alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Ohio_county_differentials_2024-
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with
the accompanying Quarterly Report of Equus Total Return, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007 (the Report), I, Kenneth I. Denos, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | To my knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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: November 14, 2007 |  | /S/ KENNETH I. DENOS   
|                         |  | Kenneth I. Denos       
|                         |  | Chief Executive Officer
## NUMBER 13

- 2 3

- 00 430

- C V

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

AVEANNA HEALTHCARE, LLC

, Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL CANO AND

MARINA CANO

, Appellee s

.

On appeal from the 476 th District Court

of Hidalgo County, Texas.



## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Longoria, Silva, and Peña

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva

T his matter is before the Court on appellant ’ s motion to dismiss. Appellant no

longer wishes to pursue their appeal.

H aving considered appellant ’ s motion, we are of the opinion that the motion should

be granted. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1). Therefore, appellant ’ s motion to dismiss is2 GRANTED , and the appeal is hereby dismissed. Costs will be taxed against the appellant.

See id 42.1(d) ( “ Absent agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs against the

appellant. ” ). Because the appeal is dismissed at the appellant ’ s request, no motion for

rehearing will be entertained.

CLARISSA SILVA

Justice

D elivered and filed on the

4th day of January , 20 2 4

.
#### State v. Jhun

16139

12/22/95

Granted

-Hawai'i -, - P.2d -
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Certification Pursuant to Rule13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b)Of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of The Company, Inc., a Delawarecorporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31,2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), the undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer, hereby certifiespursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities and Exchange Actof 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section1350, that based on my knowledge:

 

(1)           the Report of the Company filed today pursuant toSection 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “ExchangeAct”), fully complies with the applicable requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Exchange Act; and

 

(2)           the information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated: May 19, 2006 | /s/ Mark E. Ashdown     |   |
|---------------------|-------------------------|--------|
|                | Mark E. Ashdown         |
|                | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
#### Helen Helfant, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Hersch Helfant, Deceased, Respondent, v Sara Sobkowski, Also Known as Sara Zubkowski, et al., Appellants.

—Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Fingerhood, J.), entered July 9, 1990, which denied defendants’ motion pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.48 to vacate the judgment and dismiss the action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff obtained a jury verdict in the amount of $118,411.94 against defendants on or about February 3, 1989. However, no judgment was entered until February 6, 1990. By motion dated May 8, 1990, defendants sought an order "vacating and dismissing plaintiff’s action and resulting judgment” for failure to comply with Uniform Rules for Trial Courts § 202.48 (22 NYCRR 202.48).

The rule relied upon by defendants is entitled "Submission of orders, judgments and decrees for signature” and provides: "Proposed orders or judgments * * * must be submitted for signature, unless otherwise directed by the court, within 60 days after the signing and filing of the decision directing that the order be settled or submitted” (22 NYCRR 202.48 [a]). The confusion regarding the scope of this rule stems from the ambiguity of the term "for signature” which conceivably includes signature of a judgment by the clerk prior to entry (CPLR 5016 [a]) and has been so construed *(Hickson v Gardner,*134 AD2d 930 [4th Dept 1987]). However, a fair reading of the rule leads us to conclude that it encompasses only orders, judgments and decrees which are required to be submitted to *341the court for signature *(Dicini, Inc. v Hengerer Co.,*171 AD2d 515; *see also, Bell v New York Higher Educ. Assistance Corp.,*158 AD2d 305, *mot to dismiss appeal granted*76 NY2d 845).

Judgment upon a verdict is normally entered by the clerk (CPLR 5016 [b]) as a ministerial act *(see, Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v Whitestone Gen. Hosp.,*142 Misc 2d 67). No statutory limit is imposed on the period of time during which judgment may be entered *(Matter of Anonymous,*71 Misc 2d 943, 944). Failure by the prevailing party to expeditiously submit a judgment for entry carries its own sanctions, including the inability to execute on the judgment (CPLR 5230) and the indefinite extension of the losing party’s time in which to take an appeal (CPLR 5513 [a]). Moreover, if the losing party feels aggrieved by the failure to enter judgment, he may avail himself of the procedure provided in CPLR 5016 (b) *(Male v Crowningshield,*42 Misc 2d 173; 5 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac ¶ 5016.07). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Asch, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.
# C_2016202EN.01040001.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/400 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/400

---

Article 34

Social security and social assistance

1.   The Union recognises and respects the entitlement to social security benefits and social services providing protection in cases such as maternity, illness, industrial accidents, dependency or old age, and in the case of loss of employment, in accordance with the rules laid down by Union law and national laws and practices.

2.   Everyone residing and moving legally within the European Union is entitled to social security benefits and social advantages in accordance with Union law and national laws and practices.

3.   In order to combat social exclusion and poverty, the Union recognises and respects the right to social and housing assistance so as to ensure a decent existence for all those who lack sufficient resources, in accordance with the rules laid down by Union law and national laws and practices.

---
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    Homecommentreply379Add new comment
Add new comment
        
                  Jane (not verified)PermalinkJanuary 7, 2021 - 2:08pmThis was definitely something to think about.
ReplyYour name
Email Address
        The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Comment
About text formats
Plain text
  
  
      
          No HTML tags allowed.
                      Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
                      Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">SAMA Physical Therapy, P.C., as Assignee of Bascumbe, Tnilcy, Appellant,<br><br>against<br><br>Tri State Consumers Ins. Co., Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant.Peter Coates, Esq., for respondent (no brief filed).</p><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Katherine A. Levine, J.), entered March 11, 2016. The order denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear for duly scheduled independent medical examinations (IMEs).</p><p>Contrary to plaintiff's arguments, defendant's proof sufficiently established the proper mailing of the IME scheduling letters (<i>see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co.</i>, 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]) and that plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear for the scheduled IMEs (<i>see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.</i>, 35 AD3d 720 [2006]).</p><p>Accordingly, the order is affirmed.</p><p>PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.</p><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: November 16, 2018<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
# C_2016203EN.01004901.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 203/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 203/49

---

Article 198

Save as otherwise provided, this Treaty shall apply to the European territories of Member States and to non European territories under their jurisdiction.

It shall also apply to the European territories for whose external relations a Member State is responsible.

The provisions of this Treaty shall apply to the Åland Islands in accordance with the provisions set out in Protocol No 2 to the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden.

Notwithstanding the previous paragraphs:

| (a) | this Treaty shall not apply to the Faroe Islands.
  This Treaty shall not apply to Greenland; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

this Treaty shall not apply to the Faroe Islands.

This Treaty shall not apply to Greenland;

| (b) | this Treaty shall not apply to the Sovereign Base Areas of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Cyprus; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

this Treaty shall not apply to the Sovereign Base Areas of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Cyprus;

| (c) | this Treaty shall not apply to those overseas countries and territories having special relations with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland which are not listed in Annex II to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

this Treaty shall not apply to those overseas countries and territories having special relations with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland which are not listed in Annex II to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

| (d) | this Treaty shall apply to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man only to the extent necessary to ensure the implementation of the arrangements for those islands set out in the Treaty concerning the accession of new Member States to the European Economic Community and to the European Atomic Energy Community signed on 22 January 1972. |
| --- | --- |

(d)

this Treaty shall apply to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man only to the extent necessary to ensure the implementation of the arrangements for those islands set out in the Treaty concerning the accession of new Member States to the European Economic Community and to the European Atomic Energy Community signed on 22 January 1972.

(Point (e) is deleted)

(Point (e) is deleted)

---
II 

Calendar No. 129 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 891 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 16, 2015 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

JUNE 24, 2015 

Reported by Mr. JOHNSON, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 141 Paloma Drive in Floresville, Texas, as 

the ‘‘Floresville Veterans Post Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. FLORESVILLE VETERANS POST OFFICE BUILD4 ING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 141 Paloma Drive in Floresville, 

7 Texas, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Floresville 

8 Veterans Post Office Building’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 891 RS

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Floresville Veterans 

5 Post Office Building’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 129 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 891 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostPost Office Building’’. Floresville, Texas, as the ‘‘Floresville Veterans al Service located at 141 Paloma Drive in 

JUNE 24, 2015 

Reported without amendment 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    Homecommentreply543Add new comment
Add new comment
        
                  KelleyAFinn  (... (not verified)PermalinkOctober 25, 2016 - 9:54amI love Halloween thanks for the interesting article
ReplyYour name
Email Address
        The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Comment
About text formats
Plain text
  
  
      
          No HTML tags allowed.
                      Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
                      Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00156-CR

Reginald Fritz Bell

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 371st District Court

of Tarrant County (1319218D)

April 16, 2015

Opinion by Justice Meier

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Bill Meier 

 Justice Bill Meier
190 P.3d 868

SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I

#### State v. Heggland.

27755

08/22/2008

Denied

118 Hawai'i 425, 193 P.3d 341
<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT 99.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

     In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Equus II
Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,
2002 (the "Report"), I, Nolan Lehmann, President and Principal Financial and
Accounting Officer of the Company, hereby certify that:

     (3)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
          78o(d)); and

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

Dated:  November 14, 2002                 /s/ Nolan Lehmann
                                          ---------------------------------
                                          Nolan Lehmann
                                          President
                                          Principal Financial and Accounting
                                          Officer



                                       1
<PAGE>


                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.39

                             AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO THE
                         TANDY BRANDS ACCESSORIES, INC.
                     NONQUALIFIED FORMULA STOCK OPTION PLAN
                           FOR NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS



         Pursuant to the authority of the Board of Directors of Tandy Brands
Accessories, Inc. (the "Company") and the provisions of Section 3.4 thereof, the
Tandy Brands Accessories, Inc. Nonqualified Formula Stock Option Plan for
Non-Employee Directors is hereby amended effective as of June 12, 2001, in the
following respects only:

         (1) The second sentence of Article II, Section 2.1(a) is hereby amended
in its entirety, to read as follows:

         "Thereafter, on the day a Non-Employee Director is first elected or
         appointed to the Board, such Non-Employee Director shall be granted an
         option to purchase 5,000 shares of Stock."

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, and as conclusive evidence of the adoption of the
foregoing instrument comprising Amendment No. 4 to the Tandy Brands Accessories,
Inc. Nonqualified Formula Stock Option Plan for Non-Employee Directors, the
Company has caused this instrument to be duly executed in its name and behalf by
its proper officers thereunto duly authorized this 12th day of June, 2001.



                                       TANDY BRANDS ACCESSORIES, INC.


                                       By: /s/ J.S.B. Jenkins
                                          -------------------------------------
                                           J.S.B. Jenkins, President
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-26-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-25-1998
<CASH>                                         211,853
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  169,523
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (27,022)
<INVENTORY>                                  2,041,811
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,467,954
<PP&E>                                       4,222,890
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,405,135)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,442,099
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,257,392
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,550
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,983,141
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,442,099
<SALES>                                      2,968,774
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,968,744
<CGS>                                          982,023
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,375,943
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (7,663)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              17,509
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (395,087)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (395,087)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (395,087)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.22)
        

</TABLE>