alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE v. Charles Rex WILES.

No. 213P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 5, 2006.

Robert C. Montgomery, Assistant Attorney General, Tom Horner, District Attorney, for State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 24th day of April 2006 by Defendant for Petition for Discretionary Review:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 5th day of October 2006."
Cherry 

436, 440-41, 254 P.3d 631, 634 (2011) (identifying three factors that a 

plaintiff must satisfy in order to add a new defendant after the statute of 

limitations has run); see NRS 34.160; NRS 34.320; Pan v. Eighth Judicial 

Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841, 844 (2004); Smith v. 

Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 113 Nev. 1343, 1344, 950 P.2d 280, 281 

(1997). Accordingly, we 

ORDER the petition DENIED. 

Parraguirre 

, J. 

cc: Hon. Connie J. Steinheimer, District Judge 

Upson Smith/Reno 

Curriden, Arneson and Anderton 

Van Walraven & Harris, Chtd. 

RanaIli & Zaniel, LLC/Reno 

Erickson Thorpe & Swainston, Ltd. 

Whitehead & Whitehead 

Law Offices of Kenneth E. Lyon, III 

M. Jerome Wright 

Law Offices of Melissa P. Harris 

Glogovac & Pintar 

Paul Kapitz 

Emerson & Manke, LLP 

Lemons, Grundy & Eisenberg 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 2 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A en
STATE v. HILL

No. COA06-753.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed March 20, 2007.

Certification Date April 9, 2007.

Appeal from Wake (03CRS24203, 03CRS24205).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. No prejudicial error.
STATE of North Carolina v. Derrick FRAZIER.

No. 461P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 5, 2006.

Matthew Wunsche, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Derrick Frazier.

David D. Lennon, Assistant Attorney General, Peter S. Gilchrist, III, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 31st day of August 2006 by Defendant 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 5th day of October 2006."
STATE v. SLOAN AND WOOTEN.

No. 24A07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 27, 2007.

Nora Henry Hargrove, for Sloan.

Norman Young, Jr., Thomas Meacham, Jr., Assistant Attorney Generals, C. Branson Vickory, III, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 26th day of February 2007 by Defendant:

"Motion Allowed. Defendant (Wooten) shall have up to and including the 12th day of March 2007 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 27th day of February 2007."
<PAGE>
                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.3



                       AMENDMENT TO THE BANCORPSOUTH, INC.
                    1995 NON-QUALIFIED STOCK OPTION PLAN FOR
                             NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS


         THIS AMENDMENT to the BancorpSouth, Inc. 1995 Non-Qualified Stock
Option Plan for Non-Employee Directors (the "Plan") by BancorpSouth, Inc. (the
"Company") is made on this 27th day of April, 2005.

                                    RECITALS:

         WHEREAS, the Company established the Plan, effective January 24, 1995,
for the purpose of providing automatic grants of non-qualified options each year
to the non-employee directors of the Company to purchase Company stock;

         WHEREAS, the Plan was amended and restated effective February 14, 1998,
and the awards and shares authorized thereunder were adjusted to reflect the two
for one split of the Company's common stock that occurred on May 15, 1998; and

         WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan to increase the number
of shares of Company stock that are available for purchase thereunder by 180,000
shares in order to provide for the continuation of the annual grants specified
in the Plan; and

         NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended by restating Section 5.2 of
the Plan as follows, effective as of the date of the annual meeting of
stockholders in which this amendment is approved:

                  "5.2 Maximum Number of Shares. The maximum number of shares of
         Stock that may be issued pursuant to this Plan is increased effective
         with the 2005 annual shareholders meeting by 180,000 shares to a total
         of 564,000, subject to increases and adjustments as provided in Article
         VIII. From this limit, no more than 8,000 shares of Stock shall may be
         issued as Restricted Stock."

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned officer of the Company has executed
this Amendment on the date first written above.

                                                  BANCORPSOUTH, INC.


                                             By:   /s/ AUBREY B. PATTERSON
                                                   -----------------------------

                                             Its:  CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD,
                                                   CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                                   -----------------------------
#### Judith Salgado, Appellant, v Geraldine B. Ring et al., Respondents.

[798 NYS2d 920]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens *363County (Golar, J.), dated February 21, 2003, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The defendants sustained their prima facie burden of demonstrating their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that they were out-of-possession landlords who were not obligated under the lease to remove snow and ice from the property, and who did not retain a sufficient degree of control over the premises to provide a basis for liability *(see Paone v Pane,*12 AD3d 583 [2004]; *Scott v Bergstol,*11 AD3d 525 [2004]; *Vijayan v Bally’s Total Fitness,*289 AD2d 224 [2001]; *Maldonado v Matera,*237 AD2d 584 [1997]). Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the evidence she relied upon in opposition to the motion was insufficient to raise an issue of fact as to whether the defendants retained control over the premises *(see Paone v Paone, supra; Scott v Bergstol, supra; Vijayan v Bally’s Total Fitness, supra; Maldonado v Matera, supra),*or, by course of conduct, assumed responsibility for snow and ice removal *(see Seigel v Congregation Zichron Shmuel,*226 AD2d 913 [1996]). Adams, J.P., Krausman, Spolzino and Fisher, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Arbitration between Atiba Stevenson, Appellant, and State of New York Department of Correctional Services, Respondent.

[801 NYS2d 632]

Peters, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Benza, J.), entered August 17, 2004 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR 7503 to stay arbitration between the parties, granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition.

Petitioner, a correction officer, was arrested on December 30, 2003 and a notice of discipline was served on him the following day. He filed a disciplinary grievance and, when it was not satisfactorily resolved at the agency level, requested arbitration. The arbitrator was appointed on February 17, 2004 and scheduled a hearing for March 29, 2004. Thereafter, respondent requested petitioner to consent to the postponement of the hearing, but petitioner refused. Following a conference call with the parties, the arbitrator granted respondent’s request to postpone *1203the hearing until sometime after April 23, 2004. On April 28, 2004, respondent contacted petitioner to ascertain his availability to attend the postponed hearing. Petitioner, in turn, commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration and dismiss the charges against him. Respondent moved to dismiss the petition for failure to state a cause of action. Supreme Court granted the motion, resulting in this appeal.

Petitioner asserts that the postponement of the hearing without his consent constituted a breach of paragraph 8.2 (f) of the parties’ collective bargaining agreement, thereby entitling him to a permanent stay of arbitration, dismissal of the disciplinary charges and reinstatement to his position. The subject provision, which appears under the article entitled discipline, states, in pertinent part, that “[arbitration hearings may not be rescheduled without mutual consent of the parties.” It is not a condition precedent to arbitration, but rather is in the nature of a “procedural stipulation[ ] that the parties . . . have laid down to be observed in the conduct of the arbitration proceeding itself” *(Matter of County of Rockland [Primiano Constr. Co.],*51 NY2d 1, 8 [1980]; *see Matter of Dalton v Schneider,*245 AD2d 1101, 1102 [1997]; *Matter of Town of Queensbury [Joseph R. Wunderlich, Inc.],*175 AD2d 946, 948 [1991]; *cf. Matter of Town of Ticonderoga [United Fedn. of Police Officers, Inc.],*15 AD3d 756 [2005]). As such, whether this provision has been violated and the consequences that flow therefrom are matters for the arbitrator to resolve *(see Matter of County of Rockland [Primiano Constr. Co.], supra*at 8; *Matter of Dalton v Schneider, supra*at 1102; *Matter of Town of Queensbury [Joseph R. Wunderlich, Inc.], supra*at 948). Accordingly, we find that Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition.

Crew III, J.P., Mugglin, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs. *[See*5 Misc 3d 421.]
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

June 25, 2012

s0618

Order 

June 25, 2012

144790

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 144790

COA: 301473

Kent CC: 10-002810-FC

MIKE TORRES ZUNIGA,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 13, 2011 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
In the Matter of S.L.H. appealed by Mother.

No. 40P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 29, 2006.

Richard Croutharmel, for Karen Morris.

Julia Talbutt, for New Hanover DSS.

Joann Waters, Winston-Salem, for Guardian Ad Litem.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 24th day of January 2006 by Respondent (Mother) in this matter for discretionary review *824of 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 29th day of June 2006."
STATE of North Carolina v. Anthony WILLIAMS.

No. 369P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 17, 2006.

Anthony Williams, Pro Se.

Wendy L. Greene, Assistant Attorney General, Peter S. Gilchrist, III, District Attorney for State of NC.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 630 S.E.2d 216.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 11th day of July 2006 by Defendant in this matter for request for 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 17th day of August 2006."
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Nicholas W. Baxter, President and Chief Executive Officer of Eurasia Energy Limited, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Eurasia Energy Limited;



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.

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



4.

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



(a)

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



(b)

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



(c)

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



5.

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



(a)

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



(b)

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









November 10, 2006

/s/Nicholas W. Baxter

Date

Nicholas W. Baxter,

President, C.E.O. and Director
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5583 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5583

To withdraw the Tusayan Ranger District and Federal land managed by the 
 Bureau of Land Management in the vicinity of Kanab Creek and in House 
Rock Valley from location, entry, and patent under the mining laws, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 11, 2008

 Mr. Grijalva introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To withdraw the Tusayan Ranger District and Federal land managed by the 
 Bureau of Land Management in the vicinity of Kanab Creek and in House 
Rock Valley from location, entry, and patent under the mining laws, and 
                          for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Grand Canyon Watersheds Protection 
Act of 2008''.

SEC. 2. WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL LAND FROM MINING LAWS.

    (a) Withdrawal.--Subject to subsection (b), the approximately 
1,068,908 acres of Federal land generally depicted on the map titled 
________, numbered ____, and dated ______ are hereby withdrawn from--
            (1) all forms of entry, appropriation, and disposal under 
        the public land laws;
            (2) location, entry, and patent under the mining laws; and
            (3) operation of the mineral leasing and geothermal leasing 
        laws and mineral materials laws.
    (b) Treatment of Existing Rights.--The withdrawal under subsection 
(a) is subject to valid, existing rights. If such rights are 
relinquished or otherwise acquired by the United States after the date 
of the enactment of this Act, the land that was subject to the rights 
shall be immediately withdrawn in accordance with subsection (a).
                                 <all>
```
STATE of North Carolina v. Donald William ANDERSON, Jr.

No. 250P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 17, 2006.

Mercedes O. Chut, Greensboro, for Donald W. Anderson.

*900Margaret A. Force, Assistant Attorney General, Roxann Vaneekhoven, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 9th day of May 2006 by Defendant 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 17th day of August 2006."
STATE of North Carolina v. Marjorie Coppage KIRBY.

No. 475P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 5, 2006.

Michael Casterline, Asheville, for Marjoria Coppage Kirby.

Richard Harrison, Special Deputy Attorney General, James C. Gaither, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 5th day of September 2006 by Defendant 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 5th day of October 2006."
Exhibit 10.3
                               AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO

                             STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT

                                 pursuant to the

                                  LABONE, INC.

                          1997 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN

      This AMENDMENT No. 1 TO STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT ("Amendment") is dated as
of _____________ and entered into by and between LabOne, Inc. ("LabOne"), a
Missouri corporation, and _____________________ ("Optionee").

      WITNESSETH that:

      WHEREAS, LabOne and the Optionee are parties to one or more Stock Option
Agreements relating to stock options granted under the LabOne, Inc. 1997
Long-Term Incentive Plan (the "Plan") that are not fully vested as of the date
hereof (individually the "Stock Option Agreement" or collectively the "Stock
Option Agreements"); and

      WHEREAS, LabOne and the Optionee desire to amend the Stock Option
Agreements to provide that such stock options shall become fully exercisable
upon consummation of a merger or consolidation of LabOne with another
corporation rather than upon shareholder approval of such a transaction; and

      WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of LabOne and the Optionee to make
such change in order for LabOne to be able to engage in one or more corporate
transactions;

      NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms and provisions of this
Amendment and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency
of which are hereby acknowledged by the parties hereto, the parties hereto agree
as follows:

      Section 1. Section 3(b)(iii) of each outstanding Stock Option Agreement is
hereby amended to read as follows:

      (iii)  LabOne merges or consolidates with another corporation or other
      entity, unless such merger of consolidation (A) is approved by a majority
      of the Continuing Directors of LabOne, and (B) is specifically designated
      by a majority of the Continuing Directors not to constitute a change of
      control for purposes of the Plan; or

      Section 2.The remaining provisions of each Stock Option Agreement shall
apply to this Amendment and to such Stock Option Agreement as amended by this
Amendment.

                                        -1-
<PAGE>



      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, LabOne, Inc. has caused this Amendment to be executed
in its corporate name, and the Optionee has executed the same in evidence of the
Optionee's acceptance hereof, upon the terms and conditions herein set forth, as
of the day and year first above written.

                               LABONE, INC.

                               By:
                                  ----------------------------
                                     Name:
                                     Title:


                               ----------------------------
                               Optionee


                                        -2-