | Mail Code: MK-IL-SL7R |
| Minneapolis, MN  55479       | Chicago, Illinois 60603 |
|                                   |   |
| Copy To:                               |   |
| Ally Wholesale Enterprises LLC         | Ally Financial Inc. |
| Attn:  Vice President        | As Administrator |
| 500 Woodward Ave                       | Attn:  Vice President |
| Mail code:  MI-01-20-TRES              | 500 Woodward Ave |
| Detroit, Michigan  48226     | Mail code:  MI-01-20-TRES |
|                                   | Detroit, Michigan 48226 |
|                                   |   |
| Re:                                    | Ally Master Owner Trust |
|                                   | Annual Statement as to Compliance |   |

|    |
|----|
|    |  |
| a. | A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period of January 1, 2017 through  December 31, 2017, and of its performance under the Trust Sale and Servicing Agreement and under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been made under his supervision, and |

|    |
|----|
|    |  |
| b. | To the best of his knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under such agreements in all material respects throughout such period. |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |
|   | Very truly yours, |   |
|   |   |   |
|   | /s/ David J. DeBrunner |   |
|   | David J. DeBrunner |   |
|   | Vice President, Controller and Chief Accounting Officer |   |
|   |   |   |

----

|                                |
|--------------------------------|
|                                |
| Ally Master Owner Trust 2015-2 |
| Ally Master Owner Trust 2015-3 |
| Ally Master Owner Trust 2017-1 |
| Ally Master Owner Trust 2017-2 |
| Ally Master Owner Trust 2017-3 |
No. 55311.

#### S. H. Pomerance Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 143454-K (A) (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

The evidence disclosed that the merchandise in case

No. 1520 was checked under the supervision of the president of the importing company when received and that only 212 dozen tweezers were found; that case No. 1521 was also checked and the quantity found therein was 288 dozen tweezers, as reported by the appraiser; and that in checking all of the tweezers in the two cases against the invoice, it was discovered that the total number of tweezers in the importation, i. e., 500 dozen, agreed with the invoice. On the record presented the claim of the plaintiff that duty was improperly assessed, upon an excess of 38 dozen tweezers was sustained.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.86

                        WORLDWIDE WEB NETWORX CORPORATION
                                  P.O. BOX 460
                               VILLANOVA, PA 19085
                                 (610) 527-3554
                               (610) 527-9411 FAX

                                 March 22, 2001


International Commerce Exchange Systems, Inc.
18 W. 18th Street
New York, NY

eMarketplaces, Inc.
18 W. 18th Street
New York, NY

RE:   LETTER OF INTENT

Gentlemen:

This will confirm that we have agreed to amend the letter of intent, dated
February 12, 2001, by and among International Commerce Exchange Systems, Inc.,
eMarketplaces, Inc. and WorldWide Web NetworX Corporation (the "LOI"), as
amended by that certain amendment, dated February 16, 2001 (the "Amendment"), as
follows:

  1.  The Closing Date is hereby changed to May 1, 2001.

  2.  Paragraph 1(d)(iv) of the LOI is hereby deleted and the following is
      hereby substituted in its place:

      "WWWX's receipt of a fairness opinion with respect to the Transaction
      which is reasonably acceptable to both WWWX and the Purchaser, prior to
      the Closing"

  3.  Paragraphs 1(d)(v) and 2 of the LOI are hereby deleted in their entirety.

  4.  The Due Diligence Deadline is hereby extended through April 18, 2001.

  5.  Paragraph 4(d)(i) of the LOI is hereby deleted in its entirety and the
      following is hereby substituted in its place:

      "elect directors"

  6.  Paragraph 6 of the LOI and the Amendment are each hereby deleted in their
      entirety.

<PAGE>

  7.  The date set forth in Paragraph 7(c) is hereby changed to May 1, 2001.

  8.  All capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined herein shall
      have the same meaning given to those terms in the LOI.

  9.  This amendment may be signed in one or more counterparts, each of which
      will be considered an original and all of which will constitute the same
      document.

 10.  This amendment shall be governed by the laws of Delaware without regard to
      its principles of conflict of laws.

 11.  Except as specifically provided herein, the LOI shall remain in full force
      and effect, as written.

If the foregoing accurately reflects our agreement with respect to the amendment
of the LOI, please execute this letter in the space provided below and return it
to the undersigned.


Very truly yours,


G. David Rosenblum
Interim President
WorldWide Web NetworX Corporation


Accepted and Agreed:

eMARKETPLACES, INC.


By:   /s/ Edward Foster
      ----------------------------
      Name:  Edward Foster
      Title: President
      Date:  March 22, 2001


INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE EXCHANGE SYSTEMS, INC.


By:   /s/ Mordechai Gelber
      ----------------------------
      Name:  Mordechai Gelber
      Title: Vice President
      Date:  March 22, 2001
#### Mapp *v.*Philadelphia, Appellant.

Argued January 20, 1969.

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

*518
      *Matthew W. Bulloch, Jr.,*Second Deputy City Solicitor, with him *Frank J. Pfizenmayer,*Assistant City Solicitor, and *Edward G-. Bauer, Jr.,*City Solicitor, for. City of Philadelphia, appellant.

*Carl M. Mazzocone,*with him *Sheer & Mazzocone,*for appellee.

April 23, 1969:

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Roberts,

This case presents a narrow procedural question. Claimant appellee received a Workmen’s Compensation award from the referee for emotional disturbances which he found resulted from her activities as policewoman. The Workmen’s Compensation Board reversed, and this ruling was affirmed by the court of common pleas. The Superior Court reversed and reinstated the referee’s decision, holding that appellant, City of Philadelphia, had failed to file a timely appeal with the board from the referee’s decision. This Court granted allocatur.

The referee’s decision was mailed to the city on October 17, 1961 and was received the next day. The city mailed its appeal on November 6, 1961, and it apparently was received on November 8. The Act of June 2, 1915, P. L. 736, §423, as amended, 77 P.S. §853, provides that a party may “take an appeal” from a referee’s decision within 20 days after notice of the referee’s award. The act provides that notice is to be deemed served on the date when the referee’s decision is mailed, here October 17, 77 P.S. §717. The period *519in which an appeal must be filed starts to run on the next day, Act of May 28, 1937, P. L. 1019, as amended, 46 P.S. §538 (Supp. 1967), here on October 18. November 6, the date on which the city mailed its appeal, is the 20th day from October 18. The Superior Court held that the appeal, to be perfected for these purposes, must be received, not merely mailed, by the 20th day, thus finding the city’s appeal to be untimely.

The back of the notice of the referee’s decision informs the parties of the requirements for taking an appeal. It explicitly states: “An appeal will be considered as filed within the prescribed time if it is *mailed to*the Board, properly stamped and addressed, on the twentieth day after such notice. Thus if a decision is mailed to the parties January 1, the appeal must be *mailed to*the Board not later than January 21.” (Emphasis added.) The parties are thus told that the appeal must be mailed, not received within the 20 day period. By mailing its appeal on November 6, the city complied with this requirement.

The order of the Superior Court is vacated and the case is remanded to the Superior Court for a decision on the merits.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-41467 Summary Calendar

THOMAS L. ATCHISON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus JERRY BODIN, JR., Correctional Officer, Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Institutional Division; REGINAL BROWN, counsel substitute, Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Institutional Division; MICHAEL DABNEY, Disciplinary Hearing Officer, Stiles Unit, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

UDC No. 1:97-CV-221

- - - - - - - - - - July 29, 1998 Before JONES, SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Texas state prisoner Thomas L. Atchison, no. 605353, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action with prejudice as frivolous for not having any arguable legal or factual basis and for failing to state a claim upon which reliefNo. 97-41467 -2- may be granted. Atchison claims that a false disciplinary report was filed against him and that he did not receive adequate due process at his disciplinary hearing. Because Atchison’s punishment included a loss of good-time credits and the loss of earning future good-time credits, these claims would necessarily affect his sentence if resolved in his favor. Accordingly, Atchison must first obtain habeas relief for these claims before he can maintain a § 1983 suit on the same grounds. See Edwards v. Balisok , 520 U.S. 641, ___, 117 S. Ct. 1584, 1589 (1997); Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994); Carson v. Johnson , 112 F.3d 818, 820 (5th Cir. 1997). The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Atchison’s § 1983 action as frivolous. See Siglar v. Hightower , 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997).
AFFIRMED.
General Term—Fourth Department.

Filed February 15, 1890.

#### James Singleton, Resp’t, *v.*The Home Insurance Company of New York, Impl’d, App’lt.

Judgment affirmed. Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 on Form 10-K of Medley Capital Corporation, (the “Company”) for the annual period ended September 30, 2018, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Brook Taube and Richard T. Allorto, Jr., Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, 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 our 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 as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.




Dated: December 4, 2018





By/s/ Brook TaubeBrook TaubeChief Executive Officer


By/s/ Richard T. Allorto, Jr.Richard T. Allorto, Jr.Chief Financial Officer
#### UNITED STATES, Appellant v PHILIP M. McGLOTHING, Private First Class, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellee

14 USCMA 392, 34 CMR 172

No. 17,281

February 14, 1964

*Commander C. J. MacJcres,*USNR, argued the cause for Appellant, United States.

*Lieutenant (jg) Patrick W. Lee,*USNR, argued the cause for Appellee, Accused.

Opinion of the Court

Ferguson, Judge:

Tried by a general court-martial convened by the Commanding General, Third Marine Division, at Camp Hauge, Okinawa, the accused, pursuant to his pleas of guilty, was convicted of conspiracy, thirty-two specifications of larceny, thirty-four specifications of forgery, and wrongful possession of an identification card, in violation, respectively, of Uniform Code of Military Justice, Articles 81, 121, 123, and 134, 10 USC §§ 881, 921, 923, 934. Operating under instructions from the law officer which limited the maximum sentence to dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement at hard labor for 173 years, the court-martial imposed a penalty of dishonorable discharge, total forfeitures, and confinement at hard labor for five years. The convening authority reduced the punishment to bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement at hard labor for one year. The board of review set aside the charge involving wrongful possession of an identification card, but otherwise affirmed. The Acting The Judge Advocate General of the Navy has certified its decision to this Court upon the following question:

> “Was the Board of Review correct in holding that the specification under Charge IV failed to allege an offense?”

A study of the board’s action reveals that only the opinion of Member Ryan refers to the failure of the specification of Charge IV to allege an offense. Member Groom was absent, and Member Hendry concurred only in the result reached by Member Ryan. Com*393pare United States v Cudd, 6 USCMA 630, 20 CMR 346. There is, therefore, no holding *by the board*that the specification of Charge IV did not allege an offense, and no certifiable issue is presented. United States v Leggio, 12 USCMA 319, 30 CMR 319. In addition, in light of the possible maximum sentence and the findings of guilty and punishment ultimately approved, we invite attention to our decision in United States v Gilley, 14 USCMA 226, 34 CMR 6.

The certificate of the Acting The Judge Advocate General of the Navy is ordered dismissed.

Chief Judge Quinn and Judge Kilday concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

WESTERN DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

Respondent 

v. 

THOMAS M. REED, 

Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 557 WAL 2014 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 22nd day of April, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

GRANTED. The issues, rephrased for clarity, are: 

1) Are the recent SORNA statutes (42 Pa.C.S. §§9799.10, 9799.13

and 9799.14 and related provisions) punitive in nature and do they 

violate the ex post facto provisions of the Pennsylvania 

Constitution? 

2) Do the SORNA statutes violate fundamental due process under

the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and 

Article I, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution? 

3) Do the SORNA statutes violate the separation of powers doctrine

under the Pennsylvania Constitution? 

4) Was lifetime Megan’s Law registration not part of petitioner’s

original guilty plea, and therefore, should petitioner’s original plea, 

which only called for a ten-year Megan’s Law requirement, be 

enforced? 
[557 WAL 2014] - 2 

The Prothonotary is directed to schedule briefing and argument in this matter 

together with the following matters presenting related issues: Commonwealth v. Gilbert, 

181 MAL 2015 and Commonwealth v. Muniz, 684 MAL 2015.
Exhibit 8.1
 List of Subsidiaries
 Subsidiaries:
    
    Jurisdiction of IncorporationRDA Micro BVI
    
    BVIRDA International, Inc. (RDA International)
    
    BVIRDA Technologies, Inc. (RDA US)
    
    United States of AmericaRDA Technologies Limited (RDA Hong Kong)
    
    Hong KongRDA Microelectronics (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (RDA Shanghai)
    
    Shanghai, the Peoples
Republic of ChinaRDA Microelectronics (Beijing) Co., Ltd. (RDA Beijing)
    
    Beijing, the Peoples
Republic of China
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 JohnsonDiversey Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 2, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to such officers 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 as of the dates and for the
periods expressed in the Report.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |                                                                        
|--------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 12, 2004 |  | /s/ GREGORY E. LAWTON                                                  
|                      |  | Gregory E. Lawton President and Chief Executive Officer                
|                      | 
|                      |  | /s/ MICHAEL J. BAILEY                                                  
|                      |  |                                                                        
|                      |  | Michael J. Bailey Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer



The foregoing certification is being
furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.



A signed original 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.
Before the Second Division,

May 21, 1958

No. 61974.

#### Carson M. Simon & Co. *v.*United States,

protests 306828-K, etc. (Philadelphia).

*570Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of essential and integral parts of segmental saws, which contain as an esseiitial feature an electrical element or device, and that said saws cannot perform the sawing function for which they were designed without said parts, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Peter Boyle, Deceased.

*(Surrogate’s Court, Cattarcrngus County,*

*Filed September 23, 1889.)*

Executoes and administeatoes—Execution against.

In an action brought by executors against a railroad company for the-death of their testator, a judgment for costs was recovered against them. *Held,*that this did not give the railroad priority over the other creditors of the estate, and that leave to issue an execution thereon against the executors should not be granted until the amount of assets and debts of the estate was established.

Application for leave to issue execution.

*Sprague, Morey, Sprague & Brownell,*for motion; *JE. E. Northrup,*opposed.

Spring, S.

The administratrix of Peter Boyle, deceased, commenced an action in the supreme court against the Hew York, Lake Erie & Western Bailroad Company, to recover the value of certain horses belonging to decedent, and which were claimed to have been killed by the negligence of the defendant Plaintiff *947failed ultimately in the litigation, and a judgment for costs of over four hundred dollars was entered against her as such administratrix. Application is now made on behalf of the railroad company for leave to issue execution on this judgment to be enforced against the property of decedent.

I do not think the motion should be granted at present.

The recovery of this judgment did not give defendant any priority over the other creditors of the intestate. See *Schmitz*v. Langhaar, 88 N. Y., 503.

And before an execution issues, it should appear there were assets sufficient to pay all the debts of decedent, or at least an account should be filed showing fully the assets and the debts to be paid therefrom, so that the execution would direct only the application of the judgment debtor’s “just proportion of the assets” to the payment of this judgment. Sections 1825, 1826 and 2723, subd. 1, Code of Civil Procedure; *Sippel v. Macklin,*2 Dem., 219; *Peters*v. *Carr,*id., 22.

In no other way can the scheme for the enforcement of judgments recovered in other courts be made practical when the execution is to be collected out of property left by a decedent.

I would require an intermediate accounting in this case, but a citation for judicial settlement has already been issued and is returnable the 17 *proximo,*at Salamanca, ÍST. Y., and I will accordingly postpone this matter to that time and place.
**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

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code), the undersigned officer of Gryphon Gold Corporation, (the “Company”) does hereby certify with respect to the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 (the “Report”) 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. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

        

Date: November 13, 2009

/s/ Michael Longinotti                               Michael Longinotti        Chief Financial Officer, Principal Financial and Accounting Officer

 

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

 

41

----