alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Darrell L. ARLINE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-5082

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 16, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Granted.
HH PROPERTY NETWORK, LLC, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. CG MOBILE, SAS, etc., et al., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1545

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

DECEMBER 14, 2017

ORDERED that appellant's notice of voluntary dismissal of appeal is recognized by the Court, and this appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Florida is hereby dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6062 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6062

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              July 9, 2024

   Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To restore the ability of the people of American Samoa to approve 
amendments to the territorial constitution based on majority rule in a 
democratic act of self-determination, as authorized pursuant to an Act 
of Congress delegating administration of Federal territorial law in the 
territory to the President, and to the Secretary of the Interior under 
      Executive Order 10264, dated June 29, 1951, under which the 
Constitution of American Samoa was approved and may be amended without 
requirement for further congressional action, subject to the authority 
  of Congress under the Territorial Clause in article IV, section 3, 
              clause 2 of the United States Constitution.

 

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

SECTION 1. REMOVAL OF RESTRICTION ON AMENDMENTS TO OR MODIFICATIONS OF 
              THE CONSTITUTION OF AMERICAN SAMOA.

    Section 12 of Public Law 98-213 (48 U.S.C. 1662a) is repealed.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 8, 2024.

            Attest:

                                             KEVIN F. MCCUMBER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
wtw-ex41_363.htm



 

Exhibit 4.1



WeightWatchers WTW 4001 Weight Watchers International, Inc. Common Stock No Par Value Incorporated under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia Common Stock This certificate transferable in Canton, MA or Jersey City, NJ CUSIP 948626 10 6 This certifies that SPECIMEN Is the owner of Fully paid and non-assessable shares of the common stock, No Par value of Weight Watchers International, Inc Transferable on the books of the Corporation by the holder [illegible] upon surrender of the certificate properly endorsed. This certificate [illegible] shall be subject to the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia [illegible] provisions of the Articles of Incorporation and the bylaws [illegible] [illegible]This certificate is not valid unless [illegible] and registered by the Tranfer Agent and Registrant. WITNESS the [illegible] seal of the corporation and the [illegible] signatures of its duly authorized officers. Dated Executive Vice President and secretary [illegible] Executive Officer

 

 

 



 



WEIGHT WATCHERS INTERNATIONAL, INC. A full statement of the designations, relative rights, preferences and limitations applicable to each class of shares and the variations on rights, preferences and limitations determined for each class (and the authority of the board of directors to determine variations of future classes of shares that the corporation is authorize to issue will be furnished, without charge, to any shareholder upon written request to the secretary of the corporation. The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the five of this certificate, shall be [illegible] as though they were written put in full according to applicable laws or regulations. TEN COM – as tenants in common UNIF GIFT MIN ACT Custodian TENENT – as tenants by the entireties JT TEN – as joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenants in common under Uniform Transfer to Minors Act Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above [illegible] FOR VALUE RECEIVED HEREBY SELL ASSIGN AND TRANSFER INTO PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE Shares of the capital stock represented by the within Certificate, and do herby irrevocable constitute and appoint Attorney to transfer the said shares on the books of the within-named Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises. Dated x [illegible]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-7249

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

MARK ALLEN ROLLYSON, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, 

Chief District Judge. (3:07-cr-00098-JPB-JES-1; 3:08-cv-00143-

JPB-JES) 

Submitted: October 29, 2009 Decided: November 10, 2009 

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Mark Allen Rollyson, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Oliver Mucklow, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

Mark Allen Rollyson seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2009) motion. The district court referred this case to a 

magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2006). 

The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and 

advised Rollyson that the failure to file timely objections to 

this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district 

court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this 

warning, Rollyson failed to specifically object to the 

magistrate judge’s recommendation. 

The timely filing of specific objections to a 

magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve 

appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when 

the parties have been warned of the consequences of 

noncompliance. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th 

Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). 

Rollyson has waived appellate review by failing to timely file 

specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 

We also deny Rollyson’s motion to appoint counsel. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

2 
3 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

DISMISSED
<PAGE>
                                                                           10.03
                                  September 25, 1997


Dave Maenke

Hand-delivered


Dear Dave,

In the event your employment is terminated without cause, Racotek will provide
you with six (6) months advance notice of your termination, or otherwise provide
you with compensation equivalent to six (6) months of pay at your
then-prevailing salary.  Please sign below to indicate your receipt and
acknowledgement of this letter.

Very truly yours,


Mike Fabiaschi

Mike Fabiaschi
President & C.E.O.


ACCEPTED THIS 29th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1997:

                                                 Dave Maenke
                                                 ---------------
                                                 Dave Maenke




                                          16
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 27 (Wednesday, February 9, 2022)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 7677]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02934]



[[Page 7675]]

Vol. 87

Wednesday,

No. 27

February 9, 2022

Part IV





The President





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



Notice of February 7, 2022--Continuation of the National Emergency With 
Respect to the Situation in and in Relation to Burma


                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 87 , No. 27 / Wednesday, February 9, 2022 / 
Presidential Documents

___________________________________________________________________

Title 3--
The President

[[Page 7677]]

                Notice of February 7, 2022

                
Continuation of the National Emergency With 
                Respect to the Situation in and in Relation to Burma

                On February 10, 2021, by Executive Order 14014, I 
                declared a national emergency pursuant to the 
                International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 
                1701-1706) to deal with the unusual and extraordinary 
                threat to the national security and foreign policy of 
                the United States constituted by the situation in and 
                in relation to Burma.

                The situation in and in relation to Burma, and in 
                particular the February 1, 2021 coup, in which the 
                military overthrew the democratically elected civilian 
                government of Burma and unjustly arrested and detained 
                government leaders, politicians, human rights 
                defenders, journalists, and religious leaders, thereby 
                rejecting the will of the people of Burma as expressed 
                in elections held in November 2020 and undermining the 
                country's democratic transition and rule of law, 
                continues to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat 
                to the national security and foreign policy of the 
                United States. For this reason, the national emergency 
                declared on February 10, 2021, must continue in effect 
                beyond February 10, 2022. Therefore, in accordance with 
                section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 
                U.S.C. 1622(d)) I am continuing for 1 year the national 
                emergency declared in Executive Order 14014 with 
                respect to the situation in and in relation to Burma.

                This notice shall be published in the Federal Register 
                and transmitted to the Congress.
                <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                
                    (Presidential Sig.)

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    February 7, 2022.

[FR Doc. 2022-02934
Filed 2-8-22; 11:15 am]
Billing code 3395-F2-P
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-23-00251-CR

__________________

IN RE DEVIN T. MCGHEE

__________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding

252nd District Court of Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. F21-38631

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus, Relator, Devin T. McGhee, asks 

this Court to compel the trial court to hold an examining trial. See Tex. Code Crim. 

Proc. Ann. art. 16.01 (“The accused in any felony case shall have the right to an 

examining trial before indictment in the county having jurisdiction of the 

offense[.]”). We deny mandamus relief.1

1 Relator failed to certify that he served a copy of the mandamus petition on 

the Respondent and the Real Party in Interest. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.5. We use Rule 

2, however, to look beyond these deficiencies to reach an expeditious result. See 

Tex. R. App. P. 2.
2

“[T]he return of an indictment terminates any right to an examining trial.” See 

State ex rel. Holmes v. Salinas, 784 S.W.2d 421, 427 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (orig. 

proceeding). McGhee states that he was indicted on October 20, 2021. Thus, the trial 

court does not have a ministerial duty to conduct an examining trial.

Relator failed to establish a right to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny 

the petition for a writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a). 

PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on August 22, 2023

Opinion Delivered August 23, 2023

Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ.
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 Immtech Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2007, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Gary C. Parks,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:
  1)
              the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 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/ Gary C.
Parks
 Gary C.
Parks
 Treasurer,
Secretary and Chief Financial Officer
 (Principal
Financial and Accounting Officer)
 February
11, 2008
Deborah A. ZOMERMAAND, Petitioner, v. CITY OF TAMPA, and State Street Homes III, LLC, Respondents.

Case No. 2D17-4309

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 28, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Anquan R. EVERETT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-734

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed January 23, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

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

AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Thomas E. Mara, as Chief Executive Officer of The FINOVA Group Inc. (the Company) certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1) the accompanying Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (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.

Date:
August 1, 2006



By:

/s/ Thomas E. MaraThomas E. Mara Chief Executive Officer
EX PARTE Montavius TROUPE

CR-16-0425

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

February 27, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Transferred to Madison Cir. Ct.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lester Watts, Appellant. The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Allen, Appellant.

[770 NYS2d 716]

Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Beal, J.), rendered January 2, 2002, convicting defendant Lester Watts, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, and convicting defendant Michael Allen, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of *41⁄2*to 9 years and 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant Watts’s suppression motion. As the People specifically argued at the hearing, the *426undercover and “ghost” officers’ radio transmissions, giving a detailed description of Watts and identifying him as a participant in a drug transaction, provided probable cause for Watts’s arrest *(see e.g. People v Darby,*287 AD2d 300 [2001], *lv denied*97 NY2d 753 [2002]; *see also People v Edwards,*304 AD2d 367 [2003]). The court’s impromptu oral remarks provide no basis for suppression, since the court made it clear that these remarks were not part of its suppression decision. Since Watts was lawfully arrested, the police properly told him to spit out what he was concealing in his mouth, which turned out to be bags of cocaine *(People v Matherine,*166 AD2d 322 [1990], *lv denied*76 NY2d 1022 [1990]).

The prosecutor became an unsworn witness by eliciting a conversation she had with the undercover officer about a mistake in his paperwork, and by stating in summation that she had decided not to have him correct the error *(see People v Paperno,*54 NY2d 294, 300-301 [1981]). However, there is no basis for reversal because defendants have not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of prejudice flowing from the prosecutor’s conduct *(id.*at 304; *see also People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

The other portions of the prosecutor’s summation challenged by defendants on appeal generally constituted fair comment on the evidence, and reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, made in response to defense arguments, and nothing in the summation deprived defendants of a fair trial *(see People v Overlee,*236 AD2d 133 [1997], *lv denied*91 NY2d 976 [1998]; *People v D’Alessandro,*184 AD2d 114, 118-119 [1992], *lv denied*81 NY2d 884 [1993]).

We reject Watts’s argument that the sale and possession counts were multiplicitous. These were noninclusory concurrent counts requiring proof of different facts *(see People v Saunders,*290 AD2d 461, 463 [2002], *lv denied*98 NY2d 681 [2002]).

Defendants’ remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Ellerin, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 28 (Thursday, February 10, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7882-7883]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02786]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-94159; File No. SR-EMERALD-2021-42]


Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX Emerald, LLC; Notice of 
Withdrawal of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the MIAX Emerald Fee 
Schedule To Adopt a Tiered-Pricing Structure for Certain Connectivity 
Fees

February 4, 2022.
    On December 1, 2021, MIAX Emerald, LLC (``MIAX Emerald'' or 
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange

[[Page 7883]]

Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the 
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend the Exchange's Fee 
Schedule to adopt a tiered pricing structure for certain connectivity 
fees. The proposed rule change was immediately effective upon filing 
with the Commission pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act.\3\ The 
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register 
on December 20, 2021.\4\ On January 27, 2022, the Commission 
temporarily suspended the proposed rule change and instituted 
proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \5\ to determine 
whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.\6\ On 
Febraury 1, 2022, the Exchange withdrew the proposed rule change (SR-
EMERALD-2021-42).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). A proposed rule change may take 
effect upon filing with the Commission if it is designated by the 
exchange as ``establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge 
imposed by the self-regulatory organization on any person, whether 
or not the person is a member of the self-regulatory organization.'' 
15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 93776 (December 14, 
2021), 86 FR 71983.
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94089, 87 FR 5910 
(February 2, 2022).
    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, 
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-02786 Filed 2-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
Alvin Newton GAY, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Vivian Gay, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. In re: ENGLE PROGENY CASES TOBACCO LITIGATION, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-2304

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 14, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Pursuant to the notice of voluntary dismissal filed herein, this appeal is dismissed.
owl-ex1014_89.htm



Exhibit 10.14

FIRST AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED 
LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AGREEMENT 

OF 

SEBAGO LAKE LLC 

This First Amendment (this “Amendment”) to the amended and restated limited liability company agreement (as currently in effect, the “Agreement”) of Sebago Lake LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Company”), by and between Owl Rock Capital Corporation and Regents of the University of California (collectively, the “Members”), is adopted as of February 27, 2019. 

W I T N E S S  E T H: 

WHEREAS, the Members desire to amend Section 4.02(b) of the Agreement; and 

WHEREAS, this Amendment has received Prior Approval (as defined in the Agreement) as required pursuant to the Agreement. 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements set forth below, and intending to be legally bound, the Members hereby agree as follows: 

1. Definitions. All capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the respective meanings given thereto in the Agreement. 

2. Amendments. 

a. Section 4.02(b) of the Agreement is hereby amended and restated as follows: 

Reserved. 

b. Section 5.01 (b) of the Agreement is hereby amended and restated as follows:

Except as otherwise provided in this Article V or Section 8.03, distributions shall be shared among the Members as set forth in this Section 5.01(b). The Members, with Prior Approval, may determine to make a distribution in addition to that required by Section 5.01(a) hereof from available cash or cash equivalents received from one or more Investments (whether from principal repayment or otherwise and after reduction as provided by Section 5.03 and Section 5.04). Any distribution shall be shared among the Members as distributions in respect of their interests in the Company in proportion to their respective Capital Account balances; provided, however, that to the extent any amounts are owed by a Defaulting Member to a non-Defaulting Member with respect to a Default Loan, any amounts that would otherwise be distributable to the Defaulting Member under this section shall instead be distributed to the non-Defaulting Member pursuant to the terms of Section 3.02(b)(iii) hereof.

3. Conditions Precedent. This Amendment shall become effective upon (i) the delivery to each of the Members of a written consent of the Members evidencing Prior Approval with respect to this Amendment and (ii) the execution of this Amendment by each of the Members. 

4. Miscellaneous. The Agreement shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with its terms, as amended by this Amendment. 

[REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.] 




 



 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Members have caused this Amendment to be executed and delivered as of the date first set forth above. 

 


	
 

	
 

	
Owl Rock Capital Corporation 

	
 

	
By:__________________________


	
Name: Alan Kirshenbaum

	
Title: Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer 

	
 

	
Regents of the University of California

	
 

	
By:   _________________                

	
 

Name: 

	
Title: