alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Karl Wagenhoffer, Plaintiff, *v.*Hans A. Bier et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Suffolk County,

September 13, 1973.

*Cruser ■& Hills*for plaintiff. *Geoffrey A. Smith*for defendants.

Leon D. Lazbb, J.

Plaintiff in this action is the owner of three subdivision lots which he purchased from certain developers in 1971. In 1954, the same developers had encumbered their 15-lot map with certain covenants and restrictions. Those covenants limited the property to residential uses. Over the years 12 of the lots, so encumbered, were sold to the defendants. In 1968, the developers released the-last three lots from the covenants and they were sold to the plaintiff who seeks to construct a motel on them.

The complaint seeks judgment declaring -that the covenants no longer affect plaintiff’s land. The defendants are the owners of the other lots which remain restricted to residential use. Although no copy of their answer has been submitted to the court, it is assumed that if- plaintiff, fails, the court will nevertheless make a declaration as to the rights of the parties *(Lanza*v. *Wagner,*11 N Y 2d 317; *Baker*v. *Cole-Layer-Trumble Co.,*42 A D 2d 581).

*429The defendants now seek permission to file a jury demand.

An issue that would be submitted to a jury if the action were for coercive relief should similarly be submitted to the jury in an action for declaratory relief *(Simler*v. *Conner,*372 U. S. 221; *Beacon Theatres*v. *Westover,*359 U. S. 500 [construing U. S. Code, tit. 28, § 2201]; *Town Bd. of Town of Greece*v. *Murray,*130 Misc. 55; 4 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N. Y. Civ. Prac., par. 4101.39; 13 ALR 2d 778). In this case, the coercive relief in question would be a judgment directing compliance with the covenants. Indeed, absent declaratory judgment, defendants would lack any other remedy except to enforce the

restrictive covenants (cf. *Lawrence*v. *Brockelman,*4 Misc 2d 194; *Lugg*v. *Stirnweis,*43 N. Y. S. 2d 475). Since actions to enforce such covenants are equitable in nature *(Evangelical Lutheran Church of Ascension*v. *Sahlem,*254 N. Y. 161; *Forstmann*v. *Joray Holding Co.,*244 N. Y. 22; *Rubel Bros.*v. *Dumont Coal & Ice Co.,*200 App. Div. 135, app. den. 233 N. Y. 618) and there is no right to a jury trial in equity actions *(Phoenix Mut. Life Ins. Co.*v. *Conway,*11 N Y 2d 367; *McKenna*v. *Meehan,*248 N. Y. 206) except as provided by statute, defendants may not obtain a jury trial here. Of course, the trial court may, at its discretion, avail itself of an advisory jury pursuant to OPLR 4212.

The motion is denied.
SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

ALEXANDER UCEDA, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

Respondent. 

No. 68525 

FILED 

MAR 1 7 2016 

Pt( 

ORDER OF REVERSAL AND REMAND 

This is a pro se appeal from an order of the district court 

denying appellant Alexander Uceda's postconviction petition for a writ of 

habeas corpus. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Douglas 

Smith, Judge. 

Uceda filed a timely petition on May 4, 2015. The district 

court denied the petition without appointing counsel. We conclude the 

district court abused its discretion by denying the petition without 

appointing counsel for the reasons discussed below. 

NRS 34.750 provides for the discretionary appointment of 

postconviction counsel and sets forth the following factors which the court 

may consider in making its determination to appoint counsel: the 

petitioner's indigency, the severity of the consequences to the petitioner, 

the difficulty of the issues presented, whether the petitioner is unable to 

comprehend the proceedings, and whether counsel is necessary to proceed 

with discovery. The determination of whether counsel should be 

appointed is not necessarily dependent upon whether a petitioner raises 

issues in a petition which, if true, would entitle the petitioner to relief. 

Uceda's conviction arose out of a jury trial, and his petition 

raised claims of ineffective assistance of counsel that may require 

TRACE K. LINDEMAN 

CLERtS4pF SUPREME COURT 

10) I 947A e 

ig '08472 
SaitTh 

, J. 

Pickering 

Hardesty 

J. 

development outside the record. Uceda is serving a significant sentence. 

In addition, Uceda alleged he was in forma pauperis and moved for the 

appointment of postconviction counsel.' The failure to appoint 

postconviction counsel prevented meaningful litigation of the petition. 

Thus, we reverse the district court's denial of Uceda's petition and remand 

this matter for the appointment of counsel to assist Uceda in the 

postconviction proceedings. Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court REVERSED AND 

REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with 

this order. 

cc: Hon. Douglas Smith, District Judge 

Alexander Uceda 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

'At a hearing on the petition, Uceda's appellate counsel was allowed 

to withdraw, and Uceda's application to proceed in forma pauperis was 

granted. From the record, it appears the district court continued the 

matter for the appointment of counsel regarding the issue of ineffective 

assistance of counsel only, but at the subsequent hearing the district court 

advised that counsel was not needed to correct the judgment of conviction. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A artA.,
HSBC BANK USA, N.A., as Trustee, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. UNITED STATES, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3074

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 8, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Pursuant to the notice of voluntary dismissal filed herein, this appeal is dismissed.
495 A.2d 836

#### David L. JOHNSON, Trustee v. BORG-WARNER ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION.

No. 73,

Sept. Term, 1985.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

July 17, 1985.

Submitted to MURPHY, C.J, and SMITH, ELDRIDGE, COLE, RODOWSKY and COUCH, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

ORDER

The Court having considered and granted the petition for writ of certiorari, in the above entitled case, it is this 17th day of July, 1985

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals be, and it is hereby, vacated and the case remanded to that Court for reconsideration, mandate to issue forthwith with costs to be paid by the appellee.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Charles Minson, Appellant.

[770 NYS2d 632]

*541Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Spires, J.), rendered February 16, 2000, convicting him of murder in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court properly denied the defendant’s request for a missing witness charge, since the record demonstrates that the witness in question was not knowledgeable about any material issue *(see People v Welch,*307 AD2d 776, 777-778 [2003], *lv denied*100 NY2d 625 [2003]).

The “Unusual Occurrence Report” and the “Homicide Analysis Report” did not constitute *Brady*material *(see Brady v Maryland,*373 US 83 [1963]) since the information contained in the reports was not exculpatory. In any event, assuming that the reports constituted *Brady*material, the defendant was provided with them at a time when he had a meaningful opportunity to use them *(see People v Cortijo,*70 NY2d 868, 870 [1987]; *People v Barnes,*200 AD2d 751, 752 [1994]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions either are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Altman, J.P., Goldstein, Crane and Mastro, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of NaviSite, Inc. (the
"Company") for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned,
Arthur P. Becker, 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 my
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: October 26, 2006                 By: /s/ Arthur P. Becker
                                           ------------------------------------
                                           Arthur P. Becker
                                           Chief Executive Officer and President
EX-10.22





 EXHIBIT 10.22 

AMENDMENT #2 TO THE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 

This AMENDMENT #2 (“AMENDMENT #2”) to the RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (the “AGREEMENT”) is entered
into as of January 17, 2017 by and among THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS M.D. ANDERSON CANCER CENTER (“UTMDACC”), INTREXON CORPORATION (“INTREXON”) and ZIOPHARM ONCOLOGY, INC. (“ZIOPHARM”). Capitalized terms used herein
and not defined shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the AGREEMENT. 
 Whereas, INTREXON, ZIOPHARM, and UTMDACC have a
mutual interest in amending the Agreement as follows with respect to payment for the funding of RESEARCH PROGRAMS. 
 Now,
therefore, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants herein contained, the parties agree as follows. 

1.    From and after the effective date of this AMENDMENT #2, ZIOPHARM may set off against
the advance quarterly payments to MDACC required under Section 5.2(B) of the AGREEMENT those expenditures incurred and actually paid by ZIOPHARM during the prior three-month period for third party costs in support of the RESEARCH PROGRAMS that
were approved in advance by the JSC. In the event the total expenditures incurred and actually paid by ZIOPHARM exceed the amount approved by the JSC by greater than ten percent (10%), such overages may not be set off until further review and
approval by the JSC is completed. ZIOPHARM shall provide MDACC with all documentation substantiating all such expenditures as reasonably requested by MDACC. 

All other terms and conditions of the AGREEMENT remain in full force and effect. 












 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this AMENDMENT #2 to the
AGREEMENT by duly authorized representatives. 
  

									
	THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS M.D. ANDERSON CANCER CENTER

  

									
	 By:
	 	     /s/ Wesley Harrott
	  	       Date:
	  	
    1/19/2017            

	  	                                 
                   
	 Name:
	 	 Wesley Harrott
	  		  		  	
	 Title:
	 	 Associate VP, Research and Administration
	  	

  

									
	INTREXON CORPORATION	  	

  

									
	 By:
	 	     /s/ Jeffrey Perez
	  	       Date:
	  	
    1/18/2017            
	  	
	 Name:
	 	 Jeffrey Perez
	  		  		  	
	 Title:
	 	 Senior Vice President
	  		  		  	

  

									
	ZIOPHARM ONCOLOGY, INC.	  	

  

									
	 By:
	 	     /s/ Caesar Belbel
	  	       Date:
	  	
    1/18/2017            
	  	
	 Name:
	 	 Caesar Belbel
	  		  		  	
	 Title:
	 	 EVP, COO, Chief Legal Officer
EX-10.22





 Exhibit 10.22 

FIRST AMENDMENT 
 TO THE

 FIFTH THIRD BANCORP 

2008 INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN 

(As approved by the shareholders April 15, 2008) 

Pursuant to the reserved power of amendment contained in Article 16 of the Fifth Third Bancorp 2008 Incentive Compensation Plan (the
“Plan”), the Plan is hereby amended effective December 17, 2018 by changing Section 2.1(g) of the Plan to read as follows: 

(g)    “Change in Control” shall be deemed to have occurred if the conditions set forth in any
one of the following paragraphs shall have been satisfied: 
 (i)    any Person (other than a trustee or
other fiduciary holding securities under an employee benefit plan of the Company or any of its Subsidiaries, or a corporation owned directly or indirectly by the common shareholders of the Company in substantially the same proportions as their
ownership of Stock of the Company), as a result of acquiring, or during any 12-month period having acquired, voting securities of the Company, is or becomes the Beneficial Owner, directly or indirectly, of
securities of the Company representing 30% or more of the combined voting power of the Company’s then outstanding securities; or 

(ii)    during any 12-month period (not including any period prior
to the Effective Date), individuals who at the beginning of such period constitute the Board and any new Director, whose election by the Board or nomination for election by the Company’s shareholders, was approved by a vote of at least two-thirds (2/3) of the Directors then still in office who either were Directors at the beginning of the period or whose election or nomination for election was previously so approved, cease for any reason to
constitute a majority thereof; or 
 (iii)    the consummation of (1) the sale or disposition of all
or substantially all the Company’s assets; or (2) a merger or consolidation of the Company with any other corporation, other than a merger or consolidation which would result in the voting securities of the Company outstanding immediately
prior thereto continuing to represent (either by remaining outstanding or by being converted into voting securities of the surviving entity), at least 60% of the combined voting power of the voting securities of the Company (or such surviving
entity) outstanding immediately after such merger or consolidation; or 
 (iv)    the shareholders of the
Company approve a plan of complete liquidation of the Company. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Fifth Third Bancorp has caused this Amendment to be
executed by its duly authorized representative the 17th day of December, 2018. 
  

			
	 FIFTH THIRD BANCORP

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Robert P. Shaffer

		 	Robert P. Shaffer, Chief Human Resources Officer, EVP
Jeffery L. WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D18-1655

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 27, 2018

Jeffery L. Williams, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied on the merits.

Bilbrey, Winokur, and Jay, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit
3.1**





**CERTIFICATE
OF AMENDMENT**


**OF**


**ARTICLES
OF INCORPORATION**


**OF**


**CAPITAL
CORP OF THE WEST**





Tom Van
Groningen and Denise Butler hereby certify that:





1.  They are
the duly elected and acting Chairman of the Board and Corporate Secretary, of
CAPITAL CORP OF THE WEST, a California corporation (the “Company”).





2.  Article
IV of the Articles of Incorporation of the Company, as amended, is further
amended to read as follows:








The
      corporation is authorized to issue two classes of shares, designated
      respectively “Common Stock” and “Preferred Stock.” The number of shares of
      Common Stock which the corporation is authorized to issue is 54,000,000
      and the number of shares of Preferred Stock which the corporation is
      authorized to issue is 10,000,000. Upon amendment of this Article to read
      as herein set forth, each outstanding share of Common Stock is split up
      and converted into 1.8 shares of Common Stock.





3.  The
foregoing amendment of the Articles of Incorporation has been duly approved by
the Board of Directors without shareholder approval.





4.  The
foregoing amendment of the Articles of Incorporation effects a stock split of
Common Stock and an increase in the authorized number of shares of Common Stock
in proportion to the stock split. No shares of Preferred Stock are outstanding.
Accordingly, under §902(c) of the California Corporations Code, no approval of
the shareholders is required.





5.  The
foregoing amendment shall become effective at 5:00 p.m., Pacific Time, on April
8, 2005.





We
further declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
California that the matters set forth in this certificate are true and correct
of our own knowledge.




Dated:
      March 29, 2005/s/Tom
      Van GroningenTom
      Van GroningenChairman
      of the Board of Directors/s/Denise
      ButlerDenise
      ButlerCorporate
      Secretary
EXTENSION OF MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT

     This  Extension  of  Management  Agreement  dated  May 5,  1998 is  between
Hallwood Petroleum, Inc. ("HPI") and Hallwood Consolidated Resources Corporation
("HCRC").

     Whereas,  HPI and HCRC are parties to a Management  Agreement dated May 18,
1992, and

     Whereas,  the  Management  Agreement  provided  that it may be extended for
successive one year terms by written agreement of the parties, and

     Whereas,  the parties desire to extend the Management  Agreement  until May
18, 1999,

     Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual agreements contained herein,
the parties agree that the term of the  Management  Agreement is extended to May
18, 1999.


                                 HALLWOOD PETROLEUM, INC.


                                 By:   /s/Russell P. Meduna
                                          Russell P. Meduna
                                          Executive Vice President


                                 HALLWOOD CONSOLIDATED RESOURCES CORPORATION


                                 By:   /s/William L. Guzzetti
                                          William L. Guzzetti
                                          President
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Project No. 2077-119]

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission or FERC) regulations, 18 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 380, Commission staff reviewed Great River Hydro, LLC's application for an amendment to the license of the Fifteen Mile Falls Hydroelectric Project No. 2077 and have prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed amendment. The licensee proposes to construct and operate an additional 4.7-megawatt unit (Moore Unit 5) at the project's Moore Development. The Fifteen Mile Falls project consists of three developments located on the Connecticut River, in Grafton and Coos counties, New Hampshire, and Caledonia and Essex counties, Vermont.

The EA contains Commission staff's analysis of the potential environmental effects of the proposed amendment to the license, and concludes that the proposed amendment, with appropriate environmental protective measures, would not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.

                    A copy of the EA may be viewed on the Commission's website at                     *http://www.ferc.gov*                     using the “elibrary” link. Enter the docket number (P-2077) in the docket number field to access the document. At this time, the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at                     *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov*                     or toll-free at 1-866-208-3372, or for TTY, (202) 502-8659.                

                    For further information, contact Marybeth Gay at 202-502-6125 or                     *Marybeth.Gay@ferc.gov.*

Dated: January 28, 2022.

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2022-02217 Filed 2-2-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
EX PARTE Natasha O'BRIEN

(In re: George Anthony Penny v. Natasha D. O'Brien)

2160707

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

June 16, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Enrique GOMEZ-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-40004 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 24, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Enrique Gomez-Rodriguez, Pro Se

Before KING, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed. to represent Enrique Gomez-Rodriguez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Gomez-Rodriguez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivo-lous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
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
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); 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: March 31, 2011
    /s/ Robert I. ChenRobert I. Chen President,Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board 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 required by Section 906, 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.