alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Randolph Davis, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered March 1, 1977, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, grand larceny in the third degree (two counts) and burglary in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment modified, on the law, by reversing the conviction of grand larceny in the third degree under count two of the indictment, and the sentence imposed thereon, and the said count is dismissed. As so modified, judgment affirmed. Defendant stands convicted of robbery in the first degree, burglary in the third degree, and two counts of grand larceny in the third degree. One of the two grand larceny counts is for stealing property from the person of the complainant. The other grand larceny count is for stealing property having a value in excess of $250. As defendant was also convicted of robbery in the first degree, under the circumstances of this case the grand larceny count regarding the theft from the person of the complainant was, necessarily, an *629inclusory concurrent count of the one charging robbery and, therefore, must be reversed and dismissed (see *People v Reynolds,*53 AD2d 877). The People candidly concede this point. We note, however, that the remaining convictions which defendant would have this court reverse and dismiss on appeal as inclusory concurrent counts contain separate elements which are not included in the robbery conviction. We have considered defendant’s further points and have found them to be without merit. Damiani, J. P., Gulotta, Margett and Gibbons, JJ., concur.
#### In re Laquita D. CURRY, Debtor. Tidewater Finance Company, Appellant, v. Laquita D. Curry, Appellee.

No. 06-4217.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Argued: Dec. 5, 2007.

Decided and Filed: Dec. 11, 2007.

ARGUED: James R. Sheeran, Tidewater Finance Company, Chesapeake, Virginia, for Appellant. Jeffrey R. McQuiston, Skelton, McQuiston, Gournaris & Henry, Dayton, Ohio, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: James R. Sheeran, Tidewater Finance Company, Chesapeake, Virginia, for Appellant. Jeffrey R. McQuiston, Skelton, McQuiston, Gournaris & Henry, Dayton, Ohio, for Appellee.

Before: GUY, MOORE, and GILMAN, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

RALPH B. GUY, JR., Circuit Judge.

Tidewater Finance Company (Tidewater) appeals from the judgment of the Sixth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying Tidewater’s motion for relief from the automatic stay to allow for the sale of the debtor’s repossessed automobile and overruling Tidewater’s objection to confirmation of the debtor’s Chapter 13 plan based on its “cram down” treatment of the claim secured by that automobile. Whether a bankruptcy appeal comes before this court by way of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) or the district court, our review is of the bankruptcy court’s decision. *Koenig Sporting Goods, Inc. v. Morse Rd. Co. (In re Koenig Sporting Goods, Inc.),*203 F.3d 986, 988 (6th Cir.2000). Because the bankruptcy court’s decision was made on stipulated facts, this appeal presents only legal issues that we review *de novo. Id.*

Tidewater argues that its prepetition repossession of the automobile, a 2000 Saturn SL, limited the debtor’s rights to those available under Ohio law and precluded the debtor from modifying Tidewater’s claim under 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(2). Tidewater relies on the same authority and reiterates the same legal arguments as it did both before the bankruptcy court and on appeal to the BAP. After careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the arguments presented on appeal, we find that the bankruptcy court did not err in confirming the plan and denying relief from the automatic stay. Further, because the reasons supporting this conclusion are so ably articulated by the BAP, we find that issuance of a full written opinion by this court would be duplicative and would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the bankruptcy court’s order for the reasons set forth in *Tidewater Finance Co. v. Curry (In re Gurry),*347 B.R. 596 (6th Cir.BAP 2006).
EXHIBIT 23.1a

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
Form S-8 (No. 333-85555) pertaining to PrintOnTheNet.com, Inc.'s 1999 Stock
Incentive Plan of our report dated April 7, 2000 (with respect to Note G, June
8, 2000; Note L, May 19, 2000; and the last paragraph of Note A and Notes M[2]
and M[3], June 5, 2000) on our audit of the financial statements as of and for
the year ended December 31, 1999 which report is included in the annual report
on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 1999.


Richard A. Eisner & Company, LLP

New York, New York
June 15, 2000
§ 1786.159 Initial closing. ( a ) Upon receipt of the prepayment agreement, the borrower may submit, pursuant to the terms of the prepayment agreement, a closing request which shall request a closing date no less than 30 business days from the date of the request.
( b ) The Government will respond to the borrower's closing request by delivering a preclosing notice to the borrower not less than 10 business days prior to the date which the Government, after reviewing the borrower's closing request, selects as a closing date.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7187

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KEITHROY NOEL CLARKE, a/k/a Michael St. Clair Davis, a/k/a Tyrone Roberts, a/k/a Capone, a/k/a “T”, a/k/a Khadafi, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CR-97-166, CA-01-738-2) Submitted: November 1, 2002 Decided: December 4, 2002 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Keithroy Noel Clarke, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Bradenham, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Keithroy Noel Clarke seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We have reviewed the record and conclude on the reasoning of the district court that Clarke has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See United States v. Clarke , Nos. CR-97-166; CA-01-738-2 (E.D. Va. filed May 29, 2002; entered May 30, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 32.2

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 HOMASSIST CORPORATION (the  "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended April 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"), I, Marie Legere Chief Financial 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.







/s/ Marie Legere

Date: June 14, 2006            Marie Legere

Chief Financial Officer, principal financial officer and principal accounting officer
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL A VIA TJON ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Boston Executive Helicopters 

Complainant 

v. 

Town of Norwood, Massachusetts 

And Norwood Airport Commission 

Respondents 

FAA Docket No. 16-15-05 

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME 

This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the abovereferenced complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted 

Airport Enforcement Proceedings, 14 CFR Part 16. Pursuant to 14 CFR Part 16, subpart B, the 

date by which the Director's Determination will be issued in this matter is hereby extended to 

September 13, 2016. 

An extension of time is necessary and appropriate for a fair and complete determination in 

this case. 

Ke in C. Willis 

M ager, Airport Compliance 

and Management Analysis 

Date 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on JuneJ.J:-2016, I caused to be placed in the United States mail 

(first class mail, postage paid) a true copy of the Notice of Extension of Time addressed to: 

Counsel for Complainant: 

Timothy I. McCulloch 

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP 

2375 East Camelback Road 

Suite 750 

Phoenix, AZ 85016 

Counsel for Respondents: 

Brandon H. Moss, Esq. 

Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane, LLP 

Crown Colony Plaza 

300 Crown Colony Drive, Suite 410 

Quincy, MA 02169 

Town of Norwood, Massachusetts 

566 Washington Street 

Norwood, MA 02062 

Norwood Airport Commission 

125 Access Road 

Norwood, MA 02062 

Copy to: 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket, AGC-610 

FAA Airport Compliance and Management 

Analysis, AC0-100 

~Uk 

Claudia Roberts 

Office of Airport Compliance 

and Management Analysis
#### §§ 1744.51-1744.54 [Reserved]
1 The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 04-3772

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Philip N. Tharp, individually and as * Western District of Arkansas. trustee for Philip N. Tharp, a purported * simple trust, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: February 21, 2006 Filed: February 24, 2006

___________ Before RILEY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Philip Tharp (Tharp) appeals from the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in this action by the United States to recover erroneous income tax refunds. The government ha s filed a motion for sanctions to cover some of its expenses in defending this suit.-2- After de novo review, see Murphy v. Mo. Dep’t of Corr. , 372 F.3d 979, 982 (8th Cir.), cert. denied , 543 U.S. 991 (2004), we conclude the grant of summary judgment was proper for the reasons explained by the district court. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. Regarding the request for sanctions, we may award “just damages” and single or double costs if we determine an appeal is frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1912; Fed.R. App. P. 38. In this case, we find Tharp has filed a frivolous appeal raising taxprotester arguments of the kind he unsu ccessfully raised below. Under these circumstances, we conclude sa nctions are appropriate. See United States v. Gerads , 999 F.2d 1255, 1256-57 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (when appellant brought frivolous appeal based on tax-protester argument, court granted government’s motion for sanctions). Accordingly, we award the government $5000 in damages.

______________________________
# STATEOFLOUISIANA COURTOFAPPEAL,FIRSTCIRCUIT

MICKEYADAMS AND DONNAADAMS VERSUS NO. 2023 CW 0870

BERKLEY INSURANCE COMPANY, TOTAL WASTE SOLUTIONS, LLC, GRAND ISLE SHIPYARD, LLC AND ANTONUAL G. BROWN 

### SEPTEMBER 21, 2023

InRe:

BEFORE: Key Risk Insurance Company; Total Waste LLC; and Antonual G. Brown, applying for writs, 17th Judicial District Court, Lafourche, No. 142079.
GUIDRY, C.J., CHUTZ AND LANIER, JJ. Solutions, supervisory Parish of

WRIT GRANTED. Notice of the hearing on plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment was served on defendants less than thirty days prior to the hearing in violation of the mandatory requirement of La. Code Civ. P. art. 966(C) (1)(b). Therefore, the trial court was procedurally barred from acting on the motion for summary judgment. SeeAcadian PropertiesNorthshore, L.L.C. v. Fitzmorris, 2017-0424 (La. App. 1st Cir. 11/1/17), 234 So.3d 927, 934. Accordingly, the district court's September 5, 2023 ruling that denied defendants' exception of insufficiency of service is reversed, the exception of insufficiency of service is granted, and the district court's ruling that granted plaintiffs' motion for partial summaryjudgment is vacated.

COURT OFAPPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

DEPUTY CLERKOF COURT FOR THE COURT JMG WRC WIL
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 annual report of Innova Pure Water, Inc. (the "Company"), on Form 10-KSB of the year ended June 30, 2005, I hereby certify solely for the purpose of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



1.

The annual 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 annual report fairly presents, in all materials respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Date:  October 31, 2006.





/s/

David L. Zich



Print Name:

David L. Zich

Title:

Chief Executive Officer







/s/

Jim R. Davisson



Print Name:

Jim R. Davisson

Title:

Chief Financial Officer and

Principal Accounting Officer
Exhibit 32.2

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF**

**THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

** **

In connection with this Annual Report of GreeneStoneHealthcare Corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014, as filed with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, William L. Sklar, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify tothe best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

(1) Such Annual Report on Form10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934; and

 

(2) The information contained insuch Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Date: April 15, 2015

GreeneStone Healthcare Corporation

 

By: /s/ William L. Sklar	

William L. Sklar

Chief Financial Officer
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

February 5, 2020

a0129 

# Order

Clerk February 5, 2020

160213

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 160213

COA: 348612

Muskegon CC: 17

- 006190

- FH;

PHILIP CHARLES SWIFT, 17

- 006389

- FC; 17

- 006390

- FH

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the appl ication for leave to appeal the July 15, 2019 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of

granting leave to appeal, we VACATE defendant’s sentence and REMAND this case to

the Muskegon Circuit Court. Offense Var iable 4 appears to have been scored based

solely on the prosecutor’s assertion. However, an attorney’s statements are not evidence,

People v Ison , 132 Mich App 61, 68 (1984), and offense variables must be scored based

on a preponderance of the evidence, P eople v Hardy , 494 Mich 430, 438 (2013).

Because a 10

- point reduction for Offense Variable 4 would result in a lower sentencing

range, defendant is entitled to resentencing. People v Francisco , 474 Mich 82 (2006).

We do not retain jurisdiction.
§ 1775.5 Limitations. Grant funds may not be used to: ( a ) Duplicate current services or replace or substitute support normally provided by other means, such as those performed by an association's consultant in developing a project, including feasibility, design, and cost estimates.
( b ) Fund political or lobbying activities.
( c ) Purchase real estate or vehicles, improve or renovate office space, or repair and maintain privately owned property.
( d ) Pay the costs for construction, improvement, rehabilitation, modification, or operation and maintenance of water, wastewater, and solid waste disposal facilities.
( e ) Construct or furnish a building.
( f ) Intervene in the Federal regulatory or adjudicatory proceedings.
( g ) Sue the Federal Government or any other government entities.
( h ) Pay for any other costs that are not allowable under 2 CFR part 200, as adopted by USDA through 2 CFR part 400.
( i ) Make contributions or donations to others.
( j ) Fund projects that duplicate technical assistance given to implement action plans under the National Forest-Dependent Rural Communities Economic Diversification Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6613). Applicants cannot receive both grants made under this part and grants that the Forest Service makes to implement the action plans for five continuous years from the date of grant approval by the Forest Service. ( 1 ) The Forest Service helps rural communities that are dependent upon national forest resources diversify existing industries and economies. It establishes rural forestry and economic diversification action teams that prepare technical assistance plans for these rural communities to expand their local economies and reduce their dependence on national forest resources. The Forest Service provides assistance to implement the action plans through grants, loans, cooperative agreements, or contracts.
( 2 ) To avoid duplicate assistance, applicants must contact the Forest Service to find out if any geographical areas or local areas in a State have received grants for technical assistance to an economically disadvantaged community. These areas are defined as national forest-dependent communities under 7 U.S.C. 6612. Applicants will provide documentation to the Forest Service and Rural Utilities Service that they have contacted each agency.
( k ) To pay an outstanding judgment obtained by the United States in a Federal Court (other than in the United States Tax Court), which has been recorded. An applicant will be ineligible to receive a loan or grant until the judgment is paid in full or otherwise satisfied.
( l ) Recruit applications for the RUS's water and waste loan or any other loan or grant program. Grant funds cannot be used to create new business; however, they can be used to assist with application preparation.
[70 FR 70878, Jan. 7, 2004, as amended at 79 FR 76005, Dec. 19, 2014]
Exhibit 4.20.1

 

Memorandum on Adjustment of Rent of Land Use Rights

 

Pursuant to the Memorandum on Adjustment of Rent of Land Use Rights dated August 21, 2009, between China Petrochemical Corporation (“Sinopec Group Company”) and China Petroleum & Chemical Corporation (“Sinopec”), it is acknowledged that the total area of land leased from Sinopec Group Company by Sinopec is 416,272,780.90 square meters and the annual rent payable for the leased land is RMB 6,726,968,139.34.  After negotiations and with reference to the land rent appraised and calculated by the intermediary (benchmark date of appraisal being fixed on June 30, 2012) by adopting the Modificative Method of Benchmark Land-price Coefficient based on 2012 benchmark land price applied by the district/county where the land plot is located, Sinopec Group Company and Sinopec agree to make the following adjustment to the rent of land use rights payable for 2013: (i) increase the land area leased by Sinopec from Sinopec Group Company for 2013 by 1,562,676.09 square meters to 417,835,456.99 square meters; and (ii) increase the rent of land use rights payable for 2013 by RMB 4,072,637,723.92 to RMB 10,799,605,863.26.

 

After the adjustment, the total area of land leased by Sinopec is 417,835,456.99 square meters and the total rent of land use rights payable to Sinopec Group Company by Sinopec is RMB 10,799,605,863.26 (with annual average rent of land use rights at RMB 25.85 per square meter).

 

 

	
China Petrochemical Corporation
    	
 
    	
China   Petroleum & Chemical Corporation
    
	
/s/ LI Chunguang
    	
 
    	
/s/ WANG Xinhua
    
	
August 24,   2012
    	
 
    	
August 24,   2012
#### §§ 1784.38-1784.99 [Reserved]
|  |  |  |  |  |
|--|--|--|--|--|
|  |  |  |  |

  Washington

> - Lakewood
- Seattle (Central)SE Seattle
TacomaToppenish
§ 1738.101 Grant assistance. ( a ) To be eligible for grant funding, the Applicant must: ( 1 ) Submit an application for an associated loan component under Title I, Title II, or Title VI of the RE Act; and
( 2 ) Not be the recipient of any other broadband grant from RUS with unadvanced grant funds.
( b ) The amount of grant funding on any project shall not exceed: ( 1 ) 75 percent of the total project cost when the proposed funded service area has a density of fewer than 7 people per square mile;
( 2 ) 50 percent of the total project cost when the proposed funded service area has a density of 7 or more and fewer than 12 people per square mile; and
( 3 ) 25 percent of the total project cost with respect to an area with a density of 12 or more and 20 or fewer people per square mile.
( c ) Subsequent density determinations, as well as density requirements for projects on tribal lands will be set by notice in the Federal Register.
( d ) The Agency may provide additional grant funding of up to 75 percent of the development costs of projects requesting funding under Title VI that serve rural areas that: ( 1 ) Lack access to broadband service with speeds of at least 10 Mbps downstream and 1 Mbps upstream; and
( 2 ) Meet any one of the priorities set forth in § 1738.105(a)(3)(i).
#### § 1777.42 Delegation of authority.

The Administrator may delegate approval authority under this section, to the Assistant Administrator, WEP in accordance with 7 CFR 1780.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

December 28, 2011 

y1219 

Order 

 

December 28, 2011 

143230 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 143230 

 COA: 299828 

Oakland CC: 1979-040760-FH 

LARRY M. SILSBY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 10, 2011 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### Reed Elsevier, Inc., Appellant, *v.*Wilkins, Tax Commr., Appellee.

[Cite as *Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Wilkins,*109 Ohio St.3d 517, 2006-Ohio-3058.]

(No. 2005-1658

Submitted May 24, 2006

Decided July 5, 2006.)

Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, L.L.P., Kevin M. Czerwonka, and Anthony L. Ehler, for appellant.

Jim Petro, Attorney General, and Barton A. Hubbard, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

{¶ 1} The decision of the Board of Tax Appeals is affirmed on the authority of *Andrew Jergens Co. v. Wilkins,*109 Ohio St.3d 396, 2006-Ohio-2708, 848 N.E.2d 499.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, O’Connor and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.

Lundberg Stratton and O’Donnell, JJ., dissent.

O’Donnell, J.,

dissenting.

{¶ 2} I respectfully dissent in this case for the same reasons that I dissented in *Andrew Jergens Co. v. Wilkins,*109 Ohio St.3d 396, 2006-Ohio-2708, 848 N.E.2d 499.

Lundberg Stratton, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.