alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Florence M. Caramante, Appellant-Respondent, v Jerome J. Caramante, Respondent-Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: On appeal, plaintiff challenges those portions of a divorce decree that found that there is a valid separation agreement between the parties, declined to award plaintiff any portion of defendant’s pension, refused to award her maintenance of more than $300 per month, and refused to award her counsel fees of more than $1,200. On his cross appeal, defendant challenges those *1017portions of the decree that awarded plaintiff maintenance and counsel fees in any amount.

Based upon our review of the testimony and documentary evidence, we agree with the court’s determination that there is a valid separation agreement. Because the agreement by its terms resolved the economic issues and because there is no challenge to the fairness of the agreement when entered into, the agreement precludes any property distribution contrary to its provisions *(see,*Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [3]; *Christian v Christian,*42 NY2d 63). Moreover, where the parties have fully settled their respective rights in the marital property by executing a separation agreement prior to the effective date of the equitable distribution statute, the marital property is not subject to equitable distribution *(De Jose v De Jose,*104 AD2d 629, 630, *affd*66 NY2d 804). Therefore, the separation agreement precludes any claim by plaintiff to part of defendant’s pension rights *(De Jose v De Jose, supra).*

The court properly awarded plaintiff maintenance of $300 per month. In entering into the separation agreement, plaintiff did not waive her claim for support. On the contrary, defendant agreed to pay $60 per week as support for both plaintiff and the children. In any event, plaintiff is entitled to maintenance in the amount required to satisfy her basic needs based upon her showing that she is unable to be self-supporting and is in danger of becoming a public charge *(McMains v McMains,*15 NY2d 283, 284-285).

Finally, we affirm the award of attorney’s fees to plaintiff in the amount of $1,200. (Appeals from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Maas, J.H.O.—Divorce.) Present—Den-man, J. P., Green, Balio, Lowery and Davis, JJ.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, John M. Davenport, certify that:

1.     I have reviewed this annualreport on Form 10-K of Fiberstars, Inc.;

2.     Based on my knowledge, thisreport does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

3.     Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;

4.     The registrant’s othercertifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)     Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisannual report is being prepared;

b)     Evaluated the effectivenessof the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

c)     Disclosed in this report anychange in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

5.     The registrant’s othercertifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):

a)     All significant deficienciesand material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

b)     Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
| Date: March 31, 2006 | By:    |   | /s/ JOHN M. DAVENPORT     |
|---------------------------|--------|--------|---------------------------|
|                      |   |   | John M. Davenport         |
|                      |   |   | *Chief Executive Officer* |

 

----
- BL_Netherlands 07-02-1948, amended 09-24 and 10-07-1952, entered into force 10-08-1952
Exhibit 32.2



Certification of
Principal Financial OfficerPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Bridgeway Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
January 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Keri B.
Bosch, 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 results of operations of the Company.

|Date: March 22, 2011 |                                                         | /s/ Keri B. Bosch
|-------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------- | -----------------
|                     | Name: Keri B. Bosch
        Principal Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jose Hernandez-Flores, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward McLaughlin, J.), rendered December 12, 1988, convicting defendant, on his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an indeter*160mínate term of imprisonment of 10 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant, charged with various counts of criminal sale and possession of a controlled substance, offered to plead guilty to the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree in full satisfaction of the indictment, in exchange for a promised sentence of 10 years to life. In accepting defendant’s plea, the Court erroneously stated that if defendant proceeded to trial he would receive a maximum sentence of 87-10 years to life, whereas that maximum sentence was 75 years to life. Even so, the Court correctly stated that a statutory limit of 50 years to life applied.

Initially, we note that the Court’s misstatement could not have affected defendant’s decision to plead guilty. First, because it was made after defendant had agreed to the terms of the plea bargain, and second, because the Court correctly informed defendant of the aggregate effective sentence which would apply by operation of law. In any event, the error would not warrant reversal *(People v Provosty,*141 AD2d 867, *lv denied*72 NY2d 960). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Ross and Rubin, JJ.
PETITION	FOR	EXMEPTION TO	FLY	UNMANNED	AIRCRAFT
BY:		DULLE
- NOTED	REAL	ESTATE	SERVICE PO	BOX	508,	SANDY,	UTAH	894091 (801)	381
- 7445 PILOTS	:		MATTHEW	DULLE	&	PHILLIP	DULLE REGARDING	THE	UNMANNED	AIRCRAFT	SYSTEM 1. The	Company	wi ll	use	the	DJI	Phantom	2	Quadcopter		(See	Attached Features	and	Specifications). The	UA	will	be	used	to	photograph	and	video	Real	Estate	Properties	and Nearby	Community	Features. 2. The	Pilots	will	have	a	pilot	in	command	an d	a	spotter	to	look	for	probl ems that	would	create	a	safety	hazard.		Pre
- Flight	inspections	of	the	UA	for	Fully Charged	Battery,	Undamaged	Prop ellers	and	any	other	problem	in the structure	of	the	UA.		Upon	Engine	start	the	UA	is	risen	to	about	6	ft		in	a	hover mode	to	verify	all	safet y	lights	are	in	the	green.			(See		attached	Flight Manual) 3. The	Radio	Frequency used	for	control	is	2.4	GHz	ISM. REGARDING	THE	UNMANNED	AIRCRAFT	PIC 4. Phillip	Dulle	holds	a	Commercial	Pilot	Certificate	with	an	Instrument	rating for	Single	Engine	Land,	Sea, and	Glider.		He	has	in	the	Past	been	a	CFI.		He	has over	1200	hours	PIC	flight	time.		He	has	retired	from	flying	and	no	longer	has a	medical	certificate.		He	has	been	flying	the	UA	for	about	2	years. Matthew	Dulle	was	taught	by	Phillip	Dulle	to	fly	the	UA and	now	has	about	2 year	of	flying	experience. 5. Neither	pilot	has	an	FAA	medical	Certificate. REGARDING	THE	OPERATION	OF	THE	UNMANNED	AIRCRAFT 6. The	UA	would	never	be	flown	in	the	NAS.		Flights	would	always	be	line	of sight	and	always	below	250	ft	in	altit ude.		A	Safety	Observer	would	assist	the PIC		to	insure	Safety	of	persons	and/or	structures nearby. 7. Maximum	speed	of	less	than	15	m/sec.		and	less	than	250	ft	altitude. Weather	conditions	of	Clear	and	Unlimited	visability	would	always	be adhered	to	sinc e	the	focus	of	the	flight	is	taking	pictures.		Calm	Winds	are also	required	to	get	excellent	photos.Page	2 PETITION	FOR	EXMEPTION TO	FLY	UNMANNED	AIRCRAFT BY:		DULLE
- NOTED	REAL	ESTATE	SERVICE PO	BOX	508,	SANDY,	UTAH	894091 PILOTS	:		M ATTHEW	DULLE	&	PHILLIP	DULLE
9. The	type	of	photography	we	do	is	in	Residential	Areas	and	never	on	or	near an airport	or	its	surrounding	flight	paths	for	takeoff	and	landing. 10.			The	DJI	UA	will	always	be	flown	in	VLOS	since	o ur	mission	is	ph otogra phy of	Real Estate	properties	that	require	close	proximity	photos. 11.		See	attached	UA	User/Flight	guide. 12.		N/A 13.		Will	not	be	conducting	flight	operations	in	the	NAS.

_____________________________ ____________________________ Phillip	Dulle Matthew	Dulle
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Robert York Pettit, Jeffrey York Pettit, 

Individually and as Trustee of the Big Horn 

Phalanx Trust, Joseph Austin Pettit and 

Emily Anne Pettit Covey, Appellants

No. 06-19-00002-CV v.

Marilyn Eileen Pettit Tabor, Appellee

Appeal from the 8th District Court of Delta 

County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 10985). 

Memorandum Opinion delivered by Chief 

Justice Morriss, Justice Burgess and Justice 

Stevens participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We further order that the appellants pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED JANUARY 15, 2020

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Monroe Capital
Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Theodore L. Koenig, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
and I, Aaron D. Peck, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to our knowledge:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 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: August 8, 2017



| | /s/ Theodore L. Koenig                                        
| | --------------------------------------------------------------
| | Theodore L. Koenig                                            
| | Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Director                
| | (Principal Executive Officer)                                 
| | Monroe Capital Corporation                                    
| |                                                               
| | /s/ Aaron D. Peck                                             
| | Aaron D. Peck                                                 
| | Chief Financial Officer, Chief Investment Officer and Director
| | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)                  
| | Monroe Capital Corporation
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 March 31, 2017 (the Report) of Solar Senior Capital Ltd. (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, RICHARD
L. PETEKA, 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/    RICHARD L.
PETEKA
|Name: |  | Richard L. Peteka       
|Date: |  | May 2, 2017
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Antonio Herman, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rene Uviller, J.), rendered on April 27, 1989, convicting defendant upon a plea of guilty of attempted murder in the second degree and sentencing defendant to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of five to ten years, unanimously affirmed.

We are unpersuaded that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh or severe. Taking into account, "among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction”, we perceive no abuse of discretion warranting a reduction in sentence. *(People v Farrar,*52 NY2d 302, 305.)

Further, defendant was sentenced in accordance with his plea bargain and with statutory guidelines. "Having received the benefit of his bargain, defendant should be bound by its terms.” *(People v Felman,*141 AD2d 889, 890, *lv denied*72 NY2d 918.) Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Kupferman, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.
----

----

I Tiedonantoja

Komissio

----

Euron kurssi (1)

11. helmikuuta 2005

(2005/C 37/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Lähde: Euroopan keskuspankin ilmoittama viitekurssi.

----

----

Ilmoitus Amerikan yhdysvaltojen hallituksen ja Euroopan yhteisön välisen toimistolaitteiden energiatehokkuutta osoittavia merkintöjä koskevien ohjelmien yhteensovittamista koskevan sopimuksen mukaisten hallintoyksiköiden tekemän, näyttöjä koskevat vaatimukset sisältävän liitteessä C olevan II osan tarkistamista koskevan päätöksen allekirjoittamisesta

(2005/C 37/02)

Amerikan yhdysvaltojen hallituksen ja Euroopan yhteisön välisen toimistolaitteiden energiatehokkuutta osoittavia merkintöjä koskevien ohjelmien yhteensovittamista koskevan sopimuksen mukaisten hallintoyksiköiden päätös näyttöjä koskevat vaatimukset sisältävän liitteessä C olevan II osan tarkistamisesta (1) allekirjoitettiin Yhdysvaltain ympäristönsuojeluviraston puolesta 29 päivänä joulukuuta 2004 ja Euroopan yhteisön puolesta 14 päivänä tammikuuta 2005.

----

(1)EUVL L 20, 22.1.2005, s. 24.

----

----

Ilmoitetun keskittymän vastustamatta jättäminen

(Asia COMP/M.3558 — CYTEC/UCB — SURFACE SPECIALTIES)

(2005/C 37/03)

(ETA:n kannalta merkityksellinen teksti)

Komissio päätti 17. joulukuuta 2004 olla vastustamatta edellä mainittua keskittymää ja julistaa, että se soveltuu yhteismarkkinoille. Päätös perustuu neuvoston asetuksen (EY) N:o 139/2004 6 artiklan 2 kohtaan. Päätöksen koko teksti on saatavissa vain englannin kielellä, ja se julkistetaan sen jälkeen, kun siitä on poistettu kaikki sen mahdollisesti sisältämät liikesalaisuudet. Se on saatavissa:

----

----

Uudelleenilmoitus aikaisemmin ilmoitetusta yrityskeskittymästä

(Asia COMP/M.3686 — HONEYWELL/NOVAR)

(2005/C 37/04)

(ETA:n kannalta merkityksellinen teksti)

----

(1)EUVL L 24, 29.1.2004, s. 1.

----

III Tiedotteita

Komissio

----

F-Castres: Säännöllisen lentoliikenteen harjoittaminen

Ranskan järjestämä neuvoston asetuksen (ETY) N:o 2408/92 4 artiklan 1 kohdan d alakohdan mukainen tarjouskilpailu säännöllisen lentoliikenteen harjoittamisesta Castres'n (Mazamet), Rodez'n (Marcillac) ja Lyonin (Saint-Exupéry) välillä

(2005/C 37/05)

(ETA:n kannalta merkityksellinen teksti)

----
#### In the Matter of John Davison et al., Petitioners, v J. Robert Houston, as Judge of the County Court of Livingston County, et al., Respondents.

Petition unanimously dismissed without costs. Memorandum: We dismiss the petition in this original CPLR article 78 proceeding commenced by petitioners to prohibit their prosecution on a multicount indictment which charges them with violations of the Environmental Conservation Law. The extraordinary remedy of prohibition lies only where petitioners have established a clear legal right to relief and where the action taken or threatened is clearly without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction *(see, Matter of State of New York v King,*36 NY2d 59, 62) but does not lie, even if there has been an excess of jurisdiction, if, as here, "there is available an adequate remedy, by way of appeal or otherwise” *(Matter of Molea v Marasco,*64 NY2d 718, 720; *see also, Matter of Dondi v Jones,*40 NY2d 8, 14, *rearg denied*39 NY2d 1058; *Matter of State of New York v King, supra,*at 62). In view of our determination, we do not address the merits of the petition. (Original Article 78 Proceeding.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Green and Davis, JJ.
Dismiss and Opinion Filed June 7, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05-13-00597-CR No. 05-13-00604-CR No. 05-13-00605-CR No. 05-13-00606-CR

SAMUEL NEITHER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. F10-00941-M, F10-00942-M, F10-00943-M, F10-00944-M



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Myers and Evans

Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss the appeals. Appellant’s counsel has approved

the motion. The Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS that the appeals be DISMISSED

and that this decision be certifi ed below for observance. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.2(a).

PER CURIAM

Do Not Publish T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47 130597F.U05
# Euroopa Liidu C 222I/2021

| | ISSN 1977-0898 |
| --- | --- |
| Euroopa Liidu
  Teataja | C 222I |
| | |
| Eestikeelne väljaanne | Teave ja teatised | 64. aastakäik11. juuni 2021 |

ISSN 1977-0898

Euroopa Liidu

Teataja

C 222I

Eestikeelne väljaanne

Teave ja teatised

64. aastakäik11. juuni 2021

---

| Sisukord | Lehekülg |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Teatised |
| | EUROOPA LIIDU INSTITUTSIOONIDE, ORGANITE JA ASUTUSTE TEATISED |
| | Nõukogu |
| 2021/C 222 I/01 | Komisjoni avaldus | 1 |

Sisukord

Lehekülg

II   Teatised

EUROOPA LIIDU INSTITUTSIOONIDE, ORGANITE JA ASUTUSTE TEATISED

Nõukogu

2021/C 222 I/01

Komisjoni avaldus

1

---

| ET | |
| --- | --- |

ET

---

II Teatised

EUROOPA LIIDU INSTITUTSIOONIDE, ORGANITE JA ASUTUSTE TEATISED

Nõukogu

| 11.6.2021 | ET | Euroopa Liidu Teataja | CI 222/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2021

ET

Euroopa Liidu Teataja

CI 222/1

---

Komisjoni avaldus

(2021/C 222 I/01)

Komisjon tõdeb, et ELi ekspordikontrollisüsteemi tulemuslikkuse jaoks on lubade andmise ja õigusnormide maksmapaneku vallas vaja ühist suutlikkuse suurendamise ja väljaõppe programmi. Komisjon uurib kahesuguse kasutusega kaupade koordineerimisrühmaga konsulteerides, milliseid inimressursse ja rahalisi vahendeid oleks sellise programmi jaoks vaja, et kaardistada suutlikkuse suurendamise ja väljaõppe programmi kavandamise, tegevusreeglite ja kasutuselevõtu võimalused.

---
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION




Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350




(Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)




In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of SCG Financial Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Byron Sproule, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 results of operations of the Company.




Dated: May 20, 2011

/s/ Michelle SibleyMichelle SibleyChief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary(Principal financial and accounting officer)