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

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C.  20549

 

**FORM 10-Q**

 

(MarkOne)

[X]   QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TOSECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

For the quarterly period ended March 31, 2010

 

or

 

[]   TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THESECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

For the transition period from _________to _________

 

Commission file number 0-10831

 

CONSOLIDATED CAPITALINSTITUTIONAL PROPERTIES, LP

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

 

55 Beattie Place, PO Box 1089

Greenville, South Carolina  29602

(Address of principal executive offices)

 

(864) 239-1000

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to befiled by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during thepreceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was requiredto file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements forthe past 90 days.  

[X]Yes  [ ] No

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted onits corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to besubmitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (232.405 of thischapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that theregistrant was required to submit and post such files). [ ] Yes  [ ] No

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, anaccelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reportingcompany.  See the definitions of “large accelerated filer”, “acceleratedfiler” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

 

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule12b-2 of the Exchange Act). [ ] Yes  [X] No
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 32.2


                                  CERTIFICATION


Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted), Bruce D. Horn, Chief Financial Officer of Oplink
Communications, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies that, to the best of his
knowledge:

1. The Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended June 30, 2004,
to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.2 (the "ANNUAL REPORT")
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition at the end of the period covered by
the Annual Report and results of operations of the Company for the periods
covered by the Annual Report.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has set his hands hereto as of the 10th day
of September, 2004.

/s/ Bruce D. Horn
---------------------------------------------
Bruce D. Horn
Chief Financial Officer

This certification accompanies the Form 10-K to which it relates, is not deemed
filed with the SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of
the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the
Form 10-K), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such
filing.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6503

JAMES G. LAWRENCE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

P. A. TERRANGI; DOCTOR IBERRA; CHARLYNE

BROUGHMAN-CRITZER, Correctional Officer; CATHY

COUTHER; LAUREL CORNERS; JAMES KEELING; SALLY

CASEBOLT; FREDERICK J. SCHILLING, III; MS.

DODSON; LALANI MCCANN, Doctor; M. G. HAQUE,

Doctor; HASAN OZINAL, Doctor,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; VERNON

SMITH, Doctor,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District

Judge. (CA-02-869-2)

Submitted: July 28, 2004 Decided: August 19, 2004

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
- 2 -

James G. Lawrence, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Foster Barr, OFFICE OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; Jeff Wayne

Rosen, Lisa Ehrich, PENDER & COWARD, P.C., Virginia Beach,

Virginia; John David McChesney, Ashton Marie Jennette, RAWLS &

MCNELIS, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
*With regard to the district court’s finding that Lawrence

must demonstrate a significant injury to prevail on his claim that

Defendants Iberra and Ozinal were deliberately indifferent to his

serious medical needs, we find that such a showing is not always

necessary. See Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25 (1993).

Regardless, we find that Lawrence has failed to demonstrate that

Defendants’ conduct was so grossly incompetent, or shocking to the

conscience, to be considered deliberately indifferent. See

Miltier v. Beorn, 896 F.2d 848, 851 (4th Cir. 1990). 

- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

James G. Lawrence appeals the district court’s order

granting summary judgment to Defendants McCann, Iberra and Ozinal

on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. Lawrence also appeals

the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his claims

against Defendants Schilling and Broughman-Critzer. We have

reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the

reasoning of the district court.*

 See Lawrence v. Terrangi, No.

CA-02-869-2 (E.D. Va. Mar. 12, 2004). We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

G.C., ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D19-2082 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed September 9, 2020. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County; Melissa Gravitt, Judge, and Mark Hofstad, Senior Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Carly J. Robbins-Gilbert, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Pamela Cordova Papasov, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA, SILBERMAN, and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
#### Tenth National Bank of Philadelphia *v.*Smith Construction Company

October 7, 1907 :

(No. 2).

Argued March 13, 1907.

Appeal, No. 24, March T., 1907, by

David F. Stauffer, from decree of C. P. York Co., April T., 1905, No. 1, sustaining exceptions to auditor’s report in case of The Tenth National Bank of Philadelphia v. The Smith Construction Company.

Before Rice, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Morrison, Orlady, Head and Beaver, JJ.

Reversed.

Opinion by

Orlady, J.,

In The Tenth National Bank of Philadelphia (Fourth Street National Bank of Philadelphia, Appellant) v. The Smith Construction Company, 218 Pa. 581, decided by the Supreme Court on June 3,1907, the same question as is presented for our consideration in this appeal was disposed of, and following that decision for the reasons therein stated, the same order is made. The decree in this ease is reversed and the report of the auditor absolutely confirmed, the costs on this appeal to be paid by the appellee.
Exhibit 32.01  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 Sangui Biotech International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas Striepe, Chief Executive Officer and I, Joachim Fleing, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:  (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 result of operations of the Company.    Dated: May 2, 2011 /s/ Thomas Striepe By: Thomas Striepe Chief Executive Officer   Dated: May 2, 2011 /s/ Joachim Fleing By: Joachim Fleing Chief Financial Officer   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Marquis Jamal Reed, Appellant

No. 06

- 17

- 00203

- CR v.
The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 354th District Court of Hunt County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 31,323 ). Opinion delivered by Chi ef Justice Morriss, Justice Moseley and Justice Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court

. We note that the appellant, Marquis Jamal Reed, has adequately indicated his inability to
pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED AUGUST 22, 2018 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
Report Period : December 2009 Date Received Type wt. % V olume or of Source Sulfur Transferred Tank wt. % Volume Tank wt. % Volume Sampled Fuel (barrels) No. Sulfur (barrels) No. Sulfur (barrels) 12/2/2009 LSFO No Shipment 12/2/2009 HSFO Ship Norient Saturn 1.93 208,372.94 Tk 1935 1.69 36,273.55 Tk 1935 1.92 244,646.49 Receiving Tank Before Transfer Receiving Tank After Transfer 

# GUAM POWER AUTHORITY Residual Fuel Oil No. 6 (RFO) Receiving Report
#### Matter of Albert H. Motz, Deceased.

*(Surrogate Court, Kings County,*

*Filed September*20, 1886.)

Practice. — Arswer to petitior must be specifc.

Where a petition asks for tlie delivery to an executor of bonds alleged to belong to the decedent, the answer which claims a lien on them should state specifically the nature of the lien.

The petition of the executor of Motz asked that Edgar M, Crawford be required to surrender to him certain bonds which the said Crawford is alleged to hold unlawfully and in violation of the right of the petitioner, and that the said bonds belong to the estate of the decedent and that the petitioner is entitled to *344the possession thereof. The answer of Crawford alleges that Demás Barnes as assignee in bankruptcy of T. H. and B. T. Yetterlein received said bonds and that they were the property of said assignor. “ That the said bonds were delivered to deponent by the said Demás Barnes, assignee, in order to enable such bonds to share in a dividend resulting from the proceeds of the sale of certain lands which came to the hands of deponent and that deponent is liable to the said Demás Barnes for the return of said bonds to him, as well as for the dividends to which they are entitled subject to unsettled matters between deponent and the said assignee.”

*Edward*McKinley, for petitioner; *Jas. K.*EiU, *Wing Sf*Shoudy, for E. M. Crawford.

Lott S.

Mr. Crawford denies the title of petitioner’s testator to the bonds in question and asserts ownership by another and a lien, thereon as to unsettled matters between him and the assignee of Yetterlein.

I think the answer should be more specific as to the nature of this lien, and the respondent may have ten days to file amended answer.
EX-4.29



 Exhibit 4.29 
 SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT No.3 
 TO THE ONLINE GAME LICENSE AGREEMENT

 Date of Signing: March 7, 2013 
 Party A: Hangzhou Snow Wolf Software Co., Ltd. 
 Party B: Shanghai Giant Network
Technology Co., Ltd. 
 WHEREAS, 
  

	1.	Party A and Party B entered into The Online Game License Agreement on August 13, 2009 (the “Original Agreement”), agreeing to grant Party B to
distribute XT Online game software. 

  

	2.	The Parties entered into the Supplementary Agreement to the Online Game License Agreement on December 23, 2009 (the “Supplementary Agreement
No.1”), changing the agreement on the proportion of channel cost and discounts on the game points cards. 

  

	3.	The Parties entered into the Supplementary Agreement on December 3, 2012 (the “Supplementary Agreement No.2”), confirming the bonus awarded to
Party A by Party B and Shanghai Zhengtu Information Technology Co., Ltd., and the assignment of creditor’s rights in the loan. 

 NOW, after negotiations, Party A and Party B have reached the following supplementary agreement on the basis of the Original Agreement, the Supplementary Agreement No.1 and the Supplementary No.2:

  

	1.	In the Supplementary Agreement No.1, “The computing formula of the Royalty Fee shall be as follows: the Gross Consumption of Game Points*88% (deducting discounts
on game point cards, channel costs)*94.5% (deducting business tax) *24% (royalty percentage).”, shall be changed into “The computing formula of the Royalty Fee shall be as follows: the Gross Consumption of Game Points*92.26% (deducting
discounts on game point cards, channel costs)*94.35% (deducting business tax) *24% (royalty percentage).” 

  

	2.	Due to the change of the game operation condition, the Parties may still change the above computing formula of the Royalty Fee with supplementary agreement in the
future. 

  

	3.	If the Original Agreement, the Supplementary Agreement No.1 or the Supplementary Agreement No.2 is inconsistent with this Supplementary Agreement, this Supplementary
Agreement shall prevail. In all the rest that is not provided by this Supplementary Agreement the Parties shall be governed by the Original Agreement, the Supplementary Agreement No.1 and the Supplementary Agreement No.2. 









	4.	This Supplementary Agreement is made in two counterparts and shall become effective after signed by both Parties. 


 

			
	Party A (Seal): Hangzhou Snow Wolf Software Co., Ltd.	 	Party B (Seal): Shanghai Giant Network Technology Co., Ltd.
	Representative:	 	Representative:
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 Limelight Media Group,  Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 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  operation of the
Company.

Date: August 18, 2004                           By: /s/ John Fraier
                                                    ---------------------------
                                                    Name:  John Fraier
                                                    Title: Chief Financial
                                                           Officer


A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document  authentications,  acknowledging,  or otherwise  adopting the signature
that  appears  in typed  form  within the  electronic  version  of this  written
statement  required by Section 906, has been provided to Limelight  Media Group,
Inc. and will be retained by Limelight  Media Group,  Inc. and  furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 57 (Wednesday, March 25, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15783-15784]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06828]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER15-1332-000]


Arbuckle Mountain Wind Farm LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial 
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding, 
of Arbuckle Mountain Wind Farm LLC's application for market-based rate 
authority, with an accompanying rate schedule, noting that such 
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR 
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, 
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone 
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability is April 8, 2015.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
5 copies

[[Page 15784]]

of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link 
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification 
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with 
any FERC Online service, please email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6c2a293e2f2302000502093f191c1c031e182c0a091e0f420b031a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9bdddec9d8d4f5f7f2f5fec8eeebebf4e9efdbfdfee9f8b5fcf4ed">[email protected]</span></a>. or 
call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: March 19, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-06828 Filed 3-24-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


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

No. 84-047

#### The State of New Hampshire v. William M. Barry

October 26, 1984

*Gregory H. Smith,*attorney general *(T. David Plourde,*attorney, on the brief and orally), for the State.

*Malloy & Sullivan,*of Manchester *(Donald A. Kennedy*on the brief and orally), for the defendant.

Batchelder, J.

The defendant appeals from a verdict of the Superior Court *(DiClerico,*J.) finding him guilty of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, RSA 265:82 (1982) *645(current version at Supp. 1983). The only issue before us is whether the court erred in denying a motion to suppress the results of a blood alcohol test. The blood test was ordered by the arresting officer pursuant to RSA 265:91, which authorizes blood tests in instances where the subject is incapable of refusing consent. The defendant claims that the statute was inapplicable to him because the evidence shows that he was capable of withholding his consent but was denied an opportunity to do so.

In considering the merits of the defendant’s claim, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State. *See State v. Martin,*121 N.H. 1032, 1034, 437 A.2d 308, 309 (1981). We find that the evidence does not support defendant’s argument and dismiss the appeal.

The defendant was involved in a serious car accident and was found in a semi-conscious state on the floor of his car. He was arrested and taken to the hospital for treatment of head injuries. At the hospital, the arresting officer twice read the defendant his *Miranda*rights and also explained his right under RSA 265:92 to withhold his consent to a blood alcohol test. The defendant failed to respond. He claims that although he failed to acknowledge the reading of his rights and the instructions regarding the implied consent law, he was, nonetheless, sufficiently coherent to withhold his consent. The evidence, however, supports the State’s position and, on the whole, is more consistent with the testimony of the arresting officer:

> “At that point he appeared either to be unconscious or semi-conscious .... He wasn’t responding to anything I said. I assumed that he either couldn’t hear me or understand me or whatever. At this point his eyes were not open either, and I asked the hospital to have a lab technician come down and take the blood.”

Although this and other evidence before the court conflicted in some respects with the testimony of both the defendant and a hospital laboratory technician, the evidence, taken as a whole, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, warranted the trial court’s ruling as it did.

*Appeal dismissed; remanded.*

All concurred.