alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549



________________





FORM 8-K





CURRENT REPORT,

PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF

THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934





DATE OF REPORT (Date of earliest event reported):  February 1, 2006





CHYRON CORPORATION

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)

|New York                                       | 1-9014                   | 11-2117385                          
|---------------------------------------------- | ------------------------ | ------------------------------------
|(State or Other Jurisdiction
of Incorporation) | (Commission File Number) | (I.R.S. Employer
Identification No.)

|5 Hub Drive                              |           
|---------------------------------------- | ----------
|Melville, New York                       | 11747     
|(Address of Principal Executive Offices) | (Zip Code)

Registrant's telephone number, including area code: (631) 845-2000

Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions:



[ ] Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)

[ ] Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)

[ ] Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))

[ ] Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))





Item 5.02(d) Departure of Directors or Principal Officers; Election of Directors;
                        Appointment of Principal Officers.

As previously stated the Company has been looking to add additional qualified members to its Board. On February 1, 2006 the Board of Directors of Chyron elected two new directors to the board, with a term which expires at the next annual meeting of shareholders. The new members are: Michael Wheeler and Richard Greenthal. There is no arrangement or understanding between the new directors and any other persons. At this time, it has not been determined as to which committees of the Board, if any, that the new directors will be added to. It is currently anticipated that the Board will consider such issue at its next regular meeting scheduled to be held in March.



SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report on Form 8-K to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.

CHYRON CORPORATION

| | By:    | /s/ Jerry Kieliszak      
| | ------ | -------------------------
| | Name:  | Jerry Kieliszak          
| | Title: | Senior Vice President and
| |        | Chief Financial Officer  

Date:  February 6, 2006
Exhibit 31


I, Michelle Gill, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K/A and all reports on Form 10-D
required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form
10-K/A of GSAMP Trust 2006-FM1 (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole,
do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other
information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by
this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required in this
report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange
Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the
servicing agreement in all material respects; and

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for
asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of
compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be
included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and
Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this
report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of
noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on
Form 10-K/A.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as
Servicer, GS Securities Mortgage Corp., as Depositor and Deutsche Bank National
Trust Company, as Trustee.



                                          Date: June 6, 2007


                                          /s/ Michelle Gill
                                          Michelle Gill
                                          Vice President
                                          GS Mortgage Securities Corp.
#### Alonzo Spencer OWENS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK; The New York & Presbyterian Hospital; S. Joseph, Doctor; Seymour Milstein, as Chairman of the Board & as Trustee, Defendants-Appellees.

Docket No. 02-7216.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Nov. 7, 2002.

Alonzo Spencer Owens, pro se, for Plaintiff-Appellant Alonzo Spencer Owens.

Barry M. Fallick, Rochman, Platzer, Fallick & Stemheim, LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee The Presbyterian Hospital in the City of New York.

Present FEINBERG, JACOBS, and SACK, Circuit Judges.

*SUMMARY ORDER*

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be AFFIRMED.

Alonzo Spencer Owens appeals from a judgment by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Mukasey, *ChJ.)*dismissing his claims pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 8 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). We affirm for substantially the reasons stated in Chief Judge Mukasey’s opinion. *Alonzo v. Presbyterian Hospital in the City of New York,*02-CV-0702(MBM) (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 29, 2001).

On May 15, 2002 under docket no. 01-9401, this Court entered an order requiring Owens to obtain leave of the Chief Judge of the Second Circuit prior to filing any further appeals. Because the notice of appeal in this case was filed before entry of the May 15 order, we conclude that the present appeal was not filed in contempt of that order. Owens is hereby ordered to show cause in writing, on or before November 15, 2002, why he should not be enjoined from any further filings in this Court without obtaining leave to file from the Chief Judge.

For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-50113 Conference Calendar

ARTURO SOLIS, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus FEDERAL GRAND JURY MATERIALS, (Of December 1995 and February 1996 Terms), Respondent-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. W-98-CV-323

-------------------- October 19, 1999 Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Arturo Solis, Texas prisoner #519192, has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) to appeal the denial of his motion for (1) leave to file a petition for disclosure of grand jury material; (2) reconsideration; and (3) recusal. The district court denied Solis’ motion to proceed IFP on appeal and certified that an appeal would be frivolous and not taken in goodNo. 99-50113 -2- faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Solis has failed to show that his appeal presents a nonfrivolous issue. See Baugh , 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24. Thus, his motion to proceed IFP is DENIED and his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. With the dismissal of this appeal as frivolous, along with the dismissal of Solis’ appeals in Solis v. Harwell , No. 98-50287 and Solis v. Johnson , No. 98-50592, Solis now has six “strikes” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Solis is reminded that he is barred from filing any civil action or appeal IFP unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. § 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED.
EXHIBIT 35.2
                  SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)
                           HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL, LLC
              RALI SERIES 2006-QO4 TRUST (THE "ISSUING ENTITY")

The undersigned,  a duly authorized  officer of Homecomings  Financial,  LLC, as
servicer (the "Servicer") pursuant to the applicable  servicing agreement,  does
hereby certify that:

1.   A review of the  Servicer's  activities  during the  period  covered by the
     Issuing  Entity's  report  on Form 10-K and of the  Servicer's  performance
     under  the   applicable   servicing   agreement  has  been  made  under  my
     supervision.

2.   To the  best of my  knowledge,  based  on such  review,  the  Servicer  has
     fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable  servicing  agreement
     in all material respects throughout such period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 26th
day of March 2007.

By:      /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
      ------------------------
      Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
      Title:    Managing Director
#### DUOS et ux. v. GRAVIER & HARPER.*

No. 1934.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Feb. 15, 1939.

W. C. Perrault, of Opelousas, for appellant.

George L. Fontenot, of Ville Platte, for appellee.

*

 Writ of error denies by Supreme Court March 6, 1939.

PER CURIAM.

We have carefully read the application for rehearing and the brief thereon, and fail to find therein any point which we have not heretofore carefully considered before arriving at our final conclusion and decision.

The crux of the whole case seems to hinge on an interpretation of that part of the statute which reads as follows:

> “ * * * as the amount contributed by the employee to such partial dependents in the year prior to death bears to the earnings of the deceased at the time of the accident.” Act No. 242 of 1928, p. 357, § 8, subd. 2.

Our decision is to the effect that plaintiffs were dependent upon and receiving the whole income of the deceased and that therefore the proportion provided by the statute was 1:1.

According to defendants’ contention, they would have us to interpret the section of the statute to read: “ * * * as the average weekly contribution of the deceased employee for their support during the year preceding the accident.” By doing so, we would be legislating by adding words to the statute which are not found therein.

The application f'or rehearing is denied.
#### Chantommie McBRIDE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Steve JONES, Sergeant, Anderson County Sheriff’s Office; Bannister, Anderson County Sheriffs Office; C.J. Fuller, Iver Police Department; Colenna Lynn Hamby; Harvey Samuel Garland; Ralf Allen Gesell, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 02-7075.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 23, 2002.

Decided Nov. 20, 2002.

Chantommie McBride, Appellant Pro Se.

*658Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Chantommie McBride appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. 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.*
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6427 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 13, 2022 

Received 

AN ACT 

To amend the Red River National Wildlife Refuge Act to 

modify the boundary of the Red River National Wildlife 

Refuge, and for other purposes. 

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


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 6427 RDS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Red River National 

3 Wildlife Refuge Boundary Modification Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. RED RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE BOUND5 ARY MODIFICATION. 

6 Section 3(a)(1) of the Red River National Wildlife 

7 Refuge Act (Public Law 106–300; 114 Stat. 1055) is 

8 amended by striking ‘‘map entitled ‘Red River National 

9 Wildlife Refuge—Selection Area’, dated September 5, 

10 2000’’ and inserting ‘‘map entitled ‘Red River National 

11 Wildlife Refuge Acquisition Boundary’ and dated March 

12 21, 2022’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 12, 

2022. 

Attest: CHERYL L. JOHNSON, 

Clerk. 

By KEVIN F. MCCUMBER, 

Deputy Clerk. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
EX-35 (c)
(logo) WELLS FARGO

Corporate Trust Services
MAC N2702-011
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045
410 884-2000
410 715-2380 Fax

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.


March 12, 2007

Ace Securities Corporation
AMACAR GROUP
6525 Morrison Boulevard, Suite 318
Charlotte, NC 28211

RE: Annual Statement As To Compliance for ACE Securities Corp. Home Equity Loan
Trust, Series 2006-HE2

Per Section 4.15 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of 4/1/2006,
the undersigned Officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., (Securities Administrator),
hereby certifies the following for the 2006 calendar year or portion thereof:

(A)  a review of such party's activities during the preceding calendar year or
     portion thereof and of such party's performance under this Agreement, or
     such other applicable agreement in the case of an Additional Servicer or
     Servicing Function Participant, has been made under such officer's
     supervision and

(B)  to the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, such party
     has fulfilled all its obligations under this Agreement, or such other
     applicable agreement in the case of an Additional Servicer or Servicing
     Function Participant, in all material respects throughout such year or
     portion thereof, or, if there has been a failure to fulfill any such
     obligation in any material respect, specifying each such failure known to
     such officer and the nature and status thereof.


Certified By:
/s/ Kristen Ann Cronin
Kristen Ann Cronin, Vice President

Certified By:
/s/ Gordon Johnson
Gordon Johnson, Assistant Secretary
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6512 

To repeal the authority of the Food and Drug Administration to require 

that drugs be dispensed only upon prescription, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 28, 2022 

Mr. BIGGS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To repeal the authority of the Food and Drug Administration 

to require that drugs be dispensed only upon prescription, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Prescription Freedom 

5 Act of 2022’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF FDA AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE PRE7 SCRIPTIONS. 

8 (a) REPEAL.—Effective as of the date that is 6 

9 months after the date of enactment of this Act, subsection 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6512 IH

1 (b) of section 503 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cos2 metic Act (21 U.S.C. 353) is repealed. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Beginning on the effective date 

4 described in subsection (a), any reference in a Federal 

5 statute, regulation, or guidance— 

6 (1) to prescribing, a prescription, a prescription 

7 drug, or a drug subject to section 503(b) of the Fed8 eral Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act is deemed to be 

9 a reference to prescribing, a prescription, or a pre10 scription drug, respectively, under applicable State 

11 law; and 

12 (2) to any requirement or provision of section 

13 503(b) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 

14 is deemed to be a reference to the corresponding re15 quirement or provision, if any, in applicable State 

16 law, as determined by the Federal official or officials 

17 responsible for administering the respective Federal 

18 statute, regulation, or guidance. 

19 (c) EXCEPTION.—Notwithstanding subsections (a) 

20 and (b), the Secretary of Health and Human Services may 

21 continue to exercise the authority vested by subsection (b) 

22 of section 503 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 

23 Act (21 U.S.C. 353), as in effect on the day before the 

24 effective date described in subsection (a), with respect to 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6512 IH

1 any drug that is intended for use in terminating a preg2 nancy. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 50372 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. WILLIAM GONZALEZ

- RAMIREZ , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:17

- CR

- 58

- 1

Before WIENER, HAYNES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * William Gonzalez

- Ramirez appeals his conviction for illegal reentry , in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He entered a conditional guilty plea , reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment. Gonzalez

- Ramirez asserts that the indictment was invalid because the removal order was void due to a defective notice to appear that failed to specify the date and time for his removal hearing. He concedes that the issue is foreclosed by

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 28, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-50372 Document: 00515289143 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/28/2020No. 19

- 50372

2 United States v. Pedroza

- Rocha , 933 F.3d 490 (5th Cir. 2019), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Nov. 6, 2019) (No. 19

- 65 88), and Pierre

- Paul v. Barr , 930 F.3d 684 (5th Cir. 2019), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Dec. 16, 2019) (No. 19

- 779) , but he wishes to preserve it for further review. The Government has filed a motion for summary affirmance, agreeing that the issue is f oreclosed under Pedroza

Rocha and Pierre

- Paul . Alternat iv ely, the Government requests an extension of time to file a brief. In Pedroza

- Rocha , we conclude d that the notice to appear was not rendered deficient because it did not specify a date or time for the removal hearing, that any such alleged deficiency had not deprived the immigration court of jurisdiction, and that Pedroza

- Rocha could not collaterally attack his underlying removal order without first exhausting his administrative remedies. 933 F.3d at 496

- 98

. Because the Government’s position “is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the cas e,” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment is AFFIRMED. Case: 19-50372 Document: 00515289143 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/28/2020
Exhibit 21.1

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES



|                                                            |  |                    
|----------------------------------------------------------- |  | -------------------
|Double Helix Investment Corp.                               |  | Delaware           
|Closed Joint Stock Company ICO-R                            |  | Russian Federation 
|Gatecom do Brasil S.A.                                      |  | Brazil             
|Gatecom Leasing GmbH                                        |  | Germany            
|Gatecom Mexico SA de CV                                     |  | Mexico             
|Gatecom Netherlands BV                                      |  | Netherlands        
|ICO Communications Partners Ltd.                            |  | Cyprus             
|ICO Global Communications Canada Inc.                       |  | Canada             
|ICO Global Communications Holdings BV                       |  | Netherlands        
|ICO Global Communications Holdings (Netherland Antilles) NV |  | Netherland Antilles
|ICO Global Communications (Holdings) PTE Limited            |  | Singapore          
|ICO Global Communications Israel Ltd.                       |  | Israel             
|ICO Global Communications (Operations) Limited              |  | Cayman Islands     
|ICO Global Communications Services Inc.                     |  | Delaware           
|ICO Global Limited                                          |  | Delaware           
|ICO Management Corp.                                        |  | Delaware           
|ICO North America, Inc.                                     |  | Delaware           
|ICO Satellite Limited                                       |  | Great Britain      
|ICO Satellite Management, LLC                               |  | Delaware           
|ICO Satellite North America Limited                         |  | Cayman Islands     
|ICO Satellite Services GP                                   |  | Delaware           
|ICO Satellite Services Limited                              |  | Great Britain      
|ICO Services Limited                                        |  | Great Britain      
|ICO-Global Telecomunikayson Limited Sirketi                 |  | Turkey             
|ICO-Pak Communications (Private) Ltd.                       |  | Pakistan           
|ICO Telecomuincacoes Ltda                                   |  | Brazil             
|New ICO Satellite Services GP                               |  | Delaware           
|New ICO Services Limited                                    |  | Great Britain      
|PT Aditama Fortanusa                                        |  | Indonesia          
|SSG UK Limited                                              |  | Great Britain
#### In the Matter of the Transfer Tax upon the Estate of Peter Lorillard Ronalds, Deceased. Pierre Lorillard Ronalds, Jr., as Executor, etc., of Peter Lorillard Ronalds, Deceased, and Others, Appellants; The Comptroller of the State of New York, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the surrogate entered in the Surrogate’s Court of the county of New York on the 27th day of November, 1908, affirming an order imposing a transfer tax.

Per Curiam:

We are of the opinion that the disposition of this case is governed by *Matter of Lansing*(182 N. Y. 238), followed by this court in *Matter of Haggerty*(128 App. Div. 479) and *Matter of Lewis (post,*p. 905). The order appealed from must, therefore, be reversed, with costs and disbursements, and the assessment of property as against the appellant vacated. Present—Ingraham, McLaughlin, Clarke, Houghton and Scott, JJ. Order reversed, with costs and disbursements, and assessment vacated.