alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     The  undersigned  hereby  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
undersigned's  best knowledge and belief,  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the Geodyne  Energy Income  Limited Partnership  II-G  ("Issuer") for the period
ending  September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"):

      (a)   fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
            the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
      (b)   the  information  contained in the Report  fairly  presents,  in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Issuer.

      Dated this 14th day of November, 2003.

                                    GEODYNE ENERGY INCOME LIMITED
                                    PARTNERSHIP II-G
                                    ("Issuer")

                                    //s// Dennis R. Neill
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Dennis R. Neill
                                    President (Chief Executive Officer)

                                    //s// Craig D. Loseke
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Craig D. Loseke
                                    Chief Accounting Officer
                                    (Chief Financial Officer)


      A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906 has
been  furnished to Geodyne  Energy Income Limited  Partnership  II-G and will be
retained by Geodyne Energy Income Limited Partnership  II-G and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 311 

To prohibit the application of certain restrictive eligibility requirements to 

foreign nongovernmental organizations with respect to the provision of 

assistance under part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 22, 2009 

Mrs. BOXER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Foreign Relations 

A BILL 

To prohibit the application of certain restrictive eligibility 

requirements to foreign nongovernmental organizations 

with respect to the provision of assistance under part 

I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. 

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 ‘‘Global Democracy Pro5 motion Act’’. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•S 311 IS

1 SEC. 2. ASSISTANCE FOR FOREIGN NONGOVERNMENTAL 

2 ORGANIZATIONS UNDER PART I OF THE FOR3 EIGN ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1961. 

4 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, regula5 tion, or policy, in determining eligibility for assistance au6 thorized under part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 

7 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151 et seq.), foreign nongovernmental 

8 organizations— 

9 (1) shall not be ineligible for such assistance 

10 solely on the basis of health or medical services, in11 cluding counseling and referral services, provided by 

12 such organizations with non-United States Govern13 ment funds if such services do not violate the laws 

14 of the country in which they are being provided and 

15 would not violate United States Federal law if pro16 vided in the United States; and 

17 (2) shall not be subject to requirements relating 

18 to the use of non-United States Government funds 

19 for advocacy and lobbying activities other than those 

20 that apply to United States nongovernmental organi21 zations receiving assistance under part I of such 

22 Act. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
ex10_2.htm







 


EXHIBIT 10.2


 







Summary of Lease Agreement


Dated June 16, 2013







Between Achidatex Nazareth Elite (1977) Ltd. (“Lessee”) and A.Tzedef Hashkaot Ltd. and Dash Shivuk Ve’Yazamut M.A Ltd. (“Lessors”).







The Lessee hereby rent the Property from the lessors on an As Is basis, subject to the terms and conditions of this agreement.







The term of the lease is 144 months starting July 1, 2013.







The Lessee shall have an option to extend the term for two additional periods of 60 months each.







The Lessee may terminate the lease in an earlier period; provided that it will transfer its rights and obligations under the lease to a successor lessee. The Lessors shall not object to such substitution of lessees without a reasonable reason.







The rent for the 60 months option periods, if the Lessee will choose to use them, will be determined by the parties, or if the parties cannot agree on the price, by a real estate evaluator.







Lessee will pay a monthly rent of NIS 75,000 linked to the Israeli consumer price index. After 72 months the rent will increase by 5%.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1996
<CASH>                                         200,489
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  359,296
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     34,293
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               637,657
<PP&E>                                         799,703
<DEPRECIATION>                                 318,693
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,135,152
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,511,696
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       207,437
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,505,455
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,135,152
<SALES>                                         87,428
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                87,428
<CGS>                                           34,694
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   34,694
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               455,291
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (402,557)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (405,284)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Marvin H. Handler, M.D., P.C., Appellant, v Thomas P. DiNapoli, as Comptroller of the State of New York, Respondent, et al., Respondent.

Submitted May 29, 2012;

decided June 28, 2012

On the Court’s own motion, appeal dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that the order appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution. Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution and is not an order of the type provided for in CPLR 5602 (a) (2).
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

**(PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002)**

 

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18,United States Code)

 

Pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b)of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), theundersigned officer of Apogee Technology, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the“Company”), does hereby certify, that:

 

Thequarterly report on Form 10QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 (the“Form 10QSB”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and theinformation contained in the Form 10QSB fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Dated:  May 17, 2004 | /s/    | Herbert  M. Stein                                                                                                  |   |
|---------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                      |   | Herbert  M. Stein                                                                                                  |
|                      |   | Chairman  of the Board,                                                                                            |
|                      |   | President,  Chief Executive Officer and  Treasurer (principal financial officer and  principal accounting officer) |

 

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
- TC Res 19-02-19-__ (2019 Amendments)
- Gaming Regulatory Act redlined v1 (2019 amendments)
(3) Ineligibility of Commissioners.  Must not have served as a Commissioner for two years prior to the date of appointment as Executive Director.
Legislative History
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Post-Effective Amendment to
Registration Statement No. 33-13901, and in Registration Statement Nos.
33-73696, 33-73698, 33-73700, 333-17349, 333-17351 and 333-50356 of Barr
Laboratories, Inc. on Form S-8 of our report dated August 6, 2001, appearing in
this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Barr Laboratories, Inc. for the year ended
June 30, 2001.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Stamford, Connecticut
August 6, 2001
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
unaudited consolidated financial statements of Sybron International Corporation
for the three months ended December 31, 1996 and qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   4-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          21,800
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  122,618
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,360
<INVENTORY>                                    123,757
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               293,737
<PP&E>                                         170,024
<DEPRECIATION>                                 129,854
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 990,047
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          137,528
<BONDS>                                        478,673
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0 
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           471
<OTHER-SE>                                     303,207
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   990,047
<SALES>                                        171,496
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               171,496
<CGS>                                           86,580
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   49,378
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   224
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,151
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 26,163
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,760
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             15,403
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    15,403
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .32
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 14 (Friday, January 23, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 4178]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-1349]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. ER08-637-000; ER08-637-001; ER08-637-004; ER08-637-005]


Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.; Notice of 
Filing

January 14, 2009.
    Take notice that on January 12, 2009, Alliant Energy Corporate 
Services and Midwest TDU's \1\ filed an Offer of Settlement in the 
above-referenced proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Midwest TDU's consist of the Great Lakes Utilities, Madison 
Gas & Electric Company, Midwest Municipal Transmission Group, 
Missouri Joint Municipal Electric Agency of Nebraska, and Wisconsin 
Public Power Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By this notice, initial comments should be filed on or before 
January 27, 2009. Reply comments should be filed on or before February 
3, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-1349 Filed 1-22-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
#### Kowanna Groom, Respondent, v Sagamore Realty, LLC, et al., Appellants.

Submitted June 11, 2012;

decided September 11, 2012

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 115 (Wednesday, June 17, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 28726]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-14135]


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

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES


Meeting of the Judicial Conference Committee on Rules of Criminal 
Procedure

AGENCY: Judicial Conference of the United States Advisory Committee on 
Rules of Criminal Procedure.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure will 
hold a two-day meeting. The meeting will be open to public observation 
but not participation.

DATES: October 13-14, 2009.
    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The Fairmount Olympic Hotel, 411 University Street, Seattle, 
Washington 98101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John K. Rabiej, Chief, Rules Committee 
Support Office, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, 
Washington, DC 20544, telephone (202) 502-1820.

    Dated: June 11, 2009.
John K. Rabiej,
Chief, Rules Committee Support Office.
[FR Doc. E9-14135 Filed 6-16-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 2210-55-M
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                            BALDWIN & LYONS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                            FORM 10-K YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2005

                                          EXHIBIT 11


                               COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS




                                                -----------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31
                                                -----------------------------------------------------------
                                                       2005                 2004                 2003
                                                -----------------    -----------------    -----------------
<S>                                             <C>                  <C>                  <C>
Basic:
  Average number of Class A and
   Class B shares outstanding                         14,753,133           14,641,300           14,562,310
                                                =================    =================    =================

  Net income                                         $34,222,602          $30,305,585          $33,075,554
                                                =================    =================    =================

  Per Share Amount                                        $ 2.32               $ 2.07               $ 2.27
                                                =================    =================    =================


Diluted:
  Average number of Class A and
   Class B shares outstanding                         14,753,133           14,641,300           14,562,310

  Dilutive stock options--based on
    treasury stock method using higher
    of average or year end market prices                 109,554              147,824              135,659
                                                -----------------    -----------------    -----------------
                                        TOTALS        14,862,687           14,789,124           14,697,969
                                                =================    =================    =================

  Net income                                         $34,222,602          $30,305,585          $33,075,554
                                                =================    =================    =================

  Per Share Amount                                        $ 2.30               $ 2.05               $ 2.25
                                                =================    =================    =================


Note:  All share, per share and option amounts reflect a five-for-four stock split, effective February 17, 2003.

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Bruce Vaillancourt, Appellant.

[978 NYS2d 517]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Frank E Geraci, Jr., A.J.), entered August 2, 2012. The order determined that defendant is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order determining that he is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 *et seq.).*We reject defendant’s contention that Supreme Court erred in relying upon facts set forth in the case summary prepared by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders in determining his risk level. “The *1376case summary may constitute clear and convincing evidence of the facts alleged therein and, where, as here, the defendant does not dispute the facts contained in the case summary, the case summary alone is sufficient to support the court’s determination” *(People v Guzman,*96 AD3d 1441, 1441-1442 [2012], *lv denied*19 NY3d 812 [2012]; *see People v Young,*108 AD3d 1232, 1232 [2013], *lv denied*22 NY3d 853 [2013], *rearg denied*22 NY3d 1036 [2013]; *People v McDaniel,*27 AD3d 1158, 1159 [2006], *lv denied*7 NY3d 703 [2006]). Contrary to defendant’s further contention, defense counsel’s statement at the hearing that the court should not rely solely upon the case summary was not the equivalent of disputing the facts contained therein. Furthermore, defendant’s contention that the court violated his due process rights by relying solely upon the case summary is without merit *(see People v Latimore,*50 AD3d 1604, 1605 [2008], *lv denied*10 NY3d 717 [2008]; *cf. People v David*W., 95 NY2d 130, 138-140 [2000]; *see generally People v Montanez,*88 AD3d 1278, 1279 [2011]).

Contrary to defendant’s further contention, “[t]he court’s discretionary upward departure [to a level three risk] was based on clear and convincing evidence of aggravating factors to a degree not taken into account by the risk assessment instrument” (P*eople v Sherard,*73 AD3d 537, 537 [2010], *lv denied*15 NY3d 707 [2010]; *see People v Miller,*48 AD3d 774, 775 [2008], *lv denied*10 NY3d 711 [2008]; *People v Sanford,*47 AD3d 454, 454 [2008], *lv denied*10 NY3d 707 [2008]). The court properly relied upon several factors that, “as a matter of law, . . . tend[ed] to establish a higher likelihood of reoffense or danger to the community” *(People v Wyatt,*89 AD3d 112, 123 [2011], *lv denied*18 NY3d 803 [2012]; *see People v Campbell,*98 AD3d 5, 13 [2012], *lv denied*20 NY3d 853 [2012]). Those factors included the number of defendant’s prior sex-related offenses, committed in a variety of settings and spanning nearly a quarter of a century, his diagnosis of voyeurism, his admission to committing additional sex acts for which he was not prosecuted, his prior violations of community-based supervision, and his earlier failures to complete sex offender treatment. Present — Smith, J.P, Fahey, Lindley, Sconiers and Whalen, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Fedie R. Redd, Appellant, v Edward A. Battisti et al., Respondents.

Submitted October 15, 2012;

decided December 13, 2012

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from the Appellate Division order affirming the Supreme Court judgment, denied; motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from the Appellate Division order denying reargument or, in the alternative, leave *967to appeal to the Court of Appeals, dismissed upon the ground that such order does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution. Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.
#### FRANK KASAL v. LOLA KASAL. 1

May 27, 1949.

No. 34,784.

*Charles L. DeReu*and *L. P. Johnson,*for appellant.

*Elmer C. Jensen*and *Streissguth & Berens,*for respondent.

1

 Reported in 37 N. W. (2d) 711.

Per Curiam.

On March 14, 1949, defendant filed with this court a motion for an order vacating and setting aside the judgment for costs entered in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $550.25 and requiring plaintiff to pay to defendant all necessary expenses and a reasonable attorneys’ fee upon the appeal. The remittitur in the above action (Kasal v. Kasal, 227 Minn. 529, 35 N. W. [2d] 745) was regularly sent down to the trial court on February 15, 1949.

This court is now without authority to recall the remittitur and is without *571jurisdiction to vacate its judgment herein. The established rule is that “after an appellate court has pronounced its judgment or decree in a cause, *and has remitted it to the court below for enforcement, and such remittitur has been filed in the lower court,*the jurisdiction of the appellate court is completely divested, and * * * it has no authority to recall the remittitur, unless there has been some irregularity or error in issuing it; as where it was issued contrary to the rules of the court, or where, by reason of a clerical mistake, it does not correctly express the judgment of this court.” (Italics supplied.) Rud v. Board of Co. Commrs. 66 Minn. 358, 360, 68 N. W. 1062, 69 N. W. 886. See, Farmers & M. State Bank v. Mellum, 174 Minn. 605, 219 N. W. 179; State, by Benson, v. Erickson, 188 Minn. 633, 247 N. W. 687; State v. Waddell, 191 Minn. 475, 254 N. W. 627; 16 Minn. L. Rev. 700; 1 Dunnell, Dig. & Supp. § 453.

Motion denied.