alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
In the MATTER OF: Mary Tieber BRIECE, Deceased

No. ED 105715

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.

Filed: March 13, 2018

FOR APPELLANT: Robert Kent Warren, 201 North Tryon Street, Suite 3000, Charlotte, NC 28202, Matthew A. Fitzgerald, Attorney Pro Hac Vice, 800 East Canal Street, Richmond, VA 23219, Brian C. Walsh, One Metropolitan Square, 211 North Broadway, Ste. 3600, St. Louis, MO 63102.

FOR RESPONDENT: Matthew Rossiter, Timothy J. Lemen, Maxwell G. Murtaugh, Attorneys for Respondent, Michael R. Gibbons, 124 Gay Avenue, St. Louis, MO 63105-3620, Michael W. Bartolacci, Attorney for Defendant/Respondent, Mary Lee Grone, One US Bank Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated ("Appellant") appeals the order denying its motion to compel arbitration1 with respect to claims filed by Michael R. Gibbons, acting as personal representative of the Estate of Mary Tieber Briece, against Appellant and Mary Lee Grone. We find no error has occurred.

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

1

Pursuant to section 435.440.1(1) RSMo 2000, a party may appeal an order denying a motion to compel arbitration even if it is not denominated as a judgment. *See**Arizon Structures Worldwide, LLC v. Global Blue Technologies-Cameron, LLC* , 481 S.W.3d 542, 546 n.4 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015) ; *Hobbs v. Tamko Building Products, Inc.* , 479 S.W.3d 147, 148 n.3 (Mo. App. S.D. 2015).
Exhibit 99.1

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the  Form 10-QSB Quarterly Report of WorldHealth Alternatives, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended August31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), theundersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
- the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
- the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

October 23, 2002

By: /s/ Edward G. SiceloffEdward G. Siceloff, President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and Principal Accounting Officer
Exhibit
      32.1





Certification
      Pursuant to


Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Imagenetix, Inc., a Nevada corporation
      (the "Company"), hereby certifies that:





To
      my
      knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended
      March 31, 2008 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
      contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated:
                June 25, 2008
            /s/
                WILLIAM P. SPENCERWilliam
                P. SpencerChief
                Executive Officer and President
DICESARE, et al. v. The CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG HOSPITAL AUTHORITY

156A17-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 16, 2019

Russ Ferguson, III, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, For The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority

James P. Cooney, III, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, For The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority

Mark J. Horoschak, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, For The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority

Brian Allen Hayles, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, For The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority

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

Debbie W. Harden, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, For The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority

Michael P. Fischer, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, For The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority

Matthew Tilley, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, For The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority

Hampton Y. Dellinger, Attorney at Law, For The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority

Kathleen M. Konopka, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, For DiCesare, Christopher, et al.

Alexander L. Simon, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, For DiCesare, Christopher, et al.

Benjamin E. Shiftan, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, For DiCesare, Christopher, et al.

Daniel Seltz, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, For DiCesare, Christopher, et al.

Adam Gitlin, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, For DiCesare, Christopher, et al.

Brendan P. Glackin, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, For DiCesare, Christopher, et al.

*847The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 15th of August 2019 by Plaintiffs:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th of August 2019."

Plaintiffs shall have up to and including the 4th day of October 2019 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

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

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

Inconnection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Syniverse Holdings, Inc. and Syniverse Technologies, Inc. (the “Companies”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 (the “Report”), I, Tony G. Holcombe, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Companies, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge: 

(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 theCompanies. 

Date: August 7, 2009 

 

The above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-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.
EXHIBIT 99.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)



In connection with the Annual Report of Wells Real Estate Fund III, L.P. (the
Registrant) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Leo F. Wells, III, Chief Executive Officer of the corporate
general partner of the General Partner of the Registrant, hereby certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that, to the best of his knowledge and belief:



(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 Registrant.





|                                                
|------------------------------------------------
|/S/    LEO F. WELLS,
III                        
|Leo F. Wells,
III        Chief Executive Officer
|March 31, 2003
#### Anthony J. CELEBREZZE, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Appellant, v. James P. HUDGINS, Appellee.

No. 21716.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

May 26, 1965.

*114Florence Wagman Roisman, Marilyn S. Talcott, Sherman L. Cohn, Attys., Dept, of Justice, John W. Douglas, Asst. Atty. Gen., Macon L. Weaver, U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., for appellant.

James L. Shores, Jr., Birmingham, Ala., J. Thomas King, Birmingham, Ala., of counsel, for appellee.

Before WOODBURY* WISDOM, and BELL, Circuit Judges.

*

 Of the First Circuit, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

In October 1962 James P. Hudgins, the claimant, filed an application with the Department of Health, Education and Welfare seeking to establish a period of disability and to collect insurance benefits under the provisions of Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 401ff. After several administrative hearings, including a hearing before an examiner, the Hearing Examiner denied Hudgins’s application. The Appeals Council, Bureau of Hearings and Appeals, declined to review the decision of the Hearing Examiner. Hudgins filed suit in the United States District Court for judicial review of the decision of the Hearing Examiner. The Secretary, who had been made a party to the suit, moved that the district court remand the case to the department for the taking of further evidence. After receiving additional evidence, the Hearing Examiner again denied Hudgins’s application and the Appeals Council rendered a decision affirming the Hearing Examiner. Thereupon the decision of the Appeals Council became the “final decision” of the Secretary.

In the opinion below, the district court noted that it had “carefully reviewed” the record in this case, including a 215-page transcript, the pleadings, and “very able briefs filed by both parties”. The court concluded that the decision of the Secretary was not supported by substantial evidence and should be reversed. This Court, too, has carefully reviewed the record and briefs. There is little, if anything, that we can add to the opinion of the district court. The judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit 10.53


 


VIRGIN MEDIA INC.


909 Third Avenue


New York, New York 10022


 


Mr. Mark Schweitzer


[Address Intentionally Omitted]


 


With a copy to:


[Address Intentionally Omitted]


 


10 December, 2009


 


Dear Mark,


 


Amendment
Letter to your Employment Agreement


 


Reference is made to the employment agreement, dated as of September 18,
2007, between you and Virgin Media Inc., and as amended by letter agreement,
dated as of November 28, 2008, and as further amended by letter agreement,
dated as of July 31, 2009, between you and Virgin Media Inc. (the “Employment
Agreement”).


 


In consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, and other
good and valuable consideration, receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged, the parties hereto agree that the terms of the Employment
Agreement will remain in effect in all respects, except as follows:


 


	
  Employment Term:

  	
   

  	
  Section 2(a) shall be amended so
  that your contract is extended from March 31, 2010 to June 30,
  2010.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Bonus:

  	
   

  	
  In addition to any amount payable pursuant to Section 6(c),
  you shall be eligible to receive a pro rata payment pursuant to the Company’s
  Bonus Scheme, payable in March 2011, subject to the achievement of the
  relevant performance conditions and the usual terms and conditions.

  



 


This letter confirms our understanding on these matters and your
Employment Agreement with the Company is amended in accordance with the
foregoing.  Terms used but not defined in
this letter shall have the meaning of such terms as defined in your Employment
Agreement.


 


This letter shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the
internal laws of the State of New York (without regard, to the extent permitted
by law, to any conflict of law rules which might result in the application
of laws of any other jurisdiction).


 


1

















 


	
   

  	
  Yours sincerely,

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  VIRGIN MEDIA INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Bryan H Hall

  
	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
  Bryan H Hall

  
	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
  Secretary and General Counsel

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  AGREED & ACCEPTED:

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  /s/ Mark Schweitzer

  
	
   

  	
  Mark Schweitzer

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
						



 


2
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in RegistrationStatement 333-136105 on Form S-8 of our reports dated March 9, 2007 relating tothe consolidated financial statements of California Coastal Communities, Inc. andsubsidiaries (the “Company”) and management’s report on the effectiveness ofinternal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report onForm 10-K of California Coastal Communities, Inc. and subsidiaries for the yearended December 31, 2006.

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Costa Mesa, CaliforniaMarch 9, 2007

 

----
D.A.N. JOINT VENTURE PROPERTIES OF NORTH CAROLINA, LLC v. N.C. GRANGE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

No. 45P19

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 11, 2019

Susan E. Driscoll, Charlotte, Attorney at Law, for D.A.N. Joint Venture Properties Of North Carolina, LLC.

John R. Fonda, Winston-Salem, Attorney at Law, for N.C. Grange Mutual Insurance Company.

Nathan D. Childs, Raleigh, Attorney at Law, for State.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the conditional petition filed on the 11th of February 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:

*33"Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th of June 2019."
EXHIBIT
      32




CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350)








Pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of
      the
      registrant certifies, to the best of his knowledge, that the registrant's
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2005 (the "Form
      10-QSB") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Form
      10-QSB, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
      and
      results of operations of the registrant.





Date:
      November 10, 2005





Amanasu
      Technologies Corporation





/s/
      Hideyuki Shiraishi





Hideyuki
      Shiraishi


CEO,
      CFO,
      CAO
FILE COPY

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

NO. 14-0792

MICHAEL KENNEDY

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§ UN COURT OFAPPEALS

|lW j P-^^-P-f^U^son County,

§

§

§

CATHY S. LUSK

12th District.

December 5, 2014

Petitioner's petition for review, filed herein in the above numbered and styled case,

having been duly considered, is ordered, and hereby is, denied.

January 30, 2015

Petitioner's motion for rehearing of petition for review, filed herein in the above

numbered and styled case, having been duly considered, is ordered, and hereby is, denied.

•••••••*•*

I, BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE, Clerk of the Supreme Court of Texas, do hereby certify

that the above and attached is a true and correct copy of the orders of the Supreme Court of

Texas in the case numbered and styled as above, as the same appear of record in the minutes of

said Court under the date shown. »

WITNESS my hand and seal of the Supreme Court of Texas, at the City of Austin, this

the 2nd day of February, 2015.

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

By Monica Zamarripa, Deputy Clerk
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**ZAMAR SWIFT,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 58 WM 2016** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 21st day of June, 2016, the Petition for Reinsta tement of Right to** 

**File Petition for Allowance of Appeal** Nunc Pro Tunc **is** GRANTED **. Although counsel**

**was negligent, Petitioner is entitled to a counsel-file d Petition for Allowance of Appeal.** 

See **Pa.R.Crim.P. 122(B). Counsel is** DIRECTED **to file a Petition for Allowance of**

**Appeal within 15 days.**
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 Quarterly Report of Optigenex Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Joseph
McSherry, 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.

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


                       /s/ JOSEPH MCSHERRY
                       -----------------------
                       Joseph McSherry
                       Chief Financial Officer
                       February 10, 2006
#### S. BROWN SHEPHERD v. J. M. JENRETTE, Administrator.

(Filed 11 November, 1942.)

Appeal by defendant from *Carr, J.,*at May Term, 1942, of "Wake.

Civil action to recover balance due on two promissory notes.

From verdict and judgment for $2,290.35 with interest from 11 January, 1939, the amount claimed by the plaintiff, the defendant appeals, assigning errors.

*Briggs & West for plaintiff, appellee.*

*F. D. Floivers for defendant, appellant.*

Per Curiam.

The record contains no exceptive assignment of error which can be sustained. Hence, the verdict and judgment will not be disturbed.

No error.
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case Nos. 5D23-0244

 5D23-0438

LT Case Nos. 2019-CF-011911

2020-CF-00755

_____________________________

ANTHONY J. CANION,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Jeb T. Branham, Judge.

Robert Carl Davis, of Robert Carl Davis, P.A., Jacksonville, for 

Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Benjamin L. Hoffman, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

November 21, 2023

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

SOUD, MACIVER, and PRATT, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC 

1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

12th Floor 

Washington, D.C. 20006 

TEL 202 659 6600 

FAX 202 659 6699 

www.eckertseamans.com 

Evelyn D. Sahr 

Direct Dial; 202-659-6622 

E-mail: esahr@eckertseamans.com 

April 27, 2010 

Chief Documentary Services Division 

United States Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Address Change 

Dear Sir/Madame: 

g 

c3 

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 46103,1 am the designated agent for service of notice, process, 

orders, decisions and requirements for the following airlines in DOT docket OST-2002-12556: 

Carrier 

Air Pacific Limited 

Aladia Airlines, S.A. de C.V. 

Aviation Matters Inc. d/b/a 

Pacificflier 

Brussels Airlines 

C.A.L. Cargo Air Lines Ltd. 

China Cargo Airlines, Ltd. 

China Eastern Airlines 

Corporation Limited 

Hi-Fly Transportes Aereos 

Kuwait Airways Corporation 

Les Investments Nolinor Inc. d/b/a 

Nolinor and or Nolinor Aviation 

Neos S.p.A. 

Swiss International Air Lines, Ltd 

Docket No. 

OST-2002-12556-0228 

OST-2002-12556-0356 

OST-2002-12556-469 

OST-2002-12556-250 

OST-2002-12556-0227 

OST-2002-12556-0217 

OST-2002-12556-0209 

OST-2002-12556-440 

OST-2002-12556-0461 

OST-2002-12556-0407 

OST-2002-12556-0467 

OST-2002-12556-70 

My office has recently relocated. We would like to inform the Department of 

Transportation of this address change. The new address is as follows: 

Evelyn D. Sahr 

Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC 

1717 Pennsylvania Ave. NW 12* Floor 

Washington, D.C. 20006 

WASHINGTON , DC BOSTON , M A CHARLESTON , W V HARRISBURG , PA PHILADELPHIA , PA PITTSBURGH , PA 

RICHMOND , VA SOUTHPOINTE , PA WEST CHESTER , PA WHIT E PLAINS , NY WILMINGTON , DE 
msii NS 

Chief Documentary Services Division 

April 27, 2010 

Page 2 

Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Please let me know if you have any 

questions or concerns. 

Very truly yours 

/^^V 

Evelyn D. Sahr 

NO 116609 

WASHINGTON , DC BOSTON , M A CHARLESTON , W V HARRISBURG , PA PHILADELPHIA , PA 

PITTSBURGH , PA SOUTHPOINTE , PA WEST CHESTER , PA WHIT E PLAINS , NY WILMINGTON , DE
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-1041

In re: RENE JHOVANY RODRIGUES BUSTOS, 

Petitioner. 

On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

Submitted: March 13, 2018 Decided: March 16, 2018

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. 

Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Rene Jhovany Rodrigues Bustos, Petitioner Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Rene Jhovany Rodrigues Bustos has filed an original petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus, seeking release from jail and dismissal of indictments issued against him in Wake 

County, North Carolina. We ordinarily decline to entertain original habeas corpus 

petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012), and this case presents no reason to depart from 

this practice. Because Bustos appears to be awaiting trial in Wake County and has not 

exhausted remedies available to him in North Carolina state courts, we conclude that the 

interests of justice would not be served by transferring this case to the district court. 

See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1631, 2241(b) (2012); Fed. R. App. P. 22(a). Accordingly, we deny 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the petition. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

PETITION DISMISSED