alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                              CERTIFICATE OF TRUST

                                       OF

                           BORGWARNER CAPITAL TRUST II


                  This Certificate of Trust is being executed as of November 16,
2001 for the purpose of creating a business trust pursuant to the Delaware
Business Trust Act, 12 Del. C.ss.ss. 3801 et seq. (the "Act").

                  The undersigned hereby certify as follows:

                  1. Name. The name of the business trust is BorgWarner Capital
Trust II (the "Trust").

                  2. Delaware Trustee. The name and business address of the
Delaware resident trustee of the Trust meeting the requirements of Section 3807
of the Act are as follows:

                           Bank One Delaware, Inc.
                           300 King Street
                           Suite 4014
                           Wilmington, Delaware 19801

                  3. Effective. This Certificate of Trust shall be effective
immediately upon filing in the Office of the Secretary of State of the State of
Delaware.

                  4. Counterparts. This Certificate of Trust may be executed in
one or more counterparts.


<PAGE>


                  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being all of the trustees
of the Trust, have duly executed this Certificate of Trust as of the day and
year first above written.

                                          BANK ONE DELAWARE, INC.,
                                          as Delaware Trustee



                                          By: /s/ MARLA S. ROTH
                                              -----------------------------
                                              Name:  Marla S. Roth
                                              Title: Vice President


                                          /s/ JEFFREY L. OBERMAYER
                                          ---------------------------------
                                          Jeffrey L. Obermayer, as Trustee


                                          /s/ MARGARET E. ANNETT
                                          ---------------------------------
                                          Margaret E. Annett, as Trustee


                                          /s/ DENNIS KROL
                                          ---------------------------------
                                          Dennis Krol, as Trustee






                                      -2-
H. Res. 767 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

December 18, 2019. 

Resolved, That immediately upon adoption of this resolution, without intervention of any point of order, the House 

shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the resolution (H. Res. 755) impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors. 

The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended 

by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the resolution shall be considered as adopted. The previous question 

shall be considered as ordered on the resolution, as amended, 

to adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question except as follows: 

(a) The resolution, as amended, shall be debatable for 

six hours equally divided and controlled by the chair and 

ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary 

or their respective designees. 

(b) The question of adoption of the resolution, as 

amended, shall be divided between the two articles. 
2 

•HRES 767 EH 

SEC. 2. During consideration of House Resolution 755, 

only the following persons shall be admitted to the Hall of 

the House or rooms leading thereto: 

(a) Members of Congress. 

(b) The Delegates and the Resident Commissioner. 

(c) The President and Vice President of the United 

States. 

(d) Other persons as designated by the Speaker. 

SEC. 3. After adoption of House Resolution 755, it shall 

be in order without intervention of any point of order to consider in the House a resolution appointing and authorizing 

managers for the impeachment trial of Donald John Trump, 

President of the United States, if offered by the chair of the 

Committee on the Judiciary or his designee. The previous 

question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution to 

adoption without intervening motion or demand for division 

of the question except 10 minutes of debate equally divided 

and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of 

the Committee on the Judiciary. No other resolution incidental to impeachment relating to House Resolution 755 

shall be privileged during the remainder of the One Hundred 

Sixteenth Congress. 

SEC. 4. The chair of the Committee on the Judiciary 

may insert in the Congressional Record such material as he 

may deem explanatory of— 
3 

•HRES 767 EH 

(a) House Resolution 755, not later than the date that 

is 5 legislative days after adoption thereof; and 

(b) the resolution specified in section 3 of this resolution, 

not later than the date that is 5 legislative days after adoption thereof. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 6175** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. JERRICK LAMONT RORIE, a/k/a Duwop , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence
. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District Judge. ( 4:08

- cr - 00367

- TLW

- 3 ; 4:15

- cv - 05113

- TLW )

Submitted : April 19, 2016 Decided: April 22, 2016

Before AGEE , DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Jerrick Lamont Rorie , Appellant Pro Se. Robert Frank Daley, Jr., Stanley D. Ragsdale , Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, Arthur Bradley Parham , Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Jerrick Lamont Rorie seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U .S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Rorie has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of ap pealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
; Jexne Depatrntsr F Chimiuel Guerice eG ECEIVED IN

AT OE CAMINAL APPEALS
Teoretunown~ Durou JUL 18 an
Rom: OfPader Rrghond &, Oath 7,705 AbelAcosia Clerk
To; CLel(, Ae feoara

UT, $19-02
Soyer; Ete Rowe TM 1792974. Th, er, Ws. tho8—lata, Wh-¥7, 919-02
Dent CLank,

Dam Whirty vou te pePalm You D Recewed You wor) ®
do Bic Rear hie ha bens ane Sout wort Pearzoa

157 0d 7/B/Ao 1s.
Br thy pleverr tyme Adah Mic Roe Riwre po ml wine
ale TPAK bo Me ploviy TOG oMaylr aig Me dure & Tew
ive paraiy Phed CoMopshacier rig Comping schener wirh
Phe Curr CO~ Couto jha rl who Ake (yorur Ppdrtc. ner
vt The we Ay} gee, Ts AGE Me A Yio f
aly. alu Bao HO Go. Dy
Tr, 374,73 LEIS Us Ya (992), O Ne86Y U5

Be ir Keowd ther }

have ath the a
who wade oe Pato & Coopehan h documentos F alt (umorey

MTG BwiTIY Ul Ac
jure the Nace Menm mend, Life heck wa me oa
Equal Plsreed FF Lay elainy Agsivrr The Pore Se {
ovr FY Mowe ay) UAL Mercy, Sue

Eta Lich
ID VITA $9296), BN The WAL hL muresaler pions si
ofa wirver ranpluy) T Rayo) &, Cah ¢ aud WOGT

As

67676> WT
Ny & Peron iy THY care Lad Regue tr thar ive Paul
Ede Roe) Applicarios Fal wit & he

F GPpur 1.07 be |
Gevied wotoor Ratchet orice 1 MH} ThE Boned ¢ PAR ou © Palolss
bt boned & he Me eter ty bAN (WARE fu Roep ay
ry PAT ive C & g
fe ey PEUTEVCE 1U Pray abs Lege? unt Wohage & hie

TruceQely

— Gah C61 6767
Dare i_ oly aot S08 Sead dat
WHEN CAN A WIDOW(ER) RETIRE?

A WIDOW(ER)

BORN IN*

AT AGE 60, DEEMED

TO BE AGE 62.

ANNUITY WILL

BE REDUCED BY

OR

NO ANNUITY

REDUCTION

IF RETIREMENT AGE

IS AT LEAST

1957 19.26% 66 and 2 months

1958 19.50% 66 and 4 months

1959 19.73% 66 and 6 months

1960 19.95% 66 and 8 months

1961 20.16% 66 and 10 months

1962 or later 20.36% 67

*A person attains a given age the day before their birthday, and a widow(er) born on the first day

 of a month may be eligible for an annuity beginning date on the first of the month before their

 birth month.

NOTE – The maximum age reduction for remarried widow(er)s and surviving divorced spouses is

 28.50% at age 60. The maximum age reduction for disabled surviving divorced spouses,

 disabled widow(er)s, and disabled remarried widow(er)s is also 28.50%.

January 2024
#### UNLANDHERM v. PARK CONTRACTING CORPORATION et al.

District Court, S. D. New York.

Jan. 17, 1940.

Blair, Curtis, Dunne & Hayward, of New York City, for plaintiff. -

Jacob I. Goodstein, of New York City, for defendant.

BONDY, District Judge.

A request for admissions pursuant to Rule 36, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, is not subject to a motion to strike. Nekrasoff v. United States Rubber Co., D.C., 27 F. Supp. 953; Modern Food Process Co., Inc., v. Chester Packing & Provision Co., Inc., D.C., 30 F.Supp. 520. See Moore, Federal Practice, pp. 2660, 2661; cf. Banca Nazionale Di Credito v. Equitable Trust Co., 221 App.Div. 555, 224 N.Y.S. 617.

It may be noted, however, contrary to the defendant’s contention, that it has been held that the word “therein” as used in Rule 36 is not limited to facts contained in documents, but includes all facts relevant to the pleadings and set forth in the re*123quest. Walsh v. Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. Co., D. C., 26 F.Supp. 566; McCrate v. Morgan Packing Co., D.C., 26 F.Supp. 812; see Moore, Federal Practice, pp. 2652, 2653.

The motion accordingly is denied.
#### Raymond Hayes, Respondent, v Dargone, Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendant.

[822 NYS2d 704]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard R. Silver, J.), entered April 28, 2006, which, to the extent appealed from, denied as untimely the motion of defendant Dargone, Inc. for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

It is undisputed that defendant Dargone, Inc. moved for summary judgment approximately 18 months after the note of issue was filed without seeking leave of the court or offering an explanation showing good cause for the delay. The motion was thus properly denied by the court as untimely *(see*CPLR 3212 [a]), and without reaching the merits of defendant’s arguments for summary relief *(see Brill v City of New York, 2*NY3d 648 [2004]; *and see Miceli v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,*3 NY3d 725 [2004]). Concur—Tom, J.E, Andrias, Marlow, McGuire and Malone, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.1
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                 18 U.S.C. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection  with  the  Quarterly  Report  of  ONLINE  ORIGINALS,  INC.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ended  August 31, 2006,  as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Gaye Adams,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all  material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Date:  October 13, 2006


By: /s/ Gaye Adams
    -----------------------
         Gaye Adams
         Chief Executive Officer, principal executive officer
#### In the Matter of Barnett J. Brimberg, Appellant, v Commissioner of Finance of the City of New York et al., Respondents.

[852 NYS2d 132]

*299Dismissal of the article 78 proceeding was appropriate where petitioner’s exclusive remedy for the allegedly improper assessment of his property was a proceeding pursuant to article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law *(see Kahal Bnei Emunim & Talmud Torah Bnei Simon Israel v Town of Fallsburg,*78 NY2d 194, 204 [1991]; *see also Matter of Brimberg v Commissioner of Fin. of City of N.Y.,*45 AD3d 506 [2007] [involving petitioner’s challenge to the 2003/2004 tax rolls]).

Petitioner’s challenges to the methodology employed by respondents in assessing recently renovated properties in tax class one are conclusory and based on speculation *(see Matter of Board of Mgrs. of Greens of N. Hills Condominium v Board of Assessors of County of Nassau,*202 AD2d 417, 419 [1994], *lv denied*83 NY2d 757 [1994]). Petitioner provided inadequate evidence supporting his claims in opposition to the cross motion, the data he did submit was unsubstantiated, and he lacks standing to challenge the methodology used to calculate class ratios *(see Matter of Town of Riverhead v New York State Off. of Real Prop. Servs.,*21 AD3d 1116 [2005]; *Rokowsky v State Bd. of Equalization & Assessment,*172 AD2d 93, 95 [1991]). Furthermore, petitioner’s reliance solely on properties located in a limited portion of New York County to prove his claim of inequality fails since a citywide rate of taxation should be utilized to support such a claim *(see Matter of Rokowsky v Finance Adm'r of City of N.Y.,*41 NY2d 574, 576-577 [1977]).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Gonzalez and Acosta, JJ.
RRB News 

844 North Rush Street Chicago, Illinois 60611-1275 

U.S. Railroad Retirement Board 

www.rrb.gov 

877-772-5772 general information 

Public Affairs 

312-751-4777 media inquiries 

No. 16-2	 For Immediate Release 

April 2016 

RRB Names Director of Legislative Affairs/Legislative Counsel 

The U.S. Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) has appointed Beverly Britton Fraser as Director of 

Legislative Affairs/Legislative Counsel. The appointment was effective April 18, 2016. 

She replaces Director of Legislative Affairs Margaret Lindsley, who retired in February 2016 after 

more than 35 years of RRB service. 

In her new position, Ms. Britton Fraser will manage the RRB’s Office of Legislative Affairs in 

Washington, DC, serving as the agency’s liaison with congressional and executive branch offices in 

the Capital, as well as providing legal and legislative advice to the agency’s Board Members and 

executives on railroad retirement and unemployment insurance issues. 

At the time of her appointment, Ms. Britton Fraser served as Senior Counsel for the House 

Committee on Oversight & Government Reform in the U.S. Congress, a position she had held since 

April 2009. In that capacity, she advised committee members, prepared reports, organized and 

managed investigations, drafted and analyzed legislation, and oversaw hearings. In addition, she 

participated in negotiations for the release of seven American tourists jailed abroad and led a 

congressional staff delegation on a trade mission to China. 

Before joining the congressional staff, Ms. Britton Fraser was a Senior Trial Attorney for the U.S. 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from August 2007 to June 2008, and held two positions 

working in New York City courts. 

From January 1997 to July 2007, she was a Principal Court Attorney in the Civil Court of the City 

of New York, and from September 1991 to December 1996, she was a Trial Attorney in the Criminal 

Defense Division of the Legal Aid Society, based in Brooklyn, NY. 

(More) 
 

 

 

-2­

A graduate of Cornell University (B.S., 1988) and the University of Buffalo Law School (J.D., 

1991), Ms. Britton Fraser is currently working on a master’s degree in health law at Loyola University 

Chicago School of Law, with completion planned for August 2016. 

Admitted to practice law in both Florida and New York, as well as the federal courts for the 

Eastern and Southern Districts of New York, she is also a member of the American Bar Association, 

the Florida Bar Association and the National Association of Professional Women. 

Ms. Britton Fraser lives near Tampa, FL, with her husband Errol, and they are the parents of a son 

and a daughter. 

# # # 

An independent federal agency headquartered in Chicago, the RRB pays over $12 billion a year in 

benefits under the federal Railroad Retirement and Railroad Unemployment Insurance Acts covering 

the nation’s railroad workers and their families.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22

- 6988

MARCUS LE’SHAWN DIXON , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. Henry E. Hudson , Senior District Judge. ( 3:22

- cv - 00493

- HEH

- EWH )

Submitted : February 21 , 2023 Decided: February 24, 2023

Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Marcus Le’Shawn Dixon, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6988 Doc: 8 Filed: 02/24/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM:
Marcus Le’Shawn Dixon seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as an unauthorized, successive § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A ce rtificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When , as here, the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both
that the d ispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000))

. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Dixon has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

a dequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED USCA4 Appeal: 22-6988 Doc: 8 Filed: 02/24/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> BD

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                               0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  126,529                  79,507
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                                  0                       0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                                0                       0
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                          9,849,935              11,209,662
<PP&E>                                               0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,976,464              11,289,169
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0                       0
<PAYABLES>                                     126,529                  79,507
<REPOS-SOLD>                                         0                       0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                                  0                       0
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                                   0                       0
<LONG-TERM>                                          0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,849,935              11,209,662
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,976,464              11,289,169
<TRADING-REVENUE>                                    0               (519,433)
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                                 0                 118,183
<COMMISSIONS>                                        0                 198,734
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                        0                       0
<FEE-REVENUE>                                        0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<COMPENSATION>                                       0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (124,747)                 632,910
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   (124,747)                 632,910
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (124,747)                 632,910
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (2.22)                    9.64
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.22)                    9.64


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         603,499
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       2,346,933
<DEPRECIATION>                                 952,232
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,029,350
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           30,876
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,987,188
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,029,350
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               190,058
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  121,027
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (60,005)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (60,005)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (60,005)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (7.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>