alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 09-8857.

#### Jerome Julius Brown, Sr., Petitioner v. Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, et al.

559 U.S. 1040, 130 S. Ct. 2069,

176 L. Ed. 2d 421,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2819.

March 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.

Same case below, 352 Fed. Appx. 446.
No. 09-9276.

#### Jorge Breton-Rodriguez, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1025, 130 S. Ct. 1932,

176 L. Ed. 2d 398,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2425.

March 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 357 Fed. Appx. 810.
408 P.2d 41

#### Charles W. NYE, Petitioner, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION of Arizona and Tietjen Tillage, Respondents.

Nos. 1 CA-IC 30, 1 CA-IC 31.

Court of Appeals of Arizona.

Nov. 29, 1965.

*280Herbert B. Finn and Stephen T. Meadow, by Herbert B. Finn, Phoenix, for petitioner.

Edgar M. Delaney, Phoenix, for respondents.

CAMERON, Judge.

On 26 October, 1965, we filed our opinion setting aside the two awards of the Industrial Commission of Arizona, 2 Ariz. App.,- 406 P.2d 884 (1965).

In said opinion, we made the following statement:

> “When the award has been set aside, there is no way a new award may be made without a rehearing.”

Respondent Industrial Commission of Arizona, in its Petition For Rehearing, objected to this statement, and after consideration, we hold the opinion that the objection was well taken.

We can envision that in certain cases after an opinion of this Court or the Arizona Supreme Court, the Commission could follow the Court’s opinion, and no additional testimony or evidence would be necessary. In such cases, the parties may acquiesce in an award or the Commission might properly issue an award without further hearing, provided always that a dissatisfied party may have a rehearing, at which time he must be afforded a trial de novo if so requested. Schnatzmeyer v. Industrial Commission, 78 Ariz. 112, 276 P.2d 534 (1954).

The statement complained of is amended to read:

> “When the award has been set aside, there is no way a new award may be made without *an opportunity given to a dissatisfied party for a rehearing.”*

In the instant case, no opportunity was given to the petitioner for a rehearing after the confession of error and remand by the Supreme Court of Arizona in case number 8094. For that reason, as we previously held, the award in 1 CA-IC 30, formerly Supreme Court number 8094, pursuant to order of the Supreme Court of Arizona, dated 7 January, 1964, is hereby set aside, and the award in 1 CA-IC 31, formerly 8031, is hereby set aside.

As so modified, the opinion is reaffirmed and the motion for rehearing is denied.

STEVENS, C. J, and DONOFRIO, J., concur.
# C_2017292EN.01000501.xml

| 2.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 292/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/5

---

Special Report No 11/2017

‘The Bêkou EU trust fund for the Central African Republic: a hopeful beginning despite some shortcomings’

(2017/C 292/07)

The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 11/2017 ‘The Bêkou EU trust fund for the Central African Republic: a hopeful beginning despite some shortcomings’ has just been published.

The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://eca.europa.eu

---
# C_2017401EN.01001901.xml

| 25.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 401/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 401/19

---

Special Report No 15/2017

‘Ex ante conditionalities and performance reserve in Cohesion: innovative but not yet effective instruments’

(2017/C 401/07)

The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 15/2017 ‘Ex ante conditionalities and performance reserve in Cohesion: innovative but not yet effective instruments’ has just been published.

The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors' website: http://eca.europa.eu

---
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5138 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5138

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to restrict the use of tax 
              return information by preparers of returns.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 6, 2006

 Mr. Hayworth introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to restrict the use of tax 
              return information by preparers of returns.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Taxpayer Information Protection and 
Privacy Act''.

SEC. 2. RESTRICTION ON USE OF TAX RETURN INFORMATION BY PREPARERS OF 
              RETURNS.

    (a) In General.--Section 7216 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
(relating to disclosure or use of information by preparers of returns) 
is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(c) Restriction on Solicitations of Consent.--
            ``(1) In general.--A person described in subsection (a) may 
        not solicit the taxpayer to consent to the disclosure or use of 
        information described in such subsection for any purpose, 
        including the use of such information by such person to solicit 
        the taxpayer for additional tax-related services.
            ``(2) Regulatory exception not to apply.--Subsection (b)(3) 
        shall not apply with respect to any disclosure or use described 
        in paragraph (1).
    ``(d) Consent Required for Tax Preparation Work Performed Outside 
United States.--
            ``(1) In general.--The disclosure or use of information 
        described in subsection (a) in the ordinary course of business 
        by a person engaged in a business described in such subsection 
        to any individual or person physically located outside of the 
        United States shall be treated as a violation of subsection (a) 
        unless the taxpayer consents to such disclosure or use.
            ``(2) United states.--For purposes of this subsection, the 
        term `United States' includes any territory or possession of 
        the United States.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to disclosures and uses after the date of the enactment of this 
Act.
                                 <all>
```
No. 09-10020.

#### Bryan Mills, Petitioner v. United States.

560 U.S. 914, 130 S. Ct. 3298,

176 L. Ed. 2d 1201,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3984.

May 17, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 364 Fed. Appx. 217.
<PAGE>   1
                           [MBf USA, Inc. Letterhead]

                                                                        EX-10.45


                       AMENDMENTS TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


        AGREEMENT made as of the 1st day of June, 1995 between MBf USA, a
Delaware corporation, having an office at 500 Park Boulevard, Itasca, IL 60143
(the "Corporation") and EDWARD J. MARTEKA residing at 1550 North Lake Shore
Drive, Apt. 12F, Chicago, IL 60610 (the "Executive").

                                  WITNESSETH:


              WHEREAS, the Corporation and the Executive entered into an
Employment Agreement dated April 1, 1994 pursuant to which the Executive was
employed as the President, American Health Products Corporation, a wholly-owned
subsidiary of MBf USA ("Prior Employment Agreement"); and


        WHEREAS, the Corporation now desires to employ the Executive as its
President and the Executive desires to be employed by the Corporation in that
capacity; whilst also retaining the position as President, American Health
Products Corporation; and

        WHEREAS, the Prior Employment Agreement remains in effect except the
following paragraphs which replace same numbered paragraphs found in Prior
Employment Agreement.

        NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and the
mutual promises and covenants contained herein, the parties agree to the
following paragraphs to be substituted and therefore is amended as herein
provided.

2.      COMPENSATION.

        Base Salary. The Corporation shall pay executive for all of his duties
and services a base salary at the annual rate of ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND
DOLLARS ($150,000), effective as of June 1, 1995, which shall be payable in
equal monthly installments or other installments in accordance with the general
practice of the Corporation (the "Base Salary").

12.     Term: Termination.

        (a) the term of this Agreement shall commence on the date hereof and
shall continue in full force and effect for a period of twelve (12) months, and
until terminated as provided herein, and shall thereafter be automatically
renewed from year to year (each a "renewal term") unless and until terminated in
accordance with section 12(b) below.
<PAGE>   2
                           [MBf USA, INC. LETTERHEAD]


Continuation





21.     Governing Law. 

        This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and
shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of
Illinois applicable to agreements made and to be performed solely within such
State.

        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as
of the day and year first above written.


MBf USA, INC.



By: /s/ LOI HEN SEWN                                    
   ----------------------                  ----------------------------
   LOI HEN SEWN                            EDWARD J. MARTEKA
   CHAIRMAN                                EXECUTIVE
TOWN OF APEX v. Beverly L. RUBIN

No. 410P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 27, 2019

David P. Ferrell, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Town of Apex.

Matthew Nis Leerberg, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Kenneth Haywood, Troy D. Shelton, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Rubin, Beverly L.

***ORDER***

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 20th of November 2018 by Plaintiff for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Dissolved by order of the Court in conference, this the 27th of March 2019."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiff on the 20th of November 2018 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 27th of March 2019."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 20th of November 2018 by Plaintiff in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 27th of March 2019."
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 (adopted pursuantto §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, the undersigned President andChief Executive Officer of Dakota Growers Pasta Company, Inc. (the “Company”),hereby certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company forthe quarterly period ended October 31, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operation of the Company.

 

Date: December 15, 2009

 
|   | /s/ Timothy J. Dodd                      |
|--------|------------------------------------------|
|   |                                     |
|   | Timothy J. Dodd                          |
|   | *President and Chief Executive  Officer* |

 

1

----
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5183 

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to exclude benefits of adopted 

disabled adult children from determinations of the family maximum. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 25, 2006 

Mr. KUHL of New York introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to exclude 

benefits of adopted disabled adult children from determinations of the family maximum. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Social Security for 

5 Adopted Disabled Adult Children Act of 2006’’. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5183 IH 

1 SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF BENEFITS OF ADOPTED DISABLED 

2 ADULT CHILDREN IN DETERMINATIONS OF 

3 THE FAMILY MAXIMUM. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 203(a)(3) of the Social 

5 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 403(a)(3)) is amended by adding 

6 at the end the following new subparagraph: 

7 ‘‘(E) When any of such individuals who is an adopted 

8 child of the insured individual is entitled for any month 

9 to monthly benefits as a child described in section 

10 202(d)(1)(G), the benefit to which such child is entitled 

11 on the basis of the wages and self-employment income of 

12 such insured individual for such month shall be deter13 mined without regard to this subsection, and the benefits 

14 of all other individuals who are entitled for such month 

15 to monthly benefits under section 202 based on the wages 

16 and self-employment income of such insured individual 

17 shall be determined as if no such child were entitled to 

18 such benefits for such month.’’. 

19 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

20 this section shall apply with respect to benefits for months 

21 ending after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
No. 09-9399.

#### Alfred T. Fraser, Petitioner v. High Liner Foods (USA), Inc., et al.

559 U.S. 1110, 130 S. Ct. 2411,

176 L. Ed. 2d 929,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3809.

May 3, 2010.

Petition for writ of certio-rari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.

Same case below, 337 Fed. Appx. 883.
No. 09-1016.

#### Antonio C. Simonelli, Petitioner v. University of California at Berkeley, et al.

559 U.S. 1102, 130 S. Ct. 2378,

176 L. Ed. 2d 785,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3608,

April 26, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Justice Breyer took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Same case below, 338 Fed. Appx. 673.
H. R. 5103

One Hundred Ninth Congress

of the

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and six 

An Act 

To provide for the conveyance of the former Konnarock Lutheran Girls School 

in Smyth County, Virginia, which is currently owned by the United States and 

administered by the Forest Service, to facilitate the restoration and reuse of 

the property, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. LAND CONVEYANCE, FORMER KONNAROCK LUTHERAN 

GIRLS SCHOOL, JEFFERSON NATIONAL FOREST, SMYTH 

COUNTY, VIRGINIA. 

(a) CONVEYANCE REQUIRED.—The Secretary of Agriculture shall 

convey, without consideration, to the Evangelical Lutheran Coalition for Mission in Appalachia (in this section referred to as the 

‘‘recipient’’) all right, title, and interest of the United States in 

and to a parcel of real property in the Mount Rogers National 

Recreation Area, Smyth County, Virginia, located in the vicinity 

of the junction of Virginia Routes 600 and 603, consisting of not 

more than six acres, and containing the former Konnarock Lutheran 

Girls School and its outbuildings, as depicted on the map entitled 

‘‘Proposed Area for New Legislation or Sale–Konnarock School–

Being a Portion of USA Tract J–935’’. 

(b) CONDITION OF CONVEYANCE.—The conveyance under subsection (a) shall be subject to the condition that the recipient 

accept the real property described in such subsection in its condition 

at the time of the conveyance, commonly known as conveyance 

‘‘as is’’. 

(c) DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY.—Subject to the acreage limitation specified in subsection (a), the exact acreage and legal description of the real property to be conveyed under such subsection 

shall be determined by a survey satisfactory to the Secretary. The 

cost of the survey shall be borne by the recipient. 

(d) ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—The Secretary may 

require such additional terms and conditions in connection with 
H. R. 5103—2

the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Secretary considers 

appropriate to protect the interests of the United States.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
STATE of North Carolina v. Stoney Holland HIGHT

No. COA18-555

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: March 19, 2019

Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General A. Mercedes Restucha-Klem, for the State.

Julie C. Boyer, for defendant-appellant.

TYSON, Judge.

Stoney Holland Hight ("Defendant") appeals from a judgment entered upon the revocation of his probation. We affirm.

*I. Background*

On 2 October 2017, Defendant pled guilty pursuant to a plea arrangement to one count of possession of heroin, one count of possession of drug paraphernalia, and one count of driving while license revoked - impaired revocation. In accordance with the plea arrangement, the trial court consolidated the offenses for judgment and sentenced Defendant in the presumptive range to 8 to 19 months of imprisonment. That sentence was suspended and Defendant was placed on supervised probation for 36 months.

On 29 November 2017, Defendant's probation officer filed a violation report alleging that Defendant had violated multiple terms of his probation, including that he had absconded from probation supervision. The trial court held a probation violation hearing on 24 January 2018.

Defendant waived his right to be represented by counsel and admitted his violations. The trial court found Defendant to be in willful violation of the terms of his probation, revoked the probation, and activated Defendant's suspended sentence. Defendant filed timely notice of appeal.

*II. Jurisdiction*

This Court possesses jurisdiction pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 7A-27(b) and 15A-1444(a) (2017).

*III. Issue*

Counsel appointed to represent Defendant on appeal "is unable to identify an issue with sufficient merit to support a meaningful argument for relief on appeal" and asks that this Court conduct its own review of the record for possible prejudicial error.

*IV. Analysis*

Counsel has shown to the satisfaction of this Court that she has complied with the requirements of *Anders v. California* , 386 U.S. 738, 18 L.Ed. 2d 493 (1967), and *State v. Kinch* , 314 N.C. 99, 331 S.E.2d 665 (1985), by advising Defendant of his right to file written arguments with this Court and providing him with the documents necessary for him to do so. Defendant has not filed any written arguments and a reasonable time to do so has passed.

*V. Conclusion*

In accordance with *Anders* , we have examined the record to determine whether any issues of arguable merit appear therefrom. *See id.* We have been unable to find any possible prejudicial error to Defendant and conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. The judgment appealed from is affirmed. *It is so ordered.*

AFFIRMED.

Report per Rule 30(e).

Judges BRYANT and ARROWOOD concur.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14(a) AND15d-****14(a) , AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, David P. Vieau, certifythat:

 

1. I have reviewed this QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q of A123 Systems, Inc.;

 

2. Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3. Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4. The registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)), for the registrant and have:

 

(a) Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b) Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

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

 

5. The registrant’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

(b) Any fraud, whetheror not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| Date: November 10,  2009 |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|
|                          |   |
| /s/ David P. Vieau            |   |
| David P. Vieau                |   |
| Chief Executive Officer       |   |

 

----