alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Peter Simonetti et al., Respondents, v Cavalry Paratransit, Inc., et al., Appellants.

[718 NYS2d 878]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hall, J.), dated May 26, 2000, which denied their motion to change the venue of the action from Kings County to Richmond County.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs’ choice of venue, based on the residence of one of the defendants, was not improper *(see,*CPLR 503 [a]). Therefore, the defendants had no ground upon which to base a demand for a change of venue *(see,*CPLR 511 [a]). In addition, the defendants failed to make the requisite showing for a discretionary change of venue based on the inconvenience of the witnesses *(see, O’Brien v Vassar Bros. Hosp.,*207 AD2d 169). Accordingly, the defendants’ motion for a change of venue was properly denied. Ritter, J. P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.
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 Quarterly Report of Amincor, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ended  September 30, 2010 as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange Commission on November 24, 2010 (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the
capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies 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, as amended; and

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


Date: November 30, 2010                       /s/ John R. Rice, III
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              John R. Rice, III, President
#### In the Matter of Kevin J. Brennan, Appellant, v Rachel E. Anesi, Respondent.

[719 NYS2d 395]

Rose, J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Broome County (Hester, Jr., J.), entered March 23, 2000, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, for modification of a prior order of custody.

Petitioner and respondent are the parents of a child born in 1993. Apparently, by a prior order of Family Court, respondent was awarded sole custody of the child and petitioner was awarded visitation rights. Petitioner commenced this proceeding in March 2000 seeking to modify the prior order to award him sole or joint custody of the child. Family Court dismissed the petition without a hearing finding that “the petition [was] facially insufficient to warrant a hearing into the relief sought.” Petitioner now appeals.

Petitioner contends that Family Court abused its discretion in dismissing his petition without a hearing where the petition was sufficiently particular to apprise the parties and the court of the nature of the petition and alleged matters relating to the best interest of the child. We find his contention unpersuasive. “A petition to modify an existing custody arrangement must allege facts which, if established [at an evidentiary hearing], would afford a basis for relief’ *(Matter of Bryant-Bosshold v Bosshold,*273 AD2d 717, 718; *cf., Matter of Williams v Mullineaux,*271 AD2d 869). The instant petition alleges that there has been a change of circumstances insofar as petitioner “is no longer provided additional visitation,” respondent has notified petitioner that upon graduation from college in May 2000 she will be moving to North Carolina with her new husband, respondent told petitioner that even if she does not move to North Carolina, she plans to attend graduate school out of the area and petitioner is available to provide daily child care pursuant to the visitation order.

*841Here, petitioner’s allegations regarding respondent’s plans to relocate are devoid of specificity, remote and, at this point, raise no genuine issue for resolution by Family Court. Additionally, petitioner’s allegations regarding visitation also lack specificity and, in any event, are not sufficient to warrant the modification he is seeking — an award of sole or joint custody. Consequently, we find that Family Court properly dismissed petitioner’s modification petition without a hearing.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Crew III and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEFEXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

**I, James W. Bernau, certify that:**

** **

1.       I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSBof Willamette Valley Vineyards, Incorporated;

 

2.       Based on my knowledge, this report doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.       Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

4.       The small business issuer’s othercertifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e) for the small business issuer and have:

 

a)   Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to thesmall business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared;

b)   Evaluated the effectiveness of the smallbusiness issuer’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

c)   Disclosed in this report any change in thesmall business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the smallbusiness issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.       The small business issuer’s othercertifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small businessissuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s boardof directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a)   All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b)   Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in the smallbusiness issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date:  May 16, 2008
|   |  /s/ James W. Bernau |   |
|--------|---------------------------|--------|
|   | James  W. Bernau,         |
|   | Chief  Executive Officer  |
Energy Conservation Standards forRefrigerated Beverage Vending MachinesAdvance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANOPR)Public MeetingBuilding Technologies ProgramOffice of Energy Efficiency and Renewable EnergyU.S. Department of EnergyJune 26, 2008http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/beverage_machines.html2Meeting Agenda9:00-9:05 am Welcome9:05-9:15 am Opening Remarks, Introductions and Agenda Review9:15-9:30 am Rulemaking overview9:30-10:00 am Comments from Participants10:00-11:15 am Engineering Analysis11:15-11:30 am Break11:30-12:45 pm Life-Cycle Cost Analysis12:45-1:45 pm Break for Lunch (on your own)1:45-3:00 pm National Impact Analysis3:00-3:30 pm Discussion of Other Issues3:30-3:45 pm Break3:45-4:30 pm NOPR Analyses4:30-5:00 pm Next Steps and Closing Remarks5:00 pm AdjournRulemaking Overview4To present methodologies and characterize results for analyses todateTo discuss specific issues related to each analysisTo seek input from stakeholders on methodologies, assumptionsand data sourcesTo describe upcoming analyses and next stepsPurpose of the Public MeetingOverview5The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) directs DOE to considerseven factors when setting energy conservation standardsFactorAnalysis1. Economic impact on consumersand manufacturersLife-cycle cost analysisManufacturer impact analysis2. Lifetime operating cost savingsLife-cycle cost analysis3. Total projected energy savingsNational impact analysis4. Impact on utility or performanceScreening AnalysisEngineering analysis5. Impact of any lessening ofcompetitionManufacturer impact analysis6. Need for national energyconservationNational impact analysis7. Other factors the Secretaryconsiders relevantEnvironmental assessmentUtility impact analysisEmployment impact analysisOverview6ScreeningAnalysisEngineeringAnalysisEnergy UseCharacterizationShipmentsAnalysisNationalImpactAnalysisMarkups toDetermineEquipmentPriceLife-CycleCost andPaybackPeriod AnalysesSteps in the Standards Rulemaking: ANOPRFrameworkDocumentANOPRNOPR 

# F i n a l Ru l eEffectiveDateMarket &TechnologyAssessmentOverview7Issues for Public Comment1.Equipment Classes2.Operating Hours of Compressor and Lighting3.Equipment Refurbishment Cycles4.Life-Cycle Cost Baseline Level5.Base-Case and Standards-Case Forecasts6.Differential Impact of New Standards on Future Shipments byEquipment Classes7.Selection of Candidate StandardLevels for the NOPR Analyses8.Approach to Characterizing Energy Conservation StandardsOverview8Comments from ParticipantsParticipants are invited to provide summary comments orstatementsParticipants are invited to raise additional issues for discussiontodayANOPR comment period open through July 16, 2008Overview
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

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

**(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Syniverse Holdings, Inc. and Syniverse Technologies, Inc. (the“Companies”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 (the “Report”), I, David W. Hitchcock, Chief Financial Officer of the Companies, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge: 

(1) The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 

(2) The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Companies. 

Date: May 7, 2010

 

The abovecertification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APP EAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

SERAFIN SOLIS,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D15-3244

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Opinion filed February 26, 2016

3.800 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Citrus County, Richard A. Howard, Judge.

Serafin Solis, Live Oak, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Andrea K. Totten,

A ssistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM

We affirm the trial court’s summary denial of Appellant’s moti on to correct illegal

sentence without prejudice to Appellant to timely seek relief u nder Florida Rule of Criminal

Procedure 3.850.

AFFIRMED.

EVANDER, WALLIS and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT D
                              
                 FORM OF ANNUAL SERVICER'S CERTIFICATE
                              
                   MBNA AMERICA BANK, N.A.
                              
                              
              MBNA MASTER CREDIT CARD TRUST II
                              

         The undersigned, a duly authorized representative
of MBNA America Bank, N.A. (the "Bank"), as Servicer
pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of
August 4, 1994 (the "Pooling and Servicing Agreement") by
and between the Bank and The Bank of New York, as trustee,
(the "Trustee") does hereby certify that:

         1.  The Bank is Servicer under the Pooling and
Servicing Agreement.

         2.  The undersigned is duly authorized as required
pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement to execute
and deliver this Certificate to the Trustee.

         3.  This Certificate is delivered pursuant to
Section 3.05 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement.

         4.  A review of the activities of the Servicer
during the twelve month period ended June 30, 1998 was
conducted under my supervision.

         5.  Based on such review, the Servicer has, to my
knowledge, fully performed all its obligations under the
Pooling and Servicing Agreement throughout such twelve month
period and no material default in the performance of such
obligations has occurred or is continuing except as set
forth in paragraph 6 below.

         6.  The following is a description of each material
default in the performance of the Servicer's obligations
under the provisions of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement
known to me to have been made during the twelve month period
ended June 30, 1998,  which sets forth in detail (i) the
nature of each such default, (ii) the action taken by the
Servicer, if any, to remedy each such default and (iii) the
current status of each such default:

                           "None"


         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly
executed this Certificate this 25th day of August, 1998.



                              ___/s/David Martini
                              Name:    David Martini
                              Title:      Vice President
Scott SOLOVIC, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. ED 105480

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.

Filed: April 17, 2018

Kevin B. Gau, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, Saint Louis, MO. 63101, for appellant.

Mary H. Moore, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO. 65102, for respondent.

Before Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., P.J., Robert M. Clayton III, J., Angela T. Quigless, J.

***ORDER***

PER CURIAM.

Scott Solovic appeals from the motion court's judgment denying, without an evidentiary hearing, his Motion requesting post-conviction relief under Rule 29.15.1 We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we conclude the motion court's denial of post-conviction relief was not clearly erroneous. Rule *70129.15(k). 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 judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b) (2017).

1

All references are to Mo. R. Crim. P. 2016, unless otherwise indicated.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 48 (Friday, March 13, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 10968]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-5440]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Advisory Committee for Geosciences; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:

    Name: Advisory Committee for Geosciences (1755).
    Dates: April 15, 2009, 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m. and April 16, 2009, 8:30 
a.m.-2 p.m.
    Place: Stafford I, Room 1235, National Science Foundation, 4201 
Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Virginia 22230.
    Type of Meeting: Open.
    Contact Person: Melissa Lane, National Science Foundation, Suite 
705, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Virginia 22230. Phone 703-292-
8500.
    Minutes: May be obtained from the contact person listed above.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice, recommendations, and 
oversight concerning support for research, education, and human 
resources development in the geosciences.
    Agenda:
April 15, 2009
    Directorate activities and plans.
    SODV Briefing.
    Division Subcommittee Meetings.
    Education & Diversity Subcommittee Meeting.
April 16, 2009
    Subcommittee Reports.
    Meeting with the Director.
    Action Items/Planning for Fall Meeting.

    Dated: March 10, 2009.
Susanne Bolton,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. E9-5440 Filed 3-12-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
In the MATTER OF: K.W.

No. COA19-108

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 20, 2019

VACATED. REMANDED.
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Annual Report of Historic Preservation Properties 1989 LP
("HPP'89") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:

1.    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 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 HPP'89.

/s/ Robert Gunn
---------------
Robert Gunn
Asset Manager
(Performing similar functions of Financial Officer)

Date:  March 10, 2005
Elizabeth M.T. O'NAN, an Individual v. NATIONWIDE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Corporation; Servpro Industries, Inc., a Corporation; Servpro of Marion, a Corporation, aka Servpro of Asheville East, aka Servpro of Asheville West, aka Servpro of McDowell and Rutherford Counties, aka J.L. Kuder Enterprises, a Corporation; John Kuder, an Individual; Linda Kuder, an Individual; Spencer Gates, an Individual; Debra Whittemore, an Individual; Jennifer Robinson, an Individual; and Lisa Tilley, an Individual

No. 275P19

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 14, 2019

Elizabeth M.T. O'Nan, for O'Nan, Elizabeth M.T.

Lucienne H. Peoples, Attorney at Law, for Servpro Industries, Inc., et al.

Mason Freeman, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Nationwide Insurance Company, et al.

Gemma L. Saluta, Attorney at Law, Winston-Salem, for Nationwide Insurance Company, et al.

John E. Spainhour, Attorney at Law, Asheville, for Servpro Industries, Inc., et al.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by Plaintiff on the 15th of July 2019 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30 (substantial constitutional question), the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the notice of appeal is

"Dismissed Ex Mero Motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of August 2019."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 15th of July 2019 by Plaintiff for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Dissolved by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of August 2019."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiff on the 15th of July 2019 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 14th of August 2019."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 15th of July 2019 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 14th of August 2019."
STATE v. Jeffery Martaez SIMPKINS

188A19-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 9, 2019

Kimberly P. Hoppin, Attorney at Law, For Simpkins, Jeffery Martaez Leroy

Daniel O'Brien, Assistant Attorney General, For State of North Carolina

Alexandra M. Hightower, Assistant Attorney General, For State of North Carolina

T. Lynn Clodfelter, District Attorney, For the State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 6th of September 2019 by Defendant:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of September 2019."

Defendant shall have up to and including the 30th day of August 2019 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                    ------------

                   CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT


     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, the undersigned, Betsy Henley-Cohn and John S.
Tomac, the chief executive officer and chief financial officer, respectively, of
BIW Limited (the "issuer"), do each hereby certify that the report on Form 10-Q
accompanying this certification (the "report") fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that information contained in the report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the issuer.




/s/ Betsy Henley-Cohn
-----------------------------------------
Betsy Henley-Cohn
Chairwoman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
(chief executive officer)
BIW Limited

November 14, 2006




/s/ John S. Tomac
-----------------------------------------
John S. Tomac
President and Treasurer
(chief financial officer)
BIW Limited

November 14, 2006
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 Quarterly Report of Lease Equity Appreciation Fund I, L.P.
      (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2006 as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Crit S. DeMent, Chief Executive Officer of the General Partner 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.




May
              15,
              2006
            By:
            /s/ Crit
              S.
              DeMentCrit
              S. DeMentChief
              Executive Officer of the General
              Partner