alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 

HOP KEE PYROTECHNICS, Ltd., ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

v. ) CV-1:06-cv-0393-JD 

 ) 

PYRAMID FIREWORKS, INC. ) 

And GARRY DEBLASIS, Individually, ) 

 Defendants. ) 

ORDER ATTACHING PERSONAL PROPERTY

 Comes now Plaintiff, Hop Kee Pyrotechnics, Ltd., by counsel and files its Motion for 

Attachment of Personal Property and the Court being duly advised in the premise finds that 

the Defendant, Pyramid Fireworks, Inc., does have assets which can be used to satisfy the 

judgment entered herein. 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that 

1. The Defendant, Pyramid Fireworks, Inc. shall turn over to the sheriff of Rockingham 

County, New Hampshire all assorted fireworks, products and supplies at its office located at 780 

Lafayette Road, Seabrook, New Hampshire for sale at a public auction. 

 2. The proceeds of said sale shall be applied by the sheriff to the judgment in favor of 

Hop Kee Pyrotechnics, Ltd. 

 DATED this ____ day of _______________, 2008. 

 ________________________________________ 

5th June

Magistrate Judge 

District Court of New Hampshire /s/ James R. Muirhead

Case 1:06-cv-00393-JD Document 39 Filed 06/05/08 Page 1 of 2
Distribution to: 

Dennis Pizzimenti 

Attorney at Law 

6 Chapel Street 

Concord, New Hampshire 03301 

John H. Brooke 

BROOKE MAWHORR, P. C. 

P.O. Box 1071 

112 E. Gilbert St. 

Muncie, IN 47305 

Pyramid Fireworks, Inc. 

124 Route 125 

Kingston, New Hampshire 03848 

Garry DeBlasis 

124 Route 125 

Kingston, New Hampshire 03848 

Case 1:06-cv-00393-JD Document 39 Filed 06/05/08 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 4.1

 


THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON


NEW YORK’S FIRST BANK-FOUNDED 1784 BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON


 


 


2 HANSON PLACE, 12TH FLOOR, BROOKLYN,
N.Y. 11217


 


 


 


August 15, 2019


 


Hennion & Walsh, Inc.


2001 Route 46, Waterview Plaza


Parsippany, New Jersey 07054


 


Smart Trust 440 (the “Fund”)


 


Dear Sirs:


The Bank of New York
Mellon is acting as trustee for the Fund, consisting of the unit investment trusts (the “Trusts”) included in
the Registration Statement relating to the Fund. We enclosed a list of the securities to be deposited in the Trusts on the date
hereof. The prices indicated therein reflect our evaluation of such securities as of close of business on August 14, 2019, in accordance
with the valuation method set forth in the applicable Standard Terms and Conditions of Trust and Trust Agreements. We consent to
the reference to The Bank of New York Mellon as the party performing the evaluations of the Trust securities in the Registration
Statement (No. 333-231495) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission with respect to the registration of the sale of the
Units of the Trusts and to the filing of this consent as an exhibit thereto.


 


	 	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 	 
			/s/
                                         GERARDO CIPRIANO
	 	 	Gerardo Cipriano
	 	 	Vice President
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Frederick A. GRUNDY, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 01-50578.

D.C. No. CR-98-00561-ABC.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 10, 2003.*

Decided March 17, 2003.

Before CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and T. G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Frederick A. Grundy appeals the district court’s judgment and sentence imposed following revocation of Grundy’s supervised release. Grundy’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U. S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and a motion to withdraw based on counsel’s failure to discover any arguable issues for review. Grundy did not file a pro se supplemental brief. Our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 83-84, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable issues.

We therefore GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw and AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1583

AN ACT

To designate the Federal building and United

States courthouse located at 121 West SpringStreet in New Albany, Indiana, as the ‘‘Lee H.Hamilton Federal Building and United StatesCourthouse’’.
107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1583

AN ACT

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located at 121 West Spring Street in New Albany,

Indiana, as the ‘‘Lee H. Hamilton Federal Building and

United States Courthouse’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 1583 EH

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

2 The Federal building and United States courthouse

3 located at 121 West Spring Street in New Albany, Indi4 ana, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Lee H. Ham5 ilton Federal Building and United States Courthouse’’.

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal

9 building and United States courthouse referred to in sec10 tion 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Lee H.

11 Hamilton Federal Building and United States Court12 house’’.

Passed the House of Representatives September 24,

2001.

Attest:

Clerk.
Exhibit 99.1

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 Quarterly Report of Sanchez Computer Associates, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending
June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Frank Sanchez, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify that to the best of my
knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



/s/FRANK R. SANCHEZ

---

Frank
R. Sanchez
Chief Executive Officer
August 14, 2002

---

QuickLinks
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Efrain TRIGUERAS, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 02-10000. D.C. No. CR-01-00315-SRB.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted April 2, 2003.

Decided July 23, 2003.

*628Before B. FLETCHER, KOZINSKI, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Defendant-Appellant Efrain Trigueras was convicted by a jury of knowingly and intentionally importing, and attempting to import, more than 100 kilograms of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 952(a). He was sentenced to seventy-eight months’ incarceration and four years’ supervised release. Trigueras now appeals his conviction, claiming that the district court abused its discretion in allowing portions of his trial testimony to be read back to the jury, and that it also erred in not issuing a limiting instruction along with the readback.

Because Trigueras did not object to the readback at trial, we review for plain error only. Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b); *United States v. Kessi,*868 F.2d 1097, 1107 (9th Cir.1989). In light of the “particular facts and circumstances of [this] case,” *United States v. Binder,*769 F.2d 595, 600 (9th Cir.1985), *overruled in part on other grounds by United States v. Morales,*108 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir.1997), and the other evidence against Trigueras, we cannot conclude that the readback resulted in the jury’s placing undue emphasis on the testimony they reheard — particularly in light of the fact that the testimony was Trigueras’s own.

Nor do we find that *United States v. Lujan,*936 F.2d 406, 411-12 (9th Cir.1991), compels a different result. *Lujan*addressed a situation where trial transcripts were furnished directly to the jury, an approach that we have found to be more problematic than that followed here: a readback in open court in the presence of the defendant and counsel. *E.g., United States v. Sacco,*869 F.2d 499, 502 (9th Cir.1989); *Binder,*769 F.2d at 601 n. 1.

We agree with the appellant that the district court’s handling of the readback was not ideal. At the very least, a limiting instruction to the jury would have been appropriate. However, because the defendant did not object at trial, the standard for reversible error is plain error. There is no plain error here.

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 174 (Monday, September 8, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52005-52006]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20742]


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

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS


Agenda and Notice of Public Meetings of the District of Columbia 
Advisory Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that planning meetings of 
Subcommittees of the District of Columbia Advisory Committee to the 
Commission will convene at 12 p.m. on Tuesday, September 30, 2008, at 
the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 624 Ninth Street, NW., Conference 
Room 540, Washington, DC 20425. The Subcommittee on Immigration will 
convene at 12 p.m. and the Subcommittee on Voting Rights will convene 
at 1:30 p.m. The purpose of each meeting is to discuss possible topics 
to recommend to the District of Columbia SAC as a civil rights project.
    Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the 
comments must be received in the regional office by Monday, October 20, 
2008. The address is Eastern Regional Office, 624 Ninth Street, NW., 
Suite 740, Washington, DC 20425. Persons who desire additional 
information should contact Alfreda Greene, Secretary, at 202-376-7533, 
or by e-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7f1e180d1a1a111a3f0a0c1c1c0d51181009"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5e3f392c3b3b303b1e2b2d3d3d2c70393128">[email protected]</span></a>.

[[Page 52006]]

    Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meetings and require 
the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional 
Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the 
meetings.
    Records generated from these meetings may be inspected and 
reproduced at the Eastern Regional Office, as they become available, 
both before and after the meetings. Persons interested in the work of 
this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site, 
http://www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Eastern Regional Office at the 
above e-mail or street address.
    The meetings will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission and FACA.

    Dated in Washington, DC, September 3, 2008.
Christopher Byrnes,
Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. E8-20742 Filed 9-5-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
183 La. 704

#### DEMERELL v. GERLINGER.

No. 33545.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 2, 1935.

John B. Jouandot and J. Bernard Cocke, for appellant.

Maurice B. Gatlin, for appellee.

BRUNOT, Justice.

The plaintiff and defendant were husband and wife. The plaintiff sued his wife for a separation from bed and board. Before answering the suit, the defendant ruled the plaintiff into court to show cause why he should not pay the defendant alimony pendente lite, why he should not pay the costs she would be required to pay for answering the suit, and why he should not be condemned to pay her attorney’s fees. The answer to the rule is, in substance, a general denial of each and every demand of the plaintiff in the rule.

On the issues thus joined, the rule was heard, and judgment was rendered thereon awarding the plaintiff in rule alimony at the rate of $40 per month, pendente lite, subject to a credit of $5 per week, which sum the plaintiff was already paying the defendant under a judgment of the juvenile court. There was further judgment in favor of the plaintiff in rule awarding her the sum of $15, the necessary costs for answering the petition and defending the suit, and ordering the plaintiff to furnish a bond in the sum of $150 to insure the payment of the defendant’s attorney’s fees. From this judgment the plaintiff obtained and perfected a suspensive appeal to this court.

The defendant has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. The motion to dismiss is based upon C. C. art. 148, and the dissenting opinion in Weyand v. Weyand, 169 La. 390, 125 So. 282. The appellant, in his opposition to the motion to dismiss the appeal, relies upon Const, art. 7, § 10; Gormley v. Gormley, 161 La. 121, 122, 108 So. 307; Ramos v. Ramos, 173 La. 407, 137 So. 196, 197. In the last-cited case, this court, on a motion to dismiss the appeal, quoted from the cases of State ex rel. Crescent City Bank v. Judge, 17 La.Ann. 186, and State ex rel. Ingram v. Judge, 20 La.Ann. 529, and said:

> “There is no law denying to one cast for alimony, pendente lite, the right to appeal suspensively from the judgment rendered. Hence, in the absence of a law denying such right, the inference would seem to be, under articles 575 and 580 of the Code of Practice, and under the jurisprudence, cited above, that a judgment for alimony may be appealed from suspensively.”

There was also a dissenting opinion in the Ramos Case, and substantially the same reasons were urged therein as were urged in the dissenting opinion in the Weyand Case.

*634The same reasons assigned in the dissenting opinions in the cited cases are now reiterated in the appellee’s motion to dismiss this appeal. For the reasons assigned, the motion herein to dismiss the appeal is denied.

O’NIELL, C. J.,

is of the opinion that an order of court ordering the defendant to pay alimony to his wife during the pen-dency of a suit for divorce or for separation from bed and board is only an interlocutory order, which cannot cause irreparable injury, and hence cannot be suspended by an appeal from the order.
Certifications

I, Richard Simpson, certify that:


1.	I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Trust 2018-C6 (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(s) required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements 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.


In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:  Wells Fargo Bank, National Association; Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association; Park Bridge Lender Services LLC; U.S. Bank National Association; CoreLogic Solutions, LLC; KeyBank National Association;  LNR Partners, LLC; Pentalpha Surveillance LLC; Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC; Berkadia Commercial Mortgage LLC; Berkeley Point Capital LLC, dba Newmark Knight Frank;  Argentic Services Company LP; Computershare Trust Company, National Association; and Wilmington Trust, National Association.

Date:	March 30, 2023

/s/ Richard Simpson ___________________Richard SimpsonPresident, Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc.(senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)

CGCMT 2018-C6 Certifications

---
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 181 (Wednesday, September 17, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 53905]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21713]



[[Page 53905]]

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

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION

Information Security Oversight Office


Public Interest Declassification Board (PIDB); Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to Section 1102 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
Prevention Act of 2004 which extended and modified the Public Interest 
Declassification Board (PIDB) as established by the Public Interest 
Declassification Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-567, title VII, December 27, 
2000, 114 Stat. 2856), announcement is made for the following committee 
meeting:

    Name of Committee: Public Interest Declassification Board 
(PIDB).
    Date of Meeting: Saturday, September 27, 2008.
    Time of Meeting: 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.
    Place of Meeting: National Archives and Records Administration, 
700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 105, Washington, DC 20408.
    Purpose: To discuss declassification program issues.
    This meeting will be open to the public. However, due to space 
limitations and access procedures, the name and telephone number of 
individuals planning to attend must be submitted to the Information 
Security Oversight Office (ISOO) no later than Wednesday, September 
24, 2008. ISOO will provide additional instructions for gaining 
access to the location of the meeting.
    For Further Information Contact: Julie A. Agurkis, PIDB Staff, 
Information Security Oversight Office, National Archives Building, 
700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20408, telephone number 
(202) 357-5308.

    Dated: September 10, 2008.
William J. Bosanko,
Director, Information Security Oversight Office.

[FR Doc. E8-21713 Filed 9-16-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7515-01-P
stock is valued at $42.22 per fine troy ounce. 

2. Special drawing rights (SDRs) are valued according to a technique adopted by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in July 1974. Values are based on a weighted average of 

exchange rates for the currencies of member countries. From July 1974 through December 1980, sixteen currencies were used; since January 1981, five currencies have been used. U.S. 

3. Includes allocations of SDRs by the International Monetary Fund on Jan. 1 of the year 

indicated, as follows: 1970—$867 million; 1971—$717 million; 1972—$710 million; 1979— 

$1,139 million; 1980—$1,152 million; 1981—$1,093 million; plus net transactions in SDRs. 

4. Valued at current market exchange rates. 

3.13	 FOREIGN OFFICIAL ASSETS HELD AT FEDERAL RESERVE BANKS1 

Millions of dollars, end of period 

2001 2002 

Asset 1998 1999 2000 

Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar.

p 

1 Deposits .............................. 167 71 215 80 608 75 528 61 162 89 

Held in custody 

2 U.S. Treasury securities2 ................. 607,574 632,482 594,094 590,820 587,566 599,043 600,129 592,630 592,031 591,202r 593,865 

3 Earmarked gold3 ....................... 10,343 9,933 9,451 9,100 9,100 9,099 9,099 9,099 9,098 9,098 9,098 

1. Excludes deposits and U.S. Treasury securities held for international and regional 3. Held in foreign and international accounts and valued at $42.22 per fine troy ounce; not 

organizations included in the gold stock of the United States. 

2. Marketable U.S. Treasury bills, notes, and bonds and nonmarketable U.S. Treasury 

securities, in each case measured at face (not market) value. 

255
#### John Jay MATECKI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARION COUNTY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

Nos. 02-35838, 03-35182. D.C. No. CV-01-01718-OMP.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 21, 2003.*

Decided July 28, 2003.

Before LEAVY, HAWKINS, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

John Jay Matecki appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the defendants in Mateckfs 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants violated his constitutional rights by placing him on supervised probation and lodging him in the Marion County Corrections Facility for violating the terms of that probation. Matecki also appeals (No. 03-35812) the district court’s post-judgment order denying his motion to join a party. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Weiner v. San Diego County,*210 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm.

Summary judgment was proper because the defendants could reasonably have be*677lieved that Matecki was still on probation following his release from custody and that their actions were in conformance with the law. Therefore, the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. *See Billington v. Smith,*292 F.3d 1177, 1183 (9th Cir. 2002).

The district court properly denied Matecki’s post-judgment motion because it lacked jurisdiction to add a party following Matecki’s notice of appeal. *See Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Southwest Marine, Inc.,*242 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir.2001).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1500

To amend the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to allow State

educational agencies and local educational agencies to establish and implement uniform policies with respect to discipline and order applicable

to all children within their jurisdiction to ensure safety and an appropriate educational atmosphere in their schools.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 4, 2001

Mr. NUSSLE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Education and the Workforce

A BILL

To amend the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

to allow State educational agencies and local educational

agencies to establish and implement uniform policies with

respect to discipline and order applicable to all children

within their jurisdiction to ensure safety and an appropriate educational atmosphere in their schools.

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 ‘‘Freedom to Learn

5 Act’’.
2

•HR 1500 IH

1 SEC. 2. UNIFORM DISCIPLINARY POLICIES UNDER THE IN2 DIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION

3 ACT.

4 Section 615(k) of the Individuals with Disabilities

5 Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1415(k)) is amended—

6 (1) by redesignating paragraph (10) as para7 graph (11); and

8 (2) by inserting after paragraph (9) the fol9 lowing:

10 ‘‘(10) UNIFORM DISCIPLINARY POLICIES.—Not11 withstanding any other provision of this Act, each

12 State educational agency or local educational agency

13 may establish and implement uniform policies with

14 respect to discipline and order applicable to all chil15 dren within its jurisdiction to ensure safety and an

16 appropriate educational atmosphere in its schools.’’.

Æ