alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Kranem Corporation d/b/a Learningwire.com (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Stephen K. Smith, acting in the capacity as the Chief Executive Officer, and I, Michael Grove, accounting the capacity as the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the best of our knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





/s/ Stephen K. Smith


Stephen K. Smith


Chief Executive Officer


November 12, 2010





/s/ Michael Grove


Michael Grove


Chief Financial Officer


November 12, 2010
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6979

CRRC MA Corporation:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because granting the request would undermine the objective of the Section 

301 investigation.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
Exhibit 15.1



                     SCHEDULE OF VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS
                              (U.S. dollars in thousands)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                Write-offs of
                                   Balance at     Provision      previously
                                  beginning of  for doubtful     provided     Translation    Balance at
                                    period        accounts       accounts     adjustments   end of period
                                    ------        --------       --------     -----------   -------------
<S>                                <C>             <C>             <C>            <C>        <C>
Year ended December 31, 2004:
Allowance for doubtful debts       $ 187           $ 131           $  -           $ 2        $ 320

Year ended December 31, 2003:
Allowance for doubtful debts       $ 150           $  32           $  -           $ 5        $ 187

Year ended December 31, 2002:
Allowance for doubtful debts       $  63           $ 129           $(42)          $ -        $ 150

</TABLE>
#### Esther Hudes, Appellant, v 255 W. 98th Street Company et al., Respondents.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, *198New York County (Eugene Wolin, J.), entered May 19, 1989, upon a jury verdict in favor of defendants, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

On this record, the jury could have reasonably concluded that plaintiff failed to meet her burden of demonstrating that defendants’ purported negligence, involving the maintenance and operation of a passenger elevator, was a substantial and proximate cause of the events which produced the injury *(Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp.,*51 NY2d 308, 315, *rearg denied*52 NY2d 784, 829). Plaintiff claimed that she sustained a broken ankle when she fell or tripped inside defendants’ elevator, which was not level with the floor landing. Plaintiff also testified that she initially blacked out before she managed to drag herself out onto the hallway and yell for help. Plaintiff’s next-door neighbor, however, testified that she heard a "thud” and cries for help emanating from inside plaintiff’s apartment at the exact time that the incident is alleged to have occurred. More importantly, a police officer, who responded to the scene to aid plaintiff, testified that he was informed by plaintiff that the injury had occurred when she fell inside her apartment. Thus, while there was conflicting testimony as to the location of the injury, the jury resolved the disputed facts in favor of defendants, and the record presents no reason to disturb its verdict *(Picciallo v Norchi,*147 AD2d 540).

We have considered plaintiff’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Asch, Wallach and Smith, JJ.
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Timothy CARITHERS, Appellant.

No. WD 48910.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

March 14, 1995.

Laura E. O’Sullivan, Asst. Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Michelle A. Freund, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before HANNA, P.J., and BRECKENRIDGE and SMART, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Appeal from convictions of two counts of forcible sodomy, § 566.060, RSMo Supp.1992, one count of forcible rape, § 566.030, RSMo Supp.1992, and one count of robbery in the second degree, § 569.030, RSMo 1986.

Affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 29, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-7332

FS-Elliott Co., LLC: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/Notice_of_Product_Exclusions

_5-30-2019.pdf.

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 502 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 502

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To amend title 38, United States Code, to ensure that the Secretary of 
    Veterans Affairs repays members of the Armed Forces for certain 
   contributions made by such members towards Post-9/11 Educational 
                  Assistance, 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. REPAYMENT OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES FOR CONTRIBUTIONS 
              TOWARD POST-9/11 EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE.

    (a) In General.--Section 3327(f)(3) of title 38, United States 
Code, is amended by striking ``together'' and all that follows through 
``(as applicable),''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect on August 1, 2023.

SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF CERTAIN HOUSING LOAN FEES.

    The loan fee table in section 3729(b)(2) of title 38, United States 
Code, is amended by striking ``November 14, 2031'' each place it 
appears and inserting ``November 28, 2031''.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 7, 2023.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
118th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 502

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To amend title 38, United States Code, to ensure that the Secretary of 
    Veterans Affairs repays members of the Armed Forces for certain 
   contributions made by such members towards Post-9/11 Educational 
                  Assistance, and for other purposes.
```
**Exhibit 23**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

The Board of Directors 

First State Bancorporation: 

We consent to the incorporationby reference in the registration statements on Form S-3 (333-17727 and 333-156517) and Form S-8 (333-3048, 333-92795, 333-83132, 333-107061, 333-131642, and 333-145816) of First State Bancorporation of our report dated March 31, 2009, withrespect to the consolidated balance sheets of First State Bancorporation and subsidiary as of December 31, 2008 and 2007, and the related consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive income (loss), stockholders’ equity, and cashflows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2008, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2008, which reports appear in the December 31, 2008, annual report onForm 10-K of First State Bancorporation. 

Our report with respect to the above consolidated financial statements refers to a change inaccounting for share-based payment transactions effective January 1, 2006. 

KPMG LLP 

Albuquerque, New Mexico 

March 31, 2009
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 Brooklyn Federal Bancorp, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Angelo J. Di Lorenzo, Vice Chairman 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, as amended; and(2)
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.











Date:  February
13, 2008





/s/ Angelo J. Di LorenzoAngelo
      J. Di LorenzoVice
      Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 19, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6279

BorgWarner, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request concerns a product strategically important or related to 

‘‘Made in China 2025’’ or other Chinese industrial programs.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N NO. 03-13-00093- CV In re Elizabeth A. Wong ORIGINA L PR OCEEDING F ROM TRAVIS CO UNTY M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N R el at o r E liz abeth A. Wong’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied, and Real Pa rt y in Intere st Caliburn Capital I , L L C’s motion to consolidate is dismiss ed. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

__________________________________________ J eff Rose, J ustice Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Pemberton and Rose Filed: Mar ch 8, 2013
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Hickman Scott Wallace , Appellant

No. 06

- 23

- 00245

- CR v.

The State of Texas , Appellee Appeal from the 336th District Court of Fannin County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. CR

- 22

- 28460 ). Panel consists of Chief Justice Stevens and Justices van Cleef and Rambin. Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice

van Cleef

.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court below. We affirm the judgment of th e trial court. We note that the appellant, Hickman Scott Wallace , has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED JULY 9, 2024 BY ORDER OF THE COURT SCOTT E. STEVENS CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey , Clerk
Exhibit 10.4


 


Mr. Robert F. Plecki, Jr.


c/o First Busey Corporation


100 West University


Champaign, Illinois  61824-4028


 


Dear Bob:


 


As you are aware, First Busey Corporation has
implemented several changes in the executive management of the company.  As part of this management restructuring, on
or about March 31, 2010, your position will change from President-Florida
Region of Busey Bank  to Chief
Credit Officer of First Busey Corporation and Busey Bank  and
President-Florida Region.


 


In this new position you will continue to report to
the President and Chief Executive Officer of First Busey.  Your compensation and benefits will remain
unchanged at this time, but may change when all management compensation is
reviewed after the end of the first quarter of this year.  As Chief Credit Officer, all credit related
functions including retail, business and mortgage underwriting will align under
your leadership as will other responsibilities assigned by the Chief Executive
Officer or the board of directors.


 


Please confirm your acquiescence and agreement to the
changes noted above as though such changes were reflected in your employment
agreement with First Busey by signing below and returning a copy of this letter
to Dave White.  This letter will act as
an addendum to your employment agreement.


 


Thank you for your continued efforts.


 


	
   

  	
  Very truly yours,

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Van A. Dukeman

  
	
   

  	
  President and CEO

  
	
   

  	
  First Busey Corporation

  



 


 


I understand and agree to the foregoing changes to my
job title and related job duties and responsibilities.


 


 


	
  /s/ Robert F. Plecki, Jr.

  	
   

  
	
  Robert F. Plecki, Jr.
Exhibit 21.1

INTERPOOL, INC. AND
SUBSIDIARIES

|Entity
INTERPOOL SERVICES, INC.
MILITARY TRANSPORT, INC.
RAILPOOL, INC.
INTERPOOL CHASSIS FUNDING, L.L.C.
INTERPOOL CHASSIS ISSUANCE, LLC 
MICROTECH HOLDING CORP. 
INTERPOOL FINANCE, INC. 
GLOBAL CHASSIS LLC 
TRAC LEASE, INC.
WMII CORP. 
TRANSACT CORPORATION
DATATRAC SERVICES, INC.
CHASSIS HOLDINGS I LLC
INTERPOOL LOGISTICS L.L.C. 
MICROTECH LEASING CORPORATION
CONTAINER APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
INTERPOOL LIMITED
INTERPOOL CONTAINERS LIMITED 
IPL, LLC 
INTERPOOL CONTAINER FUNDING II, SRL
INTERPOOL FINANCE CORP. 
INTERPOOL FUNDING CORP. II 
INTERPOOL FUNDING CORP. I SRL
INTERPOOL CONTAINER FUNDING, SRL
INTERPOOL (HONG KONG) LTD. 
CAI-INTERPOOL, LLC 
INTERPOOL N.V.
INTERPOOL B.V.
INTERPOOL BENELUX B.V.
INTERPOOL (S) PTE LTD
CTC EQUIPMENT AG
INTERPOOL CONTAINERS N.V.
INTERPOOL CONTAINERS, INC. 
INTERPOOL (UK) LIMITED
CTC CONTAINER TRADING (UK) LIMITED | Jurisdiction
Delaware
Delaware
Delaware
Delaware
Delaware
Delaware
Delaware
Delaware
Delaware
Delaware
Delaware
Delaware
Delaware
Delaware
New Jersey
Nevada
Barbados
Barbados
Delaware
Barbados
Cayman Islands
Cayman Islands
Barbados
Barbados
Hong Kong
Delaware
Curacao, Netherlands Antilles
Netherlands
Netherlands
Republic of Singapore
Switzerland
Curacao, Netherlands Antilles
Delaware
United Kingdom
United Kingdom
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### Damon D. JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 51583.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western Distinct.

Submitted Jan. 23, 1996.

Decided April 16, 1996.

Rebecca L. Kurz, Asst. Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., David R. Truman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before HANNA, P.J., and SMART and ELLIS, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Damon D. Johnson appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. Johnson pleaded guilty to multiple counts including armed criminal action, forcible sodomy, forcible rape, robbery, burglary, and tampering. He has multiple sentences running concurrently for 20 years, and then another group of sentences to run concurrently for 20 years, consecutive to the first group of sentences.

The court has carefully considered his arguments on appeal and determines that he is not entitled to relief.

The judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 98-1199

___________ Boyd Lee Critel; Rita Lorraine Critel, * * Appellants, * * v. * * Curtis H. Evans, County Judge, York, * Nebraska; Bryce Bartu, District Judge, * Seward, Nebraska; Richard D. Sievers, * Chief Judge, Nebraska Court of * Appeals; Everett O. Inbody, Judge, * Nebraska Court of Appeals; * Wesley C. Mues, Judge, Nebraska * Court of Appeals; Sharon Cuda, * Clerk of District Court; Charles * Appeal from the United States W. Campbell, County Attorney; * District Court for the Loretta Heiden, County Treasurer; * District of Nebraska Dean Buller, Chairman County * Commission and all others; Dale E. * [UNPUBLISHED] Radcliff, County Sheriff and all others; * Patricia Bredenkamp, Clerk and * Register of Deeds; Ann Charlton, * County Assessor; Kelly M. Thomas, * Svehla, Barrows & Thomas, York, * Nebraska; Steve A. Rediger; Randy R. * Stoll; Rex Charlton; Florance * Charlton; Lanet S. Asmussen, Clerk * of Nebraska Supreme Court; Jeannie * Huff; Randy Campbell; York News- * Times, Dan D. Collin, Publisher, York, * Nebraska; Unknown Doe, 1 to 100; *TheHonorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District 1 of N ebraska, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable David L

. Piester, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Nebraska. -2- First National Bank, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: February 5, 1998 Filed: February 19, 1998

___________ Before McMILLIAN, LOKEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Boyd Lee Critel and Rita Lorraine Critel appeal from a final order of the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska dismissing their complaint with 1 prejudice for failing to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). We have carefull y reviewed the entire record, and we summarily affirm. See8th Cir. R. 47A(a). A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Fred R. ROBLES, Appellant.

No. WD 41164.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

July 25, 1989.

Paul Katz, Kansas City, for appellant. William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., and Elizabeth L. Ziegler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before KENNEDY, C.J., and GAITAN, J., and CONNETT, Special Judge.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Appeal from denial of a Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing.

Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
## In T he Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 23 - 00116 - CV ADAM MOORE , A

PPELLANT V. STATE OF TEXAS FOR THE PROTECTION OF S.J.E. , APPELLEE

On Appeal from the 285th District Court Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No . 2022CI24897 , Honorable Antonia Arteaga , Presiding



### July 12 , 2023 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and YARBROUGH, JJ. Appellant, Adam Moore, appeal s from the trial court’ s protective order. 1 Appellant’s brief was originally due June 7, 2023 , but was not filed. By letter of June 15, 2023 , we notified Moore that the appeal was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution,

1 Originally appealed to the Fourth Court of Appeals, this appeal was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 73.001.2

without further notice, if a brief was not received by June 26. To date, Moore has n either filed a brief nor had any further communication with this Court . Accordingly, we dismiss th is appeal for want of prosecution. See T EX . R. A PP . P . 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b). Per Curiam