alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# 65th Infantry ‘Borinqueneers’ honored at annual heritage event

/ Published Oct. 18, 2019
COLUMBUS, Ohio, 
The Defense Federal Community honored a unique military unit during its annual Hispanic Heritage Month celebration Oct. 2. The observance commemorated the historical contributions of the U.S. Army’s 65th Infantry Regiment – a unit comprised mainly of Hispanic Soldiers and known as the Borinqueneers for its Puerto Rican roots.

The regiment’s history goes back to the late 19th century when an act of Congress led to the creation of the nation’s first Puerto Rican military unit. The Borinqueneers gained notoriety during the Korean War, where they participated in nine campaigns, saw significant casualties and became one of the most decorated units of the war. The regiment is credited with the last battalion-sized bayonet charge by a U.S. Army unit.

“They were celebrated for being brave proven warriors and selfless,” said Liliana Vasquez, the day’s keynote speaker. “While this unit was comprised primarily of Puerto Rican Soldiers, it also consisted of Mexican-Americans, African Americans and Soldiers of other various ethnicities, making it one of the most ethnically diverse miltiary units in U.S. history during the Korean War.”

Vasquez is an associate attorney with Simakovsky Law and Columbus council president for the League of the United Latin American Citizens. As an El Paso, Texas native, and first generation Mexican-American, Vasquez tied the Borinqueneers military legacy to battles being fought today on a much more local level.

“Each person is a warrior in their own life, fighting for various things,” she added. “So what is it that you are fighting for?  The general freedom of a country? Raising healthy children? For your family? Serving the community? To be respected as an equal individual? To have a voice? Whatever it may be, identify your cause and be mindful of your actions as they will influence others around you.”

Fitting with the program’s theme, “Feats of Valor,” the event featured a video on the contributions of the 65th Infantry Regiment. Defense Logistics Agency Land and Maritime associates Angela McCoy and Ilka Sierra delivered the National Anthem and invocation, followed by opening remarks given by DLA Land and Maritime Commander Navy Rear Adm. John Palmer. Later in the program, Hispanic Employment Program committee volunteer Ramon Valencia, a former Defense Logistics Agency Land and Maritime associate, was recognized for his service to the federal Hispanic community over the years.

HEP executive champion Ben Roberts closed out the program, imparting that both the diversity of our roots and the commonality of our vision is what makes us all a part of “this American family.”

Guests were invited to enjoy cultural food samples provided by the HEP committee immediately following the event.
160 A.3d 713

#### NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. M.C., DEFENDANT-PETITIONER. IN THE MATTER OF M.C., M.C., JR., AND A.C., MINORS-RESPONDENTS.

February 13, 2017

ON PETITION FOR CERTIFICATION

To the Appellate Division, Superior Court:

A petition for certification of the judgment in [ A-XXXXXX-XX ] having been submitted to this Court, and the Court having considered the same;

It is ORDERED that the petition for certification is denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2339 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2339

  To authorize a certificate of documentation for the vessel WHY KNOT.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                July 29 (legislative day, July 20), 1994

 Mr. Hollings introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To authorize a certificate of documentation for the vessel WHY KNOT.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That, notwithstanding 
sections 12106, 12107, and 12108 of title 46, United States Code, and 
section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), as 
applicable on the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
Transportation may issue a certificate of documentation for the vessel 
WHY KNOT, United States official number 688570.
                                 <all>
```
Registrant's Specifmen Certificate for Ordinary Shares



 Exhibit 4.2 
  



 
  
 This certifies
that
                                        
                     of
                                        
         is the registered holder of [                    ] Ordinary Shares fully paid and
non-assessable, subject to the Memorandum and the Articles of Association of the Company, and transferable only on the books of the Company by the holder hereof in person or by Attorney upon surrender of this certificate properly endorsed.

  
 Given under the Common Seal of the said
Company this day of             , 200 
  

					
	The Common Seal of the Company was	  	

	  	hereunto affixed in the presence of
	
 Director
	  	  	
 Director









 THE SECURITIES REPRESENTED BY THIS CERTIFICATE HAVE NOT BEEN REGISTERED UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED, OR
APPLICABLE SECURITIES LAWS. THE SECURITIES MAY NOT BE OFFERED FOR SALE, SOLD, TRANSFERRED OR ASSIGNED (I) IN THE ABSENCE OF (A) AN EFFECTIVE REGISTRATION STATEMENT FOR THE SHARES UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED, AND APPLICABLE STATE
SECURITIES LAWS OR (B) AN OPINION OF COUNSEL, IN A GENERALLY ACCEPTABLE FORM, THAT REGISTRATION IS NOT REQUIRED UNDER SAID ACT AND APPLICABLE STATE SECURITIES LAWS OR (II) UNLESS SOLD PURSUANT TO RULE 144 UNDER SAID ACT. 
  

					
	TRANSFER	 	 	 	 
	I	 	 	 	(the Transferor) for the value received
	 	 	 	 	 
	DO HEREBY transfer to	 	 	 	(the Transferee) the
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	shares standing in my name in the
	 	 	 	 	 
	undertaking called The9 Limited	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	To hold the same unto the Transferee	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	Dated	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	Signed by the Transferor	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	In the presence of:	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	
	 	 	 	

	Witness	 	 	 	Transferor
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-15-00385-CR

Raymond ZAPATA,

Appellant

v.

The State of TexasAppellee

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014CR6346

Honorable Steve Hilbig, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 29, 2015

APPEAL DISMISSED

Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, defendant pled guilty to aggravated robbery and was 

sentenced within the terms of the plea bargain. The trial court signed a certification of defendant’s 

right to appeal stating that this “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). Rule 25.2(d) provides, “The appeal must be dismissed if a 

certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record 

under these rules.” TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). Accordingly, on July 16, 2015, this court issued an 

order stating this appeal would be dismissed pursuant to Rule 25.2(d) unless an amended trial court 
04-15-00385-CR

- 2 -

certification that shows defendant has the right of appeal was made part of the appellate record. 

See Daniels v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, order); TEX. R. APP. P.

25.2(d); 37.1. 

On July 20, 2015, defendant’s appellate counsel filed a response to our order stating he was 

“compelled to concede that [defendant] has no right of appeal from the underlying criminal case” 

and that this court “may dismiss this appeal for that reason.” In light of the record presented, we 

agree with defendant’s counsel that Rule 25.2(d) requires this court to dismiss this appeal. 

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish
No. 10-5561.

#### Messiah Ali Bey, Petitioner v. I.B.E.W. Local Union #3 Union Representatives, et al.

562 U.S. 929, 131 S. Ct. 318,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7471,

178 L. Ed. 2d 208,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

Same case below, 374 Fed. Appx. 187.
#### In the Matter of Gerard Eberhardt, Respondent, v Monroe County Child Support Enforcement Unit, Appellant.

[769 NYS2d 416]

Appeal from a judgment (denominated order) of Supreme Court, Monroe County (Siracuse, J.), entered December 2, 2002, which, inter alia, declared that respondent is barred from recovering certain child support arrears.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Supreme Court properly declared that respondent is barred from recovering child support arrears that accrued more than six years prior to the date on which petitioner’s ex-wife filed a petition in Family Court seeking recovery of child support arrears. The arrearages arose under a divorce decree entered in March 1987, prior to the effective date of CPLR 211 (e), and are thus subject to the six-year limitations period set forth in CPLR 213 (1) *(see Shavit v Shavit,*279 AD2d 180, 183 [2000], *lv denied*96 NY2d 719 [2001]; *Thurmond v Thurmond,*155 AD2d 527, 530 [1989]; *see also Matter of Dox v Tynon,*90 NY2d 166, 176 [1997]). Finally, the court properly determined that respondent must apply the payments made by petitioner in the manner set forth in 18 NYCRR 347.13. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Hayes, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Meceo McEaddy, Appellant.

[50 NYS3d 877]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee A. White, J., at plea; Melissa C. Jackson, J., at sentencing), rendered July 29, 2014, as amended June 22, 2016) convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of grand larceny in the second degree (two counts), grand larceny in the third degree (13 counts), scheme to defraud in the first degree, criminal tax fraud in the second and fifth degrees (two counts each) and resisting arrest, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 5 to 10 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of reducing the sentences on the second-degree grand larceny and second-degree tax fraud convictions to 4 to 8 years, resulting in a new aggregate term of 4 to 8 years, and otherwise affirmed.

We do not find that defendant make a valid waiver of his right to appeal, and we find the sentence excessive to the extent indicated.

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Acosta, Renwick, Moskowitz and Kahn, JJ.
No. 10-30.

#### Jane Doe, By and Through Her Guardians, Gregory Johnson, et ux., et al., Petitioners v. South Carolina Department of Social Services, et al.

562 U.S. 890, 131 S. Ct. 392,

178 L. Ed. 2d 137,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6646.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 597 F.3d 163.
No. 09-11355.

#### Sammy Pendleton, Petitioner v. United States Medical Center, Springfield, Missouri, et al.

562 U.S. 875, 131 S. Ct. 184,

178 L. Ed. 2d 110,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6665,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
#### Cynthia O’Neal, Appellant, v Muchnick Golieb & Golieb, P.C., et al., Respondents.

[53 NYS3d 271]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shlomo S. Hagler, J.), entered on or about February 17, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 to dismiss the legal malpractice claims based on the assumption of a lease and the failure to oppose summary judgment in an underlying action, the breach of fiduciary duty claims, and the Judiciary Law § 487 claims, and denied plaintiff’s application for leave to amend the complaint to add the Good Service Company, Inc. as a nominal defendant, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny defendants’ motion as to the fiduciary duty and Judiciary Law § 487 claims and so much of the malpractice claim as arose in connection with the assignment of a lease, and to grant plaintiff’s application to amend, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The allegation that, while representing plaintiff in the assignment-of-lease negotiations, counsel secretly represented the counterparty so as to obtain favorable terms for the counterparty, which resulted in a lower-than-market price for the assignment, states a claim for legal malpractice *(see Leggiadro, Ltd. v Winston & Strawn, LLP,*119 AD3d 442 [1st Dept 2014]).

Defendants’ decision not to oppose summary judgment in the action by the bank creditor does not constitute malpractice. The decision was a strategic choice made in light of the lack of a meritorious defense *(see Dweck Law Firm v Mann,*283 AD2d 292 [1st Dept 2001]). Moreover, the fact that replacement counsel was able to re-open the briefing and submit opposition *637to the motion and still lost demonstrates the lack of a causal connection between defendants’ decision not to oppose and any alleged damages.

The breach of fiduciary duty claim is not duplicative of the malpractice claims, since it is based on actions taken after the termination of the representation *(see Dinhofer v Medical Liab. Mut. Ins. Co.,*92 AD3d 480 [1st Dept 2012], *lv denied*19 NY3d 812 [2012]).

The allegation that defendants advised plaintiff to transfer her assets, in violation of a court order about which they had not informed her, to draw the ire of creditors so that they would seek collection against her before pursuing her co-defendants is sufficient to state a claim under Judiciary Law § 487 *(see generally Kurman v Schnapp,*73 AD3d 435 [1st Dept 2010]).

Given that all the other elements of the derivative claims are pleaded in the body of the complaint, and there is no prejudice to defendants, we grant plaintiff leave to amend the caption to add the corporation as a party.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Richter, Feinman, Gische and Gesmer, JJ.
*June 16,*2017

2017-Ohio-4315.]

2016-1150.

#### TEG Properties, Inc. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision.

Board of Tax Appeals, No. 2015-1906. On the joint motion to remand the appeal to the Board of Tax Appeals in order to implement a settlement. Cause remanded to the Board of Tax Appeals to take further action as appropriate.
II

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2306

To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 21 (legislative day, JULY 20), 1994

Mr. METZENBAUM introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

A BILL

To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

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

3 SECTION 1. TITLE.

4 This Act shall be referred to as the ‘‘Securities Fraud

5 Fairness Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT

7 OF 1934.

8 Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

9 (15 U.S.C. 78j(b)) is amended by inserting ‘‘, or to aid

10 and abet the use or employ of any manipulative or decep11 tive device or contrivance,’’ before ‘‘in contravention’’.
2

•S 2306 IS

1 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

2 The amendment made by this Act shall be deemed

3 to have taken effect on the date of enactment of the Secu4 rities Exchange Act of 1934.

Æ
ACCEPTED

06-15-00085-CV

SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS

TEXARKANA, TEXAS

11/25/2015 12:19:36 PM

DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERK

 RECEIVED IN 6th COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 11/25/2015 12:19:36 PM DEBBIE AUTREY Clerk
### Revisions to section I and II ba sed on our discussion this afternoon Lydia Wegman
to: j ames_a._laity, dmancini 06/01/2010 08:06 PM Cc: Karen Martin, Michael Stewart, John Hannon, Steven Silverman, Doug Johns, Tricia Crabtree, Lydia Wegman Show Details

Jim and Dom,

The attached document is a redline of all the chan g es to sections I and II, as well as some chan g es to the re g ulatory provisions. In addition to addressin g the matters we discussed this afternoon, we have made some changes to addre ss issues we wanted to clarify. Thus, this is a redline to the version we sent you on May 4. The pages whic h contain changes responding to our afternoon discussion are on pages 44, 48,49, and 83. Please let us know if you have any questions. Thanks.

Lydia 

### Page 1 of 1

6/2/2010 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\tcrabtre\Local Settin g s\Tem p \notesFCBCEE\~web3534.htm
Exhibit 32





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE


SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




The undersigned executive officers of First South Bancorp, Inc. (the “Registrant”) hereby certify that this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.





By:
/s/ Thomas A. VannName:
Thomas A. VannTitle:
President and Chief Executive OfficerBy:
/s/ William L. WallName:
William L. WallTitle:
Executive Vice President,Chief Financial Officer and Secretary





Date: March 8, 2011
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of MOCON, Inc. on Form 10-Q forthe quarter ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Darrell B. Lee,Chief Financial Officer of MOCON, Inc., hereby certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002 that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)         The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 

Date:  November 12, 2010

 
| /s/  Darrell B. Lee      |   |   |
|--------------------------|--------|--------|
| Darrell  B. Lee          |   |   |
| Chief  Financial Officer |   |   |

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 112 (Thursday, June 11, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 31987]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15528]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Project Nos. 9648-011, 9649-011 and 9650-020]


Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Lovejoy Tool Company and 
Factory Falls, Inc.; Notice of Availability of Final Multi-Project 
Environmental Assessment

June 5, 1998.
    A final multi-project environmental assessment (FMEA) is available 
for public review. The FMEA examines downstream Atlantic salmon fish 
passage at the Fellows Dam Project (No. 9648), Lovejoy Dam Project (No. 
9649), and Gilman Dam Project (No. 9650), all located on the Black 
River, Vermont. The FMEA finds that approval of the licensee's fish 
passage plans, with enhancements, and with monitoring conducted at the 
Gilman Project, would allow downstream passage of Atlantic salmon, and 
would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the 
quality of the human environment.
    The FMEA was written by staff in the Office of Hydropower 
Licensing, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Copies of the FMEA can 
be viewed at the Commission's Reference and Information Center, 888 
First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426. Copies can also be obtained by 
calling the project manager, Pete Yarrington, at (202) 219-2939.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-15528 Filed 6-10-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Com. v. Smith 41

03/15/2016

596 EAL (2015)

41

. Justice EAKIN did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Denied

Pa.Super., 133 A.3d 81
No. 10-123.

#### Brian J. Newmark, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 894, 131 S. Ct. 299,

178 L. Ed. 2d 144,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6148.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.

Same case below, 374 Fed. Appx. 279.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Mediacom LLC (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), Rocco B. Commisso, Chief Executive Officer and Mark E. Stephan, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1)
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company. May 16, 2005
    By:
    /s/ Rocco B. CommissoRocco B. CommissoChief Executive Officer By:
    /s/ Mark E. StephanMark E. StephanChief Financial Officer
No. 09-11149.

#### Lee T. Newell, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 864, 131 S. Ct. 147,

178 L. Ed. 2d 89,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6596.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 596 F.3d 876.
UNITED STATES NAVY–MARINE CORPS

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

_________________________

No. 201800011

_________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appellee

v.

JONATHAN R. LINDSEY

Staff Sergeant (E-6), U.S. Marine Corps

Appellant

_________________________

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: Colonel Peter S. Rubin, USMC.

Convening Authority: Commanding General, 2D Marine Aircraft Wing, II Marine 

Expeditionary Force, Cherry Point, NC.

Staff Judge Advocate’s Recommendation: Major Robert A. Gibson, USMC.

For Appellant: Lieutenant Commander Paul D. Jenkins, JAGC, USN.

For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________

Decided 15 May 2018

_________________________

Before MARKS, PRICE, and ELLINGTON, Appellate Military Judges

_________________________

After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of error, we 

affirm the findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), 

Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c). 

The supplemental court-martial order will reflect that, to Specification 5 of Additional 

Charge II, Staff Sergeant Lindsey was found guilty, excepting "August 2012" and 

substituting "January 2015." To the excepted language, not guilty. To the substituted 

language, guilty. To the specification as excepted and substituted, guilty.

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL

Clerk of Court