alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
A96A1319.

#### KEITH v. THE STATE.

(474 SE2d 256)

Blackburn, Judge.

This is the second appearance of this case before this Court. Hela Ann Keith was convicted of the misdemeanor offense of permitting another to unlawfully operate a vehicle. Keith appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in requiring her to try the case without her attorney present and in failing to grant her a jury trial. We remanded with direction that the trial court determine whether these rights were waived. *Keith v. State,*218 Ga. App. 729, 730-731 (463 SE2d 51) (1995). On remand the trial court found that these rights were not waived and set aside Keith’s conviction. The trial court also denied Keith’s plea in bar based on double jeopardy seeking to bar a retrial. Keith now appeals the denial of her plea in bar.

Keith contends that, by requiring her to represent herself at the initial trial without the benefit of counsel, both the trial court and the prosecutor engaged in misconduct warranting the imposition of the double jeopardy bar. Pretermitting the issue of whether there was any judicial or prosecutorial misconduct, we disagree.

“It has been recognized in many cases that the primary purpose underlying the Double Jeopardy Clause is to prohibit the retrial of a criminal defendant where the prosecution has, at the initial trial, produced insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction. [Cits.] The general rule is that retrial of the defendant is not barred where reversal of the conviction results from trial error rather than evidentiary insufficiency.” *Williams v. State,*258 Ga. 305, 311 (369 SE2d 232) (1988). “[E]ven intentional prosecutorial misconduct do[es] not raise the bar of double jeopardy, notwithstanding the fact that the defendant was thereby deprived of due process of law, unless the prosecutor’s actions were intended to subvert the protections *361afforded by the Double Jeopardy Clause. [Cits.]” Id. at 312; see also *Benford v. State,*164 Ga. App. 733, 734-735 (298 SE2d 39) (1982) (suggesting that the same standards apply to both prosecutorial and judicial misconduct). Keith’s conviction was overturned for trial error and not evidentiary insufficiency. Furthermore, although the need for a retrial was arguably a foreseeable consequence of the prosecutor’s and trial court’s actions during the initial trial, no evidence suggests that retrial was an *intended*consequence. Accordingly, the trial court properly determined that the double jeopardy bar did not apply.

Decided July 24, 1996.

*Green & Associates, Patrick H. Head,*for appellant.

*Keith C. Martin, Solicitor, Evelyn Proctor, Assistant Solicitor,*for appellee.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Beasley, C. J., and Birdsong, P. J, concur.*
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5418 

To prohibit officers and employees of the Internal Revenue Service from 

using personal email accounts to conduct official business. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 9, 2014 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To prohibit officers and employees of the Internal Revenue 

Service from using personal email accounts to conduct 

official business. 

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

3 SECTION 1. IRS EMPLOYEES PROHIBITED FROM USING 

4 PERSONAL EMAIL ACCOUNTS FOR OFFICIAL 

5 BUSINESS. 

6 No officer or employee of the Internal Revenue Serv7 ice may use a personal email account to conduct any offi8 cial business of the Government. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 34.1.5.3

 

[Letterhead of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP]

 

**Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

To the Stockholder of Chase Home Finance LLC:

 

We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying Management’s Report on Assessment of Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria, that Chase Home Finance LLC (the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007 (the “Reporting Period”), for asset-backed securities transactions backed by prime residential mortgages serviced on the Real Estate (“RE”) servicing system where the related asset-backed securities were outstanding during the Reporting Period (the “Platform”), excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(4)(i), 1122(d)(4)(ii), and 1122(d)(4)(xv), which the Company has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by it with respect to the Platform. Management is responsible for theCompany’s compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with applicable servicing criteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors thatmay have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report. 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 servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007 for the asset-backed securities transactions backed by prime residential mortgages serviced on the Real Estate (“RE”) servicing system where the related asset backed securities were outstanding during the Reporting Period is fairly stated, in all material respects.

 

**/s/*****PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP***

 

February 25, 2008
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-2962
EDWARD FRANCIS, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DAVID N. COOK, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-94-2490-3-17BD) Submitted: March 29, 1996 Decided: April 16, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edward Francis, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. John Robert Murphy, SWEENY, WINGATE, MURPHY & BARROW, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Edward Francis, Sr., appeals from a jury verdict in his favor, seeking a new trial in the hopes of winning increased damages. In support of his appeal, he presents thirteen allegations of error committed by the district court. These errors involve evidentiaryrulings and denials of continuances. Our review of the record reveals that Appellant has failed to establish that the district court abused its discretion regarding any of these rulings or made any other error entitling him to relief. See Superior Form Builders, Inc. v. Dan Chase Taxidermy Supply Co. , 74 F.3d 488, 495 (4th Cir. 1996); United States v. Bakker , 925 F.2d 728, 735 (4th Cir. 1991) (providing standards). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4999 Filed: 12/05/19 Entered: 12/05/19 12:53:38 Page 1 of

4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4999 Filed: 12/05/19 Entered: 12/05/19 12:53:38 Page 2 of

4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4999 Filed: 12/05/19 Entered: 12/05/19 12:53:38 Page 3 of

4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4999 Filed: 12/05/19 Entered: 12/05/19 12:53:38 Page 4 of

4
#### Leocadie A. V. Cassagne, Appellant, v. James M. Marvin and another, Respondents.

— Judgment affirmed as to the appeals of both parties, without costs on appeal to either. Opinion by

Herrick, J.;

Putnam, J., not acting,
Exhibit 15




Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
  The Board of Directors
  Cellcom Israel Ltd:
  We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333-141639) on Form S-8 of Cellcom Israel Ltd. of our report dated March 14, 2011, with respect to the consolidated statements of financial position of Cellcom Israel Ltd. and subsidiaries (“the Company”), as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, and the related consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income, changes in equity, and cash flows for each of  the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2010, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2010, which report appears in the December 31, 2010 annual report on Form 20-F of Cellcom Israel Ltd.
  Our report refers to the fact that the consolidated financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2010 have been translated into United States dollars (“dollars”) solely for the convenience of the reader. The consolidated financial statements expressed in New Israeli Shekels have been translated into dollars on the basis set forth in Note 2D to the consolidated financial statements.
  
 /s/ Somekh Chaikin
 
 Certified Public Accountants (Isr.)
 Member Firm of KPMG International
 
 Tel Aviv, Israel
 
 March 15, 2011
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4904 Filed: 11/29/19 Entered: 11/29/19 08:06:55 Page 1 of

2
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4904 Filed: 11/29/19 Entered: 11/29/19 08:06:55 Page 2 of

2
-1-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

for the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

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).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Bankruptcy Case

No. 19-30088-DM

Chapter 11

Jointly Administered

CERTIFICATION FOR DIRECT APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEALS

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(2) the court, acting on its own motion, certifies for direct 

appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Memorandum Decision on 

Applicability of Inverse Condemnation entered on the docket on November 27, 2019 (Dkt.

#4895), and its accompanying order entered on December 3, 2019. 

Signed and Filed: December 3, 2019

________________________________________

DENNIS MONTALI

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge

Entered on Docket 

December 03, 2019

EDWARD J. EMMONS, CLERK 

U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4954 Filed: 12/03/19 Entered: 12/03/19 10:27:09 Page 1 of

2
-2-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

for the Northern District of California

As required by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8006(b) and (e)(1), this Certification is accompanied 

by the Court’s Memorandum Regarding Certification For Direct Appeal To Court Of Appeals 

containing the information required by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8006(f)(2)(A)-(D).

***END OF CERTIFICATION***

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4954 Filed: 12/03/19 Entered: 12/03/19 10:27:09 Page 2 of

2
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

OF NATCO GROUP INC.

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, John U. Clarke, Chief Executive Officer of NATCO Group Inc. (the Company), and, I, Richard W. FitzGerald, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, 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/ John U. ClarkeName:

John U. ClarkeDate:

May 10, 2005/s/ Richard W. FitzGeraldName:

Richard W. FitzGeraldDate:

May 10, 2005
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CEO CERTIFICATION**

 

I, David M. Thomas, certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewed this Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q of IMS Health Incorporated (the “registrant”);

 

2.               Based on my knowledge, this report doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.               Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

4.               The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols 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 suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b)         Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, asof the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c)          Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter inthe case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

 

5.               The registrant’s other certifyingofficers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

 

(a)          Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b)         Any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| Date:  | August 5, 2003                  |
|--------|--------------------------------------|
|   |                                 |
| By:    | /s/David M. Thomas                   |   |
|   | David M. Thomas                      |
|   | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |

 

1

----
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Andrew Hood.

Order affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Pratt, J.;

Dykman, J., not sitting.
Exhibit 32.2





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 Phoenix International Ventures, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Teja N. Shariff, Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 operations of the Company.





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







May 16, 2011
By:
/s/ Teja N. ShariffTeja N. ShariffChief Financial Officer(Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)
<PAGE>
<PAGE>
        U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                Washington, D.C.  20549


                      FORM 10-QSB/A
                    (Amendment No. 1)
(Mark One)

[X]  Quarterly Report under Section 13 or 15(d) of the
     Securities Exchange Act of 1934

     For the quarterly period ended September 30, 1998

     Transition Report under Section 13 or 15(d) of the
     Exchange Act

     For the transition period from ______ to ______

         Commission File Number:  000-25057

                  NORTHFIELD BANCORP, INC.
---------------------------------------------------------
(Exact Name of Small Business Issuer as Specified in Its
Charter)


     Maryland                                52-2098394
-------------------------------          --------------------
(State or Other Jurisdiction of          (I.R.S. Employer  
 Incorporation or Organization)          Identification No.)


8005 Harford Road, Baltimore, Maryland  21234
---------------------------------------------------------
       (Address of Principal Executive Offices)

                    (410) 665-7900
    -----------------------------------------------
    (Issuer's Telephone Number, Including Area Code)


                          N/A
---------------------------------------------------------------
(Former Name, Former Address and Former Fiscal Year, if Changed
Since Last Report)

     Indicate whether the issuer (1) has filed all reports
required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act
during the past 12 months (or for such shorter period that the
registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been
subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.  
Yes      No  X    
   ---     -----

     As of November 10, 1998, the issuer had no shares of Common
Stock issued and outstanding. *

*  On November 12, 1998 the issuer sold and issued 475,442
   shares of Common Stock at a price of $10.00 per share. **

** This amendment has been filed to correct transposed numbers
   in the previous sentence.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 32535]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-13658]



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



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION




ITS Joint Program Office; IntelliDrive\SM\ Deployment Scenarios 

Workshop; Notice of Workshop



AGENCY: Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Department 

of Transportation.



ACTION: Notice.



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



    This notice announces a two-day IntelliDrive Deployment Scenarios 

Workshop to present and discuss the four draft IntelliDrive deployment 

scenarios that have been recently developed in response to key 

stakeholder input. The purpose of the workshop is to provide input to 

the U.S. DOT as it refines IntelliDrive research plans about potential 

future paths for IntelliDrive deployment. Discussions will be framed 

around four scenarios developed through stakeholder inputs. The 

workshop will engage participants to identify advantages and 

disadvantages of each of the draft scenarios and critical policy and 

institutional research needs. The Tuesday session will provide an 

overview of the four draft scenarios. The Wednesday session will 

consist of break-out groups to explore each of the four scenarios in 

detail as well as a concluding session that summarizes the findings 

from the workshop. The workshop will be held on June 22-23, 2010, at 

the Washington Dulles Airport Marriott, 45020 Aviation Drive, Dulles, 

Virginia.

    Following is the workshop preliminary agenda: Day one; (1) Welcome 

remarks; (2) Expected outcomes from the workshop; (3) Overview of 

IntelliDrive deployment scenarios; (4) Identification of major issues 

and parameters for day two discussion; and (5) Questions and answers 

and instructions for day two. Day two; (1) Break-out sessions on 

deployment scenarios; (2) Report on break-out sessions; and (3) 

Outcomes, key takeaways, and summary.

    The workshop will be open to the public and registration is free of 

charge using the ITS America registration process (http://www.itsa.org/itsa/files/pdf/Registrtion%20Form%20Deployment%205-13-10.pdf). Please 

fax your completed registration form to Brei Whitty at 202-484-3483 no 

later than June 15, 2010.



    Issued in Washington, DC, on the 2nd day of June 2010.

John Augustine,

Managing Director, ITS Joint Program Office.

[FR Doc. 2010-13658 Filed 6-7-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-HY-P
#### Thomas Moore, Appellant, v. Henry A. Taylor and others, Respondents.

Order affirmed, with disbursements.
Notice Recipients

District/Off: 0971−3 User: dchambers Date Created: 12/13/2019

Case: 19−30088 Form ID: TRANSC Total: 7

Recipients of Notice of Electronic Filing:

aty Dennis F. Dunne ddunne@milbank.com

aty James O. Johnston jjohnston@jonesday.com

aty Matthew D. McGill MMcGill@gibsondunn.com

aty Rebecca J. Winthrop rebecca.winthrop@nortonrosefulbright.com

TOTAL: 4

Recipients submitted to the Claims Agent (Prime Clerk):

aty Stephen Karotkin Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153

aty Theodore Tsekerides Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153

ABID QURESHI, ESQ. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP One Bryant Park New York, NY

10036

TOTAL: 3

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5085-3 Filed: 12/12/19 Entered: 12/12/19 13:04:07 Page 1

of 1
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

EXHIBIT C 

EXPENSE SUMMARY 

FOR THE PERIOD JUNE 1, 2019 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2019 

Expense Categories Total Expenses for the Period 

Hotel $526.30 

Airfare $1,898.24 

Expense Category Subtotal : $2,424.54 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4352-3 Filed: 10/21/19 Entered: 10/21/19 13:55:36 Page 1

of 1