alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-41259

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CARLOS ENRIQUE LEIVA

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:07-CR-564-ALL

Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

TheFederal Public Defender appointed to represent Carlos EnriqueLeiva

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Leiva has not filed a response. Our

independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous

issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 20, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
JOHNSON v. SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE.

No. 119P00-22.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 30, 2008.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Amy C. Kunstling, Assistant Attorney Generals, Robert F. Johnson, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 26th day of June 2008 by for Petition for Preliminary Injunction:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 30th day of June 2008."

TIMMONS-GOODSON, J., recused.
1... See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4.

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-06-452-CV

GRAHAM OAKS CARE CENTER, INC., APPELLANTS

NEW GRAHAM OAKS CARE CENTER, INC., 

AND GRAHAM OAKS CARE CENTER

V.

ALLAGRA FARABEE AND EARLENE PRICE APPELLEES

AS NEXT FRIEND OF ALLAGRA FARABEE 

----------

FROM THE 90TH DISTRICT COURT OF YOUNG COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT 1

----------

We have considered the “Joint Motion To Dismiss Interlocutory Appeal.”

It is the court’s opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we

dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2), 43.2(f).

Costs of the appeal shall be paid by the party incurring the same, for

which let execution issue. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.4.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, DAUPHINOT, and HOLMAN, JJ.
DELIVERED: August 21, 2008
IN RE A.M.

No. COA08-737.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed November 18, 2008.

Certification Date December 8, 2008.

Appeal from Harnett (06J13, 06J14, 06J15).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
MACHER v. MACHER.

No. 55A08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 23, 2008.

N. Kyle Hicks, Oxford, for Ollie Macher.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 15th day of April 2008 by Defendant to Amend New Brief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 23rd day of April 2008."
STATE v. VALDOVINOS.

No. COA06-1485-2.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed January 6, 2009.

Certification Date January 26, 2009.

Appeal from Alamance (04CRS56876, 04CRS56877).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
HUGHES v. RIVERA-ORTIZ, M.D., et al.

No. 611A07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 16, 2008.

S. Luke Largess, Charlotte, for Hughes.

Harvey L. Cosper, Lori Keeton, Leigh A. Kite, Charlotte, for Epifanio Rivera-Ortiz, M.D.

Tash L. Winebarger, for Callaway Asso.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 8th day of May 2008 by Defendant (Callaway Assoc.) for Extension of Time to File Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Defendant (Callaway Assoc.) shall have up to and including the 21st day of June 2008 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 16th day of May 2008."
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 536 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 536

   To amend the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 to prohibit the 
labeling of cloned livestock and products derived from cloned livestock 
                              as organic.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 8, 2007

  Mr. Kohl (for himself and Mr. Leahy) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, 
                        Nutrition, and Forestry

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 to prohibit the 
labeling of cloned livestock and products derived from cloned livestock 
                              as organic.

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

SECTION 1. DEFINITION OF CLONED LIVESTOCK.

    Section 2103 of the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 
6502) is amended--
            (1) by redesignating paragraphs (6) through (21) as 
        paragraphs (7) through (22) respectively; and
            (2) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following:
            ``(6) Cloned livestock.--The term `cloned livestock' 
        means--
                    ``(A) livestock produced as the result of somatic 
                cell nuclear transfer or other asexual reproduction 
                technologies; and
                    ``(B) the progeny of such livestock.''.

SEC. 2. NATIONAL STANDARDS FOR ORGANIC PRODUCTION.

    Section 2105 of the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 
6504) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and'' at the end;
            (2) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4); and
            (3) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
            ``(3) not be cloned livestock, or produced or derived from 
        or containing any part of cloned livestock; and''.
                                 <all>
```
IN RE A.M.

No. COA08-1236.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed March 3, 2009.

Certification Date March 23, 2009.

Appeal from Harnett (07J137).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 10.62

                                                   August 5, 1997


Mr. Paul B. Loyd, Jr.
418 Pineneedle Drive
Houston, Texas  77024

Re:  STOCK  OPTION AGREEMENT DATED AS OF APRIL 24, 1997 BETWEEN PAUL B. LOYD,
     JR.  AND  READING & BATES CORPORATION - OPTIONS WITH RESPECT TO  310,000
     SHARES OF THE COMMON STOCK OF READING & BATES CORPORATION

Dear Paul:

Reading  &  Bates  Corporation  (the  "Company")  requests  you  agree  to  a
rescission  of  the  stock options awarded pursuant to  the  above-referenced
agreement, subject to:  (a) completion of the transaction described  in  that
Agreement  and  Plan of Merger dated as of July 10, 1997 among,  inter  alia,
Falcon  Drilling  Company, Inc. and the Company and  (b)  such  merger  being
accounted  for  on  a "pooling of interests" basis.  If the  transaction,  as
described in such agreement, is not completed or is completed thereunder  and
accounted  for on any basis other than a "pooling of interests", the  Company
agrees  such rescission shall be of no legal effect, and the above-referenced
stock options and award agreement shall be restored to full force and effect,
as if this letter agreement had never existed.

If  the foregoing is acceptable to you, please indicate your agreement in the
space provided below, and return one fully executed copy of this letter to us
for our files.

                              Very truly yours,

                              READING & BATES CORPORATION


                              By:  ___________________________
                                   Tim W. Nagle
                              Its: Executive Vice President, Finance and
                                   Administration


Agreed this ________ day of August, 1997.


______________________
Mr. Paul B. Loyd, Jr.
STATE v. GOMEZ.

No. COA07-636.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 5, 2008.

Certification Date February 25, 2008.

Appeal from Wake (05CRS100015, 05CRS100016, 05CRS100017, 05CRS100018, 05CRS100256, 05CRS100258, 05CRS100259).

Cases reported without published opinion. No error in part; remanded in part.
#### Mieczyslow Szulc, Respondent, v Michael Bateman et al., Appellants.

[799 NYS2d 743]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal from (1) a decision of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Owen, J.), dated August 11, 2003, and (2) an order of the same court dated March 12, 2004, which denied their motion to vacate a judgment of the same court entered January 7, 2004, upon their default in appearing for a pretrial conference, which was in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $20,300.

Ordered that the appeal from the decision is dismissed, as no appeal lies from a decision *(see Schicchi v Green Constr. Corp.,*100 AD2d 509 [1984]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion, with costs, the motion is granted, the judgment is vacated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Orange County, for a trial on the issue of damages; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendants.

Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27 (a), the Supreme Court awarded the plaintiff a judgment upon the defendants’ failure to appear at a pretrial conference. However, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in declining to vacate the judgment since the defendants proffered a reasonable excuse for their failure to appear at the conference and a meritorious defense to the amount of damages claimed *(see BBZZ Equities v Walter T. Gorman, P.E., P.C.,*267 AD2d 266 [1999]).

Since based upon the record it is clear that the defendants have admitted liability and are contesting only the amount of damages claimed, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court for a trial on the issue of damages only. Prudenti, P.J., Schmidt, Santucci, Luciano and Spolzino, JJ., concur.
# Harbours (Scotland) Act 2015

        - Previous
        - Next

S

# Harbours (Scotland) Act 2015

# 2015 asp 13                     

The Bill for this Act of the Scottish Parliament was passed by the Parliament on 27th October 2015 and received Royal Assent                        on 2nd December 2015                     

An Act of the Scottish Parliament to repeal sections 10 to 12 of the Ports Act 1991 and amend Schedules 3 and 4 to the Harbours                        Act 1964.                     

## 1Modification of Ports Act 1991S

(1)The Ports Act 1991 is amended as follows.                  

(2)The following provisions are repealed—                  

(a)section 10 (schemes initiated by the Scottish Ministers),                  

(b)section 11 (annual turnover requirement for purposes of section 10), and                  

(c)section 12 (schemes made by the Scottish Ministers).                  

(3)In section 20 (interpretation of Part 1)—                  

(a)in subsection (1), in paragraph (b) of the definition of “the Gazette”, for “such a notice” substitute “ a notice under section 9(3)(a) ”, and                  

(b)in each of subsections (3)(a) and (6), the words “or 12(3)” are repealed.                  

(4)In section 37 (orders and regulations), in subsection (4), paragraphs (a) and (b) are repealed.                  

## 2Orders and schemes relating to harboursS

(1)The Harbours Act 1964 is amended as follows.                  

(2)In Schedule 3 (procedure for making harbour revision and empowerment orders), in paragraph 7, in each of sub-paragraphs (a)                        and (b), the words “six copies of” are repealed.                  

(3)In Schedule 4 (procedure for confirming and making harbour reorganisation schemes), in paragraph 1, for “not less than six                        copies”, in both places where those words occur, substitute “ a copy ”.                  

## 3CommencementS

This Act comes into force on the day after Royal Assent.

## 4Short titleS

The short title of this Act is the Harbours (Scotland) Act 2015.
1

The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., Chief Judge, United States District

Court for the Western District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-2254

___________

Judson Witham, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Christian County, Missouri; Christian *

County Sheriff’s Department; Joe *

Matlock, Sheriff; Ron Cleek; Judge * [UNPUBLISHED]

Waters; Judge Eiffert; Deputy *

Forrester; Deputy Cowan; Kim Clark; *

Judge Orr; Pat Wright, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: August 7, 2008

Filed: August 18, 2008

___________

Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Judson Witham appeals the district court’s1

 dismissal with prejudice of his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to comply with a court order. Having carefully
-2-

reviewed the record and considered Witham’s arguments on appeal, we find no basis

for reversal, and we affirm the district court’s judgment. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________
EAKER v. NABER CHRYSLER DODGE JEEP, INC.

No. COA07-1033.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed October 7, 2008.

Certification Date October 27, 2008.

Appeal from Randolph (06CVS770).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
PACIFIC MULCH, INC., R.E. Foy, G.R. Cunningham, Mark Williams, John M. Foster and Bobby D. Oakley v. Larry Neal SENTER.

No. 503P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 5, 2009.

Ralph Hofler, III, Durham, for Senter.

Camden R. Webb, Heather E. Bridgers, Raleigh, for Pacific Mulch, et al.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 12th day of November 2008 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 February 2009."
STATE v. McKINNEY.

No. COA08-243.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed December 16, 2008.

Certification Date January 5, 2009.

Appeal from Guilford (03CRS84998).

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

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       1,146,338
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         523,562
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    570,890
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          14,101
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            14,101
<LOANS>                                     62,756,738
<ALLOWANCE>                                    367,393
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              66,540,620
<DEPOSITS>                                  41,319,234
<SHORT-TERM>                                 6,000,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            520,348
<LONG-TERM>                                  6,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,415
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,693,623
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              66,540,620
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              2,526,789
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               33,408
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                58,892
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             2,619,089
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             772,748
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,036,682
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        1,582,407
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   18,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                            (35,747)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              1,262,261
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                440,690
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     440,690
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   291,190
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.47
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.47
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                    309,811
<LOANS-PAST>                                   474,540
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               348,067
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                     1,326
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              367,393
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32







CERTIFICATION




By signing below, each of the undersigned hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his or her capacity as an officer of LSB Financial Corp. (the “Registrant”) that (i) this report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Registrant at the end of such period and the results of operations of the Registrant for such period.









Date:
August 13, 2010
/s/
Randolph F. WilliamsRandolph F. WilliamsPresident and Chief Executive OfficerDate:
August 13, 2010
/s/
Mary Jo DavidMary Jo DavidVice President and Chief Financial Officer







A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to LSB Financial Corp. and will be retained by LSB Financial Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>

                                                                   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

     I, John F. Corcoran, Chief Financial Officer of CNA Surety Corporation (the
"Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

          (1) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the quarterly
     period ended December 31, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies with the
     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 Report fairly presents, in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
     Company.

                                        /s/ JOHN F. CORCORAN
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        JOHN F. CORCORAN
                                        SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND
                                        CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-41160

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JORGE ANDRES GARCIA-VASQUEZ

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:07-CR-1407

Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jorge Andres GarciaVasquez (Garcia) has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Garcia has not filed

a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses

no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to

withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein,

and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 20, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
STATE v. HAMPTON.

No. COA07-1270.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed September 2, 2008.

Certification Date September 22, 2008.

Appeal from Forsyth (96CRS40352, 96CRS40508, 96CRS40510).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
**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**

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Reckson Operating Partnership, L.P.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Marc Holliday, President ofthe Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.                                       TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), asapplicable, of the 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.
|                 | /s/ Marc  Holliday                                                            |   |
|-----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Name:           | Marc Holliday                                                                 |
| Title:          | President                                                                     |
|            | Of Reckson Associates Realty Corp., the sole general  partner of the Company. |
|            |
| August 14, 2007 |

 

----