alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: M. J. KING, INC., AND MAX J. KING 

DOCKET NUMBER: 136 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Commodity Exchange Authority 

Washington, D. C. 20250 

ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT -- CEA DOCKET NO. 136 

(Administrative Hearing under the Commodity Exchange Act) 

A complaint and notice of hearing has been signed by the Assistant Secretary 

of Agriculture, charging violation of the Commodity Exchange Act by: 

M. J. King, Inc., and 

Max J. King 

(New York, New York) 

The complaint charges that M. J. King, Inc., while operating as a futures 

commission merchant during the period July 28, 1965, until January 25, 1966, and 

its president, Max J. King, failed to maintain books and records required under 

the Commodity Exchange Act. The complaint also alleges that, from January 1, 

1966, through January 24, 1966, the respondent corporation was not registered as 

a futures commission merchant as required by the act. 

The issuance of a complaint under the Commodity Exchange Act does not 

constitute proof of violation of the law. Such violation is established only 

when the Judicial Officer of the Department has made a determination that the 

evidence substantiates allegations in the complaint. Complaints are filed in 

the Office of the Hearing Clerk of the Department of Agriculture and are a 

matter of public record. Pending disposition by the Judicial Officer, it is the 

policy of the Commodity Exchange Authority not to comment or elaborate on 

charges contained in complaints or to discuss evidence on which they are based. 

A public hearing on the complaint is scheduled to be held before a referee at 

10:00 a.m., local time, May 25, 1966, in New York, New York. 

LOAD-DATE: June 12, 2008 
Page 2
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1576 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that a National Day 

of Recognition for Parents of Special Needs Children should be established. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 29, 2010 

Mr. BURTON of Indiana (for himself, Mr. TURNER, Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS, Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. BUYER, Mr. KENNEDY, 

Mr. REICHERT, Mr. HILL, and Mr. PENCE) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that 

a National Day of Recognition for Parents of Special 

Needs Children should be established. 

Whereas children with special health care needs are defined 

as those children who have a chronic physical, developmental, behavioral, or emotional condition that requires 

special health-related services of a type or amount beyond 

that required by children generally; 

Whereas the Department of Health and Human Services 

most recent National Survey of Children with Special 

Health Care Needs estimates 14 percent of children between the ages of 0 and 17 in the United States are diagnosed as having special health care needs; 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1576 IH 

Whereas active and supportive parents serve a critical role in 

the development of special needs children and in preparing them to succeed in school and in life; 

Whereas parents of special needs children deserve annual national recognition for their selfless dedication, compassion, and sacrifice; and 

Whereas it is appropriate that the Nation reserve a special 

day each year to celebrate and honor the parents of special needs children across the United States: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) recognizes the importance of honoring the 

3 Nation’s parents of special needs children; 

4 (2) expresses its sense that a National Day of 

5 Recognition for Parents of Special Needs Children 

6 should be established to honor such parents; and 

7 (3) urges the President to issue a proclamation 

8 calling on the people of the United States to observe 

9 such a day with appropriate ceremonies, programs, 

10 and activities. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32


                Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
      As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


Written Statement of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

         The undersigned, Dendy Young, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of
GTSI Corp. (the "Company"), and Thomas A. Mutryn, Chief Financial Officer and
Senior Vice President of the Company, certify that the Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 filed by GTSI Corp. with the Securities
and Exchange Commission fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of GTSI Corp.

Date:    August 9, 2004

                               /s/ DENDY YOUNG
                               -------------------------------------------------
                               Dendy Young
                               Chairman and Chief Executive Officer


                               /s/ THOMAS A. MUTRYN
                               -------------------------------------------------
                               Thomas A. Mutryn
                               Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President
EXHIBIT 32


<PAGE>


      In connection with the quarterly report of Synergy Resources Corporation,
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended November 30, 2010 as filed
with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") Ed
Holloway, the Principal Executive Officer of the Company and Frank L. Jennings,
the Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 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 results of operation of
          the company.


 January 12, 2011                      /s/ Ed Holloway
                                       ------------------------------
                                       Ed Holloway, Principal Executive Officer



 January 12, 2011                       /s/ Frank L. Jennings
                                        ------------------------------
                                        Frank L. Jennings, Principal Financial
                                          Officer
Exhibit (g)(4)

APPENDIX A

TO

CUSTODIAN AGREEMENT

BETWEEN

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.

AND

EACH OF THE INVESTMENT COMPANIES

DATED AS OF September 19, 2007
No. 760.

#### Smith *v.*Ragen, Warden.

Certiorari, 336 U. S. 966, to the Circuit Court of Will County, Illinois. It is ordered that Herbert A. Friedlich, Esq., of Chicago, Illinois, be appointed to serve as counsel for the petitioner in this case.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 32.1

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

                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 this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Voxware, Inc. (the
"Company") for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned,
Bathsheba J. Malsheen, Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and
Nicholas Narlis, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies,
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.
     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Voxware, Inc. and will be retained by Voxware, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

                                               /s/ Bathsheba J. Malsheen, Ph.D.
                                               ---------------------------------
Dated:  October 14, 2003                       Bathsheba J. Malsheen, Ph.D.
                                               Chief Executive Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Curtis Brown, Appellant.

[874 NYS2d 917]—

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hall, J), rendered December 18, 2006, as amended January 10, 2007, convicting him of murder in the second degree, attempted murder in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment, as amended, is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that he was denied a fair trial by comments made by the prosecutor during his cross-examination and the prosecutor’s summation is unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Williams,*305 AD2d 703 [2003]). In any event, any error was harmless *(see People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230, 242 [1975]; *People v Bailey,*272 AD2d 621 [2000]).

The defendant’s contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel is without merit *(see People v Tonge,*93 NY2d 838 [1999]; *People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708, 713 [1998]). Rivera, J.P., Florio, Dickerson and Chambers, JJ., concur.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Nuclear Regulatory Commission

# For further information contact:

Mr. Sam Duraiswamy, cognizant ACRS staff engineer, (telephone 301/415-7364) between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (EDT). 

Dated: June 8, 2001. 

James E. Lyons,

 Associate Director for Technical Support ACRS/ACNW.

[FR Doc. 01-15268 Filed 6-15-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.2 
FIRST AMENDMENT
TO
CONSULTING AGREEMENT
This First Amendment to Consulting Agreement (as amended from time to time, this “Amendment”) is effective as of January 1, 2016 (the “Effective Date”), by and among Trupanion Managers USA, Inc., an Arizona corporation (the “Company”) and Howard Rubin, an independent contractor of the Company (“You” or “Rubin”).  Capitalized terms used but not defined in this Amendment have the meanings given to them in the Original Agreement.  
RECITALS
The parties desire to amend the compensation payable by Company to Rubin pursuant to that certain Consulting Agreement dated May 5, 2014 (the “Original Agreement”). 
AGREEMENT
In consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter contained and upon the terms and conditions set forth below, the Parties agree as follows:
		
	1.
	Amendment to Agreement. Notwithstanding anything in the Original Agreement to the contrary, the undersigned parties agree that, during 2016:


		
	a.
	The Fees payable will be as follows:




		
	i.
	     January: $10,000


		
	ii.
	     February: $10,00


		
	iii.
	March:  $10,000


		
	iv.
	     April:  $0


		
	v.
	     May:  $0


		
	vi.
	June:  $0


		
	vii.
	July:  $10,000


		
	viii.
	August:  $10,000


		
	ix.
	September:  $10,000


		
	x.
	     October:  $10,000


		
	xi.
	November:  $10,000


		
	xii.
	December:  $10,000




		
	b.
	You will provide no fewer than 20 Project Days, as You and the Company reasonably and mutually determine appropriate.  


		
	2.
	Severability.  Any term or provision of this Amendment that is invalid or unenforceable in any jurisdiction shall, as to such jurisdiction, be ineffective to the extent of such invalidity or unenforceability without rendering invalid or unenforceable the remaining terms and provisions of the Agreement, as modified by this Amendment, or affecting the validity or enforceability of any of the terms or provisions of the Agreement, as modified by this Amendment, in any other jurisdiction.  If any provision of the Agreement, as modified by this Amendment, is so broad as to be unenforceable, the provision shall be interpreted to be only so broad as is enforceable.  


		
	3.
	Amendment.  The terms and conditions of this Amendment may be amended or waived only in writing executed by duly authorized representatives of the Parties.


		
	4.
	Counterparts.  This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same agreement.




[signature page follows]















IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto by their respective duly authorized representatives have executed this Agreement to be effective as of the Effective Date.
#### Pablo BELTRAN-FLORES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-70795.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 25, 2010.*

Decided June 10, 2010.

Pablo Beltran-Flores, Pittsburg, CA, pro se.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Anthony Cardozo Payne, Senior Litigation Counsel, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Lauren Fas-cett, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

*608Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Pablo Beltran-Flores, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ ("BIA”) order denying his motion to reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

In his opening brief, Beltran-Flores fails to address, and thereby waives any challenge to, the BIA’s order denying his motion to reconsider. *See Martinez-Serrano v. INS,*94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s underlying order dismissing Beltran-Flores’ appeal from the immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for relief, because this petition for review is not timely as to that order. *See Singh v. INS,*315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         648,760
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               10,444,097
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 12,231,884
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       1,326,439
<DEPRECIATION>                                 579,114
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              24,689,569
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      3,990,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            4,841
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,055,356
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                24,689,569
<SALES>                                      4,453,674
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,833,944
<CGS>                                        2,992,629
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,992,629
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,249,972
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             493,385
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (408,657)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (162,209)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (246,448)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (246,448)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.51)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.51)


</TABLE>
CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY

#### Goodman Homes v. Helmut Rader et al.

September 3, 1991

Case No. (Law) 104172

By JUDGE RICHARD J. JAMBORSKY

This matter was before the Court on August 30, 1991, on defense counsel’s motion to compel discovery.

At the beginning of each Friday Motions Docket, the Court announces that attorneys who appear before the Court on discovery controversies are certifying by their appearance that they have made good faith settlement efforts to resolve the dispute.

In the instant case, prior to the hearing, in a telephone conversation concerning the discovery dispute, defense counsel demanded the Hf — king documents and' the g-dd-n documents." Plaintiff’s counsel was offended by the language and brought it to the Court’s attention. Such language from counsel in a controversy before this Court is unprofessional and inappropriate. Of even greater concern to the Court is that such language shuts off reasonable efforts to settle the issue in controversy. In the long run, it exacerbates all issues in the suit and makes settlement of the entire case more difficult. This is hardly in the client’s interest.

Even though defense counsel has prevailed substantially on the merits of the discovery controversy, the Court awards plaintiff’s counsel $350.00 counsel fees for appear*157ing in Court to argue the matter. The fee is to be paid by defense counsel. /

Plaintiff's counsel, through his argument, representation and exhibits, convinced the Court that the discovery dispute could have been settled without a Court appearance were it not for defense counsel’s lack of civility and his use of inflammatory and unprofessional language.
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



I, Joerg Ott, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of GBS Enterprises Incorporated for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2013 (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 GBS Enterprises Incorporated.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date: November 14, 2013 | /s/JOERG OTT                  | 
|----------------------- | ----------------------------- | 
|                        | Joerg Ott                     | 
|                        | Chief Executive Officer       | 
|                        | (Principal Executive Officer) |
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

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

 July 2, 2019

a0624

Order 

Clerk

July 2, 2019

158316(31)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 158316

COA: 342152

Calhoun CC: 1989-000893-FC

PAUL ANDRE BLANTON,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s February 4, 

2019 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that 

reconsideration of our previous order is warranted. MCR 7.311(G).
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: SAMUEL E. COHEN, ALAN J. COHEN, JOEL COHEN AND IVAR J. BLACKER 

DOCKET NUMBER: 139 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Commodity Exchange Authority 

Washington, D. C. 20250 

ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT -- CEA DOCKET NO. 139 

(Administrative Hearing under the Commodity Exchange Act) 

A complaint and notice of hearing has been signed by the Assistant Secretary 

of Agriculture, charging violation of the Commodity Exchange Act by: 

Samuel E. Cohen, 

Alan J. Cohen, 

Joel Cohen and 

Ivar J. Blacker 

(Miami Beach, Florida) 

The complaint charges that the respondents, acting pursuant to an agreement 

or understanding, exceeded the speculative trading and position limits on potato 

futures during the period September 29, 1965, through May 10, 1966. The 

complaint also charges that Samuel E. Cohen individually exceeded the 

speculative trading limit on April 4, 1966. 

The issuance of a complaint under the Commodity Exchange Act does not 

constitute proof of violation of the law. Such violation is established only 

when the Judicial Officer of the Department has made a determination that the 

evidence substantiates allegations in the complaint. Complaints are filed in 

the Office of the Hearing Clerk of the Department of Agriculture and are a 

matter of public record. Pending disposition by the Judicial Officer, it is the 

policy of the Commodity Exchange Authority not to comment or elaborate on 

charges contained in complaints or to discuss evidence on which they are based. 

A public hearing on the complaint is scheduled to be held before a referee at 

10:00 a.m., local time, November 15, 1966, in Miami, Florida. 

LOAD-DATE: June 12, 2008 
Page 2