alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Jerome Miller, Petitioner, v David Axelrod, as Commissioner of Health of the State of New York, Respondent.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Commissioner of Health of the State of New York, dated July 11, 1984, which, after a hearing, found petitioner, a doctor of podiatric medicine, guilty of three violations of Public Health Law article 33, and imposed a fine of $1,500.

Petition granted, on the law, to the extent of annulling that portion of the determination finding petitioner in violation of Public Health Law § 3331 (2) and vacating the penalty imposed in its entirety. Determination otherwise confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, with costs to petitioner, and matter remitted to the respondent for imposition of a new penalty.

The determination of the Commissioner of Health that petitioner had violated Public Health Law § 3331 (2) in that petitioner had “obtained controlled substances with no intent to use them in his practice”, was not supported by substantial evidence (CPLR 7803 [4]; *Matter of Pell v Board of Educ.,*34 NY2d 222, 230). Accordingly, that portion of respondent’s determination must be annulled and the matter remitted to him for imposition of a new penalty upon the remainder of his determination, which we confirm. Lazer, J. P., Bracken, O’Connor and Brown, JJ., concur.
AMENDED AND RESTATED
                              CERTIFICATE OF TRUST
                                       OF
                       WASHINGTON WATER POWER CAPITAL III


          THIS Amended and Restated  Certificate  of Trust of  Washington  Water
Power  Capital  III  (the  "Trust")  is being  duly  executed  and  filed by the
undersigned,  as  trustee  of the  Trust,  to amend  and  restate  the  original
Certificate of Trust of the Trust (the "Certificate of Trust"),  which was filed
with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware (the  "Secretary of State")
on November 4, 1996, under the Delaware Statutory Trust Act (12 DEL.  C.ss.3801,
ET SEQ.) (the "Act").

          1.   NAME. The name of the statutory trust is AVA Capital Trust III.

          2.   DELAWARE TRUSTEE. The name and business address of the trustee of
the Trust in the State of Delaware are SunTrust  Delaware  Trust  Company,  1011
Centre Road, Suite 205, Wilmington, DE 19805.

          3.   EFFECTIVE  DATE.  This Amended and Restated  Certificate of Trust
shall be effective upon the date and time of filing.

          4.   COUNTERPARTS. This Certificate of Trust may be executed in one or
more counterparts.

                            [Signature page follows]

<PAGE>


          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being a trustee of the Trust, has
duly executed this Amended and Restated  Certificate of Trust in accordance with
Section 3811(a) of the Act.

                                        MALYN K. MALQUIST, as Regular Trustee





                                          /S/ MALYN K. MALQUIST
                                        -------------------------------------
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1641 

To make the internal control requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 

2002 voluntary. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 14, 2005 

Mr. FLAKE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To make the internal control requirements of the SarbanesOxley Act of 2002 voluntary. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Competitiveness En5 hancement and Opportunity Act of 2005’’. 

6 SEC. 2. MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT OF INTERNAL CON7 TROLS VOLUNTARY. 

8 Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (15 

9 U.S.C. 7262) is amended— 

10 (1) in subsection (a)— 
2 

•HR 1641 IH 

1 (A) by striking ‘‘requiring each annual re2 port’’ and inserting ‘‘permitting each annual re3 port’’; and 

4 (B) by striking ‘‘which shall—’’ and insert5 ing ‘‘which, if containing such internal control 

6 report, shall—’’; and 

7 (2) in subsection (b)— 

8 (A) by striking ‘‘shall attest’’ and inserting 

9 ‘‘may attest’’; and 

10 (B) by striking ‘‘attestation made’’ and in11 serting ‘‘attestation if made’’. 

Æ
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 Excaliber Enterprises, Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Stephanie Y. Jones, acting in the capacity as the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Matthew L. Jones, acting in the capacity as the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, 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 result of operations of the Company.








/s/ Stephanie Y. Jones


Stephanie Y. Jones


Chief Executive Officer


March 31, 2011





/s/ Matthew L. Jones


Matthew L. Jones


Chief Financial Officer


Chief Accounting Officer


March 31, 2011
<PAGE>
                             TERMINATION ENDORSEMENT
                 (hereinafter referred to as the "Endorsement")

                                     to the

             SURETY $3,000,000 EXCESS OF $12,000,000 EXCESS OF LOSS
                              REINSURANCE AGREEMENT
                  (hereinafter referred to as the "Agreement")

                                     between

                             WESTERN SURETY COMPANY
                        SURETY BONDING COMPANY OF AMERICA
                           UNIVERSAL SURETY OF AMERICA
              (hereafter collectively referred to as the "Company")

                                       and

                          CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY
                   (hereafter referred to as the "Reinsurer")

It is understood and agreed by and between the Company and the Reinsurer that
effective 12:00:01a.m., Standard Time, January 1, 2004, the Agreement is
cancelled in accordance with the provisions of Article II - TERM and the
Reinsurer shall have no liability for any loss discovered subsequent to
12:00:01a.m., Standard Time, January 1, 2004. Standard Time as used in this
Endorsement shall mean the location of the original insured.

All other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain unchanged.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties acknowledge that no intermediary is involved in
or brought about this transaction, and the parties hereto, by their authorized
representatives, have executed this Endorsement:

on this           day of            2004

WESTERN SURETY COMPANY

By:
    ------------------------------------------

Name:
      ----------------------------------------

Title:
       ---------------------------------------


                                   Page 1 of 2
<PAGE>
and on this          day of             2004

UNIVERSAL SURETY OF AMERICA

By:
    ------------------------------------------

Name:
      ----------------------------------------

Title:
       ---------------------------------------

and on this          day of         2004

SURETY BONDING COMPANY OF AMERICA

By:
    ------------------------------------------

Name:
      ----------------------------------------

Title:
       ---------------------------------------

and on this          day of         2004

CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY

By:
    ------------------------------------------

Name:
      ----------------------------------------

Title:
       ---------------------------------------


                                   Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

DEBORAH SEAMSTER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 2:14-cv-00184

)

JAMES SADLOWSKI, )

)

Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Deborah Seamster, pro se, is suing her landlord James Sadlowski. Seamster

alleges that Sadlowski discriminated against her because she is black. Specifically, she

alleges she was the only black person in the neighborhood. Seamster claims Sadlowski

refused to accept her rent payments, and had neighbors enter Seamster’s house to see if

it was clean and keep tabs on Seamster’s visitors. Sadlowski responded with a

barebones motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), just stating

that the complaint fails to state a claim. (Docket Entry 7.) He also filed an Answer

denying all of the allegations in the Complaint and stating as an affirmative defense that

the Complaint failed to state a claim. (DE 6.) Seamster didn’t respond to Sadlowski’s

motion.

In order to survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true,

to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678

(2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); accord Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). I must accept all factual allegations as true and draw all

reasonable inferences in the complainant’s favor, but I don’t need to accept threadbare

legal conclusions supported by purely conclusory statements. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

The first step in my analysis is to identify and disregard all “allegations in the complaint

that are not entitled to the assumption of truth,” especially including any legal

conclusions. Id. at 680-81. Then I must look at the remaining allegations to determine

whether they plausibly – and not merely possibly or conceivably – suggest an

entitlement to relief. Id. at 681, 683. This task invariably requires me to draw on my

judicial experience and common sense. Id. at 679. 

Seamster’s description of disparate treatment, attributed to her race, states a

claim for discrimination under at least “42 U.S.C. § 1981, which prohibits private actors

from discriminating on the basis of race against those seeking to make and enforce

contracts.” Petrovic v. Enter. Leasing Co. of Chicago, LLC, 513 Fed. Appx. 609, 610 (7th Cir.

2013).

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Sadlowski’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure

to State a Claim is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: October 29, 2014

/s/ Philip P. Simon 

Chief Judge

United States District Court

2
[Countrywide Logo]****400 Countrywide Way February 29, 2008Simi Valley, California 93065-6298U.S. Bank, N.A. Attn: Marcia Johnson 2121 Cliff Drive, Suite 205 Eagan, MN 55122OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE I, Joseph Candelario, hereby certify that I am an officer of Countrywide GP, Inc., general partner of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP (the "Servicer"). I further certify, with respect to the applicable servicing agreement relating to the securitization transaction(s) set forth on Exhibit A attached hereto (the "Servicing Agreement") that: (a)A review of the activities of the Servicer during the preceding calendar year and of the performance of the Servicer under the Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision; and (b)To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout such year, /s/ Joseph Candelario  February 28, 2008****Joseph Candelario First Vice President Compliance Officer Loan Administration **Exhibit A - Securitized Transaction(s)****U.S. Bank, N.A. 2121 Cliff Drive, Suite 205**ARMT  2007-1  ARMT  2007-3  BAFC  2007-1  BAFC  2007-3  BAFC  2007-4  BAFC  2007-7  BAFC  2007-A  BAFC  2007-B  BAFC  2007-C  CMLTI  2007-10  CMLTI 2007-6  CMLTI 2007-AHL2 CMLTI 2007-AHL3 CMLTI 2007-AMC1 CMLTI 2007-AMC2 CMLTI 2007-AR1  CMLTI 2007-AR4  CMLTI 2007-AR7  CMLTI 2007-AR8  CSAB  2007-1 CSAB  2007-2  CSARMT 2007-1  CSARMT 2007-2  CSARMT 2007-3  CSMC 2007-1  CSMC 2007-2  CSMC 2007-3 **Exhibit A - Securitized Transaction(s)****U.S. Bank, N.A. - 2121 Cliff Drive, Suite 205** CSMC 2007-4  CSMC 2007-5  CSMC 2007-6  CSMC 2007-7  DBALT 2007-2  GSAA 2007-1  GSAA 2007-3  GSR 2007-4F  GSR 2007-5F  JPALT 2007-A1  JPALT 2007-A1  JPALT 2007-A2  JPALT 2007-S1  JPMMT 2007-A2  JPMMT 2007-A2  JPMMT 2007-A3  JPMMT 2007-A4  JPMMT 2007-A5  JPMMT 2007-A5  JPMMT 2007-S1  JPMMT 2007-S2  JPMMT 2007-S3  LXS 2007-12N  LXS 2007-15N  LXS 2007-16N  LXS 2007-18N  LXS 2007-20N **Exhibit A - Securitized Transaction(s) U.S.****Bank, N.A. - 2121 Cliff Drive, Suite 205**LXS 2007-2N  LXS 2007-4N  LXS 2007-7N  MALT 2007-1  MARM 2007-2  MARM 2007-3  MASTR 2007-1  PRIME 2007-3  SASCO 2007-BC4
ISSAC L. JOHNSON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-4175

_____________________________/

Opinion filed December 8, 2015.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Alachua County.

Mark W. Moseley, Judge.

Issac L. Johnson, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Dismissed without prejudice to the appellant filing a petition for belated 

appeal pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(c).

WETHERELL, MARSTILLER, and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1329 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1329

To amend the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 to treat nonhuman primates as 
              prohibited wildlife species under that Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 16, 2005

   Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas (for herself and Mr. Simmons) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                               Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 to treat nonhuman primates as 
              prohibited wildlife species under that Act.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Captive Primate Safety Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    The Congress finds the following:
            (1) There may be as many as 15,000 nonhuman primates 
        including chimpanzees, rhesus macaques, capuchins, and other 
        monkeys, owned by private individuals in the United States.
            (2) Primates can potentially transmit such dangerous human 
        diseases as yellow fever, monkey pox, Ebola and Marburg virus, 
        Foot and Mouth Disease, tuberculosis, herpes-b, and Simian 
        Immunodeficiency Virus.
            (3) Primates are highly intelligent and social animals. 
        Most captive environments cannot meet their complex social and 
        psychological needs, and pet primates are often kept chained or 
        confined in small enclosures.
            (4) A number of privately owned nonhuman primates have 
        attacked humans and other animals, or have escaped from their 
        enclosures to freely and dangerously roam the community.
            (5) Over 40 percent of the 234 primate species are now 
        threatened with extinction, and primate pet ownership does not 
        contribute to the conservation of the species.

SEC. 3. ADDITION OF NONHUMAN PRIMATES TO DEFINITION OF PROHIBITED 
              WILDLIFE SPECIES.

    Section 2(g) of the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 (16 U.S.C. 
3371(g)) is amended by inserting before the period at the end ``or any 
non-human primate''.
                                 <all>
```
Order entered October 28, 2022

In The 

### Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05-22-01132-CV

IN RE JOSHUA CORN ELL SKINNER, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 204th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F15-20176

ORDER Chief Justice Burns, Justice Pa rtida-Kipness, and Justice Smith

Based on the Court’s opinion of today’s date, we DISMISS relator’s

October 19, 2022 petition for wa nt of jurisdiction.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III
CHIEF JUSTICE
UNITEDSTATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGECOMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

 

Form 10-Q

 

[X]   QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TOSECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 

* *

For thequarterly period ended March 31, 2010

 

or

 

[ ]   TRANSITIONREPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF1934

 

For thetransition period from _________to _________

 

Commission File Number0-11574

 

SHELTER PROPERTIES V LIMITEDPARTNERSHIP

(Exactname of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

 

55Beattie Place, PO Box 1089

Greenville, South Carolina 29602

(Addressof principal executive offices)

 

(864)239-1000

(Registrant’s telephonenumber, including area code)

 

 

Indicate by check markwhether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file suchreports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90days.  

[X] Yes  [ ]No

 

Indicate by check markwhether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporateWeb site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted andposted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (232.405 of this chapter) duringthe preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant wasrequired to submit and post such files). [ ] Yes  [ ] No

 

Indicate by check markwhether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, anon-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company.  See the definitionsof “large accelerated filer”, “accelerated filer” and “smaller reportingcompany” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

 

 

Indicate by check markwhether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of theExchange Act). [ ] Yes  [X] No   

** **
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         416,982
<SECURITIES>                                 1,429,162
<RECEIVABLES>                                  962,737
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,836,240
<PP&E>                                          35,210
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,871,450
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          377,706
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        75,747
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,417,997
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,871,450
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                42,146
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                78,009
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,534
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (54,397)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (54,397)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.02)


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification Pursuant To Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,

18 U.S.C.
Section 1350

In connection with the Annual Report of Rubicon Technology, 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, Raja M. Parvez, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, William F. Weissman, 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 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: March 20, 2008 |  | By: |  | /s/ Raja M. Parvez                                  
|                     |  |     |  | Raja M. Parvez President and Chief Executive Officer
|                     |  |    
|Date: March 20, 2008 |  | By: |  | /s/ William F. Weissman                             
|                     |  |     |  | William F. Weissman Chief Financial
Officer         

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the registrant and will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### KAYSER, Appellant, v. KAHN, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

January 31, 1899.)

Action by Max Kayser against Henrietta Kahn.

No opinion. Order resettled.
#### KIRKWOOD et al.. Respondents, v. SMITH et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate *1137Division, First Department.

March 29, 1912.)

Action by Fanny J. Kirkwood and others against Harry M. Smith, individually, etc., and another. W. R. Hill, for appellants. JB. Schieffelin, for respondents. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Order filed. See, also, 132 App. Div. 758, 117 N. Y. Supp. 686.
#### PEOPLE, Respondents, v. REILLY, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

January 24, 1899.)

Proceeding by the people of the state of New York against Thomas Reilly.

No opinion. Judgment reversed on argument, and new trial ordered.