alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SCWC-13-0000061

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________ Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-13-0000061 04-AUG-2015 02:12 PM

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI  I

STATE OF HAWAI  I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
PATRICK DEGUAIR, JR., Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP -13-0000061; CR. NO. 08-1-0773)

ORDER ACCEPTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Petitioner/Defendant- Appellant Patrick Deguair, Jr.’s application for writ of certiorari filed on June 22, 2015, is hereby accepted and will be scheduled for oral argument. The parties will be notified by the appellate clerk regarding scheduling.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai  i, August 4, 2015.

Dwight C.H. Lum for petitioner /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama James M. Anderson for respondent /s/ Sabr ina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson
#### In the Matter of the Estates of Paul Meyron and Another, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County,

July 12, 1957.

*674
      *Richard W. Hawkins*for Public Administrator of Suffolk County.

*Louis J. Lefkowits, Attorney-General (Kenneth D. Schearer*of counsel), for State of New York.

*Donald J. Siskind*for Italian Consul.

Edgar F. Hazletou, S.

On June 21, 1955 in the town of Babylon, Paul Meyron and Annette A. Meyron burned to death in the home they had shared for more than 14 years. They died together as they had lived together — husband and wife in name only. Paul Meyron had a family in Italy, there had been no ceremonial marriage here and the dead couple began their relationship long after common-law marriages had been outlawed in New York State.

Each left a will, .leaving all his estate to the other with no remainder over. The public administrator was appointed with the will annexed in each instance. The woman left no survivors, while the man left a widow and daughter in Italy. There were bank accounts as well as real property held jointly by the decedents as man and wife, the real property having been received by deeds executed in September and October of 1943. However, since the relationship of husband and wife did not exist, the decedents held these assets as tenants in common.

From the evidence I am totally unable to form an opinion as to who survived. Therefore, under the circumstances, the estate is administered under section 89 of the Decedent Estate Law, Paul Meyron’s one half going to his widow and daughter, and the other one half to the State of New York for the use and benefit of the unknown heirs, if any, of Annette A. Meyron.

Proceed accordingly.
Exhibit 35.1

Servicer Compliance Statement of AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc.

This Annual Statement as to Compliance is delivered to you pursuant to Section 4.10 (a) of the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of
January 18, 2011 (the Agreement) and Item 1123 of Regulation AB, executed in connection with the formation of AmeriCredit Automobile Receivables Trust 2011-1 (the Trust), the issuance of the Notes by the Trust and
the closing of the transactions and the execution and delivery of the various documents by General Motors Financial Company, Inc. (f/k/a AmeriCredit Corp.), AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (the Servicer) and AFS SenSub Corp. in
connection therewith. The capitalized terms used herein shall have the same meanings as in the Agreement.

The undersigned certifies that
I am the Executive Vice President, Accounting Corporate Controller of the Servicer. I further certify as follows:



| | 1. | I have conducted, or caused to be conducted under my supervision, a review of the Servicer during the preceding period from January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012, and its performance under the Agreement.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, following such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such period, and, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no default in the
fulfillment of any such obligation.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                     |  |                                 |  |  |  |                      
|------------------------------------ |  | ------------------------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------
|AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. |  |                                 |  | 
|                                     |  |                                 | 
|By:                                  |  | /s/ Connie Coffey               |  |  |  | Dated: March 26, 2013
|                                     |  | Connie Coffey                   |  |  |  |                      
|                                     |  | Executive Vice President,       |  |  |  |                      
|                                     |  | Accounting Corporate Controller |  |  |  |
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

CAROL ANN CARTER, MONICA 

PARRILLA, REBECCA POYOUROW, 

WILLIAM TUNG, ROSEANNE MILAZZO, 

BURT SIEGEL, SUSAN CASSANELLI, LEE 

CASSANELLI, LYNN WACHMAN, 

MICHAEL GUTTMAN, MAYA FONKEU, 

BRADY HILL, MARY ELLEN BALCHUNIS, 

TOM DEWALL, STEPHANIE MCNULTY 

AND JANET TEMIN

v.

LEIGH M. CHAPMAN, IN HER OFFICIAL 

CAPACITY AS THE ACTING SECRETARY 

OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF 

PENNSYLVANIA; JESSICA MATHIS, IN 

HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR 

FOR THE PENNSYLVANIA BUREAU OF 

ELECTION SERVICES AND NOTARIES

APPEAL OF: LESLIE OSCHE, KIM 

GEYER, MICHAEL T. SLUPE, CANDEE 

BARNES, THOMAS REEP, BRANDY 

REEP, KENNETH LUNSFORD, TAMMY 

LUNSFORD, JAMES THOMPSON, 

PAMELA THOMPSON, JOSEPH 

RENWICK, STEPHANIE RENWICK, LOUIS 

CAPOZZI, DAVID BALL, MARY E. 

OWLETT, KRISTINE ENG, JUSTIN 

BEHRENS, JAMES P. FOREMAN, 

MATTHEW J. STUCKEY, ANTHONY J. 

LUTHER, LINDA C. DANIELS, JEFFREY 

PICCOLA, JAMES VASILKO, JAY 

HAGERMAN, AND EVAN P. SMITH., 

Possible Intervenors

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 11 MAP 2022

Appeal from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court at No. 464 

MD 2021 dated January 14, 2022 

denying intervenor status.
[11 & 12 MAP 2022] - 2

PHILIP T. GRESSMAN; RON Y. DONAGI; 

KRISTOPHER R. TAPP; PAMELA 

GORKIN; DAVID P. MARSH; JAMES L. 

ROSENBERGER; AMY MYERS; EUGENE 

BOMAN; GARY GORDON; LIZ MCMAHON; 

TIMOTHY G. FEEMAN; AND GARTH 

ISAAK

v.

LEIGH M. CHAPMAN, IN HER OFFICIAL 

CAPACITY AS THE ACTING SECRETARY 

OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF 

PENNSYLVANIA; JESSICA MATHIS, IN 

HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR 

FOR THE PENNSYLVANIA BUREAU OF 

ELECTION SERVICES AND NOTARIES

APPEAL OF: LESLIE OSCHE, KIM 

GEYER, MICHAEL T. SLUPE, CANDEE 

BARNES, THOMAS REEP, BRANDY 

REEP, KENNETH LUNSFORD, TAMMY 

LUNSFORD, JAMES THOMPSON, 

PAMELA THOMPSON, JOSEPH 

RENWICK, STEPHANIE RENWICK, LOUIS 

CAPOZZI, DAVID BALL, MARY E. 

OWLETT, KRISTINE ENG, JUSTIN 

BEHRENS, JAMES P. FOREMAN, 

MATTHEW J. STUCKEY, ANTHONY J. 

LUTHER, LINDA C. DANIELS, JEFFREY 

PICCOLA, JAMES VASILKO, JAY 

HAGERMAN, AND EVAN P. SMITH., 

Possible Intervenors

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 12 MAP 2022

Appeal from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court at No. 465 

MD 2021 dated January 14, 2022 

denying intervenor status.
[11 & 12 MAP 2022] - 3

ORDER

PER CURIAM DECIDED: February 2, 2022

AND NOW, this 2

nd day of February, 2022, probable jurisdiction is NOTED. As 

Appellants waited twelve days to file a notice of appeal from the Commonwealth Court’s 

order denying intervention, and deadlines established by that order have already passed, 

the Order of the Commonwealth Court is AFFIRMED. Cf. Pa.R.Civ.P. 2329(3) (allowing 

for denial of intervention if “the petitioner has unduly delayed in making application for 

intervention or the intervention will unduly delay . . . the trial or the adjudication of the 

rights of the parties”).
Exhibit 32


                            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  Fidelity  Bancorp,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period  ending  December 31, 2006 as filed with
the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof,  we,  Richard G.
Spencer, Chief Executive Officer, and Lisa L. Griffith, Chief Financial Officer,
certify,  pursuant to 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/Richard G. Spencer                                  /s/Lisa L. Griffith
-----------------------                                -----------------------
Richard G. Spencer                                     Lisa L. Griffith
Chief Executive Officer                                Chief Financial Officer




February 13, 2007
News United States Air Force
 Invisible WoundsPublished Oct. 13, 2020
                        
                        By Michelle Padgett
                        
                        
                        Department of the Air Force Disabilities Action Team
                **ARLINGTON, Va. (AFNS) --**
                I often look around the room and wonder, who is suffering in silence...facing challenges that no one else can see...scarred by traumatic brain injury or post-traumatic stress. We have a national security strategy to protect American people, promote resilience, renew our competitive edge and influence our partners. Over 3 million men and women have served in the military since 9/11, and yet there is a lack of understanding around invisible wounds. It may surprise you that in 1946, New England Journal of Medicine researchers could predict who was going to develop post-traumatic stress through poor sleep patterns. In our military population, lack of sleep is associated with more anxiety, more depression, more PTS, more alcohol abuse and unfortunately more suicidality. Sleep, pain and mood management are critical to improving total force fitness. Our challenge is that trauma is unique to the individual. What is traumatic for one, may not be traumatic to someone else, which is why it is so difficult to detect. Our military members are the best trained and well-equipped in the world, and can take on every enemy, except for the one within. Quite simply, we’ve got to start talking to each other, and asking tough questions.
Would it surprise you that we’ve had 479,000-plus service members seek treatment for PTS, TBI over one year? For hundreds of years, we’ve remained silent. But silence does not and will not make the changes we need to protect the greatest weapon we have—our people! Would it surprise you that 85% recover within the first six months, which highlights the importance of early intervention and treatment? An investment in our people will pay dividends—INVEST through direct involvement, coordination of care, and reaching out. A great poet once said, “there is a crack in everything...that’s how light gets in.” To the Air and Space professionals who stand watch, thanks for breaking barriers every day! I have no doubt you will SHINE and make the invisible, visible. Really, the only question is, what would YOU DO to shed light on invisible wounds, to protect and defend Air and Space Professional AND the institution he/she works for?USAF 



AF 



Air Force 



diversity 



Disabilities 



Disabilities Action Team 



Disability Awareness Month 



SAF 



SecAF 



commentary 



AFWN
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7074

WILLIAM J. BUCHANAN, Petitioner - Appellant, versusRONALD ANGELONE, Director of Virginia Corrections; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Respondents - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-737-R) Submitted: September 10, 1998 Decided: September 29, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William J. Buchanan, Appellant Pro Se. John Kenneth Byrum, Jr., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court'sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Buchanan v. Angelone , No. CA-97-737-R (W.D. Va. June 29, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2466 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2466

To amend the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 to include the 
  desecration of cemeteries among the many forms of violations of the 
                      right to religious freedom.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 11, 2014

 Mr. Cardin (for himself and Mr. Risch) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 to include the 
  desecration of cemeteries among the many forms of violations of the 
                      right to religious freedom.

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

SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds the following:
            (1) Cemeteries are sacred sites that are of great 
        spiritual, cultural, and historical significance to many 
        religious and ethnic groups.
            (2) Congress is committed to protecting and preserving the 
        heritage and sacred sites of national, religious, and ethnic 
        groups, which include cemeteries in the United States and 
        abroad.
            (3) Cemeteries around the world have, and continue to be, 
        defaced or destroyed as a direct result of their affiliation 
        with a particular religious or spiritual group.
            (4) Such attacks constitute an assault on the fundamental 
        right to freedom of religion, and are especially egregious when 
        sponsored or tolerated by the local or national governments in 
        the countries in which such offenses occur.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO THE INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ACT OF 1998.

    Section 2(a)(4) of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 
(22 U.S.C. 6401(a)(4)) is amended by inserting ``desecration of 
cemeteries,'' after ``confiscations of property,''.
                                 <all>
```
News United States Air Force
 Air Force awards contract for two 747-8s to be modified as future Air Force One aircraftPublished Aug. 4, 2017
                        
                        
                        Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs
                **WASHINGTON (AFNS) --**
                The Air Force awarded a Boeing contract modification Aug. 4, 2017, to purchase two commercial 747-8 aircraft for future modification to replace the two aging VC-25A Boeing 747-200 presidential support aircraft. 
This contract modification follows a set of awards in 2016 for risk reduction activities. The Air Force has already requested Boeing to provide proposals to design, modify, test and field two Presidential mission-ready aircraft. These efforts will be awarded via future contract modifications. The program expects to begin aircraft modifications in 2019 and reach initial operational capability in 2024.
"This award is a significant step toward ensuring an overall affordable program," said Ms. Darlene Costello, the principal deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition. "As we move forward, we will continue to seek and implement cost savings opportunities."
These aircraft will start providing worldwide presidential airlift support in 2024, after a series of modifications and tests. Boeing will modify their Federal Aviation Administration-certified commercial 747-8 aircraft to meet presidential operational requirements to help ensure an affordable program.
In March 2017, following a series of requirements reviews, the White House reaffirmed the minimum set of requirements necessary to meet presidential mission needs. The modifications to the aircraft will include incorporating a mission communications system, electrical power upgrades, a medical facility, an executive interior, a self-defense system and autonomous ground operations capabilities.
"Purchasing these aircraft is a huge step toward replacing the aging VC-25As," said Maj. Gen. Duke Richardson, the Presidential Airlift Recapitalization program executive officer. "This award keeps us on track to modify and test the aircraft to become presidential mission-ready by 2024."
Since the aircraft were purchased through commercial contracting procedures, price and other related details are commercial-competition sensitive, meaning the negotiated price paid is not releasable.  However, the price will be part of the overall program cost baseline once set and will be released in accordance with the contract publication requirements.contracts 



Boeing 



747 



presidential aircraft 



Air Force One 



budget
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 95-11075 

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

AUGUSTIN DURAN PEREZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:93-CR-021-1-E

- - - - - - - - - -

August 20, 1996

Before KING, DUHÉ, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Augustin Duran Perez appeals his sentence in a guilty-plea

conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. 

Relying on Bailey v. United States, 116 S. Ct. 501 (1995), he

argues that the district court erred in enhancing his offense

level under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1). Perez’s reliance on Bailey

is misplaced; Bailey does not apply to § 2D1.1(b)(1). See United

States v. Castillo, 77 F.3d 1480, 1499 n.34 (5th Cir.), petition
No. 95-11075

- 2 -

for cert. filed, (U.S. July 26, 1996) (No. 96-5357). The

connection between the weapon and the cocaine was not clearly

improbable; therefore, the findings of the district court were

not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Mitchell, 31 F.3d

271, 277 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 455 (1994).

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                              
<ARTICLE>                          5
<LEGEND>                        
     This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
     Partnership's  audited  financial  statements  for  the  six  months  ended
     September  30, 1996 and is  qualified  in its entirety by reference to such
     financial statements.
</LEGEND>                       
<MULTIPLIER>                            1,000
                                    
<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                       SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                    853
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                               2
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          855
<PP&E>                                  9,269
<DEPRECIATION>                          3,472
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          6,918
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     786
<BONDS>                                 8,330
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                            (3,463)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            6,918
<SALES>                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          757
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             573
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           39
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        269
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         (124)
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     (124)
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                            (124)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          (4.59)
<EPS-DILUTED>                          (4.59)
        

</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 32

Certification of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
As adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the undersigned
President of Ironton Iron, Inc. (the Company) and Vice President of Finance
and Chief Financial Officer of INTERMET Corporation, which is the owner of all
of the issued and outstanding common stock of the Company, hereby certify,
based on my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company
for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Robert E. Belts
Robert E. Belts
August 13, 2003

14