alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Neuman Rosenblatt & Marscovetra, Appellant, v Steven Yohay et al., Respondents.

[736 NYS2d 7]

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered November 8, 2000, which, in an action by an accounting firm for services rendered, insofar as appealed from, granted defendant clients’ motion to confirm, and denied plaintiff’s cross motion to disaffirm, a Special Referee’s report recommending against piercing any of defendants’ corporate veils, and further recommending particular amounts to be awarded in favor of plaintiff and against particular defendants, unanimously modified, on the facts, to increase the amounts awarded as indicated herein, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs allegation that the individual defendant asked it to continue working for him and the corporate defendants he dominated while harboring an intent to hide behind the corporate forms to avoid paying for plaintiffs services lacks evidentiary support sufficient to warrant piercing any of corporate veils *(see, Matter of Morris v New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin.,*82 NY2d 135, 141-142). It is also pertinent, as the Special Referee emphasized, that plaintiff over the years sent separate invoices to defendants, and that the corporate defendants, which were all formed by plaintiff, kept separate records and bank accounts, filed separate tax returns, and otherwise respected corporate formalities in accordance with procedures implemented or approved by plaintiff *(see, id.).*Concerning the value of plaintiffs services, for unstated reasons the Special Referee’s totals are less than the amounts on the notations on the invoices that he credited and cited as the basis for his valuation. Accordingly, we modify to increase the principal amounts of the awards as follows *(see, Holskin v 22 Prince St. Assoc.,*178 AD2d 347, 348-349): $22,435 as against defendant Installations by Folder, Inc.; $9,947.50 as against defendant Daggun Electrical Co.; and $9,240 as against defendant Folder Manágement Corp. We have considered plaintiffs other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur— Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Lerner, Rubin and Buckley, JJ.
EXHIBIT 99-2



CERTIFICATION OF RUI GUIMARAIS, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF

WESTMINSTER CAPITAL, INC.



This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and accompanies the quarterly report on
Form 10-Q/A (the Form 10-Q/A) for the quarter ended September 30, 2002 of Westminster Capital, Inc. (the Issuer).



I, Rui Guimarais, the Chief Financial Officer of Issuer, certify that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (i) |  | the Form 10-Q/A fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and
| | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) |  | the information contained in the Form 10-Q/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.
| | ---- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: February 6, 2003



By

/s/  Rui GuimaraisRui Guimarais Chief Financial Officer




36
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

CHRISTOPHER MCGRATH, AKA David 

Powers, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 18-50158 

D.C. No. 2:13-cr-00285-R-1 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 17, 2019**

Pasadena, California

Before: NGUYEN and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and BAYLSON,*** District 

Judge.

Christopher McGrath appeals from the district court’s order revoking his 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Michael M. Baylson, United States District Judge for 

the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.

FILED

MAY 21 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

conditional release from commitment. This appeal arises from a 2013 trespassing 

offense at Los Angeles International Airport, to which McGrath pled not guilty by 

reason of insanity. As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount 

them here. We remand.

The parties agree that, under 18 U.S.C. § 4243(d), McGrath bore the burden 

to prove “by a preponderance of the evidence” that “his release would not create a 

substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage of property of 

another due to a present mental disease or defect.” The district court erred by 

applying a heightened burden of proof, requiring that McGrath “guarantee to the 

Court that he’s not a danger.” Accordingly, we remand for the district court to

apply the correct preponderance standard in the first instance. See 18 U.S.C. 

§ 4243(d). 

In addition, we instruct the Chief Judge of the Central District of California 

to reassign this case to a different district judge on remand because “reassignment 

is advisable to preserve the appearance of justice.” United States v. Wells, 879 

F.3d 900, 938 (9th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted).

REMANDED with instructions to reassign to a different district court judge.
1

In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 14-64V 

Filed: May 14, 2015 

[Not to be published]

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

KAREN JOHNSON, * 

* 

Petitioner, * Attorneys’ Fees & Costs; Stipulation 

v. * 

* 

* 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * 

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * 

* 

Respondent. * 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Anne C. Toale, Maglio Christopher & Toale, Sarasota, FL for petitioner. 

Althea W. Davis, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC for respondent. 

DECISION ON ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS1

Gowen, Special Master: 

 In this case under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program,2 I issued a 

Decision on December 9, 2014, dismissing this Petition pursuant to petitioner’s motion to 

dismiss filed on December 8, 2014. On May 14, 2015, the parties filed a Stipulation of 

Fact concerning attorneys’ fees and costs. Pursuant to General Order #9, petitioner’s 

counsel also represented that petitioner incurred no out-of-pocket expenses in this matter. 

 

 The parties’ stipulation indicates that respondent does not object to the amended 

amount of $31,360.00 that petitioner is requesting for attorneys’ fees and costs. 

 I find that this petition was brought in good faith and that there existed a reasonable 

basis for the claim. Therefore, an award for fees and costs is appropriate, pursuant to 42 

                                                            

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend to 

post this decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with the EGovernment Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 

U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and 

move to delete medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted 

invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will delete 

such material from public access. 

2 The applicable statutory provisions defining the program are found at 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 et seq. (2006). 
2

U.S.C. §§ 300aa-15(b) and (e)(1). Further, the proposed amount seems reasonable and 

appropriate. Accordingly, I hereby award: 

 a lump sum of $31,360.00 in the form of a check payable jointly to 

petitioner and petitioner’s attorney, Anne Toale, Esq., for petitioner’s 

attorneys’ fees and costs. 

 

 The clerk of the court shall enter judgment in accordance herewith.3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Thomas L.Gowen

Thomas L. Gowen

Special Master 

                                                            

3 Entry of judgment can be expedited by each party’s filing of a notice renouncing the right to seek review. 

See Vaccine Rule 11(a).
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-02-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                              50,153
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,777,926
<ALLOWANCES>                                       259,789
<INVENTORY>                                      6,242,943
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                11,481,582
<PP&E>                                           9,490,600
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,560,664
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  20,669,397
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,108,024
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                           888,999
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,881,760
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    20,669,397
<SALES>                                         35,852,430
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                35,852,430
<CGS>                                           28,331,872
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   33,542,403
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    99,433
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  82,053
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,128,541
<INCOME-TAX>                                       800,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,328,541
<DISCONTINUED>                                    (477,796)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       850,745
<EPS-BASIC>                                           0.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.27




</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 33 (Wednesday, February 19, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7448-7449]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4034]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. CP96-153-000]


Southern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Environmental Site Visit 
for the Proposed North Alabama Pipeline Project

February 12, 1997.
    On February 19, 1997, the Office of Pipeline Regulation (OPR) staff 
will conduct a helicopter overflight of the North Alabama Pipeline 
Project facilities and alternatives for the proposed facilities.
    One seat in the helicopter will be made available for those who 
have intervened in opposition to the project. OPR invites a designated 
representative of those intervenors to accompany time. To do so, 
correspondence should be filed with the Secretary of the Commission 
identifying the name, address, and telephone number of the designated 
representative no later than 1:00 pm on Friday, February 14, 1997. A 
copy of the filing should be FAXed

[[Page 7449]]

to the OPR Director's office at (202) 208-0193.
Warren C. Edmunds,
Acting Director, Office of Pipeline Regulation.
[FR Doc. 97-4034 Filed 2-18-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Leonard WATSON, Appellant, v. Jack MOORE, Appellee.

No. U-106.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Dec. 13, 1973.

Wayne P. Castello, Andrews & Lewal-len, Gainesville, for appellant.

William R. Burwell, Gainesville, for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

Inasmuch as the plaintiff-appellee did not appeal the order of dismissal within thirty (30) days of the rendition thereof, the trial court lost jurisdiction to reinstate the complaint.1

The order granting the motion to set aside the order of dismissal is hereby reversed.

RAWLS, C. J., and JOHNSON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.

1

. Florida Appellate Rules 3.2(b), 32 F.S.A.; and Kippy Corporation v. Colburn, 177 So.2d 193 (Fla.1965).
Exhibit 13.1
 Certification
Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) of the Exchange Act
   /s/ Tom Albanese
    
    /s/ Guy ElliottName: Tom Albanese
    
    Name: Guy ElliottTitle: Chief executive
    
    Title: Chief financial officerDate:
27 May 2010
    
    Date: 27 May 2010




---



##### 



Exhibit 13.1
 Certification
Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) of the Exchange Act
   /s/ Tom Albanese
    
    /s/ Guy ElliottName: Tom Albanese
    
    Name: Guy ElliottTitle: Chief executive
    
    Title: Finance directorDate:
27 May 2010
    
    Date: 27 May 2010
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ORIGINAL
 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES
 

) 

In the Matter of ) 

) 

UNIVERSAL COMPUTERS and ) 

ELECTRONICS, INC., ) 

d//a Appliancebestbuys.com, and ) DOCKET NO. 9347 

d//a universallcdtv.com, ) 

Respondent. ) 

) 

) 

ORDER RESETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE 

Pursuant to Commission Rule 3.21 (b), which requires a scheduling conference 

within ten days after an answer is fied, and at the request of the paries, the initial 

scheduling conference in this case, previously set for May 5, 2011, at 2:00 p.m., is hereby 

reset to May 10,2011, at 2:00 p.m. in Room 532, Federal Trade Commission Building, 

600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, D.C. 

ORDERED: ::ro ~JI
 

D. Michael hap 1
 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Date: May 4, 2011
#### Mary Lee HALL, a/k/a Barbara Johnson, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-595.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 16, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 23.3


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement on Form S-3 of our report  dated February 27, 2009, except for the effects of the changes in disclosure for reportable segments discussed in Note 10, the changes in noncontrolling interest discussed in Note 2, changes in earnings per share discussed in Note 2, collectively as to which the date is May 21, 2009 and except for changes in items reflected in discontinued operations discussed in Note 5, as to which the date is February 28, 2011 relating to the consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss, of equity and of cash flows for the year ended December 31, 2008, which appears in Colonial Properties Trust's Annual Report on Form 10‐K for the year ended December 31, 2010.  We also consent to the reference to us under the heading “Experts”  in such Registration Statement.








/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


Birmingham, Alabama


May 6, 2011
Exhibit 32.2





Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350








The undersigned, Stephen M. Hosmer, Co-President, Co-Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Royale Energy, Inc., a California corporation (the "Company"), pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certifies that:





(1) the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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











Date:  March 17, 2010
By:
/s/ Stephen M. HosmerStephen M. Hosmer, Co-President, Co-Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20580

Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Data Governance Board (DGB) 

Membership:

Raghav Vajjhala – Chief Information Officer and Chief Data Officer, Chair of the Board 

David Rebich – Chief Financial Officer

John Krebs – Chief Privacy Officer

Valerie Green – Chief Administrative Services Officer

Reilly Dolan – Principal Deputy General Counsel 

Juanhui Xie – Director of Hosted Services, Office of the CIO

Meeting Cadence:

Minimum one (1) meeting per quarter 

 

DGB Timeline:

September 30, 2019 – Pursuant to OMB Memo M-19-23, the FTC Chairman designated the Commission’s 

Chief Information Officer (CIO) to serve as the Commission’s Chief Data Officer (CDO). The CDO has 

participated in all OMB-mandated CDO orientation and training sessions. The FTC Senior Management 

Council (SMC) recorded a decision memo to charter the FTC DGB. Members of the DGB were identified, with 

the CDO serving as the Chair. The DGB is integrated with the SMC for overall enterprise governance. The 

SMC contains senior executives representing all FTC Bureaus and Offices.

November 12, 2019 – First DGB meeting

December 3, 2019 – DGB meeting

January 6, 2020 – DGB meeting

January 14, 2020 – Pursuant to OMB Memo M-16-16, the FTC updated and published its 2020 Open 

Government Plan (OGP) at ftc.gov/open, and submitted its required yearly Evidence Act Report to Congress.
EXHIBIT 31.2**CERTIFICATIONS**I, Victor F. Sellier, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Argon ST, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations, and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b. Designed such internal control over financial reporting or caused such internalcontrol over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to providereasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and thepreparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generallyaccepted accounting principles;  c. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  d. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s third fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.Date: August 11, 2006   /s/ Victor F. Sellier   Victor F. Sellier  Chief Financial Officer
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, March 27, 2018. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, March 27, 2018 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A18I0142. LAWTON BLALOCK v. THE STATE. Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: ST16CR1146
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 39 (Thursday, February 27, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 9003]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4905]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD


Proposed Collection; Comment Request

SUMMARY: In accordance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of 
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 which provides opportunity for 
public comment on new or revised data collections, the Railroad 
Retirement Board (RRB) will publish periodic summaries of proposed data 
collections.
    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed information 
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of 
the agency, including whether the information has practical utility; 
(b) the accuracy of the RRB's estimate of the burden of the collection 
of the information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 
clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize 
the burden related to the collection of information on respondents, 
including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of 
information technology.
    Title and purpose of information collection: Application for 
Hospital Insurance Benefits; OMB 3220-0082 Under Section 7(d) of the 
Railroad Retirement Act (RRA), the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) 
administers the Medicare program for persons covered by the railroad 
retirement system. The RRB uses Form AA-6, Employee Application for 
Medicare; Form AA-7, Spouse/Divorced Spouse Application For Medicare; 
and Form AA-8, Widow/Widower Application for Medicare; to obtain the 
information needed to determine whether individuals who have not yet 
filed for benefits under the RRA are qualified for Medicare payments 
provided under Title XVIII of the Social Security Act. Completion is 
required to obtain a benefit. One response is requested of each 
respondent.
    The RRB proposes a minor editorial change to Forms AA-6, AA-7 and 
AA-8 to incorporate language required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995. The RRB estimates that 180 Form AA-6's, 50 Form AA-7's, and 10 
Form AA-8's are completed annually. The completion time for all three 
forms is estimated at 8 minutes.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR COMMENTS: To request more information or to 
obtain a copy of the information collection justification, forms, and/
or supporting material, please call the RRB Clearance Officer at (312) 
751-3363. Comments regarding the information collection should be 
addressed to Ronald J. Hodapp, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North 
Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-2092. Written comments should be 
received within 60 days of this notice.
Chuck Mierzwa,
Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-4905 Filed 2-26-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7905-01-M