alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Berlin Iron-Bridge Co. *v.*Wagner, Highway Commissioner.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department.*

May 26, 1890.)

Practice in Civil Cases—Dismissal.

The general term cannot, on the motion of the attorney general, dismiss^ a submission of a controversy intended to establish the right of the sole highway commissioner of a town to make a contract for the building of a bridge, on the ground that certain commissioners appointed by the supervisors, and claiming the right to make such contract, were not parties to the submission, and that such commissioners might be bound by the decision.

Case submitted on agreed statement.

Action by the Berlin Iron-Bridge Company against Joseph E. Wagner, highway commissioner. The attorney general moves to dismiss the submission.

Argued before Learned, P. J., and Landon and Mayham, JJ.

*A. D. Wales,*for plaintiff. *George 11. Malby,*for defendant.

Learned, P. J.

This is a submission without action. The attorney general, who is not a party to the submission, moves the court to dismiss the case on the ground that it is a collusive submission, and that it is intended to establish the right of defendant to make a contract for the building of the bridge. The attorney general alleges that certain commissioners appointed by the supervisors claim the right to make such contract, and claim that the defendant above named is not authorized to contract. The attorney general urges that these commissioners are not parties to this submission, that there is really no controversy between those who are parties thereto, and that a decision between them may be a precedent which will control the question of right whenever it may be raised by the commissioners aforesaid. It has also appeared in the course of the argument that those commissioners have made a contract with another company for the building of the bridge. The parties to this submission, on the contrary, assert that it was made in good faith, and with a desire to ascertain their own rights, and that they have offered in several ways to permit the said commissioners to take part herein.

We do not think that we can, on the motion of the attorney general, refuse to hear this case. He has no standing in court, and, so far as we see, would have none even if the said commissioners had a right to interfere. They have taken no steps to bring themselves into this controversy, directly or indirectly. The plaintiff above named could have sued the defendant on the contract, and to such an action those commissioners need not have been parties. This submission is but a substitute for an action, in order that the decision be more expeditious. As to the effect of a decision on the alleged rights of the said commissioners, we have nothing to say. They are not parties or privies, and generally none but parties and privies are bound by a decision. We decline to dismiss the submission, or to refuse to hear the argument. All concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1
 **CCC
INFORMATION SERVICES GROUP INC.**
 **AND
SUBSIDIARIES**
  **CERTIFICATION
OF**
 **CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**
 **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 CCC Information Services Group Inc.
("Company") on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("Report"), I, Githesh
Ramamurthy, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, do 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. The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 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.
 
 Date: March16, 2005
    By:
    */s/* *Githesh
      Ramamurthy*Name:Githesh
      RamamurthyTitle: Chairman and Chief
      Executive Officer
 In
connection with the Annual Report of CCC Information Services Group Inc.
("Company") on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("Report"), I, Andrew G.
Balbirer, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
do 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. The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 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.
 
 Date: March16, 2005
    By:
    */s/ Andrew G.
      Balbirer*Name:Andrew
      G. BalbirerTitle: Executive Vice
      President and Chief Financial
Officer
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 Q.E.P. Co., Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending
February 28, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Stuart F. Fleischer, Chief Financial 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/ Stuart F. Fleischer
|Stuart F. Fleischer    
|Chief Financial Officer

October 17, 2006
WRITTEN WARNING V. CIVIL PENALTY 

Written By Unknown Author

Activity Summary Reports that reflect that a “Written Warning” was 

issued should generally not be sent to the Hearing Office for civil 

penalty action. Boarding Officers have the authority per 33 CFR 1.08 

to issue written warnings for certain violations. The reverse side of 

the Boarding Report, CG-4100, expressly states that if a written 

warning was issued then no civil penalty will be instituted. There is 

an exception to this general rule. 33 CFR 1.08-5 describes the 

exception. If the Activity Summary Report reflects a written 

warning” was issued and the processing official determines that civil 

penalty action is warranted, then the narrative should be annotated 

to reflect that the written warning has been rescinded, a prior 

written warning or violation issued within the described time period 

and, civil penalty action is being instituted as a result. Failure to do 

so may result in dismissal of the violations for which a written 

warning has been issued.
# C_2021396EN.01000101.xml

| 30.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 396/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 396/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10467 — Insight/Francisco Partners/NMI)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 396/01)

On 24 September 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10467. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10467. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Samuel Sanchez, Appellant.

Motion by the defendant for reargument of an appeal from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Zelman, J.), imposed June 10, 1985, which was determined by decision and order of this court (one paper) dated October 14, 1986.

Ordered that the motion is granted and upon reargument, the decision and order of this court, dated October 14, 1986, is recalled and vacated and the following decision and order (one paper) is substituted therefor:

Appeal by the defendant from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Zelman, J.), imposed June 10, 1985, upon his conviction of attempted rape in the first degree.

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

Ordered that the sentence is modified, on the law, by vacating the sentence imposed in connection with the crime of endangering the welfare of a child; as so modified, the sentence is affirmed.

The record reveals that, pursuant to a plea bargain, the defendant pleaded guilty solely to the crime of attempted rape in the first degree in complete satisfaction of an indictment charging him with rape in the first degree and endangering the welfare of a child.

Nevertheless, after sentencing the defendant on the rape count, the court imposed a sentence of a concurrent determinate term of one year imprisonment with respect to the count of endangering the welfare of a child. The defendant, however, entered no plea of guilty to that crime. Accordingly, the determinate sentence of one year imprisonment imposed upon the defendant with respect to that crime must be vacated.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the sentence imposed in connection with the attempted rape count was not excessive. Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.
# C_2021504EN.01004301.xml

| 14.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 504/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 504/43

---

Notice for the attention of the person subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333, as implemented by Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/2198, and in Council Regulation (EU) 2016/44, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2192, concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya

(2021/C 504/16)

The following information is brought to the attention of the person designated in Annexes II and IV to Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 (1), as implemented by Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/2198 (2), and in Annex III to Council Regulation (EU) 2016/44 (3), as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2192 (4), concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya.

The Council of the European Union has decided that the person that appears in the above-mentioned Annexes should be included on the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures provided for in Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 and Regulation (EU) 2016/44.

The attention of the person concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated on the websites in Annex IV to Regulation (EU) No 2016/44, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 8 of the Regulation).

The person concerned may submit a request to the Council before 15 May 2022, together with supporting documentation, that the decision to include that person on the above-mentioned list should be reconsidered. Any such request should be sent to the following address:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| RELEX.1.C. |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

RELEX.1.C.

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

Any observations received will be taken into account for the purpose of the Council’s periodic review, in accordance with Article 17(2) of Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 and Article 21(6) of Regulation (EU) 2016/44, of the list of designated persons and entities.

The attention of the person concerned is also drawn to the possibility of challenging the Council’s decision before the General Court of the European Union, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 275, second paragraph, and Article 263, fourth and sixth paragraphs, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ L 206, 1.8.2015, p. 34.

(2)  OJ L 445 I, 13.12.2021, p. 21.

(3)  OJ L 12, 19.1.2016, p. 1.

(4)  OJ L 445 I, 13.12.2021, p. 1.

---
# C_2021360EN.01000301.xml

| 8.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 360/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 360/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10318 — Apollo Management/Verizon Media Group)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 360/03)

On 7 July 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10318. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10318. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
**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 Quarterly Report of Secure Computing Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Timothy P. McGurran, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2003, that: 

 

(1) The Report fully complies with therequirements 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/ Timothy P. McGurran

 

Timothy P. McGurran 

President and Chief Operating Officer 

July 31, 2003
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-20-00287-CV

IN RE D.O.S. AND E.C., CHILDREN

Original Proceeding

From the County Court at Law

Ellis County, Texas

Trial Court No. 100818CCL

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus filed on October 30, 2020 is denied, and 

the October 30, 2020 stay is lifted. 

JOHN E. NEILL 

Justice 

Before Chief Justice Gray, 

Justice Neill, and 

Justice Johnson

Petition denied

Opinion delivered and filed May 26, 2021

[OT06]
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 15D-14 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE
ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of ACE*COMM Corporation;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement
of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered
by this report.
  /s/ James GreenwellJames Greenwell,Principal Executive Officer
Exhibit
10.7


 


On
June 7, 2018, Mivnei Nadlan (C.D.) Company Ltd. (f/k/a/ Mivnei Ta'asia Company Ltd.) (the “Lessor”) and Cellebrite
DI Ltd. (the “Company”) entered into a lease agreement, and into the addendum thereto, dated as of March 2, 2021 (collectively,
the “Lease Agreement”).


 


	1.	The Premises


 


Certain
spaces in a building located in Kiryat Malachi, on 6 Menachem Begin St. (the “Asset”).


 


The
total square meters of the leased premises includes 1,445 square meters of office spaces on the second floor, (the “Premises”).


 


	2.	Purpose of the Lease


 


The
Premises are to be used by the Company for its activities in the field of Mobile Technology Manufacturing.


 


	3.	Leasing Period


 


An
initial lease period of three (3) years, that commenced on June 7, 2018 (the “Initial Period”), as extended to
an additional term ending on February 28, 2031 (the “Extended Period”).


 


	4.	Consideration


 


The
monthly lease fee for the Premises is approximately 40,432 NIS, excluding VAT (US$ 12,333 subject to the exchange rate of June 06,
2021), linked to the Israeli consumer price index (the “Base Rental Fee”).


 


The
Base Rental Fees will be updated during the lease period, as follows:


 


		1.	Starting
                                            March 1, 2024 and until February 28, 2026 – the Base Rental Fee shall be approximately
                                            41,154 NIS, excluding VAT (US$ 12,553 subject to the exchange rate of June 06, 2021)



 


		2.	Starting
                                            March 1, 2026 and until February 28, 2031 – the Base Rental Fee shall be approximately
                                            43,320 NIS, excluding VAT (US$ 13,213 subject to the exchange rate of June 06, 2021)



 


	5.	Guarantees and Security
    Deposits


 


The
Company provided the Lessor with 3 autonomous bank guarantee in the amount of NIS 19,000, NIS 37,833 and NIS 18,738 (excluding VAT)
and 3 security deposits in the amount of NIS 108,375, NIS 216,750 and NIS 325,125 (excluding VAT), each, in order to ensure compliance
with the Lease Agreement. The security deposit will serve as payment of the Base Rental Fee, following the exercise of the bank guarantees.


 


Additionally,
the Company has provided the Lessor with a deposit fund in the sum of NIS 5,000 (US$ 1,525 subject to the exchange rate of June 06,
2021), which is linked to the Israeli consumer price index.


 


	6.	Insurance


 


The
Company shall maintain customary insurances.


 


	7.	Termination of the Lease
    Agreement


 


The
Lessor may terminate the Lease Agreement upon the occurrence of the following (i)  a property order is issued against the Company
and/or the Company has reached a settlement with its creditors; (ii) a judgment is given for the liquidation of the Company; or
(iii) an Official Receiver to the Company's property has been appointed.


 


*   *   *
Page 1 of 1

CUI (when filled in)

CUI (when filled in)

PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE.

Controlled by: OUSD(P&R) 

CUI Category: CRIM HISTORY 

LDC: FEDCON 

POC: osd.mc-alex.ousd-p-r.mbx.upr-legal-policy@mail.mil

Prescribed by: DoDI 1325.07

DD FORM 2707, NOV 2022

CONFINEMENT ORDER

PRIVACY ADVISORY 

Disclosure of this information is voluntary and will be used to record information about military member ordered into confinement pretrial, post-trial or as a result of nonjudicial punishment. For 

additional information, see System of Records Notice, A0190-47 DAPM-ACC, “Army Corrections System and Parole Board Records,” NM01650-1, “Individual Confinement Records,” and F031 AF SF 

A, “Correction and Rehabilitation Records” published at https://dpcld.defense.gov/Privacy/SORNs/. When completed, this form contains personally identifiable information and is protected by the 

Privacy Act of 1974, as amended.

1. PERSON TO BE CONFINED

a. NAME (Last, First, Middle Initial) b. SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER

2. DATE (YYYYMMDD)

c. BRANCH d. GRADE e. UNIT/AGENCY (Parent unit)

3. TYPE OF CONFINEMENT

a. PRETRIAL

NO YES

b. RESULT OF NJP

NO YES

c. RESULT OF COURT-MARTIAL:

NO YES

d. TYPE OF COURT-MARTIAL: SCM SPCM GCM VACATED SUSPENSION

4. OFFENSES/CHARGES OF UCMJ ARTICLES VIOLATED (List all charge(s) if prisoner is pretrial. List guilty finding(s) only if prisoner is post-trial.)

5. SENTENCE ADJUDGED (Annotate sentence from the result of trial) b. ADJUDGED DATE 

 (YYYYMMDD):

6. IF THE SENTENCE IS DEFERRED, THE DATE DEFERMENT IS TERMINATED (YYYYMMDD):

7. PERSON DIRECTING CONFINEMENT

a. TYPED NAME (Last, First, Middle Initial), GRADE AND TITLE b. SIGNATURE c. DATE 

 (YYYYMMDD) d. TIME

8. LEGAL REVIEW AND APPROVAL REQUIRED (Review required by different name at 7.a and b.)

a. INCIDENT # ORI

b. DNA PROCESSING IS IS NOT REQUIRED UNDER 10 U.S.C. 1565.

 COLLECTED: YES NO KIT# Date DNA collected (YYYYMMDD)

c. SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION IS IS NOT REQUIRED UNDER 42 U.S.C. 14071.

d. TYPED NAME (Last, First, Middle Initial), GRADE AND TITLE e. SIGNATURE f. DATE 

 (YYYYMMDD)

9. MEDICAL CERTIFICATE

a. The above named prisoner was examined by me at

(Time)

on

(YYYYMMDD)

and found to be Fit Unfit

for confinement. I certify that from this examination the execution of the foregoing sentence to confinement will will not

produce serious injury to the prisoner's health.

b. The following irregularities were noted during the examination: (List only non-medical information. Refer to SF 600 for all medical information, 

including HIV, TB and pregnancy tests and results.)

10. EXAMINER

 a. TYPED NAME (Last, First, Middle Initial), GRADE AND TITLE b. SIGNATURE c. DATE 

 (YYYYMMDD) d. TIME

11. RECEIPT FOR PRISONER (Completed by the correctional facility staff upon arrival of the prisoner)

a. THE PRISONER NAMED ABOVE HAS BEEN RECEIVED FOR CONFINEMENT AT (Facility Name and Location)

 on

(YYYYMMDD)

 AND TIME:

(Time)

 b. PERSON RECEIPTING FOR PRISONER (Typed 

 name (Last, First, Middle Initial), Grade and Title) c. SIGNATURE d. DATE 

 (YYYYMMDD) e. TIME