alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 344 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 907
110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                 S. 344

         To permit the televising of Supreme Court proceedings.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 22, 2007

 Mr. Specter (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Schumer, Mr. 
Feingold, and Mr. Cornyn) introduced the following bill; which was read 
          twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

                July 29 (legislative day, July 28), 2008

                Reported by Mr. Leahy, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
         To permit the televising of Supreme Court proceedings.

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

SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 28.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 45 of title 28, United States Code, is 
amended by inserting at the end the following:
``Sec. 678. Televising Supreme Court proceedings
    ``The Supreme Court shall permit television coverage of all open 
sessions of the Court unless the Court decides, by a vote of the 
majority of justices, that allowing such coverage in a particular case 
would constitute a violation of the due process rights of 1 or more of 
the parties before the Court.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter 45 of 
title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting at the end the 
following:

``678. Televising Supreme Court proceedings.''.
                                                       Calendar No. 907

110th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                 S. 344

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

         To permit the televising of Supreme Court proceedings.

_______________________________________________________________________

                July 29 (legislative day, July 28), 2008

                       Reported without amendment
```
#### In the Matter of Russell Manley, Appellant, v New York State Board of Parole, Respondent.

[800 NYS2d 864]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Teresi, J.), entered January 31, 2005 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent denying petitioner’s request for parole release.

Petitioner is serving a prison sentence of 18 years to life for his 1985 conviction of murder in the second degree. In March 2004, petitioner appeared before respondent for the second time and was denied parole release. Following an unsuccessful administrative appeal, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging that determination. Supreme Court dismissed the petition, prompting this appeal.

A review of the record reveals that respondent considered the relevant statutory factors *(see*Executive Law § 259-i), including petitioner’s positive institutional achievements and good disciplinary record, prior to making its determination. Although respondent placed emphasis on the serious nature of the instant offense, it was not required to give equal weight to or specifically discuss each factor it considered *(see Matter of Gamez v Dennison,*18 AD3d 1099 [2005]; *Matter of Martin v Travis,*17 AD3d 884, 885 [2005], *appeal dismissed*5 NY3d 782 [2005]). Thus, inasmuch as there has been no showing that respondent’s determination was affected by “ ‘irrationality bordering on impropriety’ ” *(Matter of Silmon v Travis,*95 NY2d 470, 476 [2000], quoting *Matter of Russo v New York State Bd. of Parole,*50 NY2d 69, 77 [1980]), we find no basis upon which to disturb it.

We note that petitioner is precluded from challenging the ac*1210curacy of the information in his presentence investigation report, as such challenge should have been made before the original sentencing court *(see Matter of Cox v New York State Div. of Parole,*11 AD3d 766, 768 [2004], *lv denied*4 NY3d 703 [2005]; *Matter of Salahuddin v Mitchell,*232 AD2d 903, 904 [1996]). Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Carpinello, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

VICTORIA COLLINS, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-2814 

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed November 6, 2019. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk 

County; Jalal Harb, Judge.

Anthony W. Surber, Mulberry, for 

Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Michael Schaub, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for 

Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LaROSE, MORRIS, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
EX-10.2



 Exhibit 10.2 

Amendment to Employment Agreement 

This Amendment (the “Amendment”) to that certain Employment Agreement between Allison Transmission, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (together with any successor thereto, the “Company”), and David S. Graziosi (the “Executive”) dated as of April 15, 2014 (the “Employment Agreement”) is made as of May 11, 2016
(the “Amendment Date”) by and among the Company and the Executive. Except as set forth in this Amendment, capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Employment Agreement. 

RECITAL 
 The Company and
the Executive mutually desire to amend the terms of the Employment Agreement as set forth herein. 
 AGREEMENT 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the parties hereto agree as follows: 

1.     Amendment to the Employment Agreement. Effective as of the Amendment Date, the Employment Agreement is hereby
amended as follows: 
 (a)     Section 1(c) is amended by deleting “Executive Vice President, Chief Financial
Officer, Treasurer and Assistant Secretary” and replacing it with “President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Assistant Secretary.” 
  

	(b)	Section 2(a) is amended by deleting the reference to “$575,000” and replacing it with “650,000.” 


2.     No Other Amendment. Except as expressly set forth in this Amendment, the Employment Agreement shall remain
unchanged and shall continue in full force and effect according to its terms. 
 3.     Entire Agreement. This
Amendment, together with the Employment Agreement (to the extent not amended hereby), represents the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and shall supersede any and all previous contracts, arrangements or
understandings between the parties. 
 4.     Governing Law. This Amendment shall be governed, construed,
interpreted and enforced in accordance with its express terms, and otherwise in accordance with the substantive laws of the State of Indiana, without reference to the principles of conflicts of law of the State of Indiana or any other jurisdiction,
and where applicable, the laws of the United States. 
 5.     Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in
several counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which together will constitute one and the same document. 

[signature page follows] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment on the date and year first written
above. 
  

			
	COMPANY
		
	By:	 	/s/ Eric C. Scroggins
	Name:	 	Eric C. Scroggins
	Title:	 	Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary
	
	EXECUTIVE
	
	/s/ David S. Graziosi
	David S. Graziosi


  
  
  

 
  
  

 
  
  

 
  
  

 
  

[Signature Page to Graziosi Employment Agreement Amendment]
IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING

2021 WY 126

 October Term, A.D. 2021

November 10, 2021

ABDULAI BARRIE,

Appellant

(Defendant),

v.

THE STATE OF WYOMING,

Appellee

(Plaintiff).

S-21-0171

ORDER AFFIRMING THE DISTRICT COURT’S JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE

[¶1] This matter came before the Court upon its own motion following notification that 

Appellant has not filed a pro se brief within the time allotted by this Court. Appellant 

entered unconditional guilty pleas to three misdemeanors and one felony: possession of 

marijuana with intent to deliver. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 35-7-1031(a)(ii). On the felony, the 

district court imposed a three to five-year sentence, which was suspended in favor of three

years of probation. Appellant filed this appeal to challenge the district court’s May 28, 

2021 Judgment and Sentence.

[¶2] On September 8, 2021, Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel e-filed a 

Motion to Withdraw as Counsel, pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 

S.Ct. 1396, 1400, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). This Court subsequently entered an Order 

Granting Motion for Extension of Time to File Pro Se Brief. This Court ordered that, on 

or before October 25, 2021, Appellant “may file with this Court a pro se brief which 

specifies the issues for the Court to consider in this appeal.” This Court also provided 

notice that, after the time for filing a pro se brief expired, this Court would “make its ruling 

on counsel’s motion to withdraw, and if appropriate, make a final decision” on this appeal. 

This Court notes that Appellant did not file a pro se brief or other pleading in the time 

allotted.
[¶3] Now, following a careful review of the record and the Anders brief submitted by 

appellate counsel, this Court finds that appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw should be 

granted and the district court’s Judgment and Sentence should be affirmed. It is, therefore,

[¶4] ORDERED that the Wyoming Public Defender’s Office, court-appointed counsel 

for Appellant Abdulai Barrie, is hereby permitted to withdraw as counsel of record for 

Appellant; and it is further

[¶5] ORDERED that the district court’s May 28, 2021 Judgment and Sentence be, and 

the same hereby is, affirmed.

[¶6] DATED this 10th day of November, 2021.

BY THE COURT:

/s/

KATE M. FOX

Chief Justice
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk November 21, 2011

t1114 

# Order

November 21, 2011

142528

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 142528 COA: 293810 Genesee CC: 08-023774-FC TANIKA NICOLE LOVE, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the December 28, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATION**     I, Helen E. Wallace, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-Kof American Skiing Company;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary tomake 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 materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant asof, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) andI are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, includingits 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 theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as ofthe end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) andI have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize, and reportfinancial information; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.Date:October 30, 2006            By: /s/ HelenE. Wallace         Helen E. Wallace    Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer    (Principal Financial Officer)
IN RE C.J.P.

No. COA06-748

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Filed May 1, 2007

Certification Date May 21, 2007

Appeal from Wilson (04J65).

Case reported without published opinion. Reversed and remanded.
BREWER, et al. v. FLINN.

No. 96P07-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 8, 2007.

Andrew Lassiter, Morehead City, for Mack, et al.

Robert Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for Brewer, et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 20th day of August 2007 by Defendant for Injunctive Relief:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 8th day of November 2007."
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE:

ORDER AMENDING RULE 191 

AND REVISING THE COMMENT 

TO RULE 140 OF THE 

PENNSYLVANIA

RULES OF JUVENILE COURT

PROCEDURE

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

NO. 766

SUPREME COURT RULES

DOCKET 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 4

th day of May, 2018, upon the recommendation of the Juvenile 

Court Procedural Rules Committee, the proposal having been published for public 

comment at 47 Pa.B. 7010 (November 18, 2017): 

It is Ordered pursuant to Article V, Section 10 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania 

that Pennsylvania Rule of Juvenile Court Procedure 191 is amended and the Comment 

to Pennsylvania Rule of Juvenile Court Procedure 140 is revised in the attached form.

This Order shall be processed in accordance with Pa.R.J.A. No. 103(b), and shall 

be effective on July 1, 2018.

Additions to the rule are shown in bold and are underlined.

Deletions from the rule are shown in bold and brackets.
Exhibit 31.1




PRESIDENT AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
CERTIFICATION




I, Bradley S. Powell, President and Chief Financial Officer of Eden Bioscience Corporation, certify that:


|1. |  | I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Eden
Bioscience Corporation;
|-- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



2.  Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;




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




4.  I am responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:




a)  Designed such disclosure controls and
procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this
quarterly report is being prepared;




b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the
registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report my 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
registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and




5.  I have disclosed, based on my most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of
directors:




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
registrant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 registrants internal control over financial reporting.




Date: May 10, 2007




/s/  Bradley S.
PowellBradley S. Powell President and Chief Financial Officer







---
Exhibit 32.1










CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 18, CHAPTER 63, SECTION 1350)


ACCOMPANYING ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K OF


CENTERLINE HOLDING COMPANY FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2009








In connection with the Annual Report of Centerline Holding Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A (amendment No. 1) for the year ending December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert L. Levy, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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 our Company.










By:

/s/ Robert L. LevyRobert L. Levy

President, Chief Operating Officer and 
Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Executive Officer and

Principal Financial Officer)

April 30, 2010









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.
William Allen GAILEY, III v. TRIANGLE BILLIARDS & BLUES CLUB, INC., Jerry Sexton, Individually and in his capacity as an Owner, Officer and Director of Triangle Billiards & Blues Club, Inc., Susan Sexton, Individually and in her capacity as an Owner, Manager and Director of Triangle Billiards & Blues Club, Inc.

No. 611P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 27, 2007.

Jerry B. Grimes, Lexington, for Triangle Billiards, et al.

David S. Doherty, Thomasville, for Gailey.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 635 S.E.2d 482.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 28th day of November 2006 by Defendants 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 27th day of June 2007."
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**AMERICAN SKIING COMPANY**

**SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 906 CERTIFICATIONS**

 

In connection with theAnnual Report of American Skiing Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-K forthe period ended July 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Helen E. Wallace, Senior Vice Presidentand 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, thatto the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)           TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 
| Date:  October 31, 2005 |                          |
|------------------------------|-------------------------------|
|                         |                          |
|                         | By:                           | /s/ Helen E. Wallace |   |
|                         | Helen E. Wallace              |
|                         | Senior Vice  President, Chief |
|                         | Financial Officer             |
|                         | (Principal Financial Officer) |

 

----
STATE v. LASH.

No. COA07-920.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed January 15, 2008.

Certification Date February 4, 2008.

Appeal from Guilford (06CRS72598).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.