alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In re FIRST HARTFORD CORPORATION, d/b/a Wyandotte Mills, Debtor.

Bankruptcy No. 81 B 10390 (EJR).

United States Bankruptcy Court, S. D. New York.

May 13, 1981.

*987Ballon, Stoll & Itzler, New York City, for debtor.

Angel & Frankel, New York City, for Creditors’ Committee.

Irving H. Picard, New York City, Trustee.

EDWARD J. RYAN, Bankruptcy Judge.

The debtor, by its attorneys, seeks an order authorizing payment of legal fees.

The application, in pertinent part is as follows:

> “... FIRST HARTFORD CORPORATION is principally in the business of manufacturing woolens through a division known as WYANDOTTE MILLS, which manufacturing takes place in its plant located in the State of Maine.

> “However, FIRST HARTFORD CORPORATION owns a plethora of wholly owned second tier, third tier and fourth tier subsidiaries, each of which operates businesses separate and distinct from that of FIRST HARTFORD CORPORATION, to wit the operation of the woolen mill.

> “BALLON, STOLL & ITZLER, general counsel to the Debtor herein and presently general counsel to the Debtor-in-Possession by virtue of an order of this Court dated February 23, 1981, has in the past and expects in the future to render legal services to the aforedescribed subsidiaries of the Debtor and Debtor-in-Possession. However, it is respectfully submitted that it would be inappropriate for the Debtor-in-Possession to pay BALLON, STOLL & ITZLER for legal services rendered to its subsidiaries, which services do not impact directly upon the operation of the Debt- or’s business.... ”

The United States Trustee objects to the making of the proposed order. The objection of the United States Trustee shows, in pertinent part:

> “... The Application (¶ 5) explicitly states that the proposed order seeks only to authorize payment by the non-filing subsidiaries of legal fees to Ballon, Stoll *exclusively*for services rendered to those subsidiaries, which services ‘are unrelated to the operation of the debtor-in-possession and its business.’ Should the circumstances change and should the subsidiaries make payments to counsel for legal services performed for First Hartford, then such payments must be disclosed pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 329(a) and are subject to review by this Court under 11 U.S.C. 330(a), 331.”

The objection of the United States Trustee is well founded and the application is denied without prejudice.

It is so ordered.
TREASURY INTERNATIONAL, INC. 99.2

                            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 Treasury International, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending July 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Kristina Sickels, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to the best
of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss 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.





                            /s/ Kristina Sickels
                            --------------------------------
                            Kristina Sickels
                            Chief Financial Officer
                            Treasury International, Inc.



                            September 19, 2003























                                    99.2-1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           2,755
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,917
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         710,679
<DEPRECIATION>                                 185,157
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,093,711
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       512,646
<OTHER-SE>                                      35,489
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,093,711
<SALES>                                        226,552
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               226,552
<CGS>                                          199,920
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  210,185
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,279
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,555
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,670
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,885
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,885
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.64
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.64


</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

TEREX UTILITIES , INC. d/b/a TEREX

SERVICES, INC.

,

Appellant,

v.

ROBERT FONDREN, JR. ET UX,

TERESA FONDREN, and DWAYNE

PROETEL,

Appellee s

. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 23

- 00 131

- C V

Appeal from the

166 th Judicial District Court

of Bexar County, Texas

(TC# 2019

- CI

- 12737 )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before this Court is Appellant’s agreed motion to dismiss , which it filed pursuant to Texas

Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1)

. The motion states that the parties have entered into a

settlement agreement settling t he dispute underlying this appeal. Pursuant to that agreement, the

parties agreed to file a motion to dismiss the appeal. Additionally, the parties agreed that each side

would bear their respective attorney’s fees and costs incurred.

Rule 42.1 provides the actions a court may take to dispose of an appeal on the motion of

appellant or by agreement

. On appellant’s motion, this Co urt may dismiss the appeal. Tex. R. App.

P. 42.1 (a)(1)

. On the other hand, w hen parties file an agreement signed by all parties or their2 attorneys, the court may: “ (A) render judgment effectuating the parties’ agreement; (B) set aside

the trial court’s judgement without regard to the merits and remand the case to the trial court for

rendition of judgment in accordance with the agreement; or (C) abate the appeal and permit

proceedings in the trial court to effectuate the agreement. ” Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2)(A )

– (C)

.

Appellant’s agreed motion to dismiss expressly states it is based on Rule 42.1 (a)( 1 ) . N o

agreement signed by the parties

, or their attorneys, has been filed with the clerk as contemplated

by Rule 42. 1 (a)(2) . We construe the agreed motion as a ppellant’s motion to dismiss. The motion

is granted. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1) (allowing appellate courts to dismiss an appeal on the

motion of appellant). Costs of the appeal are taxed such that each party bears its own costs. Tex. R.

App. P. 42.1(d)

.

G INA M. PALAFOX

, Justice

August 16 , 2024

Before Alley , C.J., Palafox, and Soto

, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                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  Annual  Report  of  Galaxy  Energy  Corporation  (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending November 30, 2002, as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Carmen Lotito, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  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.


/s/ CARMEN J. LOTITO
-----------------------------------
Carmen J. Lotito
Chief Financial Officer
#### *- v.*Arrington *et al.*

T.he purchaser of a *chose in action*for a valuable consideration will be protected in Equity.

The bill stated in substance, that the negro in question was given by old *Arrington,*now deceased, to bis daughter, one of the Defendants, now married to another of tlie Defendants ; that she and her husband, for a valuable consideration paid to them by the Complainants, had by deed poll, assigned and transferred their interest in said negro to ihe Complainant ; that old *Arrington,*the father of the Defendants, had died, leaving Ihe Defendant, *Arrington,*his executor$ that he had gotten possession of the negro and detained him | that the Complainant, in the name of the feme and her husband, had brought detinue againt the Defendant, *Arrington,*to recover the negro ; and that tlie feme and her husband being indigent, and in insolvent circumstances, threatened to enter a retraxit in the suit at law. or to execute some writing to the Defendant, *Arrington,*that would operate at law as a discharge of tlie action. Tlie Defendants demurred to this bill ; and upon argument, (he Court said, this is a *chose in action,*purchased for a valuable consideration paid by the Complainant, and a Court of Equity will protect it. If the Defendant could procure a retraxit from the Plaintiffs at Law, or a release of the action from them, the Complainants, who carry on the suit in their own name, would be totally defeated. If the Court of Equity, who ought to protect this assignment, being for valuable consideration, would not interpose as prayed by the bill, the Complainant, as the bill states, would be defeated by a fraudulent contrivance between the vendors who have received value, and theDe-fendant who knows they have. This would be a fraud in the very face of the rules of a Court of Equity on the subject, of assignments. The Court, thei efore were of opinion, the bill was proper, and ought to he answered, and overruled the demurrer, and ordered the Defendants to answer accordingly.

Note. — *Vide*3 Black. Com. 442. 1 *Term Rep.*26.
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 230 (Friday, November 29, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 94780]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-27928]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: November 29, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
November 20, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 770 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-464, K2025-461.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-27928 Filed 11-27-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


I, John G.  Castiglione,  Chief Executive  Officer of Viper Networks,  Inc. (the
"Small  Business  Issuer") do hereby  certify  pursuant to Rule 15d-14(b) of the
Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,  and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of
Title 18 of the United States Code that:

     (1)  The Small Business  Issuer's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year
          ended  December  31, 2001 (the  "Report")  to which this  statement is
          filed as an exhibit,  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 Small Business Issuer.


By: /s/ John G. Castiglione                           Date: March __, 2005
    ------------------------
    John G. Castiglione
    Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1588 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1588

     To amend the Uniform Code of Military Justice to prohibit the 
          nonconsensual distribution of private sexual images.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 16, 2017

     Ms. Speier (for herself, Mr. Bishop of Georgia, Mr. Brady of 
  Pennsylvania, Mrs. Davis of California, Ms. Gabbard, Mr. Himes, Ms. 
 Kuster of New Hampshire, Ms. Norton, Ms. Rosen, Ms. Shea-Porter, Mr. 
Walz, Mr. Costello of Pennsylvania, Mr. O'Halleran, and Ms. Frankel of 
   Florida) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend the Uniform Code of Military Justice to prohibit the 
          nonconsensual distribution of private sexual images.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Servicemember Intimate Privacy 
Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON NONCONSENSUAL DISTRIBUTION OF PRIVATE SEXUAL 
              IMAGES.

    (a) Prohibition.--Section 920c of title 10, United States Code 
(article 120c of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), is amended--
            (1) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e); and
            (2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following new 
        subsection (d):
    ``(d) Nonconsensual Distribution of Private Sexual Images.--Any 
person subject to this chapter who--
            ``(1) knowingly broadcasts or distributes a visual image of 
        another person who--
                    ``(A) is at least 18 years of age;
                    ``(B) is identifiable from the image itself or from 
                information displayed in connection with the image; and
                    ``(C) is engaged in a sexual act or exposes a 
                private area;
            ``(2) obtained the image under circumstances in which a 
        reasonable person would know or understand that the image was 
        to remain private; and
            ``(3) knows or reasonably should have known that the person 
        depicted in the image has not consented to the broadcast or 
        distribution,
is guilty of nonconsensual distribution of private sexual images and 
shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to offenses committed on or after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### In the Matter of William A., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

[631 NYS2d 314]

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Leah Marks, J.), entered November 21, 1994, which adjudicated respondent a juvenile delinquent upon a finding that he committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of attempted robbery in the third degree and menacing in the third degree, and placed him with the Division for Youth for 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record indicates that although the presentment agency was ready to proceed to the fact-finding hearing on the third day following respondent’s initial appearance, in compliance with Family Court Act § 340.1 (1), completion of testimony at a pre-fact-finding *Wade*hearing commenced that day was delayed at least in part due to an application regarding documents to be entered into evidence made by respondent’s counsel. Thus, the court properly adjourned the fact-finding hearing for one day, on its own motion pursuant to Family Court Act § 340.1 (4) (a), for the "good cause” of facilitating completion of the *Wade*hearing *(see, Matter of Frank C.,*70 NY2d 408, 414). We note that although the court did not specifically state that it had "good cause” for the adjournment, the facts are stated on the record and are self-evident.

An independent review of the facts elicited at the fact-finding hearing indicates that the court accorded appropriate weight *495to the credible evidence *(People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490). Viewing that evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency and applying the benefit of every reasonable inference *(People v Malizia,*62 NY2d 755, *cert denied*469 US 932), there is ample evidence to find that the presentment agency proved beyond a reasonable doubt that respondent, acting in concert with another, attempted to forcibly steal property from the complainant by utilizing gestures and the threat of the use of a gun that placed the complainant in fear of death or serious physical injury, thereby engaging in acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of attempted robbery in the third degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 160.05) and menacing in the third degree (Penal Law § 120.15), respectively. Under the circumstances, respondent’s reference to "joking” did not negate his culpability. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.
No. 91-647.

#### Askew et al., dba T & T Production Co. *v.*Chiles et al.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### In the Matter of Patrick M. Malgieri, Appellant. John E. Sweeney, as Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[631 NYS2d *75285]

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 7, 1994, which, *inter alia,*ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he did not have sufficient weeks of covered employment to file a valid original claim.

In support of his challenge to the administrative determination finding him ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits, claimant, the former County Attorney of Monroe County, asserts that he was not employed in a major nontenured policymaking or advisory position such as to be excluded from benefits. The undisputed evidence in the record establishes that claimant’s duties included, *inter alia,*advising the County Executive on legal issues, preparing proposed bills for passage by the County Legislature, reorganizing personnel within the County Attorney’s office and negotiating agreements concerning capital projects on behalf of the County. In view of these responsibilities, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that claimant was not engaged in covered employment necessary to qualify for benefits. We have considered claimant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Mercure, Crew III and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
No: III-19-014 June 13, 2019

Contact: Viktoria Mitlyng, 630-829-9662

 Prema Chandrathil, 630-829-9663

NRC to Hold Open House to Discuss

2018 Performance of Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will discuss the 2018 safety performance of the 

Monticello Nuclear Generation Plant during an open house on June 19 in Monticello, Minn.

The open house, to be held at the Monticello Community Center, South Bridge Room, 

505 Walnut St., will run from 5-7 p.m. NRC employees responsible for plant inspections, including 

the resident inspectors based full-time at the site, will be available to discuss its performance.

The facility, operated by Northern States Power Company, Minnesota, is located in 

Monticello, approximately 30 miles northwest of Minneapolis.

Monticello operated safely during 2018. At the end of the year, all inspection findings and 

performance indicators were green or of very low safety significance. As a result, it remains under 

the NRC’s normal level of oversight, which entails thousands of hours of inspection each year.

The NRC Reactor Oversight Process uses color-coded inspection findings and indicators to 

measure plant performance. The colors start at green and increase to white, yellow or red, 

commensurate with the safety significance of the issues involved. Inspection findings or 

performance indicators with more than very low safety significance trigger increased NRC 

oversight.

Inspections are performed by two NRC resident inspectors and inspection specialists from 

the NRC Region III office in Lisle, Ill.

The annual assessment letter, as well as the meeting notice, are available on the NRC 

website. Current performance information is also available.