alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Betty Burden JACKSON, Nancy Burden Elliott, James Burden, Rebecca Burton Bell, Darren Burton, Clarence Burton, Jr., and John Burden, Plaintiffs v. DON JOHNSON FORESTRY, INC. and East Carolina Timber, LLC, Defendants and Nellie Burden Ward, Albert R. Burden, Levy Burden, Clarence L. Burden, and Brenda B. Miller, Other Grandchildren, Defendants

East Carolina Timber, LLC, Third-Party/Counterclaim Plaintiff v. Estate of William F. Bazemore by and through its Executors, Nellie Ward and Tarsha Dudley, and Estate of Florida Bazemore by and through its Administrator, Maria Jones, Third-Party/Counterclaim Defendants

No. 192P19

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 14, 2019

Elizabeth H. Overmann, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, For East Carolina Timber, LLC

E. Bradley Evans, Attorney at Law, Winterville, For East Carolina Timber, LLC

M.H. Hood Ellis, Attorney at Law, Elizabeth City, For Jackson, Betty Burden, et al

Maria R. Jones, Attorney at Law, For Bazemore, Florida (Estate of)

Christopher J. Skinner, Attorney at Law, For Don Johnson Forestry, Inc.

Denaa J. Griffin, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, For Don Johnson Forestry, Inc.

Paul Faison S. Winborne, Attorney at Law, Edenton, For Bazemore, Florida (Estate of)

Lars P. Simonsen, Attorney at Law, Edenton, For Don Johnson Forestry, Inc.

Bradley A. Elliott, Attorney at Law, Roanoke Rpds, For Bazemore, William F. (Estate of)

*841***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 21st of May 2019 by Plaintiffs 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."
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KURT WASHINGTON,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

JAMES A YATES,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 09-16541

D.C. No. 1:08-cv-00431-LJO

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 24, 2011** 

Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges. 

California state prisoner Kurt Washington appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging the

loss of work-time credits following a prison disciplinary proceeding. We dismiss.

FILED

JUN 09 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-16541

Washington contends that the 30-day loss of work-time credits assessed

following his prison disciplinary conviction violated his constitutional rights. 

After briefing was completed in this case, this court held that a certificate of

appealability is required to challenge an administrative decision. See Hayward v.

Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 554-55 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc). Because Washington

has not has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, we

decline to certify his claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). 

All pending motions are denied as moot.

DISMISSED.
No. 09-9042.

#### Laurie Marie Laskey, Petitioner v. RCN Corporation.

559 U.S. 1064, 130 S. Ct. 2102,

176 L. Ed. 2d 718,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3269.

April 19, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8.

Same case below, 357 Fed. Appx. 139.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

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.

April 15, 2020

t0408 

# Order

Clerk April 15, 2020

159443 & (15)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 159443

COA: 347375

Wayne CC: 18

- 006163

- FC

MARCUS WAYNE MARTIN, JR.,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

By order of September 25, 2019, the prosecuting attorney w as directed to answer

the application for leave to appeal the March 4, 2019 order of the Court of Appeals. On

order of the Court, the answer having been received, the application for leave to appeal is

again considered, and it is DENIED, because we are no t persuaded that the questions

presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to remand is DENIED, without

prejudice to the defendant’s right to file a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to

MCR Subchapter 6.500 that may include the issues ra ised for the first time in this Court.
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Anna P. Gluck, Deceased. John K. McCauley, Respondent; Timothy W. Sullivan, P. C., et al., Appellants.

[720 NYS2d 149]

In a proceeding pursuant to SCPA 2110 to fix an attorney’s fee, the appeal, as limited by *576the appellants’ brief, is from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County (Radigan, S.), dated January 12, 2000, as fixed the attorney’s fee of Timothy W. Sullivan, P. C., and Timothy W. Sullivan at $3,000, and directed that all moneys paid to the appellants in excess of that amount be refunded to the estate, with interest.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs payable by the appellants personally.

The determination of a reasonable attorney’s fee in a matter concerning an estate is within the sound discretion of the Surrogate’s Court *(see, DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete,*70 NY2d 879, 881). The Surrogate is in the best position to assess the factors essential to fix an attorney’s fee, such as the reasonable value of the time, effort, and skill required and actually expended *(see, Matter of Nicastro v Park,*186 AD2d 805; *Lefkowitz v Van Ess,*166 AD2d 556; *Shrauger v Shrauger,*146 AD2d 955, 956). This authority rests with the Surrogate regardless of the terms of a retainer agreement *(see, Matter of Lanyi,*147 AD2d 644) or any agreement between the interested parties consenting to the amount of compensation requested *(see, Matter of Von Hofe,*145 AD2d 424; *see also, Matter of Phelan,*173 AD2d 621; *Matter of Verplanck,*151 AD2d 767). The appellants failed to demonstrate that the compensation awarded by the Surrogate was not reasonable, or that they were entitled to a higher fee. Therefore, the Surrogate’s determination was a provident exercise of discretion *(see, Matter of Lanyi, supra).*

The appellants’ remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Ritter, J. P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.
exh10_21.htm


    EXHIBIT
10.21

     

    Compensation
Arrangements

     

    


     

          
On April 1, 2009, the Registrant’s Compensation Committee determined that the
performance of the organization in 2008 (as measured by the adjusted operating
ratio) did not meet the criteria established by the Frozen Food Express
Industries, Inc. 2005 Stock Incentive Plan and that no cash bonuses or
restricted stock bonus awards would be paid to the Named Executive Officers, as
indicated in the table below.

     

    


     

    
      	
              Executive
      Name and Position

            	 
      	
              Cash
      Bonus

            	 
      	 
      	
              Restricted

              Stock

              Bonus

            	 
      	 
      	
              Restricted

              Stock

              Shares

            	 
      
	
              Stoney
      M. Stubbs, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer

            	 
      	
              $

            	
                      -

            	 
      	 
      	
              $

            	
                       -

            	 
      	 
      	 
      	
                      -

            	 
      
	
              S.
      Russell Stubbs, Senior Vice President and Chief Operations
      Officer

            	 
      	
              $

            	
                      -

            	 
      	 
      	
              $

            	
                       -

            	 
      	 
      	 
      	
                      -

            	 
      
	
              Thomas
      G. Yetter, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial
    Officer

            	 
      	
              $

            	
                      -

            	 
      	 
      	
              $

            	
                       -

            	 
      	 
      	 
      	
                      -
Exhibit 32.2


                              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 March 31, 2006, 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 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: May 15, 2006


                                             /s/ JOANNE ROBERTS
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             JoAnne Roberts
                                             Senior Vice President and
                                             Chief Financial Officer

                                       26
| 1. | The      Form 10-K 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  |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2. | The      information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company.  |

|   Date:  March 12,      2009  |   /s/ Lee W.      Hendrickson                                                                                    Lee      W. HendricksonChief      Financial Officer |
|--------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
<page>
EXHIBIT 32.01

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 Morgan Stanley Charter
Campbell L.P. (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period
ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jeffrey A.
Rothman, President, Demeter Management Corporation, the general
partner of the Partnership, certify, 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 my 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 the Partnership.









By:    /s/Jeffrey A. Rothman

Name:		Jeffrey A. Rothman
Title:	President

Date:		November 14, 2003
Tiara N. COATS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. ED 105620

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.

FILED: March 6, 2018 Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied April 10, 2018 Application for Transfer Denied May 22, 2018

Samuel Buffaloe, 1000 West Nifong, Bldg 7, Ste 100, Columbia, MO 65203, for appellant.

Joshua Hawley, Shaun J. Mackelprang, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, for respondent.

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

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM

Tiara Coats ("Coats") appeals from the motion court's denial of her Rule 24.035 motion seeking post-conviction relief. Coats pleaded guilty to a class C felony, pursuant to Section 570.030.3, for stealing video games worth at least $500 from Walmart, Inc. ("Walmart"). On appeal, Coats argues that, pursuant to *State v. Bazell*, 497 S.W.3d 263 (Mo. banc 2016), her sentence should have been based on a class A misdemeanor, not a class C felony. Because *Bazell* does not apply retroactively to Coats's plea and sentencing, we affirm the motion court's judgment.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
exv4wdw6






Exhibit 4(d)(6)




SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE




TO INDENTURE DATED AUGUST 16, 2005



     THIS SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE dated as of January 12, 2009, is delivered pursuant to Section
4.17 of the Indenture dated as of August 16, 2005 (as heretofore or hereafter modified and
supplemented and in effect from time to time, the “2005 Indenture”) among LAMAR MEDIA
CORP., a Delaware corporation, the Guarantors party thereto, and THE BANK OF NEW YORK TRUST
COMPANY, N.A., as Trustee (the “Trustee”). All terms used herein without definition
having the meanings ascribed to them in the 2005 Indenture.



     The undersigned hereby agrees that:



     1. It is a Guarantor under the 2005 Indenture with all of the rights and obligations of the
Guarantors thereunder.



     2. It has granted, ratified and confirmed, in the form and substance of Exhibit B to the 2005
Indenture, the Guarantee provided for by Article 10 of the 2005 Indenture.



     3. It hereby represents and warrants that the representations and warranties set forth in the
2005 Indenture, to the extent relating to the undersigned as Guarantor, are correct on and as of
the date hereof.



     4. All notices, requests and other communications provided for in the 2005 Indenture should be
delivered to the undersigned at the following address:


Keith A. Istre

Executive Vice-President and

Chief Financial Officer

Lamar Media Corp. and its Subsidiaries

5551 Corporate Blvd., Ste. 2A

Baton Rouge, LA 70808




     5. A counterpart of this Supplemental Indenture may be attached to any counterpart of the 2005
Indenture.



     6. This Supplemental Indenture shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the
internal laws of the State of New York.



1









 





     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have caused this Supplemental Indenture to be duly
executed as of the day and year first above written.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Guarantor:



Pennsylvania Logos, LLC, a Pennsylvania

limited liability company



By: Its Managing Member,

Interstate Logos, L.L.C., a Louisiana

limited liability company



By: Its Managing Member,

Lamar Media Corp., a Delaware

corporation

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Keith A. Istre
 	 
	 	 	Keith A. Istre, Executive Vice-President/ 	 
	 	 	Chief Financial Officer 	 
	 



	 	 	 	 	 
	Attest:

 	 	 
	By:  	/s/ James R. McIlwain
 	 	 
	 	James R. McIlwain, Secretary 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 
	Accepted:



THE BANK OF NEW YORK TRUST

COMPANY, N.A., as Trustee

 	 	 
	By:  	/s/ Christie Leppert
 	 	 
	 	Title: Assistant Vice President 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 




2
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 48 (Friday, March 13, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 10950]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-5495]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 
Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National 
Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special 
Emphasis Panel, April 2, 2009, 3:30 p.m. to April 2, 2009, 4:30 p.m., 
National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 Democracy 
Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the Federal 
Register on March 4, 2009, 74 FR 9410.
    The meeting will be held on April 6, 2009. The meeting is closed to 
the public.

    Dated: March 9, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
 [FR Doc. E9-5495 Filed 3-12-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
**Exhibit 4.2**

 
| To:    | THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC as Agent |
|--------|-----------------------------------------|
|   |                                    |
| From:  | ROYAL BANK OF CANADA                    |

 

15 December 2015

 

**Vodafone Group Plc - €3,860,000,000 Revolving Credit Agreement**

**dated 28 March 2014 (the “Credit Agreement”)**

 

Terms used herein which are defined in the Credit Agreement shall have the same meaning herein as in the Credit Agreement.

 

We refer to Clause 2.8 (Additional Lenders).

 

We, Royal Bank of Canada, agree to become party to and to be bound by the terms of the Credit Agreement as an Additional Lender in accordance with Clause 2.8 (Additional Lenders) with effect on and from 15 December 2015.

 

Our Revolving Credit Commitment is €150,000,000. We will be a Mandated Lead Arranger.

 

We confirm to each Finance Party that we:

 

(a)                                 have made our own independent investigation and assessment of the financial condition and affairs of each Obligor and its related entities in connection with its participation in the Credit Agreement and have not relied exclusively on any information provided to us by a Finance Party in connection with any Finance Document; and

 

(b)                                 will continue to make our own independent appraisal of the creditworthiness of each Obligor and its related entities while any amount is or may be outstanding under the Credit Agreement or any Commitment is in force.

 

The Facility Office and address for notices of the Additional Lender for the purposes of Clause 33.2 (Addresses for notices) is:

 

Royal Bank of Canada

Riverbank House - 2 Swan Lane – 2nd Floor

London, England

EC4R 3BF

 

This Agreement and any non-contractual obligations arising out of or in connection with it are governed by English law.

 
| ROYAL BANK OF   CANADA           |          |
|----------------------------------|---------------|
|                             |          |
| By:                              | /s/ M Rowe    |   |
|                             |          |
| THE ROYAL BANK   OF SCOTLAND PLC |          |
|                             |          |
| By:                              | /s/ J Tobin   |   |
|                             |          |
| VODAFONE GROUP   PLC             |          |
|                             |          |
| By:                              | /s/ Nick Read |   |

 

----
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

MARY AGNES LEIDER,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-30313

D.C. No. 1:13-cr-00011-DWM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Donald W. Molloy, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 23, 2014** 

Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Mary Agnes Leider appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 262-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction

for second degree murder, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1111 and 1153(a). We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

FILED

OCT 1 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Leider first contends that the district court erred by lengthening her sentence

based on her need for rehabilitation. We review for plain error, see United States

v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The

court did not plainly err because the record reflects that it did not lengthen the

sentence based on Leider’s rehabilitative needs. See Tapia v. United States, 131 S.

Ct. 2382, 2392 (2011) (“A court commits no error by discussing the opportunities

for rehabilitation within prison or the benefits of specific treatment or training

programs.”).

Leider also contends that the district court abused its discretion by failing to

adequately weigh her history and characteristics and by giving excessive weight to

the seriousness of the offense. The district court did not abuse its discretion in

imposing Leider’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). 

The sentence at the top of the Guidelines range is substantively reasonable in light

of the section 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances,

including the nature of Leider’s offense. See id.; see also United States v.

Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The weight to be given the

various factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the district court.”).

AFFIRMED.

2 13-30313
IIB 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 548 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 9, 2005 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

AN ACT 

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located at 200 West 2nd Street in Dayton, Ohio, 

as the ‘‘Tony Hall Federal Building and United States 

Courthouse’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

HR 548 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

2 The Federal building and United States courthouse 

3 located at 200 West 2nd Street in Dayton, Ohio, shall be 

4 known and designated as the ‘‘Tony Hall Federal Building 

5 and United States Courthouse’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal 

9 building and United States courthouse referred to in sec10 tion 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Tony 

11 Hall Federal Building and United States Courthouse’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives February 8, 

2005. 

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk.