alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case No. 9,873.

#### MOSES v. DUNNAHO.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 315.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

June Term, 1806.

Sdavert— Suit for Freedom — Eight to Go in Search op Witnesses.

A petitioner for freedom has not a right to go in search of his witnesses.

*893Petition for freedom [by the negro Moses against Patrick Dunnaho].

Mr. Caldwell, for petitioner,

moved the court for leave to the petitioner to go in search of evidence in support of his petition. Refused.

1

 (Reported by Hon. William Cranch, Chief Judge.]

THE COURT

said they knew no law which authorized them to give such leave. The usual recognizance is to permit the petitioner to attend court from time to time.
Corporate Capital Trust, Inc. - 10-K/A

Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION OF
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Thomas K. Sittema, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K of Corporate Capital Trust, Inc.; and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with
respect to the period covered by this report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date: April 6, 2017 |  | By: | /s/ Thomas K. Sittema        
|------------------- |  | --- | -----------------------------
|                    |  |     | Thomas K. Sittema            
|                    |  |     | Chief Executive Officer      
|                    |  |     | (Principal Executive Officer)
<PAGE>

                                EXHIBIT (10)(b)
                                ---------------


                        OPINION AND CONSENT OF ACTUARY
<PAGE>

          [Transamerica Occidental Life Insurance Company Letterhead]


April 10, 2001


Transamerica Occidental Life Insurance Company
4333 Edgewood Road NE
Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52499-0001

Re:  Separate Account VA H
     Registration on Form N-4  SEC File No. 33-43516

Dear Sir/Madam:

With regard to the above registration statement, I have examined such documents
and made such inquiries as I have deemed necessary and appropriate, and on the
basis of such examination, have the following opinions:

Fees and charges deducted under the Dreyfus Advisor Advantage Variable Annuity
policies are those deemed necessary to appropriately reflect:

(1)    the expenses incurred in the acquisition and distribution of the
       Policies,

(2)    the expenses associated with the development and servicing of the
       policies,

(3)    the assumption of certain risks arising from the operation and management
       of the policies and/or riders to the policy and that provides for a
       reasonable margin of profit.

Fees and charges assessed against the policy values in the variable account
include:

(i)    Administrative Charge

(ii)   Mortality and Expense Risk Fee (M&E)

(iii)  Taxes (including premium and other taxes if applicable)

(iv)   Any applicable rider fees or charges

The magnitude of each of the individual charges listed above in (i) through (iv)
is established in the pricing of the Dreyfus Advisor Advantage Variable Annuity,
to achieve a reasonable Return on Investment (ROI), which is within the range of
industry practice with respect to comparable variable annuity products.
<PAGE>

Transamerica Occidental Life Insurance Company
April 10, 2001
Page 2


Except by coincidence, it is not expected that actual charges assessed in a
given year would exactly offset actual expenses incurred.  Acquisition expenses
(as well as major product and/or systems development expenses) are incurred "up
front" and recovered, with a reasonable profit margin, through future years'
charges.  In addition, the company cannot increase certain charges under the
Policies in the pricing process.

Therefore, in my opinion, the fees and charges deducted under the Policies, in
the aggregate, are reasonable in relation to the services rendered, the expenses
expected to be incurred, and the risks assumed by the company.

I hereby consent to the use of this opinion, which is included as an Exhibit to
the Registration Statement.



/s/ Calvin R. Birkey
----------------------------------------------
Calvin R. Birkey, FSA, MAAA
Managing Actuary
Transamerica Occidental Life Insurance Company
**AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

JUDGMENT IN A MISCELLANEOUS CASE

MAURICE S. VAUGHN and MO VAUGHN : Case No. 2:10-MC-34

INVESTMENTS LLC, :

:

Plaintiff, :

: 

v. :

:

: JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY

RKM BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC., :

100 East Campus View Blvd. : Magistrate Judge Deavers

Columbus, Ohio 43235, :

:

and :

:

c/o Ra Shonda Kay Marshall, :

:

Defendants :

[] Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been

tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.

[] Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have

been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.

[X] Decision by Court. This action was decided by the Court without a trial or hearing.

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED That pursuant to the

January 6, 2011 Order, the Court confirmed the Award of the

Arbitrator and enters judgment in favor of the Petitioners in the

amount of $3,515,294, plus post-judgment interest from the

date of this Order in accordance with 9 U.S.C. § 13 and 28

U.S.C. § 1961. 

Date: January 6, 2011 James Bonini, Clerk

 s/Betty L. Clark 

 Betty L. Clark/Deputy Clerk

Case: 2:10-mc-00034-ALM-EPD Doc #: 7 Filed: 01/06/11 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Exhibit 31.1


CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO


SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Ashton J. Ryan, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer of First NBC Bank Holding Company, certify that:


|   |                                                                                       
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A of First NBC Bank Holding Company;

|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

|   |          
|-- | ---------
|3. | [Omitted]

|   |          
|-- | ---------
|4. | [Omitted]

|   |          
|-- | ---------
|5. | [Omitted]

Date: June 17, 2015/s/ Ashton J. Ryan, Jr.Ashton J. Ryan, Jr.President and Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 65 (Thursday, April 5, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16868-16869]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-6354]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

[Notice of Order (Order 2007-3- ); Docket OST-2006-25307]


International Air Transport Association Tariff Conference 
Proceeding

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Department of Transportation.

SUMMARY: The Department is issuing an order withdrawing its approval 
under 49 U.S.C. 41309 for an International Air Transport Association 
(``IATA'') agreement, the Provisions for the Conduct of the IATA 
Traffic Conferences, insofar as that agreement establishes conferences 
whereby IATA's member carriers discuss and agree upon passenger fares 
and cargo rates for U.S.-Australia/Europe markets. The withdrawal of 
approval will become effective on June 30, 2007. The Department's 
withdrawal of its approval for the agreement will end the agreement's 
immunity from the antitrust laws under 49 U.S.C. 41308 for conference 
discussions of fares and rates for the U.S.-Australia/Europe markets. 
This order makes final the tentative findings and conclusions set forth 
in the Department's show-cause order, Order 2006-7-3 (July 5, 2006).

DATES: The withdrawal of approval will become effective on June 30, 
2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Kiser, Pricing & Multilateral 
Affairs Division (X-43, Room 6424), U.S. Department of Transportation, 
400 Seventh St, SW., Washington, DC

[[Page 16869]]

20590, (202) 366-2435; or Donald A. Horn, Assistant General Counsel for 
International Law (C-20, Room 10118), U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-
2972.

    Dated: March 30, 2007.
Andrew B. Steinberg,
Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs.
 [FR Doc. E7-6354 Filed 4-4-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
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 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act oF 2002, the undersigned hereby certifies that the
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2011 of Advanced
Cellular, Inc. (the "Company") fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: September 8, 2011


/s/ Nir Eliyahu
----------------------------------------------
Nir Eliyahu, Secretary, Treasurer and Director
(Principal Accounting Officer and Principal
Financial Officer)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

-v- CASE NO.: 2:11-CR-073

JUDGE SMITH

JUNIOR HERNANDEZ QUINTANA

aka PAUL ABRAHAM RODRIGUEZ 

OROZCO, 

Defendant.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Government’s Motion to Dismiss the Indictment

without Prejudice pursuant to Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (Doc 25). 

The Defendant does not oppose this Motion. For the reasons that follow, the Government’s

Motion is GRANTED. 

The Defendant was arrested and charged with conspiracy to distribute heroin in excess of

100 grams. At the time of his arrest, the Defendant told officers his name was Junior Hernandez

Quintana and that his date of birth was August 23, 1989. This case was originally brought to the

Court’s attention on the Defendant’s Motion to Bar Prosecution (Doc. 11). The Defendant now

asserts that his real name is Paul Abraham Rodriguez-Orozco and that his date of birth is August

23, 1994, making him 16 years of age. The Government filed its response to Defendant’s Motion

on March 28, 2011, and submitted documentation to support charging the Defendant as an adult. 

Case: 2:11-cr-00073-GCS Doc #: 26 Filed: 04/18/11 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act governs this case and sets forth

guidelines for this Court to follow in determining whether a juvenile is entitled to the protections

of the Act. The Government bears the initial burden of proving Defendant’s age and must offer

prima facie evidence of Defendant’s adult status. If the Government provides a prima facie

case, then the burden shifts to the Defendant to produce evidence of Defendant’s juvenile status. 

The Government may then rebut Defendant’s evidence with additional information.

The Defendant has submitted documentation regarding his age, including a birth

certificate. The Government has consulted with ICE agents to verify the accuracy of this

information. Having verified that the Defendant is in fact Paul Abraham Rodriguez-Orozco and

that his date of birth is August 23, 1994, the Defendant is a juvenile and the Government now

seeks to dismiss the Indictment against him without prejudice. Any future charges against the

Defendant may be brought by the state. 

Considering the Defendant raised the issue that he is a juvenile and there being no

objection to the Government’s Motion to Dismiss, the Court hereby orders that this case be

dismissed. Accordingly, having determined that the Defendant is a juvenile, he shall immediately

be moved to the appropriate juvenile detention center. 

The Clerk shall remove Documents 11, 12, 19-22, and 25 from this Court’s pending

motions list. The Clerk is instructed to dismiss the Indictment against this Defendant only. The

case remains pending as to the co-defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ George C. Smith 

GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

Case: 2:11-cr-00073-GCS Doc #: 26 Filed: 04/18/11 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Index of CBI Pre-Rule Communication with Companies

1.) CBI Placeholder: Oct. 6, 2010 – Correspondence from Don Magid, Solvay Fluorides, LLC, to Drusilla Hufford, EPA 2.) CBI Placeholder: Dec. 15, 2010 – Correspondence from William J. Hamel, Arkema Inc., to Drusilla Hufford, EPA 3.) CBI Placeholder: April 15, 2011 – Correspondence from William J. Hamel, Arkema Inc., to Drusilla Hufford, EPA 4.) CBI Placeholder: December 14, 2011 – Handout received from Hudson Technologies during meeting with EPA
#### MARY G. LATHROP, as Administratrix, etc., of AZEL J. LATHROP, Respondent, *v.*CHARLES H. HOPKINS, Appellant.

*Evidence*— personal *transaction with, deceased person*— Code *of (Jivil Procedure, see.*829 — *a son of the deceased pen-son is not interested, when the estate is insolvent.*

Appeal from a judgment, entered on a verdict in favor of the plaintiff rendered at the Oneida Circuit, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial on the minutes.

The plaintiff sues to recover the value of services performed by her intestate, Azel J. Lathrop, as a builder and architect, in drawing plans and making estimates for altering certain buildings and converting them into a temporary post-office and internal revenue collector’s office. The defense is a denial of the defendant’s liability, and an averment that the work was done for the United States government, and not for the defendant, and also that the plaintiff is not the owner of the claim.

The court at General Term, after holding that the'verdict of the jury in favor of the plaintiff was sustained by the evidence, said: “ An exception was taken to the admission of Charles H. Lathrop, a son of the intestate, as a witness in the plaintiff’s behalf, and it is now insisted that as next of kin he was interested in the event and therefore incompetent under section 829 of the present Code. The interest which will exclude under the Code is the same interest which had that effect at common law, *i. e.,*a fixed and certain interest in the event of the particular suit. Here the interest of the witness is, at most, contingent, depending on the question whether the estate of his father is solvent. The only evidence on that subject is that his father, shortly before his death, executed an assignment of all his property, including the claim in suit, for the benefit of his creditors, from which it is to be inferred that his estate was insolvent, and that there is nothing to be distributed among his next of kin. The case of *Le C lare*v. *Stewart*(8 Hun, *12T),*cited by the appellant’s counsel, was decided under section 399 of the old Code, as amended in 1866, which excluded every *609person ‘ having a legal or equitable interest which may be affected by the event of the suit.’ The exception is not well taken.” * * *

*P. O. J. De*AngeUs, for the appellant.

*Josiah*Perry, for the respondent.

Opinion by

Smith, P. J.;

Hardin and Barker, JJ., concurred.

Judgment and order affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2



Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



The undersigned hereby certifies that, to his or her knowledge, (i) the Form 10-Q
filed by New Century Bancorp, Inc. (the Issuer) for the quarter ended September 30, 2005, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the
information contained in that report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer on the dates and for the periods presented therein.



|                        |  |     |  |                                                  
|----------------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------
|Date: November 10, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ Lisa F. Campbell                             
|                        |  |     |  | Lisa F. Campbell                                 
|                        |  |     |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-15-00459-CR

Keith Demont McCuin

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From Criminal District Court No. 1

of Tarrant County (1139277D)

February 18, 2016

Per Curiam

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for 

want of jurisdiction.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

PER CURIAM
----

| (a) | a review of SLC’s activities during the calendar year ended December 31, 2022 (the “Reporting Period”) and of SLC’s performance under the Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision; and |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (b) | to the best of my knowledge, based on such review, SLC has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period. |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| March 31, 2023 |   |                                                                             |
|----------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|           |   |                                                                             |
|           | By:    | /s/ Timothy Schmidt                                                              |   |
|           |   | Name:  Timothy Schmidt                                                      |
|           |   | Title:  Senior Vice President and Treasurer of The Student Loan Corporation |

----
No. 45097.

#### Protests 42025-K, etc., of E. Bremermann & Co. (Baltimore).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of peat moss of the same character as that passed upon in *Peat Import Corp.*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 181, C. D. 319). The claim for free entry under paragraph 1685 was therefore sustained.
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 Quarterly Report on Form
10-QSB of Cartoon Acquisition, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended June
30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Randolph S. Hudson, President, Chief Executive
Officer, Secretary, Treasurer, and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U. S. C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(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/ Randolph S.
      Hudson___________________________________________Randolph S.
      HudsonChief Executive Officer
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---
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

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned hereby certifies that the
amended Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2010 of
Winecom Inc. (the "Company") fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: March 16, 2011


/s/ Mordechay David
---------------------------------------
Mordechay David, President and Director
(Principal Executive Officer)
#### The People, Resp’ts, *v.*Palmer M. Wood, App’lt.

Order settled and filed with the clerk of Oneida county. Hardin, P. J., not voting.
(Reap. Dec. 8323)

#### John V. Carr & Son, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 7850.

(Decided July 8, 1954)

*Tonvphins & Tompkins*for the plaintiff.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

*512Oliver, Chief Judge:

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

> It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between counsel for the Plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States, Defendant, that the items marked “A” and initialed R. K. by Examiner R. Kurtz on the invoice accompanying the entry covered by the above reappraisement appeal, consist of 150 kilos net of unirradiated ergosterol exported from Germany on September 22, 1953 to the United States.

> That on and shortly prior to the date of exportation, such and similar ergosterol was being freely offered for sale for home consumption to all German purchasers in the principal markets of Germany, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade at a price of 360 deutschemarks per kilo plus 4% tax, net packed; that the “export value” (as defined in Section 402 (d), Tariff Act of 1930) was not higher than the “foreign value” (as defined in Section 402 (c) of said act) on the date of exportation; that the cost of packing and other expenses incident to placing the merchandise here in suit in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States was $32.00 as invoiced.

> That the above reappraisement appeal is submitted for decision upon this stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by section 8 of the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such value was 360 deutschemarks per kilo, plus 4 per centum tax, net packed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.