alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of James Maloney, Respondent, v Ulster County Board of Elections et al., Respondents, and Michael G. Berardi, Appellant.

[800 NYS2d 249]

Per Curiam.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (McCarthy, J.), entered August 5, 2005 in Ulster County, which partially granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16-102, and declared invalid that portion of a designating petition naming respondent Michael G. Berardi as the Independence Party candidate for the office of Ulster County Legislator for the 5th Legislative District in the September 13, 2005 primary election.

Respondent Michael G. Berardi (hereinafter respondent) and respondent Brian Cahill filed a joint designating petition with respondent Ulster County Board of Elections designating them *693as Independence Party candidates for the office of Ulster County Legislator for the 5th Legislative District in the September 13, 2005 primary election. Thereafter, petitioner filed objections to the designating petition and commenced this proceeding challenging its validity on the basis that respondent’s place of residence was not correctly stated. Following a hearing, at which respondent acknowledged that the residence listed on the petition was his previous residence, Supreme Court declared the petition invalid with respect to respondent only. This appeal by respondent ensued.

Election Law § 6-132 (1) requires that the candidate’s place of residence appear on the designating petition *(see Matter of Brigandi v Barasch,*144 AD2d 177, 178 [1988], *lv denied*72 NY2d 810 [1988]). While this requirement serves to aid in the administrative processing of the petition, its “perhaps most important [function is] to assure that the signers of [the] petition are aware of the identity of their candidate” *(Matter of Ferris v Sadowski,*45 NY2d 815, 817 [1978]). Where a candidate’s address is erroneously stated on the designating petition, but there is no showing of an intent by the candidate to mislead or confuse signatories as to his or her identity, nor a showing that the error would or did tend to mislead or confuse anyone, the designating petition should not be invalidated *(see id.; Matter of Adams v Power,*22 NY2d 783 [1968]; *compare Matter of Eisenberg v Strasser,*100 NY2d 590 [2003]; *Matter of Finneran v Hayduk,*45 NY2d 797 [1978]). Inasmuch as no such showing was made here, the designating petition was improperly invalidated with respect to respondent. The fact that respondent did not file a corrective affidavit after being notified of the error is of no consequence since the “determinative issue” is whether the designating petition was fatally flawed at the time it was filed *(Matter of Ferris v Sadowski, supra*at 816-817).

Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Mugglin, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, without costs, by reversing so much thereof as partially granted the petition and invalidated the designating petition of respondent Michael G. Berardi; petition dismissed with respect to said designating petition; and, as so modified, affirmed.
IN RE S.J.G.

No. COA06-698.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed June 5, 2007.

Certification Date June 25, 2007.

Appeal from Chatham (04J04).

Cases reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
Julia L. WEBB and husband, Donald Webb v. ALAMANCE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC., Kernodle Clinic, Inc., Mark D. Doner, M.D., and Douglas W. Peed, M.D.

No. 449P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 11, 2007.

Grover McCain, Jr., Chapel Hill, for Webb.

Joseph P. Booth, III, Greensboro, for Medical Center.

*879Leigh A. Kite, John H. Beyer, Charlotte, for Kernodle Clinic, et al.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 11th day of September 2007 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 11th day of October 2007."
110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3309 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 2523 7th Avenue East in North Saint Paul, 

Minnesota, as the Mayor William ‘‘Bill’’ Sandberg Post 

Office Building. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•S 3309 ES

1 SECTION 1. MAYOR WILLIAM ‘‘BILL’’ SANDBERG POST OF2 FICE BUILDING. 

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

4 Postal Service located at 2523 7th Avenue East in North 

5 Saint Paul, Minnesota, shall be known and designated as 

6 the ‘‘Mayor William ‘Bill’ Sandberg Post Office Building’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

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

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Mayor William ‘Bill’ 

11 Sandberg Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the Senate September 26 (legislative day, 

September 17), 2008. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3309 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postliam ‘‘Bill’’ Sandberg Post Office Building. North Saint Paul, Minnesota, as the Mayor Wil- al Service located at 2523 7th Avenue East in
Rel: September 13, 2024

STATE OF ALABAMA -- JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

THE SUPREME COURT

SPECIAL TERM, 2024

SC-2024-0200

David A. Land v. Donald W. Stewart (Appeal from Calhoun Circuit Court: 

CV-23-900374).

PARKER, Chief Justice.

AFFIRMED. NO OPINION.

See Rule 53(a)(1) and (a)(2)(F), Ala. R. App. P.

Wise, Sellers, Stewart, and Cook, JJ., concur.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 October 27, 2020

a1019

Order 

Clerk

October 27, 2020

159497

TAMARA NAPPIER, as Next Friend of

TAKARIE NAPPIER, a Minor, and ALL 

OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v SC: 159497

COA: 344363 

Court of Claims: 16-000071-MM

GOVERNOR, DARNELL EARLEY, DANIEL

WYANT, LIANE SHEKTER SMITH, BRADLEY

WURFEL, EDEN VICTORIA WELLS, NANCY

PEELER, ROBERT SCOTT, NICK LYON and

GERALD AMBROSE,

Defendants,

and

STEPHEN BUSCH, PATRICK COOK, and

MICHAEL PRYSBY,

Defendants-Appellants.

_________________________________________/

By order of July 2, 2019, the application for leave to appeal the March 14, 2019 

judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance for Mays v Governor (Docket 

Nos. 157335-7, 157340-2). On order of the Court, the cases having been decided on July 

29, 2020, ___ Mich ___ (2020), the application is again considered, and it is DENIED, 

because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this 

Court. 

CLEMENT, J., not participating due to her prior involvement as chief legal counsel 

for the Governor.
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-14-0000549 23-MAR-2017 08:04 AM
Exhibit 99.2

# 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 EDEN Bioscience Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Bradley
S. Powell, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.

| |                                                                                                |                        
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -----------------------
|
| |                                                                                                | /s/   Bradley S. Powell
| |                                                                                               
| | Bradley S. Powell
Vice President of Finance, Chief Financial
Officer and Secretary
May 9, 2003

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.
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Jeffrey A. Lipson, certify that:


1.	I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on
	Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect
	of periods included in the year covered by this annual report, of FNANB
	Credit Card Master Note Trust;

2.	Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a
	whole, 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 as of the last day of the period covered by this annual
	report;

3.	Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
	required to be provided to the trustee by the servicer under the pooling
	and servicing agreement, or similar, agreement, for inclusion in these
	reports is included in these reports;

4.	Based on my knowledge and upon the annual compliance statement included
	in the report and required to be delivered to the trustee in accordance
	with the terms of the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, and
	except as disclosed in the reports, the servicer has fulfilled its
	obligations under the servicing agreement; and

5.	The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
	servicer's compliance with the minimum servicing standards based upon
	the reports provided by independent public accountants, each after
	conducting a review in compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation
	Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedure, as set forth in the
	pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, that is included in
	these reports.

	In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: First
North American National Bank.

Date:May 24, 2004


				/s/JEFFREY A. LIPSON
				--------------------
				Name:  Jeffrey A. Lipson
				Title: Vice President
				Fleet Bank (RI), National Association
STATE of North Carolina v. Shelly WASHINGTON.

No. 507P98-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 8, 2007.

Shelly Washington, Pro Se.

T. Brooks Skinner, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Ben David, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 12th day of February 2007 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, New Hanover County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th day of March 2007."

Justice MARTIN recused.
STATE of North Carolina v. Jose LEYVA.

No. 131P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 23, 2007.

Linda B. Weisel, Raleigh, for Leyva.

*371Jennie W. Hauser, Assistant Attorney General, Peter S. Gilchrist, III, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 640 S.E.2d 394.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendant on the 13th day of March 2007 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the Attorney General, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 23rd day of August 2007."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 13th day of March 2007 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 23rd day of August 2007."
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3271 

To amend the definition of commercial motor vehicle in section 31101 of 

title 49, United States Code, to exclude certain farm vehicles, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 16, 2008 

Mr. INHOFE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To amend the definition of commercial motor vehicle in section 31101 of title 49, United States Code, to exclude 

certain farm vehicles, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DEFINITION OF COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHI4 CLE. 

5 Section 31101(1)(A) of title 49, United States Code, 

6 is amended to read as follows: 

7 ‘‘(A)(i) except for vehicles described in 

8 clause (ii), has a gross vehicle weight rating or 


erowe on PRODPC61 with BILLS
2 

•S 3271 IS

1 gross vehicle weight of at least 10,001 pounds; 

2 or 

3 ‘‘(ii) is primarily engaged in the transpor4 tation of agricultural commodities or farm sup5 plies and has a gross vehicle weight rating or 

6 gross vehicle weight of at least the minimum 

7 weight of a commercial motor vehicle (as de8 fined by the State in which it is being oper9 ated);’’. 

10 SEC. 2. PRESERVATION OF GRANTS FOR STATES THAT IN11 CREASE THE MINIMUM WEIGHT FOR COM12 MERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES. 

13 Section 31102 of title 49, United States Code, is 

14 amended by adding at the end the following: 

15 ‘‘(f) PRESERVATION OF GRANTS FOR STATES THAT

16 INCREASE THE MINIMUM WEIGHT FOR COMMERCIAL

17 MOTOR VEHICLES.—The Secretary may not withhold 

18 grant funding from a State under this section solely be19 cause the State authorizes drivers of vehicles engaged in 

20 the transportation of agricultural commodities or farm 

21 supplies that have a gross vehicle weight of more than 

22 10,000 pounds and less than 26,001 pounds, to operate 

23 without complying with Federal regulations relating to 

24 commercial motor vehicles.’’. 

Æ 


erowe on PRODPC61 with BILLS
STATE of North Carolina v. Damon Demond STAFFORD.

No. 541P04-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 8, 2007.

Damon Demond Stafford, Pro Se.

William P. Hart, Special Deputy Attorney General, Locke Bell, District Attorney, for State of NC.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 2nd day of November 2007 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Gaston County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th day of November 2007."

TIMMONS-GOODSON, J., recused.
STATE v. Ernest G. SILVA.

No. 552P06-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 8, 2007.

Robert Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, Phil Berger, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*399The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 18th day of October 2007 by Defendant for Discretionary Review:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 8th day of November 2007."
# Council Decision of 24 June 2014 appointing a German member of the European Economic and Social Committee (2014/412/EU)

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Council Decision

# of 24 June 2014

# appointing a German member of the European Economic and Social Committee

# (2014/412/EU)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 302 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal of the German Government,

Having regard to the opinion of the European Commission,

Whereas:

(1)On 13 September 2010 the Council adopted Decision 2010/570/EU, Euratom appointing the members of the European Economic and                              Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2010 to 20 September 2015(1).

(2)A member's seat on the European Economic and Social Committee has become vacant following the end of the term of office of                              Dr Sabine HEPPERLE,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

# Article 1U.K.

Dr Günter LAMBERTZ, *Leiter des Büros des DIHK bei der EU* is hereby appointed as a member of the European Economic and Social Committee for the remainder of the current term of office,                     which runs until 20 September 2015.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.

Done at Luxembourg, 24 June 2014.

*For the Council*                            

*The President*                            

E. Venizelos                            

1

OJ L 251, 25.9.2010, p. 8.
STATE v. HUTCHINSON.

No. COA07-370.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed December 4, 2007.

Certification Date December 27, 2007.

Appeal from Henderson (05CRS3981, 06CRS239).

Case reported without published opinion. Dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             464
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      181
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   645
<PP&E>                                           7,544
<DEPRECIATION>                                     650
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,978
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,532
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         15
<COMMON>                                           100
<OTHER-SE>                                     (6,973)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,978
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   236
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      699
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,335
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,561
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (10,359)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (10,359)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (10,359)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
STATE v. HOLT.

No. COA07-435.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed January 15, 2008.

Certification Date February 4, 2008.

Appeal from Mecklenburg (04CRS228184, 04CRS228185, 04CRS228186, 04CRS228188, 04CRS228189, 04CRS228190, 04CRS228191, 04CRS228192).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
STATE v. COGGINS

No. COA06-524.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed June 19, 2007

Certification Date July 9, 2007.

Appeal from Jackson (04CRS51455).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 12

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                       Three Months Ended   Nine Months Ended
                                       -------------------  ------------------
                                         September 30,        September 30,
                                         1998      1999       1998      1999
                                       --------- ---------  --------  --------
                                                  (in thousands)
<S>                                    <C>       <C>        <C>       <C>
Income (loss) before provision for
 income taxes and cumulative
 effect of change in accounting
 principle...........................  $   (720) $  (6,256) $(11,812) $(22,922)
  Add fixed charges:
    Interest costs including
     amortization of debt issuance
     cost............................     3,351      3,962     7,358    11,058
                                       --------  ---------  --------  --------
Earnings (loss)......................  $  2,631  $  (2,294) $ (4,454) $(11,864)
                                       ========  =========  ========  ========
Fixed Charges
  Interest expense including
   amortization of debt..............  $  3,351  $   3,962  $  7,358  $ 11,058
  Capitalized interest...............     1,291        258     4,783     1,858
                                       --------  ---------  --------  --------
Total Fixed Charges..................  $  4,642  $   4,220  $ 12,141  $ 12,916
                                       ========  =========  ========  ========
Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges...       .57        --        --        --
Deficiency of Earnings to Cover Fixed
 Charges.............................  $  2,011  $   6,514  $ 16,595  $ 24,780
</TABLE>
# The European Communities (Recognition of Professional Qualifications) (Amendment) Regulations 2013 (revoked)

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

Statutory Instruments

# 2013 No. 732

Professional Qualifications

# The European Communities (Recognition of Professional Qualifications) (Amendment) Regulations 2013 (revoked)F1

Made

26th March 2013

Laid before Parliament

27th March 2013

Coming into force

18th April 2013

F1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        

F1Regulations revoked (18.1.2016) by The European Union (Recognition of Professional Qualifications) Regulations 2015 (S.I. 2015/2059), reg. 1, **Sch. 6** (with reg. 78)
STATE v. ALVARDO.

No. COA07-105.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed November 20, 2007.

Certification Date December 10, 2007.

Appeal from Alamance (04CRS56874, 04CRS56878).

Cases reported without published opinion. Affirmed.