alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, *v.*Joseph Kasulkas, Defendant.

County Court, Queens County,

December 20, 1956.

*Joseph Kasulkas,*defendant in person.

*Frank D. O’Connor, District Attorney (Stephen Mase*of counsel), for plaintiff.

Johh F. Scileppi, J.

Motion by defendant for a free certified transcription of the minutes.

This is a motion by the defendant in person for an order directing the clerk of this court to transcribe a certified copy of all proceedings relative to the judgment of conviction of the defendant. The defendant was indicted for robbery in the second degree, grand larceny in the first degree and assault in the second degree by an indictment filed in this court April 6, 1956. After trial the defendant was found guilty by the verdict of the jury as indicted on May 15, 1956. On July 18, 1956, the defendant was sentenced by this court. On August 16, 1956, a notice of appeal to the Appellate Division was filed at this court and his appeal has been set down for argument for the February term. No motion has been made in that court for leave to prosecute the appeal as a poor person. Under section 308 of the Code of Criminal Procedure there is no authority for furnishing the defendant with a transcription of the minutes free of charge, except in capital cases. The defendant’s motion is denied. Order entered accordingly.
Exhibit 10(j)

Contract No. 113419

 

NATURAL GAS PIPELINE COMPANY OF AMERICA (Natural)

TRANSPORTATION RATE SCHEDULE FTS

AMENDMENT NO. 4 DATED May 4, 2000

TO AGREEMENT DATED January 15, 1998 (Agreement)

 

1.	[ ] Exhibit A dated May 4, 2000. Changes Primary Receipt Point(s)/Secondary Receipt Point(s) and Point MDQ's. This Exhibit A replaces any previously dated Exhibit A.

2.	[ ] Exhibit B dated May 4, 2000. Changes Primary Delivery Point(s)/Secondary Delivery Point(s) and Point MDQ's. This Exhibit B replaces any previously dated Exhibit B.

3.	[X] Exhibits A and B dated May 4, 2000. Changes Primary Receipt and Delivery Points/Secondary Receipt and Delivery Points. These Exhibits A and B replace any previously dated Exhibits A and B.

4.	[X] Exhibit C dated May 4, 2000. Changes the Agreement's Path. This Exhibit C replaces any previously dated Exhibit C.

5.	[X] Revise Agreement MDQ: [ ] Increase [X] Decrease
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO 

FABIAN DOUGLAS CASTANEDA, )

 ) No. 08-12-00167-CR

Appellant, )

 ) Appeal from the 83rd District 

vs. )

 ) Court of Pecos County, Texas 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, )

 ) (TC#P-2377-83-CR)

State. )

 )

 

O R D E R

The Appellant’s brief in the above styled and numbered cause was due March 15, 2013, 

the Court having granted an extension, on its own motion, until such date. However, as of this 

date no brief or motion for extension of time has been filed.

It is therefore ORDERED that the trial judge conduct a hearing to determine whether 

appellant desires to prosecute his appeal, whether the appellant has been deprived of effective 

assistance of counsel, and to make appropriate findings and recommendations. The trial judge 

shall take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective assistance of counsel, which 

may include appointment of new counsel. The record of such hearing, including any orders and 

findings of the trial judge, shall be certified and forwarded to this office on or before May 17, 

2013.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 17th day of April, 2013.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.
#### Fred NELSON v. ASSOCIATED BRANCH PILOTS OF PORT OF LAKE CHARLES et al.

No. 3219.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

March 28, 1950.

Thos. C. Hall, Lake Charles, for appellant.

Joe J. Tritico, Lake Charles, for appel-lees.

PER CURIAM.

In his application for rehearing, plaintiff complains of our interpretation of certain parts of the evidence. Pie contends that we erred in setting out that the plaintiff worked during the month of January, 1947, and was inactive only during the months of February and March of 1947. We acknowledge our error. The facts show that plaintiff was “off the books”; in other words, did not work, for the months of January, February and March of 1947. However, we do not consider this error of any importance, at least not the importance that plaintiff attaches to it. The fact remains that the plaintiff had the use of the boat for the prior months and that the repairs made in February, 1947 to the boat were brought about by the previous use of the boat, and not by any accident during the months which plaintiff was “off the books”. The error committed by us does not alter or change our conclusion.

Application for rehearing refused.
177 La. 856

#### RHODES v. RHODES.

No. 31629.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 7, 1933.

Harris Gagne, of Houma, for appellant.

J. A. O. Coignet, of Thibodaux, for appel-lee.

OVERTON, Justice.

This is an appeal, taken by defendant, from a judgment, granting plaintiff an absolute divorce on the ground of adultery, ordering a partition of the effects of the matrimonial community, enjoining plaintiff from disposing of the community property, though permitting him to conduct a hotel belonging to the community and ordering defendant to pay plaintiff $100 alimony, presumably each month, from the date of the filing of this suit to the date of the judgment rendered, with the reservation to sue for alimony after judgment, and condemning him to pay $500 attorney’s fees for obtaining the divorce.

The defendant admits the adultery charged, but puts at issue the demand for alimony and attorney’s fees. Evidence was adduced on the trial, but was not preserved, and, as a result of the failure to preserve it, the trial judge has made a statement of fact, which, however, touches only the evidence adduced relative to the charge of adultery, without saying whether or not any evidence was adduced on other points at issue.

Although defendant -has appealed, he has filed no brief and made no appearance whatever in this court, save that he has telegraphed the court through his attorney advising the court that he submits the case on the transcript, complaining only of the excessive attorney’s fees, decreed ex petitione and prematurely. This rather informal manner of bringing appellant’s complaint to the attention of this court hardly suffices. We, nevertheless, have examined the transcript to the best of our ability to ascertain what foundation there is for the complaint. We find nothing premature in the granting of judgment for attorney’s fees. We do not feel justified, under the statement of fact, signed by the trial judge, which is so worded as apparently to limit the statement, by clear implication, to the evidence adduced under the allegation of adultery, in holding that the trial judge awarded judgment for attorney’s fees on the face of plaintiff’s petition, without hearing evidence as to such fees. In the absence of the evidence we are unable to say that the attorney’s fees allowed are excessive. Apparently, they do not appear to be excessive. The presumption is that the judgment of the lower court is correct, until the contrary appears. Here the judgment does not appear to be incorrect.

The judgment is affirmed.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6868 

To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to provide for financial assistance to fund certain cybersecurity and infrastructure security education 

and training programs and initiatives, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 28, 2022 

Mr. GARBARINO (for himself, Mr. KATKO, and Ms. TITUS) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 

A BILL 

To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to provide 

for financial assistance to fund certain cybersecurity and 

infrastructure security education and training programs 

and initiatives, 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 ‘‘Cybersecurity Grants 

5 for Schools Act of 2022’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6868 IH

1 SEC. 2. STRENGTHENING CYBERSECURITY EDUCATION 

2 SUPPORT. 

3 Section 2220 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 

4 (6 U.S.C. 665f) is amended by adding at the end the fol5 lowing new subsection: 

6 ‘‘(e) GRANTS AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.— 

7 The Director may award financial assistance in the form 

8 of grants or cooperative agreements to States, local gov9 ernments, institutions of higher education (as such term 

10 is defined in section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 

11 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001)), nonprofit organizations, and 

12 other non-Federal entities as determined appropriate by 

13 the Director for the purpose of funding cybersecurity and 

14 infrastructure security education and training programs 

15 and initiatives to— 

16 ‘‘(1) carry out the purposes of CETAP; and 

17 ‘‘(2) enhance CETAP to address the national 

18 shortfall of cybersecurity professionals.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
No. 85-168 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1985

ELDORA J. PORCH,BOBBY RAY TANNER and FRANCIS C. CADWELL, Plaintiffs and Appellants,

POWDER RIVER BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, ALVIN =SCHKOW, F.F. HUCKINS,TED FLETCHER, Commissioners, Defendantsand Respondents.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Sixteenth JudicialDistrict, In and for the County of Powder River, The HonorableNat.Allen,Judgepresiding.
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
ForAppellants: Anderson, Brown, Gerbase, Cebull & Jones; Joe Gerbase, Billings, Montana
For Respondents: Daniel Schwarz,CountyAttorney, Broadus,Montana

Submitted on Briefs: Oct. 3, 1985 Decided: December 30, 1985
Filed: 

## i%!X 30

## 1985

ClerkMr. Justice John Conway Harrison delivered the Opinion of the Court.This is an appeal from a judgment entered in the Sixteenth Judicial District, in and for the County of Powder River, Montana. The District Court denied appellants' application for a writ 

### of prohibition against respondents to prohibit them from building a swimming pool pursuant to the creation of a RSID. Prior to Nay 31, 1984, a number of petitions were circulated in Powder River County, Montana, for the purpose of creating a rural special improvement district (RSID)

## , pursuant to § 7-12-2102, MCA (1983). The commissioners executed a resolutionof intent to create the RSID and itwas subsequently created for the purpose of constructing a swimmingpool. The appellantsbrought this action under an application for a writ of prohibition to prohibit the Commissioners from building the swimming pool. The sufficiency of the petition was challengedon the grounds it did not contain the names of the requisite percentage of freeholders within the district. A show cause hearing was held and the applicationwas denied. The 1985 Legislature amended S 7-12-2102, MCA (1983), Sec. 2,Ch. 665,L. 1985. There is no longer the requirement of petition of 60% of the freeholders affected for establishment of a RSID. The county commissioners have the authority, "[wlhenever the public interest or conveniencemay require, to order and create special improvement d.istricts outside the limits of incorporated towns and cities

# .

# .. " The Powder River County Commissioners may proceed withestablishment of the RSID to build a swimming pool. The statutes provide a method of written protest by property owners who are liable to be assessed if the district is established. The order quashing the writ of prohibition is affirmed for the reason the question ismoot.

Justices 

## -
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                   BD
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF PIPER JAFFRAY COMPANIES INC. AS OF
AND FOR THE PERIODS ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>               6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                        MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                    45,896
<RECEIVABLES>                            621,519
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                       50,781
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                          0
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                      219,183
<PP&E>                                    30,534
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         1,119,165
<SHORT-TERM>                             295,828
<PAYABLES>                               329,561
<REPOS-SOLD>                              31,984
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                            0
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                        69,592
<LONG-TERM>                               43,482
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                  18,676
<OTHER-SE>                               162,978
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           1,119,165
<TRADING-REVENUE>                         84,429
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                      24,818
<COMMISSIONS>                            100,029
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>             49,927
<FEE-REVENUE>                             17,951
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        12,299
<COMPENSATION>                           179,745
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           14,744
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                14,744
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                               9,289
<EPS-PRIMARY>                               0.49
<EPS-DILUTED>                               0.49
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT32.2**

 

**THE PENN TRAFFIC COMPANY**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of The Penn Traffic Company (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the fiscal period ending August 4, 2007, as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Tod A. Nestor, Senior Vice President Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

# (1)              The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

# (2)              The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/  Tod A. Nestor                                 |   |
|----------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Tod  A. Nestor                                     |   |
| Senior  Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |
|                                               |   |
| May 22, 2008                                  |   |

 

----
MICHELLE O'NEAL,

Appellant,

v.

HSBC BANK, USA, NA, AS 

TRUSTEE etc. et al.,

Appellees.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-2635

_____________________________/

Opinion filed February 17, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Aaron K. Bowden, Judge.

Thomas R. Pycraft, Jr. and Michael Joseph Pelkowski of Pycraft Law, LLC, St. 

Augustine, for Appellant.

Nancy M. Wallace and Michael J. Larson of Akerman LLP, Tallahassee. William 

P. Heller of Akerman LLP, Ft. Lauderdale., for Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

MARSTILLER, RAY, and SWANSON, JJ., CONCUR.
UNITED STATES
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C. 20549

                                    Form 13F

                               Form 13F COVER PAGE

Report for the Calendar Year or Quarter Ended:  June 30, 1999

Check here if Amendment [    ]; Amendment Number: ____
    This Amendment (Check only one.): [    ] is a restatement.
                                      [    ] adds new holdings entries.

Institutional Investment Manager Filing this Report:

Name:      Salomon Brothers Europe Limited
Address:   Victoria Plaza, 111 Buckingham Road
           London, England SW1W OSB

Form 13F File Number:              28-7570

The institutional investment manager filing this report and the person by whom
it is signed hereby represent that the person signing the report is authorized
to submit it, that all information contained herein is true, correct and
complete, and that it is understood that all required items, statements,
schedules, lists, and tables, are considered integral parts of this form.

Person Signing this Report on Behalf of Reporting Manager:

Name:      Royce Miller
Title:     Company Secretary
Phone:     011.44.171.721.2026

Signature, Place, and Date of Signing:

/s/ Royce Miller                  London, England      August 16, 1999
----------------

Report Type (Check only one.):

[   ] 13F  HOLDINGS  REPORT.   (Check  here  if  all  holdings  of  this
      reporting manager are reported in this report.)

[ X ] 13F NOTICE. (Check here if no holdings reported are in this report,
      and all holdings are reported by other reporting manager(s).)

[   ] 13F COMBINATION REPORT. (Check here if a portion of the holdings for
      this reporting manager are reported in this report and a portion are
      reported by other reporting manager(s).)

List of Other Managers Reporting for this Manager:

Form 13F File Number 28-2427
Name:  Citigroup Inc.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6677 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6677

 To amend the Honoring America's Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune 
    Families Act of 2012 to modify the eligibility requirements for 
   entities collaborating with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to 
    provide case management services to homeless veterans under the 
Veterans Affairs supported housing program of the Department of Housing 
                         and Urban Development.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 9, 2022

  Ms. Jacobs of California (for herself and Ms. Mace) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Financial Services, for a 
 period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
                          committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Honoring America's Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune 
    Families Act of 2012 to modify the eligibility requirements for 
   entities collaborating with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to 
    provide case management services to homeless veterans under the 
Veterans Affairs supported housing program of the Department of Housing 
                         and Urban Development.

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

SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR ENTITIES 
              COLLABORATING WITH THE SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS TO 
              PROVIDE CASE MANAGEMENT SERVICES TO HOMELESS VETERANS IN 
              THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT-
              DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS SUPPORTED HOUSING PROGRAM.

    Section 304(c)(2) of the Honoring America's Veterans and Caring for 
Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-154; 38 U.S.C. 2041 
note) is amended--
            (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (B) through (E) as 
        subparagraphs (C) through (F), respectively; and
            (2) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following new 
        subparagraph (B):
                    ``(B) providing case management services to 
                veterans for obtaining suitable housing at varying 
                locations nationwide or in the area or areas similar to 
                where the services will be provided under the relevant 
                contract or agreement;''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer 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 Chyron Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael Wellesley-Wesley, President 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:

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

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

Dated:  November 9, 2007

| | /s/ Michael Wellesley-Wesley
| | ----------------------------
| | Michael Wellesley-Wesley    
| | President and               
| | Chief Executive Officer     
| |
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 4, 2019

No. 04-17-00197-CV

Francisco SANCHEZ, Jr.,

Appellant

v.

TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY- San Antonio,

Appellee

From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015-CI-06141

Honorable Karen H. Pozza, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice (not participating)

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

The panel has considered the appellant’s motion for Rehearing and the motion is hereby 

DENIED.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 4th day of February, 2019.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT 32.1
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                 18 U.S.C. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Annual Report of CREENERGY CORPORATION (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ended  November 30, 2010, as filed with the  Securities
and  Exchange   Commission  on  the  date  hereof  (the   "Report"),   I,  Shari
Sookarookoff,  Chief  Executive  Officer  and  Chief  Financial  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:

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

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



Date: March 11, 2011



By:       /s/ Shari Sookarookoff
         ------------------------------------
         Shari Sookarookoff
         President/Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial (Accounting)
         Officer