alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE v. Rudolph COLES, Jr.

417PA18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 28, 2019

Michele A. Goldman, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Coles, Rudolph (Jr.)

Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender.

Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, James R. O'Neill, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 27th of June 2019 by Defendant:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of June 2019."

Defendant shall have up to and including the 14th day of August 2019 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
16-3168-cr United States v. Fagan

1 16-3168-cr United States v. Fagan

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT



## SUMMARY ORDER

Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Cita tion to a summary order filed on or after January 1, 2007, is permitted a nd is governed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and this Court’s Local Rule 32.1.1. When citing a summary order in a document filed with this Court, a party mu st cite either the Federal Appendix or an electronic database (with the notation “summa ry order”). A party citing a summary order must serve a copy of it on any party not represented by counsel.

At a stated term of the United States Cour t of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse , 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 31 st day of January, two thousand seventeen.

PRESENT: R ALPH K. W INTER
, J OSÉ A. C ABRANES
, G ERARD E. L YNCH
,

Circuit Judges.

U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA
,
Appellee, 16-3168-cr

v.

B RADLEY F AGAN
,
Defendant-Appellant,

FOR APPELLEE: Jordan Estes, Assistant United States Attorneys, for Preet Bharara, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY.

FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: Susan K. Marcus and Grainne E. O’Neill, Law Offices of Susan K. Marcus, New York, NY.

Appeal from an order of the United States Di strict Court for the Southern District of New York (Katherine Polk Failla, Judge ).16-3168-cr United States v. Fagan

2 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION WHEREO F, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the September 8, 2016 order of the District Court be and hereby is AFFIRMED.

Defendant-appellant Bradley Fagan appeals fr om an order denying him bail pending trial on an eight-count indictment charging, among other thin gs, five counts of distributing and possessing with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of me thamphetamine or 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of me thamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 812, 841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1)((A), and one count of po ssessing firearms in furtherance of a narcotics offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C § 924(c). After hearing argument on Fagan’s bail application, the District Court denied Fagan’s request, holding that he had failed to rebut the presumption that detention is appropriate pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(2). The District Court considered the relevant factors, including (1) the nature of th e charges, (2) Fagan’s possession in his home of a loaded semiautomatic submachine gun and a loaded .3 8 caliber revolver, and (3) the strength of the government’s case, and concluded that Fagan represented a danger to the community. See United
States v. Mercedes , 254 F.3d 433, 436 (2d Cir. 2001). Upon careful review of the record, we conclude that the District Court did not err in deny ing Fagan’s application for bail.

CONCLUSION

We have considered all of the arguments rais ed by defendant-appellant on appeal and find them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the September 8, 2016 order of

the District Court.

FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
EXHIBIT 31.1
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Elizabeth H. Dávila, certify that:
 1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of VISX, Incorporated;  2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;  4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;
(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internalcontrol over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to providereasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparationof financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally acceptedaccounting principles;
(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and
(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and
 5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe 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 whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
/s/Elizabeth H. Dávila
**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 Amended Quarterly Report of AFV Solutions, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Carlos Zalduondo, Chief Executive 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/ Carlos Zalduondo                       |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | Carlos Zalduondo |
|--------|------------------|

|   | Chief Executive Officer |
|--------|-------------------------|

|   | July 16, 2007 |
|--------|---------------|
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JUSTIN CHISM,

Appellant,

v.

MATTHEW LEE SEACRIST, Individually, TRANSDEV SERVICES, INC., 

a Foreign Profit Corporation, and VEOLIA TRANSPORTATION 

MAINTENANCE AND INFRASTRUCTURE, INC., a Foreign Profit 

Corporation,

Appellees.

No. 4D17-2773

[November 1, 2018]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, 

Okeechobee County; Laurie E. Buchanan, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

16000322CAAXMX.

Maaz Quraishi and Ashley Eagle of the Law Office of Maaz Quraishi, 

P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Mark Hicks of Hicks, Porter, Ebenfeld & Stein, P.A., and Johnny 

White of Pozo-Diaz & Pozo, P.A., Jacksonville, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

DAMOORGIAN, KLINGENSMITH, JJ., and KANNER, DANIEL J., Associate Judge, 

concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
[Cite as State ex rel. Sizemore v. Ohio Veterinary Med. Licensing Bd., 132 Ohio St.3d 296, 

2012-Ohio-2725.] 

THE STATE EX REL. SIZEMORE, APPELLANT, v. OHIO VETERINARY 

MEDICAL LICENSING BOARD, APPELLEE. 

[Cite as State ex rel. Sizemore v. Ohio Veterinary Med. Licensing Bd., 

132 Ohio St.3d 296, 2012-Ohio-2725.] 

Mandamus—Extraordinary relief not available when object sought has been 

achieved by other means—Relator had adequate remedy in form of motion 

for contempt against agency for alleged violation of court mandate.

(No. 2012-0176—Submitted June 6, 2012—Decided June 21, 2012.) 

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, 

No. 11AP-298, 2012-Ohio-63. 

__________________ 

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying the request 

by appellant, Terrie Sizemore, D.V.M., a veterinarian, for a writ of mandamus to 

compel appellee, the Ohio Veterinary Medical Licensing Board, to reissue a 

March 2, 2007 adjudication order finding her guilty of misconduct and imposing 

fines. Sizemore contends that the original order was not in compliance with R.C. 

119.09, preventing her from pursuing an appeal. 

{¶ 2} Sizemore is not entitled to the requested extraordinary relief, 

because the objective of her administrative appeal—to reverse the board’s finding 

of misconduct and imposition of fines—has been achieved with the board’s 

dismissal of the charges against her. See State ex rel. Sawyer v. Cendroski, 118 

Ohio St.3d 50, 2008-Ohio-1771, 885 N.E.2d 938, ¶ 8 (mandamus claim is moot 

when its objective has been obtained). 

{¶ 3} Nor did the board have any duty to reissue its prior adjudication 

order finding Sizemore guilty of misconduct. Instead, as the court of appeals 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

properly held, the board has “the inherent power to dismiss charges against an 

individual who has had claims of misconduct levied against her or him.” State ex 

rel. Sizemore v. Ohio Veterinary Med. Bd., 10th Dist. No. 11AP-298, 2012-Ohio63, at ¶ 13. The remand orders of the court of appeals and the common pleas 

court did not prevent the board from dismissing the charges. See State ex rel. 

Jelinek v. Schneider, 127 Ohio St.3d 332, 2010-Ohio-5986, 939 N.E.2d 847, ¶ 14 

(court that issued mandate is in the best position to interpret it). 

{¶ 4} Finally, in the absence of a patent and unambiguous lack of 

jurisdiction, Sizemore has an adequate remedy by way of a motion for contempt 

to raise her claim that the board violated the court of appeals’ mandate to reissue 

its adjudication order. See Dzina v. Celebrezze, 108 Ohio St.3d 385, 2006-Ohio1195, 843 N.E.2d 1202, ¶ 14 (“the use of extraordinary relief to enforce a 

judgment is not widespread, because of the availability of other means of 

enforcement, e.g., motion for contempt”). 

Judgment affirmed. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL,

LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 

__________________ 

 Terrie Sizemore, pro se. 

 Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Walter J. McNamara, Assistant 

Attorney General, for appellee. 

______________________
CHARLESTON.

#### City of Huntington *v.*Public Service Commission.

Submitted May 30, 1922.

Decided June 2, 1922.

Order cot Public Service *Commission*— Affirmed *on Principles Laid Down in Another Opinion.*

The order of the Public Service Commission now complained of is affirmed on the rules and principles laid down in the opinion filed on the former hearing, 89 W. Va. 703.

Petition by tbe City of Huntington against the Public Service Commission and another for suspension of an order.

*Order of suspension refused; petition dismissed.*

*J. II. Meek,*for petitioner.

*Fitzpatrick, Brown & Dmis,*for respondents.

Miller, Judge :

This is the same case which was before us for review of a former order of the Public Service Commission, and was disposed of on the record then presented, upon the rules and principles enunciated in the opinion of the court reported in 89 W. Va. 703.

The present petition was brought by plaintiff to review the final order of the commission, promulgated on April 22, 1922, upon the original record, and the supplemental record and proceedings had before the commission since the former decision.

No questions are presented by the present record and the order of the commission complained of not involved in and settled by the principles laid down in the former decision and opinion of the court; and we need only restate those rules and principles by reference to the former opinion.

The principal questions) then in controversy 'before (us were as to the proper basis for valuing the property of the water works company for rate making purposes, and the rate of net income it should be allowed' to earn on that valuation. Both these questions were determined on the former hearing, and if not *res adjudicata*of the same questions again present*347ed, we see no reason for departing from tbem on tbe present bearing. Tbe commission bas filed witb tbe record an elaborate opinion in writing giving tbe reasons for its final order; and we find no reason for interfering witb tbe conclusions., reached by it.

Tbe only new facts presented by tbe supplemental record', relate to tbe new improvements ordered by tbe commission,, and actually added subsequent to tbe date to wbicb tbe former-valuation was made to relate. As to these no question bas been made. Including these added values tbe proper basis, for rate making was found to be $1,271,747.00, instead of $1,150,000.00, originally fixed by tbe commission.

Therefore, and upon tbe rules and principles laid down in-tbe former opinion of tbe court, we conclude that tbe order-of tbe commission should be and remain undisturbed until its. further order; and we decline to suspend it.

*Order of suspension refused; petition dismissed.*
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 9, 2016

Order 

September 9, 2016

153643(23)

ROWAN CHILDS, as Personal Representative

of the ESTATE OF CAROLYN CHILDS,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v

PROVIDENCE HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL

CENTERS, INC., ST. JOHN PROVIDENCE

HEALTH SYSTEM, VINAY K. MALVIYA, 

M.D., P.C., and VINAY MALVIYA, M.D.,

Defendants-Appellants.

SC: 153643

COA: 329296

Oakland CC: 2014-142914-NH

________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendants-appellants to extend the 

time for filing their reply in support of the application for leave to appeal is GRANTED. 

The reply submitted on September 1, 2016, is accepted for filing.
```

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 47 (Thursday, March 12, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10742-10743]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-5366]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank

[[Page 10743]]

indicated. The applications also will be available for inspection at 
the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express 
their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 
U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a 
nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of 
the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the 
BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities 
will be conducted throughout the United States. Additional information 
on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National 
Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than April 6, 2009.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (A. Linwood Gill, III, Vice 
President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261-4528:
    1. Premier Financial Bancorp, Inc., Huntington, West Virginia, to 
acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of Abigail Adams National 
Bancorp, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire The Adams National Bank, 
both of Washington, D.C., and Consolidated Bank and Trust Company, 
Richmond, Virginia.
    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 9, 2009.

Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E9-5366 Filed 3-11-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
```
PRELIMINARY AGENDA

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY

PUBLIC HEARING ON ENERGY EFFICIENCY REQUIREMENTS

FOR COMMERCIAL AIR CONDITIONERS AND HEAT PUMPS

PLACE OF HEARING: FORRESTAL BUILDING

1000 INDEPENDENCE AVENUE, SW

ROOM 1E-245

WASHINGTON, DC 20585

TELEPHONE: 202/586-9127

TELEFAX: 202/586-4617

DATE AND TIME: THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2000

9:00 A.M. - 3:00 P.M.

PURPOSE OF THE HEARING

The purpose of this public hearing is to hear the views of interested persons on the

proposed requirements for commercial air conditioners and heat pumps. The Department

will consider the views presented and comments submitted in formulating a final rule.

I. OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS

I. AGENDA REVIEW

III. COMMERCIAL AIR CONDITIONERS AND HEAT PUMPS - TOPICS FOR

DISCUSSION

A. General Statements

B. Definition and Scope of Coverage

1. Coverage of Heating-Only Heat Pumps

2. Coverage of Computer Room Air Conditioners

3. Coverage of Equipment with a Variable-Speed Drive

C. Test Procedures for the Measurement of Energy Efficiency

1.Test Procedures the Department Intends to Adopt

2. Minimum External Static Pressure

3.Test Procedures for Water-Source Heat Pumps

D. Other Topics

IV ADJOURNMENT

EE-RM-TP-99-460 COMMENT 01B
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 13, 2003

/s/ John S. Tomac
--------------------------------
John S. Tomac

President and Treasurer
(chief financial officer)
BIW Limited

November 13, 2003
**Exhibit21**

 
| **GRANITE SUBSIDIARIES**                  | ** ** | **JURISDICTION OF  ORGANIZATION** |
|-------------------------------------------|------------|-----------------------------------|
|                                      |       |                              |
| Granite Response Television, Inc.         |       | Delaware                          |
| KBJR License, Inc.                        |       | Delaware                          |
| KBWB License, Inc.                        |       | Delaware                          |
| KSEE License, Inc.                        |       | Delaware                          |
| KBWB, Inc.                                |       | Delaware                          |
| Queen City Broadcasting of New York, Inc. |       | New York                          |
| KBJR, Inc.                                |       | Delaware                          |
| KSEE Television, Inc.                     |       | Delaware                          |
| WEEK-TV License, Inc.                     |       | Delaware                          |
| WKBW-TV License, Inc.                     |       | Delaware                          |
| WISE-TV, Inc.                             |       | Delaware                          |
| NVG-Fort Wayne II, Inc.                   |       | Indiana                           |
| NVG-Fort Wayne, LLC                       |       | Delaware                          |
| WISE-TV License, LLC                      |       | Delaware                          |
| WTVH License, Inc.                        |       | Delaware                          |
| WTVH, LLC                                 |       | Delaware                          |
| WXON License, Inc.                        |       | Delaware                          |
| WXON, Inc.                                |       | Delaware                          |
| Channel 11 License, Inc.                  |       | Delaware                          |

 

----