alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered December 8 , 2017

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 17 - 00955 - CV IN RE LAKEITH RAQIB AMIR - SHARIF, Relator Original Proceeding from the 191st Judicial Dis trict Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC - 09 - 13818 - J



### O RDER Before the Court are relator’s first motion and second motion for this Court to order the trial court to comply with the Court’s September 25, 2017 opinion and order conditionally granting relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. This Court served a writ of mandamus on the trial judge on December 5, 2017 and ordered her to comply with the September 25, 2017 opinion and order by 12:00 p.m. on December 7, 2017. The trial judge has now complied with the writ of mandamus and with the September 25, 2017 opinion and order. Accordingly, we DENY relator’s motions as moot. We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to provide relator with copies of the December 5, 2017 writ of mandamus and offic er’s return, the trial court’s December 6, 2017 order denying relator’s motion to reinstate, and the trial court’s December 6, 2017 order determining appellate

costs./s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
#### Errol BROWN and Darron Darine Cromer, Appellants, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 87-1419, 87-1999.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 21, 1988.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Gold & Fox and Myron M. Gold and Roger M. Dunetz, Flynn & Tarkoff and Michael H. Tarkoff, Sp. Asst. Public Defenders, for appellants.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Richard L. Kaplan, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and HUBBART* and FERGUSON, JJ.

*

 Judge Hubbart participated in the decision, but did not hear oral arguments.

PER CURIAM.

Appellants Errol Brown and Darron Cromer were jointly tried and convicted. The jury found both defendants guilty of burglary with a dangerous weapon and two counts each of false imprisonment with a *1048weapon. In addition, Brown was found guilty of the reduced charge of robbery without a weapon. Cromer was also convicted of armed robbery and unlawful possession of a firearm. Brown was sentenced within the guidelines to fifteen years imprisonment as to each count, to be served concurrently. With respect to Cromer, the trial court departed from the sentencing guidelines and sentenced Cromer to two thirty-year terms of imprisonment with three year minimum mandato-ries for the burglary with a dangerous weapon count and the armed robbery count, in addition to three fifteen-year terms for the remaining counts, all to be served concurrently.

Appellant Cromer contends the trial judge failed to provide clear and convincing reasons to depart from the presumptively correct guidelines sentences. We disagree. The trial judge in his sentencing order provided six clear and convincing reasons, bolstered by ample authority and the facts of the case which, when considered collectively, support the upward departure. Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.701(d)(ll).

Appellant Brown raises several issues on appeal. First, Brown contends that the precepts of *State v. Neil,*457 So.2d 481 (Fla.1984), were violated by the state’s striking of some black jurors. Second, he argues that a discovery violation was committed by the state in allegedly failing to provide evidence to be introduced at trial and that the court erred in allegedly not holding a Richardson1 hearing. Finally, Brown questions the sufficiency of the evidence to support the false imprisonment charges and the correctness of the instructions given to the jury.

Having carefully considered the points Brown raises on appeal in light of the entire record, the briefs and arguments of counsel, and the controlling principles of law, we conclude that no reversible error has been demonstrated, and that no error was committed which injuriously affected any substantial rights of the appellant.

The judgments and sentences under review are affirmed.

Affirmed.

1

. *Richardson v. State,*246 So.2d 771 (Fla.1971).
EXHIBIT 4(rr)

            Loan Note between CRIIMI MAE Management, Inc. and 
                             Signet Bank/Virginia







                                   LOAN  NOTE


     FOR VALUE RECEIVED, CRIIMI MAE MANAGEMENT, INC., a Maryland corporation
(the "Borrower"), promises to pay to the order of SIGNET BANK/VIRGINIA (the
"Bank"), the  principal sum of NINE MILLION ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS
($9,100,000) in lawful money of the United States in Federal or other
immediately available funds at the office of Signet Bank/Virginia, at 7799
Leesburg Pike, Suite 500, Falls Church, VA 22043, Attention: Mr. Barry E.
Cooper, Vice President, or such other office as the Bank may designate in
writing to the Borrower.

     The Borrower promises to pay interest on the unpaid principal balance
hereof from the date hereof until paid in full pursuant to the Credit Agreement
referred to below.  The Borrower promises to pay the aggregate outstanding
principal amount of the Loan together with interest thereon, on the dates, in
the amounts and at the rate or rates provided in the Credit Agreement, but in no
event later than the last Domestic Borrowers Day in December 1998. 

     This Note is the Note referred to in the Credit Agreement dated as of 11:59
p.m., June 30, 1995, between the Borrower and the Bank (as the same may be
amended, modified or supplemented from time to time, the "Credit Agreement"). 
This Note and the holder hereof are entitled to all of the benefits provided for
thereby or referred to therein.  Reference is hereby made to the Credit
Agreement for a statement of such benefits.  Terms defined in the Credit
Agreement are used herein with the same meanings.  Reference is made to the
Credit Agreement for provisions for the prepayment hereof and the acceleration
of the maturity hereof.

     Optional prepayments may be made on the Loan evidenced hereby and this Note
(and the Loan evidenced hereby) may be declared due prior to the express
maturity thereof, all in the events, on the terms and in the manner provided for
in the Credit Agreement.

                                   CRIIMI MAE MANAGEMENT, INC.


                                   By:  /s/ Cynthia O. Azzara
                                        ----------------------------
                                          Cynthia O. Azzara
                                          Senior Vice President/
                                          Chief Financial Officer
                     <PAGE>
#### Toni Gordon HOFFPAUIR v. Damon I. HOFFPAUIR.

No. 87-C-0102.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 30, 1987.

In re Hoffpauir, Toni Gordon; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 86-49; Parish of Acadia, 15th Judicial District Court, Div. “E”, No. 52159.

Prior report: La.App., 498 So.2d 1125.

Denied.

COLE and LEMMON, JJ.,

concur in the denial. The parties are free to seek further modification of the custody decree when the child must adhere to a school schedule.
<PAGE>

                                  Exhibit 32.2

                            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 Aearo Company I (the
"Company"), on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jeffrey
S. Kulka, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,
to my knowledge:

            (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
      or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ Jeffrey S. Kulka
                                                       --------------------
                                                       Jeffrey S. Kulka
                                                       Senior Vice President,
                                                       Chief Financial Officer
                                                       and Secretary
                                                       November 21, 2005
Explosives Risk Managers LLC Page 1 Docket Operations, M

- 30 U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.

Room W12

- 140, West Building Ground Floor Washington, DC 20590

- 0001 January 2 6 , 2015

RE: Petition for Exemption under Section 333

Dear Director Duncan:

Explosives Risk Managers LLC (ERM) requests an exemption from the regulations described in the
attachment as provided in Section 333 of P.L. 112

- 95 in reference to 49 USC § 44704. As described in the attachment, exempting ERM from the requested regulations is justified and will result in an equivalent or greater degree of safety to the public.

ERM provides a wide variety of risk management services to the industrial explosives indu stry and

proposes using unmanned a ircraft systems (UAS) in a safe manner to make significant improvements in blasting safety, security and productivity as described in ERM’s standard operating procedures and statement towards the public benefit which are a ttached . ERM will only operate UAS in compliance with all federal, state and local regulations, the UAS manufacturer’s recommendations (attached), ERM
standard operating procedures

, UAS industry standards and the terms of the exemption (if granted).

Pl ease contact me if ERM has overlooked requesting exemption from any regulation that it will need to conduct operations as described so that we may modify our petition

. We also request the opportunity to modify this petition to meet FAA approval as necessa ry. Thank you for your attention to this matter and please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Lon D. Santis, Principal Explosives Risk Managers LLC santis@ermanagers.com

20 2

- 288

- 2029
Exhibit 31.1

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

           I, Douglas P. Rosefsky, certify that:

           1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of North
Atlantic Holding Company, 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 and I am responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we 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 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 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 controls 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: November 14, 2005


/s/ Douglas P. Rosefsky
---------------------------------
Name:  Douglas P. Rosefsky
Title: Chief Executive Officer
49874.

#### McNEILL v. THE STATE.

Quillian, Judge.

The defendant was indicted in 3 counts for the violation of the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act. The jury returned a verdict of guilty on all 3 counts and sentenced the defendant to 15 years on each of the 3 counts to run consecutively. The defendant’s amended motion for new trial was overruled and an appeal taken to this court. *Held:*

1. The defendant’s 7th enumeration of error contends that the court erred in charging the jury on the question of entrapment (Code Ann. § 26-905; Ga. L. 1968, pp. 1249,1274), by failing to further instruct the jury the burden of disproving entrapment beyond a reasonable doubt was upon the state.

The trial judge gave a full and complete instruction to the jury on the question of entrapment. He followed this portion of the charge with a general charge on the basic principles of reasonable doubt and as to the burden of proof being upon the state in a criminal prosecution.

In *Reed v. State,*130 Ga. App. 659, 661, 663 (204 SE2d 335), this court held that a similar charge under almost identical circumstances was prejudicial and confusing to the jury. It was there pointed out: "It is *46necessary that the jury be fully and meticulously informed that the defendant has the benefit of the doubt as to every aspect of the alleged offense, and that the state must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant was not entrapped — i.e. he was predisposed to commit the crime.” P. 663. Following the principles set forth in that case we therefore hold that the failure to specifically charge that the burden was on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entrapped constituted reversible error.

Submitted November 4, 1974

Decided January 21, 1975

Rehearing denied February 20, 1975

*John Fleming, Bobby G. Beazley,*for appellant.

*Richard E. Allen, District Attorney,*for appellee.

2. We have examined the remaining enumerations of error and find them either to be without merit or unlikely to recur upon a retrial of this case.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Bell, C. J., and Clark, J., concur.*

On Motion for Rehearing.

By motion for rehearing the state contends that the defendant failed either to request a charge on the burden of proof or to make a proper objection.

*The Reed*case, 130 Ga. App. 659, 663 (204 SE2d 335), held: "The trial court committed prejudicial error in failing to instruct the jury that the state had the burden of proof on the question of entrapment.” The decision was predicated on the failure by charge to provide the jury with proper guidelines. See *Green v. State,*230 Ga. 756, 759 (2) (199 SE2d 199). Any language in the *Reed*case implying that an objection was therefore necessary must be considered as obiter dictum. See Code Ann. § 70-207 (Ga. L. 1965, pp. 18, 31; 1966, pp. 493, 498; 1968, pp. 1072, 1078).

*Motion for rehearing denied.*
#### STATE ex rel. Clinton Clifford HOWARD, Jr. v. Hon. Rudolph BECKER, Judge, Section “E”, Criminal District Court.

No. 87-KH-0800.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 15, 1987.

Reconsideration Denied June 19,1987.

In re Howard, Clinton Clifford Jr.; applying for writ of mandamus; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “E”, No. 301-012; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. K 6977.

Denied. No particularized need shown.
#### Bobby SMITH and Terry Lavone Jones v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 58291.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Feb. 15, 1989.

Andrew M.W. Westerfield, William E. O’Hare, Smith & O’Hare, Cleveland, Thomas J. Lowe, Jr., Jackson, for appellants.

Mike Moore, Atty. Gen. by Charles W. Maris, Jr., Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Before DAN M. LEE, P.J., and ROBERTSON and ZUCCARO, JJ.

Appeal from County Court, Bolivar County; John White Valentine, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., HAWKINS, P.J., and PRATHER, SULLIVAN and ANDERSON, JJ., concur.

PITTMAN, J., not participating.
IV

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 228

Expressing the sense of the Congress that the children who lost one or

both parents or a guardian in the September 11, 2001, World Trade

Center and Pentagon tragedies (including the aircraft crash in Somerset

County, Pennsylvania) should be provided with all necessary assistance,

services, and benefits and urging the heads of Federal agencies responsible for providing such assistance, services and benefits to give the

highest possible priority to providing such assistance, services and benefits to those children.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 14, 2001

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas (for herself, Mr. GILMAN, Mr. MEEKS of New

York, Mrs. KELLY, Mr. LARSON of Connecticut, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, Mr.

NEAL of Massachusetts, Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD, Ms. WOOLSEY,

and Mr. BRADY of Texas) submitted the following concurrent resolution;

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress that the children who

lost one or both parents or a guardian in the September

11, 2001, World Trade Center and Pentagon tragedies

(including the aircraft crash in Somerset County, Pennsylvania) should be provided with all necessary assistance, services, and benefits and urging the heads of

Federal agencies responsible for providing such assistance, services and benefits to give the highest possible

priority to providing such assistance, services and benefits to those children.
2

•HCON 228 ATH

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That (a) it is the sense of the Congress that

3 the children who lost one or both parents or a guardian

4 in the September 11, 2001, World Trade Center and Pen5 tagon tragedies (including the aircraft crash in Somerset

6 County, Pennsylvania) should be provided with such im7 mediate assistance, services, and benefits as necessary for

8 their well-being, including—

9 (1) foster care assistance;

10 (2) adoption assistance;

11 (3) medical, nutritional, and psychological care;

12 and

13 (4) such additional care or services as may be

14 necessary.

15 (b) Congress urges the head of each Federal agency

16 responsible for providing assistance, services and benefits

17 referred to in subsection (a) to—

18 (1) put the highest possible priority on the pro19 vision of such assistance, services, and benefits to

20 children described in that subsection in order to ex21 pedite the provision of needed assistance, services,

22 and benefits to those children; and

23 (2) to the maximum extent possible, to take

24 such steps as necessary to ensure that such assist25 ance, services and benefits are provided, in the case
3

•HCON 228 ATH

1 of any such child, within 60 days of the date of the

2 determination of the death of the child’s parent or

3 guardian.

Æ
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I,
Joseph A. Calo, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of NeuroMetrix, 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))
for the registrant and have:



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):



|                      |  |                                                                               
|--------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 14, 2009 |  | /s/ JOSEPH A. CALO Joseph A. Calo Acting Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

---



QuickLinks
First Amendment to 2003 Stock Incentive Plan



 Exhibit 10.8.1 
  
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE 
 CNB BANCORP, INC. 
 2003 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN 
  
 THIS FIRST AMENDMENT is made as of September 11, 2003, by CNB BANCORP, INC.,
a Virginia corporation (the “Company”). 
  
 WHEREAS, the
Company maintains the CNB Bancorp, Inc. 2003 Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), which was established by indenture dated May 13, 2003; 
  
 WHEREAS, the shareholders of the Company approved the Plan at its meeting on August 12, 2003, subject to the requirement that the Plan may not be
terminated or amended without the approval of the Company’s shareholders; 
  
 WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan to reflect that the Plan may not be terminated or amended without the approval of the Company’s shareholders. 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Company does hereby amend the Plan,
effective as of August 12, 2003, by deleting the existing Section 5.8 and substituting therefore the following: 
  
 “5.8 Termination and Amendment of the Plan. The Board of Directors at any time may amend or terminate the Plan, provided that
the stockholders of the Company approve of any such amendment or termination. No such amendment or termination shall adversely affect the rights of a holder of a Stock Incentive without the consent of such holder.” 
  
 Except as specifically amended hereby, the remaining provisions of the Plan
shall remain in full force and effect as prior to the adoption of this First Amendment. 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this First Amendment to be executed, effective as of the date first above written. 
  

			
	CNB BANCORP, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Douglas A. Chesson


	Title:	 	President & CEO


  

			
	ATTEST:
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Susan W. O’Connell


	Title:	 	Secretary