alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# D ORIGINAL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA AF 06-0185

IN THE MATTER OF APPOINTING MEMBERS TO THE SENTENCE REVIEW DIVISION OF THE MONTANA SUPREME COURT ORDER

The term ofHonorable Dan Wilson as a member ofthe Sentence Review Division ofthe Montana Supreme Court expires on December 31, 2023. The Court thanks Judge Wilson for his service. Pursuant to § 46-18-901, MCA, the expiration ofJudge Wilson's term requires the Chief Justice of this Court to appoint a new member to the Sentence Review Division. Therefore, with the consent ofthe appointee, IT IS ORDERED that Honorable Matthew J. Cuffe of the Nineteenth Judicial District Court is appointed as a member to the Sentence Review Division for a term of three years, expiring December 31, 2026. TheClerkis directedtoprovide copiesofthis OrdertoHonorableMatthewJ. Cuffe, Honorable Dan Wilson, all members of the Sentence Review Division, the State Bar of Montana, the Administrative Assistant to the Sentence Review Division, and all Montana District Court Clerks. t

it, DATED this day ofNovember, 2023. 

# PILED NOV 1 it 2023 Bowen Greenwood alerk of Suprema Court. Main of Montana For the Court,
By ChiefJustice 11/14/2023

Case Number: AF 06-0185
<PAGE>
CONTACT:          Raoul J. Witteveen
                           (212) 916-3261

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

           INTERPOOL FILES $400 MILLION SHELF REGISTRATION STATEMENT

PRINCETON, NJ, January 27, 1998 - Interpool, Inc. (NYSE: IPX) announced today
that it has filed a shelf Registration Statement with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the proposed sale of up to $400 million of shares of
its preferred or common stock or its unsecured debt securities. The securities
may be offered from time to time, at prices and terms to be determined at the
time or times of sale, at the discretion of the Company.

The Company intends to use the net proceeds from the sale of the securities to
be offered pursuant to the Registration Statement for general corporate
purposes, which may include the repayment of secured indebtedness of the
Company and/or its subsidiaries, the purchase of equipment, acquisitions
and/or working capital.

Interpool is initially considering using the Registration Statement for a
Medium-Term Note Program or for the sale of other debt securities.

A Registration Statement relating to these securities has been filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission but has not yet become effective. These
securities may not be sold nor may offers to buy be accepted prior to the time
the Registration Statement becomes effective. This press release shall not
constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy, nor shall
there be any sale of these securities in any state in which such offer,
solicitation or sale would be unlawful prior to the registration or
qualification under the securities laws of any such state.

Interpool, originally founded in 1968, is one of the world's leading lessors
of cargo containers used in international trade and is the second largest
lessor of intermodal container chassis in the United States. Interpool leases
its containers and chassis to over 200 customers, including nearly all of the
world's 20 largest international container shipping lines.

                                     # # #
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

December 28, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4794

Enerpac:

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/12.21.18_Notice_of_Product_E

xclusions.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 the 10-digit HTSUS subheading under which your request was filed. 

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,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
Order filed August 18, 2016 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-15-00574-CV

____________

WESTVIEW DRIVE INVESTMENTS, LLC AND JACK YETIV, Appellants

V.

LANDMARK AMERICAN INSURANCE CO., KING-PHILLIPS 

INSURANCE AGENCY, INC. AKA INSURTRUST INSURANCE, 

AND GREGORY MCGEHEE, Appellees

On Appeal from the 269th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2012-47829

ORDER

On July 14, 2016, this court issued an order to the Harris County District Clerk 

to file a supplemental clerk’s record by July 24, 2016. The court has not received the 

supplemental clerk’s record.

Accordingly, the Harris County District Clerk is ordered to file the ordered

supplemental record by August 29, 2016, containing the following document:
2

 Show cause order signed April 21, 2015.

If the requested item is not part of the case file, the district clerk is directed to 

file a supplemental clerk’s record containing a certified statement that the item is not 

a part of the case file.

PER CURIAM
#### John P. Ryan, Appellant-Respondent, v Kinderhill Corporation, Respondent-Appellant.

Weiss, J.

Cross appeals from an order of the Supreme Court (White, J.), entered May 22, 1989 in Fulton County, which partially granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Plaintiffs action seeks commissions earned in obtaining loans for defendant from certain lending institutions through the placement of promissory notes with face values totaling $12,798,500. Plaintiff is seeking a commission equal to 1.5% of the total amount. Supreme Court limited the action by barring claims for commissions on any loans in excess of the first $3,100,000 (the amount set forth in defendant’s January 27, 1982 letter), finding that there were no other writings sufficient to defeat the affirmative defense of the Statute of Frauds (General Obligations Law § 5-701 [a] [10]). Supreme Court further limited plaintiff’s commission claim to *Vi%*pursuant to General Obligations Law § 5-531. These cross appeals ensued.

Plaintiff contends that a confluence of subsequent memoranda establish the underlying agreement to pay the finder’s fee *(see, Crabtree v Arden Sales Corp.,*305 NY 48, 53-54). However, these later documents admittedly do not relate to the financing involved in this action. Moreover, these documents fail to establish all the essential terms of the agreements sought to be proved *(see, supra,*at 54; *Merschrod v Cornell Univ.,*139 AD2d 802, 805), including specifically the identification of the financial placements subject to the new *907agreements *(see, Intercontinental Planning v Daystrom, Inc.,*24 NY2d 372, 380). Accordingly, the Statute of Frauds applies *(see, Haskins v Loeb Rhoades & Co.,*52 NY2d 523) and plaintiff is limited to the commissions referred to in the January 27, 1982 letter.

Supreme Court further granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment to the extent of limiting the percentage upon which the finder’s fee commission is based relying on General Obligations Law § 5-531. However, we need not reach the underlying applicability of the statute because this statutory defense has not been affirmatively pleaded in the answer *(see,*CPLR 3018 [b]). Defendant’s remedy is to move to amend its answer to include such an affirmative defense *(see, Raoul v Olde Vil. Hall,*76 AD2d 319, 333). It was therefore premature to address the issue *(see,*3 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac fifí 3018.16-3018.18; Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3018:21, C3018:22, at 154-155).

Order modified, on the law, without costs, by reversing so much thereof as limited plaintiff’s commission upon an unpleaded affirmative defense, and, as so modified, affirmed. Casey, J. P., Weiss, Mikoll, Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur.
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-2018-0025-7378

Nissan North America, 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 failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

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,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
Exhibit 31.1

                        CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Jeffrey Dashefsky, certify that :

1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10 - KSB of FormCap Corp. for
    the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007

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

3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
    information included in this report, fairly present in all material
    respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
    the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report ;

4.  The Company's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
    establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures ( as
    defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a - 15 ( e ) and 15d - 15 ( e )) for the
    Company and we have :

(a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
     information relating to the Company,  including its consolidated
     subsidiary, is made known to us by others within that entity,
     particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared ;

(b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company's disclosure controls and
     procedures and presented in 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 ; and

(c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the Company's internal control
     over financial reporting that occurred during the Company's fourth
     fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
     materially affect, the Company's internal control over
     financial reporting ;

5.  The Company's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
    most recent evaluation, to the Company's auditors and the audit committee
    of the Company's board of directors :

(a)  All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of the internal
     controls which could adversely affect the Company's ability to record,
     process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
     Company's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls ; and

(b)  Any Fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
     employees who have a significant role in the Company's internal
     controls.

Date : March 18, 2008

/s/ Jeffrey Dashefsky
------------------------------------
Jeffrey Dashefsky
President, Chief Executive Officer &
Chief Financial Officer

<PAGE>
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 81 (Thursday, April 25, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 18395]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10236]



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

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
[FEMA-1095-DR]


New York; Amendment to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the 
State of New York, (FEMA-1095-DR), dated January 24, 1996, and related 
determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 16, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pauline C. Campbell, Response and 
Recovery Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, 
DC 20472, (202) 646-3606.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster for the State 
of New York, is hereby amended to include the following areas among 
those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the 
catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his 
declaration of January 24, 1996:

    Onondaga and St. Lawrence Counties for Public Assistance.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 83.516, Disaster 
Assistance.)
G. Clay Hollister,
Deputy Associate Director, Response and Recovery Directorate.
[FR Doc. 96-10236 Filed 4-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6718-02-P
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 annual report of AdZone Research, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the period ending March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jeffrey Hale,
acting in the capacity as the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to
the best of my 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.

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


                           /s/ Jeffrey Hale
                           ----------------------------
                           Jeffrey Hale
                           Chief Executive Officer
                           July 14, 2006
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 31.1


                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Robert Tarini, Chief Executive Officer of Markland Technologies, Inc.,
certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Markland Technologies,
Inc.;

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

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) [omitted]

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in 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; and

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability 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 the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.


DATE: OCTOBER 13, 2004                     /S/ ROBERT TARINI
                                           ------------------------------------
                                           ROBERT TARINI
                                           CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Herman Goss, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a *467judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Balbach, J.), rendered November 19, 1984, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts), robbery in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, (Gallagher, J.), after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress identification testimony and statements made by him to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Initially, we note that the claims of error raised by the defendant with respect to the admissibility of the identification testimony, the severance motion, and the allegedly inflammatory testimony adduced by the prosecution, have been rejected by this court on his codefendant’s appeal *(see, People v Cardwell,*162 AD2d 459 [decided herewith]) and we find that a different result is not required here.

We also reject the defendant’s contention that the hearing court erred in denying his motion to suppress the statements made by him to law enforcement officials as violative of his rights to remain silent and to counsel. The defendant’s statement that he had "nothing to say right now” was not the sort of unequivocal response necessary to constitute the invocation of his right to counsel *(see, People v Santiago,*133 AD2d 429, *affd*72 NY2d 836; *cf., People v Carmine A.,*53 NY2d 816). Thus, the defendant could, and did, voluntarily waive his right to remain silent, and he subsequently made a statement in the absence of counsel.

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions, including the contention raised in the defendant’s supplemental *pro se*brief, and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Brown, J. P., Lawrence, Eiber and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5708 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5708

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to extend a priority 
review program to encourage treatments for agents that present national 
                           security threats.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 26, 2023

  Mr. Finstad (for himself and Mr. Phillips) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to extend a priority 
review program to encourage treatments for agents that present national 
                           security threats.

    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 ``MCM PRV Reauthorization Act''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF PRIORITY REVIEW TO ENCOURAGE TREATMENTS FOR AGENTS 
              THAT PRESENT NATIONAL SECURITY THREATS.

    Section 565A(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 
U.S.C. 360bbb-4a(g)) is amended by striking ``2023'' and inserting 
``2033''.
                                 <all>
```