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

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2044

To amend title 37, United States Code, to ensure that the rates of the

basic allowance for housing for military housing areas inside the United

States are sufficient to eliminate out-of-pocket housing costs for members

entitled to the allowance.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 26, (legislative day, MAY 25), 2001

Mrs. DAVIS of California (for herself and Mr. SNYDER) introduced the

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

A BILL

To amend title 37, United States Code, to ensure that the

rates of the basic allowance for housing for military

housing areas inside the United States are sufficient

to eliminate out-of-pocket housing costs for members entitled to the allowance.

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 ‘‘Military Housing Fair5 ness Act of 2001’’.
2

•HR 2044 IH

1 SEC. 2. USE OF BASIC ALLOWANCE FOR HOUSING TO

2 ELIMINATE OUT-OF-POCKET HOUSING COSTS

3 FOR MEMBERS.

4 Section 403(b)(1) of title 37, United States Code, is

5 amended by adding at the end the following new sentence:

6 ‘‘In prescribing the rates of the basic allowance for hous7 ing under this subsection, the Secretary of Defense shall

8 ensure that the rates are sufficient to eliminate, not later

9 than September 30, 2003, out-of-pocket housing costs for

10 members entitled to the allowance to obtain adequate

11 housing in that military housing area.’’.

Æ
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 1Federal Reserve Bank of: BostonFilings received during the week ending November 10, 2012FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodNEW HAMPSHIRE MUTUAL BANCORP                                                                                            * 3A1New Hampshire Mutual Bancorp, Manchester, New Hampshire to become a mutual holding company through the acquisition of Meredith Village Savings Bank, Meredith, New Hampshire, pursuant to section 3(a)(1) of the BHC Act.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: Not availableNEW HAMPSHIRE MUTUAL BANCORP                                                                                            * 3A5
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 4Federal Reserve Bank of: ClevelandFilings received during the week ending May 10, 2014FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodNONE
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Bobby Lane, Appellant.

[808 NYS2d 225]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Eduardo Padro, J.), rendered March 10, 2003, convicting defendant, after a *518nonjury trial, of grand larceny in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of IV2 to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence *(People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490 [1987]). The evidence supported the conclusion that defendant acted with larcenous intent when he acquired two strangers’ paychecks, deposited them into his account and quickly withdrew the funds (see *People v Meadows,*199 NY 1, 7 [1910]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning credibility (see *People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94 [1903]), including its rejection of defendant’s explanation for his conduct.

The court properly exercised its discretion when it preliminarily precluded testimony that defendant rejected subsequent offers made by his alleged accomplice to deposit additional checks. Defendant did not establish any connection between this evidence and his intent to commit larceny with respect to the checks that he did deposit. The court did not make a final ruling, but instead offered defendant an opportunity to lay a foundation for this evidence. However, defendant never took advantage of that offer. Inasmuch as defendant did not assert a constitutional right to introduce the excluded evidence, his constitutional argument is unpreserved *(see People v Angelo,*88 NY2d 217, 222 [1996]; *People v Gonzalez,*54 NY2d 729 [1981]; *see also Smith v Duncan,*411 F3d 340, 348-349 [2d Cir 2005]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find no violation of defendant’s right to present a defense *(see Crane v Kentucky,*476 US 683, 689-690 [1986]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Andrias, Friedman, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 5Federal Reserve Bank of: RichmondFilings received during the week ending October 22, 2011FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodCB FINANCIAL CORPORATION                                                                                                CICS. Christopher Williford, Wilson, North Carolina, to control up to 24.69% of the voting shares of CB Financial Corporation, Wilson, North Carolina.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: Not available
[805 NYS2d 850]

#### In the Matter of Valerie T. Simuro (Admitted as Valerie Theresa Simuro), an Attorney, Respondent.

Second Department,

December 27, 2005

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Diana Maxfield Kearse,*Brooklyn *(Melissa D. Broder*of counsel), for petitioner.

*272OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

By affidavit dated February 23, 2005, the respondent submitted an affidavit of resignation in which she acknowledged that she was the subject of several complaints which included allegations of conversion and that she was also the subject of a pending criminal investigation by the Kings County District Attorney’s office. She acknowledged that she could not defend herself on the merits against charges predicated upon the misconduct under investigation. On June 28, 2005, the respondent entered a plea of guilty to two counts of grand larceny in the second degree in violation of Penal Law § 155.40 in the Supreme Court, Kings County, before the Honorable William Garnett.

Judiciary Law § 90 (4) mandates that an attorney’s name be stricken from the roll of attorneys upon his or her conviction of a New York State felony. Accordingly, the resignation tendered by the respondent is rejected and, effective immediately, the respondent is disbarred and her name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law.

Prudenti, P.J., Florio, H. Miller, Schmidt and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, effective immediately, the respondent, Valerie T. Simuro, admitted as Valerie Theresa Simuro, is disbarred, and her name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent, Valerie T. Simuro, admitted as Valerie Theresa Simuro, shall comply with this Court’s rules governing the conduct of disbarred, suspended, and resigned attorneys *(see*22 NYCRR 691.10); and it is further,

Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, effective immediately, the respondent, Valerie T. Simuro, admitted as Valerie Theresa Simuro, is commanded to desist and refrain from (1) practicing law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk, or employee of another, (2) appearing as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, judge, justice, board, commission, or other public authority, (3) giving to another an opinion as to the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto, and (4) holding herself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law; and it is further,

Ordered that if the respondent, Valerie T. Simuro, admitted as Valerie Theresa Simuro, has been issued a secure pass by the *273Office of Court Administration, it shall be returned forthwith to the issuing agency and the respondent shall certify to the same in her affidavit of compliance pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.10 (f); and it is further,

Ordered that the resignation dated February 23, 2005, tendered by the respondent, Valerie T. Simuro, admitted as Valerie Theresa Simuro, is rejected in view of her automatic disbarment.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Randy Hickson, Appellant.

[806 NYS2d 577]

Judgment,/Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berk-man, J., pir motion; Arlene R. Silverman, J., at plea and sentence), rendered September 30, 2003, convicting defendant of attempted burglary in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of three years, unanimously affirmed.

The motion court properly denied defendant’s suppression *319motion without a hearing since the allegations contained in the motion papers, when considered in light of the criminal court complaint and the voluntary disclosure form, failed to raise a factual dispute requiring a hearing. The People specified that the police arrested defendant on the basis of a videotape that showed defendant in the act of committing a burglary, and made the videotape available for viewing. Defendant’s general and conclusory allegations did not address the detailed information that was provided by the People concerning the basis for that arrest, and did not assert any other basis for suppression *(see People v Jones,*95 NY2d 721 [2001]; *see also People v Lopez,*5 NY3d 753 [2005]; *compare People v Hightower,*85 NY2d 988 [1995]).

After sufficient inquiry, the sentencing court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea *(see People v Frederick,*45 NY2d 520 [1978]), since his assertion of innocence was unsubstantiated and contradicted by the plea allocution. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Marlow, Williams, Catterson and Malone, JJ.
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 Annual Report of Integral Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Elaine M. Brown, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to and for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|                       
|/s/    ELAINE M. BROWN 
|Elaine M. Brown        
|Chief Financial Officer
|                       
|Date: December 14, 2005



- 2 -
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Sylvia Hernandez, Appellant.

[745 NYS2d 725]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mullen, J.), rendered January 22, 2001, convicting her of attempted robbery in the first degree, upon her plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

*583Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf., People v Gonzalez, 47*NY2d 606). Santucci, J.P., Smith, Krausman, H. Miller and Adams, JJ., concur.
|Structure Data for U.S. Banking Offices of Foreign Entities

Structure and Share | 
About




June 2011


By Country
  By Type
  ASCIIHome | 
Banking Information and RegulationAccessibility | 
Contact us
Last update: September 9, 2011
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
##### 



Exhibit  18 Letter Regarding Change in Accounting Principles January 25, 2005 Mr. Robert P. Lienesch
Senior Vice President  Finance
  Chief Financial Officer and Controller
Milacron Inc.
2090 Florence Avenue
Cincinnati, OH 45206 Dear Mr. Lienesch: The notes to the consolidated financial statements of Milacron Inc. included in its annual report
on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004, describes a change in the method of accounting
for certain inventory from the last-in, first-out (LIFO) method to the first-in, first-out (FIFO)
method. There are no authoritative criteria for determining a preferable inventory accounting
method based on the particular circumstances; however, we conclude that such change in the method
of accounting is to an acceptable alternative method which, based on your business judgment to make
this change and for the stated reasons, is preferable in your circumstances. Very truly yours, /s/ Ernst & Young LLP Ernst & Young LLP
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of


Bovie Medical Corporation


Purchase, New York





We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Numbers 333-195624 and 333-207206 on Form S-8 and Registration Statement Numbers 333-200986 and 333-203422 on Form S-3 of Bovie Medical Corporation, of our report dated March 18, 2016 on the consolidated financial statements of Bovie Medical Corporation as of and for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K..








/s/ Frazier & Deeter, LLC





Frazier & Deeter, LLC


Tampa, Florida





October 31, 2016
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Joseph Griffiths

v. Civil No. 08-cv-00507-JL

Certain Underwriters of

Lloyd’s London, et al.

O R D E R

The Preliminary Pretrial Conference currently scheduled for

May 26, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. will include a substantive, meaningful

discussion of the parties’ claims and defenses. Counsel are

expected to be prepared to engage in an open, cooperative

discussion in good faith. Counsel are reminded of the

obligations imposed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3) and (4), and

should be prepared to explain the factual basis underlying any

claims or defenses they have pleaded.

Each party shall be represented at the Preliminary Pretrial

Conference by counsel authorized to bind the party on all matters

(unless the party appears pro se).

To the extent that the substance of this order constitutes a

departure from the customary Preliminary Pretrial practice to

Case 1:08-cv-00507-JL Document 11 Filed 05/14/09 Page 1 of 2
2

which counsel are accustomed, the court apologizes for the short

notice, and will bear this in mind at the conference.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: May 14, 2009

cc: Joseph Griffiths, pro se

Ralph Suozzo, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00507-JL Document 11 Filed 05/14/09 Page 2 of 2
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 Quarterly Report of Western Pennsylvania Adventure Capital Fund, LLC on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, G. Richard Patton, President, Chief Executive Officer of Western Pennsylvania Adventure Capital Fund, LLC certify to the
best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (S) 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 Western Pennsylvania Adventure Capital Fund,
LLC.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                               
|-----------------------------------------------
|/s/ G. Richard Patton                          
|G. Richard Patton                              
|President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
|November 7, 2007                               

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Western Pennsylvania
Adventure Capital Fund, LLC and will retained by Western Pennsylvania Adventure Capital Fund, LLC and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Coinmach Corp., Respondent, v Alley Pond Owners Corp., Appellant.

[808 NYS2d 418]

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring the parties’ respective rights under a lease and related injunctive relief enjoining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff’s exclusive right of use and occupancy of the laundry facility located at the subject premises, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), dated July 8, 2005, which granted the plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

This action is a dispute between the defendant landlord, Alley Pond Owners Corp., and the plaintiff commercial tenant, Coinmach Corp., as successor in interest to Coinmach Industries Co. The plaintiff has run its coin-operated laundry business at the subject premises owned by the defendant pursuant to a lease whereby the plaintiff was granted sole and exclusive oc*643cupancy of the premises to operate its laundry business and/or provide laundry equipment services to the premises in exchange for an agreed-upon rent. According to the lease, the defendant had a certificate of occupancy for the premises. However, after the plaintiff made a number of substantial renovations to the leased premises, the defendant’s attorney advised that his client “lost” the certificate of occupancy, without any other proof to substantiate this representation. For this reason, the defendant has prevented access to the leased premises by the plaintiff and all others. This action ensued, and the Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs motion for a prehminary injunction.

To be entitled to a preliminary injunction, the moving party has the burden of demonstrating (1) a likelihood of success on the merits, (2) irreparable injury absent granting the preliminary injunction, and (3) a balancing of the equities in the movant’s favor *(see*CPLR 6301; *Aetna Ins. Co. v Capasso,*75 NY2d 860 [1990]; *W.T. Grant Co. v Srogi,*52 NY2d 496 [1981]). The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to maintain the status quo pending determination of the action *(see Schweizer v Town of Smithtown,*19 AD3d 682 [2005]; *Rattner & Assoc. v Sears, Roebuck & Co.,*294 AD2d 346 [2002]). The determination to grant or deny a preliminary injunction rests in the sound discretion of the Supreme Court *(see Ying Fung Moy v Hohi Umeki,*10 AD3d 604 [2004]).

Since the plaintiff made the requisite showing for preliminary injunctive relief, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff’s motion *(see Coinmach Corp. v Harton Assoc.,*304 AD2d 705 [2003]). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the status quo to be maintained while this action is pending was properly determined to be the parties’ pre-lockout positions, in accordance with paragraph 11 of the lease. Cozier, J.P., Santucci, Spolzino and Skelos, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32(a)



TXU CORP.

Certificate Pursuant to Section 906

of Sarbanes  Oxley Act of 2002

CERTIFICATION OF CEO



The undersigned, C. John Wilder, President and Chief Executive of TXU Corp. (the Company), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:



| | 1. | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 (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. | Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this instrument to be executed
this 9th day of May, 2005.



/s/ C. John WilderName: C. John WilderTitle: President and Chief Executive




A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to TXU Corp. and will be retained by TXU Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya

Civil Action No. 11–cv–01764–PAB–KMT

ROSE W. NJUGUNA,

Plaintiff,

v. 

LCS FINANCIAL CORPORATION, 

Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER

ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KATHLEEN M. TAFOYA

This matter is before the court on the Motion for Protective Order (Doc. No. 30, filed Dec. 5,

2011.) The Motion is DENIED and the proposed Protective Order is REFUSED. The parties

are granted leave to submit a motion for protective order and revised form of protective order

consistent with the comments contained here.

Gillard v. Boulder Valley School District, 196 F.R.D. 382 (D. Colo. 2000), set out certain

requirements for the issuance of a blanket protective order such as the one sought here. Among

other things, any information designated by a party as confidential must first be reviewed by a

lawyer who will certify that the designation as confidential is “based on a good faith belief that

[the information] is confidential or otherwise entitled to protection.” Gillard, 196 F.R.D. at 386.

The proposed Protective Order does not comply with the requirements established in Gillard. 

Therefore, it is ORDERED that the Motion for Protective Order is DENIED without prejudice,

and the proposed Protective Order is REFUSED. 

Dated: December 7, 2011

Case 1:11-cv-01764-PAB-KMT Document 32 Filed 12/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 23.1




CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM







Board of Directors and Stockholders


STAAR Surgical Company


Monrovia, California









We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Forms S-8 No. 333-111154, No. 333-60241 and No. 333-167595 and Forms S-3 No. 333-148902, No. 333-143131, No. 333-124022, No. 333-116901, No. 333-106989 and No. 333-159293 of STAAR Surgical Company of our reports dated March 2, 2011, relating to the consolidated financial statements and the effectiveness of STAAR Surgical Company’s internal control over financial reporting which appear in this Form 10-K.  We also consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated March 2, 2011 relating to the financial statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K.








/s/ BDO USA, LLP








Los Angeles, California


March 2, 2011