alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE v. Paul Dewayne CUMMINGS.

No. 1A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 26, 2005.

William N. Farrell, Jr., Senior Deputy Attorney General, Ben David, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 21st day of October 2005 by Defendant for Extension of Time to Serve Proposed Record on Appeal:

"Motion Allowed. Defendant shall have up to and including the 23rd day of November 2005 to serve his/her proposed record upon the district attorney. The parties shall then proceed to settle and file the record on appeal pursuant to the provisions of Appellate Rules 11 and 12. By order of the Court in conference this the 26th day of October 2005."
STATE v. HAYES

No. COA04-1550

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed July 19, 2005

Certification Date August 8, 2005

Appeal from Yadkin (03CRS51098, 03CRS51101, 03CRS51104, 04CRS145, 03CRS51274, 03CRS51275, 03CRS51278, 03CRS51280).

Case without published opinion. Motion denied; judgment affirmed.
Anitra L. FARRIOR, Vantoice F. Farrior, Yvette A. Farrior, Anaiah Hill, a minor appearing through her Guardian ad Litem, Ralph Wiley, and Anitra L. Farrior, Administratrix of the Estate of Kiaria Inesha Hill v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 266P04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 12, 2004.

Kenneth R. Massey, Rocky Mount, for Farrior et al.

J. Darby Wood, Goldsboro, Sarah L. Heekin, for State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 3rd day of June 2004 by Plaintiffs in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 12th day of August 2004."
In the Matter of C.A.M.

No. 55P04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 24, 2004.

James N. Freeman, Jr., for C.A.M.

Elizabeth L. Oxley, Assistant Attorney General, for State.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 9th day of February 2004 by Respondent (McIntyre) in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 24th day of June 2004."
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5168 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5168

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 19101 Cortez Boulevard in Brooksville, Florida, as the ``Cody Grater 
                        Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. CODY GRATER POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 19101 Cortez Boulevard in Brooksville, Florida, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Cody Grater Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Cody 
Grater Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives April 1, 2008.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
110th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 5168

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 19101 Cortez Boulevard in Brooksville, Florida, as the ``Cody Grater 
                        Post Office Building''.
```
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed 

August 30, 2018.

In The 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-18-00730-CV

IN RE DARRELL J. HARPER, Relator 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING 

WRIT OF MANDAMUS 

 165th District Court 

Harris County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 2017-77474 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

On August 20, 2018, relator Darrell J. Harper filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West Supp. 2017); see 

also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to compel the 

Honorable Robert K. Schaffer, local administrative judge and presiding judge of the 

165th District Court of Harris County, to vacate his order dated August 13, 2018,

denying relator’s petition for leave to file a civil suit against the Harris County Tax 
2 

Assessor-Collector Ann Harris Bennett, the Harris County Appraisal District, and 

Chief Appraisal, Roland Altinger. 

To obtain mandamus relief, a relator generally must show both that the trial 

court clearly abused its discretion and that relator has no adequate remedy by appeal. 

In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. 

proceeding). Relator has not shown that the trial court clearly abused its discretion. 

We therefore deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM 

Panel consists of Justices Donovan, Wise, and Jewell.
114 Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2020

WEST VIRGINIA 

#44 

$1.0 B SPENT IN 

STATE 

#38 

1.4% OF STATE GDP

0.2%

OF TOTAL U.S. 

DEFENSE SPENDING 

$588

PER RESIDENT 

#44 

$0.7 B CONTRACT 

SPENDING 

#46 

9,918 NUMBER OF 

PERSONNEL 

#48 

$0.4 B PERSONNEL 

SPENDING 

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

By Type 

Supplies and

Equipment: 38% 

Resea ice: 10%

Const

rch and Serv Development: 3%

By Service 

Army

60%

Navy/Marines

27%

Air Force

7%

Other Defense

6%

DEFENSE PERSONNEL 

Allocations, By Type

17% Civilia

National Guard: 62%

Active Duty: 1%

Reserve:

n: 20%

Allocations, By Service 

Army

71%

Navy/Marines

2%

Air Force

26%

Other Defense

0%

Top Defense Contractors 

Brayman Construction Corp.

Northrop Grumman

Boeing

NextGen Federal Systems

True North Enterprises

Truston Technologies Inc.

Aero International

Alliant Techsystems Operations

United Technologies

SMR Technologies

(M = millions)

$318.7 M

$178.9 M

$27.6 M

$15.9 M

$12.1 M

$11.8 M

$9.4 M

$7.9 M

$6.1 M

$4.6 M

Contract

ruction: 49%

 Awards Performed (By Fiscal Year, billions)

$0.9

FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19

$0.7

$0.3 $0.3 $0.3 $0.4 $0.3

$0.2

FY20

$381.2 MILLION 9,918

TOTAL PAYROLL TOTAL PERSONNEL 

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Active Civilian National

Duty Guard

Kanawha 16 447 1,526

Berkeley ND 258 1,212

Preston 0 65 542

Putnam ND 111 414 

Cabell 27 544 0

Wood ND 60 311

Fayette 13 12 415

Wayne 0 35 244

Ohio ND 78 103

Harrison 16 45 125

Reserve

356

31

64

69

ND 

90

ND 

42

126

74

Total

2,345

ND 

671

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

321

ND 

260
Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2020 115

AF Active AF Guard AF Reserve Army Active Army Guard Army Reserve MC Active Navy Active WHS

WEST VIRGINIA FISCAL YEAR 2018 FISCAL YEAR 2018

FISCAL YEAR 2020 

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS (M=millions)

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS (M = millions) (M=millions) (M=millions)

Summers

Harrison

Greenbrier

McDowell

Kanawha

Jefferson

Mason

Cabell

(M = millions)

$319.4 M

$191.8 M

$34.6 M 

$28.3 M

$13.0 M

$11.8 M

$11.4 M

$10.9 M

$7.0 M

$5.3 M

Kanawha

Berkeley

Cabell

Preston

Putnam

Fayette

Wood

Harrison

Ohio

Wayne

$100.4 M

$54.5 M

$46.2 M

$26.6 M

$22.1 M

$16.5 M

$15.6 M

$10.1 M

$9.3 M

$8.9 M

Mason Harrison Jefferson

Kanawha Greenbrier

Monongalia Mineral

Harrison

Kanawha

Wood

Ohio

Cabell

Wayne

Putnam

Fayette

Berkeley Preston

McDowell

Cabell

Summers

Monongalia

Mineral
(August 15, 2005)

#### Harry Bloechle et al., Respondents, v Ralph Ranieri et al., Defendants, and TNM Construction Corp., Appellant.

[799 NYS2d 749]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant TNM Construction Corp. appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, J.), dated May 26, 2004, as denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action sounding in common-law negligence insofar as asserted against it.

*436Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In October 1994 the appellant TNM Construction Corp. was retained by the defendants Ralph Ranieri and Kim Marie Ranieri to perform renovations on a house they had purchased, including the construction of a second story and a balcony. The construction was completed in May 1995. Thereafter, in November 1999, while replacing windows on the second floor of the house, the plaintiff Harry Bloechle leaned against the railing of the balcony and fell to the ground when a portion of the railing gave way, thereby sustaining personal injuries.

On a motion for summary judgment, the movant initially bears the burden of setting forth evidentiary facts sufficient to entitle that party to judgment as a matter of law. Only then does the burden shift to the opposing party to come forward with proof *(see Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]; *Fabbricatore v Lindenhurst Union Free School Dist.,*259 AD2d 659 [1999]). The appellant failed to submit sufficient evidence to establish as a matter of law that the accident was not proximately caused by any negligence on its part. Thus, the appellant failed to meet its burden of establishing its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Consequently, the burden never shifted to the plaintiffs to establish the existence of a triable issue of fact, and the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ papers need not be considered *(see Kolosovskiy v Vitale,*7 AD3d 579 [2004]; *Mariaca-Olmos v Mizrhy,*226 AD2d 437 [1996]). Schmidt, J.P., Mastro, Rivera and Skelos, JJ., concur.
**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 Spirit Finance Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Christopher H. Volk, Chief Executive 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.                    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.

 

 
| Date: May 10, 2006 |
|--------------------|
|               |
|               | /s/ Christopher H. Volk |   |
|               | Christopher H. Volk |
|               | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
PERRY v. U.S. ASSEMBLIES, RTP.

No. COA05-83.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed January 3, 2006.

Certification Date January 23, 2006.

Appeal from NC Industrial Commission (I.C. #752385).

Case without published opinion. Affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONOF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

The followingcertification accompanies the issuer’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB, for thequarterly period ended June 30, 2006, and is not filed, as provided in Release33-8212, 34-47551.

In connection withthe accompanying Quarterly Report of Treaty Oak Bancorp, Inc. (“Treaty Oak”)on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2006, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Jeffrey L. Nash, Chief Financial Officer of Treaty Oak, hereby certify pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

(1)                                  theReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

(2)                                  theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of Treaty Oak.

A signed originalof this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to TreatyOak and will be retained by Treaty Oak and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.
| Dated: August 14, 2006 |                    |
|------------------------|-------------------------|
|                   |                    |
|                   |                    |
|                   | /s/ Sandra L. Ellsworth |   |
|                   | Sandra L. Ellsworth     |
|                   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
HomeOcean Facts

# What is a rogue wave?

## A 'rogue wave' is **large**, **unexpected**, and **dangerous**.

A rogue wave estimated at 18.3 meters (60 feet) in the Gulf Stream off of Charleston, South Carolina. At the time, surface winds were light at 15 knots. The wave was moving away from the ship after crashing into it moments before this photo was captured. 

Rogue, freak, or killer waves have been part of marine folklore for centuries, but have only been accepted as real by scientists over the past few decades. 

Rogues, called  'extreme storm waves' by scientists, are those waves which are greater than twice the size of surrounding waves, are very  unpredictable, and often  come unexpectedly from directions other than prevailing wind and waves.

Most reports of extreme storm waves say they look like "walls of water." They are often  steep-sided with unusually deep troughs. 

 Since these waves are uncommon, measurements and analysis of this phenomenon is extremely rare. Exactly how and when rogue waves form is still under investigation, but there are several known  causes:

**Constructive interference**. Extreme waves often form because   swells, while traveling across the ocean, do so at different speeds and directions. As these swells pass through one another, their crests, troughs, and lengths sometimes  coincide and reinforce each other. This process can form  unusually large, towering waves that quickly  disappear. If the swells are travelling in the same direction, these mountainous waves may last for several minutes before subsiding.

**Focusing of wave energy**. When waves formed by a storm  develop in a water current against the normal wave direction, an interaction can take place which results in a shortening of the wave frequency. This can cause the  waves to dynamically join together, forming  very big 'rogue' waves. The currents where these are sometimes seen are the Gulf Stream and Agulhas current. Extreme waves developed in this fashion tend to be longer lived.

###### **Search** Our Facts

###### Get **Social**

###### More **Information**

          -  Wind, Swell and Rouge Waves, JetStream Online School for Weather,  National Weather Service
          - Rogue Waves, Ocean Prediction Center,  National Weather Service

**Last updated:**   01/20/23**Author:** NOAAHow to cite this article

Contact Us

            - Provide Feedback 
            -  Contact Us 
            -  Report an error 

##### Science. Service.Stewardship.

###### 						About NOS 					

            - About Us
            - NOS Program Offices
            - Media Inquiries
            - Website Acknowledgements

###### 						Resources 					

            - Site Index
            - Disclaimer
            - Freedom of Information Act
            - Accessibility

###### 						More Resources 					

            - Information Quality
            - Privacy Policy
            - NOS For Employees
            - USA.gov

          -  National Ocean Service
          -  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
          -  Department of Commerce

##### 						Social 					

            - 
            - 
            - 
            - 
            -
EXHIBIT 11.1

                              EARNINGS PER SHARE TABLE


                                             Years ended September 30,
                                        -----------------------------------
                                            1997        1998        1999
                                        ----------- ----------- -----------

Net Income                               $   8,954   $   6,681   $   3,633

Weighted average number of
  shares for BASIC net income
  per common share                      11,504,500  11,516,631  11,527,400

Net income per share - BASIC              $   0.78    $   0.58    $   0.32
                                        =========== =========== ===========


Weighted average number of
  shares for DILUTED net
  income per common share               11,605,706	  11,614,692	  11,527,400

Net income per share - DILUTED            $   0.77	    $   0.58    $   0.32
                                        =========== =========== ===========






























<PAGE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT BILLY JOE SANDERS, INDIVIDUALLY, AND IN HIS CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE FOR KEYSTONE TRUST AND KEYSTONE TRUST, Petitioners

v.
WESTMORELAND COUNTY TAX CLAIM BUREAU AND KELLY A. ROWE, Respondents : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 340 WAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER
PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 7th day of January, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED

.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                                  CERTIFICATION
                           Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)


In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of ZHONGPIN  INC.  (the
"Company")  for the quarter ended March 31, 2006,  as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  Yuanmei Ma, as Chief
Financial  Officer  of the  Company,  hereby  certifies,  pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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.


Date:    September 18, 2006            By:/s/ Yuanmei Ma
                                          ---------------------------------
                                          Yuanmei Ma
                                          Chief Financial Officer

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

         This  certification  accompanies each Report  pursuant to ss.906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of ss.18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

         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.
Memorandum to All Employees

From: [Insert Head of Agency/Unit]

RE: Whistleblower Protection/Prohibited Personnel Practices

The purpose of this memorandum is to ensure that all agency employees are aware of and understand the prohibited personnel practices and whistleblower protections available to federal employees.  

The U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) is an independent agency that protects federal employees from prohibited personnel practices, including whistleblower retaliation and unlawful hiring practices.  OSC also provides an independent, secure channel for disclosing and resolving wrongdoing in federal agencies.

The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 and the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012 provide the right for all covered federal employees to make whistleblower disclosures and to ensure that employees are protected from whistleblower retaliation.  The Dr. Chris Kirkpatrick Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017 and OSC’s Reauthorization Act of 2017 further enhanced and reinforced these rights and protections.  

Whistleblowing is defined as the disclosure of information that an employee reasonably believes evidences:  a violation of any law, rule or regulation; gross mismanagement; gross waste of funds; an abuse authority; a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety; or censorship related to scientific research or analysis.  Employees may make lawful disclosures to anyone, including, for example, management officials, the Inspector General of an agency, and/or OSC.

Please review the fact sheet, Your Rights as a Federal Employee, which provides detailed information on the fourteen prohibited personnel practices and employees’ rights to file complaints with OSC.   Additionally, I encourage you to review Know Your Rights When Reporting Wrongs, which describe different avenues for making whistleblower disclosures as federal employees. More information can also be found on the OSC website.  

Federal employees have the right to be free from prohibited personnel practices, including retaliation for whistleblowing.  This agency is committed to making sure that all employees are aware of their rights as well as the safeguards that are in place to protect them.
**Exhibit 10.21****Kos Pharmaceuticals, Inc.****2006 Non-Employee Director Compensation**           *Per Meeting*  *Annual* **Board Meetings:**                 Annual Retainer     $30,000          Meetings* $2,500              **Committees:**                 Chairperson Retainer     $7,500**         Meetings* $2,500              **Stock Option Awards:**                 Upon First Election     20,000 shares         Each Annual Meeting     20,000 shares         **Restricted Stock Awards:**                 Each Annual Meeting     5,000 shares * Telephone attendance fees are $500 per meeting. ** Audit committee chairperson receives $10,000 annual retainer.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Richard Beyer, Chairman of the Board and Chief
Executive Officer of Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



|(1) | the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended October 2, 2009 (the Quarterly Report), which this statement accompanies fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m) and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Freescale Semiconductor,
Inc.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This certificate is being furnished solely for purposes of Section 906.

Dated: October 23, 2009



/s/ RICHARD BEYERRichard BeyerChairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer,Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.