alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 1:07-cv-05556-AKH Document 13-3 Filed 08/17/2007 Page 1 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-05556-AKH Document 13-3 Filed 08/17/2007 Page 2 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-05556-AKH Document 13-3 Filed 08/17/2007 Page 3 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-05556-AKH Document 13-3 Filed 08/17/2007 Page 4 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-05556-AKH Document 13-3 Filed 08/17/2007 Page 5 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-05556-AKH Document 13-3 Filed 08/17/2007 Page 6 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-05556-AKH Document 13-3 Filed 08/17/2007 Page 7 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-05556-AKH Document 13-3 Filed 08/17/2007 Page 8 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-05556-AKH Document 13-3 Filed 08/17/2007 Page 9 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-05556-AKH Document 13-3 Filed 08/17/2007 Page 10 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-05556-AKH Document 13-3 Filed 08/17/2007 Page 11 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-05556-AKH Document 13-3 Filed 08/17/2007 Page 12 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-01542-AKH Document 17 Filed 02/06/2008 Page 1 of 3Case 1:07-cv-01542-AKH Document 17 Filed 02/06/2008 Page 2 of 3Case 1:07-cv-01542-AKH Document 17 Filed 02/06/2008 Page 3 of 3
**Exhibit 99.2**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Theundersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of BuildingMaterials Holding Corporation (the “Company”), for purposes of 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that to the best of his knowledge:

 

•      the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003 fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) [or Section 15(d)] of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

•      the information contained in such reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operation of the Company.

 

Dated:  May 13, 2003

 

 
| /s/  Ellis C. Goebel        |   |
|----------------------------------|--------|
| Senior Vice  President - Finance |
| (Principal Financial Officer)    |

 

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Carl J. Messinger, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Madison County (O’Brien, III, J.), rendered September 26, 1988, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of sodomy in the first degree.

We have reviewed the record and the brief submitted by defendant’s assigned counsel and agree that there are no meritorious issues which could be raised on appeal. The judgment should therefore be affirmed and counsel’s application for leave to withdraw granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Cruwys,*113 AD2d 979, *lv denied*67 NY2d 650; *People v Crawford,*71 AD2d 38).

Judgment affirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Levine, Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur.
#### Application of PETERS.

(Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.

Submitted March 15, 1923.

Decided May 7, 1923.)

No. 1586.

Patents <@=>72—Stirring apparatus- for slaking lime held anticipated.

An invention claimed in an application for a patent for a stirring apparatus for slaking lime, in which the oscillation of the arms is limited to a radius below the line of the shaft which is covered by lime and water, *held*anticipated.

Appeal from the Commissioner of Patents.

In the matter of the application of Ralph Rolin Peters for a patent. From a decision denying the application, applicant appeals.

Affirmed.

Robert D. Totten, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellant.

Theodore A. Hostetler, of Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Before SMYTH, Chief Justice, and ROBB and VAN ORSDER, Associate Justices.

igs»For other cases see same topic & KEY-NTJMBBR in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes

VAN ORSDER, Associate Justice.

This-appeal is from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents denying appellant’s application for a patent.

The alleged invention relates to a stirring apparatus for slaking line. It consists of a troughlike tub through which extends a shaft longitudinally, upon which is mounted a sleeve from which extends downward staggered arms. The sleeves and arms are oscillated by power means which operates the shaft. The oscillation of the sleeves and arms is limited in operation to a radius below the line of the shaft. In use, sufficient lime and water are placed in the tub to completely cover the arms at all times in their movement, so that no lime may be carried by the arms into contact with the air.

Two patents are cited in anticipation of appellant’s invention. A patent to one Osburn, March *Í,*1904, discloses a machine for mixing substances and liquids into a plastic state. It is especially adapted for mixing bre'ad dough. The beaters are mounted rigidly upon a shaft which is oscillated by power means similar to that used in appellant’s device.

A patent to one Rennyson, December 11, 1894, discloses a device for slaking lime. The lime and water in the receptacle are stirred by means of stirring plates on radial arms. In the Rennyson device the receptacle is air-tight, excepting a hopper entrance, through which the materials are fed into the receptacle. It is described in the specification as follows:

> “The top of the slaker casing is air-tight, except at the entrance of hopper *0*thereto, and at this point the body of lime in the hopper will prevent access of air.”

The attempted limitation in the structural claims of the arms beneath the surface of the material treated belongs to process rather than *638structure. The amount of material in the container has nothing to do with the structural characteristics. We agree with the Examiner that:

> “The broad function ascribed to applicant’s structure is carried out in the structure of Rennyson. The structural characteristics of applicant’s claimed device are disclosed in the patent of Osburn.”

The decision of the Commissioner is affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1794 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1794

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide an exclusion from 
            gross income for AmeriCorps educational awards.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 14, 2019

  Mr. Lewis introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide an exclusion from 
            gross income for AmeriCorps educational awards.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Segal AmeriCorps Education Award Tax 
Relief Act of 2019''.

SEC. 2. EXCLUSION FROM GROSS INCOME OF AMERICORPS EDUCATIONAL AWARDS.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 117(c) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``or'' at the end of 
subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (C) 
and inserting ``, or'', and by adding at the end the following new 
subparagraph:
                    ``(D) a national service educational award under 
                subtitle D of title I of the National and Community 
                Service Act of 1990.''.
    (b) Exclusion of Discharge of Student Loan Debt.--Subsection (f) of 
section 108 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following 
new paragraph:
            ``(6) Payments under national service educational award 
        programs.--In the case of an individual, gross income shall not 
        include any amount received under a national service 
        educational award under subtitle D of title I of the National 
        and Community Service Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12601 et seq.).''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years ending after the date of the enactment of this 
Act.
                                 <all>
```
##### 



EXHIBIT 32
 Certification Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
   1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 By:
    /s/ William KeiperDated: May 10, 2006
    
    William KeiperChief Executive Officer and PresidentBy:
    /s/ Thomas LiguoriDated: May 10, 2006
    
    Thomas LiguoriSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer 26
cme @

Chicago Mercantile Exchange

20 South Wacker Drive 312/930.1000 tel
Chicago, IL 60606-7499 312/466.4410 fax
www.cme.com

January 24, 2007

Ms. Eileen Donovan

Office of the Secretariat

Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21 Street, NW

Washington, DC 20581

RE: — Section Sc(c)(1) and Regulation Section 40.6. Certification of Revision to Opening Time
for Goldman Sachs Commodity Index Futures and Options. CME Submission #07-09.

Dear Ms. Donovan:

On January 22, 2007, Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. (“CME” or “Exchange”) approved a
change in the opening time for Goldman Sachs Commodity Index (“GSCI”) Futures and Options
from 8:45 AM to 7:55 AM beginning Thursday, February 1, 2007.

This action is necessary because the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) has announced
a change in the opening time for its floor-traded energy markets from 9:00 AM Chicago time to
8:00 AM Chicago time, effective Thursday, February 1, 2007.

If you have any questions regarding this submission, please contact Paul Peterson at (312) 930-
4587 or via e-mail at ppeterso@cme.com . Please refer to CME Submission #07-09 in all
correspondence regarding this matter.

Sincerely,

John W. Labuszewski, Managing Director
Research & Product Development
3056877.1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

--------------------------------------------------------------X

IN RE: WORLD TRADE CENTER LOWER

MANHATTAN DISASTER SITE

LITIGATION

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

:

:

:

:

:

Docket No.:

21 MC 102 (AKH)

CARLOS PINELA,

Plaintiffs,

- against -

WESTON SOLUTIONS, INC., et al,

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No.:

07-CV-05377-AKH

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

BY DEFENDANT

WESTON SOLUTIONS, INC.

-----------------------------------------------------------------X

To the Clerk of this Court and All Parties of Record:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant WESTON SOLUTIONS, INC. (“Weston”), by

and through its attorneys, WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER LLP,

hereby appears in the above-entitled action, and that all pleadings and papers in this action be

served upon the undersigned at the office and address stated below. The undersigned certifies

that he is admitted to practice before this Court.

Dated: New York, New York

January 2, 2008

Case 1:07-cv-05377-AKH Document 12 Filed 01/02/2008 Page 1 of 2
2

3056877.1

Yours etc.,

WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER LLP

By: _/s/ Jason Harrington_____

Jason Harrington (JH7273)

Attorneys for Defendant

Weston Solutions, Inc.

150 E 42

nd

Street

New York, NY 10017

(212) 490-3000 (p)

(212) 490-3038 (f)

To: All parties via ECF

Case 1:07-cv-05377-AKH Document 12 Filed 01/02/2008 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 22-11 Filed 09/17/2008 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 22-11 Filed 09/17/2008 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 22-11 Filed 09/17/2008 Page 3 of 3
A92A0921.

#### KENNERLY v. FIRST COLONY BANK.

(422 SE2d 243)

Johnson, Judge.

White River Development, Ltd., executed a promissory note in favor of First Colony Bank (FCB) in the amount of $25,050. Dantzler Kennerly executed a personal guaranty of the note. White River defaulted on the note. FCB filed a complaint for damages against Kennerly and others. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of FCB and against Kennerly in the principal amount of $25,050, interest in the amount of $2,546.16, attorney fees of $2,784.62 and costs. Kennerly appeals. FCB has filed a motion to impose frivolous appeal damages.

1. Kennerly argues that the trial court erroneously granted summary judgment to FCB because there is a genuine issue of material fact as to the consideration supporting his personal guaranty. Kennerly claims that FCB orally agreed to satisfy White River’s debt from sales commission assignments before seeking to enforce Kennedy’s guaranty. Kennerly contends that this oral promise constituted the consideration for his personal guaranty and that FCB breached the promise. Kennerly’s argument is without merit.

“ ‘Parol evidence is not admissible to vary or contradict the unconditioned promise to pay provided in a note or a guaranty agreement. “The cases are legion that a complete and unambiguous instrument cannot be varied or contradicted by reliance upon inconsistent parol statements.” ’ [Cit.]” *Hendricks v. Enterprise Fin. Corp.,*199 Ga. App. 577, 579 (2) (405 SE2d 566) (1991). Here, the guaranty agreement is clear and unambiguous. Kennerly unconditionally guaranteed full and prompt payment of White River’s obligations to FCB. The guaranty states it was given “[f]or value received, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, and in consideration of any loan or other financial accommodation heretofore or hereafter at any time made or granted to White River Development, Ltd. ... by First Colony.” The guaranty also states that it “shall be continuing, absolute and unconditional.” Kennerly cannot now vary the terms of this clear and unambiguous instrument by reliance upon inconsistent parol statements.

2. This case presents no genuine issues of material fact or law and is wholly without merit. We find that the case was taken up solely for delay and the appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, pursuant to OCGA § 5-6-6, we award damages of ten percent of the judgment to *353the appellee. Damages are awarded in the amount of $3,038.08.

Decided September 8, 1992.

*Blandford & Werbin, John L. Blandford,*for appellant.

*John C. Bach, Robert J. Hulsey,*for appellee.

*Judgment affirmed with direction.*

*Carley, P. J., and Pope, J., concur.*
Exhibit 10.2  THIRD AMENDMENT TO SERVICE
AGREEMENT  This
THIRD AMENDMENT TO SERVICE AGREEMENT (this Amendment) is made and entered
into this16thday of January, 2008 by and
between Optelecom-NKF, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), and
James Armstrong, an individual (Employee). All capitalized terms used and not
defined herein shall have the respective meanings as set forth in the Service
Agreement between the Company and Employee dated as of June 10, 2002, as
amended on June 6, 2005 and November 28, 2005 (the Service Agreement).  WHEREAS
the Company and Employee have entered into the Service Agreement setting forth
the terms and conditions of Employees employment by the Company; and  WHEREAS
the Company and Employee are desirous of amending the Service Agreement and
this Amendment has been approved by the Compensation Committee of the Board of
Directors of the Company.  NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained in
the Employment Agreement and herein, the parties agree as follows:  1.Paragraph 2 of the Service
Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:  2.Term of Agreement. The Employees employment is intended
to be on an at-will basis, and unless terminated earlier in accordance with
the provisions of this Agreement, the Employees employment under this
Agreement shall continue until December 31, 2008.  2.The definition of Employment
Period in Paragraph 16 of the Service Agreement is hereby deleted in its
entirety and replaced with the following:  Employment Period shall mean the period between the date of
execution of this Agreement and the expiration of this Agreement pursuant to
Paragraph 2 of this Agreement or the earlier termination of employment pursuant
to Paragraph 14 hereof.  3.Except as specifically
modified by this Amendment, all other terms and conditions of the Service
Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.  4.This Amendment may be
executed in two or more counterparts, all of which together shall constitute
one and the same instrument.


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties, intending to be legally bound, have executed this
Third Amendment to Employment Agreement, under seal, as of the date set forth
above.   OPTELECOM-NKF,
  INC.By:
  /s/
  Edmund LudwigEdmund
  LudwigChief
  Executive OfficerEMPLOYEE/s/
  James ArmstrongJames
  Armstrong  2
**CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906 OF
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as an officer of
Warwick Community Bancorp, Inc. (the "Registrant") that the Quarterly Report of the Registrant on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Registrant at the end
of such period and the results of operations of the Registrant for such period.

|Date: | May 10, 2004 |  | /s/ Fred G. Kowal
Fred G. Kowal
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer                   
|----- | ------------ |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|      |              |  |                                                                                        
|      |              |  |                                                                                        
|      |              |  |                                                                                        
|      |              |  |                                                                                        
|Date: | May 10, 2004 |  | /s/ Arthur W. Budich
Arthur W. Budich
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

This certification accompanies this periodic report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6438

JERRY E. BOYD,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

DIRECTOR, DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District 

Judge. (1:14-cv-00381-GBL-IDD)

Submitted: May 21, 2015 Decided: May 27, 2015

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerry E. Boyd, Appellant Pro Se. Kathleen Beatty Martin, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jerry E. Boyd seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)

(2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Boyd has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Kahre-Richards Family Foundation, Inc., et al., Respondents, v Village of Baldwinsville et al., Appellants.

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law without costs and complaint reinstated. Memorandum: The trial court erred in holding that actual receipt of a notice to redeem by a real property owner is required for compliance with RPTL 1464 (1). Because defendant Robroy’s certified mailing of the notice to redeem to plaintiffs complied with RPTL 1464 (1) and is a method "reasonably calculated” to apprise the property owners in this tax foreclosure proceeding of their right to redeem their property, the requirements of due process have been met *(see, Harville v County of Erie,*148 AD2d 954). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Stone, J.— determination of adverse claims to real property.) Present— Callahan, J. P., Denman, Pine and Lawton, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32
        Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act



     CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                         OF TIMBERLAND BANCORP, INC.
          PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
Section 1350), each of the undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as an
officer of Timberland Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company") and in connection with the
Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June
30, 2009 ("Report"), that:

    *  the Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a)  and
       15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
    *  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
       material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
       the Company as of the dates and for the periods presented in the
       financial statements included in the Report.


/s/ Michael R. Sand                         /s/ Dean J. Brydon
--------------------------------            -------------------------------
Michael R. Sand                             Dean J. Brydon
Chief Executive Officer                     Chief Financial Officer


Date: August 10, 2009

<PAGE>
HYNES & HOWES INSURANCE COUNSELORS, INC.
                          Notes to Financial Statements
                           September 30, 1996 and 1995



Note 5.  Investment in Affiliated Company:

         Investment in affiliated company at September 30, 1996 and 1995
         consisted of a 3% ownership of Triton Investments, Ltd. common stock.
         Cost of the stock was $1,700 and the equity in assets is $2,720.

         The Company uses the equity method of accounting for investment in
         affiliated company, although the stock holding is below the 20% level
         of ownership, the control that was exercised by common officers and
         directors warranted this adaption.