alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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
    Homecommentreply530Add new comment
Add new comment
        
                  MICHAEL J LILL... (not verified)PermalinkMay 15, 2018 - 4:06pmAs a retired construction project manager, I appreciate the time and talent  needed to produce these sheet metal works that in past times were all done using hand brakes, snips, and tongs, but most of all was the true craftsmen that loved their trade.  I ADMIRE THEIR TALLENT.
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
EXHIBIT 32.2
 
 
 DIRECT INSITE CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES
 
 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 of Direct Insite Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the three month period ended September 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Sandra Wallace, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:





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.






November 14, 2011
 /s/ Sandra Wallace
 Sandra Wallace
 Acting Chief Financial Officer
 (Principal Accounting Officer and
 Principal Financial Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5


<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              May-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   Aug-31-1999
<CASH>                                          48,212
<SECURITIES>                                    39,261
<RECEIVABLES>                                   53,064
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,185
<INVENTORY>                                      7,987
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               146,040
<PP&E>                                         438,336
<DEPRECIATION>                                 121,644
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 984,449
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          105,316
<BONDS>                                      1,474,902
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           312
<OTHER-SE>                                    (596,081)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   984,449
<SALES>                                        117,272
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               117,272
<CGS>                                           23,304
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   78,330
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              35,934
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,006
<INCOME-TAX>                                       856
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,679
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,679
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.18



</TABLE>
#### Diane L. SPANGLER, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Martin Allen SPANGLER, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 14643.

Supreme Court of Utah.

March 17, 1977.

*1077Pete N. Vlahos, of Vlahos & Knowlton, Ogden, for defendant and appellant.

C. C. Patterson and Robert A. Echard, Ogden, for plaintiff and respondent.

MAUGHAN, Justice:

Defendant appeals from a decree of divorce asserting the distribution of property between the parties was inequitable and constituted an abuse of discretion by the trial court.

The parties were married in June, 1968. Plaintiff traced certain assets she owned prior to her marriage, and the trial court awarded her a cottage (she utilized as a rental property) as an investment representing her pre-marital assets. The court further found the parties had a $3,000 equity in the family home. Defendant was awarded a lien of $1,500 on this house, which was to be discharged upon plaintiff’s remarriage, the sale of the home, or their minor child attaining his majority.

Each party was to discharge his own debts; plaintiff waived alimony. Defendant was ordered to pay child support of $75 per month, which was to increase to $135 per month, when he found employment with a take home income of $400 per month.

Defendant contends his contributions to the family assets were much greater. His testimony was vague and unsupported. Defendant did present records of his yearly income, but his wife testified he was absent from the state frequently while working, and he sent no money to the family. He presented no records to discount her testimony. She was compelled to liquidate certain assets to sustain the family and discharge indebtedness incurred by both parties.

The trial court has considerable latitude of discretion in adjusting financial and property interests in a divorce action. Defendant has not sustained his burden to prove the evidence clearly preponderated against the findings; or such a serious inequity had resulted as to manifest a clear abuse of discretion; or there was a misunderstanding or misapplication of the law resulting in substantial and prejudicial error.1 A review of the record sustains the order of the trial court. Plaintiff is awarded her costs.

ELLETT, C. J., and CROCKETT, WILKINS and HALL, JJ., concur.

1

. *Baker v. Baker,*Utah, 551 P.2d 1263 (1976).
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the Court has determined that this

opinion s h ould not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________

No. 96-10194

(Summary Calendar)

_______________

PRESTON ODELL STEPHENS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

LEE A JACK SON, Warden, Wackenhut Correction Corporation; WACKENHUT
CORRECTION CORPORATION MEDICAL AND
CLASSIFICATION STAFF; WACKENHUT
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION; D HART, Classification Member; MARY CLARK, Medical Administrator; D MCCOMIS, Assistant Warden; D BROWN, Major, Wackenhut Correctional Corp,

Defendants - Appellees.

_______________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court For the Northern District of Texas

(4:95-CV-883-A)

_______________________________________________

September 18, 1996

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Preston Odell Stephen s, Texas inmate #633693, appeals the

dismissal of his civil rights complaint. He raises the following1 Stephens does not argue the viability of his medical-care claim, and

therefore, the issue is deemed abandoned on appeal. S ee Eason v. Thaler

, 14 F. 3d 8, 9 n.1 (5th Cir. 1994).

-2- issues: 1) the district court erred by concluding that Stephens did

n ot comply with the order to reply to the answer with specific

facts; 2) the district court erred by concluding that the complaint

failed to state a claim because Stephens alleged an actual injury,

the injury to his right hand, from his placement in second-floor

housing; 1 and 3) the district court erred by dis missing his

complaint without affording Stephens the opportunity to amend or

expand on his allegations. We have carefully reviewed the record

and appellate arguments. We detect no error in the district

court’s dismissal. S ee Schultea v. Wood

, 47 F. 3d 1427, 143 2-34

(5th Cir. 1995) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 10.1

 

EMERGENT CAPITAL, INC.

5355 Town Center Road

Suite 701

Boca Raton, Florida 33486

 

July 10, 2018

 

SB Holdings, Inc.

Sherman, Clay & Co.

1111 Bayhill Drive, Suite 450

San Bruno, CA 94066

 

Re:                             Project Mozart

 

Ladies and Gentlemen:

 

We refer to the Stock Purchase (the “Agreement”), dated as of January 22, 2018, by and among Emergent Capital, Inc. (“Emergent”), SB Holdings, Inc. (“Holdings”) and Sherman, Clay & Co. (“Company”).  Capitalized terms used and not defined herein shall have their respective meanings set forth in the Agreement.

 

As discussed, this will confirm that Emergent, Holdings and the Company have agreed that (a) the Agreement is hereby terminated by mutual written consent pursuant to Section 7.01 thereof, (b) pursuant to Section 7.04 of the Agreement, the Agreement has become void and has no further effect, and the transactions contemplated thereby are deemed to be abandoned without further action by any party, (c) no party to the Agreement, their respective Subsidiaries or their respective officers, directors, Affiliates, shareholders, agents and employees shall have any further liability or obligation resulting from, arising out of, or incurred in connection with, the Agreement and (d) no Person shall have any rights, remedies or claims against Emergent, Holdings, the Company, their respective Subsidiaries and their respective officers, directors, Affiliates, shareholders, agents and employees resulting from, arising out of, or in connection with the Agreement, in contract, in tort or otherwise, including without limitation rights, remedies or claims resulting from, arising out of, or incurred in connection with Article VIII of the Agreement or the termination of the Agreement.

 











 

This letter agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, all of which will be one and the same agreement. Transmission of a signed counterpart of this letter agreement by facsimile or other electronic means shall be the equivalent of delivery of a manually executed original.

 

	
 
    	
Very truly yours,
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
EMERGENT CAPITAL, INC.
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By
    	
/s/ Patrick J. Curry
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Patrick J. Curry
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Chief Executive Officer
    


 

 

	
SB HOLDINGS, INC.
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
By
    	
/s/ Fred W. Concklin
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Name:
    	
Fred W. Concklin
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Title:
    	
President
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
SHERMAN, CLAY & CO.
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
By
    	
/s/ Eric Schwartz
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Name:
    	
Eric Schwartz
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Title:
    	
Exec. VP
    	
 
    


 

2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-4226

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JUWANA ANQUANETTE BATES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen,

District Judge. (2:89-cr-00251-WLO-6)

Submitted: November 22, 2006 Decided: February 5, 2007

Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas H. Johnson, Jr., GRAY, JOHNSON, BLACKMON, LEE & LAWSON, LLP,

Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner,

United States Attorney, Michael F. Joseph, Assistant United States

Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Juwana Anquanette Bates appeals the reimposition of

supervised release following the revocation of her supervised

release and imprisonment for twenty-two months. Bates argues that

the district court’s reimposition of supervised release under 18

U.S.C. § 3583(h) (2000) violates the Ex Post Facto Clause because

the addition of subsection (h) occurred in 1994 and did not apply

retroactively to her 1989 offense. As Bates raises this issue for

the first time on appeal, review is for plain error. See United

States v. White, 405 F.3d 208, 215 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S.

Ct. 668 (2005). To establish plain error, Bates must show that an

error occurred, that the error was plain, and that the error

affected her substantial rights. Id.

Bates’ assertion that the district court relied on

§ 3583(h) in reimposing a term of supervised release is not

supported by the materials included in the joint appendix. Though

the district court did not identify the statutory authority relied

upon in imposing its sentence, it is clear that the court need not

have relied on § 3583(h) in reimposing a term of supervised release

because 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (1988), which was in effect at the

time Bates committed her initial offense, provided for the

reimposition of supervised release following revocation and

reimprisonment. See Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694, 713
- 3 -

(2000). Therefore, we conclude the district court did not err in

reimposing a term of supervised release.

Accordingly, we affirm Bates’ sentence. We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, *v.*John M. Earle, Defendant.

Court of General Sessions of County of New York,

June 17, 1957.

*Stephen A. Fuschino*and *John A. McAvinue, Jr.,*for defendant.

*Frank Hogan, District Attorney (Peter D. Andreoli*of counsel), for plaintiff.

Charles Marks, J.

Motion by counsel for the defendant, John M. Earle, for permission to interview material witnesses in custody is hereby granted.

The District Attorney has raised no objection to the right to such interview but has made the request that before such interview is had by counsel for the defendant that the persons to be interviewed be brought into the courtroom and informed by the court that they need not consent to such an interview and that they need not answer any questions put to them by counsel for the defendant. In the opinion of this court, not only is such a request without merit, but, if carried out, would be fraught with much danger, in that it could deprive a defendant of his basic constitutional rights to freely and fully prepare his defense.

It is ordered that the District Attorney of the County of New York arrange with the Police Department of the City of New York for the production of John Posimato, Jose Lopez and one John Doe, “ a brother-in-law of Jose Lopez ” in the witness room, adjacent to Part I of the Court of General Sessions, situated on the 11th floor, at 100 Centre Street, New York City, in the custody of the police officers of the Police Department of the City of New York, on the 20th day of June, 1957, at 11 o’clock in the forenoon, and that upon completion of said interrogation by counsel for the defendant, John M. Earle, that said witnesses *158be forthwith returned to the place of detention from whence they were delivered, there to be held subject to the further order of the court. Said material witnesses to be interviewed shall have the privilege of counsel of their own choice being present at such interview.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 3
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 4
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       10,000,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   4
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               3
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              (3)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (3)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (3)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        

</TABLE>
August 31, 2000

22499

#### State v. Ekenberg

Vacated
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999  
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999  
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999  
<CASH>                                      19,804,000  
<SECURITIES>                                 8,385,000  
<RECEIVABLES>                               38,802,000  
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0  
<INVENTORY>                                 12,739,000  
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            81,446,000  
<PP&E>                                      42,842,000  
<DEPRECIATION>                            (19,877,000)  
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             235,461,000  
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       42,869,000  
<BONDS>                                     20,085,000  
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0  
<PREFERRED>                                          0  
<COMMON>                                        11,000  
<OTHER-SE>                                 132,249,000  
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               235,461,000  
<SALES>                                     79,878,000  
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            79,878,000  
<CGS>                                       59,941,000  
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               59,941,000  
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            14,574,000  
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0  
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             494,000  
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              5,094,000  
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,241,000  
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,853,000  
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0  
<CHANGES>                                            0  
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,853,000  
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.25  
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.25  
        

</TABLE>
H. Res. 171 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

March 26, 2015. 

Resolved, 

SECTION 1. ELECTION OF MEMBERS TO JOINT COMMITTEE OF 

CONGRESS ON THE LIBRARY AND JOINT COMMITTEE ON PRINTING. 

(a) JOINT COMMITTEE OF CONGRESS ON THE LIBRARY.—The following Members are hereby elected to the 

Joint Committee of Congress on the Library, to serve with 

the chair of the Committee on House Administration and the 

chair of the Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch of the 

Committee on Appropriations: 

(1) Mr. Harper. 

(2) Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania. 

(3) Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California. 

(b) JOINT COMMITTEE ON PRINTING.—The following 

Members are hereby elected to the Joint Committee on Printing, to serve with the chair of the Committee on House Administration: 

(1) Mr. Harper. 
2 

•HRES 171 EH 

(2) Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois. 

(3) Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania. 

(4) Mr. Vargas. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
#### The State of Ohio, Appellee, *v.*Davis, Appellant.

(No. 31763

Decided May 18, 1949.)

*Mr. Frank T. Gullitan,*prosecuting attorney, and *Mr. Victor Be Marco,*for appellee.

*Mr. John S. Gilbert, Mr. Adrian B. Fink, Jr.,*and *Mr. Joseph P. Sullivan,*for appellant.

It is ordered and adjudged that this appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason that no debatable constitutional question is ■■involved.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman, ’•Stewart, Turner and Taet, JJ., concur.