alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
13207

#### BOSWELL v. BOSWELL

(159 S. E., 652)

*361
      *Messrs. James H. Hammond*and *C. T. Graydon,*for appellant,

*362
      *Mrs. S. Lvelyn Lester*and *D. M.*Winter, for respondent,

July 18, 1931.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Cothran.

The decree of his Honor, Judge Shipp, confirming the report of the master is entirely satisfactory to the Court, and it is accordingly affirmed.

Mr. Chiee Justice Brease and Messrs. Justices StabRER, Carter and Bonham concur.
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 49 

Providing for a conditional adjournment or recess of the Senate. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 4, 2007 

Mr. REID submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was considered 

and agreed to 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Providing for a conditional adjournment or recess of the 

Senate. 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That when the Senate recesses or adjourns 

3 on Thursday, October 4, 2007, or Friday, October 5, 

4 2007, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent res5 olution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand 

6 recessed or adjourned until 12 noon on Monday, October 

7 15, 2007, or such other time on that day as may be speci8 fied by its Majority Leader or his designee in the motion 

9 to recess or adjourn, or until the time of any reassembly 

10 pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, which11 ever occurs first. 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with BILLS
2 

SCON 49 ATS 

1 SEC. 2. The Majority Leader of the Senate, after con2 sultation with the Minority Leader of the Senate, shall no3 tify the Members of the Senate to reassemble at such place 

4 and time as he may designate if, in his opinion, the public 

5 interest shall warrant it. 

Æ 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with BILLS
Exhibit 99.2

                                    a21, Inc.
                        One Embarcadero Center, Suite 500
                         San Francisco, California 94111
                                 (415) 284-2121




                            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 quarterly  report of a21, Inc. (the  "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the period  ended  March 31,  2003 as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Albert Pleus, Chairman
of the Board of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section  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/ Albert Pleus
-------------------------------
Albert Pleus, Chairman
(Principal Financial Officer)
###### Editorial Note on Part 4

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 4 appear at 61 FR 19984, May 3, 1996.

#### §§ 4.135-4.139 [Reserved]
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of The Boyds Collection, Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Joseph E. Macharsky,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

1)     The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13 (a) or 15 (d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2)     Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

*A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, orotherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within theelectronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, hasbeen provided to The Boyds Collection, Ltd. and will be retained by The BoydsCollection, Ltd. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.*
| /s/ Joseph E. Macharsky |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|
| Joseph E.  Macharsky                   |   |
| *Chief  Financial Officer*             |   |
| August 16,  2004                  |   |

 

1

----
#### § 38.84 Contacting CRC about a complaint.

Both the complainant and the respondent, or their representative, may contact CRC for information about the complaint. The Director will determine what information, if any, about the complaint will be released.
§ 1984.112 Judicial review. ( a ) Within 60 days after the issuance of a final order (including a decision issued by the Secretary upon his or her discretionary review) for which judicial review is available, any person adversely affected or aggrieved by the order may file a petition for review of the order in the United States Court of Appeals for the circuit in which the violation allegedly occurred or the circuit in which the complainant resided on the date of the violation.
( b ) A final order is not subject to judicial review in any criminal or other civil proceeding.
( c ) If a timely petition for review is filed, the record of a case, including the record of proceedings before the ALJ, will be transmitted by the ARB or the ALJ, as the case may be, to the appropriate court pursuant to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and the local rules of such court.
[81 FR 70620, Oct. 13, 2016, as amended at 85 FR 30624, May 20, 2020]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6085

DEMAR WORRELL,

 Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

WAYNE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE; MOUNT OLIVE POLICE 

DEPARTMENT; BRANSON VICKORY, III; MIKE RICKS; LT. TOMMY 

BROWN,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, 

District Judge. (5:12-ct-03121-FL)

Submitted: May 23, 2013 Decided: May 29, 2013

Before MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Demar Worrell, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Demar Worrell appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. Worrell v. Wayne County District 

Attorney’s Office, No. 5:12-ct-03121-FL (E.D.N.C., Dec. 6, 

2012). We deny as moot Worrell’s motion to expedite decision. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE MONTH PERIOD
ENDED NOVEMBER 30, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1999
<CASH>                                         479,064
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,311,578<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    841,826
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,456,827
<PP&E>                                         172,317<F2>
<DEPRECIATION>                               (114,425)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,212,441
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,409,952
<BONDS>                                      1,290,000<F3>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,464
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,798,025
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,212,441
<SALES>                                        595,659<F4>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               165,086
<CGS>                                          512,552<F5>
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  512,552
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               456,637<F6>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              39,859
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (291,551)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (291,551)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (291,551)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.04)
<FN>
<F1>INCLUDES MORTGAGE LOAN PORTFOLIO, NET
<F2>OFFICE PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT ONLY
<F3>8 1/2% SENIOR CONVERTIBLE DEBENTURES DUE MARCH 2000
<F4>INCLUDES NET SALES PROCEEDS FROM INVESTMENT PROPERTIES AND MANUFACTURED
HOME SALES
<F5>INCLUDES THE COST BASIS AT DATE OF SALES OF INVESTMENT PROPERTIES AND
MANUFACTURED HOMES
<F6>INCLUDES OPERATING EXPENSES AND OTHER EXPENSES, NET
</FN>


</TABLE>
793 A.2d 902

#### FAYETTE COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Petitioner, v. HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT INSURANCE EXCHANGE and Katherine Umbel, an adult individual in her own right and as parent and natural guardian of her minor son, Corey Brown, Respondents.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

March 27, 2002.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 27th day of March, 2002, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is hereby GRANTED, and the case is remanded to the trial court for consideration of this Court’s decision in *Lititz Mutual Ins. Co. v. Steely,*785 A.2d 975 (Pa.2001).
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 43 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 43

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That when the Senate recesses or adjourns on any day from Friday, 
August 3, 2007, through Friday, August 31, 2007, on a motion offered 
pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his 
designee, it stand recessed or adjourned until 12 noon on Tuesday, 
September 4, 2007, or such other time on that day as may be specified 
by its Majority Leader or his designee in the motion to recess or 
adjourn, or until the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of 
this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first; and that when the 
House adjourns on any legislative day from Friday, August 3, 2007, 
through Wednesday, August 8, 2007, on a motion offered pursuant to this 
concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand 
adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, September 4, 2007, or until the time 
of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, 
whichever occurs first.
            Sec. 2. The Majority Leader of the Senate and the Speaker 
        of the House, or their respective designees, acting jointly 
        after consultation with the Minority Leader of the Senate and 
        the Minority Leader of the House, shall notify the Members of 
        the Senate and House, respectively, to reassemble at such place 
        and time as they may designate if, in their opinion, the public 
        interest shall warrant it.

            Passed the Senate August 3, 2007.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                            S. CON. RES. 43

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Providing for a conditional adjournment or recess of the Senate, and a 
        conditional adjournment of the House of Representatives.
```
#### § 2580.412-32 Conditions of exemption.

This exemption applies only to those insurance carriers, service or other similar organizations providing or underwriting welfare or pension plan benefits in accordance with State law.

[34 FR 5158, Mar. 13, 1969. Redesignated at 50 FR 26706, June 28, 1985]
#### In the Matter of Paul B., Jr., and Another, Children Alleged to be Neglected. Erie County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Kathleen H., Appellant.

[698 NYS2d 137]

*836—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at Erie County Family Court (Rosa, J.). We add only that the court’s finding that respondent “failed to meet the educational needs of the child” was not based on the failure to supply education in accordance with Education Law article 65 *(see,*Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [A]). Rather, the court’s finding was based on the failure of respondent to meet the three-year-old child’s special emotional needs by refusing to cooperate in a treatment program established to address the child’s developmental delays and behavioral problems *(see, Matter of Sayeh R.,*91 NY2d 306, 314-315; *Matter of Ray,*95 Misc 2d 1026). (Appeal from Order of Erie County Family Court, Rosa, J. — Neglect.) Present — Denman, P. J., . Hayes, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Balio, JJ.
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 998 

To exempt the natural aging process in the determination of the production 

period for distilled spirits under section 263A of the Internal Revenue 

Code of 1986. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 27, 2007 

Mr. BUNNING introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To exempt the natural aging process in the determination 

of the production period for distilled spirits under section 

263A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. EXEMPTION OF NATURAL AGING PROCESS IN 

4 DETERMINATION OF PRODUCTION PERIOD 

5 FOR DISTILLED SPIRITS UNDER SECTION 

6 263A. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 263A(f) of the Internal 

8 Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to general exceptions) is 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•S 998 IS

1 amended by adding at the end the following new para2 graph: 

3 ‘‘(5) EXEMPTION OF NATURAL AGING PROCESS

4 IN DETERMINATION OF PRODUCTION PERIOD FOR

5 DISTILLED SPIRITS.—For purposes of this sub6 section, the production period for distilled spirits 

7 shall be determined without regard to any period al8 located to the natural aging process.’’. 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

10 this section shall apply to production periods beginning 

11 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-11-0000814 31-JUL-2013 02:08 PM

SCWC-11-0000814

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ' I

STATE OF HAWAI ' I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs. CHONG HUNG HAN, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-11-0000814; FC-CR. NO. 10-1-1098)

ORDER OF CORRECTION (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ.) Upon review of the Opinion of the court filed on June 19, 2013, it appears that sections VIII and IX are repetitive. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that part of section IX (lines 5­ 12 on page 23 and lines 1-6 on page 24) is deleted. The subsequent section roman numerals are changed to reflect the deletion. Additionally, in footnote 8, lines 1-3 are deleted.The Clerk of the Court is directed to take all necessary steps to notify the publishing agencies of these changes. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ' i, July 31, 2013. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack

2
791 A.2d 1166

#### Leonard L. SMARR, Petitioner, v. PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

March 20, 2002.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 20th day of March, 2002, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is hereby GRANTED, LIMITED to the following two issues:

1. Whether the Board erred in denying Petitioner credit against his original sentence for time spent in custody on new charges when he could not post bail and the sentence consisted only of a period of probation and no incarceration?

2. In *Davis v. Cuyler,*38 Pa.Cmwlth. 488, 394 A.2d 647 (1978), the Commonwealth Court held that, “where the *59Board’s detainer is the *sole reason*the prisoner is being confined, the Board must apply the time in confinement to the prisoner’s original sentence” (emphasis in original). *Davis*was subsequently relied upon to support a rule divesting the Board of discretion concerning the application of credit for time served against an original sentence in cases in which there are multiple reasons for the custody, for example, the parole detainer and an inability or unwillingness to meet the conditions of bail. *See, e.g., Gaito v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole,*488 Pa. 397, 412 A.2d 568 (1980); *Rodrigues v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole,*44 Pa. Cmwlth. 68, 403 A.2d 184 (1979). In circumstances in which credit is not practically available against the new sentence imposed, should the Board be vested with discretionary decision making authority concerning the application of credit for time served, subject to judicial review pursuant to the standards set forth in the Administrative Procedures Act, 2 Pa.C.S. § 704? Alternatively, should the courts continue to develop and refine specific rules governing the availability of credit for time served in particular circumstances, such as occurred in the present case and in *Owens v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole,*753 A.2d 919 (Pa. Cmwlth.2000)?

This matter is CONSOLIDATED with *Owens v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and, Parole,*No. 460 MAL 2000, for argument.
§ 2570.4 Parties. For prohibited transaction penalty proceedings, this section shall apply in lieu of § 18.10 of this title. ( a ) The term *party* wherever used in these rules shall include any natural person, corporation, employee benefit plan, association, firm, partnership, trustee, receiver, agency, public or private organization, or government agency. A party against whom a civil sanction is sought shall be designated as “respondent.” The Department shall be designated as the “complainant.”
( b ) Other persons or organizations shall be permitted to participate as parties only if the administrative law judge finds that the final decision could directly and adversely affect them or the class they represent, that they may contribute materially to the disposition of the proceedings and their interest is not adequately represented by existing parties, and that in the discretion of the administrative law judge the participation of such persons or organizations would be appropriate.
( c ) A person or organization not named as a respondent wishing to participate as a party under this section shall submit a petition to the administrative law judge within fifteen (15) days after the person or organization has knowledge of or should have known about the proceeding. The petition shall be filed with the administrative law judge and served on each person or organization who has been made a party at the time of filing. Such petition shall concisely state: ( 1 ) Petitioner's interest in the proceeding;
( 2 ) How his or her participation as a party will contribute materially to the disposition of the proceeding;
( 3 ) Who will appear for petitioner;
( 4 ) The issues on which petitioner wishes to participate; and
( 5 ) Whether petitioner intends to present witnesses.
( d ) Objections to the petition may be filed by a party within fifteen (15) days of the filing of the petition. If objections to the petition are filed, the administrative law judge shall then determine whether petitioners have the requisite interest to be a party in the proceedings, as defined in paragraph (b) of this section, and shall permit or deny participation accordingly. Where petitions to participate as parties are made by individuals or groups with common interests, the administrative law judge may request all such petititioners to designate a single representative, or he or she may recognize one or more of such petitioners. The administrative law judge shall give each such petitioner as well as the parties, written notice of the decision on his or her petition. For each petition granted, the administrative law judge shall provide a brief statement of the basis of the decision. If the petition is denied, he or she shall briefly state the grounds for denial and shall then treat the petition as a request for participation as amicus curiae.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer of

HORIZON BANCORPORATION, INC.

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
(Adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

The undersigned Chief Financial Officer of Horizon Bancorporation, Inc., hereby certifies that:

1. Horizon Bancorporation, Inc's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2003, to which this certification is attached as an exhibit (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 Horizon Bancorporation, Inc.

/S/ James J. BazataJames J. Bazata
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

November 13, 2003