alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
----

----

| (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. |

|   | By:                    | /s/ Jacob Bar-Shalom                          |   |
|--------|------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |                   | Jacob Bar-ShalomChief Financial Officer  |   |
|   | Dated: August 14, 2012 |                                          |

----

----
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

N o. 04

- 18

- 00053

- CV

Roy WATTERS

, Appellant

v.

Mike LOPEZ and Tiffany Liesman,

Appellees

From the 198th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas

Trial Court No. 16616B

Honorable Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: March 21, 2018

DISMISSED

Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. The motion shows appellee s received

a copy of the motion, and appell ees have not opposed the motion. Therefore, we grant the motion

and dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1). Costs of the appeal are taxed against

appellant.

PER CURIAM
EXHIBIT 32.1

                   CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                  GWIN, INC.
                      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

     I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Annual Report on
Form 10-KSB of GWIN, Inc. for the period ending July 31, 2005:

     (1) 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 aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of GWIN,
Inc.



/s/ Wayne Allyn Root
Wayne Allyn Root
Chief Executive Officer
October 28, 2005




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to GWIN, Inc. and will be
retained by GWIN, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission upon request.
#### Goodman et al., Appellants, *v.*R-W Realty Company, Inc.

Argued October 4, 1934.

Before Trexler, P. J., Keller, Cunningham, Balurige, S'tadteeld, Parker and James, JJ.

*241
      *D. Arthur Magaziner*of *Mayer, Magaziner met Brunswick,*for appellants.

*E. Stanley Richardson*of *Middleton, Blakeley & Richardson,*for appellee.

November 22, 1934:

Per Curiam,

The judgment of the lower court is affirmed upon the opinion of Judge Heiligman.
EXHIBIT 32


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the
undersigned officer of Bristol Rhace Natural Resource
Corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify to my knowledge that:

The Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31,
2012 of the Company fully complies, in all material respects,
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the
Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

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.


                             /s/ David Wooldridge
                                 Chief Executive Officer
                                 Chief Financial Officer
Date: May 15, 2012
Exhibit 32.2 Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2016 (the Report) of GSV Capital Corp. (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, William Tanona, the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that: (1)

          The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (2)

          The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant. /s/ William TanonaName: William Tanona Date:  August 9, 2016
#### In the Matter of Joe Lewis, Petitioner, v Thomas A. Coughlin, III, as Commissioner of the Department of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents.

Mercure, J.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by. order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner, an inmate at Auburn Correctional Facility in Cayuga County, was charged with use of a controlled substance in violation of State-wide rule 113.12 *(see,*7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [14] [iii]). At a tier III disciplinary hearing, the results of two separate EMIT tests were received, each positive for the presence of cocaine metabolite in a sample of petitioner’s urine which was secured at the conclusion of a family reunion program visit with his wife *(see,*7 NYCRR 1020.4 [a] [2] [ii]). Petitioner was found guilty of the charge, punishment was imposed and, following administrative review, petitioner brought this proceeding to annul the determination, which was transferred to this court pursuant to CPLR 7804 (g).

Initially, we reject the claim that respondents failed to establish a sufficient chain of custody of the urine sample. Testimony given by petitioner and another inmate that the sample was left unattended in a nonsecure area for a short period of time was contradicted by testimony of Correction Officer M. Morabito and merely provided a credibility issue which the Hearing Officer was free to resolve against petitioner *(see, Matter of Abreu v Coughlin,*157 AD2d 1028, 1029). The chain of custody information set forth on the urinalysis forms provided a sufficient foundation for their admission *(see, Matter of Berrios v Kuhlmann,*143 AD2d 475, 477; *Matter of Price v Coughlin,*116 AD2d 898, 899).

We also reject the contention that respondents did not follow appropriate testing procedures. The testimony of Correction Officers A. Zentner and R. Cotter, together with their completed urinalysis procedure forms, established compliance with the relevant provisions of 7 NYCRR part 1020, including *890the requirement that new positive and negative control tests be run prior to the second urinalysis test *(see,*7 NYCRR 1020.4 [e] [1] [iv]).

Nor is there merit to the contention that petitioner was deprived of his right to present witnesses and documentary evidence. There is no evidence in the record to support the claim that requested inmate witnesses were intimidated into refusing to testify, and petitioner’s request to introduce character evidence was properly denied *(see, Matter of White v Scully,*156 AD2d 942). Finally, we find no error in respondents’ refusal to provide petitioner with the quarterly proficiency report, which was neither probative of nor material to petitioner’s defense *(see, Matter of Berrios v Kuhlmann, supra).*

Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Levine, Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur.
----

Action brought on 3 December 2004 by Impala against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-464/04)

(2005/C 6/91)

Language of the case: English

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 3 December 2004 by Impala, Brussels (Belgium), represented by S. Crosby and J.Golding, Solicitors.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is an international association with the purpose of promoting the general interests of its members, which are independent music companies. It requests the annulment of the Commission's decision approving the merger between the global recorded music businesses of Bertelsmann AG and Sony Corporation of America.

In support of its application it submits that in authorising the merger the Commission violated Article 253 EC, Article 81 paragraph 1 EC, Regulation 4064/89 (1) as well as the rules of law governing their application and committed manifest errors of assessment:

----

(1)  OJ L 395, p. 1

----
#### AMERICAN SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. C. John GIBSON, Lewis E. Young, and Bonneville Industries, Inc., Defendants and Appellants.

No. 900264.

Supreme Court of Utah.

June 15, 1992.

*798Gretta C. Spendlove, Mary Anne Q. Wood, Salt Lake City, for American Sav. & Loan Ass’n.

Marcus B. Theodore, Marcus G. Theodore, Gerald M. Conder, Salt Lake City, for Bonneville Industries.

PER CURIAM:

The district court judge granted partial summary judgment against defendant Bonneville Industries, Inc. (“Bonneville”), holding that Bonneville was liable as guarantor of a loan to C. John Gibson. The trial court reserved the question of damages on the guarantee claim against Bonneville and made no determinations as to the claims against the other defendants in the case. Bonneville appeals.

Because only a portion of the claims against Bonneville was resolved by the trial court’s ruling, the question of the remedy remaining to be determined, we find that the summary judgment ruling failed to dispose completely of either a claim or a party as required by rule 54(b). Therefore, the order is not final and cannot be appealed to this court. *See*Utah R.Civ.P. 54(b); *Pate v. Marathon Steel Co.,*692 P.2d 765, 768-69 (Utah 1984).

Because we are without jurisdiction, we dismiss this appeal.

STEWART, J., concurs in the result.
#### Jaime GUERRERO, Appellant, v. Charles HORN, Appellee.

No. 78,516.

Court of Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 3.

Aug. 25, 1992.

Teresa A. Rendon, Stan L. Foster, Oklahoma City, for appellant,

Charles Horn, pro se.

HUNTER, Judge:

Appellant sued Appellee for $2,770.00 in unpaid wages owed him from his employment as a farm worker from January 1, 1990 through January 5, 1991. Appellant also sought liquidated damages pursuant to 40 O.S.Supp.1982 § 165.3(B) in an amount equal to the wages due for Appel-lee’s failure to pay wages when due. The trial court awarded Appellant judgment in *936the amount of $2,770.00, plus attorney’s fees and costs, but denied liquidated damages. This appeal followed.

Appellant alleges the language of Section 165.3(B) mandated an award for liquidated damages upon Appellee’s failure to pay unpaid wages when due. No transcript or narrative statement of the proceedings was made and Appellee filed no answer brief on appeal. Where no answer brief is filed and the omission is unexcused, this Court is not obligated to search the record for some theory to affirm the judgment and will ordinarily reverse the appealed judgment if the appellant’s brief is reasonably supportive of the allegations of error. *Matter of Mullins,*606 P.2d 573 (Okl.1980).

Section 165.3(A) requires an employer to pay an employee’s wages in full upon termination by the next regular pay period. The trial court found Appellee failed to pay Appellant unpaid wages when due. It appears that despite Appellant’s repeated demands for payment over an extended period of time, Appellee refused payment.

Section 165.3(B) provides in pertinent part:

> If an employer fails to pay an employee wages as required under subsection A of this section, such employer *shall*be additionally liable to the employee for liquidated damages in the amount of two percent *(2%)*of the unpaid wages for each day upon which such failure shall continue after the day upon which payment is required; or in an amount equal to the unpaid wages, whichever is smaller; ... (Emphasis ours.)

Although we find no case law interpreting this provision, it is clear that the usage of the word “shall” connotes a mandatory duty and must be given a compulsory meaning. *TIB Corp. v. Edmondson,*630 P.2d 1296 (Okl.1981); *Smith v. State Board of Equalization,*630 P.2d 1264 (Okl.1981). Appellee clearly was liable for liquidated damages under Section 165.3(B) and the trial court erred in failing to award liquidated damages to Appellant in the amount equal to the judgment. Appellant’s brief is reasonably supportive of his allegation of error. The trial court’s judgment awarding Appellant $2,770.00, plus attorney’s fees and costs is affirmed. The portion of the judgment denying liquidated damages is hereby reversed and this matter is remanded with instructions to enter judgment in Appellant’s favor for an additional $2,770.00, representing liquidated damages pursuant to Section 165.3(B).

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

HANSEN, V.C.J., and BAILEY, P.J. concur.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 167 (Tuesday, August 28, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43862-43863]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18603]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural 
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP18-1066-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: TCO MXP August Agreement 
Filing to be effective 9/18/2018.
    Filed Date: 8/20/18.
    Accession Number: 20180820-5000.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/4/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-1067-000.
    Applicants: WBI Energy Transmission, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 2018 Negotiated Rate Filing SA 
IT-836 to be effective 9/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 8/21/18.
    Accession Number: 20180821-5030.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/4/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-1068-000.
    Applicants: Colorado Interstate Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: 2018 Penalties Assessed Compliance Filing.
    Filed Date: 8/20/18.
    Accession Number: 20180820-5186.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/4/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-1069-000.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates--PAL 
Agreements to be effective 8/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 8/21/18.
    Accession Number: 20180821-5089.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/4/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-1070-000.
    Applicants: ANR Pipeline Company.

[[Page 43863]]

    Description: Compliance filing Request for Waiver Grand Chenier.
    Filed Date: 8/21/18.
    Accession Number: 20180821-5111.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/28/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by 
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above 
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be 
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the 
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing 
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying 
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 
(toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: August 22, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-18603 Filed 8-27-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Charles Palumino, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.), rendered March 22, 1988, convicting him of robbery in the second degree and assault in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the verdict sheet submitted to the jury deprived him of a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law since he failed to object to its submission *(see, People v Martinez,*150 AD2d 612; *People v Ribowsky,*156 AD2d 726) and we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction, given the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt *(see, People v*
      *569
      *Mathis,*150 AD2d 613; *People v McKenzie,*148 AD2d 472). Thompson, J. P., Eiber, Balletta and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
#### Sheila B. Goldberg, Respondent, v Barton L. Goldberg, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carmen Ciparick, J.), entered on October 17, 1989, after a non-jury trial, which, *inter alia,*granted plaintiff a divorce on the grounds of cruel and inhuman treatment and granted plaintiff a distributive award, in the sum of $1,855,123.62, on account of the Goldberg Family Trust, the Goldberg Trust Fund, and the Alpine Country Club Bond, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The parties, age 61 and 66, were married 27 years at the time they separated in 1985. The parties maintained a luxurious standard of living, in part, as a result of the defendant’s sale in 1982 of his substantial ownership position in Amtex, Inc., as well as due to the non-monetary contributions of the plaintiff, a relatively well known Tony Award winning stage and television actress, who gave up her acting career to perform homemaking and child rearing services which contributed to the defendant’s successful career.

After a lengthy trial, the court found that the plaintiff had established that, during the marriage, she was a significant contributor in the accumulation of marital property and that the defendant had deliberately dissipated marital funds and secreted marital assets through the conveyance of those assets to the aforementioned various trusts and *alter ego*corporations. These entities served as the defendant’s personal *317"pocket book”, thereby necessitating a distributive award to the plaintiff of her share of the marital property, in lieu of equitable distribution, so as to achieve an equitable result in the distribution of that property.

The dissipation or secreting of marital assets constitutes a form of "economic fault” which should be considered in making an equitable distribution *(Contino v Contino,*140 AD2d 6621.

We find that the court’s determination as to whether the marital property should be physically distributed or a distributive award made in lieu thereof was not an abuse of discretion and should therefore not be disturbed. *(Majauskas v Majauskas,*61 NY2d 481; *Day v Day,*152 AD2d 827.)

Similarly, we find no abuse of discretion by the trial court in determining that the plaintiff was entitled to retain certain items of jewelry in her possession valued at $43,000 as her separate property, was entitled to exclusive possession of the marital rental apartment at Tudor City Place and the rights thereto, and in directing the defendant to pay the plaintiff $12,500 per month as maintenance. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Kupferman and Smith, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

         In connection with the quarterly report of First Titan Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Robert Tatar, President of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS. 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.

June 15, 2011                          /s/ Robert Tatar
                                       ----------------
                                       Robert Tatar, President, Principal
                                       Executive Officer, Principal Financial
                                       and Accounting officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
----

Appeal brought on 28 January 2005 (fax: 25 January 2005) by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) against the judgment delivered on 10 November 2004 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance in Case T-164/02 between Kaul GmbH and Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Bayer AG)

(Case C-29/05 P)

(2005/C 82/23)

Language of the case: German

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 10 November 2004 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-164/02 between Kaul GmbH and Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 28 January 2005 (fax: 25 January 2005) by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), represented by Alexander von Mühlendahl, Vice President of the Office, and Gregor Schneider, a member of the Industrial Property Litigation Unit, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM having been Bayer AG.

The appellant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

----
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 22

- 00125

- CR

Gary Garcia v. The State of Texas
On Appeal from the 24th District Court of De Witt County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 20

- 02

- 13,263

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this ca use on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed

. T he Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. August 11, 2022