alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Elder, Clements and Senior Judge Annunziata 

JOHN DANIEL GRANTHAM 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* 

v. Record No. 1174-08-2 PER CURIAM 

SEPTEMBER 23, 2008 

B & S LANDSCAPING, INC., 

 SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. 

 AND UNINSURED EMPLOYER’S FUND 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (John Daniel Grantham, pro se, on briefs). 

 (Paul R. Schmidt; Huff, Poole & Mahoney, P.C., on brief), for 

appellee Uninsured Employer’s Fund. 

 No brief for appellees B & S Landscaping, Inc. or Sedgwick 

Claims Management Services, Inc. 

 John Daniel Grantham (claimant) appeals a decision of the Workers’ Compensation 

Commission denying his claim for payment of (1) medical expenses, mileage reimbursement, 

and prescriptions associated with treatment rendered to him by Dr. Mark Romanoff; and (2) the 

cost of a gym membership and mileage to the gym. Pursuant to Rule 5A:21(b), The Uninsured 

Employer’s Fund (“the Fund”) raises the additional questions of whether the commission erred 

in finding (1) Dr. Dennis Cronin’s chiropractic treatment and prescription for a VMS/Intellect 

Machine were medically necessary; and (2) Dr. Cronin’s opinions were adequately supported by 

credible evidence. 1

 

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 

1

 The commission made additional findings that the deputy commissioner did not err in 

her handling of the hearing or in accepting the lay testimony of Reverend Long and that her 

decision did not reflect undue weight given to Long’s testimony. Those findings are not before 
- 2 - 

 Notwithstanding claimant’s failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 5A:20 with 

respect to his opening brief, we have reviewed the parties’ briefs, the record, and the 

commission’s opinion and find that claimant’s appeal is without merit. Based upon that review, 

we also find the questions raised on appeal by the Fund are without merit. Accordingly, we 

affirm for the reasons stated by the commission in its final opinion. See Grantham v. B & S 

Landscaping, Inc., VWC File No. 068-94-10 (April 25, 2008). We dispense with oral argument 

and summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. See Code 

§ 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27. 

Affirmed.

 

us on appeal. We also note that in summarily affirming the commission’s decision, we 

considered only the evidence and issues properly before the commission when it rendered its 

decision.
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 R.G. Global Lifestyles, Inc., on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:



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 operation of the Company.



Dated:  October 19, 2004





/s/ Louis L. Knickerbocker

Louis L. Knickerbocker, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer



/s/ William C. Hitchcock

William C. Hitchcock, Chief Financial Officer
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 19, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136294 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. SAM ANDRES, d/b/a Stephen J. Markman, SCHOOLCRAFT AUTO BODY, Justices Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 136294 

 COA: 276473 

Kalamazoo CC: 06-000065-NO 

TIM BROWN,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 13, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in 

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we AFFIRM the result reached by the Court of Appeals, 

but for a different reason. The defendant, who was “the elective or highest appointive 

executive official of [a] level[] of government . . . acting within the scope of his executive 

authority[,]” MCL 691.1407(5), was absolutely immune from tort liability. 

p0916 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 19, 2008 

 Clerk
Exhibit 21.0  SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT  Parent  TF Financial
Corporation  Subsidiaries
  
  Percentage
  Owned
  
  Jurisdiction of
  IncorporationThird Federal
  Bank(a)
  
  100
  %
  United StatesTF Investments
  Corporation(a)
  
  100
  %
  DelawareTeragon
  Financial Corporation(a)(b)
  
  100
  %
  PennsylvaniaPenns Trail
  Development Corporation(a)
  
  100
  %
  DelawareThird Delaware
  Corporation(a)(b)
  
  100
  %
  Delaware  
 (a)The operations of this
subsidiary are included in the consolidated financial statements contained in
the 2007 Annual Report to Stockholders incorporated herein by reference.  (b)Third Delaware
Corporation and Teragon Financial Corporation are wholly-owned subsidiaries of
Third Federal Bank.
Chamberlain v. N.C. Department of Public Safety, et al

241P16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2016

Robert S. Chamberlain, For Chamberlain, Robert Samuel.

*512The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 22nd of June 2016 by Petitioner for Petition to Seek a Court Order to Remove Locking Devices/Latches and Chains from Cell Doors:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of August 2016."

Ervin, J. recused
Exhibit 10.3

                                 Lease Agreement

Nov 30, 2014

The following sets forth our agreement with regard to the grant by Mark Shostak
or an affiliate thereof (The "Leaser") to you (the "Sub-Leaser) Uni Line Corp.
under the following terms and conditions:

1.   The Leased Premises area covers approximately 4 (four) square meters. The
     Leased Premises is located on the first floor of the building at Earls
     Court Road W.8, Kensington, London SW5 9RQ, United Kingdom.

2.   The Agreement shall be for a term of three (3) years, starting on Nov 30,
     2014 and ending on Nov 30, 2017.

3.   Uni Line Corp. is given an option to renew the Lease for an additional term
     of two (2) years by giving the lesser written notice on or before ninety
     (90) days before the expiration of the primary term of this lease. The
     renewal lease is to be upon the same terms, covenants, and conditions
     contained in this Lease except as to Rent as provided in Paragraph 3 of the
     Lease.

4.   For the first year of the agreement the annual rent is $2,400 or $200/month
     dollars payable in advance on the first day of every month, in twelve (12)
     equal and consecutive installments of $200 each month.

5.   For the second and third year of the agreement the annual rent is $2,400
     dollars payable in advance on the first day of every month, in twelve (12)
     equal and consecutive installments of $200 each month.

6.   A late charge of $10 per day shall be paid as additional rental for any
     rental payment delivered or received more than three (3) days after the
     first day of any calendar month during the term of this lease.

7.   Lesser agrees to provide, at its expense, to or for the Premises, adequate
     heat, electricity, water, air conditioning, ventilation, replacement light
     tubes, trash removal service, and sewage disposal service, in such
     quantities and at such times as is necessary to Lessee's comfortable and
     reasonable use of the Premises.

8.   Any holding over after the expiration of the term of this lease shall be
     deemed to constitute a tenancy from month to month only, and shall be on
     the same terms and conditions as specified in this Lease.

Yours truly,


Mark Shostak


/s/ Mark Shostak
----------------------------------
<PAGE>
I/we, the undersigned, hereby agree with the forgoing terms and conditions.

Signed in the City of: Warsaw the 31 day of March 2014



Mark Shostak /President                       /s/ Mark Shostak
----------------------------------            ----------------------------------
PRINT NAME & TITLE                            SIGNATURE


Roman Ehlert /President                       /s/ Roman Ehlert
----------------------------------            ----------------------------------
PRINT NAME & TITLE                            SIGNATURE

                                       2
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION


OF


CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER





Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of PureDepth, Inc.
do hereby certify that:





(a) the
quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PureDepth, Inc. for the three and nine months
ended October 31, 2008 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(b)
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of PureDepth,
Inc.











Dated:  December
12, 2008








/s/
Andrew L. Wood





Mr.
Andrew L. Wood, Chief Executive Officer and Director










/s/
Jonathan J. McCaman





Mr.
Jonathan J. McCaman, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
STATE v. Christina Shea WALTERS

548A00-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 17, 2017

Shelagh R. Kenney, Attorney at Law, Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., Attorney at Law, Durham, for Walters, Christina Shea.

Danielle Marquis Elder, Special Deputy Attorney General, Jonathan P. Babb, Special Counsel to Attorney General, William R. West, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 10th of March 2017 by Defendant for Extension of Time to File Petition for Writ of Certiorari:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of March 2017."
* 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. 08-30164

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ROBERT C. MONTGOMERY, also known as Robert Cecil Montgomery

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 5:07-CR-50075-3

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Robert C. Montgomery appeals the mandatory 120-month sentence

imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent

to distribute crack cocaine. Montgomery argues that the sentence is cruel and

unusual in violation of the Eighth Amendment because it is grossly

disproportionate to the severity of the offense committed. In comparison to the

life sentence imposed in Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263, 263 (1980), on a nonUnited States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 21, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-30164

2

violent criminal pursuant to a recidivist statute, and the thirty-year sentence

imposed in United States v. Gonzales, 121 F.3d 928, 943-44 (5th Cir. 1997), on

a non-habitual offender convicted of using or carrying a firearm during a drugtrafficking offense, the sentence imposed on Montgomery is not grossly

disproportionate to his offense. See Gonzales, 121 F.3d at 943-44; McGruder v.

Puckett, 954 F.2d 313, 316-17 (5th Cir. 1992). Further, although this case

involves a mandatory minimum sentence, rather than a sentence imposed under

the advisory guidelines, we note that the sentence is within the advisory

guidelines range for this offense. See U.S. SENTENCING GUIDELINES MANUAL §

2D1.1 (2007) (amended 2008) (guidelines range would have been 97-121 months

for this offense, given Montgomery’s criminal history). As such, it would be

considered presumptively reasonable, not grossly disproportionate. See Rita v.

United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462 (2007) (holding that a court of appeals may

apply “a presumption of reasonableness” to a sentence falling within the

guidelines range).

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
State of North Carolina v. James Maurieo Hunter

No. COA15-1265

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 1, 2016

NO ERROR.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3878 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3878

      To require the National Telecommunications and Information 
 Administration to update a report on the role of telecommunications, 
       including the Internet, on the commission of hate crimes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 15, 2014

 Mr. Jeffries (for himself, Mr. Meeks, Ms. Kuster, Mr. Honda, Ms. Chu, 
   Mr. Rush, Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney of New York, Mr. Pierluisi, Mr. 
Cardenas, Mr. Pocan, Ms. Norton, and Mr. Kind) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To require the National Telecommunications and Information 
 Administration to update a report on the role of telecommunications, 
       including the Internet, on the commission of hate crimes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Hate Crime Reporting Act of 2014''.

SEC. 2. REPORT.

    Section 155 of the National Telecommunications and Information 
Administration Organization Act is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 155. REPORT ON THE ROLE OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS IN HATE CRIMES.

    ``(a) Report Required.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
enactment of the Hate Crime Reporting Act of 2014, the NTIA, with the 
assistance of the Department of Justice, the Commission, and the United 
States Commission on Civil Rights, shall submit a report to the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on the Judiciary of 
the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
and Transportation and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate on 
the role of telecommunications in hate crimes in accordance with 
subsection (b).
    ``(b) Scope of Report.--The report required by subsection (a) 
shall--
            ``(1) analyze information on the use of telecommunications, 
        including the Internet, broadcast television and radio, cable 
        television, public access television, commercial mobile 
        services, and other electronic media, to advocate and encourage 
        violent acts and the commission of crimes of hate, as described 
        in the Hate Crime Statistics Act (28 U.S.C. 534 note);
            ``(2) include any recommendations, consistent with the 
        First Amendment to the Constitution, that the NTIA determines 
        are appropriate and necessary to address such use of 
        telecommunications; and
            ``(3) update the previous report submitted under this 
        section (as in effect before the date of enactment of the Hate 
        Crime Reporting Act of 2014).''.
                                 <all>
```
The Fidelity Bank v. N.C. Department of Revenue

392A16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 17, 2017

Donalt J. Eglinton, Attorney at Law, New Bern, Alexander C. Dale, Attorney at Law, Wilmington, Amy P. Wang, Attorney at Law, New Bern, for The Fidelity Bank.

Perry J. Pelaez, Assistant Attorney General, for N.C. Department of Revenue.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 15th of February 2017 by Respondent:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of February 2017."

Respondent shall have up to and including the 5th day of April 2017 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
# C_2012243EN.01001301.xml

| 11.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 243/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 243/13

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 June 2012 — YKK and Others v Commission

(Case T-448/07) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Markets for zip fasteners and ‘other fasteners’, and for attaching machines - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Coordinated price increases, fixing of minimum prices, customer-sharing, market-sharing and exchange of other commercial information - Single and continuous infringement - Evidence - Nature and implementation of the infringement - Real impact - Leniency Notice - Fines - Upper limit - Dissuasive effect of the fine - Equal treatment - Proportionality)

2012/C 243/22

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: YKK Corp. (Tokyo, Japan), YKK Holding Europe BV (Sneek, Netherlands), YKK Stocko Fasteners GmbH (Wuppertal, Germany) (represented initially by H. Kaneko and C. Verannemann, lawyers, and subsequently by H. Kaneko, G. Williamson, Solicitor, and N. Green QC,

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet and K. Mojzesowicz, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for, primarily, annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 4257 final of 19 September 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/39.168 — PO/Hard Haberdashery: Fasteners) in so far as it concerns the applicants and, in the alternative, annulment or reduction of their respective fines

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders YKK Corp., YKK Holding Europe BV and YKK Stocko Fasteners GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders YKK Corp., YKK Holding Europe BV and YKK Stocko Fasteners GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 51, 23.2.2008.

1

---
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A15D0485. JAY B. GOREE v. NAJARIAN CAPITAL, LLC.

Jay B. Goree filed this application for discretionary review of a judgment

entered by the magistrate court. However, “[t]he only avenue of appeal available

from [a] magistrate court judgment is provided by OCGA § 15-10-41 (b) (1), which

allowsfor a de novo appeal to the state or superior court.” Handler v. Hulsey, 199 Ga.

App. 751 (406 SE2d 225) (1991). This Court may only address magistrate court

matters that already have been reviewed by the state or superior court. See id.;

Westwind Corp. v. Washington Federal Savings & Loan Assn., 195 Ga. App. 411 (1)

(393 SE2d 479) (1990).

The Georgia Constitution requires that “[a]ny court shall transfer to the

appropriate court in the state any civil case in which it determines that jurisdiction or

venue lies elsewhere.” See Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. I, Par. VIII; Bosma v.

Gunter, 258 Ga. 664 (373 SE2d 368) (1988). Accordingly, this case is hereby

TRANSFERRED to the DeKalb County Superior Court.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

07/23/2015

July 23, 2015
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

October 17, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136515 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

LARRY VAN WYNSBERGHE and Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PATRICIA VAN WYNSBERGHE, Justices Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

v SC: 136515 

 COA: 277094 

Wayne CC: 05-535421-NO

AMERICAN AXLE & MANUFACTURING 

HOLDINGS, INC.,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Chief Justice, a stipulation signed by counsel for the parties 

agreeing to the dismissal of this application for leave to appeal is considered, and the 

application for leave to appeal is DISMISSED with prejudice and without costs. 

p1014 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 17, 2008 

Clerk
Presidential Documents

55703 

Federal Register 

Vol. 70, No. 183 

Thursday, September 22, 2005 

Title 3— 

The President 

Notice of September 21, 2005 

Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Persons Who Commit, Threaten To Commit, or Support Terrorism 

On September 23, 2001, by Executive Order 13224, I declared a national 

emergency with respect to persons who commit, threaten to commit, or 

support terrorism, pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers 

Act (50 U.S.C. 1701–1706). I took this action to deal with the unusual 

and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy 

of the United States constituted by the grave acts of terrorism and threats 

of terrorism committed by foreign terrorists, including the terrorist attacks 

in New York, in Pennsylvania, and against the Pentagon committed on 

September 11, 2001, and the continuing and immediate threat of further 

attacks against United States nationals or the United States. Because the 

actions of these persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the United 

States, the national emergency declared on September 23, 2001, and the 

measures adopted on that date to deal with that emergency, must continue 

in effect beyond September 23, 2005. Therefore, in accordance with section 

202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing 

for 1 year the national emergency with respect to persons who commit, 

threaten to commit, or support terrorism. 

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted 

to the Congress. 

W 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

September 21, 2005. [FR Doc. 05–19157 

Filed 9–21–05; 1:07 pm] 

Billing code 3195–01–P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. CHRIST EUGENE HARSH, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 827 MAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 20th day of May, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.