alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Tamosin Willett et al., Respondents, v Susan Schneidermesser, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

[718 NYS2d 874]

In an action to recover damages for podiatric malpractice, etc., the defendant Susan Schneidermesser appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Levine, J.), dated July 7, 2000, as denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In support of her motion for summary judgment, the appellant submitted her deposition testimony in which she stated that she did not depart from accepted standards of podiatric practice *(see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320). In opposition, the plaintiffs submitted an affidavit of an orthopedic and neurological surgeon stating that the appellant departed from accepted standards of care in performing surgery on the injured plaintiffs foot. That affidavit was sufficient to establish that there are issues of fact which preclude the granting of summary judgment *(see, Walker v Mount Vernon Hosp.,*272 AD2d 468; *Mineo v Young,*248 AD2d 1012; *Julien v Physician’s Hosp.,*231 AD2d 678; *DaRonco v White Plains Hosp. Ctr.,*215 AD2d 339). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s motion. O’Brien, J. P., Krausman, Goldstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk April 3, 2009

0331 

# Order

April 3, 2009

Rehearing No. 555

135028

HATTIE MOORE and JAMES MOORE, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v SC: 135028 COA: 267191 Genesee CC: 01-071881-NF SECURA INSURANCE, 02-073203-NF Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

In this case, a motion for rehearing is cons idered and, on order of the Court, it is DENIED, there being no majority in favor of granting rehearing.

K ELLY , C.J., and W EAVER and H ATHAWAY , JJ., would grant rehearing.

C AVANAGH , J., not participating due to a fa milial relationship with counsel of
record.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5194 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

8801 Sudley Road in Manassas, Virginia, as the ‘‘Harry J. Parrish 

Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 25, 2006 

Mr. WOLF (for himself, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia, Mr. FORBES, Mrs. DRAKE, Mr. SCOTT of Virginia, Mr. GOODE, 

Mr. GOODLATTE, Mr. CANTOR, Mr. BOUCHER, and Mr. TOM DAVIS of 

Virginia) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 8801 Sudley Road in Manassas, Virginia, as 

the ‘‘Harry J. Parrish Post Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. HARRY J. PARRISH POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 8801 Sudley Road in Manassas, 

6 Virginia, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Harry 

7 J. Parrish Post Office Building’’. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5194 IH 

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Harry J. Parrish Post 

5 Office Building’’. 

Æ 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
**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 Amended Quarterly Report of AFV Solutions, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Suzanne Herring, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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; 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/ Suzanne Herring                       |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | Suzanne Herring |
|--------|-----------------|

|   | Chief Financial Officer |
|--------|-------------------------|

|   | July 16, 2007 |
|--------|---------------|
Exhibit 8.1

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF MAMMA.COM INC.



|                                                      |  |                                       
|----------------------------------------------------- |  | --------------------------------------
|Mamma.com USA, Inc.                                   |  |                                       
|Copernic Technologies Inc.                            |  | (wind-up done, dissolution to be done)
|Digital Arrow LLC                                     |  | (Non-active)                          
|High Performance Broadcasting Inc.                    |  | (Non-active)                          
|Intasys Billing Technologies Limited                  |  | (Non-active)                          
|Intasys Billing Technologies (Canada) Inc.            |  | (Non-active)                          
|Intasys Billing Technologies (Asia Pacific ) Pty Ltd. |  | (Non-active)                          
|Intasys Management Systems                            |  | (Non-active)
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 of Venture Lending & Leasing IX, Inc. (the "Fund") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2019 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Maurice C. Werdegar, Chief Executive Officer of the Fund, 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; and
 (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Fund.
 
 /S/ Maurice C. Werdegar
 Maurice C. Werdegar
 Chief Executive Officer
 (Principal Executive Officer)
 March 16, 2020
Percy L. DOWNER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. ED 105451

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.

Filed: February 13, 2018

FOR APPELLANT: Maleaner R. Harvey, Missouri Public Defender's Office, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, Missouri 63101.

FOR RESPONDENT: Mary H. Moore, Assistant Attorney General, PO Box 899, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102.

Before Lisa P. Page, P.J., Roy L. Richter, J. and Philip M. Hess, J.

***ORDER***

PER CURIAM

Percy Downer appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Downer claims the motion court erred in denying his Rule 24.035 motion because plea counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to dismiss two of the three assault charges against him based on the double jeopardy clause. He similarly claims the plea court violated his right to be free from double jeopardy by accepting his plea, and that his plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent because he was mistakenly led to believe by plea counsel *2he would receive probation by entering a blind *Alford* plea but was instead sentenced to thirty years' imprisonment. Because we do not find the motion court's findings and conclusions to be clearly erroneous, we affirm. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
EXHIBIT 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The Board of Directors
TelVue Corporation:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement on Forms
S-8 (No. 333-87631) of TelVue Corporation of our report dated March 28, 2008
relating to the balance sheets of TelVue Corporation as of December 31, 2007 and
2006 and the related statements of operations, stockholders' deficit and cash
flows for the years then ended, which report appears in the December 31, 2007
annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of TelVue Corporation.

/s/ Pressman Ciocca Smith LLP
Huntingdon Valley, Pennsylvania
November 19, 2008
Order entered April 22, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-00390-CV

PRESTONWOOD TRADITION, LP, ET AL., Appellants

V.

MICHAEL SOLOMON, AS THE CO-EXECUTOR AND 

REPRESENTATIVE OF THE BENEFICIARIES OF THE ESTATE OF 

JOYCE ABRAMOWITZ, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-19-03745-B

ORDER

Before the Court is the April 20, 2020 request of Robin Washington, Official 

Court Reporter for County Court at Law No. 2, for an extension of time to file the 

reporter’s record. We GRANT the request and extend the time to May 20, 2020.

/s/ KEN MOLBERG 

JUSTICE
CLARK v. The STATE.

S19A0038

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Decided: April 15, 2019

Sherman Clark, GDC# 1132785, Macon State Prison, P.O. Box 426, Oglethorpe, Georgia 31068, for appellant.

Patricia B. Attaway Burton, Deputy Attorney General, Paula Khristian Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Christopher M. Carr, Attorney General, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, 40 Capitol Square, S.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30334, Sherry Boston, District Attorney, Gerald Mason, A.D.A., DEKALB COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, 556 N. McDonough Street, Suite 700, Decatur, Georgia 30030, for appellee.

Blackwell, Justice.

**631Sherman Clark was tried by a jury and convicted of murder and aggravated assault. He failed to file a timely appeal, but he twice has attempted unsuccessfully to secure leave to file an out-of-time appeal.

**632He now appeals from the denial of his second motion for an out-of-time appeal, and we affirm.

The record shows that Clark was sentenced in March 2005. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court informed Clark that he had the right to appeal his convictions, that any appeal had to be filed within "30 days of today's date," and that Clark could ask the court to appoint counsel to assist him with the appeal. Three weeks later, Clark filed a motion for a trial transcript. The trial court promptly notified Clark that a transcript would be provided to him when it became available, and it reminded Clark that he had only 30 days from the date of his sentencing to file a notice of appeal. The trial court also reminded Clark that he could request the appointment of counsel to assist him. Clark did not, however, file a timely appeal or request the appointment of appellate counsel.

In 2006, Clark filed a motion for an extension of time in which to file an appeal, but the trial court denied his motion as untimely. The next year, Clark filed his first motion for an out-of-time appeal. The trial court denied that motion too, and Clark did not appeal. Then, in 2017, Clark filed his second motion for an out-of-time appeal. The trial court denied his second motion, noting that Clark sought the same relief in his second motion as he had in his first motion for an out-of-time appeal.

"Res judicata precludes re-litigation of claims where the cause of action and the parties or their privies are identical and the claim was previously adjudicated on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction." *Brooks v. State*, 301 Ga. 748, 750-751 (1), 804 S.E.2d 1 (2017). Here, as in *Brooks*, the trial court rejected an earlier motion for out-of-time appeal on the merits, which "is res judicata as to the availability of an out-of-time appeal of his convictions." Id. at 751 (1), 804 S.E.2d 1. Accordingly, "the trial court was precluded from revisiting the issue of [Clark]'s entitlement to an out-of-time appeal of his convictions, [and] it did not err in denying the [second] motion for an out-of-time appeal." Id.

*Judgment affirmed.*

All the Justices concur.
Rebecca B. EVERETT and Simon J. Everett, Co-Administrators of the Estate of Simon T. Everett v. DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC; and FDB, LLC

No. 433P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 14, 2019

Donald R. Strickland, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Everett, Rebecca B., et al.

Karen M. Rabenau, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Everett, Rebecca B., et al.

Jonathan E. Hall, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.

Ann-Patton Hornthal, Attorney at Law, Asheville, for FDB, LLC.

Michael Joseph Crook, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.

Thomas J. Wilson, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Everett, Rebecca B., et al.

James E. R. Ratledge, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Everett, Rebecca B., et al.

Lachicotte Zemp, Jr., Attorney at Law, Asheville, for FDB, LLC.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 11th of December 2018 by Defendant FDB, LLC) 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 *73certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of August 2019."
#### John L. Wimbish, *Appellant,*v. E. A. Douglass, et al., *Appellees.*

Division B.

Decision Filed June 11, 1928.

*G. P. Garrett,*for Appellant;

*J. W. Blalock*and *Cooper, Knight, Adair, Cooper & Osborne,*for Appellees.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the decree herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and *1021inspected and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said decree; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and decreed by the Court that the said decree of the Circuit Court be and the same is hereby affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Exhibit 32.01


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER





Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Andre Scholz, the undersigned President and Chief Executive Officer of Kiwibox.Com, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2010 (the “Report”) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof:





1.
Fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2.
That the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/ Andre ScholzAndre ScholzPresident, Chief Executive Officer(principal executive officer)





Dated:  April 14, 2011
STATE of North Carolina v. Lacedric Jamal LANE

No. 143P19

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 11, 2019

David Weiss, Attorney at Law, For Lane, Lacedric Jamal

Wes Saunders, Assistant Attorney General, For State of North Carolina

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 23rd of April 2019 by Defendant 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 11th of June 2019."

*158The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 16th of May 2019 by Defendant-Appellant for Leave to File Reply in Support of Petition for Discretionary Review:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th of June 2019."
EXHIBIT 31.2
                                                                    ------------
                                 CERTIFICATIONS

         I, Massimiliano Pozzoni, certify that:

      (1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Falcon Natural
Gas Corp.

      (2) Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
quarterly report;

      (3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

      (4) The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have;

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

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

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by this
quarterly report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

      (5) The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weakness in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.


         Date:  August 14, 2006            /s/ Massimiliano Pozzoni
                                           ------------------------------------
                                           Massimiliano Pozzoni
                                           Title:   Principal Financial Officer
Form of Executive Management Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation



 EXHIBIT 10.22.1 

 

 

 LITHIA MOTORS, INC. 
 EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT NON-QUALIFIED 
 DEFERRED COMPENSATION AND LONG-TERM
INCENTIVE PLAN 
 NOTICE OF DISCRETIONARY CONTRIBUTION AWARD 

 

			
	FROM:	  	Compensation Committee
		
	TO:	  	Sidney DeBoer (“Participant”)
		
	DATE:	  	            , 2011

 This Notice of Discretionary Contribution Award (“Notice”) is to inform you that the Company’s Compensation Committee has awarded you a Discretionary Contribution of $975,000 (nine hundred
and seventy-five thousand dollars) under the Lithia Motors, Inc. Executive Management Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation and Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “Plan”). This Discretionary Contribution will be credited to your “2011
Discretionary Contribution Account” under the Plan and will be governed by and subject to the Plan’s rules, as supplemented by the additional terms and conditions provided in this Notice. 

 

	I.	Vesting. Your 2011 Discretionary Contribution Account will vest as follows: 


a. Service-Based Vesting Schedule. Except as provided below, your 2011 Discretionary Contribution Account will vest according to
the following schedule provided you remain employed with us on the following Vesting Date(s): 
  

					
	 Vesting Date
	  	 Vested
Percent
	 
	            , 2012	  	 	100	% 

 b. Vesting Acceleration
Events. To the extent you are not already 100% vested in your 2011 Discretionary Contribution Account under the above Service-Based schedule, you will become 100% vested in your 2011 Discretionary Contribution Account assuming you remain
employed with us at the time any of the following events occur: 
  

	 	(1)	The Company undergoes a Change in Control; 

  

	 	(2)	You die; or 

  

	 	(3)	You become Disabled. 

  

	II.	Payment Commencement. 


Payment of the vested portion of your 2011 Discretionary Contribution Account shall commence between January 1 and March 15 of
the calendar year following the calendar year in which you (i) attain age 72 or (ii) Separate from Service, whichever is earlier. 







 Note: If your vested 2011 Discretionary Contribution Account becomes payable
due to your Separation from Service and at which time you are considered a “specified employee” under Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, your distribution commencement date may be subject to a six
(6) month delay. 
 *    *    *    *    *

 The Plan document governs the payment, vesting and forfeiture of your 2011 Discretionary Contribution Account. Capitalized items used in this
Notice that are not herein defined shall have the meanings prescribed to such terms in the Plan document. 
 This Notice reflects your 2011
Discretionary Contribution that was awarded to you by the Compensation Committee on             , 2011. 

 

			
	LITHIA MOTORS, INC.
	
	  

	By:	 	  

	Its:	 	  

	Date:	 	  



 NOTICE OF DISCRETIONARY CONTRIBUTION AWARD FOR 2011 – SIDNEY
DEBOER 
 PAGE 2 OF 2