alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE v. Cedric Theodis HOBBS, Jr.

263PA18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 14, 2019

John Keating Wiles, Attorney at Law, Raleigh

Amy Kunstling Irene, Special Deputy Attorney General, For State of North Carolina

Sterling P. Rozear, Assistant Appellate Defender, For Hobbs, Cedric Theodis (Jr.)

Cedric Theodis Hobbs, Jr., For Hobbs, Cedric Theodis (Jr.)

Donald H. Beskind, Attorney at Law, Durham, For Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality

David Weiss, Attorney at Law, For Coalition of State and National Criminal Justice and Civil Rights Advocates

James E. Coleman, Jr., Attorney at Law, For Coalition of State and National Criminal Justice and Civil Rights Advocates

Elizabeth Hambourger, Attorney at Law, Durham, For Coalition of State and National Criminal Justice and Civil Rights Advocates

Robert S. Chang, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, For Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality

Taki V. Flevaris, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, For Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality

William R. West, District Attorney, For State of North Carolina

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 17th of July 2019 by Amicus (Korematsu Center) for Leave to Participate in Oral Argument:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of August 2019."
No. 09-9572.

#### Jackie Lyn Coulombe, Petitioner v. Superior Court of California, Ventura County, et al.

560 U.S. 909, 130 S. Ct. 3284,

176 L. Ed. 2d 1193,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3973.

May 17, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, denied.
IN the INTEREST OF: B.H. and L.D.;

Juvenile Officer, Respondent, v. E.D. (Mother), Appellant.

WD 80795 C/w : WD 80796

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

ORDER FILED: JANUARY 5, 2018 Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied January 30, 2018

Joseph W. Vanover, Platte City, MO, Counsel for Respondent.

Jack A Lewis, North Kansas City, MO, Counsel for Appellant.

Before Division Two: Anthony Rex Gabbert, Presiding Judge, Thomas H. Newton, Judge, Gary D. Witt, Judge

**ORDER**

Per Curiam:

E.D. appeals the circuit court's judgment terminating her parental rights to her biological children, B.H. and L.D. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).
EPA Meeting on UST Regs at National Tanks Conference
March 21 , 2012

EPA staff gave a brief explanation of the proposed changes to the UST regulations, explained how to comment on the proposal

, and answered questions from states, tank owners, manufacturers, and other interested stakeholders.

**Attendees:**

Linda Gerber, EPA Cho Yi Kwan, EPA Paul Hicks, MT Cleanup Fund David Lamb, MO DNR Dary l Gotilk, Berkley

Environmental Tristan Steichen, Antea G roup Julie Usburn, CA State Water Board
Tiffan y Wlazlowski, NATSO Chris Runners, Mansfield Oil Company Mark Aaron, EPA Region 7 David Freese, Titan Management Scot Thrash, Titan Management Kim DeCapri o , US Army Mark Parnell, Titan Management
Michele Alabi so, Warren Equities I nc. Jason Frigon, Warren Equities, Inc. Philip Nenninger, HI S Bob Dullinger, MPCA
Shaheer Muhann a, EPD GA Angela Pimental, Cumberland Gulf Group Of Co. Carol Ness, ND Dept health Eddie Ridenour, S. NV Health District Jennifer Washburn, Stewart’s Shops Corp Mike Blum, WA State Dept of Ecology Bjorn Brinkman, EPA R7 Lamar Bradley , TN Division of UST Mike Martin, MO Dept of Natural Resources Brent Puzak, The Pantry

I nc. Michael Shaw, ATC Associates, Inc. Dennis McChesney , EPA Region 2

Matt Kaufmann, Contra Costa Health Jamie Courville, Southern Tank T esters Mihir Mehta, SCDHEC Greg Johnson, CO OPS Mahesh Albuquerque , CO OPS Ron Thompson, The Wills GroupJulie Thompson, ERN

Vincent Pereira, Guam EPA Erik Sirs, EPA Region 10 Shuyler Schwartin g, City of Austin UST Program Scott Johnson, 7

- Eleven Inc. Claudette Reed, EPA R3 Lee Davis, AL DEM Randy Carlson, KDHE
Michelle ISENHOUR, Respondent, v. Walter ISENHOUR, Appellant.

No. ED 104805

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FOUR.

Filed: December 26, 2017 Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied February 26, 2018 Application for Transfer Denied May 1, 2018

Melissa Featherston, 8777 Big Bend Blvd. Ste. C, St. Louis, MO 63119, For Plaintiff/Respondent.

Craig G. Kallen, 13321 N. Outer Forty Rd. Ste. 100, Town and Country, MO 63017, For Defendant/Appellant.

Before Colleen Dolan, P.J., Mary K. Hoff, J., and Lisa S. Van Amburg, J.

***ORDER***

PER CURIAM.

Walter Isenhour ("Husband") appeals the trial court's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Judgment and Decree of Dissolution of Marriage that awarded him and Michelle Isenhour ("Wife") joint legal and physical custody of their children and awarded Wife a larger share of the marital financial accounts. Husband offers two points on appeal. In his first point, Husband argues that the trial court misapplied § 452.375, abused its discretion, and failed to order custody consistent with the children's *267best interests by awarding joint physical custody with Wife designated as the residential parent. In his second point, Husband claims that the trial court misapplied § 452.330 and abused its discretion by awarding Wife a disproportionately large share of the marital funds. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, we have provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-585

In Re: CHARLES WILLIAM LEVY,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

Submitted: June 19, 1997 Decided: June 27, 1997

Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles William Levy, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Charles Levy has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an order from this court directing the Virginia State Board of

Elections to place his name on the ballot for governor in the upcoming gubernatorial election. Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be

used only in extraordinary circumstances. See Kerr v. United States

Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). Mandamus relief is only

available when there are no other means by which the relief sought

could be granted, see In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir.

1987), and may not be used as a substitute for appeal. See In re

United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979). The party

seeking mandamus relief carries the heavy burden of showing that he

has "no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires" and

that his right to such relief is "clear and indisputable." Allied

Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980). Levy has not

made such a showing. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma

pauperis and deny mandamus relief. 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.

PETITION DENIED
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2011-0570 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2011-NM-014-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
exh10_2.htm


 



 










 


THIRD AMENDMENT


TO


AMENDED AND RESTATED MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT


 


This Third Amendment to the Amended and Restated Management Agreement is dated as of February 24, 2011 (this “Amendment”) and is by and among Resource Capital Corp., a Maryland corporation (the “Company”), Resource Capital Manager, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Manager”), and Resource America, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Resource America”).


 


W I T N E S S E T H:


 


WHEREAS, the Company, the Manager and Resource America are parties to that certain Amended and Restated Management Agreement dated as of June 30, 2008 (the “Agreement”), as amended on October 16, 2009 (the “First Amendment”) and August 17, 2010 (the “Second Amendment”);


 


WHEREAS, Section 21 of the Agreement provides that the Agreement may only be amended by an agreement in writing signed by the parties to the Agreement;


 


WHEREAS, the Company has requested that the Manager and Resource America agree to amend the Agreement in certain respects as set forth herein and the Manager and Resource America are agreeable to the same, subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and for other good and valuable consideration (the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged), the parties hereto hereby agree as follows.  Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement.


 


Section 1. Amendment to Section 8 of the Agreement


 


The following Section 8(k) is hereby added to the Agreement:


 


(k)           In addition to the compensation set forth above in this Section 8, the Company shall pay Apidos Capital Management, LLC (an affiliate of the Manager) such fees as are set forth in that certain Services Agreement dated as of February 24, 2011, among Resource Capital Asset Management, LLC (a subsidiary of the Company) and Apidos Capital Management, LLC.


 


Section 2. Execution in Counterparts


 


This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which when so executed shall be deemed to be an original and all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same agreement.


 






  





  











  








 


In Witness Whereof, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be executed by their respective officers thereunto duly authorized, as of the date first written above.


 


                                                                       RESOURCE CAPITAL CORP.


 


 


By:                            


Name: David J. Bryant


Title:   Senior Vice President and ChiefFinancial Officer


 


 


                                     RESOURCE CAPITAL MANAGER, INC.


 


 


By:                            


Name:  Michael S. Yecies


Title:     Senior Vice President, Chief Legal


                     Officer and Secretary


 


 


                              RESOURCE AMERICA, INC.


 


 


By:                          


Name:  Jeffrey F. Brotman


Title:     Executive Vice President
No. 09-1091.

#### Oceanic Exploration Company, et al., Petitioners v. Phillips Petroleum Company ZOC, et al.

560 U.S. 905, 130 S. Ct. 3278,

176 L. Ed. 2d 1184,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 4008.

May 17, 2010.

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

Same case below, 352 Fed. Appx. 945.
STATE v. Jacquel Levell HOLLIDAY

344P19-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 4, 2019

Kathryn L. VandenBerg, Assistant Appellant Defender, For Holliday, Jacquel Levell

David D. Lennon, Assistant Attorney General, For State of North Carolina

Ben R. David, District Attorney, For the State of North Carolina

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 3rd of September 2019 by Defendant for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 4th of September 2019."
Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

 Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985).

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-11228

Conference Calendar

__________________

MARION HOUSTON,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

K. RATNARAJAH, Dr., TDCJ Clements Unit;

RICHARDSON, Nurse, TDCJ Clements Unit,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:95-CV-179

- - - - - - - - - -

April 16, 1996

Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Marion Houston appeals the dismissal of his civil rights

complaint concerning his medical care as frivolous. He argues

that his allegations rise to the level of a 42 U.S.C. § 1983

claim and that the physician testifying at the Spears** hearing

went beyond his role of explaining Houston's medical records and

the significance of the entries. We have carefully reviewed the 
No. 95-11228

-2-

 Houston does not argue on appeal that his work assignment

was improper as he did in the district court. That issue is

abandoned. See Eason v. Thaler, 14 F.3d 8, 9 n.1 (5th Cir.

1994).

record and Houston's arguments.*** Any improper testimony of the

physician had no effect on the district court's dismissal. For

essentially the same reasons as explained in the magistrate

judge's report, we conclude that the district court did not abuse

its discretion in dismissing Houston's complaint as frivolous.

AFFIRMED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 19 - 0 738 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. AMBER BURNETTE ,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including April 9, 2021 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 3 2021

03/03/2021

Case Number: DA 19-0738
DICESARE, et al. v. The CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG HOSPITAL AUTHORITY

156A17-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 11, 2019

Russ Ferguson, III, James P. Cooney, III, Mark J. Horoschak, Brian Allen Hayles, Debbie W. Harden, Michael P. Fischer, Matthew Tilley, Charlotte, Hampton Y. Dellinger, Attorneys at Law, For The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority

Sarah Motley Stone, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, For The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority, d/b/a Carolinas Healthcare System

Reynolds Michael Elliot, Attorney at Law, For DiCesare, Christopher, et al.

Linwood Jones, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, For N.C. Hospital Association

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 3rd of June 2019 by Plaintiffs to admit Daniel Seltz Pro Hac Vice:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th of June 2019."
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5313 

To reserve a small percentage of the amounts made available to the Secretary 

of Agriculture for the farmland protection program to fund challenge 

grants to encourage the purchase of conservation easements and other 

interests in land to be held by a State agency, county, or other eligible 

entity, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 9, 2006 

Mr. GERLACH (for himself, Mr. KIRK, Mrs. MILLER of Michigan, Mrs. 

BIGGERT, Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania, and Mr. REICHERT) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To reserve a small percentage of the amounts made available 

to the Secretary of Agriculture for the farmland protection program to fund challenge grants to encourage the 

purchase of conservation easements and other interests 

in land to be held by a State agency, county, or other 

eligible entity, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Open Space and Farm5 land Preservation Act’’. 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5313 IH

1 SEC. 2. ADDITIONAL TITLE-HOLDING OPTION UNDER 

2 FARMLAND PROTECTION PROGRAM. 

3 (a) ADDITIONAL TITLE-HOLDING OPTION; RESERVA4 TION OF FUNDS.—Section 1238I of the Farm Security 

5 Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3838i) is amended by adding at 

6 the end the following new subsection: 

7 ‘‘(d) OPTION FOR TITLE TO BE HELD BY ELIGIBLE

8 ENTITY.— 

9 ‘‘(1) RESERVATION OF FUNDS; PURPOSE.—Of 

10 the funds made available under section 1241(a)(4) 

11 for a fiscal year to carry out this section, the Sec12 retary shall reserve not less than 15 percent to make 

13 grants to support cooperative efforts by an eligible 

14 State agency, a county, and one or more other eligi15 ble entities to purchase conservation easements and 

16 other interests in eligible land under subsection (a), 

17 the title to which will be held by an eligible entity 

18 rather than the United States. 

19 ‘‘(2) COST SHARING.—Notwithstanding sub20 section (c)(1), the share of the cost of purchasing a 

21 conservation easement or other interest in eligible 

22 land borne by the United States under this sub23 section shall not exceed 25 percent. The State agen24 cy involved in the purchase shall contribute 25 per25 cent of the purchase price, the county involved in the 

26 purchase shall contribute 25 percent of the purchase 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
3 

•HR 5313 IH

1 price, and the other eligible entities involved in the 

2 purchase shall contribute 25 percent of the purchase 

3 price. 

4 ‘‘(3) PROHIBITION ON USE OF GRANT FUNDS.— 

5 Federal funds made available under this subsection 

6 may not be used by grant recipients for administra7 tive purposes.’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) shall take effect on October 1, 2006. 

Æ 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
#### Joseph Criscione, Respondent, et al., Plaintiff, v City of New York et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

[719 NYS2d 687]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants City of New York and Thomas Perrone appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated September 30, 1999, which, upon a jury verdict finding them 100% at fault in the happening of the accident and awarding the plaintiff Joseph Criscione damages in the total sum of $1,000,000 ($225,000 for past pain and suffering and $775,000 for future pain and suffering), is in favor of the plaintiff Joseph Criscione and against them.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff, Joseph Criscione, a New York City police officer, was a passenger in a police vehicle driven by another police officer, Thomas Perrone. While responding to a radio call involving a family dispute, the police vehicle was struck at an intersection by a civilian vehicle. At trial, Officer Perrone testified that under police department criteria in effect at the time, the call was classified as a “noncrime” and was not considered *548an emergency. Furthermore, he had no other reason to perceive or consider the call as one that required an emergency response. Therefore, Officer Perrone did not turn on his turret lights or the siren in his car, and he did not increase his speed.

On these facts, we conclude that the Supreme Court properly determined that the issue of whether the police vehicle was involved in an emergency operation as defined by statute was a question for the jury *(see,*Vehicle and Traffic Law § 114-b; *Mattera v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*245 AD2d 274; *LaMotta v City of New York,*130 AD2d 627). In addition, the Supreme Court’s failure to instruct the jury on recklessness did not constitute error since the jury found that Officer Perrone was not involved in an emergency operation at the time the accident occurred. Further, under the circumstances, the Supreme Court did not err in failing to read the statutory language of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 114-b.

The jury’s award of $225,000 for past pain and suffering, and $775,000 for future pain an suffering, does not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation for the plaintiff’s injuries *(see,*CPLR 5501 [c]). Ritter, J. P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.
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 Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration 

          - [TA-W-65,298] 

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on February 19, 2009 in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of Ferraz Shawmut, LLC, Newburyport, Massachusetts. 

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 2nd day of March 2009. 

Linda G. Poole, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E9-5188 Filed 3-10-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
Draft beyond-the-floor memos Bill Maxwell to: Cortney_Higgins 03/14/2011 05:17 PM

Cortney:

Attached are two analyses we did to look at the beyond-the-floor issue. They used two separate costing methodologies for activated carbon (one used the assumptions in IPM; the other, the assumptions in EPA's Cuecost) and both came to the same conclusion. That is, the beyond-the-floor costs are reasonable. We plan to modify the language in the preamble to reference the two TSDs.

Thanks.

Draft_BTF Memo_031411.docx Draft Beyond t he Floor from IPM Results_031411.doc

Deliberative Document -- FOIA Exempt

Bill Maxwell Energy Strategies Group Sector Policies and Programs Division U.S. EPA Mail Code D243-01 109 T.W. Alexander Drive Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Phone: 919-541-5430 FAX: 919-541-5450