alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Angelo Toro, Appellant, v Andrea W. Evans, as Chair of the Division of Parole, Respondent.

[944 NYS2d 798] —

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Gilpatric, J.), entered August 4, 2011 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition.

Petitioner, an inmate, commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a December 2010 determination of the Board of Parole, which denied his request for parole release. Citing the fact that petitioner’s administrative appeal of that denial was still pending at the time this proceeding was commenced, respondent moved to dismiss based upon petitioner’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies.* Supreme Court granted the motion and dismissed the petition. Petitioner appeals and we affirm. Contrary to petitioner’s argument, the record does not support his conclusory contention that exhaustion was not required because further pursuit of an administrative appeal would have been futile *(see People ex rel. Martinez v Beaver,*8 AD3d 1095 [2004]; *People ex rel. Gaito v Couture,*268 AD2d 914 [2000], *lv denied*94 NY2d 765 [2000]). Nor has he demonstrated the applicability of any other recognized exception to the exhaustion requirement.

*1574Rose, J.E, Malone Jr., Stein, McCarthy and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

*

 We note that, although the motion to dismiss references CPLR 3211 (a) (7), it is apparent from the language employed therein that respondent is appropriately raising an objection in point of law on exhaustion grounds pursuant to CPLR 7804 (f) (see *generally*Alexander, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C7804:7, at 674).
**Exhibit
      32.1**




CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C. SECTION
      1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT
      TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE
      SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Med-Emerg International Inc. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
      Dr.
      Ramesh Zacharias Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to 18
      U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §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(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.





Dated:
      March 1, 2006




By:Name:
                Dr. Ramesh ZachariasTitle:
                Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Joan Katzeff, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Thanksgiving Coffee Company, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2007;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which
such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuers other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13(a)-15(e) and 15(d)-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and
procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others
within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business
issuers disclosure controls and procedures presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal
control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuers other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the small business issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material,
that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.



|                     |  |                        
|-------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: March 31, 2008
|                     | 
|By:                  |  | /s/ Joan Katzeff       
|                     |  | Joan Katzeff, President
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company
for the twelve months ended December 31, 2004, I, Douglas N. Biddle, Chief
Operating Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

      1)    such Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the twelve months
            ended December 31, 2004, 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-K of the
            Company for the twelve months ended December 31, 2004, fairly
            presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
            results of operations of Plumas Bancorp.

Date:  March 28, 2005                     /s/ D. N. Biddle
                                     -----------------------------------
                                     Douglas N. Biddle, Chief Operating Officer
Exhibit 13.1





PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with this Annual Report of Torm A/S (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on or about the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jacob Meldgaard, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.





Date: June 23, 2011








/s/ Jacob Meldgaard


Jacob Meldgaard


Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)








SK 03810 0001 1206791
**EXHIBIT 12.1****CALCULATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES**                       **AAC Group**      **Holding**      **Corp.**  **American Achievement Corporation**   **For the year**  **For the year**  ** **  ** **  ** **   **ended August 27,**  **ended August 27,**  **For the period**  **For the**  **For the year**   **2005**  **2005**  **March 26, 2004 –**  **period August 31,**  **ended August 30,**   **(As restated)**  **(As restated)**  **August 28, 2004**  **2003 – March 25, 2004**  **2003** Net income (loss)before income taxes $3,550  $11,324  $10,925  $(4,583) $10,898                      Fixed charges: (1)                                         Interest charges  31,271   23,497   10,257   16,455   28,940 Interest portion oflease expense  829   829   352   626   983                 Total fixed charges  32,100   24,326   10,609   17,081   29,923 Net income fromoperations beforeincome taxes and fixedcharges $35,650  $35,650  $21,534  $12,498  $40,821                 Ratio of earningsto fixed charges:(2)  1.11x  1.47x  2.03x  —   1.36x (1) During the periods presented the Company had no preferred stock outstandingthat required a cash payment. Therefore, the ratio of earnings to combined fixedcharges and preferred dividends was the same as the ratio of earnings to fixed chargesfor each of the periods presented. (2) For purposes of computing this ratio, earnings consist of income (loss) beforetaxes on income and fixed charges. Fixed charges consist of interest expense,amortization of deferred debt issuance costs and the portion of rental expense thatincludes an interest factor. Earnings before fixed charges were insufficient to coverfixed charges by approximately $4.6 million for the period from August 31, 2003 to March25, 2004.
66
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 527 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 527

To amend the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 to terminate 
     the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to provide new 
   assistance under the Home Affordable Modification Program, while 
preserving assistance to homeowners who were already extended an offer 
  to participate in the Program, either on a trial or permanent basis.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 9, 2011

  Mr. DeMint (for himself, Mr. Corker, and Mr. Coburn) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                  Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 to terminate 
     the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to provide new 
   assistance under the Home Affordable Modification Program, while 
preserving assistance to homeowners who were already extended an offer 
  to participate in the Program, either on a trial or permanent basis.

    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 ``HAMP Termination Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.

    Section 120 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (12 
U.S.C. 5230) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
subsection:
    ``(c) Termination of Authority To Provide New Assistance Under the 
Home Affordable Modification Program.--
            ``(1) In general.--Except as provided under paragraph (2), 
        after the date of the enactment of this subsection the 
        Secretary may not provide any assistance under the Home 
        Affordable Modification Program under the Making Home 
        Affordable initiative of the Secretary, authorized under this 
        Act, on behalf of any homeowner.
            ``(2) Protection of existing obligations on behalf of 
        homeowners already extended an offer to participate in the 
        program.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to 
        assistance provided on behalf of a homeowner who, before the 
        date of the enactment of this subsection, was extended an offer 
        to participate in the Home Affordable Modification Program on a 
        trial or permanent basis.''.
                                 <all>
```
Schedule of Change in Control Agreements



 EXHIBIT 10(a)(5) 
 SCHEDULE OF CHANGE IN CONTROL AGREEMENTS 
  

			
	 	  	Term
	 H. P. Mechler
	  	18 months
	 Ralph D. Clements
	  	18 months
	 George Muller
	  	12 months
	 J. Eric Story
	  	12 months
#### Judee PENNINGTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UINTA COUNTY, WYOMING; Louis Napoli, Uinta County Sheriff; Uinta County Board of County Commissioners, Defendants-Appellees. and Todd Hoover, Uinta County Detention Officer, Defendant.

No. 10-8108.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Dec. 5, 2011.

Larissa Ann McCalla, Mel C. Orchard, III, The Spence Law Firm, LLC, Jackson, WY, V. Anthony Vehar, Vehar Law Offices, Evanston, WY, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Richard Rideout, Law Office of Richard Rideout, Patricia Lyn Bach, Melissa E. Westby, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Wyoming, Cheyenne, WY, for Defendants-Appellees.

Todd Hoover, Uinta County Detention Officer, Evanston, WY, pro se.

Before GORSUCH, HOLMES, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

NEIL M. GORSUCH, Circuit Judge.

While she was an inmate at the Uinta County Detention Center, Judee Pennington suffered sexual assault at the hands of detention officer Todd Hoover. Ms. Pennington filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming not only that Mr. Hoover violated her Eighth Amendment rights, but that *410Sheriff Louis Napoli and Uinta County did too. What happened to Ms. Pennington is inexcusable. No one before this court disputes that Mr. Hoover deserved the time in prison he received for his criminal conduct. And no one before this court disputes that Mr. Hoover must also stand trial for his conduct in this civil matter. But because the record as developed by the parties in this case contains no evidence that either the Sheriff or County was aware Mr. Hoover posed a danger of sexually assaulting inmates, the district court held them entitled to summary judgment. Ms. Pennington challenges that result, but after careful review of the parties’ briefs and the record we discern no error in the district court’s disposition. Neither do we think we might improve on its careful, twenty-three page explanation why the law compels the result it reached. We therefore adopt its reasoning and affirm.

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive val*410ue consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
## F I F T H 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5D 2 3

- 2206 LT Case No s

. 2017

- CF

- 1847 2017

- CF

- 606 2017

- CF

- 1848

_____________________________
R EGINALD D UNNELL , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for St. Johns County

. R. Lee Smith , Judge

. Deana Marshall, of Law Office of Deana K. Marshall, P.A., Riverview , for Appellant.

No Appearance for Appellee.

November 7, 2023

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
M AKAR , E ISNAUGLE , and M AC I VER , JJ., concur

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

.

_____________________________
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ALINA FRANCO and ROLANDO RUBIO,

Appellants,

v.

CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION,

Appellee.

No. 4D21-1394

[May 5, 2022]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Jeffrey R. Levenson, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE20-

000780.

Kristin Marrero of The Mineo Salcedo Law Firm, P.A., Davie, for 

appellants.

Maureen G. Pearcy of Paul R. Pearcy, P.A., Miami, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LEVINE, FORST and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2022-0884

_____________________________

N. D.,

Appellant,

v.

AGENCY FOR PERSONS WITH 

DISABILITIES,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Department of Children and Families.

Allison Smith-Dossou, Hearing Officer.

November 7, 2023

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, RAY, and KELSEY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

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

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Matthew A. Gripp of Seminole County Bar Association Legal Aid 

Society, Inc., Longwood; Marissa A. O'Connor of Community Legal 

Service of Mid Florida, Orlando, for Appellant.

Francis Carbone, General Counsel, and Carrie McNamara, Chief 

Appellate Counsel, Agency for Persons with Disabilities, 

Tallahassee, for Appellee.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Phillip Mark VAUGHAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-8038.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 13, 2009.

Decided: Jan. 20, 2009.

Phillip Mark Vaughan, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Theodore Martens, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Phillip Mark Vaughan seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Vaughan has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
# C_2019280EN.01002801.xml

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/28

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 17 June 2019 — Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs v Wellcome Trust Ltd

(Case C-459/19)

(2019/C 280/38)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

Respondent: Wellcome Trust Ltd

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 44 of Directive 2006/112 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that when a taxable person carrying on a non-economic activity consisting of the purchase and sale of shares and other securities in the course of the management of the assets of a charitable trust acquires a supply of investment management services from a person outside of the Community exclusively for the purposes of such activity, it is to be regarded as ‘a taxable person acting as such’? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 44 of Directive 2006/112 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that when a taxable person carrying on a non-economic activity consisting of the purchase and sale of shares and other securities in the course of the management of the assets of a charitable trust acquires a supply of investment management services from a person outside of the Community exclusively for the purposes of such activity, it is to be regarded as ‘a taxable person acting as such’?

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the negative and Articles 46 to 49 of the Directive do not apply, does Article 45 of the Directive apply to the supply or does neither Article 44 or Article 45 apply to the supply? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the negative and Articles 46 to 49 of the Directive do not apply, does Article 45 of the Directive apply to the supply or does neither Article 44 or Article 45 apply to the supply?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006, L 347, p. 1).

---
EXHIBIT 11.1


                          JD American Workwear, Inc.

               Statement Re: Computation of Per Share Earnings


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                    Year Ended
                                                     ---------------------------------------
                                                     February 28, 1995     February 29, 1996
                                                     -----------------     -----------------

<S>                                                    <C>                   <C>
Net Loss                                               $  (585,047)          $ (1,171,988)
Weighted average common shares outstanding                 875,000(1)             969,762
"Cheap" stock issued December 1994 - August 1995           388,455
                                                       ----------------------------------
                                                         1,263,455                969,762
                                                       ==================================

Loss per share                                         $      (.46)          $      (1.21)
                                                       ==================================

<FN>
-------------------
<F1>  Excludes "cheap" stock issued from September of 1994 through August of 
      1995 which is viewed as outstanding for all periods presented.

<F2>  There is no difference between primary and fully diluted loss per share.
</FN>
</TABLE>