alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Friday, *September 4, 1998*

MERIT DOCKET

98-1116.

#### State ex rel. Podojil v. Bedford City School Dist. Bd. of Edn.

In Mandamus. On answer of respondent State Board of Education and on answer and motion for judgment on pleadings of respondent Bedford City School District Board of Education. Motion for judgment on pleadings sustained. Cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., concur.

Douglas and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., dissent.
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

ROBERT SINCLAIR LEE,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:20cv5462-MCR-HTC

LIEUTENANT T. MCCRAINE, 

et al., 

Defendants.

____________________________/

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion to compel, delivered to 

prison mail officials on June 18, 2021. ECF Doc. 46. The Defendants have 

responded to the motion (ECF Doc. 47), and upon consideration, the motion is 

DENIED as MOOT.

In the motion, Plaintiff identifies the documents he needs as “(1) incident 

report, (2) inspector general findings; (3) disciplinary files of defendants; and (4) 

personnel files of defendants.” ECF Doc. 42 at 2. Plaintiff does not state when these 

requests were made or whether there were any objections. Regardless, in 

Defendants’ response, Defendants state that they provided the requested documents 

to Plaintiff at a callout in February and that they have also provided copies of the 

documents. ECF Doc. 47 at ¶ 8. Defendants also attach a mail log from Plaintiff’s 

Case 3:20-cv-05462-MCR-HTC Document 48 Filed 07/07/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 3:20cv5462-MCR-HTC

facility showing that Plaintiff signed for documents from the Florida Attorney 

General’s office on July 1, 2021. ECF Doc. 47-2. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED, the motion to compel, ECF Doc. 46, is 

DENIED as MOOT.

DONE AND ORDERED this 7th day of July, 2021.

/s/ Hope Thai Cannon

HOPE THAI CANNON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-05462-MCR-HTC Document 48 Filed 07/07/21 Page 2 of 2
#### §§ 3570.77-3570.79 [Reserved]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. STEVEN DOUGLAS GEBHART, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 771 MAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 1st day of April, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
- /app03/pdfs/396cv/002/74/28148t/00178001.tif
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2056-18T1

VERICREST FINANCIAL, 

INC., F/B/O VERICREST 

OPPORTUNITY LOAN 

TRUST 2011-NPL1,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

AKIL K. KHALFANI,

Defendant-Appellant,

and

MRS. KHALFANI, wife of 

AKIL K. KHALFANI, and JP 

MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,

Defendants.

Submitted October 22, 2019 - Decided 

Before Judges Fisher and Accurso.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Essex County, Docket No. F028224-12.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.

November 18, 2019
2

A-2056-18T1

Akil K. Khalfani, appellant pro se.

Phelan Hallinan Diamond & Jones PC, attorneys for 

respondent (Brian J. Yoder, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

In this residential foreclosure action, defendant Akil K. Khalfani appeals 

from a December 21, 2018 order denying his motion to vacate the sheriff's 

sale. Finding no error, we affirm.

By way of background, defendant borrowed $388,000 in 2007 from 

plaintiff's predecessor, secured by a non-purchase money mortgage, and failed 

to make any payments after August 2010. Final judgment of foreclosure was 

entered in July 2017. Although defendant filed two unsuccessful motions in an 

attempt to vacate final judgment, he did not appeal.

The property was offered at sheriff's sale in November 2018 and struck 

off to plaintiff. Defendant filed a timely motion to vacate the sale, arguing 

plaintiff "and the Essex County Sheriff department must be held accountable 

for establishing the corresponding authorities which sanction the 'buyback'/credit bid of collateral (subject real property) to the plaintiff/mortgage 

assignee in a County Sheriff auction process." Defendant also argued the sale 

should be set aside because plaintiff submitted its proof of amount due in 

support of final judgment by certification instead of affidavit. The Chancery 
3

A-2056-18T1

judge denied the motion, noting she had twice before rejected defendant's 

argument that defendant's proof of amount due contravened Rule 4:64-2, and 

defendant presented no proof of impropriety in the sheriff's sale.

Defendant reprises the same arguments on appeal, which we reject as 

without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-

3(e)(1)(E). Although the Chancery court has the power to vacate a sheriff's 

sale, its exercise is limited to situations where there is "fraud, accident, 

surprise, irregularity in the sale, and the like, making confirmation inequitable 

and unjust to one or more of the parties." Crane v. Bielski, 15 N.J. 342, 346 

(1954) (quoting Karel v. Davis, 122 N.J. Eq. 526, 530 (E. & A. 1937)). 

Because defendant failed to demonstrate such circumstances here, and he is 

obviously grossly out of time to challenge the entry of the final judgment, we

affirm the denial of his motion to vacate the sale.

Affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Sharon L. Brown, Appellant, v Walter J. Flood, as Warden of the Nassau County Correctional Center, et al., Respondents.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered January 22, 1980, affirmed, without costs or disbursements (see *People ex rel. Flores v Dalsheim,*66 AD2d 381). Lazer, J. P., Gibbons, Rabin and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
#### The State ex rel. McAdoo, Cross-Appellant, *v.*Industrial Commission of Ohio, Cross-Appellee.

[Cite as *State ex rel. McAdoo v. Indus. Comm.*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 331.]

*332(No. 96-1654

Submitted August 19, 1998

Decided October 7, 1998.)

*Stewart Jaffy & Associates Co., L.P.A., Stewart R. Jaffy*and *Marc J. Jaffy; Deegan & McGarry*and *F. Timothy Deegan,*for cross-appellant.

*Betty D. Montgomery,*Attorney General, and *Michael A. Vanderhorst,*Assistant Attorney General, for cross-appellee.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on aúthority of *State ex rel. Newman v. Indus. Comm.*(1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 271, 673 N.E.2d 1301.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
#### § 3430.1206 Matching requirements.

There are no matching requirements for grants under this subpart.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q/A of 155 East Tropicana, LLC, a Nevada limited-liability company and155 East Tropicana Finance Corp., a Nevada corporation (collectively, the “Company”)for the three months ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Deborah J. Pierce, asChief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

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

(2)                                  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
| /s/ Deborah J. Pierce   |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Deborah J. Pierce,      |   |
| Chief Financial Officer |   |
| August 21, 2006         |   |

 

 

The foregoing certifications are beingfurnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and are not being filed as partof the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

----
#### § 29.3591 Standard tobacco sizes.1

| Inches | Sizes |
| --- | --- |
| 12-20 | 1 |
| 20-28 | 2 |
| Over 28 | 3 |
| | |
| --- | --- |
| 1 The application of sizes is governed by the major portion of the lot or package. | |

[[51 FR 40408](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/51-FR-40408), Nov. 7, 1986]
Deluxe Corporation Form 10-K, 12-31-2004, Exhibit 10.20



Exhibit 10.20


		
	DELUXE CORPORATION	AGREEMENT AS TO AWARD OF RESTRICTED COMMON STOCK






	AWARDED TO	AWARD
DATE 	NUMBER OF RESTRICTED
STOCK SHARES	COST OF
AWARD	SOCIAL
SECURITY # 
	





                                




AWARD

Deluxe Corporation hereby awards to you the above stated number of restricted shares of its
common stock, $1.00 par value per share. 



 



RESTRICTIONS

This Award will be revoked, and the restricted shares subject hereto will be forfeited to
Deluxe, if you cease to serve as a Director of Deluxe for any reason other than your
mandatory retirement prior to the lapse of the restrictions applicable to your shares. In
the event of your mandatory retirement as a Director, all of the shares of restricted
stock awarded hereunder shall immediately vest in full. The restricted shares subject to
this Award may not be sold, assigned, pledged or otherwise transferred prior to the lapse
of the restrictions thereon.  



LAPSE OF RESTRICTIONS

The restrictions on your shares will lapse in installments of 33-1/3 percent following each of
the next three annual meetings of the shareholders of Deluxe succeeding the Award Date,
provided that you continue as a Director of Deluxe following each such meeting. 



ISSUANCE OF STATEMENTS

Upon the lapse of restrictions hereunder, shares of unrestricted common stock shall be credited
to a book entry account maintained by Deluxe Corporation’s transfer agent on your
behalf. A statement reflecting your ownership of such unrestricted shares will be issued
to you. If you prefer to receive certificates representing unrestricted shares, such
certificates will be issued upon written request to Deluxe Corporate Treasury. 



TERMS AND CONDITIONS

You will receive dividends on your restricted shares during the period that the restrictions
imposed by this Agreement are in effect and you will have the right to vote the shares
subject hereto. This Award is issued pursuant to the Deluxe Corporation Stock Incentive
Plan, as amended, (the “Plan”), and is subject to its terms. In the event of any
conflict between the provisions of the Plan and this Award Agreement, the provisions of
the Plan shall prevail.





			DELUXE CORPORATION



By
——————————————

Lawrence J. Mosner
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer 






RETAIN THIS DOCUMENT FOR YOUR RECORDS
Exhibit 21
                   PLAYERS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
                   SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY


     Subsidiary                       State of Incorporation or Organization
     ----------                       --------------------------------------

Metropolis, IL 1292 Limited Partnership                 Illinois
PCI, Inc.                                               Nevada
Players Bluegrass Downs, Inc.                           Kentucky
Players Development, Inc.                               Nevada
Players Entertainment, Inc.                             Nevada
Players Holding, Inc.                                   Nevada
Players International, Inc.                             Nevada
Players Lake Charles, LLC                               Louisiana
Players Lake Charles Riverboat, Inc.                    Louisiana
Players LC, Inc.                                        Nevada
Players Maryland Heights, Inc.                          Missouri
Players MH, L.P.                                        Missouri
Players Maryland Heights Nevada, Inc.                   Nevada
Players Mesquite Golf Club, Inc.                        Nevada
Players Mesquite Land, Inc.                             Nevada
Players Nevada, Inc.                                    Nevada
Players Resources, Inc.                                 Nevada
Players Riverboat, LLC                                  Louisiana
Players Riverboat, Inc.                                 Nevada
Players Riverboat Management, Inc.                      Nevada
Players Services, Inc.                                  New Jersey
Riverfront Realty Corporation                           Illinois
Riverside Joint Venture                                 Missouri
Showboat Star Partnership                               Louisiana
Southern Illinois Riverboat/Casino Cruises, Inc.        Illinois
Document No. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 3:95cr3093LAC

CHARLES J. SPIGNER

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge Lacey Collier on July 30, 2007

Motion/Pleadings: NUNC PRO TUNC MOTION TO CORRECT ERROR 

Filed by DEFENDANT PRO SE on July 17, 2007 Doc.# 154

RESPONSES:

BY GOVERNMENT on October 23, 2007 Doc.# 155

on Doc.#

Stipulated Joint Pldg.

Unopposed Consented

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

s/Mary Maloy

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Mary Maloy

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 2nd day of

November, 2007, that:

(a) The relief requested is DENIED.

(b) A Title 28, U.S.C. §2255 motion by any other name is still a §2255 motion,

as is this one. Defendant has previously filed an unsuccessful motion under

§2255. A second or successive §2255 motion must be certified by the court of

appeals. Defendant has not obtained authorization from the Eleventh Circuit

Court of Appeals to file a successive motion; therefore, this motion is

dismissed. 

 s/L.A. Collier

LACEY A. COLLIER

Senior United States District Judge Entered On Docket: By: 

Rules 58 & 79(a) FRCP or 32(d)(1) & 55 FRCRP

Copies sent to:

Case 3:95-cr-03093-LC-CJK Document 156 Filed 11/02/07 Page 1 of 1
Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Table 1.
Table 2.

Table 3.

Table 4.

Table 5.

Table 6.

LIST OF FIGURES

Quasi-maximum field intensity at great distances for
propagation at night for a radiated power of 1 kW.

Propagation paths for which MF field strengths were
measured during the three campaigns conducted by the
International Broadcasting Union, 1934-37.

U.S. sky-wave field strength exceeded 10 percent and
50 percent of the time at 1000 kHz. Based on 1935

measurements, vertical polarization, and second hour
after sunset at west end of path (Barghausen, 1966).

U.S. sky-wave field strength exceeded 10 percent
(upper curve) and 50 percent (lower curve) of the
time at 1000 kHz. Based on 1944 measurements,
vertical polarization, and second hour after sunset
at path midpoint (Barghausen, 1966).

LIST OF TABLES

List of Propagation Paths

uaa of MF Field Strengths (Fo in dB relative
to 1 uV/m) Predicted by Different Methods for R=0

Comparison of Predicted Field Strengths for Different
Solar Activity Levels (without sea gain) (F, in dB
relative to 1 uV/m)

Comparison of Measured Field Strengths with Predicted
Field Strengths (F, in dB relative to 1 uV/m)

List of FCC Propagation Paths in North and Central
America

Comparison of Measured Field Strengths with Predicted

Field Strengths (F, in dB relative to 1 uV/m) for
Paths in North and° South America

iv

Page

22

23

28

29


NTIA-Report-80-42

Comparison of Available
Methods for Predicting
Medium Frequency
Sky-Wave Field Strengths

Margo PoKempner

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Philip M. Klutznick, Secretary

Henry Geller, Assistant Secretary
for Communications and Information

June 1980




TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES

LIST OF TABLES

ABSTRACT
1. INTRODUCTION
2. CHRONOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT OF MF FIELD-STRENGTH PREDICTION
METHODS
3. DISCUSSION OF THE METHODS
3.1 Cairo Curves
3.2 The FCC Curves
3.3 Norton Method
3.4 EBU Method
3.5 Barghausen Method
3.6 Revision of EBU Method for the African LF/MF
Broadcasting Conference
3.7 Olver Method
3.8 Knight Method
3.9 The CCIR Geneva 1974 Methods
3.10 Wang 1977 Method
3.11 The CCIR Kyoto 1978 Method
3.12 The Wang 1979 Method
4. COMPARISON OF PREDICTION METHODS
4.1 General Comparison
4.2 Sea Gain Effect
4.3 Solar Activity Effect
4.4 Comparison of Predicted Field
Strengths with Measured Field Strengths
4.5 Comparison of Available Methods for Predicting MF Field
Strengths in Region 2 (North and South America)
5. RELIABILITY OF MF FIELD STRENGTH MEASUREMENTS
6. CONCLUSIONS
7. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
8. REFERENCES
9. BIBLIOGRAPHY

APPENDIX A: CCIR, 1974 MF FIELD-STRENGTH PREDICTION METHOD

APPENDIX B: CCIR, 1978 MF FIELD-STRENGTH PREDICTION METHOD

APPENDIX C: CCIR IWP 6/4 MF FIELD-STRENGTH PREDICTION METHOD

iii

Page
iv

iv

rh

+

ont

V1
12

12
12
13
13
15

15
16

16
20
20
21
26
30
31
32
32
33
37
51

71
**Exhibit 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Stephen M. Kasprisin, certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Naturade, Inc.; 2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;  b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based uponsuch evaluation; and  c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of the annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and
5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: March 31, 2005    /s/ Stephen M. Kasprisin   Stephen M. Kasprisin *Chief Financial Officer*
149 So.2d 765

#### The STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Bernell HAMPTON v. Victor G. WALKER, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary et al.

No. 46572.

Feb. 8, 1963.

Writs refused. Applicant has made no showing which would warrant this Court to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction or to issue an alternative writ of habeas corpus under its original jurisdiction.
#### § 301.80-2b [Reserved]
Exhibit 31.1


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT


I, Kevin J. McAndrew, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Canterbury Consulting
Group, Inc.;

2.    Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual
report;

3.    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4.    I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
registrant and have:

a)    designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

b)    [Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986]

c)    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

d)    disclosed in this annual report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal year that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

5.    I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control
over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee
of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

a)    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

b)    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls over
financial reporting.

Date: June 3, 2005
               /s/ Kevin J. McAndrew
               -----------------------------
               Kevin J. McAndrew
               President and Chief Executive Officer
               and Chief Financial Officer





Date: June 3, 2005
§ 3430.907 Stakeholder input. NIFA shall seek and obtain stakeholder input through a variety of forums (e.g., public meetings, requests for input and/or Web site), as well as through a notice in the Federal Register, from the following entities: ( a ) Community college(s).
( b ) Advanced technological center(s), located in rural area, for technology development, applied research, and/or training.