alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                                              
<ARTICLE>                                          5
<CIK>                                              0000924875
<NAME>                                  Shearson Mid-West Futures Fund
                                                    
<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                     JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                       DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                                      57,448,807
<SECURITIES>                                                 6,340,737
<RECEIVABLES>                                                  175,495
<ALLOWANCES>                                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                            63,965,039
<PP&E>                                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                              63,965,039
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                        1,182,536
<BONDS>                                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                0
<PREFERRED>                                                          0
<COMMON>                                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                                  62,782,503
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                63,965,039
<SALES>                                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                             5,530,819
<CGS>                                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                             3,563,760
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                              1,967,059
<INCOME-TAX>                                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                      0
<CHANGES>                                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                                 1,967,059
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                    92.64
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                        0
        

</TABLE>
VI 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 595 

For the relief of Shirley Constantino Tan. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 18, 2013 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

For the relief of Shirley Constantino Tan. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR SHIRLEY 

4 CONSTANTINO TAN. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a) 

6 and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality 

7 Act (8 U.S.C. 1151), Shirley Constantino Tan shall be eli8 gible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment 

9 of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for perma10 nent residence upon filing an application for issuance of 

11 an immigrant visa under section 204 of such Act (8 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 595 IS

1 U.S.C. 1154) or for adjustment of status to lawful perma2 nent resident. 

3 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Shirley 

4 Constantino Tan enters the United States before the filing 

5 deadline specified in subsection (c), she shall be considered 

6 to have entered and remained lawfully and shall, if other7 wise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status under 

8 section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 

9 U.S.C. 1255) as of the date of the enactment of this Act. 

10 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

11 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the ap12 plication for issuance of an immigrant visa or the applica13 tion for adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees 

14 within 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

15 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.— 

16 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res17 idence to Shirley Constantino Tan, the Secretary of State 

18 shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by one, during 

19 the current or next following fiscal year, the total number 

20 of immigrant visas that are made available to natives of 

21 the country of the alien’s birth under section 203(a) of 

22 the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)) 

23 or, if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas that 

24 are made available to natives of the country of the alien’s 

25 birth under section 202(e) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(e)). 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 595 IS

1 (e) PAYGO.—The budgetary effects of this Act, for 

2 the purpose of complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You3 Go Act of 2010, shall be determined by reference to the 

4 latest statement titled ‘‘Budgetary Effects of PAYGO 

5 Legislation’’ for this Act, submitted for printing in the 

6 Congressional Record by the Chairman of the Senate 

7 Budget Committee, provided that such statement has been 

8 submitted prior to the vote on passage. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
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, 2014 (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: |  | August 4, 2014
V

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3983

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise

trade for the vessel SUNSHINE.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 8, 1994

Mr. HOYER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Merchant Marine and Fisheries

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a

certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel

SUNSHINE.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine

4 Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), the Act of June 19, 1886

5 (46 App. U.S.C. 289), and section 12106 of title 46,

6 United States Code, the Secretary of Transportation may

7 issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate en8 dorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for the
2

•HR 3983 IH

1 vessel SUNSHINE (United States official number

2 974320).

Æ
Exhibit 31.2  Certification of Principal Financial Officer
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of CPM Holdings, Inc. for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2011;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a.
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b.
    
    [Omitted pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a)];c.
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andd.
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting;
and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 a.
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize
and report financial information; andb.
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting.
  /s/ Douglas OstrichDouglas OstrichChief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER




Pursuant to


Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)




In connection with this Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015 (the "Report") of Garrison Capital Inc. (the "Registrant"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Joseph Tansey, Chief Executive 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/ Joseph Tansey


Joseph Tansey


Chief Executive Officer


May 5, 2015
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION of CEO and CFO 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 FS Energy and Power Fund (the "Company") for the three months ended
September 30, 2013, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Form 10-Q"), Michael C. Forman, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Edward T.
Gallivan, Jr., as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to my knowledge:



Dated:
November 14, 2013

/s/ MICHAEL C. FORMAN Michael C. Forman Chief Executive Officer/s/ EDWARD T. GALLIVAN, JR. Edward T. Gallivan, Jr. Chief Financial Officer


---



QuickLinks
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

______

No. 10-1833

______

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

JOSE J. LOPEZ,

a/k/a

JOSE LOPEZ-JIMENEZ

Jose J. Lopez,

 Appellant

______

No. 10-2415

______

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

PEDRO ESPARZA-DIAZ,

also known as JUAN DIAZ OSEGERA,

also known as JUAN ESPARZA-DIAZ,

also known as JUAN TRUJILLO,

also known as JUAN SANCHEZ

Pedro Esparza-Diaz,

 Appellant

______

No. 10-2518

______

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.
2

PEDRO MANUEL ARRELUCEA-ZAMUDIO,

 Appellant

______

No. 10-2519

______

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

SILVESTRE BRITO-HERNANDEZ,

 Appellant

______

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. Nos. 3-09-cr-00623-001, 1-09-cr-00449-001,

1-08-cr-00136-001 and 1-08-cr-00711-001)

District Judges: Honorable Garrett E. Brown,

Honorable Robert B. Kugler and Honorable Renee M. Bumb

______

Argued April 15, 2011

Before: FISHER, JORDAN and COWEN, Circuit Judges.

______

ORDER AMENDING OPINION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the opinion in the above case, filed June 16, 

2011, be amended as follows:

Page 3, the description of counsel for appellant, Jose J. Lopez, which read:

Lisa Van Hoeck

Office of Federal Public Defender

22 South Clinton Avenue

Station Plaza #4, 4th Floor

Trenton, NJ 08609

Counsel for Appellant,

Jose J. Lopez
3

shall read:

Lisa Van Hoeck (Argued)

Office of Federal Public Defender

22 South Clinton Avenue

Station Plaza #4, 4th Floor

Trenton, NJ 08609

Counsel for Appellant,

Jose J. Lopez

By the Court,

/s/ D. Michael Fisher

Circuit Judge

Dated: June 30, 2011
Opinion filed July 21 , 2011



## In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________



### No. 11

- 05

- 00264

- C V

__________

THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA AND FOUR PART N ERS, LLC D/B/A PRIZM PARTNERS AND D/B/A UNITED

COMMERCIAL PROPERTY SERVICES , Appellant s

V.

ITALIAN COWBOY PARTNERS, LTD., FRANCESCO SECCHI, AND

JANE SECCHI , Appellee s

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC

- 01

- 07465

- C

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N O N R E M A N D
The Prudential Insurance Company of America and Four Part n ers, LLC d / b / a Prizm

Partners and d /

b / a United Commercial Property Services are the appellant s in this appeal. They

have filed a n unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal . In t he motion, appellants state that they
“hereby move this Court to dismiss this appeal. Appellees Italian Cowboy Partners, Ltd.,
Francesco Secchi, and Jane Secchi do not oppose this Motion.”2

Appellants have cited T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(2) as the procedural basis for their
requested dismissal. This specific provision pertains to dismissals by agreement. In this regard,
appellants have not indicated that the requested dismissal is based upo n an agreement nor have
they filed a written settlement agreement with the clerk. Accordingly, we will consider their
requested dismissal pursuant to T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1). Therefore, in accordance with
appellants’ request, we dismiss the appeal.

T he motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

July 21 , 2011
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., McCall, J., and Hill, J. 1

1 John G. Hill, Former Justice, Court of Appeals, 2nd District of Texas at Fort Worth, sitting by assignment.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Frank Gilliam, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The failure of the prosecution to inform the Grand Jury that a knife was found near the body of the victim does not require a dismissal of the indictment. The proper remedy for improper conduct before the Grand Jury is a motion to dismiss the indictment under CPL 210.35 (5) on the ground that that the "proceeding * * * fails to conform to the requirements of article one hundred ninety to such degree that the integrity thereof is impaired and prejudice to the defendant may result.” Not having made such a motion and not having objected on the ground that the integrity of the Grand Jury had been impaired, defendant has failed to preserve that issue for our review. If we were to address that issue, we would hold that it lacks merit. When the case was presented to the Grand Jury, the prosecutor had no indication that self-defense would be in issue and that the presence of the knife was exculpatory. The knife was folded and was found near the victim’s clothing, which had been removed by the paramedics before they removed the body to the ambulance. Defendant did not raise the issue of self-defense until the time of the trial when he withdrew his defense of extreme emotional disturbance. Moreover, "[t]he People generally enjoy wide discretion in presenting their case to the Grand Jury *(People v Rockwell,*97 AD2d 853) and are not obligated to search for evidence favorable to the defense or to present all evidence in their possession that is favorable to the accused *(People v Isla,*96 AD2d 789) even though such information undeniably would allow the Grand Jury to make a more informed determination” *(People v Lancaster,*69 NY2d 20, 25-26, *cert denied*480 US 922). Here, as in *People v Isla*(96 AD2d 789, 789-790, *supra)*and *People v Hill*(122 Misc 2d 895, 897), both cited in *People v Lancaster (supra,*at 26), the defect, if any, was cured by defendant’s offering his justification defense at trial.

The court did not err in communicating to the jury in the presence of counsel, but in the absence of defendant. It was fulfilling an administrative duty when it told the jury that it was sending it certain exhibits. The jury was given no instruction and the communication had no substantial relation to defendant’s opportunity to defend the charges *(see, People v Harris,*76 NY2d 810, 812; *see also, People v Sterling,*141 AD2d 680, 681, *lv denied*73 NY2d 790; *People v Moore,*129 AD2d 590, *lv denied*70 NY2d 651).

*1038We reject defendant’s further contentions that prosecutorial misconduct deprived him of a fair trial and we find no merit in the other contentions made in his main brief and in his supplemental *pro se*brief. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Gorman, J.—Manslaughter, 1st Degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Boomer, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed March 17, 2021

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D21

- 164 Lower Tribunal No s

. 20

- 212 CC , 20

- 128 AP

________________ 

### Certain Underwriters a t Lloyd's, London,

Subscribing t o Policy No. H H 03 61785 , Appellant,

vs. 

### Osberto Jimenez , Appellee.
An Appeal from the County Court for Miami

- Dade County, Michael G. Barket , Judge. Law Offices o f Clinton D. Flagg, P.A. , Clinton D. Flagg and Carol A. Fenello , for appellant. Marin, Eljaiek, Lopez, & Martinez, P.L. and Anthony M. Lopez , f or appellee.

Before SCALES, LINDSEY and GORDO , JJ. PER CURIAM

.2 Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London appeals the trial court’s order granting the insured’s motion to compel appraisal in this first party property insurance action. While the insurance policy at issue con tained a general appraisal provision permitt ing either party to demand appraisal, the policy contained an unambiguous endorsement deleting and replacing th at general appraisal provision. The endorsement explicitly reserved to Lloyd’s the sole right to req uire appraisal. “ The law in Florida is clear that to the extent an endorsement is inconsistent with the body of the policy, the endorsement controls. ” Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Hradecky , 208 So. 3d 184, 187 (Fla

. 3d DCA 2016) ; s ee Fam

. Care Ctr., P.A. v. Truck Ins. Exch. , 875 So. 2d 750, 752 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (“Even if there were an ambiguity between the endorsement and the body of the policy, the endorsement, which is clear, controls.”); Fireman ’ s Fund Ins. Co. v. Levine & Partners, P.A. , 848 So. 2d 1186, 1187 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (“ [T] he terms of an endorsement such as the one sued upon control over anything purportedly to the contrary in any other insuring agreement

. . . . ”); Steuart Petroleum Co., Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Llo yd ’ s London , 696 So. 2d 376, 379 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (“ [I]n general, t o the extent an endorsement is inconsistent with the body of the policy, the endorsement controls

. ”). We, therefore, reverse the trial court’s order granting appraisal upon the3 insured’ s motion as the policy ’s endorsement unambiguously reserved to Lloyd’s the exclusive right to require appraisal. Reversed and remanded

.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Robert S. Curtis, certify that:

1) I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Poage Bankshares, Inc.;

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

3) Based on my knowledge, the financial
statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4) The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures,
or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiary, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5) The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants
ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.

Date: August 24, 2011



|                                                         
|---------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Robert S. Curtis                                     
|Robert S. Curtis,                                        
|Vice Chairman, Co-President, & Co-Chief Executive Officer



29