alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Donna Elliot Ferri, Respondent, v Anthony S. Ferri, Appellant.

[878 NYS2d 67]

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from (1) so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Giacomo, J.), dated September 28, 2007, as awarded the plaintiff the sum of $2,000 per month in maintenance through September 2010 and $3,260 per month in child support, imputed income to him, and valued his ownership of four businesses at $953,641 and awarded the plaintiff 30% of that value, and (2) an order of the same court dated May 8, 2008, which granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was to hold him in contempt for failure to provide proof of an insurance policy and Ordered the execution of a money judgment in the amount of $70,439.14 for amounts he failed to pay the plaintiff pursuant to the judgment.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further;

Ordered that the order is affirmed; and it is further;

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.

The Supreme Court properly permitted the defendant to be treated as a hostile witness at the trial. Where, as here, “an adverse party is called as a witness, it may be assumed that such adverse party is a hostile witness, and, in the discretion of the court, direct examination may assume the nature of cross-examination by the use of leading questions” *(Fox v Tedesco,*15 AD3d 538, 538 [2005]; *see Jordan v Parrinello,*144 AD2d 540, 541 [1988]; *Marzuillo v Isom,*277 AD2d 362 [2000]). Moreover, the general rule prohibiting a party from impeaching his or her own witness does not preclude a hostile witness from being impeached by prior statements made either under oath or in writing *(see*CPLR 4514; *Cammarota v Drake,*285 AD2d 919*626[2001]; *Jordan v Parrinello,*144 AD2d 540 [1988]). The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in allowing the plaintiffs counsel to question the defendant, who was an adverse party, in the nature of cross-examination, and to impeach him with alleged inconsistencies in his prior statements.

We reject the defendant’s contention that the amount and duration of the maintenance award was excessive. “[T]he amount and duration of maintenance is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and every case must be determined on its own unique facts” *(Wortman v Wortman,*11 AD3d 604, 606 [2004]; *see DiBlasi v DiBlasi,*48 AD3d 403 [2008]). “The overriding purpose of a maintenance award is to give the spouse economic independence, and it should be awarded for a duration that would provide the recipient with enough time to become self-supporting” *(Sirgant v Sirgant,*43 AD3d 1034, 1035 [2007]; see *DiBlasi v DiBlasi,*48 AD 3d 403 [2008]; *Scarlett v Scarlett,*35 AD3d 710 [2006]). The award of maintenance in the sum of $2,000 per month through September 2010 was appropriate in amount and duration to allow the plaintiff to become self-supporting.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Dillon, Covello and Leventhal, JJ., concur.
---

Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Fortunato Villamagna, hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|(1) | the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Sierra Ventures,
      Inc. for the period ended November 30, 2009 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 Form 10-Q fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of Sierra Ventures, Inc.                                                  

Dated: January 13, 2010

/s/ Fortunato
VillamagnaFortunato VillamagnaSecretary and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Sierra Ventures,
Inc. and will be retained by Sierra Ventures, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
#### Terry L. HILL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 05-5045.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

June 15, 2006.

Timothy M. White, Atlanta South Office Complex, Richmond J. Brownson, Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

David E. O’Meilia, U.S. Attorney, WynDee Ann Baker, Office of the United States Attorney, Peter Bernhardt, Asst. U.S. Attorney, United States Attorney’s Office, Tulsa, OK, Amy Jeanine Mitchell, Tina M. Waddell, Office of the General Counsel, Social Security Administration, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before LUCERO, EBEL, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

DAVID M. EBEL, Circuit Judge.

Terry L. Hill appeals the district court’s denial of an award of attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1). In *McGraw v. Barnhart,*450 F.3d 493 (10th Cir.2006), this court held that § 406(b)(1) allows an *744award of fees when the district court has remanded a Title II Social Security case for further proceedings. Thus, the judgment of the district court is REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings in light of *McGraw.*Appellant’s motion to file an addendum of recent citations is GRANTED and the Clerk is directed to accept the addendum for filing as of the date of original receipt.

*

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
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 *





I,
Allison Carroll, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Pretoria Resources Two, Inc. for the
quarter ended June 30, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly
presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of Pretoria Resources Two, Inc.





Date:
      August 13, 2009
              By:
              /s/ Allison
      CarrollAllison
      CarrollPresident,
      Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial
      Officer




The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
document.
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 331

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION II

No. CV-13-1156

BERTHA BELLE GRAVES

APPELLANT

V.

JAMES JAY GRAVES

APPELLEE

Opinion Delivered May 28, 2014

APPEAL FROM THE VAN BUREN

COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[NO. DR-2012-59]

HONORABLE DAVID M. CLARK,

JUDGE

DISMISSED

ROBIN F. WYNNE, Judge

Bertha Belle Graves appeals from the trial court’s denial of her motion for new trial in

the parties’ divorce action. She argues on appeal that the trial court erred by denying her

motion because there was no corroboration of grounds, the guardianship of the person and

estate of appellee James Jay Graves is void, and the settlement agreement entered into by the

parties was obtained as a result of duress and coercion. We must dismiss the appeal for lack

of a final order. 

An appeal may be taken only from a final judgment or decree entered by the trial

court. Ark. R. App. P.–Civ. 2(a)(1) (2013). Whether an order is final and appealable is a

jurisdictional question that may be raised by this court sua sponte. See Lamont v. Healthcare

Capital, Inc., 2013 Ark. App. 283. For a judgment to be final, it must dismiss the parties from

the court, discharge them from the action, or conclude their rights to the subject matter in
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 331

controversy. Roberts v. Roberts, 70 Ark. App. 94, 14 S.W.3d 529 (2000). Thus, the order

must put the trial court’s directive into execution, ending the litigation or a separable branch

of it. Id. 

The decree orders the parties to agree to a division of their property within fifteen days

of the filing of the decree and states that any property not agreed on is to be sold at auction,

with the proceeds divided between the parties. However, the decree also states that “[i]f after

the sale either party is not satisfied that all items were in fact returned, they have the right to

request a hearing on the issue of the missing items.” The decree does not fully dispose of the

parties’ property and explicitly contemplates the possibility of future litigation with regard to

the subject matter in controversy. The decree is not final for the purposes of appeal;

therefore, the appeal must be dismissed. 

Dismissed.

WALMSLEY and HARRISON, JJ., agree. 

Worsham Law Firm, P.A., by: Richard E. Worsham, for appellant.

Jensen Young & Houston, PLLC, by: Terence C. Jensen, for appellee.

2
H. Res. 1187 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

May 11, 2010. 

Whereas title 18 of the United States Code makes it a crime 

to forcibly assault, resist, intimidate, or interfere with a 

Federal employee while engaged in or on account of the 

performance of official duties, or to kill or attempt to kill 

any such employee while so engaged or on such account; 

Whereas the suicide attack on the Internal Revenue Service 

office in Austin, Texas on February 18, 2010, that 

claimed the life of two-tour Vietnam veteran Vernon 

Hunter follows the more than 1,200 attacks which were 

made on Internal Revenue Service employees between 

2001 and 2008, attacks which have resulted in at least 

197 convictions; 

Whereas the shooting attack on Thursday, March 4, 2010, by 

John Patrick Bedell that injured two Pentagon guards 

was the fourth attack or security scare on a Federal 

building in 2010; 

Whereas the Department of Justice filed 313 cases in fiscal 

year 2006, 326 cases in fiscal year 2007, 303 cases in 

fiscal year 2008, and 277 cases in fiscal year 2009 (as 

of August of such fiscal year), relating to attacks against 

Federal employees; 
2 

•HRES 1187 EH 

Whereas more than 2,000,000 civilian employees in the Federal workforce provide many forms of dedicated service to 

the United States and its people, such as fighting crime 

and fire, supporting our military, protecting health, providing essential human services, preserving the environment and maintaining our national parks, wildlife refuges, and forests, securing our borders, responding with 

assistance in times of natural disaster, regulating commerce, defending our freedom, and advancing our country’s interests around the world, all of which contribute 

to the greatness and prosperity of the Nation; and 

Whereas Federal employees are entitled to expect a reasonable degree of personal safety and security while carrying 

out their official duties: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) expresses the Nation’s appreciation for the outstanding contributions made by Federal employees to the 

United States; 

(2) supports the goal of protecting the safety and 

security of our Federal employees; and 

(3) urges that the Government seek ways to improve the safety and security of our Federal employees. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
---

**Exhibit 32.2**



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCAIL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the quarterly report of Lincoln Mining Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John Pulos, Chief Financial Officer of Lincoln Mining Corp., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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 (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.







Date: February 19, 2008

/s/John Pulos

John Pulos, Chief Financial Officer











---
EXHIBIT 32.2



CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the Annual Report of CapSource Financial, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Steven J. Kutcher, 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 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.



Dated: April 15, 2008
        By:
        /s/ Steven J. KutcherSteven J. Kutcher
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer andPrincipal Accounting Officer






---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, 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.

 January 31, 2014

h0127

Order 

Clerk

January 31, 2014

147451 & (18)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 147451

COA: 312687

Gratiot CC: 11-006365-FH

CARL JAMAL WILLIAMS,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________/

By order of October 28, 2013, the prosecuting attorney was directed to answer the 

application for leave to appeal the June 19, 2013 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, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we 

REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted.
Exhibit 32
 Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 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: August 3, 2010
    /s/ Michael D. Devlin.Michael D. DevlinPresident and Chief Executive OfficerDate: August 3, 2010
    /s/ Guy HackneyGuy HackneySenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### Thomas E. Dombrowski, Respondent, v Raymond W. Bulson, Appellant.

Submitted February 14, 2012;

decided February 16, 2012

Reported below, 79 AD3d 1587.

Motion by Ganpat Ramcharran for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Two copies of the brief must be served and 19 copies filed within seven days.
Exhibit (d)(155)

**FORM OF**

**AMENDMENT TO**

**SUB-ADVISORY AGREEMENT**

**between**

**FIDELITY INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT ADVISORS**

**and**

**FIDELITY MANAGEMENT & RESEARCH COMPANY**

**and**

**FIDELITY INVESTMENT TRUST ON BEHALF OF FIDELITY SOUTHEAST ASIA FUND**

	This Amendment made as of this __ day of ______, 200_, amends the Sub-Advisory Agreement (the"Agreement"), dated March 1, 2001, by and between Fidelity Management & Research Company, a Massachusettscorporation with principal offices at 82 Devonshire Street, Boston, Massachusetts (hereinafter called the "Advisor");Fidelity International Investment Advisors, a Bermuda company with principal offices at Pembroke Hall, Pembroke,Bermuda (hereinafter called the "Sub-Advisor"); and Fidelity Investment Trust, a Massachusetts business trust, onbehalf of Fidelity Southeast Asia Fund (hereinafter called the "Portfolio").

	WHEREAS the Advisor and Sub-Advisor (the "Parties") wish to clarify their relationship by amending theAgreement in accordance with the terms of this Amendment;

	NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereto agree as follows:

	1.  Paragraph 7 of the Agreement is hereby supplemented as follows:

	Nothing in this Agreement will constitute a partnership between the Advisor, the Sub-Advisor and the Trust.Nothing in this Agreement makes the Sub-Advisor an agent of the Advisor or the Trust and the Sub-Adviserhas no authority whatsoever to exercise discretionary powers over the global portfolios and investmentfunds, except as provided pursuant to paragraph 1(b) herein, of the Advisor and the Trust, or otherwise tobind the Advisor's and the Trust's assets under management.

	The Sub-Advisor shall furnish services as an independent contractor and not as an employee or agent of either the Advisor or the Trust.  The Sub-Advisor has no power or authority to act for, represent, or bind theAdvisor or the Trust or any company affiliated with either of them.

	2.****In all other respects, the Agreement is hereby confirmed and remains in full force and effect.

	This Amendment shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the Commonwealth ofMassachusetts, without giving effect to the choice of laws provisions thereof.

	IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be signed in their behalf by theirrespective officers thereunto duly authorized, and their respective seals to be hereunto affixed, all as of the datewritten above.

[SIGNATURE LINES OMITTED]
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATE 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 IPC The Hospitalist Company, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the
undersigned, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ DEVRA G. SHAPIRODevra G. Shapiro Chief
Financial Officer


Date: October 27, 2010
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7511
WILLIE LEE GARY, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SUSAN HAYES, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-673-5-F) Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 24, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Willie Lee Gary, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Gary v. Hayes , No. CA-95-673-5-F (E.D.N.C. Sept. 12, 1995).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
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

CHARLES JACOBS, KIMBERLY JACOBS, and SOLAR 

SPORTSYSTEMS, INC.,

Appellants,

v.

PALM BEACH POLO AND COUNTRY CLUB PROPERTY OWNERS' 

ASSOCIATION, INC.; PALM BEACH POLO HOLDINGS, INC.; FAR 

NIENTE STABLES II, LLC; POLO FIELD ONE, LLC; STADIUM NORTH, 

LLC; STADIUM SOUTH, LLC; PALM BEACH POLO, INC.; and SAL V. 

SPANO,

Appellees.

No. 4D18-2492

[October 17, 2019]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Lisa S. Small, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2012-CA-002417-

XXXX-MB.

James M. McCann and Tracy T. Segal of Akerman, LLP, West Palm 

Beach; and Jeffrey S. Bass and Katherine R. Maxwell of Shubin & Bass, 

P.A., Miami, for appellants.

Daniel S. Rosenbaum, Misti Z. Barnett and Dina L. Rosenbaum of 

Rosenbaum PLLC, West Palm Beach, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

DAMOORGIAN, CIKLIN and GERBER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.