alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Joseph Jacinto, Deceased. Janine J. Sharkey et al., Appellants-Respondents; Rivka Jacinto et al., Respondents-Appellants.

In a proceeding for the probate of the purported will of Joseph Jacinto, deceased, dated September 27, 1988, the objectants appeal from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County (Radigan, S.), entered February 5, 1990, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the petition for the probate of the will, and the proponents cross-appeal from so much of the same order as denied their cross motion for summary judgment admitting the will to probate.

*665Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, without prejudice to the parties renewing their motions upon the completion of discovery.

Before his death, the testator executed a new will, dated September 27, 1988, wherein he left his entire estate to his second wife and effectively disinherited his children from both of his marriages. At an examination pursuant to SCPA 1404, one of the subscribing witnesses to this document recalled that the decedent had satisfied all the pertinent requirements of the statute of wills, EPTL 3-2.1 (a) (2), (3) and (4). The second subscribing witness, however, claimed that the testator did not indicate that the writing was his will, thus raising a material issue of fact as to whether the will was properly executed.

The objectants, in their motion for summary judgment, argued that summary judgment was appropriate because, unlike in a construction proceeding where the intent of the testator generally controls, the statutory formalities of the due execution of a will cannot be varied. The proponents contended in their cross motion that the testimony of one subscribing witness that the will was properly executed, in combination with other evidence *(see,*SCPA 1404 [3]), was sufficient to prove the will *(see, Matter of Collins,*60 NY2d 466; *Matter of Cottrell,*95 NY 329). The court declined to grant either the motion or the cross motion, finding that material issues of fact had been raised which necessitated a trial.

We agree that summary judgment is inappropriate at this time *(see, Matter of Pascal,*309 NY 108). There are facts surrounding the will’s execution which must be explored *(see, Matter of Alden,*52 AD2d 1051; *Matter of Rounds,*47 Misc 2d 877). The subscribing witnesses’ credibility is also in issue *(see, Orser v Orser,*24 NY 51, 52; *Matter of Eldred,*109 App Div 777; *see also, Matter of Sunderland,*NYLJ, May 31, 1989, at 27, col 1; Turano, Supplementary Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 58A, SCPA 1405, 1991 Pocket Part, at 70).

After conducting SCPA 1404 examinations of the subscribing witnesses and a deposition of the will’s attorney-draftsman, the objectants moved for summary judgment, thus staying further discovery in the case. We find it only fair that the proponents be granted an equal opportunity for discovery *(see, Matter of King,*16 AD2d 614). At the conclusion of further discovery, the parties may renew their motions. Thompson, J. P., Brown, Miller and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
#### Herman JACKSON, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, Respondent.

No. 70-673.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 21, 1970.

Habeas corpus denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4145 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4145

To require the Attorney General and the Secretary of State to designate 
  Ireland as a pilot program country for purposes of the visa waiver 
                             pilot program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 24, 1994

  Mr. McCloskey (for himself, Mr. Machtley, Mr. Moakley, Mr. Neal of 
 Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, Mr. Schumer, 
  Mr. Quinn, Mr. Walsh, Mr. Applegate, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Conyers, Mr. 
    Coyne, Mr. Gilman, Mrs. Maloney, Mr. Manton, and Ms. Molinari) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the Attorney General and the Secretary of State to designate 
  Ireland as a pilot program country for purposes of the visa waiver 
                             pilot program.

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

SECTION 1. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.

    The Congress finds that--
            (1) Ireland and the United States have close cultural and 
        historical ties;
            (2) citizens of Ireland who have entered the United States 
        on nonimmigrant visas have demonstrated exemplary overstay 
        rates of 0.08 percent in 1992 and 1.2 percent in 1991;
            (3) the overstay rates of citizens of Ireland who enter the 
        United States on nonimmigrant visas are comparable to the 
        overstay rates of citizens of the Western European countries 
        that are currently designated as pilot program countries for 
        purposes of the visa waiver pilot program described in section 
        217 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1187); and
            (4) citizens of the United States are able to enter Ireland 
        without obtaining nonimmigrant visas, while citizens of Ireland 
        do not receive the same privilege regarding entry into the 
        United States.

SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF IRELAND AS VISA WAIVER PILOT PROGRAM COUNTRY.

    (a) In General.--The Attorney General and the Secretary of State 
shall jointly designate Ireland as a pilot program country under 
section 217(c)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
1187(c)(1)) for purposes of the visa waiver pilot program described in 
section 217 of such Act.
    (b) Requirements Applicable to Continuing Qualification.--The 
provisions of section 217(c)(3)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act (8 U.S.C. 1187(c)(3)(A)) shall apply to the qualification of 
Ireland for designation as a pilot program country for each fiscal year 
after the fiscal year for which the designation required by subsection 
(a) is made.

                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21
                                                                      ----------

SUBSIDIARIES OF CITATION CORPORATION              STATE OF ORGANIZATION

Berlin Foundry Corporation                             Wisconsin
Bohn Aluminum, Inc.                                    Indiana
Camden Casting Center, Inc.                            Tennessee
Castwell Products, Inc.                                Illinois
Citation Automotive Sales Corp.                        Michigan
Citation Precision, Inc.                               California
Citation Castings, Inc.                                Alabama
Custom Products Corporation                            Wisconsin 
Dycast, Inc.                                           Delaware 
Hi-Tech, Inc.                                          Indiana  
Interstate Southwest, Ltd.                             Texas    
Interstate Forging Industries, Inc.                    Wisconsin 
Iroquois Foundry Corporation                           Wisconsin 
ISW Texas Corporation (subsidiary of Interstate
       Forging Industries, Inc.                        Delaware
Mabry Foundry Company, Ltd.                            Texas
Mansfield Foundry Corporation                          Ohio
Oberdorfer Industries Corp.                            New York
Southern Aluminum Castings Company                     Alabama
Texas Foundries, Ltd.                                  Texas
Texas Steel Corporation                                Texas
TSC Texas Corporation                                  Delaware
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 407 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 407

 To amend title 2, United States Code, to provide that an increase in 
    the rate of pay for Members of Congress may not go into effect 
        following a budget deficit in the preceding fiscal year.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 5, 1993

 Mr. Stearns introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                   Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 2, United States Code, to provide that an increase in 
    the rate of pay for Members of Congress may not go into effect 
        following a budget deficit in the preceding fiscal year.

    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 ``Deficit Accountability Act of 
1993.''

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION AGAINST INCREASES IN THE RATE OF PAY FOR MEMBERS OF 
              CONGRESS FOLLOWING A BUDGET DEFICIT.

    (a) Prohibition Against Increases in the Rate of Pay for Members of 
Congress Following a Budget Deficit.--Section 31 of title 2, United 
States Code, is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``and limited by 
        paragraph (3)'' after ``paragraph (2)''; and
            (2) by inserting at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(3) Except as provided in paragraph (2), an increase in 
        the rate of pay for Members of Congress pursuant to paragraph 
        (1) may not go into effect if the Director of the Office of 
        Management and Budget has determined that there was a deficit, 
        as that term is defined in section 3 of the Congressional 
        Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), for the preceding 
        fiscal year.''.
    (b) Prohibition Against Increases in Rate of Pay Prior to the 
Initial Determination by the Office of Management and Budget.--Except 
as provided in paragraph (2) of section 31 of title 2, United States 
Code, an increase in the rate of pay for Members of Congress pursuant 
to paragraph (1) of section 31 of title 2, United States Code, may not 
go into effect during the period beginning on the date of enactment of 
this Act and ending on the date of the initial determination by the 
Director of the Office of Management and Budget after enactment of this 
Act as to whether a deficit, as that term is defined in section 3 of 
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), existed 
for the prior fiscal year.

                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1

AMERICAN REALTY CAPITAL PROPERITES, INC.

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-Q/A of American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. (the Company) for the
fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2014 (the Report), I, William G. Stanley, Interim Chief Executive Officer and Interim Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Company, certify to my knowledge, 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, 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.



|                    |  |  |  |     |  |                                                                               
|------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 2, 2015 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ William G. Stanley                                                        
|                    |  |  |  |     |  | William G. Stanley                                                            
|                    |  |  |  |     |  | Interim Chief Executive Officer and Interim Chairman of the Board of Directors

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.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4065 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4065

 To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to make adjustments in the 
calculation of need for student assistance for dislocated workers, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 17, 1994

 Mr. Johnston of Florida (for himself, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Martinez, Mrs. 
   Unsoeld, Mr. Gene Green of Texas, and Ms. Woolsey) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and 
                                 Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to make adjustments in the 
calculation of need for student assistance for dislocated workers, and 
                          for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO THE HIGHER EDUCATION ACT OF 1965.

    Section 480(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 is amended by 
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
    ``(3) Income in the case of a dislocated worker shall be the income 
for the year for which the determination is made. For the purpose of 
this paragraph, a dislocated worker is a worker identified under title 
III of the Job Training Partnership Act.''.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendment made by the section 1 shall be effective with respect 
to determinations of need for assistance for periods of enrollment 
beginning on or after January 1, 1995.

                                 <all>
```
#### F.L. Mitchell Corp., Appellant, v John K. Sheets et al., Defendants, and Marine Midland Bank, Respondent.

? Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly rejected plaintiffs argument that Marine Midland Bank’s priority interest should be subordinated to plaintiffs subsequently-filed mechanic’s lien because Marine Midland Bank violated section 22 of the Lien Law. The borrower’s affidavit accompanying the first building loan contract explicitly provides that the net sum available to the borrower for the improvement is consequently, plaintiff was apprised that no funds from the proceeds of the first loan were available for improvements to the property located at 2620 W. Henrietta Rd., Rochester *(see, Nanuet Natl. Bank v Eckerson Terrace,*47 NY2d 243, 247). We have examined plaintiffs remaining contention and find it to be without merit. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Rosenbloom, J.—Dismiss Affirmative Defenses.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Denman, Pine and Lawton, JJ.
#### Leonard R. LANGLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. U-22.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 11, 1974.

Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender; and David J. Busch, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and A. S. Johnston, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Upon a jury verdict, Langley was convicted of the following crimes: (1) breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny; (2) larceny of firearms; and (3) possession of burglary tools. The trial court imposed three consecutive sentences of six months to fifteen years; hence this appeal by Langley.

Langley’s primary defense at trial to each of the offenses was that of entrapment. He now asserts that the trial court erred in denying a motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of his case as the evidence clearly showed he was entrapped. The transcript of testimony reflects that an informant advised a Duval County deputy sheriff that the informant’s cohorts, including Langley, planned to burglarize a place of business in Marion County on a night certain. A stakeout by law enforcement officers resulted in the apprehension of Langley and his companions in the act of perpetrating the crimes. Langley insists that his story that he was enticed by the informant into participating in the criminal activities coupled with the admission by one of the police officers that the informant also participated in the criminal episode, shows entrapment as a matter of law. However, a review of the record reveals that there was conflicting evidence on the issue of entrapment. Under such circumstances, the question of entrapment was properly submitted to the jury. State v. Rouse, 239 So.2d 79 (Fla.App. 4th 1970).

Appellant’s second point on appeal, viz: “The trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences for the offenses of breaking and entering with intent to com*614mit a felony, larceny of firearms, and possession of burglary tools since each count involved a facet or phase of the same criminal act” is meritable. The state, with commendable candor, admits that in light of the recent Supreme Court’s opinion rendered in Foster v. State, 286 So.2d 549 (Fla.1973), the sentence imposed for the highest offense should be allowed to stand and the lesser sentences be vacated. The sentences imposed by the trial court upon Langley for committing the crimes of larceny of firearms and possession of burglary tools are vacated and set aside. The sentence of 6 months to 14 years imposed by the trial court upon Langley for committing the crime of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony is affirmed without the necessity of bringing Langley before the trial court for resentencing. Johnson v. State, 260 So.2d 212 (1 Fla.App. 1st 1972).

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

RAWLS, C. J., and SPECTOR and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .mil** .mil
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS** lock () https://


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            Defense Finance and Accounting Service
                    Providing payment services for the U.S. Department of Defense
                Defense Finance and Accounting Service
        Search
                    Search Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS):
                        Search
                Search Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS):
                    Search
    Military Member

    Retired Military & Annuitant

    Civilian Employee

    Contractor & Vendor  Home
  foia
  Freedom of Information Act Overview
 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) OverviewInformation Required to Conduct a SearchExpedited Processing and FeesSubmit a FOIA RequestFrequently Asked Questions
 Privacy Act (PA) OverviewSubmit a Privacy Act RequestSystem of Records Notices (SORN)Privacy Impact Assessments (PIA)Frequently Asked Questions
 Other FOIA Information Subpoenas & Court OrdersRequest Records on behalf of an Individual other than YourselfState AgenciesPublic Liaison/Contact UsReading Room
 OVERVIEW OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) The Freedom of Information Act, **5 U.S. Code § 552** FOIA Exemptions and Exclusions,     ARE NOT REQUIRED TO   **Electronic Reading Room**  FOIA is a vehicle for requesting federal agency records; however, it **DOES NOT SUPERSEDE** The Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S. Code § 552a (as amended)which states, “No agency shall disclose **any** **record**, which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains, unless disclosure is pursuant to the 12 Statutory Exemptions.”
    
   However, the DoD Privacy Act Program (DoD 5400.11-R) provides that **certain** **personal** **information** such as gross base pay, High-3, length of service, etc., may be disclosed to third parties without consent from the individual to whom the information pertains. ANY **National Archives and Records Administration****.**  **Click on the Image to access the page** 
 **INFORMATION
   REQUIRED TO
   CONDUCT
   A SEARCH**
   **EXPEDITED
   PROCESSING
   AND FEES**
   **SUBMIT A
   FOIA REQUEST**
   **FREQUENTLY
   ASKED
   QUESTIONS**
 Stay Connected
                
                
                Department of Defense     Department of Veterans Affairs     Military Employment Verification     Warrior Care Website     Defense Contract Mgmt Agency  DoD Forms   
 Department of State    Civilian Personnel Mgmt Service   DTS Travel Center     System for Award Mgmt (SAM)   Congressional/LegislationPersonnel Force Innovation     Freedom of Information Act     DFAS Hotline   Contact Us     Accessibility / Section 508    EEO / No Fear Act
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Allen J. Berning, Chief Executive Officer of Pemstar Inc. (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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (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: June 22, 2006    
|                       
|/s/ Allen J. Berning   
|Allen J. Berning       
|Chief Executive Officer