alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### ASA of New York, Inc., Respondent, v Anchor Construction, Inc., et al., Appellants.

[801 NYS2d 308]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Shulman, J.), entered June 25, 2004, which, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the total sum of $238,585.27, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

*837The judgment against defendants Anchor Construction, Inc. (Anchor), the construction manager on a project in which plaintiff subcontractor was retained to install plumbing and sprinklers, and Nova Casualty Company, the surety, was properly based upon the release of a lien bond which defendants had posted to.discharge a mechanic’s lien plaintiff filed against the interests of the property owner, 500-512 7th Avenue Limited Partnership, to secure the unpaid balance owed by Anchor to plaintiff under the subcontracts. No issue having been previously raised concerning the validity of plaintiff’s mechanic’s lien, defendants’ appellate arguments that plaintiff did not prove the necessary elements to foreclose on a mechanic’s lien are unpreserved. In any event, were we to review this issue, we would find that there was sufficient proof that plaintiff acquired a good and valid mechanic’s lien.

The trial court’s determination after trial to award plaintiff the full amount plaintiff claimed it was owed by Anchor minus a single credit, which amount included plaintiffs charges for change orders beyond the underlying subcontract amounts, was not against the weight of the evidence. As to the change orders, plaintiffs proof established that defendant Anchor gave written approval for plaintiffs change orders and defendants’ argument that plaintiff was bound by the standard protocol for change orders set forth in American Institute of Architects (AIA) Document A 401, article 5, incorporated by reference in Anchor’s unsigned purchase orders, was properly accorded little weight by the trial court. In addition, the trial court’s findings that the amounts of the plumbing and sprinkler subcontracts were, respectively, $240,550 and $425,000 were appropriately based on documentation signed by Anchor employees; defense exhibits showing lower amounts had not been signed by an authorized party. Moreover, plaintiff’s requisitions included the higher amounts and there was no evidence that Anchor objected to these requisitions. Finally, there is no basis to disturb the trial court’s findings that defendants were not entitled to setoffs. Whereas defendants sought to establish that plaintiff’s work under the subcontracts was both incomplete and improper, we accord deference to the trial court’s determination not to credit the testimony of an interested defense witness and to place significant weight on the documentary evidence which certified the substantial completion of plaintiff’s work. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Saxe and Williams, JJ.
---

Exhibit 32.2

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 Global Green Solutions Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended May 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Arnold Hughes, 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; and                                
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    |                                                                                                                                                      
|(2) | The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|    |                                                                                                                                                      
|    | Dated this 15thday of July, 2011.                                                                                                                    

A.R. HughesArnold Hughes, Chief Financial Officer

---
exv10w1



 






EXHIBIT 10.1




AMENDMENT TO



OPTION AWARD AGREEMENTS




     WHEREAS, under the Company’s 1993 Directors’ Stock Option Plan (the “Plan”), [NAME OF
OPTIONEE] (“Optionee”), a non-employee director of Pride International, Inc. (the “Company”), was
awarded options to purchase shares of the Company’s common stock pursuant to option award
agreements (the “Option Award Agreements”) with the following grant dates:



                                   [GRANT DATES]



     WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”) has authorized an amendment to
the Plan to permit the exercise of stock options during their full term; and



     WHEREAS, the stock options outstanding under the Option Award Agreements are fully exercisable
by their terms; and



     WHEREAS, pursuant to the authorization of the Board, the Nominating and Corporate Governance
Committee of the Board has approved the amendment of the Option Award Agreements to permit the
exercise of stock options during their full term as set forth below;



     NOW, THEREFORE, the Option Award Agreements are hereby amended such that upon termination of
Optionee’s service as a member of the Board of Directors of the Company for any reason other than
Cause (as defined in the Plan), any and all stock options outstanding as of the date of Optionee’s
termination pursuant to the Option Award Agreements shall be exercisable for the full original
ten-year term of such stock options.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Optionee has hereunto set his hand and the Company has caused these
presents to be executed in its name and on its behalf, effective as of May 12, 2005.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 OPTIONEE

 	 
	Date:                      	 
 	 
	 	[NAME OF OPTIONEE] 	 
	 	 	 
	 
	 	

PRIDE INTERNATIONAL, INC.

 	 
	Date:                      	By:  	/s/ Paul Bragg
 	 
	 	 	Paul Bragg 	 
	 	 	President and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.1



TELETOUCH COMMUNICATIONS, INC.



OFFICERS CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)



October 15, 2003



The undersigned Robert M. McMurrey duly appointed and incumbent officer of TELETOUCH COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation (the
Corporation), in connection with the Corporations quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended August 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), does
hereby represent, warrant and certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as amended, that to the best of his knowledge:



1. The Report is in full compliance with reporting requirements of Section 13(a) 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 operation of the Corporation.



|                                        
|----------------------------------------
|/s/    Robert M. McMurrey               
|                                        
|Robert M. McMurrey Chairman of the Board

October 15, 2003



33
STATE v. MATTHEWS.

No. COA05-1037.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed April 18, 2006.

Certification Date May 8, 2006.

Appeal from the Moore (02CRS54965, 02CRS54968).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
**EXHIBIT
15**
 
 **AWARENESS
LETTER OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**
 
 
 MidAmerican
Energy Company
 Des
Moines, Iowa
 
 We have
made a review, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting
Oversight Board (United States), of the unaudited consolidated interim financial
information of MidAmerican Energy Company and subsidiary for the three-month
periods ended March 31, 2005 and 2004, as indicated in our report dated May
5, 2005; because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that
information.
 
 We are
aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005, is incorporated
by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-101800 and 333-110398 on
Form S-3.
 
 We also
are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the
Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration Statement
prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or certified by an
accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.
 
 
 /s/
Deloitte & Touche LLP
 
 Des
Moines, Iowa
 May 5,
2005
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6037

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

PHILLIP CARL GUPTON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CR-93-13, CA-98-296-BO)

Submitted: April 15, 1999 Decided: April 21, 1999

Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Phillip Carl Gupton, Appellant Pro Se. Fenita Morris Shepard, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Phillip Carl Gupton seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court. See United States v. Gupton, Nos. CR-93-13;

CA-98-296-BO (E.D.N.C. Dec. 11, 1998). 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.

DISMISSED
STATE v. JARRELL

No. COA04-1593

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed October 4, 2005

Certification Date October 24, 2005

Appeal from Halifax (03CRSS57650, 03CRS57651).

Cases reported without published opinion. No error in part; Dismissed without prejudice in part.
STATE v. HERNANDEZ

No. COA05-421

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed March 21, 2006

Certification Date April 10, 2006

Appeal from Guilford (04CRS75455, 04CRS75456).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
STATE of North Carolina and The Johnston County Board of Education v. Anton Daniel EDWARDS, Defendant, and Aegis Security Insurance Co., Surety.

No. 528P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 3, 2005.

Kenneth P. Andresen, Charlotte, for Aegis.

James R. Lawrence, Jr., for Johnston Bd. of Ed.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 19th day of September 2005 by Defendant (Aegis Security) 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 3rd day of November 2005."
# ORIGINA1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 23-0054 THE MARY ELLEN DUKE TRUST, dated March 13, 1997, MILLARD COX, MINA COX, and TROUT CREEK RANCH,

Plaintiffs and Appellees. v. LEE LOU, LLC, a Montana limited liability company, Defendant and Appellant. 

# FILED MAY 

## 2 3 2023 Bovven Greenwood Clerk of Supreme COUI tato yAnntar,E. ORDER

Appellees The Mary Ellen Duke Trust, dated March 13, 1997, Millard Cox, Mina Cox, and Trout Creek Ranch (collectively "Trout Creek Ranch") have moved to dismiss thisappeal,arguingthatAppellantLeeLou,LLC ("LeeLou"), isattemptingtoappeal from an order granting partial summary judgment, which is not appealable as provided by M. R. App. P. 6(5)(b). Trout Creek Ranch alleges that the District Court has not disposed of all of the claims raised by Lee Lou in its counterclaim and therefore this matter is not ripe for appeal. Lee Lou opposesTrout Creek Ranch'smotion and alleges that it has appealed from an order granting summaryjudgment that is a finaljudgment, as the District Court granted summaryjudgment to Trout Creek Ranch andthereby disposed ofall the remainingclaims and causes ofaction in the underlying litigation. The underlying litigation is a quiet title and declaratoryjudgment action concerning an easement that affects real property owned by the parties. At issue in this appeal is the December 30, 2022 Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and Denying Defendant/Counterclaimant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, for which 05/23/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0054thecourt accordingly enteredjudgment. AsLee Louexplains in itsresponsetoTrout Creek

Ranch's motion to dismiss, although Trout Creek Ranch's Complaint to Quiet Title set forth a claim that combined both a claim toquiet title and a claim for declaratoryjudgment, Lee Lou in its Verified Counterclaim and Third-Party Complaint to Quiet Title broke out these two claims as two separate counts but in so doing, Lee Lou did not intend to plead any claims unrelated to those set forth in Trout Creek Ranch's Complaint. Lee Lou asserts unequivocally that the reliefgranted to Trout Creek Ranch in the District Court's Order disposed ofall ofLee Lou's remaining claims. We have examined the record in this matter to the extent necessary to resolve this motion to dismiss, and we conclude that the December 30, 2022 Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and Denying Defendant/Counterclaimant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment disposed ofall claims in the underlying litigation and is thereforeproperly before this Court on appeal. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion to dismiss is DENIED. The Clerk is directedc

t , y provide a copy ofthis Order to all parties ofrecord. DATED this '''S l

aay ofMay 2023.

ChiefJustice 

# gi fi r 411,
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AU GUST 15, 2018

NO. 03

- 17

- 00691

- CR

Eddie Lynn Tackett, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 391ST DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE R OSE, JUSTICES GOODWI N AND FIELD

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the trial court. Having reviewed

th e record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the

trial court’s judgment of conviction . Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of

conviction

. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudicati on of costs

is made.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

WAYNE JAMES,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 160 EAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 12th day of August, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
Order entered July 12, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00692-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF N. L. T., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 256th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-04-10316

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s July 3, 2013 motion to compel the Official Court Reporter 

for the 256th Judicial District Court to file trial transcripts. A review of our records shows the 

reporter’s record for this case was filed afterhours on July 2, 2013. Accordingly, we DENY

appellant’s motion as moot. Appellant’s brief is due twenty days from the date of this order. 

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
IIB 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5506 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 15, 2008 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 369 Martin Luther King Jr. Drive in Jersey 

City, New Jersey, as the ‘‘Bishop Ralph E. Brower Post 

Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

HR 5506 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. BISHOP RALPH E. BROWER POST OFFICE 

2 BUILDING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 369 Martin Luther King Jr. 

5 Drive in Jersey City, New Jersey, shall be known and des6 ignated as the ‘‘Bishop Ralph E. Brower Post Office 

7 Building’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

10 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

11 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Bishop Ralph E. 

12 Brower Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 14, 2008. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 

By ROBERT F. REEVES, 

Deputy Clerk. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
| 1. | The Form 10-Q of the Corporation for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2010 (the "Form 10-Q"), fully complies with requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition, and results of operations of the Corporation. |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: May 7, 2010 | /s/ Carol K. Nelson                                                                                                                         |
|-------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|              | By:     Carol K. Nelson,President and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)                         |
|              |                                                                                                                                        |
| Date: May 7, 2010 | /s/ Terry Stull                                                                                                                             |
|              | By:     Terry Stull,Senior Vice President and Controller(Chief Accounting Officer and Principal Financial Officer) |

----
Exhibit 32.3

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 Annual Report of MarkWest Hydrocarbon, Inc. (the "Company"), on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Andrew L. Schroeder, Vice President, Treasurer and Secretary of the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|/s/ANDREW L. SCHROEDERAndrew L. Schroeder Vice President, Treasurer and Secretary |  | 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|March 30, 2004                                                                    |  | 

---

QuickLinks
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

          - [Release No. 34-95202; File No. SR-MEMX-2022-13]

                    On May 6, 2022, MEMX LLC (“MEMX”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 [1]                                          and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,[2]                                          a proposed rule change to amend its Fee Schedule to adopt Connectivity Fees. The proposed rule change was immediately effective upon filing with the Commission pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act.[3]                                          The proposed rule change was published for comment in the                     **Federal Register**                     on May 20, 2022.[4]                                          On July 1, 2022, MEMX withdrew the proposed rule change (SR-MEMX-2022-13).                                    

                        For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.5

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,

Assistant Secretary.

# Footnotes

1.                             15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).                    
        Back to Citation      

2.                             17 CFR 240.19b-4.                    
        Back to Citation      

3.                             15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). A proposed rule change may take effect upon filing with the Commission if it is designated by the exchange as “establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the self-regulatory organization on any person, whether or not the person is a member of the self-regulatory organization.” 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).                    
        Back to Citation      

4.                                                     *See*                         Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94924 (May 16, 2022), 87 FR 31026
        Back to Citation      

5.                             17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).                    
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 2022-14749 Filed 7-11-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
Exhibit 32.1

TELETOUCH COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

OFFICERS CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of TELETOUCH COMMUNICATIONS, INC. (the Company) for the quarter ended February 28, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Robert M. McMurrey, Chief Executive Officer, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, that, to the best of his knowledge:

1. The Report is in full compliances 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 operation of the Company.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Robert M. McMurrey 
|Robert M. McMurrey     
|Chief Executive Officer
|July 6, 2009