alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
In the MATTER OF J. David FLOWERS, Petitioner

Appellate Case No. 2019-000503

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

May 13, 2019

**625ORDER

The records in the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court show Petitioner was admitted and enrolled as a member of the South Carolina Bar on November 16, 1990. He voluntarily transferred to inactive status in September 2011. On April 24, 2013, the Court suspended Petitioner from the practice of law in this state for ninety-days for failing to file his state and federal income tax returns for tax years 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010. *In re Flowers* , 402 S.C. 385, 741 S.E.2d 759 (2013).

Petitioner did not seek reinstatement; however, he now asks the Court to accept his request to resign from the South Carolina Bar pursuant to Rule 409, SCACR. Petitioner states he understands that should he ever again seek to be admitted or licensed in this state, he will have to fully comply with all conditions of admission or licensing, including taking the South Carolina Bar Examination, if applicable.1

We accept Petitioner's resignation. Within fifteen (15) days of the date of this order, Petitioner shall file an affidavit with the Clerk of Court showing he has complied with Rule 30, **626RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR, and shall also surrender his Certificate of Admission to Practice Law to the Clerk of Court. *224*/s/ Donald W. Beatty*, C.J.

*/s/ John W. Kittredge*, J.

*/s/ Kaye G. Hearn*, J.

*/s/ John Cannon Few*, J.

*/s/ George C. James, Jr.*, J.

1

Additionally, we remind Petitioner that should he seek to be admitted or licensed in South Carolina again, he must demonstrate he paid his delinquent taxes in full. *See**Flowers* , 402 S.C. at 387, 741 S.E.2d at 760 ("Respondent may not request reinstatement until he has paid his delinquent taxes in full and has filed proof with the Commission on Lawyer Conduct of [the] same.").
**Exhibit 32.2****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Crum & Forster Holdings Corp., (the“Company”) for the period ended September 30, 2007 (the “Report”) as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Mary Jane Robertson, Executive Vice President, ChiefFinancial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asenacted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 1. This Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and  2. The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.        Dated:  November 1, 2007 By:  /s/       *Mary Jane Robertson*    Mary Jane Robertson    Executive Vice President,Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission, or its staff, upon request.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5177 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow bonds guaranteed 

by the Federal home loan banks to be treated as tax exempt bonds. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 25, 2006 

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania (for himself, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. BAKER, and Mr. 

KANJORSKI) 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 allow bonds 

guaranteed by the Federal home loan banks to be treated 

as tax exempt bonds. 

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

3 SECTION 1. BONDS GUARANTEED BY FEDERAL HOME LOAN 

4 BANKS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Clause (i) of section 149(b)(3)(A) 

6 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to excep7 tions for certain insurance programs) is amended— 

8 (1) by striking ‘‘or’’ after ‘‘Corporation,’’, and 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5177 IH 

1 (2) by inserting at the end the following: ‘‘or 

2 the Federal home loan banks,’’. 

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

4 subsection (a) shall apply to bonds issued after the date 

5 of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
In the MATTER OF Melisa GAY, Petitioner

Appellate Case No. 2019-001139

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

July 15, 2019

**259ORDER

By order dated July 3, 2019, Respondent was suspended from the practice of law for six months, retroactive to March **26021, 2018. She has now filed an affidavit requesting reinstatement pursuant to Rule 32 of the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement contained in Rule 413, SCACR.

The request is granted, and she is hereby reinstated to the practice of law in this state.
29 February 2016 *********************

NSN: 8930-01-555-4604 (PBC) * MONOGRAPH M6J

 ********************* 

Item: Peanut Butter, Regular, Chunky/crunchy, Stabilized, Fortified, Salted, Conventional

Document: A-A-20328, Nut Butters and Nut Spreads and PKG&QAP

Approximate Caloric Value Per Serving: 179 Component Classification: Primary

Estimated Shelf Life: 36 months at 80°F

Item Characteristics

Appearance: Light brown color with a slight surface sheen without evidence of excessive heating or 

oiling off.

Odor: Freshly roasted and ground peanut.

Flavor: Freshly roasted and ground peanut.

Texture: Spreads easily. Not thin or not more than slightly stiff. Partially fine, partially grainy 

with a substantial amount of nut particles larger than 1/16 inch in diameter. 

Possible Deteriorative Changes 

Appearance: Darkening of color, moderately oily/oiled off.

Odor: Musty, rancid, stale.

Flavor: Moderately bitter, rancid, stale.

Texture: Moderate oiling off (separation of the emulsion); hard and dry core, or product 

surrounded by extreme oiling off (product cannot be kneaded back into emulsion).

Unique Examination/Test Procedures:

For open package inspection, evaluate half of the samples from the same producer without kneading 

and the other half after kneading the content IAW package instructions. This will assist the inspector in 

assessing the effect oil separation has on the product before and after kneading.

Special Notes:
No. 09-9161.

#### In re Joseph L. Rainey, Petitioner.

559 U.S. 1004, 130 S. Ct. 1926,

176 L. Ed. 2d 405,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2487.

March 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of mandamus denied.
STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Dustin W. DYE, Defendant/Appellant.

No. ED 105053

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.

Filed: March 6, 2018

Nathan J. Aquino, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, For Plaintiff/Respondent.

Christian Lehmberg, Woodrail Centre, 100 W. Nifong, Building 7, Suite 100, Columbia, MO 65203, For Defendant/Appellant.

Before Robert G. Dowd, Jr., P.J., Sherri B. Sullivan, J., and Kurt S. Odenwald, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Dustin W. Dye (Appellant) appeals from the trial court's judgment entered upon a jury verdict convicting him of the class B felony of abuse of a child, Section 568.060 RSMo Supp. 2013, and sentencing him to fifteen years' imprisonment. Appellant requests plain error review for his unpreserved claim of instructional error. For instructional error to rise to the level of plain error, Appellant must demonstrate the trial court so misdirected or failed to instruct the jury as to cause manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice. *State v. Baker*, 103 S.W.3d 711, 723 (Mo. banc 2003). Appellant has failed to do so. This is also not a multiple incidents case as presented in *State v. Celis-Garcia*, 344 S.W.3d 150 (Mo. banc 2011). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the decision pursuant to Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).
STATE v. Jennifer JIMENEZ/April Myers

22P19-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 27, 2019

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 17th of January 2019 by Defendant to Proceed In Forma Pauperis:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 27th of March 2019."
SERVICE
MARK ASSIGNMENT

     

    CarePayment, LLC, an Oregon limited
liability company ("Assignor"), having its principal place of business at 5300
Meadows Road, Suite 400, Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035, is the owner of the
following (i) service mark registrations on the Principal and Supplemental
Registers in the United States Patent and Trademark Office; and (ii) service
mark application currently pending registration on the Principal Register in the
United States Patent and Trademark Office (the "Marks"):

    


    
      
        
          
            
              
                	
                        Marks

                      	 
      	
                        U.S. Reg. No.

                      
	
                        CARE
      PAYMENT (stylized)

                      	 
      	
                        3390720

                      
	
                        CAREPAYMENT

                      	 
      	
                        3238471

                      


              

            

          

        

      

    

    


    
      
        
          
            
              
                	
                        Mark

                      	 
      	
                        U.S. Ser. No.

                      
	
                        CAREPAYMENT

                      	 
      	
                        77877941

                      


              

            

          

        

      

    

    


    WS Technologies LLC, an Oregon limited
liability company ("Assignee"), having its principal office at 5300 Meadows
Road, Suite 400, Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035, desires to acquire the
Marks.

    


    NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable
consideration, receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged,
Assignor hereby assigns to Assignee all of Assignor's right, title and interest
in and to the Marks, together with the goodwill of the business associated with
the Marks and the above identified registrations for the Marks.

    


    DATED:  December 30,
2009

    


    
      
        
          
            
              
                
                  	 
      	
                          ASSIGNOR:

                        
	 	 	 
	 
      	
                          CarePayment,
      LLC

                        
	 
      	
                          By:  Aequitas
      Capital Management, Inc.,

                        
	 
      	
                          its
      Manager

                        
	 
      	 
      	 
      
	 
      	
                          By:

                        	
                          /s/ Robert J. Jesenik

                        
	 
      	 
      	
                          Robert
      J. Jesenik,
President
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




The undersigned, Marc Urbach, the
President of CHINA BROADBAND, INC. (the “Company”), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY
that:





1.      The
Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009
(the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2.      Information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operation of the Company.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has
executed this statement this 15 day of April, 2010.




/s/ Marc UrbachMarc
      UrbachPresident(Principal
      Executive Officer)





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
China Broadband, Inc. and will be retained by China Broadband, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.





The
forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.  It is not being
filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the
Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general
incorporation language in such filing.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION



In connection with this Quarterly Report of Hewitt Associates, Inc. (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that: 1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 as of and for the periods covered in the Report.



|                       |  |  |  |     |  |                                           |  | 
|---------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ----------------------------------------- |  | 
|                       |  |  | 
|Date: January 30, 2004 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Dan A. DeCanniere                    
|                       |  |  |  |     |  |                                           | 
|                       |  |  |  |     |  | Dan A. DeCanniere Chief Financial Officer
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 42401 & 42402

STATE OF IDAHO ,

Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

BLAZE BORDEAUX, aka DARREN TOLAN and DARREN STEWART ,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 545

Filed: July 9, 2015

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Melissa Moody , District Judge.

Orders denying I.C.R. 35 motions for reduction of sentences, affirmed

.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Reed P. Anderson , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appella nt.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge; and GRATTON, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

In these consolidated appeals, Blaze Bordeaux, aka Darren Tolan and Darren Stewart,

entered an Alford 1 plea to an amended charge of felony injury to a child, I.C. § 1 8

- 1501(1), and a guilty plea to perjury, I.C. § 18

- 5401

. In exchange for his plea s , additional charges were

dismissed. The district court sentenced Bordeaux to concurrent unified terms of ten years, with

minimum periods of confinement of one year

. The district court suspended the sentences and

1 See North Carolina v. Alford , 400 U.S. 25 (1970).2 placed Bordeaux on probation. Therea fter, Bordeaux violated his probation on several occasions

and the district court revoked Bordeaux’s probation and ordered execution of his sentences.

Bordeaux filed I.C.R 35 motion s for reduction of his sentences , which the district court denied.

Bord eaux appeals.

A motion for reduction of sentence under I.C.R. 35 is essentially a plea for leniency,

addressed to the sound discretion of the court. State v. Knighton , 143 Idaho 318, 319, 144 P.3d

23, 24 (2006); State v. Allbee , 115 Idaho 845, 846, 771 P.2d 66, 67 (Ct. App. 1989). In

presenting a Rule 35 motion, the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of

new or additional information subsequently provided to the district court in support of the

motion. State v. Huffman , 144 Idah o 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). Upon review of the

record, including any new information submitted with Bordeaux ’s Rule 35 motion s , we conclude

no abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court’s order s denying Bordeaux ’s

Rul e 35 motion s are affirmed.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
  1)
    
    such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months
ended March 31, 2008, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2)
    
    the information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the
Company for the three months ended March 31, 2008, fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Plumas Bancorp.
 Date:  May 9, 2008
    /s/ D. N. BiddleDouglas N. Biddle, Chief Executive Officer
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 8, 2021

No. 04-21-00141-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.L.W., A CHILD

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020-PA-01086

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

This is an accelerated appeal of the trial court’s order terminating appellant B.O.’s 

parental rights. This appeal is required to be brought to final disposition within 180 days of the 

date the notice of appeal is filed. TEX. R. JUD. ADMIN. 6.2.

The trial court signed an order of termination on March 15, 2021. Appellant’s notice of 

appeal was due to be filed on April 5, 2021. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(b). Appellant’s notice of 

appeal was filed on April 13, 2021. A motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal 

was due on April 20, 2021. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3. Although appellant filed a notice of appeal 

within the fifteen-day grace period allowed by Rule 26.3, she did not file a motion for extension 

of time.

A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in good 

faith, files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by Rule 26.1 but within the fifteen-day 

grace period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion for extension of time. See Verburgt v. 

Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997) (construing the predecessor to Rule 26); see also In re 

K.A.F., 160 S.W.3d 923 (Tex. 2005) (noting Verburgt’s application in parental termination 

cases). However, the appellant must offer a reasonable explanation for failing to file the notice of 

appeal in a timely manner. See id.; TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3, 10.5(b)(1)(C).

It is therefore ORDERED that appellant file, no later than June 15, 2021 from the date 

of this order, a response presenting a reasonable explanation for failing to file the notice of 

appeal in a timely manner. If appellant fails to respond within the time provided, the appeal will 

be dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).

_________________________________

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 8th day of June, 2021.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
Order filed August 4, 2017

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 17

- 00506

- CV

____________ IN THE INTEREST OF M .R.D.W., CHILD

On Appeal from the 314th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2016

- 03574J



### ORDER
This is an accelerated appeal from a judgment in a suit in which the termination of the parent

- child relationship is at issue. Appellant R.W.’s brief was due August 2, 2017

. No brief or motion for extension has been filed. Appeals in parental termination cases and child protection cases are to be brought to final disposition within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is filed.
See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2(a) (effe ctive May 1, 2012). This accelerated schedule requires greater compliance with briefing deadlines.
Therefore , we order R.W.’s appointed counsel , William Thursland , to file R.W.’s brief no later than August 14, 2017

. If the brief is not filed by that date,2

counsel may be required to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court. In addition, the court may require appointment of new counsel due to the failure to timely file appellant’s brief.

PER CURIAM
STATE v. Scott David ALLEN

115A04-3

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 3, 2019

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, Nicholaos Vlahos, Assistant Attorney General, Garland N. Yates, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Michael Unti, Attorney at Law, Margaret C. Lumsden, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Allen, Scott David.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 2nd of April 2019 by Defendant for Extension of Time until April 29, 2019, to File Petition for Writ of Certiorari:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd of April 2019."
IN RE: C.B.C.

115A19-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 21, 2019

J. Thomas Diepenbrock, Attorney at Law, Asheville, for Clippard, Wesley V.

Michael S. Harrell, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Corbett, Barry A., et al.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 21st of May 2019 by Respondent-Father:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 21st of May 2019."

*111Respondent-Father shall have up to and including the 22nd day of May 2019 to file and serve his/ her brief with this Court.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2 CERTIFICATION ACCOMPANYING PERIODIC REPORT
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(18 U.S.C. SEC.1350) I, Sherice P. Bench, Chief Financial Officer of American Achievement Corporation and AAC Group
Holding Corp. (the Companies), hereby certify that: (1) The Quarterly Report of the Companies on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended November 27, 2004 (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 Companies as of the dates and for the periods
expressed in the Report. Date: January 10, 2005 /s/ SHERICE P. BENCHName:
    
    Sherice P. BenchTitle:
    
    Chief Financial Officer(principal financial officer)
 33
EXHIBIT 12


                     JORDAN INDUSTRIES, INC.
                     -----------------------
       COMPUTATIONS OF THE RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
       -------------------------------------------------------
                     (dollars in thousands)
                     ----------------------
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                Year Ended December 31,
                                             ------------------------------
                                             2003          2002        2001
                                             ----          ----       -----
<S>                                        <C>           <C>         <C>
Fixed Charges:
   Interest expense                        $83,255       $89,372     $91,344
   Rental expenses included in fixed
     charges                                 5,746         6,031       6,016
                                           -------       -------     -------
       Total Fixed Charges                  89,001        95,403      97,360
Earnings:
   Pre-tax income (loss)                   (24,403)       52,898     (64,001)
   Plus: fixed charges                      89,001        95,403      97,360
                                           -------       -------      ------
       Total Earnings                       64,598       148,301      33,359
                                           -------       -------      ------
Deficiency                                $(24,403)      $52,898    $(64,001)
                                          =========      =======    =========




</TABLE>