alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 48 (Friday, March 13, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 10958]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-5417]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

U.S. Customs and Border Protection


Notice of Cancellation of Customs Broker License Due to Death of 
the License Holder

AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland 
Security.

ACTION: General Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to Title 19 of the Code 
of Federal Regulations at section 111.51(a), the following individual 
Customs broker licenses and any and all permits have been cancelled due 
to the death of the broker:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 License <greek-
              Name                     i>               Port name
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mack D. Mann...................           03437  Los Angeles.
William R. Percell.............           03613  Detroit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Dated: March 5, 2009.
Daniel Baldwin,
Assistant Commissioner, Office of International Trade.
 [FR Doc. E9-5417 Filed 3-12-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 21

- 2545

_____________________________
T HOMAS V. C UNILIO , Appellant,

v.

M ARIA C. C UNILIO , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County

. George Wright , Judge

. September 20, 2022

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
R OWE , C.J.
, and L EWIS and O STERHAUS , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Thomas V. Cunilio, pro se
, Appellant.

No appearance for Appellee.
#### Jerry Constance, Respondent, v George E. Anderson, Appellant.

[719 NYS2d 869]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schmidt, J.), dated January 3, 2000, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law §-5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendant met his initial burden of establishing, based on a physician’s affirmation, that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Thus, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to come forward with admissible evidence sufficient to raise an issue of fact *(see, Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955, 956-957). The plaintiff failed to do so, and the defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted *(see, Lopez v Senatore,*65 NY2d 1017, 1019; *Perez v Velez,*253 AD2d 865; *Stowe v Simmons,*253 AD2d 422; *Medina v Zalmen Reis & Assocs.,*239 AD2d 394; *Marshall v Alhano,*182 AD2d 614). O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, Goldstein and Smith, JJ., concur.
No. 09-8521.

#### John Avalos Alba, Petitioner v. Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

560 U.S. 907, 130 S. Ct. 3274,

176 L. Ed. 2d 1188,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 4022.

May 17, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 346 Fed. Appx. 994.
CHARLESTON.

#### State *ex rel.*John L. Ramsey *v.*Board of Education of the District of Elk, Kanawha County, *et al.*

Submitted August 29, 1923.

Decided August 30, 1923.

*Schools-*— Employment *of Teachers.*

This case is governed by the principles of law enunciated in an opinion this day filed in the case of 0. *Emerson Campe vs. Board, of Education of Loudon District and others.*

Petition for mandamus by the state, on the relation of. John L. Ramsey against the Board of Education of the District of Elk, Kanawha County, and others.

*Peremptory writ awarded.*

*Harold A. Ritz*and *Lively & Stambaugh,*for relator.

*T. C. Townsend*and *Ben Moore,*for respondents.

Meredith, Judge:

On May 26th, 1923, petitioner entered into a contract with respondent for his employment as District Supervisor of the schools of the District of Elk in Kanawha County, for nine months’ service in the ensuing school year. The contract, in writing, stipulates the time he is to enter upon his duties, and the salary he is to receive.

On July 1, 1923, the personnel of the board of education in this district changed, the president and a member, whose terms expired, retiring, and their successors taking their places. The new board as thus constituted refused to recognize the contract made by. the old and declined to recognize the petitioner as District Supervisor of its schools. This application is made to require the board to recognize petitioner as supervisor and the contract, so made, as binding upon the board.

This case is in all essential points like that of *Campe*v. *Board of Education of Loudon District,*now pending in this court, in which a written opinion is this day filed. There the petitioner was hired as a “teacher”; here he was hired as a “supervisor”; but under section 1, chapter 45 Code, the term "teacher" as used in the act also means *"supervisor."*"Sup*415ervisors” come within the purview and terms of section 57, chapter 45 *Code;*hence a contract made by a board of education before July first, employing a district supervisor for the schools of its district for the ensuing school year is not void because made prior to the beginning of the school' year.

For reasons assigned in the opinion in the Campe case, we awarded a peremptory writ requiring the board to recognize the petitioner as a principal of the schools for which he was employed; this case is controlled by the same principles, and for like reasons, a writ will issue requiring the board to recognize petitioner as district supervisor of its schools and the contract so made as binding on the board.

*Peremptory writ awarded.*
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Rodney Gowans v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-19-00902-CR

Trial court case number: 13300

Trial court: 12th District Court of Grimes County

Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file his brief is granted. Appellant’s brief is 

due February 3, 2020.

All other pending motions are denied.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: _________/s/ Russell Lloyd_____________

Acting individually 

Date: __December 19, 2019__________
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DARIUS JOSHUA HATHAWAY, AKA Lil 

Havoc, AKA Quick, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

J. VANDEVER; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 18-35976 

D.C. No. 2:18-cv-01413-SI 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Michael H. Simon, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 14, 2020**

Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges. 

Oregon state prisoner Darius Joshua Hathaway appeals pro se from the 

district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a failureto-protect claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de 

novo. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal for 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUL 16 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-35976 

failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 

1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm. 

The district court properly dismissed Hathaway’s action because Hathaway 

failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants were deliberately 

indifferent to a substantial risk of harm to Hathaway during his altercation with 

another inmate. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994) (to state an 

Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim, an inmate must allege that the 

deprivation was “objectively, sufficiently serious” and defendants were 

deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of harm); see also id. at 837 (a prison 

official is deliberately indifferent if the prison official “knows of and disregards an 

excessive risk to inmate health or safety”). 

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on 

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.1


                              PACIFIC STATE BANCORP

                            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 Pacific State Bancorp (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report'), the
undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his
knowledge, that:

         (1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13
                  (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities and 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



                                          Date: November 14, 2005


                                          /s/ STEVEN A. ROSSO
                                          -------------------------------------
                                          Steven A. Rosso
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer

                                       28
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Jeron FRAIRSON, Appellant.

No. ED 105204

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FIVE.

Filed: February 13, 2018 Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied March 26, 2018 Application for Transfer Denied May 22, 2018

Ryan J. Kiwala, One Court Street, Alton, IL 62002, for appellant.

Joshua D. Hawley, Atty. Gen., Garrick Aplin, Asst. Atty. Gen., P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, for respondent.

Before James M. Dowd, C.J., Lawrence E. Mooney, J., and Stanley J. Wallach, Sp.J.

**ORDER**

PER CURIAM

*880Jaron Frairson, appeals the judgment of conviction entered by the trial court after the jury found him guilty of second-degree murder, Section 565.021 RSMo., first-degree assault, Section 565.050 RSMo., and two counts of armed criminal action, Section 571.015 RSMo. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. We have furnished the parties with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our order. We affirm. Rule 30.25(b).
---

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 First Cash Financial Services, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, R. Douglas Orr, 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 to my knowledge:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities 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 operations of the Company.





Date:  March 12, 2008

/s/ R. Douglas OrrR. Douglas Orr
Chief Financial Officer
TOWN OF PINEBLUFF v. MOORE COUNTY, Catherine Graham in her capacity as a County Commissioner, Nick Picerno in his capacity as a County Commissioner, Otis Ritter in his capacity as a County Commissioner, Randy Saunders in his capacity as a County Commissioner, and Jerry Daeke in his capacity as a County Commissioner

No. 398PA18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 14, 2019

Misty Leland, Moore County Attorney, for Moore County, et al.

David M. Rooks, Attorney at Law, Chapel Hill, for Town of Pinebluff.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 6th of November 2018 by Defendants 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:

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

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15(g)(2).
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: May 19, 2016 106162 

________________________________

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

NEW YORK,

Respondent,

v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

NATHANIEL T. JONES,

Appellant.

________________________________

Calendar Date: April 25, 2016

Before: Lahtinen, J.P., Rose, Lynch, Clark and Aarons, JJ.

__________

John A. Cirando, Syracuse, for appellant.

Alexander Lesyk, Special Prosecutor, Norwood, for

respondent.

__________

Aarons, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence

County (Richards, J.), rendered July 17, 2013, which revoked

defendant's probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

In 2008, defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of attempted

burglary in the third degree and was sentenced to five years of

probation and ordered to pay restitution. In 2010, defendant's

term of probation was extended by 299 days after he admitted to

violating the terms of his probation. In July 2013, defendant

was charged with violating the terms of his probation by, among

other things, failing to report on multiple occasions to his

probation officer as directed, failing to successfully complete

substance abuse treatment, failing to pay restitution and testing

positive for marihuana and oxycodone. Pursuant to an agreed-upon
-2- 106162 

disposition, defendant admitted to all but one of these charges. 

In exchange, County Court revoked his probation and imposed the

promised sentence of 365 days in jail. Defendant now appeals.

We affirm. Defendant's challenge to the voluntariness of

his plea is unpreserved for review inasmuch as the record fails

to indicate that he moved to withdraw his plea of guilty to the

probation violations (see People v Moulton, 134 AD3d 1251, 1252

[2015]; People v McGregor, 119 AD3d 1235, 1236 [2014], lv denied

25 NY3d 991 [2015]). Moreover, the exception to the preservation

requirement is not applicable where, as here, defendant's

responses during his plea allocution were lucid, rational,

appropriate and not inconsistent with his guilt or cast any doubt

on the voluntariness of his plea (see People v Johnson, 125 AD3d

1052, 1052-1053 [2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 1073 [2015]; People v

McCann, 289 AD2d 703, 703-704 [2001]). 

Defendant also argues that his 365-day jail sentence

imposed on July 17, 2013 is harsh and excessive. Given that

defendant has completed that jail sentence during the pendency of

this appeal, any claims related to sentencing are moot (see

People v Cancer, 132 AD3d 1019, 1020 [2015]; People v Pozzi, 117

AD3d 1325, 1325 [2014]). 

Lahtinen, J.P., Rose, Lynch and Clark, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
exv10w9w1






EXHIBIT 10.9.1



Schedule identifying substantially identical agreements, between Visteon Corporation
(“Visteon”) and each of the persons named below, to the Officer Change in Control Agreement
constituting Exhibit 10.9 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Visteon for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.




             Name



Robert Pallash



Dorothy L. Stephenson



Julie A. Fream



Joy M. Greenway



Steve Meszaros



Michael K. Sharnas



James F. Sistek



Michael J. Widgren
----

----

**Exhibit        32.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

| 1. | The                  Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents,                  in all                  material respects, the financial condition and results of operations                  of                  the Company at the end of the periods covered by the Quarterly                  Report. |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                   |   |                                                                                                          |
|----------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date:                  August 10, 2007 |   |                                                                                                          |
|                                   | By:    | /s/                  *Andrew                  Hamilton         * |
|                                   |   | Andrew                  Hamilton                                                                              |
|                                   |   | Chief                  Executive Officer                                                                      |

----
Exhibit 10.52


 


Amendment to the Amended and Restated 2004 Stock
Option Plan of Biovail Corporation dated March 14, 2007


 


THIS AMENDMENT, effective March 14,
2007, is made to the Amended and Restated 2004 Stock Option Plan of Biovail
Corporation, as amended (the “2004 Stock Option Plan”).


 


WHEREAS, on March 14, 2007, the Board of
Directors of Biovail Corporation approved certain amendments to the
transferability provisions of the 2004 Stock Option Plan, which amendments did
not require shareholder approval;


 


NOW THEREFORE the 2004 Stock Option Plan is
hereby amended as follows:


 


1.               The existing paragraph in Section 3.6
shall be renumbered as Section 3.6(a).


 


2.               The phrase “Sections 3.6(b) and
4.6” shall replace the reference to “Section 4.6” in the first line of Section 3.6(a).


 


3.               A new Section 3.6(b) shall be inserted
immediately following Section 3.6(a) and shall state as follows:


 


“(b)                 Notwithstanding Section 3.6(a), no assignment
or transfer as would otherwise be permitted pursuant to such section may occur
where such assignment or transfer is to be made for consideration.”.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOUND IN
THE COMPANY'S FORM 10K FOR THE YEAR 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          56,064
<SECURITIES>                                    72,565
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,645
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               321,681
<PP&E>                                          14,274
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,220
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 446,719
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          401,476
<BONDS>                                         12,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      5,750
<COMMON>                                        19,656
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,837<F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   446,719
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                47,449
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                39,642
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,100
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,707
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,266
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,441
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,441
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.02
<FN>
<F1>includes unrealized loss on securities AFS of 187
</FN>
        

</TABLE>