alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### PARMLEE, Respondent, v. ASSOCIATED PHYSICIANS & SURGEONS, Appellant.

(Common Pleas of New York City and County, General Term.

April 26, 1894.)

Appeal from sixth district court.

Action by Samuel B. Parmlee against the Associated Physicians & Surgeons. Argued before BOOKSTAYER and BISCHOFF, JJ.

W. M. Adee, for appellant.

D. B. Simpson, for respondent.

BOOKSTAVER, J.

We think the judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered, on the authority of Bohm v. Brewery Co., 9 N. Y. Supp. 514; Rathbun v. Snow, 3 N. Y. Supp. 925, affirmed 123 N. Y. 343, 25 N. E. 379; and Westervelt v. Radde, 7 Daly, 326; costs to appellant, to abide the event.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

JANEEN DICKERSON,

Petitioner

v.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL 

BOARD (A SECOND CHANCE INC.),

Respondents

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 149 WAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 12th day of November, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 82 (Friday, April 27, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 21187]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10563]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Special Emphasis Panel in Information and Intelligent Systems; 
Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the 
following meeting:

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Information and Intelligent 
Systems (1200).
    Date/Time: May 22, 2001, 8:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m.
    Place: National Science Foundation, Room 1150, 4201 Wilson 
Blvd., Arlington, VA.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Ephraim Glinert, Deputy Division Director, 
Division of Information and Intelligent Systems, Room 1115, National 
Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230, 
Telephone: (703) 292-8930.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate Knowledge and Cognitive systems 
proposals as part of the selection process for awards.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and 
(6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.


    Dated: April 24, 2001.
Susanne Bolton,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 01-10563 Filed 4-26-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
21044 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2001 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS

AFFAIRS

[OMB Control No. 2900–0600]

Agency Information Collection

Activities Under OMB Review

AGENCY: Veterans Health

Administration, Department of Veterans

Affairs.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In compliance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995

(44 U.S.C., 3501 et seq.), this notice

announces that the Veterans Health

Administration (VHA), Department of

Veterans Affairs, has submitted the

collection of information abstracted

below to the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) for review and comment.

The PRA submission describes the

nature of the information collection and

its expected cost and burden; it includes

the actual data collection instrument.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before May 29, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION OR A COPY OF

THE SUBMISSION CONTACT: Denise

McLamb, Information Management

Service (045A4), Department of

Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue,

NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 273–

8030 or FAX (202) 273–5981 or e-mail

denise.mclamb@mail.va.gov. Please

refer to ‘‘OMB Control No. 2900–0600.’’

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Title: Regulation for Reconsideration

of Denied Claims (Title 38 CFR 17.33).

OMB Control Number: 2900–0600.

Type of Review: Reinstatement,

without change, of a previously

approved collection for which approval

has expired.

Abstract: The purpose of this data

collection is to provide a vehicle for

veterans to request an informal review

of their denied claims. Veterans whose

applications for healthcare benefits have

been denied will initiate these requests.

The data submitted by denied

applicants will be reviewed by hospital

administrative personnel to ensure the

correctness of the decision to deny.

An agency may not conduct or

sponsor, and a person is not required to

respond to a collection of information

unless it displays a currently valid OMB

control number. The Federal Register

notice with a 60-day comment period

soliciting comments on this collection

of information was published on

February 15, 2001, at pages 10565–

10566.

Affected Public: Individuals or

households.

Estimated Annual Burden: 25,413

hours.

Estimated Average Burden Per

Respondent: 15 minutes.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Estimated Number of Respondents:

101,652.

Send comments and

recommendations concerning any

aspect of the information collection to

VA’s OMB Desk Officer, OMB Human

Resources and Housing Branch, New

Executive Office Building, Room 10235,

Washington, DC 20503, (202) 395–7316.

Please refer to ‘‘OMB Control No. 2900–

0600’’ in any correspondence.

Dated: April 16, 2001.

By direction of the Secretary.

Donald L. Neilson,

Director, Information Management Service.

[FR Doc. 01–10381 Filed 4–25–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

MARK PORTER, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D19-1139

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed October 16, 2019.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P.

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court 

for Polk County; William D.Sites, 

Judge.

Mark Porter, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Hughes v. State, 22 So. 3d 132 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); 

Blocker v. State, 968 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Waiter v. State, 965 So. 2d 861 

(Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Carpenter v. State, 884 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Haynes v. 

State, 106 So. 3d 481 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013); Morris v. State, 951 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 

2006); State v. Milne, 921 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); Pruitt v. State, 801 So. 2d 

143 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).

KHOUZAM, C.J., and CASANUEVA and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
**EXHIBIT 10.12**

 

**AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO IOWA TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, INC. 2005 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN**

 

By this action of the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of IowaTelecommunication Services, Inc.**,** (the “Company”) on April 23, 2007, subject to approval by the Company’s shareholders, the Company hereby amends in the manner set forth herein certain provisions of the IowaTelecommunications Services, Inc. 2005 Stock Incentive Plan as previously adopted by the Board on April 26, 2005, and approved by the shareholders of the Company on June 16, 2005. 

 

Article 1. *Shares Available*. Section 4(a) of the Plan is amendedby striking the entire first sentence of said section and replacing it with the following sentence: 

 

Subject to adjustment as provided in Section 4(c) of the Plan, the aggregate number of Shares that may be issued under the Plan shallbe 1,500,000. 

 

Article 2: *Limitation on Awards Granted toNon-Employee Directors*. Section 4(d)(iii) of the Plan is amended by striking the entire first sentence of said section and replacing it with the following sentence: 

 

Directors who are not also employees of the Company or an Affiliate may not be granted Awards in theaggregate for more than 10% of the Shares available for Awards under the Plan, subject to adjustment as provided in Section 4(c) of the Plan. 

 

Article 3. *Term of the Plan*. Section 11 of the Plan is amended by striking the entire first sentence of said section and replacing it with thefollowing sentence: 

 

The Plan shall terminateat midnight on the tenth anniversary of shareholder approval of Amendment No. 1 to the Plan, unless terminated before then by the Board. 

 

Article 4. *Miscellaneous*. Capitalized terms not defined in this Amendment No. 1 have the meanings set forth in the Plan as previously adoptedand approved. Except as expressly amended by this Amendment No. 1, the Plan shall continue in full force and effect, as adopted and approved. Unless and until approved by the Company’s shareholders, this Amendment shall have no force andeffect.
#### PEOPLE v. ST. NICHOLAS BANK. In re QUINCY et al.

(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.

April 13, 1894.)

Appeal from special term, New York county.

Application by Charles E. Quincy and others to compel Hugh J. Grant, as temporary receiver of the St. Nicholas Bank, to pay over to petitioners $5,000, deposited by them in said bank on the day preceding its failure. From an order directing the receiver to pay over said sum, the receiver appeals. Reversed.

*422Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and O’BRIEN and FOLLETT, JJ.

John M. Bowers, for appellant.

Martin & Smith, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

In accordance with the views expressed in the case of People v. St. Nicholas Bank (In re Lathrop) 28 N. Y. Supp. 407 (decided herewith), the order appealed from, should be reversed, and the application denied, with costs.
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**


**Clickable
      Enterprises, Inc.**


**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 Clickable Enterprises, Inc. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
      Guy
      Pipolo, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of
      2002, that:





(1)
            The
                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
                of
                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 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.





This
      Certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed “filed” by the Company for
      purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
      amended.


*Date:
                February 13, 2006*
              
              */s/
                Guy Pipolo*
              *Guy
                Pipolo*
              *Chief
                Financial Officer*
              *(Principal
                Accounting Officer)*





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
ex-4_2.htm








Bonds.com Group, Inc. 10-K

 

 

Exhibit 4.2








Transfer Restricted - See Reverse Side Hereof









Incorporated Under the Laws of the State of Delaware










	  	
Number
	  	
Shares
	  



















Bonds.com Group, Inc.





200,000 Shares Authorized - $0.0001 par value



 





This Certifies That                                              Specimen                                                                                        is
the







registered holder of ________________________________________________ Shares

                  of Series A Participating Preferred Stock of Bonds.com Group, Inc.





transferable only on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in

person or by Attorney upon surrendering of this Certificate properly endorsed.

In Witness Whereof, the said Corporation has caused this Certificate to be signed

by its duly authorized officers and its Corporate Seal to be hereunto affixed





this _______ day                             of _______ A.D. _______





___________________________________                                           ___________________________________

Christopher Loughlin, Secretary                                                                   John
J. Barry IV, President
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-5059

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. JESUS GARCIA-PENA, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. (3:08-cr-00035-JPB-DJJ-1)

Submitted: August 18, 2009 Decided: August 28, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brendan S. Leary, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellant. Sharon L. Potter, United States Attorney, Paul T. Camilletti, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.PER CURIAM: Jesus Garcia-Pena pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after deportation following a conviction for an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2006). Garcia-Pena was sentenced to forty-six months of imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release, and now appeals. His attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising one issue but stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Garcia-Pena was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but did not do

so. We affirm.

In the Anders brief, counsel questions whether the district court erred in accepting Garcia-Pena’s guilty plea as knowing and voluntary. Because Garcia-Pena did not move in the district court to withdraw his guilty plea, any error in the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing is reviewed for plain error. See

United States v. Martinez , 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). Furthermore, there is a strong presumption that a defendant’s guilty plea is binding and voluntary if he has received an adequate Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing. United States v. Puckett , 61 F.3d 1092, 1099 (4th Cir. 1995); see Blackledge v. Allison , 431 U.S. 63, 74 (1977) (finding that statements made during a plea hearing “carry a strong presumption of verity”). Our review of the record discloses that the district court fully

23 complied with Rule 11. We conclude, therefore, that the district court did not err in accepting Garcia-Pena’s guilty plea.

We have examined the entire record in accordance with the requirements of Anders and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Garcia-Pena, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Garcia-Pena requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Garcia-Pena. 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.

AFFIRMED
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane lunani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T SAUL CAST I LL O V AZQU EZ , P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 09- 70731 A ge nc yN o. A 075- 250- 239 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d M ar c h 8, 2011 ** B e f o r e : F A R R I S , O ’S C A N N L A I N , an dB Y B E E , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . S aul C as t i l l o V az qu ez , a nat i ve and ci t i ze n o f M exi co, pet i t i on s f or re vi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order denyi ng hi s m ot i on t o reopen b a s e do n i n e f

f e c t i v e a s s i s t an c e o f

c o u n s e l . W e h av e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r8 U . S. C. § 1252. W e r e vi e w f

orabus e of

di s c r e t i on the de ni a lof am ot i on t o r e ope n, 

# FI LED MA R 28 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 70731 2 I tu rr i b a rr i a v . I

NS , 321 F . 3d 889, 894 ( 9th C i r . 2003) , and w e de nythe pe t i t i on f or r e v ie w . T he B I A di d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng C a s t i l l o V a z que z ’ s m ot i on t o reopen b ec ause he fi l ed the m ot i on near l y one ye araf t erthe B IA ’ s S ept em ber 1 0 , 2 0 0 4 , o r d e rd is m is s in g th e u n d e r ly in g ap p e a l, se e 8 C . F . R . § 1003. 2( c ) ( 2) , and C a s tillo V a z qu e z f

a ile dto e s tab lis h g r o u n d s f o re qu itab le to llin g , se e I tu rr ib a rr ia , 321 F . 3d a t897 ( e qui t abl e t ol l i ng ava i l abl e “ w he n ape t i t i one ri s pr e ve nt e d f r om f i l i ng be c aus e of

de c e pt i on, f

r aud, ore rr or , a s l ong a s the pe t i t i one ra c t s w i th due d ilig e n c e ” ) . P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>  
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          45,401                   4,809
<SECURITIES>                                         0                   1,509
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,707                   2,158
<ALLOWANCES>                                       181                     133
<INVENTORY>                                        570                     511
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                50,879                   8,976
<PP&E>                                           5,408                   2,207
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,777                     591
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  54,723                  10,676
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,720                   1,863
<BONDS>                                            286                     636
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                  10,247
<COMMON>                                            25                       7
<OTHER-SE>                                      49,692                  (2,077)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    54,723                  10,676
<SALES>                                         21,930                  10,515
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                21,930                  10,515
<CGS>                                            6,542                   3,576
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   21,100                  10,113
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    48                      88
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 126                     110
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,334                     719
<INCOME-TAX>                                       138                      17
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,196                     702
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,196                     702
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.08                    0.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.04                    0.03
        

</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

ROLLIN LEE SPENCER, a.k.a. Spence

Leigh Roland , a.k.a. Steven L. Spencer,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 17

- 30115

D.C. No. 1:07

- cr

- 00005

- TMB

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Alaska

Timothy M. Burgess, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 13, 2018 **

Before: LEAVY , M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Rollin Lee Spencer appeals from the district court’ s judgment and

challenges the revocation of his supervised release and the 24

- month sentence

imposed upon revocation. Pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

Spencer ’s counsel ha s filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along

* 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

MAR 19 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 30115

with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Spencer has file d a pro se

supplemental brief. No an swering brief has been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S.

75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

All remaining requests for relief, including those contained in Spencer’s

January 22, 2018, letter to the court, are DE NIED.

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 of Lawrence Financial Holdings, Inc., filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC No. 333-57540 and SEC No. 333-76086), of
our report dated January 22, 2003 on the consolidated financial statements of
Lawrence Financial Holdings, Inc. included un the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB
for the year ended December 31, 2002.



                                          /s/ Crowe, Chizek and Company LLP
                                          ---------------------------------
                                          Crowe, Chizek and Company LLP


Columbus, Ohio
March 14, 2003
**Exhibit 31.3**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

          I, James R. Weaver, certify that: 

          1.     I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Tier Technologies, Inc.; 

          2.     Based on my knowledge, this 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.     Omitted;

          4.     Omitted; and

          5.     Omitted. 

| Dated:   February 16, 2005 | /s/ JAMES R. WEAVER                       |
|----------------------------|-------------------------------------------|
|                       |                                           |
|                       | James R. Weaver   Chief Executive Officer |