alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Cite as State v. Bodyke, 126 Ohio St.3d 1235, 2010-Ohio-3737.] 

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. BODYKE ET AL., APPELLANTS. 

[Cite as State v. Bodyke, 126 Ohio St.3d 1235, 2010-Ohio-3737.] 

Motion for reconsideration and/or clarification denied.

(No. 2008-2502 — Submitted July 6, 2010 — Decided August 17, 2010.) 

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Huron County, Nos. H-07-040, 

H-07-041, and H-07-042, 2008-Ohio-6387. 

ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND/OR CLARIFICATION

__________________ 

{¶ 1} On June 3, 2010, the court reversed the judgment of the court of 

appeals in this case. State v. Bodyke, 126 Ohio St.3d 266, 2010-Ohio-2424, ___ 

N.E.2d ___. 

{¶ 2} Appellee, state of Ohio, and amicus curiae Ohio Attorney General 

have filed a joint motion for reconsideration and/or clarification. 

{¶ 3} The motion for reconsideration and/or clarification is denied. 

 BROWN, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, and 

LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 

 O’DONNELL and CUPP, JJ., dissent. 

__________________ 

 CUPP, J., dissenting. 

{¶ 4} I would grant the state’s motion for clarification of this court’s 

decision in State v. Bodyke, to clarify that Bodyke does not apply to cases in 

which there is no prior court order classifying the defendant into a sex-offender 

category that existed under Megan’s Law. The majority decision in Bodyke states 

that it was based on the concern that R.C. 2950.031 and 2950.032 “require the 

attorney general to reclassify sex offenders whose classifications have already 

been adjudicated by a court and made the subject of a final order.” Bodyke, 126 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2 

Ohio St.3d 266, 2010-Ohio-2424, ___ N.E.2d ___, at ¶ 61. To the extent that 

particular sex offenders have not been previously “adjudicated by a court” to be 

within a particular classification under prior law, those offenders are not affected 

by the Bodyke decision. I believe that the court should grant clarification for this 

limited purpose. 

{¶ 5} For these reasons, I dissent from the majority’s decision to deny 

the motion for reconsideration and/or clarification. 

 O’DONNELL, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion. 

__________________ 

 Russell V. Leffler, Huron County Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 

Gamso, Helmick & Hoolahan and Jeffrey M. Gamso; and Hiltz, 

Wiedemann, Allton & Koch Co., L.P.A., and John D. Allton, for appellants. 

Richard Cordray, Attorney General, Benjamin C. Mizer, Solicitor General, 

Alexandra T. Schimmer, Chief Deputy Solicitor General, David M. Lieberman, 

Deputy Solicitor, Christopher P. Conomy, Assistant Solicitor, and James A. 

Hogan, Assistant Attorney General, for amicus curiae Ohio Attorney General. 

______________________
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 1:88-cr-01007-MP-AK

GREGORY D. SANDERS,

Defendant.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 1255, Motion for Reconsideration, filed by

Defendant Gregory D. Sanders. Defendant seeks reconsideration of this Court’s August 14,

2008, order denying his motion to reduce sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Doc. 1249. 

Defendant’s motion to reduce sentence was based on Amendments 706 and 711 to the United

States Sentencing Guidelines (“Guidelines”). Under the amended Guidelines, Defendant’s Total

Offense Level remained unchanged at Level 38. Therefore, this Court held that Defendant is not

entitled to a reduction under § 3582(c)(2). 

In his motion for reconsideration, Defendant invites the Court to revisit the arguments

made in Defendant’s motion to vacate, which the Court denied on March 23, 2000. Doc. 755. 

For instance, Defendant argues that the amount of cocaine base found to be legally attributable to

him at sentencing was only 1.5 kg. Defendant has also filed a motion for clarification (Doc.

1233) asking the Court to confirm this finding. Contrary to Defendant’s assertions, Defendant

was found liable for more than 1.5 kg of cocaine base. As indicated in the Court’s order at Doc.

1249, the Court adopted the finding in the Presentence Report that the amount of cocaine base

legally attributable to Defendant was 11.45 kg. See also Doc. 755 at 2. Finding no reason to

Case 1:88-cr-01007-MW-GRJ Document 1265 Filed 09/17/08 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 1:88-cr-01007-MP-AK

reconsider the Court’s previous order, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The motion for reconsideration at Doc. 1255 is DENIED.

2. The motion for clarification at Doc. 1233 is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 17th day of September, 2008

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:88-cr-01007-MW-GRJ Document 1265 Filed 09/17/08 Page 2 of 2
§ 25.604 Disbursement of grant funds. ( a ) The funding official will determine, based on 7 CFR parts 3015, 3016 and 3019, as applicable, whether disbursement of a grant will be by advance or reimbursement.
( b ) A “request for advance or reimbursement,” in form and substance satisfactory to USDA, must be completed by the grantee on behalf of itself and all applicable subrecipients and submitted to the funding official.
( c ) Requests for advance or reimbursement must identify: ( 1 ) The amount requested for each benchmark activity;
( 2 ) The cumulative amount advanced to date (not inclusive of the current amount requested) for each benchmark activity;
( 3 ) The total USDA EZ/EC grant obligated for each benchmark activity;
( 4 ) The total approved budget for the applicable project or program (inclusive of non USDA EZ/EC grant program sources);
( 5 ) An estimated percentage of completion or progress made in accomplishing the benchmark goal associated with each benchmark activity;
( 6 ) Certification that the lead managing entity and the subrecipients (where applicable) are in compliance with all applicable laws and regulatory requirements; and
( 7 ) Such other information as the funding official may require.
( d ) Requests for advance or reimbursement may include only activities or projects which are identified in an approved strategic plan.
#### Everett K. Budd, Appellant, v Victor S. Niemi, as Mayor of the Incorporated Village of Amityville, et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

In an action, *inter alia,*to declare that plaintiff is a duly appointed Trustee of the Village of Amityville for a term expiring April 1, 1980, which action Special Term converted into a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered September 14, 1979, which dismissed "the complaint-petition”. Appeal dismissed as moot, without costs or disbursements. The term of the appointment expired on April 1, 1980. Accordingly, the controversy is now moot. Hopkins, J. P., Mangano, Gibbons and Rabin, JJ., concur.
§ 1775.18 Fund disbursement. Grantees will be reimbursed as follows: ( a ) SF-270, “Request for Advance or Reimbursement,” will be completed by the grantee and submitted to either the State or National Office not more frequently than monthly.
( b ) Upon receipt of a properly completed SF-270, the funds will be requested through the field office terminal system. Ordinarily, payment will be made within 30 days after receipt of a proper request for reimbursement.
( c ) Grantees are encouraged to use women- and minority-owned banks (a bank which is owned at least 50 percent by women or minority group members) for the deposit and disbursement of funds.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.16

                                  AMENDMENT TO
                         EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

      WHEREAS, Jon. S. Saltzman ("Executive") is party to an executive
employment agreement (the "Agreement") with United America Indemnity, Ltd.
("UAIL") and Penn-America Group, Inc. and its insurance subsidiaries ("PNG"),
made as of October 14, 2004, effective as of the Effective Date (as defined in
the Agreement); and

      WHEREAS, the parties desire that certain changes be made to the Agreement.

      NOW THEREFORE, the Agreement shall be revised as follows:

      1. UAIL shall no longer be a signatory to the Agreement.

      2. The terms "Penn-America" and "Company," as used in the Agreement, shall
be understood to mean PNG.

      3. References to "UNGL" shall be understood to mean United National Group,
Ltd. or any successor of such entity.

      4. The term "Merger Agreement" (first used in the second "Whereas" clause)
shall refer to the merger agreement signed between PNG and UNGL and its
affiliates, and the reference to "Company" in the third "Whereas" clause shall
mean UNGL.

      5. The first sentence of Section 1.01 of the Agreement shall be revised to
read as follows:

      "Executive is hereby employed as Chairman of the Company, and will use his
      best energies and abilities in the performance of his duties, related to
      and consistent with his position, as may be assigned to him from time to
      time by the Board of Directors of the Company (the "Board") or as
      otherwise provided for under this Agreement."

      6. A new Section 1.01.1 shall be added to the Agreement, to read as
follows:

      "Nothing herein shall prevent Executive from serving as an officer of or
      providing services to Company, or any of its subsidiaries and affiliates,
      at the direction of the Board."

      7. References to the "Company" in Article IV of the Agreement shall be
understood to include the Company and United America Indemnity, Ltd.

      8. References to the "Company" in Section 5.015 of the Agreement shall be
understood to include affiliates of the Company.

<PAGE>

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to be executed
as of 14th day of October, 2004.

EXECUTIVE                             PENN-AMERICA GROUP, INC.

/s/ Jon S. Saltzman                   By: /s/ Joseph F. Morris
---------------------------               ----------------------------

Jon S. Saltzman                       Title: Sr. Vice President, CFO & Treasurer

                                      UNITED AMERICA INDEMNITY, LTD.

                                      By: /s/ David R. Bradley
                                          ----------------------------

                                      Title: Chief Executive Officer
cak_ex1039.htm


 


Exhibit 10.39








 



August 3, 2012


 


CAMAC Petroleum Limited 


c/o CAMAC Energy Inc. 


Attn:  Chief Financial Officer


1330 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 2575


Houston, Texas 77056


 







Re: Extension of Maturity Date for the Promissory Note executed as of June 6, 2011 ("Note") between CAMAC Petroleum Limited (the "Borrower''), a company incorporated in the Federal Republic of Nigeria and a wholly owned subsidiary of CAMAC Energy Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Parent"), and ALLIED ENERGY PLC, a Nigerian public limited company (the "Lender").


 







Dear Sirs:


 


Pursuant to Section 14(b) of the Note, this letter serves as an amendment to the Note whereby the Maturity Date as defined in the Note shall be extended to October 15, 2013.  Accordingly, the definition of "Maturity Date" shall be revised to read as follows:


 


"Maturity Date" means October 15, 2013.


 



All other terms and conditions of the Note shall remain as provided in the Note.  Further terms not otherwise defined in this letter shall have the meanings as defined in the Note.













Please indicate your acceptance of the terms of this letter by signing below. Sincerely,







ALLIED ENERGY PLC, as Lender


 


   /s/ Kamoru Lawal


Kamoru Lawal, Director


 


ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED TO BY:


CAMAC PETROLEUM LIMITED, as Borrower


 


/s/ Jeffrey S. Courtright


Jeffrey S. Courtright, Director



























 


Plot 1649, Olosa Street I Victoria Island, Lagos, Nigeria I Tel: +234 1  4603357-91 I Fax: +234 1 2704271


Dr. Kase Lukman Lawal, Chairman


Kamoru A. Lawal, Mickey Lawal,,Segum Omidele, Alhaji Ahmadu Abubakar ,Kio Clement Bestmann, Mohammed Nasir Umar, HRH Serena-Dokubo Spiff


Directors
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. SS.1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In  connection  with the Annual  Report of IR  BioSciences  Holdings,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, John
Fermanis, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.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/ John Fermanis
-----------------------
Chief Financial Officer
March 28, 2006

A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, an other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
required by Section  906,  has been  provided to Company and will be retained by
the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1


                           SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY


California Metals Recycling, Inc., a California corporation
CIM Trucking, Inc., an Illinois corporation
Ferrex Trading Corporation, a Delaware corporation
Firma, Inc., a California corporation
Firma Plastic Co., Inc., a California corporation
FPX, Inc., a Tennessee corporation
Houston Compressed Steel Corp., a Texas corporation
HouTex Metals Company, Inc., a Texas corporation
Mac Leod Metals Co., a California corporation
Metal Management Aerospace, Inc., a Delaware corporation
Metal Management Alabama, Inc., a Delaware corporation
MTLM Arizona, Inc., an Arizona corporation
Metal Management Arizona, L.L.C., an Arizona limited liability company
Metal Management Connecticut, Inc., a Delaware corporation
Metal Management Gulf Coast, Inc., a Delaware corporation
Metal Management Indiana, Inc., a Illinois corporation
Metal Management Memphis, L.L.C., a Tennessee limited liability company
Metal Management Midwest, Inc., a Illinois corporation
Metal Management Mississippi, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company
Metal Management Northeast, Inc., a New Jersey corporation
Metal Management Ohio, Inc., a Ohio corporation
Metal Management S&A Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation
Metal Management Pittsburgh, Inc., a Delaware corporation
Metal Management Realty, Inc., an Arizona corporation
Metal Management Stainless & Alloy, Inc., a Delaware corporation
Metal Management Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation
Metal Management West, Inc., a Colorado corporation
Metal Management West Coast Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation
P. Joseph Iron & Metal, Inc., an Ohio corporation
Proler Southwest Inc., a Texas corporation
Reserve Iron & Metal Limited Partnership, a Delaware limited partnership
Trojan Trading Co., a California corporation

Southern Recycling, L.L.C., a Louisiana limited liability company (ownership of
a 28.5% interest)
| (1) | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));      and |
|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2) | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  | April      30, 2009 |   | /s/ CHARLES      D. DAVIDSON |
|--------|---------------------|--------|-----------------------------------|
|   |                |   | CHARLES      D. DAVIDSON          |
|   |                |   | Chief      Executive Officer      |
|   |                |   |                              |

----
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.93

                                      GMAC
                             COMMERCIAL CREDIT LLC


                                               August 23, 2001

Bernard Chaus, Inc.
800 Secaucus Road
Secaucus, NJ 07094

Gentlemen:

Reference is made to your request for GMACCC to provide certain levels of over-
formula accommodations within the second Restated and Amended Financing
Agreement between us. Absent the concurrent existence of an uncured event of
default, the following over-formula lines have been approved for your FYE
6/30/02.


Time Period              Maximum
                       Over-Formula
-------------------------------------
07/01 - 07/09/01        ($3,750,000)
07/10 - 07/30/01        ( 7,500,000)
07/31 - 08/09/01        ( 3,850,000)
08/10 - 08/30/01        ( 9,500,000)
08/31 - 09/09/01        ( 3,500,000)
09/10 - 09/29/01        ( 9,750,000)
09/30 - 10/09/01        ( 3,850,000)
10/10 - 10/30/01        ( 5,000,000)
10/31 - 11/09/01        ( 2,000,000)
11/10 - 11/29/01        ( 5,250,000)
11/30 - 12/09/01        ( 4,000,000)
12/10 - 12/30/01        ( 6,500,000)
12/31/01 - 01/09/02     ( 4,000,000)
01/10 - 01/30/02        ( 5,000,000)
01/31 - 02/09           ( 2,750,000)
02/10 - 02/27           ( 7,750,000)
02/28 - 03/09           ( 5,000,000)
03/10 - 03/30           ( 5,500,000)
03/31 - 04/09           ( 1,000,000)
04/10 - 04/29           ( 5,000,000)
04/30 - 05/09           ( 2,000,000)
05/10 - 05/30           ( 8,250,000)
05/31 - 06/09           ( 3,750,000)
06/10 - 06/29           ( 8,000,000)
06/30 - 07/09           ( 2,750,000)


If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

                                   Sincerely,

                                   /s/ John H. McGowan
                                       ------------------------
                                       John H. McGowan
                                       Vice President


JHM:ah




     1290 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS  o  NEW YORK, NY 10104  o  212-408-7000
December 18 , 2012



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

IN THE INTEREST OF A .L., M.L., AND J.Y.R ., CHILDREN

NO. 14

- 12

- 00656

- CV

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from the judgment terminating parental rights signed on July 27, 2012 , was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find no error in the judgment. We order the judgment of the court below AFFIRMED

. We order the decision certified below for observance.

We further order the mandate be issu ed immediately.
#### § 28.413 Middling Light Spotted Color.

Middling Light Spotted Color is color which in spot or color, or both, is between Middling Color and Middling Spotted Color.
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-17-00034-CR

DONALD COLEMAN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 5th District Court

Bowie County, Texas

Trial Court No. 16F0639-005

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Burgess
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Donald Coleman has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. The motion was signed by both 

Coleman and his appellate counsel in compliance with Rule 42.2(a) of the Texas Rules of 

Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a). As authorized by Rule 42.2(a), we grant the 

motion. See id.

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.

Ralph K. Burgess

Justice

Date Submitted: April 27, 2017

Date Decided: April 28, 2017

Do Not Publish
#### § 249.13 Program income.

*Program income* means gross income the State agency earns from grant supported activities. It includes fees for services performed and receipts from the use or rental of real or personal property acquired with Federal grant funds, but does not include proceeds from the disposition of such property. The State agency must retain Program income earned during the agreement period and use it for Program purposes in accordance with the addition method described in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D, Post Federal Award Requirements and USDA implementing regulations 2 CFR part 400 and part 415. Fines, penalties or assessments paid by local agencies or farmers, farmers' markets, roadside stands, and/or CSA program are also deemed to be Program income. The State agency must ensure that the sources and applications of Program income are fully documented.

[71 FR 74630, Dec. 12, 2006, as amended at 81 FR 66497, Sept. 28, 2016]
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

PENSACOLA DIVISION 

LAWRENCE M ZEWIEY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. Case No. 3:20cv3770-LC-HTC 

ADMIN LT BOOTH, 

OFFICER BRANTLEY, 

COLONEL JOHN HASSETT, 

Defendants. 

 / 

ORDER 

 This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s Report and 

Recommendation dated July 13, 2020 (ECF No. 10). The parties have been 

furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an 

opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 

636(b)(1). No objections have been filed. 

 Having considered the Report and Recommendation, I have determined that 

it should be adopted. 

Case 3:20-cv-03770-LC-HTC Document 11 Filed 08/13/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 3:20cv3770-LC-HTC 

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows: 

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF Doc. 10) is 

adopted and incorporated by reference in this order. 

2. The complaint (ECF Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a 

Court order. 

3. The Clerk is directed to close the file. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 13th day of August, 2020. 

 

 

LACEY A. COLLIER 

 SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

s/L.A. Collier 

Case 3:20-cv-03770-LC-HTC Document 11 Filed 08/13/20 Page 2 of 2
(November 7, 1980)

#### In the Matter of I N Holdings, Inc. , Appellant, v Crouse-Hinds Company, Respondent.

Appeal from order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County, entered October 23, 1980, denying petitioner’s application for, *inter alia,*inspection and copying of the current list of respondent’s *798shareholders, unanimously dismissed, as moot, without costs or disbursements. On October 31,1980, during the pendency of this appeal, petitioner received the shareholder records which it had sought, thereby rendering this appeal academic. A special meeting of respondent’s shareholders is scheduled for November 13, 1980 to vote upon a proposed merger between respondent and another corporation, not a party to this proceeding. On the record before us, no compelling reason is shown why this meeting should not proceed as scheduled. Accordingly, we vacate the stay heretofore granted by this court on October 30, 1980. By this disposition we erase all prior determinations in this proceeding, including the decision at Special Term. *(Matter of Park East Corp. v Whalen,*43 NY2d 735, 736; *Stutz v 15 West 72nd St. Assoc.,*75 AD2d 773, 774.) Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Sullivan, Silverman and Bloom, JJ.