alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
SYNAPTX WORLDWIDE, INC. FORM 10-QSB FOR THE PERIOD ENDED NOVEMBER 30,
1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1997
<CASH>                                              69
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      950
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,062
<PP&E>                                             277
<DEPRECIATION>                                    (89)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,921
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,513
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             5
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,382
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,921
<SALES>                                          1,503
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,503
<CGS>                                            1,028
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,028
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   481
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  10
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (6)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (6)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (6)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .00
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v *978Roger Heasley, Appellant.

Harvey, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Castellino, J.), rendered May 8, 1986, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of burglary in the second degree and attempted escape in the first degree.

Defendant contends that the plea allocution failed to establish all of the elements of the crime of burglary in the second degree. This issue, however, has not been preserved for appellate review since defendant neither moved to withdraw the plea before sentencing nor raised the issue by motion to vacate the judgment of conviction *(see, People v Claudio,*64 NY2d 858; *People v Vanier,*110 AD2d 980). In any event, if we were to consider this issue in the interest of justice we would find it meritless. The record reveals that facts constituting the essential elements of the crime were admitted by defendant during the plea colloquy.

Nor is there any merit in defendant’s contention that County Court erred in not conducting a competency hearing of defendant in March 1986 *(see,*CPL 730.30). In November 1985, the court had committed defendant to the custody of the State Commissioner of Mental Hygiene. Following evaluation of defendant, the director of Rochester Psychiatric Center reported to the court in March 1986 that defendant was competent. No objection was made to this report and the record does not reveal circumstances which would have required the court to make further inquiry as to defendant’s competency.

Judgment affirmed. Kane, J. P., Main, Mikoll, Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.
#### PEOPLE ex rel. HALL, Appellant, v. McDONALD et al., Assessors, Respondents.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Fourth Department.

May 18, 1894.)

Certiorari by John Hall against Ira McDonald and others, assessors.

Argued before HARDIN, P. J., and MARTIN and MERWIN, JJ.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with costs.
#### Henderson *v.*Kohn *et al.*

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

July 18, 1890.)

Judgment—Res Adjudicata.

Defendants made advances to plaintiff, taking his notes therefor which were collaterally secured by deeds of his lands. On the failure of defendants their assignee brought an action at law against plaintiff on the notes, which were declared invalid and a judgment with costs was rendered against the assignee. *Held,*that such judgment was not a bar to a subsequent action by plaintiff against defendants, for the recovery of the notes and a reconveyance of his lands.

Appeal from special term, Kings county. .

Action by Malcolm Henderson against Julius A. Kohn and others, to compel a reconveyance of land given as collateral for notes. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.

Argued before Barnard, P. J., and Dtkman and Pratt, JJ.

*Nathan Bijur,*for appellants. *Moore & Moore,*for respondent.

Barnard, P. J.

The present defendants, in October, 1886, were partners under the name of J. O. Kohn & Co. This firm advanced money to the plaintiff, and took as security from him deeds of land in Tennessee as collateral security. These advances were made under agreements in writing in respect to the building of a railroad in Texas on the joint account of plaintiff and defendants. The firm of J. O. Kohn & Co. subsequently failed in busi*824ness, and John A. Kohn, as assignee of the notes, brought an action upon them. In this action upon the notes the present plaintiff, Henderson, set up a breach of the contract under which the notes were given, and claimed that the notes were invalid, and that the lands given as collateral thereto should be deeded back to him, (Henderson.) The action for the recovery of the notes was tried by a jury, and it appeared that the notes were invalid, and the jury rendered a verdict to that effect. The judgment was entered simply in favor of the defendants, with costs. This action is brought to obtain a reconveyance of the land thus taken and held for these void and inoperative notes.

The first action is not a bar to this action. The former action binds the parties, and the judgment states that the right to obtain the reconveyance of the land was not within the issues which were tried in the action. The evidence offered to support the counter-claim was excluded because it could not be maintained in the action. The former action is only conclusive as to those matters whicli were or might have been litigated between the parties. *Goebel*v. *Iffla,*111 N. Y. 170, 18 N. E. Rep. 649. The judgment, therefore, should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.
# Archive

#### Archived Content

The information on this page is out of date. However, some of the content may still be useful, so we have archived the page.

Asylum Division Monthly Statistics Report. Fiscal Year 2023. October 2022 to June 2023.  (XLSX, 67.76 KB)

August 04, 2023

Lockbox and Service Center Filing Location Updates

June 28, 2023

Update on Bhattarai v. Nielsen

June 21, 2023

Update on Ramos v. Nielsen

June 21, 2023

Foreign Academic Students

May 30, 2023

Civics Test (2020 version)

April 25, 2023

Temporary Final Rule: Asylum Interview Interpreter Requirement Modification Due to COVID-19

March 15, 2023

USCIS Response to COVID-19

March 06, 2023

Proposed Fee Rule Frequently Asked Questions

February 23, 2023

N-4, Monthly Report Naturalization Papers

February 06, 2023

11 - 20 total rows

- **Back
- Next**

0 / 2000To protect your privacy, please do not include any personal information in your feedback. Review our Privacy Policy.
EXHIBIT 31.1**CERTIFICATION**I, Mel Switzer, Jr., certify that: 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of Sonoma Valley Bancorp;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;(b) Omitted.;(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.        Dated: March 14, 2007 /s/ Mel Switzer, Jr.   Mel Switzer, Jr.   Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5801 

To prohibit the use of Federal funds for the subsidization of Amtrak sleeper 

class service, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 20, 2010 

Mr. THORNBERRY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To prohibit the use of Federal funds for the subsidization 

of Amtrak sleeper class service, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. AMTRAK SLEEPER CLASS SERVICE. 

4 (a) AMENDMENT.—Chapter 243 of title 49, United 

5 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol6 lowing new section: 

7 ‘‘§ 24317. Sleeper class service 

8 ‘‘(a) PRICING.—Amtrak shall ensure that the fares 

9 charged for sleeper class service on all long-distance routes 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 5801 IH

1 are priced to equal all of the operating costs for providing 

2 such service. 

3 ‘‘(b) DISCONTINUANCE.—Amtrak shall discontinue 

4 sleeper class service on any long distance route with re5 spect to which total costs of such service exceed total rev6 enue for such service for the first full fiscal year beginning 

7 after the date of enactment of this section. 

8 ‘‘(c) FUNDING LIMITATION.—Amtrak may not use 

9 any funds provided by the Federal Government to sub10 sidize sleeper class service.’’. 

11 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of section 

12 for such chapter 243 is amended by adding after the item 

13 relating to section 24316 the following new item: 

‘‘24317. Sleeper class service.’’. 

Æ 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with BILLS
A92A0819.

#### KINNICK v. TEXTRON FINANCIAL CORPORATION.

(422 SE2d 303)

Johnson, Judge.

Falcon Transport, Inc., a Georgia corporation, leased 15 trailers from Textron Financial Corporation. John Kinnick, president and sole shareholder of Falcon, executed the lease agreement on behalf of Falcon and also executed a personal guaranty of Falcon’s obligations to Textron under the lease. Falcon defaulted on the lease agreement and filed for bankruptcy protection. Pursuant to the terms of the lease and with leave of the bankruptcy court, Textron took possession of 14 of the trailers and sold 13 of them in partial satisfaction of the balance due under the lease. Textron then filed an action against Kin-nick to recover the remaining balance and moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted the motion and entered judgment against Kinnick in the amount of $156,611.18. Kinnick appeals.

1. Kinnick asserts in his first enumeration of error that the lease agreement should be governed by Georgia law. This assertion is without merit.

Both the lease agreement and Kinnick’s personal guaranty contain choice of law provisions in which the parties agree that California law shall control. “Absent a contrary public policy, this court will normally enforce a contractual choice of law clause. [Cits.]” *Carr v. Kupfer,*250 Ga. 106, 107 (1) (296 SE2d 560) (1982). Kinnick cites no public policy which contravenes enforcement of the lease or guaranty. We *430therefore uphold the parties’ choice of California law as controlling.

Decided September 9, 1992.

*Chambers, Chambers & Chambers, John W. Chambers, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Hishon & Burbage, Hugh M. Worsham, Jr.,*for appellee.

2. Kinnick’s remaining enumerations of error construe the lease agreement in accordance with Georgia law. Specifically, Kinnick asserts violations of the Georgia Motor Vehicle Sales Financing Act, the Georgia Uniform Commercial Code and Georgia case law governing liquidated damages provisions in leases of personalty. None of Kin-nick’s enumerations is supported by citation of California law. Based on our holding in Division 1 of this opinion, Georgia law is inapplicable. Textron raised the choice of law issue in the court below and, absent a contrary showing, we must presume that the trial court correctly applied California law in granting Textron’s motion for summary judgment. By relying solely on Georgia law, Kinnick has made no showing that the trial court erred in applying the applicable law. Accordingly, we find no error.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Carley, P. J., and Pope, J., concur.*
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, James D. MacDonald, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this amendment to the annual report on Form 20-F/A of Metal
Storm Limited (the "Report"); and

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.

Date: April 29, 2005


                                        By:        /s/ JAMES D. MACDONALD
                                               -----------------------------
                                        Name:       James D. MacDonald
                                        Title:    Chief Financial Officer
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 18-1867V

UNPUBLISHED

AMY JORDAN,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: December 23, 2019

Special Processing Unit (SPU);

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine 

Administration (SIRVA)

Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for 

petitioner.

Jeffrey T. Sprague, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On December 6, 2018, Amy Jordan filed a petition for compensation under the 

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.,

2

(the 

“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine 

administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccination administered on 

December 13, 2017. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing 

Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On December 23, 2019, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he

concedes that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 

 

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am 

required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the EGovernment Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of 

Electronic Government Services). This means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to 

the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to 

redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of 

privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such 

material from public access. 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for 

ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa (2012).
2

4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, Respondent “has concluded that petitioner suffered a 

Table SIRVA injury.” Id. at 6. Respondent further agrees that Petitioner suffered the 

residual effects of her condition for more than six months. Id.

In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that 

Petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk April 1, 2013

p0325 

# Order

April 1, 2013

146249

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 146249

COA: 311975

Muskegon CC: 11

- 061170

- FC

GARY LEE OBRIEN

a/k/a GARY LEE O’BRIEN,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 5, 2012

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### In the Matter of Charles R. Testa, Petitioner, v Charles R. Valenza, as County Attorney for the County of Monroe, Respondent.

Petition unanimously dismissed on the law without costs. Memorandum: This court lacks jurisdiction to review petitioner’s termination as a county attorney because, as an exempt employee, he had no right to a hearing (Civil Service Law § 75). Petitioner’s attempt to challenge his change in status from a classified to an exempt position, which occurred in May 1985, is time barred (CPLR 217). Petitioner was afforded a hearing in the event it was later determined that he was entitled to a name-clearing hearing *(see, Board of Regents v Roth,*408 US 564). Since petitioner failed to establish that his employer publicly disseminated the charges against petitioner, he was not entitled to a name-clearing hearing *(Matter of Lentlie v Egan,*61 NY2d 874, 876; *Matter of Lyles v Ravitch,*101 AD2d 862, 863). Were we to reach the merits of the petition, we would find that there is substantial evidence to support the determination dismissing the petition. (Article 78 proceeding transferred by order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Curran, J.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Denman, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
Exhibit 23**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS**We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements andAmendments of Nortel Networks Limited (“Nortel”) of our reports dated April 28, 2006, relating tothe financial statements and financial statement schedule of Nortel and management’s report oninternal control over financial reporting (which report on the financial statements expresses anunqualified opinion, includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the restatement of thefinancial statements as of December 31, 2004 and for the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003and includes a separate report titled Comments by Independent Registered CharteredAccountants on Canadian-U.S. Reporting Differences referring to changes in accounting principlesthat have a material effect on the comparability of the financial statements; and which report oninternal control over financial reporting expressed an unqualified opinion on management’sassessment of the effectiveness of Nortel’s internal control over financial reporting and anadverse opinion on the effectiveness of Nortel’s internal control over financial reporting becauseof material weaknesses) appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Nortel NetworksLimited for the year ended December 31, 2005: **•** Registration Statement on Form S-8 and all Post-EffectiveAmendments thereto
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





In
      connection with the Annual Report of Friendly Energy Corporation(the "Company")
      on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
      "Report"),





I,
      Donald
      Trapp, Director 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 result of operations of the Company.





IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
      14th
      day of April 2008.





/s/
                Donald TrappDonald Trapp, Director