alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

IN RE LOWER MANHATTAN DISASTER 

SITE LITIGATION 

 21 MC 102 (AKH) 

 

ZOILA CORTEZ, 07-CV-05344 (AKH) 

 

Plaintiff, 

 

-againstNOTICE OF DEFENDANT VERIZON 

NEW YORK INC.’S ADOPTION OF 

ANSWER TO MASTER COMPLAINT 

VERIZON NEW YORK INC., 

et al.

 

 

Defendants. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT Defendant Verizon New York Inc. (“Verizon”) 

hereby adopts as its Answer in the instant case its Answer to Plaintiffs’ Master Complaint which 

was filed and served on October 16, 2007 in the matter of In re World Trade Center Lower 

Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation, 21 MC 102 (AKH). In accordance with Case Management 

Order No. 4, the allegations of the instant Check-Off Complaint are deemed to be denied. 

Verizon also incorporates by reference all averments and denials of its Answer to Plaintiffs’ 

Master Complaint as though same were more fully set forth herein at length. Verizon further 

adopts the responses contained in any Amended Answer filed and served herein. 

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that Verizon reserves the right to file and 

serve an amended answer and specifically reserves the right to interpose cross-claims and thirdparty claims. 

WHEREFORE, Verizon demands judgment dismissing the above-captioned 

action as against Verizon, together with its cost and disbursements. 

Case 1:07-cv-05344-AKH Document 14 Filed 12/10/2007 Page 1 of 2
 2 

Dated: November 26, 2007 /s/ Eric F. Leon 

Eric F. Leon 

Lee Ann Stevenson 

Andrew Dunlap 

Michael D. Reisman 

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 

Citigroup Center 

153 East 53rd Street 

New York, New York 10022-4611 

Telephone: (212) 446-4800 

Facsimile: (212) 446-4900 

Attorneys for Defendant Verizon New York Inc.

TO: Christopher LoPalo, Esq. 

WORBY GRONER EDELMAN & NAPOLI BERN, LLP 

115 Broadway, 12th Floor 

New York, New York 10006 

 Robert A. Grochow, Esq. 

ROBERT A. GROCHOW, P.C. 

233 Broadway, 5th Floor 

New York, New York 10279 

 Gregory J. Cannata, Esq. 

LAW OFFICES OF GREGORY J. CANNATA 

233 Broadway, 5th Floor 

New York, New York 10279 

Liaison Counsel for Plaintiffs 

 Marc D. Weinblatt, Esq. 

SANDERS, SANDERS, BLOCK, WOYICK, VIENER & GROSSMAN, P.C. 

100 Herricks Road 

Mineola, New York 11501 

 David Kremen, Esq. 

OSHMAN & MIRISOLA, LLP 

42 Broadway, 10th Floor 

New York, NY 10004 

 

All Defense Counsel (via ECF)

Case 1:07-cv-05344-AKH Document 14 Filed 12/10/2007 Page 2 of 2
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1666 

To amend the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 to allow for the consideration of private flood insurance for the purposes of applying continuous 

coverage requirements, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 11, 2019 

Ms. CASTOR of Florida (for herself and Mr. LUETKEMEYER) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 to 

allow for the consideration of private flood insurance 

for the purposes of applying continuous coverage requirements, 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. EFFECT OF PRIVATE FLOOD INSURANCE COV4 ERAGE ON CONTINUOUS COVERAGE RE5 QUIREMENTS. 

6 Section 1308 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 

7 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4015) is amended by adding at the end 

8 the following: 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1666 IH

1 ‘‘(n) EFFECT OF PRIVATE FLOOD INSURANCE COV2 ERAGE ON CONTINUOUS COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS.— 

3 For purposes of applying any statutory, regulatory, or ad4 ministrative continuous coverage requirement, including 

5 under section 1307(g)(1), the Administrator shall consider 

6 any period during which a property was continuously cov7 ered by a flood insurance policy, either offered through 

8 the national flood insurance program or private market, 

9 that was used to satisfy the requirements under section 

10 102(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (42 

11 U.S.C. 4012a(a)) to be a period of continuous coverage.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b)

OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

I, Charles F. Cargile, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of
Newport Corporation (the Company), certify, pursuant to Rule 13(a)-14(b) or Rule 15(d)-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that (i) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all
material respects the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                     |  |  |  |                                                                                                              
|-------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                     |  | 
|Date: March 16, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/ Charles F. Cargile                                                                                       
|                     |  |  |  | Charles F. Cargile Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer (Principal Financial Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 has been provided to Newport
Corporation and will be retained by Newport Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Case 1:07-cv-01543-AKH Document 28 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-01543-AKH Document 28 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 2 of 2
#### In the Matter of Julio Borrell, Petitioner, v Vincent *558F. Naro et al., Respondents.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to prohibit the respondent Naro, a Justice of the Supreme Court, from presiding over the trial of consolidated Queens County indictments numbers 8316/86 and 8317/86, and to compel vacatur of so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Naro, J.), dated May 30, 1986, as denied the petitioner’s application for the respondent Naro’s recusal.

Adjudged that the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The respondent Naro’s exercise of his right to remain as Trial Judge in the pending matter at issue was within his discretion as a jurist. The extraordinary remedy of prohibition does not lie as a means of seeking collateral review of an alleged error of law in a pending criminal matter *(see, Matter of Kramer v Rosenberger,*107 AD2d 748, 749). Inasmuch as the petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to this remedy which transcends a question of substantive or procedural law, and which could not otherwise be safeguarded through the alternative remedy of appeal *(see, Matter of Lipari v Owens,*70 NY2d 731; *Matter of Rush v Mordue,*68 NY2d 348; *Matter of Molea v Marasco,*64 NY2d 718), the proceeding is dismissed. Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OFNATURE’S SUNSHINE PRODUCTS, INC.PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350**

 

In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K of Nature’sSunshine Products, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31,2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Stephen M. Bunker, Executive Vice President, Chief FinancialOfficer and Treasurer of Nature’s Sunshine Products, Inc. (the “Company”),hereby certify that, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:

 

1.               The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.               Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Stephen M. Bunker                                           |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Stephen M. Bunker                                               |
| Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |
| March 18, 2009                                             |

 

----
Order entered July 21, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-00590-CV

IN RE JONATHAN RUTE, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 296th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 296-03470-2016

ORDER

Before Justices Molberg, Reichek, and Smith

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY relator’s petition for 

writ of mandamus, and deny the request for emergency relief as moot.

/s/ CRAIG SMITH

JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER>  1

<S>                                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       2,656,571
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       2,250,000
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 29,873,023
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       2,090,063
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         2,100,160
<LOANS>                                     57,705,212
<ALLOWANCE>                                    648,587
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              95,808,551
<DEPOSITS>                                  70,887,135
<SHORT-TERM>                                 4,739,418
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,736,972
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    13,091,119
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,355,491
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              95,808,551
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              2,307,368
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              886,600
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               117,886
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             3,311,854
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           1,481,716
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,607,571
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        1,704,283
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   12,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              1,229,403
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                563,465
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     563,465
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   371,465
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.31
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.84
<LOANS-NON>                                     71,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                   385,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               640,982
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    4,463
<RECOVERIES>                                        69
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              648,588
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           648,588
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
#### Mobil Oil Corporation, Appellant, et al., Petitioners, v Syracuse Industrial Development Agency, et al., Respondents. (And Another Proceeding.)

Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated at Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Mordue, J. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Mordue, J. — art 78.) Present —Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Green and Davis, JJ.
Exhibit 10.34


 


AGREEMENT TO TERMINATE EQUITY OPTION AGREEMENT


 


THIS AGREEMENT TO TERMINATE
EQUITY OPTION AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”) is entered into as of May 13, 2019, by and among Chongqing Jinghuangtai
Enterprise Management and Consulting Co., Ltd., a foreign investment enterprise incorporated under the laws of the People’s
Republic of China (“PRC”) (“WOFE”); Chongqing Penglin Food Co., Ltd., a limited liability
company organized under the laws of the PRC (“Penglin”) and the Yan Liao, a shareholder holding 0.8% of the
equity interests of Penglin (“Shareholder”, with WOFE and Penglin collectively referred to as the “Parties”).


 


WHEREAS, in connection
with a certain Technical Consultation and Service Agreement dated as of October 9, 2017, and, Amendment to Technical Consultation
and Service Agreement dated as of February 25, 2018 (collectively, the “Consulting Agreement”), WOFE entered
into an Equity Option Agreement (the “Option Agreement”) with Penglin and Shareholder;


 


WHEREAS, Shareholder
and Zeshu Dai, as of the date hereof, have entered into a certain Share Transfer Agreement (the “Share Transfer Agreement”),
pursuant to which Shareholder has transferred all equity interest of Penglin to Zeshu Dai and no longer been the shareholder of
Penglin;


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in
consideration of the foregoing recitals and the mutual agreements herein contained and for other good and valuable consideration,
the Parties agree as follows:


 


A.       TERMINATION
OF THE EQUITY OPTION AGREEMENT. Each of WFOE, Penglin and Shareholder hereby agree to terminate the Option Agreement.


 


B.       GOVERNING
LAW. This Agreement shall be governed and construed under the laws of the People’s Republic of China, and shall be binding
on and shall inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective successors and permitted assigns.


 


C.       COUNTERPARTS.
This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be an original, but all of which together shall
constitute one instrument.


 


[Remainder of page left blank intentionally.]


 






     


     


    

 





SIGNATURE PAGE


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be duly executed by their legal representatives and duly
authorized representatives on their behalf as of the date first set forth above.


 


Chongqing Jinghuangtai Enterprise Management and Consulting
Co., Ltd.


 


	By:
    	/s/ Zeshu Dai	 
	Name:
    Zeshu Dai	 
	Title:
    Legal Representative	 
	 	 
	 	 
	Chongqing
    Penglin Food Co., Ltd.	 
	 	 
	 	 
	By:
    	/s/ Zeshu Dai	 
	Name:
    Zeshu Dai	 
	Title:
    Legal Representative	 
	 	 
	 	 
	Yan
    Liao	 
	 	 
	By:	 /s/ Yan Liao	 
	Yan
    Liao
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 9, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 23694]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-11657]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER01-1300-000]


Whiting Clean Energy, Inc.; Notice of Issuance of Order

May 3, 2001.

    Whiting Clean Energy, Inc. (Whiting) submitted for filing a rate 
schedule under which Whiting will engage in wholesale electric power 
and energy transactions at market-based rates. Whiting also requested 
waiver of various Commission regulations. In particular, Whiting 
requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 
34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability 
by Whiting.
    On April 12, 2001, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, 
Division of Corporate Applications, Office of Markets, Tariffs and 
Rates, granted requests for blanket approval under Part 34, subject to 
the following:
    Within thirty days of the date of the order, any person desiring to 
be heard or to protest the blanket approval of issuances of securities 
or assumptions of liability by Whiting should file a motion to 
intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 
and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 
385.211 and 385.214).
    Absent a request to be heard in opposition within this period, 
Whiting is authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or 
liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect 
of any security of another person; provided that such issuance or 
assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of 
the applicant, and compatible with the public interest, and is 
reasonably necessary or appropriate for such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that 
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by 
continued approval of Whiting's issuances of securities or assumptions 
of liability.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to 
intervene or protests, as set forth above, is May 14, 2001.
    Copies of the full text of the Order are available from the 
Commission's Public Reference Branch, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Internet at 
http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for 
assistance). Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed 
electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site 
at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-11657 Filed 5-8-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
(106 So. 56)

#### Ex parte Oscar HARRIS.

(6 Div. 498.)

(Supreme Court of Alabama,

Oct. 15, 1925.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 19, 1925.)

Certiorari to Court of Appeals.

William M. Adams, of Tuscaloosa, for petitioner.

Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., opposed.

THOMAS, J.

Petition of Oscar Harris for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that court in the case of Harris v. State, 106 So. 55.

Writ denied.

ANDERSON, O. J., and SOMERVILLE and BOULDIN, JJ., concur.
Exhibit
      32





CERTIFICATION
      OF THE


PRINCIPAL
      EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
      TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I,
      Peter
      J. Bergmann, the Chairman, President, Chief Executive Officer of YP Corp.,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of YP Corp. on
      Form
      10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 fully complies with the requirements
      of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
      information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents
      in
      all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of
      YP
      Corp.





Date:
                August 15, 2005
            */s/
              Peter J. Bergmann*Peter
              J. BergmannChairman,
              President and Chief Executive Officer





I,
      W.
      Chris Broquist, the Chief Financial Officer of YP Corp., certify, pursuant
      to 18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of YP Corp. on Form 10-Q for the quarter
      ended June 30, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained
      in
      such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects
      the
      financial condition and results of operations of YP Corp.





Date:
                August 15, 2005
            */s/
              W. Chris Broquist*W.
              Chris BroquistChief
              Financial Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE:

APPOINTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE 

JUDGE OF TRIAL DIVISION, FIRST 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT

 :

 :

 :

 :

 :

 :

 

No. 382

Judicial Classification Docket

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 18th day of December, 2023, in accordance with the general 

supervisory and administrative powers vested in this Court by Article V, Section 10 of the 

Pennsylvania Constitution, the Honorable Lisette Shirdan-Harris, who is serving at the 

pleasure of this Court as the Administrative Judge of the Trial Division of the First Judicial 

District of Pennsylvania, is hereby relieved of said assignment, effective December 31, 

2023. Further, all duties of the position of Administrative Judge of the Trial Division of the 

First Judicial District of Pennsylvania are hereby reposed in the Honorable Daniel J. 

Anders, Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania, 

for a term of three years or at the pleasure of this Court, effective January 1, 2024.
#### In re WILLIAMS.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.

May 14, 1894.)

Appeal from surrogate court, Kings county. Application of Amy Williams to remove an executor, and for leave to file further objections to said executor’s account. I. Newton Williams, for applicant. Scott *&*Upson, opposed.

PRATT, J.

We find no reason to remove the executor. So far as the papers show, his duties have been conscientiously performed. According to the decision of the surrogate, it appears that the mother received, under the will, a life estate in several houses in New York city, on which the executor collected upward of $111,000 rents, and paid the net proceeds,—$72,000,—to the mother. When the executor’s accounts are filed, the ruling is made that the executor, as such, had no right to collect the rents, nor to charge commissions therefor. But his good faith is not impeached, and, if the beneficiaries under the will are to be allowed to file objections at this late day, it should be upon conditions as strict as those imposed below. It may be added that it was a matter of discretion with the surrogate, which this court cannot well reverse. Order appealed from affirmed, with costs.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 754 

To provide for the issuance of a commemorative postage stamp in honor 

of George Henry White. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 28, 2009 

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

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To provide for the issuance of a commemorative postage 

stamp in honor of George Henry White. 

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

3 SECTION 1. GEORGE HENRY WHITE COMMEMORATIVE 

4 POSTAGE STAMP. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Postmaster General shall 

6 issue a commemorative postage stamp in honor of George 

7 Henry White. 

8 (b) SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS.—Such stamp— 

9 (1) shall be issued in the denomination used for 

10 first class mail up to one ounce in weight; 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•HR 754 IH

1 (2) shall bear such designs as the Postmaster 

2 General shall determine; and 

3 (3) shall be placed on sale as soon as prac4 ticable after the date of the enactment of this Act 

5 and shall be sold for such period thereafter as the 

6 Postmaster General shall determine. 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
## **EXHIBIT 23.2**

 

 

 

 

 

# **CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS**

 

 

 

 

 

We hereby consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos.333-102775, 333-98205 and 333-86856) of Pogo Producing Company of our reportdated February 21, 2003 relating to the consolidated financial statements,which appears in this Form 10-K.

 

 

 

/s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

 

 

 

Houston, Texas

February 27, 2003

 

 

----