alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### GERARD LEVIS, *ET AL.,*PLAINTIFFS-PETITIONERS, v. GEORGE ZAPOLITZ, *ET AL.,*DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

See same case below: 72 *N. J. Super.*168.

*Messrs. Roslcein, Kronisch, Felzenberg & Mandell*for the petitioners.

*Mr. Michael Howard, Mr. William Osterweil*and *Mr. Sidney D. Weiss*for the respondent.

May 14, 1962.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

December 28, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 134701 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 134701 

 COA: 276526 
 Wayne CC: 02-013409-01

CALVIN HARPER, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 26, 2007 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

d1217 

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. 

December 28, 2007 

 Clerk
No. 51455.

#### Protests 88680-K, etc., of Bloomingdale Bros., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

CERTIFICATION

I,Morris B. Smith, certify that:

1.            I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of CanoPetroleum, Inc.;

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

3.            Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.          The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant andhave:

(a)          designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)          evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and

(c)          disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.          The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)          all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely 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 otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.
| February 9, 2007              |   |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|--------|
|                          |   |   |
| /s/ Morris B. Smith           |   |   |
| Morris B. Smith               |   |   |
| Chief Financial Officer       |   |   |
| (Principal Financial Officer) |   |   |

 

----
No. 52362.

protest 130822-K (San Francisco).

#### Samuel S. Perry *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The claim of the plaintiff having been conceded by the Government at the trial, the protest was sustained.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

   Schedule of Year-To-Date Principal and Interest Distributions
                           to
                  Certificateholders

                                                                    Ending
Class            Interest             Principal    Losses           Balance
<S>               <C>                  <C>            <C>           <C>
A                     1973526.11       3720514.83                0       523378197.71
B                      163293.75                0                0           28845000
M1                     161388.46                0                0           41070000
M2                     110768.39                0                0           25716000
R1                             0                0                0                  0
R2                             0                0                0                  0
R3                             0                0                0                  0
R4                             0                0                0                  0
X                              0                0                0           14377500


</TABLE>
# FILED
June 26, 1998 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE MAY 1998 SE SSION
STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) ) Appellee, ) No. 03C01-9708-CR-00330

) ) Sullivan County v. ) ) Honorable Phyllis H . Miller, Judge ) LULA J. FLANIGAN, ) (Aggravated Kidnappi ng and ) Aggrav

ated Assault) Appellant. )

CONCURRING OPINION

I concur in the majo rity opinio n. I add, t hough, th at I do no t believe we have to conduct the two- prong inquiry pr ovided in State v. Anthony , 817 S.W.2d 299 (Tenn. 1991) and State v. Dixon , 957 S.W.2d 532 (Tenn. 1997). This is because an aggravated assault do

es not necessarily in clude the elements of kidnapping. Thus, I believe that an Anthony issue is not even impli cated.

____________________________ Joseph M. Tipton, Judge
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of CanoPetroleum, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter endedMarch 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, S. Jeffrey Johnson, Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, certify to my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)                                  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company, as of, andfor, the periods presented in the Report.

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained bythe Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

The foregoing certification is being furnished as anexhibit to the Form 10-Q pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K andSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 202 (subsections (a) and(b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and,accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q for purposes ofSection 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is notincorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made beforeor after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language insuch filing.
| May 9, 2007 |   | /s/ S. Jeffrey Johnson  |   |
|------------------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|             |   | S. Jeffrey Johnson      |
|             |   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-15112

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cr-20698-RNS-3

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

FRANK J. BALLESTEROS, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(May 18, 2016)

Before WILSON, WILLIAM PRYOR and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 15-15112 Date Filed: 05/18/2016 Page: 1 of 3 
2

Frank J. Ballesteros appeals pro se the denial of a postconviction motion that 

the district court treated as a motion to vacate. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We affirm.

Ballesteros filed a belated motion for a new trial based on prosecutorial 

misconduct. The United States argued that Ballesteros’s motion should be 

construed as a motion to vacate and that the motion was successive, untimely, and 

procedurally defaulted. See id. The district court denied Ballesteros’s motion “for 

[the] reasons set forth in [the] Government’s Response.”

Ballesteros’s motion was untimely whether it was treated as a motion for a 

new trial or a motion to vacate. Ballesteros had to file a motion for a new trial 

“grounded on newly discovered evidence . . . within 3 years” after his conviction 

on April 10, 2012, see Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(b)(1), but he waited until August 28, 

2015, more than four months after the deadline expired, to file his motion. And if 

we construe his filing as a motion to vacate, Ballesteros failed to file his motion 

within one year after “the date on which the judgment of conviction became final.”

28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1).

We deem abandoned any challenge that Ballesteros could have made to the 

disposition of his motion. “While we read briefs filed by pro se litigants liberally, 

issues not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed abandoned.” Timson v. 

Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008). Ballesteros argues that his 

allegations of prosecutorial misconduct are meritorious, but he fails to challenge 

Case: 15-15112 Date Filed: 05/18/2016 Page: 2 of 3 
3

the decisions to construe his motion as a motion to vacate or to deny his motion as 

untimely and procedurally barred. 

We AFFIRM the denial of Ballesteros’s motion.

Case: 15-15112 Date Filed: 05/18/2016 Page: 3 of 3
No. 44077.

#### Protests 26996-K, etc., of Greenberg & Josefsberg (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

It was stipulated that the salad forks are composed -entirely of wood and are identical in all respects to those passed upon in *Borgfeldt*v. *United States*(T. D. 48585). The claim at 33)6 percent under paragraph 412 was therefore sustained.
EX-32.1



Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350



INFe- HUMAN RESOURCES, INC. 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 amended quarterly report of INFe- Human Resources, Inc. on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending February 29, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Arthur Viola, Chief Executive Officer  of INFe- Human Resources, 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 Amended 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 Amended Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of INFe-Human Resources, Inc.



/s/    ARTHUR VIOLA

- --------------------

Arthur Viola

Chief Executive Officer and  Sole Director

April 22, 2008
#### Flower City Insulation Sales & Contractors, Inc., Respondent-Appellant, v Board of Education—Marcus Whitman Central School District, Appellant-Respondent.

[634 NYS2d 586]

—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the follow*993ing Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied summary judgment to either party on the second cause of action. Questions of fact remain with respect to whether plaintiff is excused from fulfilling the conditions for payment of the retainage under the contract *(see, Flower City Insulation Sales & Contrs. v Board of Educ.,*190 AD2d 1018,1019). Defendant is, however, entitled to summary judgment dismissing the fifth cause of action. The evidence establishes that defendant received no insurance proceeds pertaining to plaintiff’s losses arising from the fire. The record also establishes that defendant breached its contractual obligation to obtain insurance covering plaintiff’s interest in the work and that plaintiff suffered damage as a result. Plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to summary judgment on the issue of liability on the sixth cause of action and the proposed amendment to that cause of action is not necessary (see, 6 Carmody-Wait 2d, NY Prac § 34:22, at 89). However, plaintiff’s proof is not sufficient for the court to award damages on the sixth cause of action.

We modify the order, therefore, by granting in part plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the sixth cause of action and by granting in part defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the fifth cause of action, and otherwise affirm. (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Ontario County, Henry, Jr., J. —Summary Judgment.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Wesley, Callahan and Davis, JJ.
#### William M. Annicaro, Plaintiff, v Structuretone, Defendant, and Zale Corporation, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff. Sunarhauserman, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent; Red Ball Interior Demolition Corp., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 391]

—Appeal by the second third-party defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Owen, J.), dated July 7, 1994.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs to the third-party defendant second third-party plaintiff-respondent, for reasons stated by Justice Owen at the Supreme Court. Balletta, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.
#### Commonwealth *v.*Thomas, Appellant.

Submitted November 11, 1968.

Before Bell, C. J., Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien and Roberts, JJ.

*Melvin Dildine,*Assistant Defender, and *Herman I. Polloek,*Defender, for appellant.

*Edward Cf. Rendell*and *James D. Crawford,*Assistant District Attorneys, *Richard A. Sprague,*First Assistant District Attorney, *and Arlen Specter,*District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

January 15, 1969:

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Order affirmed.
1 The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, United St ates District Judge for the District of Minnesota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 10-2737

___________ Tony Dam, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Graco, Inc.; Jim Badzinski, Manager, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: January 18, 2011 Filed: January 19, 2011

___________ Before MELLOY, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Tony Dam appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his employment-discrimination action against his former employer Graco, Inc. (Graco). After careful de novo review, see Murphy v. Mo. Dep’t of Corr. , 372 F.3d 979, 982 (8th Cir. 2004), this court conc ludes that summary judgment was properly granted. Even assuming Dam made a pr ima facie case of discrimination, Graco presented a valid, non-discriminatory reason for his termination – poor job performance that did not impr ove – and Dam failed to present a triable issue of fact-2- on whether that reason was a pretext for discrimination. See Richmond v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Minn. , 957 F.2d 595, 598 (8th Cir. 1992) (poor job performance is valid, non-disc riminatory reason for termination; defendants produced documentation that plaintiff’s performan ce was unsatisfactory, plaintiff ignored progressive warnings, and performance did not improve).

This court affirms. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8166 

To require the Secretary of Defense to issue regulations requiring that optional combat boots worn by members of the armed forces wear be 

made in America, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 30, 2024 

Ms. BUDZINSKI (for herself, Mr. BOST, and Mr. CRAWFORD) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of Defense to issue regulations 

requiring that optional combat boots worn by members 

of the armed forces wear be made in America, and for 

other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO COMBAT FOOT4 WEAR OF MEMBERS OF ALL BRANCHES OF 

5 THE ARMED FORCES. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the 

7 date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense 

8 shall issue regulations prohibiting any member of the 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8166 IH

1 armed forces from wearing optional combat boots as part 

2 of a required uniform unless the optional combat boots 

3 are entirely manufactured in the United States and en4 tirely made of— 

5 (1) materials grown, reprocessed, reused, or 

6 produced in the United States; and 

7 (2) components that are manufactured entirely 

8 in the United States and entirely made of materials 

9 described in paragraph (1). 

10 (b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

11 (1) ARMED FORCES.—The term ‘‘armed forces’’ 

12 has the meaning given such term in section 101(a) 

13 of title 10, United States Code. 

14 (2) OPTIONAL COMBAT BOOTS.—The term ‘‘op15 tional combat boots’’, with respect to a member of 

16 the armed forces, combat boots not furnished to 

17 such member of the armed forces by the Secretary 

18 of Defense. 

19 (3) REQUIRED UNIFORM.—The term ‘‘required 

20 uniform’’ means a uniform a member of the armed 

21 forces is required to wear as a member of the armed 

22 forces. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8345 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8345

   To limit funds to the United Nations and other organizations that 
provide any status, rights, or privileges beyond observer status to the 
       Palestine Liberation Organization, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 10, 2024

 Mr. Baird (for himself and Mr. McCaul) introduced the following bill; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To limit funds to the United Nations and other organizations that 
provide any status, rights, or privileges beyond observer status to the 
       Palestine Liberation Organization, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``No Official Palestine Entry Act of 
2024''.

SEC. 2. MODIFICATION WITH RESPECT TO MEMBERSHIP OF PALESTINE LIBERATION 
              ORGANIZATION IN UNITED NATIONS AGENCIES.

    Section 414(a) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal 
Years 1990 and 1991 (22 U.S.C. 287e note; Public Law 101-246) is 
amended by striking ``the same standing as member states'' and 
inserting ``any status, rights, or privileges beyond observer status''.

SEC. 3. AMENDMENTS TO LIMITATIONS ON CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE UNITED 
              NATIONS AND AFFILIATED ORGANIZATIONS.

    Section 410 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal 
Years 1994 and 1995 (22 U.S.C. 287e note; Public Law 103-236) is 
amended by striking ``full membership'' each place it appears and 
inserting ``any status, rights, or privileges beyond observer status''.

SEC. 4. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

    Nothing is this Act shall be construed to apply to Taiwan.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 10.1






NOTICE OF EXERCISE OF INITIAL OPTION


Level 5 Beverage Company, Inc.
16501 Sherman Way, Suite 215
Van Nuys, California 91411


March 24, 2015


Avanzar Sales and Distribution, LLC
3260 Lilly Avenue
Long Beach, California 90808
Attention: William Juarez


Ladies and Gentlemen:


Reference is made to that certain Membership Interest Purchase Agreement (the “Purchase Agreement”), made and entered into on the 24th day of October, 2014, with an Effective Date of September 15, 2014, by and between Level 5 Beverage Company, Inc., a Delaware corporation, with offices located at 16501 Sherman Way, Suite 215, Van Nuys, California 91411 (the “Purchaser”), Avanzar Sales and Distribution, LLC, a California limited liability company with offices at 3260 Lilly Avenue, Long Beach, California 90808 (the “Company”), and William H. Juarez, Jr., Joseph A. Shippee and Robert Saunders, with an address at 3260 Lilly Avenue, Long Beach, California 90808.  Capitalized terms used herein but not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Purchase Agreement. 


In accordance with Section 1.1, Section 1.2, Section 2.1 and Section 8.1 of the Purchase Agreement, the Purchaser hereby notifies the Company of its exercise of the Initial Option Membership Interests, which when added to the Initial Membership Interests and Initial Option Membership Interests issued to Purchaser, shall represent a right to fifty-one percent (51%) of the total economic benefits of the membership interests outstanding of the Company at the time of the issuance (which shall be thirty percent (30%) of the outstanding Class A Membership Interests after taking into account the issuance).


The parties hereto agree that the consideration payable by the Purchaser to the Company for the Initial Option Membership Interests to be acquired on the date of the term sheet, February 27, 2015, shall be an aggregate cash payment of Four Hundred Thousand Dollars ($400,000) of which: (i) the initial payment in an amount of $50,000 by the Purchaser was paid on February 27, 2015, and (ii) additional payments in amounts of at least $25,000 payable every 30 days until the aggregate of Four Hundred Thousand U.S Dollars ($400,000) is paid in full no later than December 31, 2015.


Please confirm that the foregoing is in accordance with your understanding by signing in the space provided below and returning to us a duplicate of this notice.
Very truly yours,


LEVEL 5 BEVERAGE COMPANY, INC.
                                                                                                   	
		
	By:
	/s/ V. Scott Vanis

	 
	Name:  V. Scott Vanis

	 
	Title: Chief Executive Officer





             
ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO:
AVANZAR SALES AND DISTRIBUTION, LLC


By:  ___/s/ William Juarez, Jr.____________
        Name:  William Juarez, Jr. 
        Title:   President
#### JERSEY CITY MERCHANTS COUNCIL, *ET AL.,*PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. PHILIP B. ROBINSON, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

See same case below: 71 *N. J. Super.*156.

*Messrs. Krieger & Ghodash*for the petitioner.

*Messrs. Wolf & Baumann*for the respondents.

March 26, 1962.