alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Kitteredge *et al. v.*Van Tassell.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,*

May 12, 1890.)

Assignment fob Benefit of Cbeditoes—Preferences.

A husband who makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors may prefer a debt legally due to his wife.

Appeal from special term, Dutchess county.

Action by Charles M. Kitteredge and Jennie Davis, as assignees of James M. Davis, against J. Wesley Van Tassell, sheriff of Dutchess county. There was judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.

Argued before Dykman and Pratt, JJ.

*Freeman & Green,*for appellant. *E. E. Eustis,*for respondents.

Dykman, J.

This is an action against the sheriff for the seizure o"f a stock of goods. The plaintiffs are the general assignees of James M. Davis, and were in possession of the property in question when the sheriff seized the same under a warrant of attachment issued against the property of the plaintiffs’ assignor. The cause was tried before a judge without a jury, and he found all the Tacts against the defendant, and rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. The conclusions of law reached by the trial judge follow legitimately from the facts found, which were amply justified by the evidence introduced upon the trial. The principal assault upon the assignment was directed to the preference of the debt of the wife of the assignor, but the proof showed her claim to be such an obligation as the husband might legally incur, and, being such, it might be the subject of preference in his assignment for the benefit of creditors. We coincide with the decision of the trial judge, and find no error in the record. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
# L_2009273EN.01001401.xml

| 17.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 273/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 273/14

---

DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

of 16 September 2009

on mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund, in accordance with point 26 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management

(2009/762/EC)

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 26 thereof,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 of 11 November 2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund (2),

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Whereas:

| (1) | The European Union has created a European Union Solidarity Fund (the Fund) to show solidarity with the population of regions struck by disasters. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The European Union has created a European Union Solidarity Fund (the Fund) to show solidarity with the population of regions struck by disasters.

| (2) | The Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the Fund within the annual ceiling of EUR 1 billion. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the Fund within the annual ceiling of EUR 1 billion.

| (3) | Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 contains the provisions whereby the Fund may be mobilised. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 contains the provisions whereby the Fund may be mobilised.

| (4) | France submitted an application to mobilise the Fund, concerning a disaster caused by storm, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

France submitted an application to mobilise the Fund, concerning a disaster caused by storm,

HAVE DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

For the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2009, the European Union Solidarity Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 109 377 165 in commitment and payment appropriations.

Article 2

This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Strasbourg, 16 September 2009.

For the European Parliament

The President

J. BUZEK

For the Council

The President

C. MALMSTRÖM

---

(1)  
  OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 311, 14.11.2002, p. 3.

2

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ANGEL FELICIANO,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 222 EAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 7th day of February, 2023

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

DEC 21, 2010

JOHN LEY

 CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 ________________________

 No. 10-12005 

Non-Argument Calendar

 ________________________

 D.C. Docket No. 1:09-cr-00107-CG-B-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSHUA EDWARD LEDKINS,

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

 Appeal from the United States District Court

 for the Southern District of Alabama

 ________________________

(December 21, 2010)

Before HULL, WILSON and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Robert Ratliff, appointed counsel for Joshua Edward Ledkins in this direct

criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of Ledkins
and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18

L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that

counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because

independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguably meritorious

issues, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Ledkins’s conviction

and sentence is AFFIRMED.

2
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.4

                            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 Communications & Power Industries,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending April 4, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Joel Littman, 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/ Joel Littman

Joel Littman
Chief Financial Officer
May 9, 2003
# L_2010074EN.01000101.xml

| 22.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 74/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 74/1

---

Corrigendum to Regulation (EC) No 391/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations

(Recast)

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 131 of 28 May 2009
  )

On page 14, Article 6(1):

for:

‘1.   In addition to the measures taken under Article 5, the Commission may, in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 12(2), impose fines on a recognised organisation:

| (a) | — | whose serious or repeated failure to fulfil the minimum criteria set out in Annex I or its obligations under Articles 8(4), 9, 10 and 11,
  or |
| --- | --- | --- |

(a)

—

whose serious or repeated failure to fulfil the minimum criteria set out in Annex I or its obligations under Articles 8(4), 9, 10 and 11,

or

| — | whose worsening performance reveals serious shortcomings in its structure, systems, procedures or internal controls; |
| --- | --- |

—

whose worsening performance reveals serious shortcomings in its structure, systems, procedures or internal controls;

or

| (b) | which has deliberately provided incorrect, incomplete or misleading information to the Commission in the course of its assessment pursuant to Article 8(1) or otherwise obstructed that assessment.’, |
| --- | --- |

(b)

which has deliberately provided incorrect, incomplete or misleading information to the Commission in the course of its assessment pursuant to Article 8(1) or otherwise obstructed that assessment.’,

read:

‘1.   In addition to the measures taken under Article 5, the Commission may, in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 12(2), impose fines on a recognised organisation:

| (a) | — | whose serious or repeated failure to fulfil the minimum criteria set out in Annex I or its obligations under Articles 8(4), 9, 10 and 11,
  or |
| --- | --- | --- |

(a)

—

whose serious or repeated failure to fulfil the minimum criteria set out in Annex I or its obligations under Articles 8(4), 9, 10 and 11,

or

| — | whose worsening performance |
| --- | --- |

—

whose worsening performance

reveals serious shortcomings in its structure, systems, procedures or internal controls; or

| (b) | which has deliberately provided incorrect, incomplete or misleading information to the Commission in the course of its assessment pursuant to Article 8(1) or otherwise obstructed that assessment.’. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

which has deliberately provided incorrect, incomplete or misleading information to the Commission in the course of its assessment pursuant to Article 8(1) or otherwise obstructed that assessment.’.

---
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 Colmena Corp. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the period  ending  June 30,  2002 as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,  Anthony Q. Joffe,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, 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 result of operations of the Company.


/s/ Anthony Q. Joffe

Anthony Q. Joffe
President and Chief Executive Officer
August 14, 2002


<PAGE>
Exhibit 32.1

                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT
                      As adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
                         the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June
30, 2006 of Integrated BioPharma, Inc. (the "Company") as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), E. Gerald
Kay, the Chief Executive Officer of Integrated BioPharma, Inc. (the "Company"),
certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that to his knowledge:

(1)      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.

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities and Exchange Acot of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

Date: September 28, 2006             By: /s/ E. Gerald Kay
                                     ---------------------
                                     Name: E. Gerald Kay
                                     Title: Chief Executive Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Nelson Nieves, Appellant.

— Appeals by the defendant from four judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Broomer, J.), all rendered February 28, 1985.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed *(see, People v Pellegrino,*60 NY2d 636; *People v Harris,*61 NY2d 9; *People v Kazepis,*101 AD2d 816). Thompson, J. P., Niehoff, Weinstein, Kunzeman and Spatt, JJ., concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Harvey Oliver LAYNE, a.k.a. Tandin, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-17128

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

July 3, 2007.

J. Rafael Rodriguez, Rodriguez & Fernandez PA, Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Roberta Josephina Bodnar, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Orlando, FL, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Before ANDERSON, BIRCH and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

J. Rafael Rodriguez, appointed counsel for Harvey Oliver Layne in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and *970Layne’s conviction and sentence are AF' FIRMED.
#### Anthony PERFILIO, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF the AIR FORCE, Respondent.

No. 2006-3369.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

June 18, 2007.

*ORDER*

On May 25, 2007, the court allowed the parties 14 days to object to the dismissal of this appeal due to settlement. No objection has been submitted within the time allowed.

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The appeal is dismissed.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
Katherine Eitenmiller, OSB # 145731

Mark A. Manning, OSB # 00311 

HARDER, WELLS, BARON & MANNING, P.C. 

474 Willamette Street 

Eugene, OR 97401 

(541) 686-1969 

keitenmiller@hwbm.net 

Of Attorneys for the Plaintiff 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

ROBIN C. JEWELL-GREENE, ) 

) Case No. 6:16-cv-00250-SI

Plaintiff, ) 

vs. ) 

) ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY 

COMMISSIONER, ) FEES PURSUANT TO EAJA 

Social Security Administration , ) 

) 

) 

____________Defendant._________) 

Based upon the Stipulation of the parties, it is hereby ORDERED that attorney fees in the 

amount of $5,890.96 are hereby awarded to Plaintiff, pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act 

(EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. Payment of this award shall be paid via check made payable to 

Plaintiff and mailed to Plaintiff’s attorneys at Harder, Wells, Baron & Manning, P.C., 474 

Willamette Street, Eugene, Oregon 97401. Pursuant to Astrue v. Ratliff, the award shall be made 

payable to Plaintiff’s attorney if the commissioner confirms that Plaintiff owes no debt to the 

government through the federal treasury offset program. There are no costs or expenses to be 

paid herein. 

Dated this day of October 2017. 

_____________________________

_ U.S. District Judge 

PRESENTED BY: 

s/ Katherine Eitenmiller 

Harder, Wells, Baron & Manning, P.C. 

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff

12th

/s/ Michael H. Simon
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Delatorre, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Giaccio, J.), imposed December 11, 1984.

Justice Hooper has been substituted for the late Justice Gibbons *(see,*22 NYCRR 670.2 [c]).

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed. No opinion. Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Mangano and Hooper, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2508

OLLYE TINE SNOW REYNOLDS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FREDERICK COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS; FREDERICK COMMUNITY COLLEGE; CHARLES COUNTY PUBLICSCHOOLS; CALVERT COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS; MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS; ST. MARY’S COUNTY MARYLAND PUBLIC SCHOOLS; BALTIMORE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-98-1285-WMN) Submitted: March 30, 1999 Decided: April 27, 1999 Before WILKINS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ollye Tine Snow Reynolds, Appellant Pro Se. John S. Vander Woude, Heather Shanan O’Connor, ECCLESTON & WOLF, Baltimore, Maryland;Robert Lewis Duston, SCHMELTZER, APTAKER & SHEPARD, P.C., Washington, D.C.; Leslie Robert Stellman, BLUM, YUMKAS, MAILMAN, GUTMAN & DENICK, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland; Patrick Milton Pilachowski,2 William J. Rosenthal, SHAWE & ROSENTHAL, Baltimore, Maryland; George W. Johnston, VENABLE, BAETJER & HOWARD, Baltimore, Maryland; David Reese Warner, VENABLE, BAETJER & HOWARD, Rockville, Maryland;Sheldon Lewis Gnatt, MARCELL, SOLOMON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Greenbelt, Maryland; J. Paul Mullen, Kathleen M. Bustraan, LORD & WHIP, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Ollye Tine Snow Reynolds appeals the district court’s orders dismissing this action for failure to state a claim and denying her motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and thedistrict court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Reynolds v. Frederick County Pub. Schs. , No. CA-98-1285-WMN (D. Md. Sept. 11 and Oct. 5, 1998). We deny the motion to have EEOC files added to the record and 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
#### Blanche Reid, Respondent, v Phipps House Service, Inc., et al., Appellants.

[942 NYS2d 864]

An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Joan A. Madden, J.), entered on or about October 25, 2011, and said appeal having been argued by counsel for the respective parties; and due deliberation having been had thereon, and upon the stipulation of the parties hereto dated April 12, 2012, it is unanimously ordered that said appeal be and the same is hereby withdrawn in accordance with the terms of the aforesaid stipulation. Concur — Tom, J.E, Friedman, Catterson, Acosta and Freedman, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2011 NY Slip Op 32842(U)„]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 10-Q FOR
THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# C_2006199EN.01000801.xml

| 24.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 199/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 199/8

---

Notice of the expiry of certain anti-dumping measures

(2006/C 199/05)

Further to the publication of a notice of impending expiry (1), following which no request for a review was received, the Commission gives notice that the anti-dumping measures mentioned below will shortly expire.

1

This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 (2) on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community.

2

| Product | Country(ies) of origin or exportation | Measures | Reference | Date of expiry |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Polyethylene terephthalate film | Republic of Korea | Anti-dumping duty | Council Regulation (EC) No 1676/2001 (OJ L 227, 23.8.2001, p. 1) as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 366/2006 (OJ L 68, 8.3.2006, p. 6) | 24.8.2006 |

Product

Country(ies) of origin or exportation

Measures

Reference

Date of expiry

Polyethylene terephthalate film

Republic of Korea

Anti-dumping duty

Council Regulation (EC) No 1676/2001 (OJ L 227, 23.8.2001, p. 1) as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 366/2006 (OJ L 68, 8.3.2006, p. 6)

24.8.2006

---

(1)  OJ C 321, 16.12.2005, p. 4.

1

(2)  OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2117/2005 (OJ L 340, 23.12.2005, p. 17).

2

---