alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
32(i)

                            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 Quarterly Report of Monroe Bancorp (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mark D. Bradford,
President and Chief 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 results of operation
            of the Company.




/s/ Mark D. Bradford
----------------------------------
Mark D. Bradford
President, Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
May 8, 2009


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350 and is not being filed for any other purpose.
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: September 18, 2014 105921 

________________________________

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

NEW YORK,

 Respondent,

v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

BRIAN AMELL,

 Appellant.

________________________________

Calendar Date: August 4, 2014

Before: Peters, P.J., Stein, Garry, Egan Jr. and Lynch, JJ.

__________

Michael C. Ross, Bloomingburg, for appellant, and appellant

pro se.

D. Holley, Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan

Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel), for respondent.

__________

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County

(McGinty, J.), rendered April 23, 2013, convicting defendant upon

his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a

weapon in the second degree.

In satisfaction of a two-count indictment, defendant

pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a weapon in the second

degree and waived his right to appeal. Defendant thereafter was

sentenced as a second felony offender to the agreed-upon prison

term of seven years followed by five years of postrelease

supervision. Defendant now appeals.
-2- 105921 

Appellate counsel seeks to be relieved of his assignment of

representing defendant upon the ground that there are no

nonfrivolous issues to be raised on appeal. Based upon our

review of the record, counsel's brief and defendant's pro se

submission, we agree. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed and

counsel's request for leave to withdraw is granted (see People v

Jennings, 117 AD3d 1281 [2014]; People v Cruwys, 113 AD2d 979

[1985], lv denied 67 NY2d 650 [1986]).

We note, however, that although defendant was properly

sentenced as a second violent felony offender, the uniform

sentence and commitment form incorrectly contains a notation

indicating that he was sentenced as a second felony offender. 

"While this error does not require that an otherwise legal

sentence be vacated, the uniform sentence and commitment form

must be amended accordingly" (People v Washington, 117 AD3d 1279,

1280 [2014] [citations omitted]).

Peters, P.J., Stein, Garry, Egan Jr. and Lynch, JJ.,

concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, application to be

relieved of assignment granted, and matter remitted for entry of

an amended uniform sentence and commitment form.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2567    Filed: 06/18/19    Entered: 06/18/19 08:12:57    Page 1 of1
**Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002I, Craig K. Tagawa, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of American Shared Hospital Services;2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; andb) [Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986;] andc) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andd) Disclosed in this report any changes in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (or the fourth fiscalquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.November 14, 2006              /s/ Craig K. Tagawa      Craig K. TagawaChief Financial Officer
Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2391    Filed: 06/05/19    Entered: 06/05/19 11:41:54    Page 1 of1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                             527
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           2,026
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      7,752
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                             210
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                               216
<LOANS>                                         33,625
<ALLOWANCE>                                        394
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  46,080
<DEPOSITS>                                      35,754
<SHORT-TERM>                                     1,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                933
<LONG-TERM>                                        432
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             8
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,953
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  46,080
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  2,727
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  795
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   223
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 3,745
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               1,665
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,774
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            1,971
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      312
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,416
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    447
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         279
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       279
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       41
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.94
<LOANS-NON>                                        323
<LOANS-PAST>                                       331
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   282
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      212
<RECOVERIES>                                        12
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  394
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               394
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
.^ 

OFFICE OF THE AR’ORNEY QENLRAL OF TCXAE 

AUSTIN 

Honorable Charloy 

Stat0 Treaauru 

Aurtln, Texas 

Dear Sir: 

Lookhut 

._ . . ., :w0 w0 in rwm~*~or 

opiliion upon tlia iollwln& qu* 

reatsd: in. Natf'o 

mold br the Uni 

tad Civil ‘Statute8 

l duty or investing 

ouund Dollarr 

bond8 l 8 ue 8uth o r lr a d for invr mtmo nt o f the 

Pamnont School JUIM.~ 

?i!ho olaam of meourltiea autborlroa for intmmtmont of 

perrrmnent public irea school fund8 16 ioUnd i?~ Artiola 9669 Or 

Vunoa*r Annotated Civil Statutes which reads as follows: 
. 

Eonoabla Gharloy bokhart, Pago 8 

‘Tbm State Board Cc Bducation la 6utborlred 

end &owarod to lovaat~ the parmanont pub110 

.frao 6obool fund6 of tba Stats in bonds or the 

Unltad States 

~haraor , and 

tha Bt6tm of Texea, or any ooun’ty 

ha indapandsnt or oomon school 

dlatrlota, road precincts, .dralnage, lrrIgatIon, 

nevl 

and f 

ation and laraa diatrlot6 in this state, 

ho bonds of inoorpordted oltlea and towns, 

ga;bll tiona and pledges oC the University ot 

.* f&deraoorlng ours) 

The National Defense Bondo a5 to which you inquire 

are l dlraot oblig6tlon oi thm United Statma Oovarnment, and, 

therefore, lq our oplnlon l uoh.bonda undar the authority of 

Art&o10 9669 

; . *a9 .+=Jw*, "ir 

legally bo pmroheaed em ti intrartment for 

. . 

-. 

.aJompwry ?Qilaed : ',. ;. 1, 

Talimtlug that 'ho ip~olug r8tlar4otorlly amwar 

y o ur iuq ulr 7, %a l o 

Youra vary truly 

APPlfOVlt~ JVLY‘lB'; 'l?il '.' 

," 

ATTd&Fi Cl!Nl%AL OF T&AS. "- ' 

. . . 

/a/ Orormr Sallua 

FIRST ASSISTABT 

ATTO8mlY fxmnut 

..,, 

6, rod 

AIppR[)*ID~OpfMO8 COIlMI%‘l’B8 n 8.t.8. CHAf-
#### J. W. GLOVER v. CARL GLOVER.

(Filed 22 March, 1944.)

(See *Glover v. Glover, ante,*152.)

Appeal by defendant from *Dixon, Special Judge,*at November Term, 1943, of JohNStoN.

Affirmed.

*Wellons, Martin & Wellons for plaintiff.*

*Parker & Lee for defendant.*

DeviN, J.

Tbis was a controversy without action to determine the title to land which plaintiff has contracted to convey to the defendant. The deed under which plaintiff’s title is derived conveys the land to him “his lifetime and then to his heirs and his heirs, and assigns.” The word “assigns” was stricken through with a pen.

For the reasons stated in *Glover v. Glover,*No. 234, *ante,*152, we think the court below has ruled correctly in holding that plaintiff can convey a good and sufficient title in fee.

The judgment is

Affirmed.
1 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

In re: 

PG&E CORPORATION,

 - and - 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 

COMPANY,

Debtors. 

 Affects PG&E Corporation 

 Affects Pacific Gas and Electric Company 

 Affects both Debtors 

* All papers shall be filed in the Lead Case, 

No. 19-30088 (DM). 

Chapter 11 

Case No. 19-30088 (DM) 

(Jointly Administered) 

Objection Deadline July 9, 2019 @ 4:00 p.m. (ET) 

MONTHLY STAFFING AND COMPENSATION REPORT OF 

AP SERVICES, LLC FOR THE PERIOD 

FROM APRIL 1, 2019 THROUGH APRIL 30, 2019 

In accordance with the Order Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 363(b) and 105(a) Authorizing the 

Debtors to Employ and Retain AP Services, LLC to provide a Chief Restructuring Officer, Deputy 

Chief Restructuring Officer and additional personnel for the Debtors Nunc Pro Tunc to the Petition 

Date [Docket No. 1299], AP Services, LLC (“APS”) hereby submits its Monthly Staffing and 

Compensation Report for the period of April 1, 2019 through April 30, 2019 (the “Compensation 

Period”). 

 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2587 Filed: 06/18/19 Entered: 06/18/19 15:12:18 Page 1 of

3
2 

During the Compensation Period, APS incurred $4,112,870.50 in fees and $363,770.79 in 

expenses for a total amount of $4,476,641.29 , as reflected in the attached exhibits. 

Dated: June 18, 2019 AP SERVICES, LLC 

865 S Figueroa Street, Suite 2310 

Los Angeles, CA 90017 

 

By: John Boken 

 Managing Director 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2587 Filed: 06/18/19 Entered: 06/18/19 15:12:18 Page 2 of

3
3 

EXHIBITS 

Annexed hereto are the following exhibits for the Monthly Staffing and Compensation Report of AP 

Services, LLC for the Period from April 1, 2019 through April 30, 2019 

Exhibit A - Summary of Compensation and Expenses 

Exhibit B - Summary of Fees and Hours by Professionals and 

 Description of Responsibilities of Professionals 

Exhibit C - Summary of Expenses 

 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2587 Filed: 06/18/19 Entered: 06/18/19 15:12:18 Page 3 of

3
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.4

                  LETTER AGREEMENT AMENDING THE LOAN AGREEMENT

Overton Bank & Trust, N.A.
South Arlington Office
Curtis F. Von Der Ahe
President


December 12, 1996

Mt. Tom Hoefert, CFO
InnoServ Technologies, Inc.
4330 Beltway  #300
Arlington, Texas  76018

REFERENCE:  LOAN AGREEMENT DATED DECEMBER 15, 1995 COVENANT VIOLATIONS
--------- 

Dear Mr. Hoefert,

You have indicated that you are in violation of the Minimum Tangible Net Worth
covenant as outlined in the loan agreement referenced above.  We hereby waive
compliance with this covenant thru October 31, 1996 and re-set this covenant
as follows:


          Minimum Tangible Net Worth         $4,500,000

If you require anything else, please do not hesitate to call.


Sincerely,


/s/ Curtis F. Von Der Ahe
Curtis F. Von Der Ahe
President
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 42908/42909

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JOSHUA L. HARRISON,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 636

Filed: September 16, 2015

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Kootenai County. Hon. Benjamin R. Simpson, District Judge. 

Order denying I.C.R. 35 motions for reduction of sentence, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Maya P. Waldron, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GUTIERREZ, Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

In Docket No. 42909, Joshua L. Harrison pled guilty to two counts of burglary, one count 

of grand theft, and one count of felony possession of a controlled substance. Idaho Code §§ 18-

1401, 18-2403(1), and 37-2732(c)(1) respectively. The district court sentenced Harrison to 

concurrent unified sentences of ten years with three years determinate for both counts of burglary 

and grand theft and three years determinate for felony possession of a controlled substance. 

In Docket No. 42908 Harrison pled guilty to grand theft, I.C. § 18-2403(1), and the 

district court imposed a concurrent unified sentence of ten years with three years determinate. In 

both cases the judgments were entered on May 23, 2014. On September 23, 2014, Harrison filed 

an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion in both cases, which the district court denied on November 
2

25, 2014. Harrison appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by denying his 

Rule 35 motions.

The State asserts, and Harrison acknowledges, that the Rule 35 motions were not filed 

within 120 days of entry of judgment and were thus untimely. Because the motions were not 

timely filed, the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the motions. Therefore, the district 

court’s order denying Harrison’s Rule 35 motions is affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 102 (Thursday, May 27, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 29728]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-12685]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Docket ID: DOD-2010-OS-0067]


Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DoD.

ACTION: Notice to delete a system of records.

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

SUMMARY: The Office of the Secretary of Defense proposes to delete a 
system of records notice from its existing inventory of record systems 
subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.

DATES: This proposed action will be effective without further notice on 
June 28, 2010 unless comments are received which result in a contrary 
determination.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number and 
title, by any of the following methods:
    <bullet> Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    <bullet> Mail: Federal Docket Management System Office, 1160 
Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1160.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name 
and docket number for this Federal Register document. The general 
policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is 
to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet 
at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, 
including any personal identifiers or contact information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs. Cindy Allard at (703) 588-6830.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office of the Secretary of Defense 
systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 
U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register 
and are available from the Privacy Act Officer, Office of Freedom of 
Information, Washington Headquarters Services, 1155 Defense Pentagon, 
Washington, DC 20301-1155.
    The Office of the Secretary of Defense proposes to delete one 
system of records notice from its inventory of record systems subject 
to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. The proposed 
deletion is not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act 
of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of 
a new or altered system report.

    Dated: May 21, 2010.
Mitchell S. Bryman,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

Deletion:
DPAE 02

System name:
    Administrative Files of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, PAE 
(February 22, 1993; 58 FR 10227).

Reason:
    Based on review of DPAE 02, Administrative Files of the Assistant 
Secretary of Defense, it has been concluded that this system is covered 
by the following government-wide system notices, OGE/Govt 2, OPM/Govt 
3, OPM/Govt 10, A0600-8-104 AHRC, F036 AF PC C, N01070-3, M01070-6. The 
system will be deleted.

[FR Doc. 2010-12685 Filed 5-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, March 29, 2017.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, March 29, 2017

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A17D0354. SHELTON LEE v. THE STATE.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

02CR0448
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk October 29, 2010

1026 

# Order

October 29, 2010

141915 & (19)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 141915 COA: 299213 Eaton CC: 2010-020062-FC MARK SHAWN MORGAN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the Octobe r 11, 2010 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that th e questions presented
should be reviewed by this Court.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JU LY 17, 2018

NO. 03

- 17

- 00760

- CV

Audria Edmond, Appellant

v.

Mark McElhannon/Accent Real Estate Services, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF BELL COUNTY

BEFOR E CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES PEMBERTON A ND FIELD AFFIRMED

— OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE

This is an appeal from the jud gment of possession signed by the tr i a l court on November 28,

2017

. Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the C ourt holds that there was no

reversible error in the trial court’s judgment . Therefore, the C ourt affirms the trial court’s

ju dgment

. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is

made.