alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Israel S., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

[772 NYS2d 542]

In a juvenile delin*389quency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the juvenile appeals from (1) a fact-finding order of the Family Court, Queens County (Lubow, J.), dated December 4, 2002, which, after a hearing, found that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of attempted robbery in the second degree, attempted grand larceny in the fourth degree, menacing in the second degree, and unlawful possession of weapons by persons under 16, and (2) an order of disposition of the same court dated April 1, 2003, which, upon the fact-finding order, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent and, inter alia, placed him on probation for a period of 18 months.

Ordered that the appeal from the fact-finding order is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that order was superseded by the order of disposition; and it is further,

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency (see *Matter of Stevenson J.,*306 AD2d 412 [2003]; *Matter of Frank C.,*283 AD2d 643 [2001]), we find that it was legally sufficient to support the determinations made in the fact-finding order. Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded the evidence, are primarily questions to be determined by the trier of fact, who saw and heard the witnesses *(cf. People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the determinations made in the fact-finding order were not against the weight of the evidence *(cf.*CPL 470.15 [5]; *People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86 [1974]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions either are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Altman, J.P., S. Miller, Luciano and Rivera, JJ., concur.
## Summary Measures and Graphs

- Individual Provisions
- Payroll Taxes (including maximum taxable)

### **Description of Proposed Provision:						E3.5: Increase the taxable maximum each year by an additional 2 percent beginning in 2024 until taxable earnings equal 90 percent of covered earnings. Provide benefit credit for earnings up to the revised taxable maximum.**

|  |  |
|--|--|
<PAGE>


                                                               EXHIBIT 99.2

                          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 Quarterly Report of Forever Enterprises, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 (the "Report"),
I, Michael R. Butler, Chief Financial 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief,
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/ Michael R. Butler
                           ----------------------------------------------------
                           Chief Financial Officer of Forever Enterprises, Inc.
                           August 13, 2003


         This certificate accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required
by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 15, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8768-8769]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3791]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Fiscal Service


Surety Company Application and Renewal Fees; Increase in Fees 
Imposed

    The Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service, will 
be increasing the fees imposed and collected as referred to in 31 CFR 
223.22. This increase is to cover the costs incurred by the Government 
for services performed relative to qualifying corporate sureties to 
write Federal business.
    The new fees are effective December 31, 1994, and are determined in 
accordance with the Office of Management and Budget Circular A-25, as 
amended. The increase in fees is the result of a thorough analysis of 
costs associated with the Surety Bond Branch.
    The new rate schedule is as follows:
    (1) Examination of a company's application for a Certificate of 
Authority as an acceptable surety or as an acceptable reinsuring 
company on Federal bonds--$3,725.
    (2) Determination of a company's continued qualification for annual 
renewal of its Certificate of Authority--$2,200.
    (3) Examination of a company's application for recognition as an 
Admitted Reinsurer (except on excess risks running to the United 
States)--$1,325.
    (4) Determination of a company's continued qualification for annual 
renewal of its authority as an Admitted Reinsurer--$930. [[Page 8769]] 
    Questions concerning this notice should be directed to the Surety 
Bond Branch, Funds Management Division, Financial Management Service, 
Department of the Treasury, Hyattsville, MD 20782, Telephone (202) 874-
6850.

    Dated: January 31, 1995.
Diane E. Clark,
Assistant Commissioner, Financial Information, Financial Management 
Service.
[FR Doc. 95-3791 Filed 2-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-35-M
S. 3826 

One Hundred Seventeenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty two 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1304 4th 

Avenue in Canyon, Texas, as the ‘‘Gary James Fletcher Post Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. GARY JAMES FLETCHER POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 1304 4th Avenue in Canyon, Texas, shall be 

known and designated as the ‘‘Gary James Fletcher Post Office 

Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Gary James Fletcher Post Office Building’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
## Detailed Single Year Tables

- Individual Provisions
- Trust Fund Investment in Equities

### **Description of Proposed Provision:						G1: Invest 40 percent of the OASI and DI Trust Fund reserves in equities (phased in 2024-2038), assuming an ultimate 5.8 percent annual real rate of return on equities.**

### Financial Estimates for the OASDI Trust Fund Program
#### MRS. GENEVIEVE BROOKS v. CHARLIE WILLIAM HONEYCUTT and CHARLES YORK.

(Filed 29 April, *1959.)*

Appeal by defendants from *Sink, E. J.,*at August Civil Term 1958 of UNION.

Civil action to recover for personal injury sustained by plaintiff in motor vehicle collision,— the same as that involved in No. 449 at this term, entitled *Eleanor Deane Brooks v, Charlie William Honey-cutt and Charles York ante,*179, the plaintiff here having been a passenger in the Ford automobile of the plaintiff, — proximately resulting from actionable negligence of defendants as alleged in complaint.

The two cases were consolidated for the purpose of trial, and tried upon similar issues. But in the instant case there was no issue as to contributory negligence, or as to property damage. The other issues submitted to the jury upon the same charge as in No. 449 were answered in favor of plaintiff. And from judgment in accordance therewith, defendants appeal to Supreme Court and assign error.

*Coble Funderburk for plaintiff, appellee.*

*Smith & Griffin for defendants, appellants.*

PER Cueiam.

The record of case on appeal here discloses that appellants make the same assignment of error, based on same exceptions as in the case of *Eleanor Deane Brooks against Charlie William Honeycutt and Charles York,*decided ootemporaneously herewith. Hence the error pointed out, and for which a new trial is ordered there, necessitates on this appeal a

New Trial.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 8, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 7566]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3094]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


ISB Financial Corporation; Acquisition of Company Engaged in 
Permissible Nonbanking Activities

    The organization listed in this notice has applied under Sec.  
225.23(a)(2) or (f) of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.23(a)(2) or 
(f)) for the Board's approval under section 4(c)(8) of the Bank Holding 
Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843(c)(8)) and Sec.  225.21(a) of Regulation Y 
(12 CFR 225.21(a)) to acquire or control voting securities or assets of 
a company engaged in a nonbanking activity that is listed in Sec.  
225.25 of Regulation Y as closely related to banking and permissible 
for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, such activities 
will be conducted throughout the United States.
    The application is available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. Once the application has been accepted 
for processing, it will also be available for inspection at the offices 
of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views 
in writing on the question whether consummation of the proposal can 
``reasonably be expected to produce benefits to the public, such as 
greater convenience, increased competition, or gains in efficiency, 
that outweigh possible adverse effects, such as undue concentration of 
resources, decreased or unfair competition, conflicts of interests, or 
unsound banking practices.'' Any request for a hearing on this question 
must be accompanied by a statement of the reasons a written 
presentation would not suffice in lieu of a hearing, identifying 
specifically any questions of fact that are in dispute, summarizing the 
evidence that would be presented at a hearing, and indicating how the 
party commenting would be aggrieved by approval of the proposal.
    Comments regarding the application must be received at the Federal 
Reserve Bank of Atlanta or the offices of the Board of Governors not 
later than February 22, 1995.
    1. ISB Financial Corporation, New Iberia, Louisiana; to acquire 
through its subsidiary Iberia Saving Bank, New Iberia, Louisiana, 
Iberia Financial Services, Inc., New Iberia, Louisiana, and thereby 
engage in securities brokerage activities and providing general 
portfolio investment advice pursuant to Secs.  225.25(b)(4) and (15) of 
the Board's Regulation Y.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 2, 
1995.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 95-3094 Filed 2-7-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
<TABLE> <S> <C>


        <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE>5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>1

<S>                                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                              YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                                     1,661,963
<SECURITIES>                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                              128,389
<ALLOWANCES>                                               0
<INVENTORY>                                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                           4,825,998
<PP&E>                                                     575,061
<DEPRECIATION>                                             0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                             8,939,242
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                      3,601,716
<BONDS>                                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                2,390,000
<COMMON>                                                   2,211,151
<OTHER-SE>                                                 5,139,463
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                               8,939,242
<SALES>                                                    10,169,090
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                           10,169,090
<CGS>                                                      8,848,582
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                              8,848,582
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                           3,985,177
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                         0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                           (2,620,512)
<INCOME-TAX>                                               8,800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                       (2,629,312)
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                              (2,596,444)
<EPS-BASIC>                                             (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                             (.00)



</TABLE>
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 Quarterly Report of Immersion Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), I, Victor Viegas, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based on my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Victor Viegas      
|                       
|Victor Viegas          
|Chief Executive Officer
|                       
|November 5, 2010
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 247 (Tuesday, December 26, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 66796]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-31242]



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


DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Defense Science Board Task Force on International Arms 
Cooperation

ACTION: Notice of Advisory Committee Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board Task Force on International Arms 
Cooperation will meet in closed session on January 22-23, 1996 at the 
Pentagon, Arlington, Virginia.
    The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary 
of Defense through the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 
Technology on scientific and technical matters as they affect the 
perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At this meeting the Task 
Force will develop a generic model of international arms cooperation 
for the 21st century and also identify specific management actions that 
must be implemented to allow successful program execution on 
international efforts.
    In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II, (1988)), it has 
been determined that this DSB Task Force meeting concerns matters 
listed in 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552b(c)(1) (1988), and that accordingly this 
meeting will be closed to the public.

    Dated: December 19, 1995.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 95-31242 Filed 12-22-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
#### STATE v. ROBERT L. NASH.

(Filed 16 October, 1946.)

Criminal Law § 80b—

Where a defendant convicted of a capital felony fails to file case on appeal in the Superior Court or give appeal bond as fixed, the motion of the Attorney-General to docket and dismiss, made after expiration of the time agreed for perfecting the appeal, will be allowed after an inspection of the record proper fails to disclose error.

*609MotioN by State to docket case, affirm judgment, and dismiss appeal.

*Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorney-General. Moody for the State.*

Stacy, C. J.

At the May Term, 1946, Wake Superior Court, before Grady, Emergency Judge, tbe defendant herein, Robert L. Nash, was tried upon indictment charging him with the murder of one Margie Parker, which resulted in conviction of murder in the first degree and sentence of death as the law commands on such conviction. G. S., 14-17.

Prom the judgment thus entered, the defendant gave notice of appeal to the Supreme Court and was allowed 60 days to make up and serve his statement of case on appeal, and the solicitor was allowed 30 days thereafter to prepare and serve exceptions or countercase. Appeal bond was fixed at $50. The record fails to show that any was given.

The Clerk certifies that no case on appeal has been filed in his office; that “the time allowed . . . for filing same has expired”; and that “the Clerk has inquired of counsel for the defendant and has been informed by him that he does not intend to perfect the appeal.” The motion of the Attorney-General to docket and dismiss is supported by the record, and must be allowed. *S. v. Watson,*208 N. C., 70, 179 S. E., 455.

No error appears on the face of the record proper. *S. v. Morrow,*220 N. C., 441, 17 S. E. (2d), 507; *S. v. Brooks,*224 N. C., 627, 31 S. E. (2d), 754.

Judgment affirmed. Appeal dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3729 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3729

 To amend section 203 of Public Law 94-305 to ensure proper authority 
 for the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 2, 2022

   Mr. Rubio (for himself, Mr. Risch, and Ms. Ernst) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                  Small Business and Entrepreneurship

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend section 203 of Public Law 94-305 to ensure proper authority 
 for the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, and 
                          for other purposes.

    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 ``Advocacy Empowerment Act of 2022''.

SEC. 2. ADDITIONAL POWERS OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL FOR ADVOCACY.

    (a) Chief Counsel Authority.--Section 203(a) of Public Law 94-305 
(15 U.S.C. 634c(a)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (5), by striking ``and'' at the end;
            (2) in paragraph (6), by striking the period at the end and 
        inserting a semicolon; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(7) issue, modify, or amend rules governing compliance by 
        agencies with chapter 6 of title 5, United States Code, after 
        opportunity for notice and comment under section 553 of title 
        5, United States Code; and
            ``(8) authorize an agency to issue such supplemental rules 
        governing compliance with chapter 6 of title 5, United States 
        Code, as the Chief Counsel may approve, and ensure that the 
        supplemental rules comply with such chapter 6 and with the 
        notice and comment process under section 553 of title 5, United 
        States Code.''.
    (b) Implementation.--On and after the date that is 270 days after 
the date of enactment of this Act, the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of 
the Small Business Administration may exercise the authority under 
paragraphs (7) and (8) of section 203(a) of Public Law 94-305 (15 
U.S.C. 634c(a)), as added by subsection (a).
                                 <all>
```
```

[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 29 (Monday, February 13, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 8236]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3540]

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

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Dkt. 9081]

Levi Strauss & Co.; Prohibited Trade Practices and Affirmative 
Corrective Actions

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Modifying order.

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

SUMMARY: This order reopens a 1978 consent order that settled 
allegations that the respondent had engaged in a number of 
anticompetitive practices, including fixing the resale prices at which 
retailers sold its products, and modifies the consent order by adding a 
provision to clarify that the order does not prohibit conduct by the 
respondent that is necessary to form and operate wholly-owned retail 
stores, or retail stores partially owned by the respondent in lawful 
joint ventures. The Commission found that the respondent had 
satisfactorily met its burden of showing that changed conditions of 
fact required the modification.

DATES: Consent order issued July 12, 1978. Modifying order issued 
December 20, 1994.\1\

    \1\Copies of the Modifying Order are available from the 
Commission's Public Reference Branch, H-130, 6th Street and 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Daniel Ducore, FTC/S-2115, Washington, DC 20580. (202) 326-2526.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Matter of Levi Strauss & Co. The 
prohibited trade practices and/or corrective actions as set forth at 43 
FR 35262, are changed, in part, as indicated in the summary.

(Sec. 6, 38 Stat. 721; 15 U.S.C. 46. Interprets or applies sec. 5, 
38 Stat. 719, as amended; 15 U.S.C. 45)
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-3540 Filed 2-10-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-M
```
## Summary Measures and Graphs

- Individual Provisions
- Payroll Taxes (including maximum taxable)

### **Description of Proposed Provision:						E1.4: Increase the payroll tax rate (currently 12.4 percent) by 0.1 percentage point each year from 2029-2048, until the rate reaches 14.4 percent in 2048 and later.**

|  |  |
|--|--|