alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Accounting of Kenneth C. Cole, as Public Administrator of the County of Westchester, as Administrator of the Estate of Anthony Venti, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, Westchester County,

December 5, 1956.

*1060
      *Joseph A. Lichtenthal*for petitioner.

*Fink, McNamee & Pavia*for objectant.

*William C. Sherr*for Lena Massari, attorney in fact for widow.

Samuel Faile, S.

In this administrator’s accounting proceeding the attorneys for the Consul General of Italy have applied for the examination on the ground of special circumstances of certain witnesses in order to establish a claim for legal services asserted in behalf of a national of Italy. The moving papers allege that the persons sought to be examined are persons who have knowledge of the facts underlying the claim, that such witnesses are residents of Italy who would be unable to appear at the trial due to passport visa restrictions, and that their testimony is necessary, especially with respect to those matters as to which claimant would be barred from testifying under section 347 of the Civil Practice Act. The requested examination is opposed on the grounds that the moving affidavits fail to establish that the persons sought to be examined are necessary witnesses or that they have pertinent information bearing upon" the alleged claim. The application for such examination is granted. The claimant has satisfactorily established the materiality and necessity for such examination and that the witnesses whose examination is sought have knowledge of the facts underlying the claim. Settle order providing for the examination of such witnesses on interrogatories and cross interrogatories.
Exhibit 32.2




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 Report of Puget Energy, Inc. and Puget Sound Energy, Inc. (the “Companies”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Form 10-Q”), I, Eric M. Markell, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Companies, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(1)
The Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Companies.











Date:  August 12, 2010/s/ Eric M. MarkellEric M. MarkellExecutive Vice President andChief Financial Officer
Exhibit 10.4


 





Silver Spike Acquisition Corp.





1114 6th Ave, 41st Floor





New York, New York 10036


 


August 7, 2019


 


Ladies and Gentlemen:


 


This letter will confirm our agreement that, commencing on the
effective date (the “Effective Date”) of the registration statement (the “Registration Statement”)
for the initial public offering (the “IPO”) of the securities of Silver Spike Acquisition Corp. (the
“Company”) and continuing until the earlier of (i) the consummation by the Company of an initial business
combination and (ii) the Company’s liquidation (in each case as described in the Registration Statement) (such earlier date
hereinafter referred to as the “Termination Date”), Silver Spike Sponsor, LLC shall make available to
the Company certain office space and administrative and support services as may be required by the Company from time to time, at
1114 6th Ave, 41st Floor, New York, New York 10036. In exchange therefore, the Company shall pay Silver Spike Sponsor, LLC $20,000
per month on the Effective Date and continuing monthly thereafter until the Termination Date.


 


Silver Spike Sponsor, LLC hereby agrees that it does not have
any right, title, interest or claim of any kind in or to any monies that may be set aside in a trust account (the “Trust
Account”) that may be established upon the consummation of the IPO and will not seek recourse against the Trust Account
for any reason whatsoever.


 


This agreement may not be amended, modified or waived as to
any particular provision, except by a written instrument executed by the parties hereto.


 


No party hereto may assign this agreement or any rights, interests
or contracted obligations hereunder without the prior written approval of the other party. Any purported assignment in violation
of this paragraph shall be void and ineffectual and shall not operate to transfer or assign any interest or title to the purported
assignee.


 


This agreement shall be governed by, construed in accordance
with, and interpreted pursuant to the laws of the State of New York, without giving effect to its choice of law principles.


 





 


	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 
	 	Silver Spike Acquisition Corp.
	 	 
	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Gregory Gentile
	 	 	Name:Gregory Gentile
	 	 	Title:Chief Financial Officer



 


 



    


     


    




 


	AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED BY:	 
	 	 
	Silver Spike Sponsor, LLC	 
	 	 
	 	 
	By:	/s/ Mohammed Grimeh	 
	 	Name:Mohammed Grimeh	 
	 	Title:Manager
Case 1:04-cv-00466-PB Document 71 Filed 09/21/05 Page 1 of 18Case 1:04-cv-00466-PB Document 71 Filed 09/21/05 Page 2 of 18Case 1:04-cv-00466-PB Document 71 Filed 09/21/05 Page 3 of 18Case 1:04-cv-00466-PB Document 71 Filed 09/21/05 Page 4 of 18Case 1:04-cv-00466-PB Document 71 Filed 09/21/05 Page 5 of 18Case 1:04-cv-00466-PB Document 71 Filed 09/21/05 Page 6 of 18Case 1:04-cv-00466-PB Document 71 Filed 09/21/05 Page 7 of 18Case 1:04-cv-00466-PB Document 71 Filed 09/21/05 Page 8 of 18Case 1:04-cv-00466-PB Document 71 Filed 09/21/05 Page 9 of 18Case 1:04-cv-00466-PB Document 71 Filed 09/21/05 Page 10 of 18Case 1:04-cv-00466-PB Document 71 Filed 09/21/05 Page 11 of 18Case 1:04-cv-00466-PB Document 71 Filed 09/21/05 Page 12 of 18Case 1:04-cv-00466-PB Document 71 Filed 09/21/05 Page 13 of 18Case 1:04-cv-00466-PB Document 71 Filed 09/21/05 Page 14 of 18Case 1:04-cv-00466-PB Document 71 Filed 09/21/05 Page 15 of 18Case 1:04-cv-00466-PB Document 71 Filed 09/21/05 Page 16 of 18Case 1:04-cv-00466-PB Document 71 Filed 09/21/05 Page 17 of 18Case 1:04-cv-00466-PB Document 71 Filed 09/21/05 Page 18 of 18
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 05-cr-170-01-PB

Linda Tremblay

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 discovery and engage in plea negotiations. The

government does not object to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, in order to allow the parties additional time

to negotiate a plea agreement or 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-00170-SM Document 11 Filed 11/10/05 Page 1 of 2
-2-

The November 22, 2005 final pretrial conference is continued

to January 23, 2006 at 3:30 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

November 10, 2005

cc: Jorel Booker, Esq.

Helen W. Fitzgibbon, Esq.

Case 1:05-cr-00170-SM Document 11 Filed 11/10/05 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6188

STANLEY PATRICK MITCHELL, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD MOATS; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-2660-AW) Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: July 30, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stanley Patrick Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Stanley Patrick Mitchell seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994) (current version at 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998)). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge andfind no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Mitchell’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, deny Mitchell’s motion for authorization for preparation of transcript at government expense, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Mitchell v. Moats , No. CA-95-2660-AW (D. Md. Dec. 31, 1997). See Lindh v. Murphy , 521 U.S. ___, 1997 WL 338568 (U.S. June 23, 1997) (No. 96-6298). 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.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 11

National Presto Industries, Inc.

The following presents the computation of per share earnings reflecting the
assumption that the granted shares under the 1988 Stock Option Plan will be exercised.
(IN THOUSANDS EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)

|                                                                 | Third Quarter |  | First Nine Months
|---------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------- |  | -----------------
|                                                                 |               |  |                  
|
|                                                                 |               |  |                  
|Net Earnings (1)                                                 |               |  | $                
|                                                                 |               |  |                  
|Weighted average common shares outstanding (2)                   |               |  |                  
|Common share equivalents relating to stock options when dilutive |               |  |                  
|                                                                 |               |  |                  
|Adjusted common and common equivalent                            |               | 
|shares for computation (3)                                       |               |  |                  
|                                                                 |               |  |                  
|Net earnings per share:                                          |               | 
|Basic (1 divided by 2)                                           |               |  | $                
|                                                                 |               |  |                  
|Diluted (1 divided by 3)                                         |               |  | $                
|                                                                 |               |  |                  



---
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.


# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

RESOURCE CONVERSATION GROUP, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

____________________

2011-5063

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in Case No. 08-CV-768, Judge Susan G. Braden.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

W ARREN K. R ICH , Rich and Henderson, P.C., of Annapolis, Maryland, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With

him on the brief was A NTHONY G. G ORSKI

.

C HRISTOPHER A. B OWEN , Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief were T ONY
W EST , Assistant Attorney General, J EANNE E. D AVIDSON

, Director, and K IRK T. M ANHARDT , Assistant Director.

______________________T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (L OURIE

, B RYSON , and D YK

, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

October 11, 2011 /s/ Jan Horbaly Date Jan Horbaly
Clerk
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
[LEGEND]
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE RESTATED
RALSTON PURINA COMPANY STATEMENT OF EARNINGS FOR THE PERIOD ENDING 6/30/99 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
[/LEGEND]
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                               0<F2>
<SECURITIES>                                         0<F2>
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0<F2>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F2>
<INVENTORY>                                          0<F2>
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F2>
<PP&E>                                               0<F2>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0<F2>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0<F2>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F2>
<BONDS>                                              0<F2>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0<F2>
<PREFERRED>                                          0<F2>
<COMMON>                                             0<F2>
<OTHER-SE>                                           0<F2>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0<F2>
<SALES>                                      2,006,800<F3><F4>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,006,800<F3><F4>
<CGS>                                          876,000<F3>
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  876,000<F3>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               581,300<F3><F4>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0<F1>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             136,800<F3>
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                412,700<F3>
<INCOME-TAX>                                   140,900<F3>
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            297,600<F3>
<DISCONTINUED>                                  43,600<F3>
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0<F3>
<CHANGES>                                            0<F3>
<NET-INCOME>                                   341,200<F3>
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.10<F3>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.08<F3>
<FN>
<F1>LOSS PROVISION INCLUDED IN OTHER-EXPENSES ABOVE
<F2>INFORMATION NOT PROVIDED AS PART OF 10-Q FILING FOR PERIOD ENDED 6-30-00
<F3>AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN RESTATED DUE TO THE SPIN-OFF OF THE BATTERY PRODUCTS BUSINESS
<F4>SALES AND ADVERTISING AND PROMOTION EXPENSE HAVE BEEN RESTATED TO CONFORM
    TO THE CURRENT YEAR PRESENTATION
</FN>


</TABLE>
Case 1:05-cv-00256-SM Document 20 Filed 07/26/06 Page 1 of 2Case 1:05-cv-00256-SM Document 20 Filed 07/26/06 Page 2 of 2
IA

107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 89

Posthumously proclaiming Andrei Dmitrievich Sakharov to be an honorary

citizen of the United States.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 24, 2002

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey (for himself and Mr. FRANK) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Posthumously proclaiming Andrei Dmitrievich Sakharov to

be an honorary citizen of the United States.

Whereas the United States on rare occasions confers honorary citizenship on individuals who have made extraordinary contributions to this country or to humankind

throughout the world;

Whereas honorary citizenship is and should remain an extraordinary honor not lightly conferred nor frequently

granted;

Whereas the late Dr. Andrei Dmitrievich Sakharov abandoned a privileged and elevated career as a physicist in

the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to protest the

threat to humankind posed by the testing and build-up
2

•HJ 89 IH

of nuclear arms, and led the effort in his country for

international peace and human rights;

Whereas Dr. Sakharov, a founding member of the Moscow

Human Rights Committee, repeatedly spoke out in defense of victims of the Soviet system, and the freedom of

association, movement, information, and opinion;

Whereas in 1975 the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Dr.

Sakharov for his personal and fearless effort in the cause

of peace;

Whereas Dr. Sakharov stated that the Helsinki Final Act of

1975 has ‘‘meaning only if [the Helsinki Accords] are observed fully and by all parties. No country should evade

a discussion on its own domestic problems [n]or should

a country ignore violations in other participating states.

The whole point of the Helsinki Accords is mutual monitoring, not mutual evasion of difficult problems.’’;

Whereas for his human rights activity, and specifically for

protesting the Soviet invasion into Afghanistan, Dr.

Sakharov was sent on January 22, 1980, into internal

exile in the closed city of Gorky;

Whereas at the direction of the Congress, President Ronald

Reagan designated May 21, 1983, as ‘‘National Andrei

Sakharov Day’’ and praised Dr. Sakharov’s tireless and

courageous efforts on behalf of international peace and

on behalf of human freedoms for the peoples of the Soviet Union; and

Whereas upon his release from internal exile on December

16, 1986, by Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, Dr.

Sakharov continued the fight for human rights in the Soviet Union, was elected to the Congress of People’s Deputies, and remained a vigorous advocate for individual
3

•HJ 89 IH

human rights until the time of his death in 1989: Now,

therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That Andrei Dmitrievich Sakharov is posthumously pro4 claimed to be an honorary citizen of the United States.

Æ
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER Appellate case name: In re Ryan Marine Services Inc. and Trionics, LLC Appellate case number: 01 - 2 2 - 00 713 - C V Trial court case number: 2022 - 00635 Trial court: 234 th District Court On October 7 , 2022 , relator filed a n unopposed motion to transfer the clerk’s record and reporter’s record from 01

– 2 2

– 00 650

– C V into this original proceeding to serve as the mandamus record . We grant the motion to transfer . The Clerk of this Court is instructed to transfer the clerk’s record and reporter’s record from appellate cause number 01

– 2 2

– 00 650

– C V to 01

– 2 2

– 00 713

– C V . It is so ORDERED . Judge’s signature:

____

/s/ Julie Countiss

______  Acting individual ly  Acting for the Court Date: ____ October 18, 2022

_____
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK> 0000081100
<NAME> PUGET SOUND ENERGY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    3,273,666
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    283,726
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         329,482
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                             0
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                 608,651
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,495,525
<COMMON>                                       845,606
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      450,845
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             89,753
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>               1,386,204
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           76,912
<PREFERRED>                                    195,488
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         1,401,718
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                             238,000
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                 103,432
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                   46,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>               1,047,771
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                4,495,525
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      522,069
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            41,462
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     381,350
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     422,812
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         99,257
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               1,160
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 100,417
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        34,414
<NET-INCOME>                                    66,003
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      3,309
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   62,694
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        38,898
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       28,989
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         163,198
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.74
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.74
        

</TABLE>
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1147

To prohibit the exportation of Alaskan North Slope crude oil.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 21, 2001

Mr. ENGLISH (for himself, Ms. HART, and Mr. RYUN of Kansas) introduced

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on International

Relations, and in addition to the Committee on Resources, 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 prohibit the exportation of Alaskan North Slope crude

oil.

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

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON EXPORTATION OF ALASKAN

4 NORTH SLOPE CRUDE OIL.

5 Effective 90 days after the date of the enactment of

6 this Act—

7 (1) no domestically produced crude oil trans8 ported by pipeline over right-of-way granted pursu9 ant to section 203 of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Au-
2

•HR 1147 IH

1 thorization Act (43 U.S.C. 1652) may be exported

2 from the United States, or any commonwealth, terri3 tory, or possession of the United States; and

4 (2) subsections (s) and (u) of section 28 of the

5 Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 185(s) and

6 (u)), and section 7(d) of the Export Administration

7 Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 2406(d)), are repealed.

8 SEC. 2. ENFORCEMENT.

9 The President may, notwithstanding section 202 of

10 the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, exer11 cise the authorities he has under sections 203 and 205

12 of that Act to carry out the prohibition under section 1

13 of this Act, and the penalties provided in section 206 of

14 the International Emergency Economic Powers Act shall

15 apply to violations under this Act.

Æ