alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Lionel CHRISTOPHER v. AMERICAN GENERAL FIRE & CASUALTY CO. et al.

No. 89-C-1167.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 30, 1989.

In re Christopher, Lionel; — Plaintiff(s); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. CA88 1119; Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court, Div. “E”, No. 296-548.

Denied.

DIXON, C.J., and CALOGERO and DENNIS, JJ., would grant the writ.
Office 

U.S. Department ofTranspormtion 

1200 New Jersey Avenue. SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

RE: E.sse11tial Air 

Dear Mr. Martin, 

Several weeks ago you received a letter from the City of Kake that recommended the 

r;s:sentlat Air Set•vice conn-act he a~'8rdcd to Wings ofAlaska. That recommendation was 

based on a presentation by Wings with no presentation by 

scheduled or anticipated. 

Since the writing of that letter* the eomm1mity has been afforded the.opportlmityto attend 

a similar presentation by Air Excursions. The presentation by Excursions·gained the 

s:uppot1 of the Org~zed Village ofKake (OVK) and the Kake Comm1mity School 

District. By now I am sure you have r~ived a copy of the of Support from the 

Organized Village of Kake, although I am not sure if you have received one from the 

Kake Community School District. 

While the mayor and city coxmcil do not wish to retract Letter of Support for 

Wings of Alaska, they also do not wish to see that letter take precedence over the 

reoommeudations by OVK or the school district That said, When you review public 

comment and public recommendation, please consider the recommendations of the 

Organized Village ofKake and the Kake Community School District ahead of those of 

the City of Kake. 

Yours truly, 

mayor & city council via email
**CERTIFICATION      OF**

**CHIEF      EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND**

**CHIEF      FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

| 1.     | Such                Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2007,                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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for                the                period ended June 30, 2007, fairly presents, in all material respects,                the                financial condition and results of operations of Grant Enterprises,                Inc. |
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |

**GRANT      ENTERPRISES, INC.**

*/s/ Shahin Shadmer*
No. 83705 

# FILE DEC 1 7 2021 ELIZA:BF:1H A. BROWN CLERK ' aiPREME COURT BY—Oz

. .:PUTsf CLERK IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA THERESE WILLIAMS, Petitioner, vs. THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE; AND THE HONORABLE LYNNE K. SIMONS, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and ASHLEE ORNDORFF, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order denying a motion for summary judgment. Having considered the petition and its supporting documentation, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (observing that the party seeking writ relief bears the burden of showing such relief is warranted); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991) (recognizing that writ relief is an extraordinary remedy and that this court has sole discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ petition). Specifically, we generally decline to exercise our discretion to grant writ petitions challenging orders denying motions for summary judgment, and we are not convinced any of the exceptions apply in this case. See Smith v. Eighth



## c7 1 - 3s

- SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA (()) 1947A cagrop

### , C.J. Hardesty

Herndon Judicial Dist. Court, 113 Nev. 1343, 1344-45, 950 P.2d 280, 281 (1997) (discussing the exceptions to the general rule). We therefore

ORDER the petition DENIED.'

Sr.J.

cc: Hon. Lynne K. Simons, District Judge Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP/Reno Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP/Las Vegas Leverty & Associates Law, Chtd. Steven J. Klearman & Associates Washoe District Court Clerk

1 

### The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Senior Justice, participated in the decision of this matter under a general order of assignment.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (01 1947A adages 

### 2

i..; ,1•14iitt 7if.f
NUMBER 13-21-00193-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

 

DAVID SANCHEZ ROCHA, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 139th District Court

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

ORDER

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Tijerina

Order Per Curiam

Before the Court is appellant's pro se motion for access to the appellate record.

On March 11, 2022, appellant's counsel filed an Anders brief, and appellant has been 

unable to examine the record in order to file a pro se brief. 

Accordingly, we grant appellant’s motion and it is hereby ordered that the trial court 

ensure that appellant has the opportunity to fully examine the appellate record on or 
2

before fifteen (15) days from the date this order issues. It is further ordered the trial court 

notify this Court as to the date upon which the appellate record was made available to 

appellant. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

Furthermore, Appellant shall have thirty (30) days from the day the appellate

record is first made available to him to file his pro se brief with this Court. The State shall 

have twenty days thereafter to file its response, if any.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed on the

19th day of May, 2022.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         129,482                 658,742
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  112,002                 168,481
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               381,482                 975,524
<PP&E>                                          60,315                  89,582
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
[OTHER-ASSETS]                                       0                 749,433
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 441,798               1,814,539
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          502,978                  74,633
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          5                       0
<COMMON>                                      (61,185)               1,739,906
<OTHER-SE>                                     441,798               1,814,539
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0                       0
<SALES>                                        532,677                 637,941
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               544,140                 689,646
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,536,855               2,772,858
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                31,739                 208,722
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,699                   5,833
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0                       0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,029,153)             (2,297,767)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                   5,000
<CHANGES>                                      749,433                       0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,788,586)             (2,292,767)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.31)                  (0.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.29)                  (0.26)


</TABLE>
50612.

#### HITER v. SHELP.

Argued May 5, 1975

Decided May 13, 1975.

*Robert E. Andrews, John Calvin Hunter,*for appellant.

*Greer, Sartain & Carey, Jack M. Carey,*for appellee.

Webb, Judge.

"Conceding, but without deciding, that the evidence demanded a finding that the defendant was negligent and that this negligence was the proximate cause of the automobile collision, the evidence authorized but did not demand a finding that plaintiff had suffered any injury attributable to the collision. The jury is the judge of the veracity of parties and witnesses; under the evidence in this record they were authorized to disbelieve plaintiffs claim of injury as a result of the collision. Accordingly the judgment for defendant, based upon the verdict of the jury, will not be *disturbed.” Levine v. Nowell,*115 Ga. App. 79 (153 SE2d 729). Accord, *Miller v. Dean,*113 Ga. App. 869 (1) (150 SE2d 191); *Brown v. Wingard,*122 Ga. App. 544 (177 SE2d 797); *Brown v. Nutter,*125 Ga. App. 449, 451 (5) (188 SE2d 133); *Krasner v. Lester,*130 Ga. App. 234, 236 (3) (202 SE2d 693).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bell, C. J., and Marshall, J., concur.*
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 14, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15112-15113]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6161]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice 
of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable materials, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Neurological Disorders 
and Stroke Special Emphasis Panel Loan Repayment Program Review.
    Date: April 30, 2012.
    Time: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 
Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference 
Call).
    Contact Person: JoAnn McConnell, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural Research, 
NINDS/NIH/DHHS/Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., Suite 
3208, MSC 9529, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-496-5324, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#274a4444484949424d67494e49435409494e4f09404851"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d1bcb2b2bebfbfb4bb91bfb8bfb5a2ffbfb8b9ffb6bea7">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.853, 
Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, 
Biological Basis Research in the

[[Page 15113]]

Neurosciences, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: March 8, 2012.
Jennifer S. Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-6161 Filed 3-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 32.1


                            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  Zandaria  Ventures  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period  ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned,  in the  capacities  and  on  the  dates  indicated  below,  hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

     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.


Date:  August 14, 2007


/s/ Jason Smart
-----------------------------------
Jason Smart, President and C.E.O.
(Principal Executive Officer)


-------------------
A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to ExperTelligence,  Inc. and will be retained by ExperTelligence, Inc.
and  furnished  to the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  or its staff upon
request.
#### BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, Florida, Petitioner, v. Angelo M. FERLITA, Esquire, Respondent.

No. 87-3396.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 4, 1988.

Carol L. Hinds, Asst. Co. Atty., Tampa, for petitioner.

Angelo M. Ferlita of Ferlita, Nutter & Rosello, P.A., Tampa, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Angelo M. Ferlita was appointed by the trial court to represent an indigent defendant charged with first-degree murder and robbery. The court awarded him $27,475 attorney’s fees to be paid by Hillsborough County. The County seeks a writ of certio-rari to quash the order.

The trial court’s award was in disregard of section 925.036, Florida Statutes (1985), and the hourly rate for calculating fees for appointed counsel established by the chief judge of the thirteenth judicial circuit.

We find no meaningful distinction between the facts of this case and the facts and holdings in our recent decisions in *Board of County Commissioners v. Cannella,*519 So.2d 1124 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), *Hillsborough County v. Marchese,*519 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), and *Board of County Commissioners of Hillsborough County v. Lopez,*518 So.2d 372 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987).

We grant the petition, quash the trial court’s order, and remand with directions to recalculate Ferlita’s attorney’s fee based on the hourly rate established by the schedule adopted by the chief judge of the thirteenth judicial circuit.

Certiorari granted.

SCHEB, A.C.J, and SCHOONOVER and HALL, JJ., concur.
#### STATE ex rel. Lee S. MATTHEWS v. Hilton BUTLER, Warden.

No. 87-KH-2449.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 27, 1989.

In re Matthews, Lee S.; applying for remedial writ; Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court, Div. “J”, No. 450-644.

Denied.
#### RIVERMEAD CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. *v.*SUZANNE SEARLES ET AL.

*Suzanne Searles,*pro se, in support of the petition.

Decided April 28, 1998

The named defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court (AC 17216) is denied.
#### STATE ex rel. Wilbert ALLEN v. Frank C. BLACKBURN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 86-KH-1757.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 23, 1987.

In re Allen, Wilbert; applying for remedial writ; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “D”, No. 264-787.

Denied.
Exhibit 10.30


 


SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE PROMISSORY NOTE BETWEEN VIRPAX PHARMACEUTICALS,
INC. AND ANTHONY P. MACK 


 


This Second Amendment to the Promissory Note dated October 1,
2018 (the “Second Amendment”) is entered into as of October 28, 2020 (the “Effective Date”) between Virpax
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., (“Virpax”) and Anthony P. Mack (“AM”). Virpax and AM may be collectively referred
to herein as the “Parties.”


 


W I T N E S S E T H:


 


WHEREAS, the Parties entered into that certain Promissory Note
dated October 1, 2018 (the “Note”) which described the terms under which AM would loan certain amounts to Virpax the
terms under which Virpax would repay such amounts; and


 


WHEREAS, the Parties entered into that certain first amendment
to the Note dated April 6, 2020 (the “First Amendment”) which extended the maturity date of the payment of the principal
and provides for the payment of all interest accrued up to October 1, 2020; and


 


WHEREAS, the Parties desire to further amend the Note, as amended,
in order to extend the Maturity Date of the payment of the principal and provide for the payment of all interest accrued up to
December 31, 2023.


 


NOW THEREFORE, the Parties in consideration of the mutual covenants
and agreements hereinafter set forth agree as follows:


 


1. The Note is hereby amended as follows:


 


		1.	Amend Article 1 to extend the Maturity Date of the payment of the principal to December 31, 2023



 


		2.	Amend Article 2 to provide for the payment of all interest accrued up to December 31, 2023.



 


Except as amended hereby, all of the terms and conditions of
the Note are hereby ratified and confirmed and shall remain in full force and effect.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Amendment
to be executed by their duly authorized representatives as of the Effective Date. 


 


	By:	/s/ Jeffrey Gudin	 
	Name: 	Jeffrey Gudin, EVP, Chief Medical Officer	 


 


	By the Holder: 	/s/ Anthony P. Mack	 
	 	 	 
	Name:	Anthony P. Mack, Chairman & CEO
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.2


                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Glenn J. Heiar, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Armor Holdings, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this 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 report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are 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 our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
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 and
procedures and presented in this 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

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the 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 control over
financial reporting.



Date: May 10, 2004                             By: /s/ Glenn J. Heiar
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Name: Glenn J. Heiar
                                                  Title: Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 4.1


 





Alaia Capital, LLC


10 Corbin Drive


Darien, Connecticut 06820


 


November 27, 2020


m+ Buffer 20 Fund, m+ funds Trust, Series 1-14


c/o The Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee

240 Greenwich Street, 22W Floor


New York, New York 10286








 


		Re:	m+ funds Trust, Series 1-14 (the “Trust”)



 


 


Ladies and Gentlemen:


 


We have examined Amendment No. 1 to the Registration Statement
(File No. 333-249128) for the above captioned Trust. We hereby consent to the use in the Registration Statement of the references
to Alaia Capital, LLC as evaluator.


 


You are hereby authorized to file a copy
of this letter with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


 


 


 


	 	Very truly yours,	 
	 	 	 
	 	Alaia Capital, LLC	 
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Oscar Loynaz	 
	 	 	Name: Oscar Loynaz	 
	 	 	Title:  Managing Director