alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TABLE 9
INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION:  GROSS VALUE OF FINAL PRODUCTS AND NONINDUSTRIAL SUPPLIES

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
								      2017
                                        Series       Related         Gross
Series title                             Code         Series      Value Weight
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final products & nonindustrial supplies T50030        B50030       3,942.621
  
 Final products                         T50002        B50002       2,946.416
  
  Consumer goods                        T51000        B51000       2,153.225
  
   Durable consumer goods               T51100        B51100         530.641
  
    Automotive products                 T51110        B51110         375.166
  
    Other durable goods                 T51120        B51120         155.475
  
   Nondurable consumer goods            T51200        B51200       1,622.584
  
  Equipment, total                      T52000        B52000         793.191
  
   Business eq. & defense & space eq.   T521A3        B521A3         770.012
  
    Business equipment                  T52100        B52100         651.248
  
    Defense and space equipment         T52300        B52300         118.764
  
 Nonindustrial supplies                 T54000        B54000         996.204
  
  Construction supplies                 T54100        S54100         276.837
  
  Business supplies                     T54200        B54200         719.367
  
   Commercial energy products           T54220        B54220         240.466
Case 1:04-cv-00104-PB Document 1-1 Filed 03/22/04 Page 1 of 5
Case 1:04-cv-00104-PB Document 1-1 Filed 03/22/04 Page 2 of 5
Case 1:04-cv-00104-PB Document 1-1 Filed 03/22/04 Page 3 of 5
Case 1:04-cv-00104-PB Document 1-1 Filed 03/22/04 Page 4 of 5
Case 1:04-cv-00104-PB Document 1-1 Filed 03/22/04 Page 5 of 5
#### In the Matter of Morosco and Cunard, on Behalf of Henry Gallo, Petitioner, v David Ritter, Respondent.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to prohibit the respondent, David Ritter, the Administrative Justice of the Ninth Judicial District, and anyone acting on his behalf, from interfering with the assignment of a Justice to hear and determine another proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 entitled *Matter of Gallo v Ritter*(index No. 8665/90), pending in the Supreme Court, Westchester County, to compel the respondent Ritter to appoint Henry Gallo to the position of senior court officer.

Adjudged that the proceeding is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.

In view of the representation of the Deputy Chief Administrative Judge for the Courts Outside the City of New York that, on June 8, 1990, the Honorable Harry Kutner, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, was assigned to preside over the proceeding pending in the Supreme Court, Westchester County, under index No. 8665/90, the instant proceeding is dismissed as academic. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Kunzeman, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
May 31, 2000


CitiFinancial  Mortgage Company
300 St. Paul Place
Baltimore, Maryland  21202

Re:  REMIC Pass-Through Certificates

Gentlemen:

I am a Vice President of Citibank, N.A., and have acted as your tax counsel in
connection with the proposed issuance of REMIC Pass-Through Certificates (the
"Certificates") pursuant to Amendment No. 1 to a Registration Statement (No.
333-31964) on Form S-3 (the "Registration Statement"), which was filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Commission") on March 8, 2000, under
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Act"). Capitalized terms used and
not otherwise defined herein are intended to have the respective meanings
ascribed to such terms in the Registration Statement.

In rendering the opinion set forth below, I have examined and relied upon the
following: (1) the Registration Statement and the Prospectus forming a part
thereof (the "Prospectus"), substantially in the form to be filed with the
Commission; (2) the forms of Pooling and Servicing Agreements filed and being
filed as exhibits to the Registration Statement; and (3) such other documents,
materials, and authorities as I have deemed necessary in order to enable me to
render my opinion set forth below.

As your tax counsel, I have advised you with respect to certain federal income
tax aspects of the proposed issuance of the Certificates. Such advice has formed
the basis for the description of material federal income tax consequences for
holders of the Certificates that appears under the headings "Taxation of
Certificate holders" and "Taxation of the Trust" in the Prospectus. Such
description does not purport to discuss all possible federal income tax
ramifications of the proposed issuance of the Certificates, but, with respect to
those federal income tax consequences which are discussed, in my opinion the
description is accurate in all material respects.

The foregoing opinions are based on the facts and circumstances set forth in the
Prospectus and in the other documents reviewed by me. My opinion as to the
matters set forth herein could change with respect to a particular Series of
Certificates as a result of changes in facts and circumstances, change in the
terms of the documents reviewed by me, or changes in the law subsequent to the
date hereof. As the Registration Statement contemplates Series of Certificates
with numerous different


<PAGE>

CitiFinancial Mortgage Company              -2-                     May 31, 2000


characteristics, the particular characteristics of each Series of Certificates
must be considered in determining the applicability of this opinion to a
particular Series of Certificates.

I hereby consent to the filing of this letter as an exhibit to the Registration
Statement and to the reference to this opinion under the heading "Taxation of
the Trust" in each Prospectus, without admitting that I am an "expert" within
the meaning of the Act or the rules or regulations of the Commission issued
thereunder.


Very truly yours,

/s/  Rona Daniels
Exhibit 10.1


                SUMMARY OF THE RETAINER COMPENSATION PACKAGE FOR
        THE NONEMPLOYEE DIRECTORS AND BOARD OF DIRECTOR COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Directors who are employees of the Company receive no additional compensation
for service on the Board. Each director who is not a full-time employee of the
Company is reimbursed expenses for attendance at Board and committee meetings.
Each director who is not a full-time employee of the Company also receives:

     o    on a bi-annual basis, a ten year option to purchase 35,000 shares of
          the Company's common stock that vests in 24 equal monthly installments
          and is granted with an exercise price per share equal to the fair
          market value of each underlying share of common stock on the date of
          grant (vested options may be exercised at any time during the ten-year
          option term irrespective of whether the option recipient continues to
          serve as a Company director);

     o    an annual retainer fee of $7,000, paid in equal quarterly installments
          of $1,750; and

     o    a per-meeting retainer fee of $500 for attendance at committee
          meetings.

In addition, beginning January 1, 2005, the Chairperson of the Audit Committee
will receive an annual retainer fee of $3,500, paid in equal quarterly
installments of $875; and beginning March 2, 2005, the Chairperson of the Board
will receive an annual retainer fee of $3,500 paid in quarterly installments of
$875, beginning in the second quarter of 2005. In the first quarter of 2005, the
quarterly payment will be prorated, based on the term of service and will total
$292.
Exhibit 32.1.1

Certification  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18,
United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Osiris Therapeutics, Inc., (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to the best of each officer's knowledge that:

The
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 (the "Form 10-K") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

|Date: March 17, 2008 | /s/ C. Randal MillsC. Randal Mills, Ph.D.
Chief Executive Officer             
|-------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 17, 2008 | /s/ Philip R. Jacoby, Jr.Philip R. Jacoby, Jr.
Interim Chief Financial Officer

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request. This certification "accompanies" the Form 10-K to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference into any
filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-K),
irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

---



QuickLinks
#### SANDERS v. UNIVERSAL LIFE INS. CO.

No. 16175.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Dec. 16, 1935.

Charles J. Mundy, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Rudolph 0. Vorbusch, of New Orleans, for appellee.

WESTERFIELD, Judge.

This is a suit by a beneficiary for $120 on a policy of life insurance issued by the defendant, Universal Life Insurance Company.

Upon the trial of the case it appeared that the insured died as a result of one or more of the diseases mentioned in a policy provision limiting recovery to one-half the face value of the policy. Judgment was rendered in plaintiff’s favor for $60. Subsequently, a motion for a new trial was filed wherein the judgfoent was complained of only in the respect that it failed to place costs upon plaintiff; such disposition of costs being claimed as proper because of ■an alleged tender made by defendant, concerning which, it was alleged, there was ample proof. The new trial was granted and the judgment amended as prayed for. Plaintiff has appealed.

We are of opinion that there was no proof of tender before suit was filed on the policy and that, consequently, the costs should be borne by defendant. We find no other error in the judgment appealed from.

For the reasons assigned the judgment appealed from is amended so as to impose costs upon the defendant and, as thus amended, it is affirmed.

Amended and affirmed.'
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7715

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BARRINGTON ISAACS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CR-98-356, CA-01-2230-2-18) Submitted: June 19, 2003 Decided: September 26, 2003 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Barrington Isaacs, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Hayden Bickerton, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Barrington Isaacs appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) and denying his motion for reconsideration. Although we initially dismissed this appeal on the ground that Isaacs failed to meet the standard for the issuance of a certificate of appealability, we granted Isaacs’s rehearing petition and have now considered the appeal on the merits. Based on our review of the record, however, we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Isaacs , Nos. CR-98-356; CA-01-2230-2-18 (D.S.C. filed July 8, 2002 & entered July 11, 2002; filed Sept. 3, 2002 & entered Sept. 5, 2002); see also Muth v. United States , 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993) (declining to consider claim raised for the first time on appeal). We deny Isaacs’s motion for judicial notice. 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
Contact:


Steve Crosby


916-686-3333


steven.crosby@ftr.com







Frontier Communications Corporation Named to 2012 FORTUNE 500 List






STAMFORD, Conn., May 7, 2012 – Frontier Communications Corporation (NASDAQ: FTR), the largest communications services company in the country focused on rural America, announced today that the company has been named to the 2012 FORTUNE 500 list, the magazine's annual list of U.S. Companies ranked by revenue.  "We are proud to deliver high-quality broadband, phone, satellite and Internet television services to millions of residences and businesses throughout the country,” said Maggie Wilderotter, Chairman and CEO of Frontier.   "We take special pride in delivering broadband Internet access to previously underserved and unserved areas.  We will continue to deliver innovative and cost-effective solutions to make sure all of our communities have the connectivity they need to grow and prosper.”






The full FORTUNE 500 list and related stories appear in the issue of FORTUNE available on newsstands Monday, May 7, and now at www.fortune.com/500.






About Frontier Communications






Frontier Communications Corporation (NASDAQ: FTR) offers voice, broadband, satellite video, wireless Internet data access, data security solutions, bundled offerings and specialized bundles for residential customers, small businesses and home offices and advanced business communications for medium and large businesses in 27 states.  Frontier’s approximately 15,400 employees are based entirely in the United States.  More information is available at www.frontier.com and www.frontier.com/ir.







###
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ANDREW E. GINES,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 60 MM 2019

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 28th day of August , 2019, the Motion for Appointment of Counsel

is DENIED.
Exhibit 32.2


Certification of Chief Financial Officer


Pursuant to


Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)


In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2020 (the “Report”) of Oaktree Strategic Income II, Inc. (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Mel Carlisle , the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, 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 Registrant.





/s/    Mel CarlisleName:    Mel CarlisleDate: December 16, 2020
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 05-cr-195-01-PB

Margaret Ann-Roan Osborn

BAIL MODIFICATION ORDER

On motion of defendant her bail conditions are modified as

follows: 

1. The provision for third party custody is removed;

and 

2. She is to reside at the Ventresco House and may

not move without further order of the court. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: December 19, 2005

cc: Arnold Huftalen, AUSA

 Jonathan Saxe, Esq.

 U.S. Probation

 U.S. Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00195-PB Document 15 Filed 12/19/05 Page 1 of 1
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 TETRAGENEX  PHARMACEUTICALS,  INC. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending  December 31, 2007 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Martin  F.  Schacker,  Co-Chief  Executive  Officer,  certify,  pursuant  to  18
U.S.C.ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, that:

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

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

                                          TETRAGENEX PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.


                                          By:    /s/ Martin F. Schacker
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 Martin F. Schacker
                                                 Co-Chief Executive Officer

                                          May 14, 2008
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT

IN THE INTEREST OF: D.R., A MINOR

PETITION OF: FAYETTE COUNTY CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES :

:
:

: No. 296 WAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of A ppea l from the O rder o f the S uperior Court

IN THE INTEREST OF: A.R., A MINOR

PETITION OF: FAYETTE COUNTY CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES :

:

:

: No. 297 WAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE INTEREST OF: G.R., A MINOR

PETITION OF: FAYETTE COUNTY CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES :

:

:

: No. 298 WAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE INTEREST OF: R.R., A MINOR

PETITION OF: FAYETTE COUNTY CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES :

:

:

: No. 299 WAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE INTEREST OF: C.R., A MINOR

PETITION OF: FAYETTE COUNTY CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES :

:

:

: No. 300 WAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of A ppea l from the O rder o f the S uperior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 18th day of October, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

GRANTED . The issue, as stated by petitioner is:

Whether the Superior Court erred on an issue of first impression and substantial public importance by vacating and remanding the trial court’s order requiring parents to provide a urine sample for drug testing in an investigation relating to allegations of d rug usage by one of the parents.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-84,082-01

EX PARTE DANNY WAYNE WHITAKER, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. W93-67363-U(A) IN THE 291 DISTRICT COURT ST

FROM DALLAS COUNTY 

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of the offense of

delivery of a controlled substance and sentenced to imprisonment for twenty years. 

The trial court signed an order designating issues on May 6, 2015. After 180 days from the

day the writ application was served on the State, the writ application was forwarded to this Court.

TEX. R. APP. P. 73.5. 
Applicant has alleged facts which, if true, could entitle him to relief. We remand this

application to the 291 District Court of Dallas County to allow the trial judge to complete an st

evidentiary investigation and enter findings of fact and conclusions of law resolving the designated

issue. 

This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the issue. The issue

shall be resolved within 90 days of this order. A supplemental transcript containing all affidavits and

interrogatories or the transcription of the court reporter’s notes from any hearing or deposition, along

with the trial court’s supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law, shall be forwarded to this

Court within 120 days of the date of this order. Any extensions of time shall be obtained from this

Court. 

Filed: November 18, 2015

Do not publish
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

JESUS MANUEL SILVA-HUIZAR,

Defendants.

8:23-CR-122

ORDER DISMISSING FORFEITURE 

ALLEGATION AS TO DEFENDANT 

JESUS MANUEL SILVA-HUIZAR

This matter is before the Court on the Government’s “Motion to Dismiss Forfeiture 

Allegation.” Filing 79. The Indictment in this case charges two defendants, Cesar Gonzalez and 

Jesus Manuel Silva-Huizar, with one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to 

distribute a mixture or substance containing cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Filing 1 at 1. 

The Indictment also includes a Forfeiture Allegation that names both defendants. Filing 1 at 1–2. 

The Government now moves this Court to dismiss the Forfeiture Allegation as it relates to 

Defendant Jesus Manuel Silva-Huizar based upon its review of the evidence and property in this 

case. Filing 79 at 1. However, the Government has not moved for dismissal of the Forfeiture 

Allegation against Defendant Cesar Gonzalez. The Court finds that the Government’s Motion 

should be granted. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. The Government’s Motion to Dismiss Forfeiture Allegation, Filing 79, is granted; and

2. The Forfeiture Allegation included in the Indictment, Filing 1, is dismissed as it relates 

to Defendant Jesus Manuel Silva-Huizar.

8:23-cr-00122-BCB-MDN Doc # 80 Filed: 06/13/24 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # 201
2

Dated this 13th day of June, 2024.

BY THE COURT:

___________________________ 

Brian C. Buescher 

United States District Judge

8:23-cr-00122-BCB-MDN Doc # 80 Filed: 06/13/24 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # 202
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 05-78-01-PB

Mark Tormey

O R D E R

The defendant has moved to continue the December 6, 2005 

trial in the above case, citing the need for additional time to

complete the transfer of his probation from Michigan to New

Hampshire prior to trial. The government does not object to a

continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reason and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from December 6, 2005 to February 7, 2006. In

agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Case 1:05-cr-00078-PB Document 34 Filed 12/01/05 Page 1 of 2
2

The court will hold a final pretrial conference on January

31, 2006 at 3:45 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

 /s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

December 1, 2005

cc: David Bownes, Esq.

Mark Howard, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00078-PB Document 34 Filed 12/01/05 Page 2 of 2