alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#                                                                         Navy to Christen Guided-Missile Destroyer John Basilone                                                                    

17 June 2022WASHINGTON -- 
The Navy will christen the future USS John Basilone (DDG 122) during a 10:30 a.m. EDT ceremony on Saturday, June 18, at General Dynamics Bath Iron Works in Bath, Maine.Sgt. Maj. of the Marine Corps Troy Black will deliver the christening ceremony's principal address. U.S. Sen. Susan Collins of Maine; Vice Adm. Francis Morley, principal military deputy to the assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development, and acquisition; Vice Adm. Scott Conn, deputy chief of naval operations for warfighting requirements and capabilities; Don Basilone, brother of the ship's namesake; and Charles Krugh, president of General Dynamics Bath Iron Works will also provide remarks. The ship's sponsors are Ryan Manion and Amy Looney Heffernan, president and vice president of the Travis Manion Foundation. Ms. Heffernan is unable to attend the event. In a time-honored Navy tradition, Ms. Manion will christen the ship by breaking a bottle of sparkling wine across the bow.

The ship’s namesake, Gunnery Sgt. John Basilone, received the Medal of Honor for heroism displayed in the Battle of Guadalcanal during World War II, where he led his heavy machine gun sections in defense of a critical position and inflicted heavy casualties on the enemy. Basilone later returned to action at the Battle of Iwo Jima in February of 1944, where he single-handedly destroyed an enemy blockhouse and led a Marine tank under fire safely through a minefield. He was killed in action later that day and was posthumously awarded the Navy Cross for his unwavering devotion and valiant spirit of self-sacrifice.

"The future USS John Basilone will serve as a constant reminder of the immense impact that actions taken by any one Sailor or Marine can truly have,” said Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro. “Gunnery Sgt. Basilone is a national hero and this ship and crew will honor his legacy for decades to come.”

This is the second ship to honor Basilone. The first, USS Basilone (DD 824), was a Gearing-class destroyer in service from 1945 to 1977.

Arleigh Burke-class destroyers are the backbone of the U.S. Navy’s surface fleet, providing protection to America around the globe. These highly capable, multi-mission ships conduct various operations, from peacetime presence to national security, providing a wide range of warfighting capabilities in multi-threat air, surface, and subsurface domains. These elements of seapower enable the Navy to defend American prosperity and prevent future conflict abroad.

Additional information on the ship’s namesake can be found at: https://www.usmcu.edu/Research/Marine-Corps-History-Division/Information-for-Units/Medal-of-Honor-Recipients-By-Unit/Sgt-John-Basilone/

Tags:
**USS John Basilone**christening**Destroyer**DDG 122**Gunnery Sgt. John Basilone**Medal of Honor

Terms:
**All Navy Categories
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jessie R. Morgan, Appellant.

Casey, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Danaher, Jr., J.), rendered June 6, 1988, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of burglary in the third degree and grand larceny in the third degree.

On this appeal, defendant initially contends that his statements of January 22, 1988 were coerced and, therefore, his plea of guilty was a nullity. On April 4, 1988 defendant filed papers *pro se,*contending coercion on the part of the police. His defense counsel, the Public Defender, incorporated a motion to suppress the statements for that reason in his omnibus motion. No hearing was held and no determination was made in regard to the statements, because on April 18, 1988, prior to such hearing, defendant was offered a plea bargain. The record reveals that his attorney clearly and fully explained that defendant could go forward with the pretrial hearings upon his plea of not guilty or plead guilty in exchange for the plea bargain, thereby waiving his right to a *Huntley*hearing. Defendant elected the plea bargain and freely and voluntarily entered a plea of guilty to burglary in the third degree in full satisfaction of a seven-count indictment, and also to the indictment which charged grand larceny in the third degree only.

On June 8, 1988 defendant was sentenced as promised as a second felony offender to concurrent prison terms of 3 Vi to 7 years. Defendant did not move to vacate his plea or the judgment of conviction. Relief from the consequences of his plea has not, therefore, been preserved on this appeal *(see, People v Bell,*47 NY2d 839).

Defendant’s further claim of denial of effective assistance of counsel is utterly without merit. Counsel explained simply, fully and fairly the effect of such plea and the rights that defendant was waiving thereby. In our view, defendant knowingly and willingly accepted the plea offer which, in the circumstances, was favorable to his personal interests.

In these circumstances the sentence imposed was fully *871justified and was neither harsh nor excessive. The judgment of conviction should, therefore, be affirmed in all respects.

Judgment affirmed. Kane, J. P., Casey, Weiss, Levine and Mercure, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>


                                                                   Exhibit 99(a)
                         Independent Accountants' Report



The Board of Directors
American Honda Finance Corporation

Members of the Board:

We have examined management's assertion about American Honda Finance
Corporation's (the Company's) compliance with the minimum servicing standards
set forth in the Mortgage Bankers Association of America Uniform Single
Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers, as they relate to the servicing of
retail automobile loan contracts, as of and for the year ended March 31, 2003
included in the accompanying management's assertion. The minimum servicing
standards not considered by the Company to be applicable to the servicing of
retail automobile loans include procedures 2, 3 and 4 of section I - Custodial
Bank Accounts, procedures 1, 2, 3 and 4 of section III - Disbursements and
procedures 2, 3 and 4 of section V - Mortgage Loan Accounting. Management is
responsible for the Company's compliance with the applicable minimum servicing
standards. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion
about the Company's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, including
examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the
minimum servicing standards and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a
legal determination on the Company's compliance with the minimum servicing
standards.

Our examination disclosed the following material noncompliance with insurance
requirements applicable to the Company as of and for the year ended March 31,
2003. The Company was not in compliance with minimum servicing standards for
maintaining an errors and omissions policy effective during the year ended March
31, 2003.

In our opinion, except for the material noncompliance described in the third
paragraph, American Honda Finance Corporation has complied, in all material
respects, with the aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of and for the
year ended March 31, 2003.


/s/ KPMG LLP


September 25, 2003
143 So. 469

#### NOEL v. NOEL et al.

8 Div. 332.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

June 9, 1932.

Rehearing Denied June 23, 1932.

Wm. C. Rayburn, of Guntersville, for appellant.

*303D. Isbell, of Guntersville, for appellees.

GARDNER, J.

The appeal is from a decree sustaining a demurrer to the bill. The argument for complainant rests upon the theory that the bill is one to cancel a deed for undue influence, and reliance is had upon the authorities to the effect that in such cases it is not necessary to allege the quo modo by which the undue influence was exerted, but averments in general terms to that effect suffice. Roberts v. Cleveland, 222 Ala. 256, 132 So. 314; Strickland v. Strickland, 206 Ala. 452, 90 So. 345; Mildred Borton v. Frank O. Borton, post, p. 457, 143 So. 468, present term; Cunninghame v. Herring, 195 Ala. 469, 70 So. 148.

Upon this question of pleading the cases mark the distinction between undue influence, as a species of constructive fraud (8 R. C. L. 1032), and “fraud proper,” as it has been expressed (Alexander v. Gibson, 176 Ala. 258, 57 So. 760), in which latter case general averments of fraud will not suffice, but the constituent facts must be averred so that the court can clearly see that fraud has intervened (Harris v. Nichols, 223 Ala. 58, 134 So. 798).

The averments of the bill (paragraph 2) are more in harmony with the theory of duress, a species of fraud proper (9 R. C. L. pp. 713-724; Treadwell v. Torbert, 122 Ala. 297, 25 So. 216; Royal v. Goss, 154 Ala. 117, 45 So. 231; Rice v. Henderson-Boyd Lumber Co., 197 Ala. 579, 73 So. 70; Strickland v. Strickland, supra; 2 Pom. Eq. Jur. [4th Ed.] § 951; Stroup v. Austin, 180 Ala. 240, 60 So. 879), as distinguished from that of undue influence, and are therefore to be interpreted as charging that character of fraud known as duress, which requires the averment of the constituent facts rather than general conclusions of the pleader as here appears (Harris v. Nichols, supra; Powe v. Payne, 208 Ala. 527, 94 So. 587). So interpreted, the bill was subject to the demurrer interposed.

Though here unnecessary, yet it may not be amiss to say, in vie-w of complainant’s argument in brief, that the mere relationship of brother and sister does not of itself create a confidential-relation. 12 Corpus Juris, 421; 18 Corpus Juris, 240.

We are of the opinion the decree sustaining the demurrer is correct, and will accordingly be here affirmed.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, O. J., and BOULDIN and FOSTER, JJ., concur.
NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

06-3136

TIMOTHY LEWIS, Petitioner,

v. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Respondent.

__________ ________________ DECIDED: August 11, 2006

__________________________ Before MAYER, BRYSON, and LINN, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM. Timothy Lewis appeals the fi nal decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board, which upheld its initia l decision affirming the Department of the Army’s removal of Lewis from federal employment. Lewis v. Dep’t of the Army , DC0752050292-I-1 (MSPB Dec. 5, 2005). We affirm

. We may only reverse a board’s decision if it was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or unlawful ; procedurally deficient; or unsupported by substantial evidence. See 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c). “[ A]n evaluation of witness credibility is within thediscretion of the Board [and is] ‘virtually unreviewable’ on appeal.” King v. Dep’t of Health & Human Serv s. , 133 F.3d 1450, 1453 (Fed. Cir. 19 98) (citation omitted). Also, “[g]overnment officials are pres umed to c a rry out their duties in good fait h” and the petitioner has the bur den of prov iding credible ev idenc e to over come that presumption. Spezzaferro v. Fed. Aviation Admin. , 807 F.2d 169, 173 (Fed. Cir. 1986). We “will n o t disturb a choice of penalty within the agen cy’s discr etion unles s the severity of the agency’s action appears totally unwarranted in light of all the factors.” Mings v. Dep’t of Justice , 813 F.2d 384, 390 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Crediting the testimonies of O’Neal, Bryant, and Cortes did not amount to an abuse of discretion by the boar d; there is no sound reas on to disturb the board’s credibility finding with respect to their testimony. Additionally, the penalty the agency selected (i.e., removal ) was not unwarranted. Finally, the errors Lewis alleges occurred in the course of the investigation into his behavior are unsupported by the record, and the agency had no obligation to interview his other co-workers.

06-3136 2
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .


                                  Exhibit 10.2


                         2006 EXECUTIVE OFFICER SALARIES


<Table>
<Caption>
Name                                 Position                                             2006 Salary
----                                 --------                                             -----------
<S>                                  <C>                                                 <C>
Todd W. Herrick                      Chairman of the Board of Directors, President,        $475,000
                                     and Chief Executive Officer

James S. Nicholson                   Vice President, Treasurer, and Chief Financial         280,000
                                     Officer

Eric L. Stolzenberg (1)(2)           President of Compressor Business Unit                  280,000

Ronald E. Pratt (1)                  President of Electrical Components Business            210,000
                                     Unit

Michael R. Forman                    Vice President of Global Human Resources               150,000

Kent B. Herrick                      Vice President of Global Business Development          120,000
</Table>

  (1)  Became an executive officer effective January 1, 2006


  (2)   Salary established in November 16, 2005 employment letter
N0. 06-15-00086-CR

 IN THE Sixth COURT OF APPEALS

 OF TEXAS

 

 At Texarkana

 Samuel Moses Williams

 APPELLANT

 vs.

 The State of Texas

 APPELLEE

 _______________________________________________________________

 MOTION TO WITHDRAW

_______________________________________________________________

Comes now Charles E. Perry, attorney for the Appellant Samuel Moses 

Williams and moves the above Appellant Court for an order allowing him to 

withdraw for the reason that he had filed an Anders Brief in the above styled and 

numbered case as he had reviewed the record in said case an finds no error in 

which to reverse the case. Charles E. Perry now files the instant motion so that the 

Appellant can file a brief pro se or have other counsel for error that might give him 

relief. A letter, copy of the Anders Brief along with Clerks Record and Trial 

Record have been sent to the Appellant at his place of incarceration.

 /s/ Charles E. Perry

 FILED IN 6th COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 7/14/2015 2:59:58 PM DEBBIE AUTREY Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 208 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 208

      To extend the supplemental security income program to Guam.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2019

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To extend the supplemental security income program to Guam.

    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 ``Guam Supplemental Security Income 
Equality Act''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME PROGRAM TO GUAM.

    (a) In General.--Section 303(b) of the Social Security Amendments 
of 1972 (86 Stat. 1484) is amended by striking ``, Guam,''.
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--
            (1) Definition of state.--Section 1101(a)(1) of the Social 
        Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1301(a)(1)) is amended in the 5th 
        sentence by striking ``, the Virgin Islands, and Guam'' each 
        place it appears and inserting ``and the Virgin Islands''.
            (2) Guam included in geographic meaning of united states.--
        Section 1614(e) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1382c(e)) is amended by 
        striking ``and the District of Columbia'' and inserting ``, the 
        District of Columbia, and Guam''.
    (c) Waiver Authority.--The Commissioner of Social Security may 
waive or modify any statutory requirement relating to the provision of 
benefits under the Supplemental Security Income Program under title XVI 
of the Social Security Act in Guam, to the extent that the Commissioner 
deems it necessary in order to adapt the program to the needs of Guam.
    (d) Effective Date.--This section and the amendments made by this 
section shall take effect on the 1st day of the 1st Federal fiscal year 
that begins 1 year or more after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
BRILL & MEISEL 

Ashley Normand (AN-1564) 

845 Third Ave., 16

New York, New York 10022 

Attorneys for Defendants Jerry Jacobs, 

G:\358BWAY\2nd Discrim Lit\AN notice of appearance.doc 

th Floor 

(212) 753-5599 

Alan Rosen and 358 Broadway LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

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

ASHLEY GRANATA and AUTUMN DEVA : 

GINSBURG, : 

: 

Plaintiffs, : Case No. 07 CV 5830 (CM) 

: (electronically filed) 

v. : 

: NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

JERRY JACOBS, ALAN ROSEN, : 

358 BROADWAY LLC, and 358 BROADWAY : 

REALTY, LLC, : 

: 

Defendants. : 

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

To the Clerk of this court and all parties of record: 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned firm hereby appears in this action on behalf of 

the defendants Jerry Jacobs, Alan Rosen and 358 Broadway LLC and demands that a copy of all 

papers and proceedings be directed to the address listed below. I hereby certify that I am admitted 

to practice in this court. 

Dated: New York, New York 

 July 9, 2007 

BRILL & MEISEL

Attorneys for Defendants 

Jerry Jacobs, Alan Rosen and 

358 Broadway LLC

By:_/S________________________ 

 Ashley Normand (AN-1564) 

 845 Third Avenue, 16th Floor 

 New York, New York 10022 

(212) 753-5599 

Case 1:07-cv-05830-CM Document 4 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 32.1


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

     In  connection with the Annual Report of NS8 Corporation (the "Company") on
Form  10-KSB  for  the  period  ending  September  30,  2003  as  filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Peter
Hogendoorn,  Principal Executive Officer 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.

     A  signed  original  of  this written statement required by Section 906 has
been  provided  to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished
to  the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  or  its  staff  upon  request.

/s/  Peter  Hogendoorn
----------------------
Principal  Executive  Officer

January 14, 2004


<PAGE>
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2201 

To modify the presumption of service connection for veterans who were 

exposed to herbicide agents while serving in the Armed Forces in Thailand during the Vietnam era, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 10, 2019 

Mr. WESTERMAN (for himself, Mr. TIPTON, Mr. CUNNINGHAM, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, Mr. PANETTA, Mr. GIANFORTE, Mr. PERLMUTTER, Mr. GALLAGHER, Ms. SPEIER, Mr. FITZPATRICK, Mr. KILMER, Mr. JOHNSON of 

Georgia, Ms. VELA ́ZQUEZ, Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER, Mr. HILL of Arkansas, Mrs. DEMINGS, Mr. DEUTCH, and Mr. THOMPSON of California) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To modify the presumption of service connection for veterans 

who were exposed to herbicide agents while serving in 

the Armed Forces in Thailand during the Vietnam era, 

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, 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2201 IH

1 SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF PRESUMPTION OF SERVICE 

2 CONNECTION FOR VETERANS WHO WERE EX3 POSED TO HERBICIDE AGENTS WHILE SERV4 ING IN THE ARMED FORCES IN THAILAND 

5 DURING THE VIETNAM ERA. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Veterans Affairs 

7 shall ensure that if the Secretary creates a presumption 

8 of service connection between the occurrence of a disease 

9 and exposure to a herbicide agent while serving in the 

10 Armed Forces during the Vietnam era at a military base 

11 in Thailand, such presumption also applies to exposure to 

12 a herbicide agent while serving in the Armed Forces dur13 ing the Vietnam era at any military base located in Thai14 land without regard to where on the base the veteran was 

15 located or what military job specialty the veteran per16 formed. 

17 (b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

18 (1) HERBICIDE AGENT.—The term ‘‘herbicide 

19 agent’’ has the meaning given such term in section 

20 1116(a) of title 38, United States Code. 

21 (2) VETERAN AND VIETNAM ERA.—The terms 

22 ‘‘veteran’’ and ‘‘Vietnam era’’ have the meaning 

23 given such terms in section 101 of title 38, United 

24 States Code. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 13.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ENACTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Companhia Energética de Minas Gerais—CEMIG (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Luiz Fernando Rolla, Chief Officer for Finance and Investor Relations of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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 results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   |   | /s/ Luiz Fernando Rolla |
|--------|--------|------------------------------|
|   |   | Name:                        | Luiz Fernando Rolla |
|   |   | Title:                       | Chief   Officer for Finance and Investor Relations |

 

Date: June 29, 2011

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----