alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

NO. 00-1267

DANA MYERS, APPELLANT,

 V.

ANTHONY J. PRINCIPI,

SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE.

Before KRAMER, Chief Judge, and IVERS and STEINBERG, Judges.

O R D E R

On February 8, 2002, the panel heard oral argument in this case. Based on questions posed

during oral argument to counsel for the Secretary, the panel decided at oral argument to require

supplemental briefing on the following questions regarding whether the appellant's April 1959 letter

(Record (R.) at 56) constituted an application for review on appeal under 38 U.S.C. § 4005 (1958):

(1) Under law and regulation then and now in effect, could the appellant lawfully have

requested that his claim be reopened during the one-year period within which to file an application

for review on appeal (now a Notice of Disagreement) with a Veterans' Administration (VA) (now

Department of Veterans Affairs) regional office (RO)? 

(2) Under law and regulation then and now in effect, would a claimant have the right to

present additional evidence on a claim, and have that evidence considered as part of the original

claim, where the additional evidence was presented within one year after the date of notice of an RO

denial of the claim? 

(3) Under law and regulation then in effect, to what extent was VA obliged to construe

liberally towards a claimant law and regulation as well as papers submitted by the claimant (cf.

38 C.F.R. § 3.103(a) (2001) (setting forth "obligation of VA to . . . render a decision which grants

every benefit that can be supported in law while protecting the interests of the Government"))? 

(4) If the Secretary is contesting that the appellant's April 1959 letter does not fulfill the

conditions of 38 U.S.C. § 4005(e) (1958), then what is the legislative history (copies must be

attached) that the Secretary seeks to submit to help explain the use of the word "should" in

section 4005(e)?

(5) In the May 2, 1958, letter to the appellant from the San Diego, California, VARO, what

is the statutory or regulatory basis for the reference to his using "VA Form 1-9" for the purpose of

appealing the RO decision (R. at 49)?
2

In responding to the above questions, the parties should cite all law and regulation and

provide copies (unless the other party has already done so) of those provisions cited that are not

currently in effect. As indicated at oral argument, no extension of time will be granted to either party

for filing a supplemental brief pursuant to this order. 

On consideration of the foregoing, it is

ORDERED that, not later than March 11, 2002, the Secretaryfile, and serve on the appellant,

a response to this order that addresses each of the above five questions. It is further

ORDERED that, not later than 30 days after service of the Secretary's supplemental brief, the

appellant may file, and serve on the Secretary, a response. Should the appellant choose not to file

a response, the Court asks the appellant to inform the Court of that intent as soon as possible. 

DATED: February 12, 2002 PER CURIAM.
<PAGE>   1




                                                                     EXHIBIT 3.2

                            CERTIFICATE OF MERGER OF
                                  TEKGRAF, INC.
                                  WITH AND INTO
                    TEKGRAF REINCORPORATION SUBSIDIARY, INC.


     Pursuant to Sections 14-2-1107 and 14-2-1105(b) of the Georgia Business
Corporation Code, (the "Code"), the undersigned corporation DOES HEREBY CERTIFY:

     1. That the names and states of incorporation of the constituent
corporations of the merger are Tekgraf, Inc., a Delaware corporation (sometimes
hereinafter referred to as "Tekgraf"), and Tekgraf Reincorporation Subsidiary,
Inc., a Georgia corporation (sometimes hereinafter referred to as
"Reincorporation Sub" or the "Surviving Corporation") (Tekgraf and
Reincorporation Sub are sometimes hereinafter collectively referred to as the
"Constituent Corporations").

      2. That the Surviving Corporation to the merger will be Tekgraf
Reincorporation Subsidiary, Inc.

     3. That the Articles of Incorporation of Reincorporation Sub shall be the
Articles of Incorporation of the Surviving Corporation, which Articles of
Incorporation shall be amended at the effective time of the merger by deleting
Article First in its entirety and replacing it with the following Article First:

           "FIRST: The name of the corporation is Tekgraf, Inc. (the
"Corporation")."

     4. That an executed copy of the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of
July 30, 1998 (the "Plan of Merger"), is on file at the principle place of
business of the Surviving Corporation. The address of the principle place of
business of the Surviving Corporation is 6000 Lake Forrest Drive, Suite 110,
Atlanta, Georgia 30328.

     5. That the Surviving Corporation will furnish a copy of the Plan of
Merger, on request and without cost, to any shareholder of any of the
Constituent Corporations.

     6. That the Plan of Merger was duly approved by the shareholders of both
Constituent Corporations.

     7. A request for publication of a notice of filing the foregoing
Certificate of Merger and payment therefor, will be made as required by Section
14-2-1105.1(b) of the Georgia Business Corporation Code.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed my name on behalf of the Surviving
Corporation this 30th day of July, 1998.




[CORPORATE SEAL]                           TEKGRAF REINCORPORATION
                                           SUBSIDIARY, INC.



ATTEST: /s/ Jeff Camp                      By: /s/ Phillip C. Aginsky          
        ----------------------                ---------------------------------
       Name:  Jeff Camp                     Name:  Phillip C. Aginsky

       Title:  Chief Financial Officer      Title:   President
#### WILLIAMS v. TURFLER et al.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.

May 14, 1894.)

Action by Amy Williams against George F. Turfler and others.

Scott & Upson, for appellants.

I. Newton Williams, for respondent

PRATT, J.

We think the trust agreement was properly construed by the-judge at special term. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 12, 2014

No. 04-14-00446-CV

John THOMAS,

Appellant

v.

Cynthia THOMAS,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law, Kerr County, Texas

Trial Court No. 14-45C

Honorable Robert R. Barton, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On August 25, 2014, appellee filed an opposed “Motion to Dismiss Appeal as Moot.” On 

September 8, 2014, appellant filed a motion to dismiss appeal due to settlement. In light of this 

filing, the court’s order dated September 9, 2014 is WITHDRAWN. 

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 12th day of September, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### DE LANQUILLETTE v. POLLOCK et al.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.

May 14, 1894.)

Action by Henry de Lanquillette against George W. Pollock and Edward Floyd Jones.

Argued before BROWN, P. J., and DYKMAN and CULLEN, JJ.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with costs. All concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Angelo Jenkins, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Sherman, J.), both rendered February 28, 1986, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), robbery in the second degree (two counts) and assault in the second degree, under indictment No. 5590/84, and robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree under indictment No. 5591/84, upon jury verdicts, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

Two separate robberies were considered at the defendant’s trial. Each of the two victims of the first robbery, which took 5 to 8 minutes to complete, observed the defendant under good lighting conditions. One observed him at close range for a few seconds. The other engaged in a face-to-face struggle with him. The victim of the second robbery, held at gunpoint in daylight, also had ample opportunity to observe the defendant.

The defendant’s counsel opened the door to redirect testimony by one of the victims concerning her identification of the defendant from photographs by cross-examining her on that subject *(see, People v Giallombardo,*128 AD2d 547). It was, however, improper thereafter to permit testimony by a police officer concerning identification of the defendant from photographs by this victim and her covictim *(People v Grate,*122 AD2d 853, *lv denied*68 NY2d 1000; *People v Trowbridge,*305 NY 471). Moreover, the officer’s testimony concerning the circumstances surrounding the lineup could have been interpreted by the jury as an unofficial confirmation of the identifications of the defendant *(cf., People v Grate, supra; but see, People v Lopez,*123 AD2d 360, *lv denied*68 NY2d 915). In view of the clear and strong identification testimony, however, and the lack of probability that the jury would have acquitted the defendant in the absence of the improper testimony *(see,*
      *280
      *People v Mobley,*56 NY2d 584; *People v Price,*120 AD2d 690), these "bolstering” errors were harmless.

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be either without merit or unpreserved for our review *(see, People v Price, supra).*Mangano, J. P., Niehoff, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.
## State of N ew York Su p reme C ou rt, A p p ellate Division Third J u dicial Dep artment Decided and Entered: April 30, 2015 106266

________________________________ THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER WILLIAM WALKER, Appellant.

________________________________ Calendar Date: March 26, 2015 Before: Peters, P.J., Lahtinen, Rose and Devine, JJ.

__________ Theodore J. Stein, Woodstock, for appellant. D. Holley Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (Danielle Scarduzio of counsel), for respondent.

__________ Rose, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Williams, J.), rendered August 22, 2013, which resentenced defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of possessing a sexual performance by a child. Defendant was convicted upon his guilty plea of possessing a sexual performance by a child and, at the time of the plea, County Court (Bruhn, J.) admonished defendant that it would not be bound by the sentencing agreement if he "commit[ted] any new crimes" or was "arrested again for any reason." He allegedly violated the admonishments and received an enhanced sentence of 1 a to 4 years in prison. Upon appeal, we vacated the sentence and remitted the matter so that County Court could conduct an inquiry into the scope of the admonishments "and whether-2- 106266

defendant was entitled to a hearing to establish any violation of" them (101 AD3d 1350, 1351 [2012]). County Court (Williams, J.) conducted a hearing and determined that defendant had indeed violated the admonishments. As such, the court resentenced defendant to a prison term of 1 a to 4 years. Defendant now appeals. We affirm. Inasmuch as defendant has served the enhanced sentence in full, his contention that County Court improperly imposed it is academic (see People v Nicholson, 31 AD3d 468, 469 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 850 [2006]). In any event, our review of the hearing transcript reveals that County Court complied with the mandates set out in People v Outley (80 NY2d 702, 713 [1993]), and we find no basis to disturb the determination that defendant violated the admonishments. Defendant further asserts that the admonishments were not a proper part of his guilty plea. That argument, to the extent that it may properly be advanced upon this appeal from a resentence (cf. CPL 450.30), is unpreserved because defendant failed to advance it before County Court (see People v Radek, 202 AD2d 847, 848-849 [1994], lv denied 83 NY2d 914 [1994]). Peters, P.J., Lahtinen and Devine, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Building and Maintaining a Comprehensive

Adult Citizenship Education Program

Join Us for a FREE Full-Day Adult Citizenship Training Institute

When: Where:

Register through our online registration portal at www.uscis.gov/teachertrainingregistration.

THE SESSION WILL FOCUS ON:

Space is limited and is on a first-come, first-served basis. Registration is required and will close 24 hours 

before the event or once the seminar is full. Please email office.of.citizenship@uscis.dhs.gov with any 

questions or concerns with registration, or to request for sign language accommodation. Request for sign 

language accommodation must be submitted 30 days before the seminar. 

www.uscis.gov/citizenship
**EXHIBIT 31.01**

 

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, John K. Kibarian, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K of PDF Solutions, Inc.;

 

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/ John K. Kibarian                    |    |
|--------------|--------------|-----------------------------------------|--------------|
|    |    | John K. Kibarian                        |    |
|    |    | *President and Chief Executive Officer* |    |
|    |    | *(principal executive officer)*         |    |
| June 9, 2020 |    |                               |    |
EXHIBIT 32(b)

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 on Form 10-KSB of Technology Acquisition
Corporation ("Registrant") for the annual period ended March 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("Report"), I,
Steve Obana, chief financial officer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,
to the best of my knowledge:

(1)   This Report  complies with the  requirements  of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)   The  information  contained  in  this  Report  fairly  represents,  in all
      material respects, the financial condition of Registrant at the end of the
      period  covered by this Report and results of operations of Registrant for
      the period covered by this Report.

/s/ Steve Obana
---------------
Steve Obana
Chief Financial Officer
June 29, 2004

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to ss.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 Registrant for the purposes of
ss.18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. This certification
shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act
of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether
made before or after the date of this Report), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.

A signed original of this written statement required by ss.906 has been provided
to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 23.1  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM  We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-165418, 333-157685, 333-149203, 333-145074, 333-139555, 333-125490, 333-121584 and Form F-3 No. 333-187156) of Sanofi, of our reports dated March 6, 2014, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Sanofi and its subsidiaries and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Sanofi and its subsidiaries, included in this Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2013.  Paris-la Défense, France  March 6, 2014  Ernst & Young et Autres  Represented by Nicolas Pfeuty
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6191 

To amend the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 to include certain construction and land development loans in the definition of small business 

lending. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 23, 2010 

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina (for himself, Mr. PRICE of North Carolina, Mr. 

KISSELL, Mr. BACA, Ms. TITUS, and Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 to include 

certain construction and land development loans in the 

definition of small business lending. 

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

3 SECTION 1. AMENDMENT. 

4 Section 4102(18)(A) of the Small Business Jobs Act 

5 of 2010 is amended by adding at the end the following 

6 new clause: 

7 ‘‘(v) CONSTRUCTION, LAND DEVELOP8 MENT, AND OTHER LAND LOANS.— 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6191 IH

1 ‘‘(I) IN GENERAL.—Loans se2 cured by real estate— 

3 ‘‘(aa) that are made to fi4 nance— 

5 ‘‘(AA) land develop6 ment that is preparatory to 

7 erecting new structures, in8 cluding improving land, lay9 ing sewers, and laying water 

10 pipes; or 

11 ‘‘(BB) the on-site con12 struction of industrial, com13 mercial, residential, or farm 

14 buildings; 

15 ‘‘(bb) that is vacant land, 

16 except land known to be used or 

17 usable for agricultural purposes, 

18 such as crop and livestock pro19 duction; 

20 ‘‘(cc) the proceeds of which 

21 are to be used to acquire and im22 prove developed or undeveloped 

23 property; or 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6191 IH

1 ‘‘(dd) that are made under 

2 title I or title X of the National 

3 Housing Act. 

4 ‘‘(II) CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

5 REQUIREMENT.—Subclause (I) shall 

6 only apply to loans that are extended 

7 to small business concerns in the con8 struction industry, as such term is de9 fined by the Secretary in consultation 

10 with the Administrator of the Small 

11 Business Administration. 

12 ‘‘(III) CONSTRUCTION DE13 FINED.—For purposes of this clause, 

14 the term ‘construction’ includes the 

15 construction of new structures, addi16 tions or alterations to existing struc17 tures, and the demolition of existing 

18 structures to make way for new struc19 tures.’’. 

20 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

21 This Act, and the amendments made by this Act, 

22 shall take effect on the later of the following: 

23 (1) The date of the enactment of this Act. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
4 

•HR 6191 IH

1 (2) The date of the enactment of the Small 

2 Business Jobs Act of 2010. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
(85 South. 923)

#### STANSELL v. TREADAWAY et al.

(7 Div. 52.)

(Supreme Court of Alabama.

June 3, 1920.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Calhoun County; Hugh D. Merrill, Judge.

C. II. Young, of Anniston, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution. See, also, 203 Ala. 52, 82 South. 12.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>               9
<MULTIPLIER>            1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                           7,585
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             176
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 3,996
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     30,547
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        175,461
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,456
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 227,473
<DEPOSITS>                                     159,809
<SHORT-TERM>                                     9,200
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,645
<LONG-TERM>                                     24,764
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            27
<OTHER-SE>                                      32,028
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 227,473
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  6,505
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  937
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   220
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 7,662
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,637
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,379
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            4,283
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      115
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  67
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  3,199
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,456
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,456
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       884
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.41
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.16
<LOANS-NON>                                         14
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,348
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        8
<RECOVERIES>                                         1
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,456
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,456
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>