alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Damion Kentrell WHITE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8798.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 11, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
II-00764

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Denise Brennan <dbre657144@aol.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 11:34 AM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Denise Brennan

2692 Patrick Henry, Apt. 101

Auburn Hills, MI 48326
ADOPTION
AGREEMENT


 


This
Adoption Agreement (“Adoption Agreement”) is executed on June 13, 2018, by Emet Capital Partners LLC (the “Purchaser”)
pursuant to the terms of that certain Securities Purchase Agreement dated as of September 14, 2017 (the “Agreement”),
by and among The Greater Cannabis Company, Inc. (the “Company”) and the Purchaser, as such Agreement may be
amended or amended and restated hereafter. Capitalized terms used but not defined in this Adoption Agreement shall have the respective
meanings ascribed to such terms in the Agreement. By the execution of this Adoption Agreement, the Purchaser agrees as follows.


 


1.1       New
Investment. Purchaser and Company agree that in exchange for a $5,000.00 payment on the Company’s behalf, Purchaser’s
Note is being increased by $5,500.00 by the Company’s execution of the allonge annexed hereto as Exhibit A (“Allonge”)
and the Company shall issue Purchaser a warrant for 11,000 shares in the form annexed hereto as Exhibit B (the “New Warrant”).
Such Allonge and New Warrant will be deemed a Note and Warrant (as defined in the agreement), respectively, as if issued pursuant
to the Agreement.


 


1.2       Agreement.
The terms, rights, obligations, and representations of the Agreement are hereby incorporated with respect to this Agreement, the
Allonge, and New Warrant, with the same force and effect as if such Allonge and New Warrant were originally issued pursuant thereto.


 


1.3       Execution.
This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, all of which when taken together shall be considered one and the same
agreement and shall become effective when counterparts have been signed by each party and delivered to each other party, it being
understood that the parties need not sign the same counterpart. In the event that any signature is delivered by facsimile transmission
or by e-mail delivery of a “.pdf” format data file, such signature shall create a valid and binding obligation of
the party executing (or on whose behalf such signature is executed) with the same force and effect as if such facsimile or “.pdf”
signature page were an original thereof.


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Adoption Agreement as of the date first written above.


 


PURCHASER:


 


	Emet
    Capital Partners LLC	 
	 	 	 
	By:	/s/
    Gabriel Berkowitz	 
	Name:	Gabriel
    Berkowitz	 
	Title:	Manager	 
	 	 	 
	The
    Greater Cannabis Company, Inc	 
	 	 	 
	By:	/s/
    Wayne Anderson	 
	Name:	Wayne
Anderson	 
	Title:	CEO
Danetrius J. TOLLIVER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8619.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 29, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
| 1)   | The                Quarterly Report on form 10-QSB for the three and six months ended                June                30, 2005 (the “Form 10-QSB”) of the Company 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 Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all                material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                January 16, 2007                               |         |         |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------|--------------|
|                                                                |         |
|  /s/                J. Scott Tomer                             |    |    |
| J.                Scott TomerChief                Executive Officer |         |         |

| Date:                January 16, 2007                              |         |         |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------|--------------|
|                                                               |         |
|   /s/                John D. Clagg                       |    |    |
| John                D. ClaggChief                Financial Officer |    |         |

----
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                 COMMUNITY FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY
             STATEMENT REGARDING: COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                      Three Months Ended
                                                            March 31,
                                                 -----------------------------
                                                    1999              1998    
                                                    ----              ----    
<S>                                              <C>               <C>       

Basic Income Per Common Share (1)

Net income (in thousands)                        $      805        $      640
                                                 ==========        ==========

Net income per share                             $      .19        $      .29
                                                 ==========        ==========

Weighted average common shares outstanding        4,217,795         2,213,868
                                                 ==========        ==========

Diluted Income Per Common Share (2)

Net income (in thousands)                        $      805        $      640
                                                 ==========        ==========

Net income per share                             $      .19        $      .22
                                                 ==========        ==========

Weighted average common shares outstanding        4,296,416         2,866,809
                                                 ==========        ==========

</TABLE>

(1)      Basic net income per share has been computed using the weighted average
         number of common shares outstanding during each period presented.

(2)      Diluted net income per share has been computed using the weighted
         average number of common share outstanding and the dilutive effect of
         stock options and warrants outstanding during the periods presented.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION THREE

CAROL MARIE STUTZKE,

Respondent,

v.

JESSICA LEIGH COX,

Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 39801-3-III

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

LAWRENCE-BERREY, C.J. — Jessica Leigh Cox appeals the entry of a domestic 

violence protection order (DVPO) restraining her from contact with her mother. We 

affirm. 

FACTS

Jessica Leigh Cox is the adult daughter of Carol Marie Stutzke. In May 2023, Ms. 

Stutzke petitioned for a DVPO against Ms. Cox. At that time, Ms. Cox was living with 

her parents after a divorce. In the petition, Ms. Stutzke described multiple episodes of 

Ms. Cox becoming angry and violent. 

FILED

JULY 2, 2024

In the Office of the Clerk of Court

WA State Court of Appeals, Division III
No. 39801-3-III

Stutzke v. Cox

2

On May 25, 2023, after a hearing on the petition,1the trial court issued a one-year 

DVPO restraining Ms. Cox from contact with Ms. Stutzke. 

Ms. Cox timely appealed.

ANALYSIS

Ms. Cox contends the trial court erred when it entered the DVPO because she did 

not know she could request an enlargement of time under CR 6. She also contends her

mother’s petition contained inadmissible hearsay. We reject her arguments.

First, Ms. Cox asks us to reverse the DVPO because she needed more time to 

prepare her defense and did not know she could request more time under CR 6. She 

seems to argue the trial court should have recognized she needed more time to respond. 

CR 6 provides:

(b) Enlargement. When by these rules or by a notice given 

thereunder or by order of court an act is required or allowed to be done at or 

within a specified time, the court for cause shown may at any time in its 

discretion, (1) with or without motion or notice, order the period enlarged if 

request therefor is made before the expiration of the period originally 

prescribed or as extended by a previous order or, (2) upon motion made 

after the expiration of the specified period, permit the act to be done where 

the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect . . . .

We have no record of Ms. Cox arguing to the trial court for it to continue the 

hearing to give her time to respond. In general, we decline to review claims of error not 

 

1 The hearing transcript is not in the record.
No. 39801-3-III

Stutzke v. Cox

3

argued below. RAP 2.5(a). Ms. Cox does not provide us any argument for not applying 

this general rule. We therefore decline to review this unpreserved claim of error.

Second, Ms. Cox argues the trial court relied on impermissible hearsay evidence 

contained in her mother’s petition. However, the rules of evidence need not be applied in 

proceedings for protection orders. ER 1101(c)(4). Thus, even if the trial court 

considered hearsay evidence, its actions would not constitute error.

Affirmed.

A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the 

Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to 

RCW 2.06.040.

_________________________________

Lawrence-Berrey, C.J.

WE CONCUR:

______________________________ _________________________________

Fearing, J. Pennell, J.
BOSTON FINANCIAL QUALIFIED HOUSING TAX CREDITS L.P. V
                             (A Limited Partnership)

                                  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 Boston Financial Qualified Housing
Tax Credits L.P. V (the "Partnership") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended
September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, the Principal Executive Officer and
Principal Financial Officer, 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
     Partnership.



                                                /s/Jenny Netzer
                                                -------------------------------
                                                Jenny Netzer
                                                Principal Executive Officer and
                                                Principal Financial Officer
                                                Arch Street VIII, Inc, as
                                                Managing General Partner of
                                                Boston Financial Qualified
                                                Housing Tax Credits L.P. V


                                                Date:  November 14, 2005


A signed original of this written statement required by section 906 has been
provided to the Partnership and will be retained by the Partnership and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
CHIEF JUSTICE

 ROGELIO VALDEZ

JUSTICES

 NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

 DORI CONTRERAS GARZA

 GINA M. BENAVIDES

 GREGORY T. PERKES

 NORA L. LONGORIA

CLERK

 DORIAN E. RAMIREZ

NUECES COUNTY COURTHOUSE

901 LEOPARD, 10TH FLOOR

CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 78401

361-888-0416 (TEL)

361-888-0794 (FAX)

HIDALGO COUNTY

ADMINISTRATION BLDG.

100 E. CANO, 5TH FLOOR

EDINBURG, TEXAS 78539

956-318-2405 (TEL)

956-318-2403 (FAX)

www.txcourts.gov/13thcoa

Court of Appeals 

Thirteenth District of Texas 

March 19, 2015

Hon. Warren Szutse Huang

Fulbright & Jaworski LLP

1301 McKinney, Suite 5100

Houston, TX 77010-3095

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Hon. Cynthia T. Sheppard

Attorney at Law

P. O. Box 67

Cuero, TX 77954

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Re: Cause No. 13-14-00322-CV

Tr.Ct.No. 2012CCV-62067-3

Style: CHRISTUS SPOHN HEALTH SYSTEM CORPORATION D/B/A CHRISTUS 

SPOHN HOSPITAL CORPUS CHRISTI - SHORELINE v. JEANNE K. 

GOODHEW

Enclosed please find the opinion and judgment issued by the Court on this date.

Very truly yours,

Dorian E. Ramirez, Clerk

DER:ch

Enc.

cc: County Court at Law No. 3 (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

Hon. Anne Lorentzen, Nueces County District Clerk (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

Hon. J. Rolando Olvera Jr., Presiding Judge, Fifth Administrative Judicial Region

(DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

April 17, 2009

Mr. Warren W. Harris

Bracewell & Giuliani, LLP 

711 Louisiana Street, Suite 2300

Houston, TX 77002-2778

Mr. Bruce Edwin Ramage

Martin Disiere Jefferson & Wisdom, L.L.P.

808 Travis, Suite 1800

Houston, TX 77002

RE:Case Number:  07-0490

Court of Appeals Number:  01-05-01080-CV

Trial Court Number:  2004-09441

Style:MANN FRANKFORT STEIN & LIPP ADVISORS, INC., MFSL GP, L.L.C., AND MFSL EMPLOYEE INVESTMENTS, LTD.

v.

BRENDAN J. FIELDING

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas delivered the enclosed opinions and judgment in the above-referenced cause.  

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Enclosures

**Case No. 07-0490Page 1**
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           9
<MULTIPLIER>        1,000
       
<S>                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>       9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                     SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                                 2,878
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                                     7
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                       6,700
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                           0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                            5,902
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                                 1,398
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                   1,367
<LOANS>                                               60,150
<ALLOWANCE>                                              421
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        80,475
<DEPOSITS>                                            73,124
<SHORT-TERM>                                               0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                      667
<LONG-TERM>                                              342
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<COMMON>                                               3,007
<OTHER-SE>                                             3,335
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                        80,475
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                        4,252
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                        339
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                         174
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                       4,765
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                     2,106
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     2,158
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                                  2,607
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                          (21)
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                         3
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                        2,209
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          744
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                               744
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                             464
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                           0.49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           0.40
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                          4.95
<LOANS-NON>                                              153
<LOANS-PAST>                                             283
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                         685
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                            0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                         431
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                             38
<RECOVERIES>                                              49
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                        421
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                     421
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                        0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                                    0
        

</TABLE>
CONTEST PROMOTIONS, LLC, petitioner, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA ;

Contest Promotions, LLC, petitioner, v. City and County of San Francisco, California.

No. 17-1152.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 29, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied
Tyrice G. ROYSTON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-5206.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
<PAGE>
 
                                 Exhibit 99.1

                    [LAW COMPANIES LETTERHEAD APPEARS HERE]


                             FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

                      LAW COMPANIES ANNOUNCES TRANSACTION
                        WITH VIRGIL AND JAMES WILLIAMS


Atlanta, GA, May 6, 1997...Law Companies Group, Inc. announced today that its
shareholders have approved its transaction with Virgil R. Williams and James M.
Williams, Jr.

     "After a long and careful process, we have now obtained the patient equity
base that will permit Law Companies to pursue aggressively its long-term
strategic plan," said Law Companies Chairman Bruce C. Coles.  "I look forward to
our association with our new shareholders, Virgil and James Williams, and
particularly to the benefits that Law Companies will obtain from their noted
expertise in industries complementary to ours."

     Under the terms of the relevant agreements, which were approved by Law
Companies' shareholders at its annual meeting, the Williams' invested $10
million cash in the Company for the purchase of preferred stock, warrants and
options which reflect approximately 33% of the outstanding stock of the Company
today.  The new Board of directors of Law Companies will consist of Virgil R.
Williams, James M. Williams, Jr., Thomas D. Moreland, Steven Muller, Michael D.
Williams, Joe A. Mason, Bruce C. Coles, Robert B. Fooshee, Walter T. Kiser, John
Y. Williams, Clay E. Sams, Peter D. Brettell and Frank B. Lockridge.

     Law Companies Group, Inc. is a worldwide professional service from
operating mainly in the engineering services industry.  Law Companies provides
consulting, design, and management services in the water, environmental,
transportation, buildings and government sectors.

                                       6