alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Mark Thomas HOWSARE, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia, Appellee.

Record No. 160414.

Supreme Court of Virginia.

September 29, 2017.

Upon a Petition for Rehearing

Upon consideration of the petition of the appellant to grant a rehearing of the judgment rendered herein on June 1, 2017, it is ordered that the rehearing is granted.

It appearing to the Court from the record that the appellant did in fact assign error to the trial court's granting Instruction 6 and the Court of Appeals' affirming that ruling, the statement in this Court's opinion to the contrary is in error. Howsare's appeal was granted but was limited to his assignments of error 1 and 2 and all other assignments of error, including those relating to Instruction 6, were rejected and were not before the Court on appeal.

Accordingly, it is ordered that the opinion be corrected and the words appearing on page 3 of the slip opinion, lines 18 and 19, reading "but not assigned as error on appeal," are deleted. The remaining parts of the opinion and the Court's judgment affirming the judgment of the Court of Appeals are unaffected by this order.

This order shall be certified to the Court of Appeals of Virginia and shall be published in the Virginia Reports.

Justice McCullough took no part in the resolution of the petition.
EXHIBIT 11.1

STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF
BASIC EARNINGS AND DILUTED
EARNINGS PER SHARE



YEAR ENDED MARCH 31,                      2003          2002          2001
                                      -----------   -----------   -----------
Net income from continuing operations $ 4,063,000   $ 4,403,000   $ 4,551,000
Discontinued operations:
 Loss from discontinued operations                     (271,000)   (4,547,000)
 Estimated gain (loss) on disposal        745,000    (3,256,000)
                                      -----------   -----------   -----------
Net income                            $ 4,808,000   $   876,000   $     4,000
                                      ===========   ===========   ===========

BASIC:
  Weighted average number of
   common shares basic                  4,501,342     5,071,125     5,076,456

Basic earnings per share from
  continuing operations                     $0.90         $0.86         $0.90
Basic loss per share from
  discontinued operations                                 (0.05)        (0.90)
Basic gain (loss) per share on
  disposal of discontinued operations        0.17         (0.64)
                                      -----------   -----------   -----------
Basic earnings per share                    $1.07         $0.17         $0.00
                                      ===========   ===========   ===========


DILUTED:
 Common and common equivalent shares
  outstanding:

   Weighted average number of common
    shares basic                        4,501,342     5,071,125     5,076,456
   Common stock equivalents from
    options computed utilizing the
    treasury-stock method based on the
    average fair market value of common
    stock during the period               210,078       137,799       140,148
                                      -----------   -----------   -----------
Weighted average number of common and
  common equivalent shares   diluted    4,711,420     5,208,924     5,216,604

Diluted earnings per share from
  continuing operations                     $0.86         $0.85         $0.87
Diluted loss per share from
  discontinued operations                                 (0.05)        (0.87)
Diluted gain (loss) per share on
  disposal of discontinued operations        0.16         (0.63)
                                      -----------   -----------   -----------
Diluted earnings per share                  $1.02         $0.17         $0.00
                                      ===========   ===========   ===========
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4180 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permit rollovers from 

health savings accounts to Medicare Advantage MSAs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 6, 2014 

Mr. ROSS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permit 

rollovers from health savings accounts to Medicare Advantage MSAs. 

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

3 SECTION 1. HSA ROLLOVER TO MEDICARE ADVANTAGE 

4 MSA. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (2) of section 138(b) 

6 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by strik7 ing ‘‘or’’ at the end of subparagraph (A), by adding ‘‘or’’ 

8 at the end of subparagraph (B), and by adding at the end 

9 the following new subparagraph: 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4180 IH

1 ‘‘(C) a HSA rollover contribution described 

2 in subsection (c)(5),’’. 

3 (b) HSA ROLLOVER CONTRIBUTION.—Subsection (c) 

4 of section 138 of such Code is amended by adding at the 

5 end the following new paragraph: 

6 ‘‘(5) ROLLOVER CONTRIBUTION.—An amount is 

7 described in this paragraph as a rollover contribu8 tion if it meets the requirements of subparagraphs 

9 (A) and (B). 

10 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The requirements of 

11 this subparagraph are met in the case of an 

12 amount paid or distributed from a health sav13 ings account to the account beneficiary to the 

14 extent the amount received is paid into a Medi15 care Advantage MSA of such beneficiary not 

16 later than the 60th day after the day on which 

17 the beneficiary receives the payment or distribu18 tion. 

19 ‘‘(B) LIMITATION.—This paragraph shall 

20 not apply to any amount described in subpara21 graph (A) received by an individual from a 

22 health savings account if, at any time during 

23 the 1-year period ending on the day of such re24 ceipt, such individual received any other amount 

25 described in subparagraph (A) from a health 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4180 IH

1 savings account which was not includible in the 

2 individual’s gross income because of the appli3 cation of section 223(f)(5)(A).’’. 

4 (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Subparagraph (A) 

5 of section 223(f)(5) of such Code is amended by inserting 

6 ‘‘, a Medicare Advantage MSA (as defined in section 

7 138(b)),’’ before ‘‘or a health savings account’’. 

8 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

9 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

10 December 31, 2013. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
STATE of North Carolina v. John Allen HILL, IV

No. 166P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 17, 2017

Joseph P. Lattimore, Attorney at Law, for Hill, John Allen (IV)

Melissa H. Taylor, Assistant Attorney General, Ben R. David, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 23rd of May 2017 by Defendant in this *392matter 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 17th of August 2017."
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KITTY YINLING ZHANG,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC;

et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 12-15952

D.C. No. 3:11-cv-03475-NC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Nathanael M. Cousins, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**

Submitted April 22, 2015*** 

Before: GOODWIN, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. 

Kitty Yinling Zhang appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing her action alleging federal and state law claims in connection with

FILED

MAY 01 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28

U.S.C. § 636(c). 

 *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

review de novo, and may affirm on any ground supported by the record. 

Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm. 

The district court properly dismissed Zhang’s Real Estate Settlement

Practices Act (“RESPA”) claim alleging inadequate disclosures, because Zhang

failed to allege facts sufficient to show that any defendant failed to provide a

required disclosure with respect to the transfer of a loan. See 12 U.S.C. § 2605(a)-

(c) (setting forth disclosures that must be made regarding the transfer of a loan).

Dismissal of Zhang’s RESPA claim alleging inadequate responses to her

Qualified Written Request was proper because Zhang failed to allege facts

sufficient to show that she suffered any actual damages as a result of the alleged

violation. See 12 U.S.C. § 2605(f)(1)(A) (allowing recovery of “actual damages”).

The district court properly dismissed Zhang’s Fair Debt Collection Practices

Act claim because, even assuming that defendant ReconTrust was a “debt

collector” and was “collecting” a debt, records subject to judicial notice show that

ReconTrust provided Zhang all statutorily required information. See 15 U.S.C. 

§ 1692g(b) (setting forth information a debt collector must provide when a

consumer disputes a debt or seeks information regarding the original creditor); see

also Clark v. Capital Credit & Collection Servs., Inc., 460 F.3d 1162, 1173-74 (9th

2 12-15952
Cir. 2006) (“[V]erification of a debt involves nothing more than the debt collector

confirming in writing that the amount being demanded is what the creditor is

claiming is owed.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). 

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.

3 12-15952
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit

__________________________ 

YELLOW CAB COMPANY OF ORLANDO, INC., 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v.

CELEBRATION TRANSPORTATION, INC. 

(doing business as Celebration Taxi AND The Yellow

Cab Company), 

Defendant-Appellant. 

__________________________ 

2013-1268

__________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Middle District of Florida in No. 12-CV-1910, Judge 

Elizabeth A. Kovachevich. 

__________________________ 

Before LOURIE, Circuit Judge.

O R D E R

The court considers whether this recently docketed

appeal should be transferred to the United States District 

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. 

Celebration Transportation, Inc. appeals from a 

judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Middle District of Florida, in a case involving charges of 

trademark infringement and Florida state law claims. 

Case: 13-1268 Document: 5 Page: 1 Filed: 05/01/2013
YELLOW CAB COMPANY v. CELEBRATION TRANSPORTATION 2

This court is a court of limited jurisdiction, which does not 

appear to include jurisdiction in this matter. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

(1) The parties are directed to respond within 14 days 

from the date of filing of this order concerning whether 

this appeal should be transferred to the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1631. 

(2) The briefing schedule is stayed.

FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Jan Horbaly 

 Jan Horbaly

Clerk

s26

Case: 13-1268 Document: 5 Page: 2 Filed: 05/01/2013
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed

Ju ly 14 , 2022

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14 - 22 - 00269 - CR IN RE BRETT DAVID BOGUS , Relat or On Appeal from the 176th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cau s e No. 1433472 - A MEMORANDUM OPINI ON On April 13, 2022 , r elator Brett David Bogus filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this Court . See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. I n the petition, r elator claims on Aug ust 28, 2015, t h e 176 th District Court entered a n unauthorized , illegal sentence of confinement for twenty years in trial court cause number 1399452 . See Bogus v. State , No. 14 - 15 - 00832 - CR, 2017 WL 1366674, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] Apr. 13, 2017, pet. ref’d) (mem. op.) (not d esignated for publication).2

W hile the courts of appeals have mandamus jurisdiction in criminal matters , only the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction to grant relief in a post - conviction habeas c orpus proceeding. Padieu v. Cou r t of Appeals of Tex., Fifth Dist ., 392 S.W. 3d 115, 117 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013); Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals , 802 S .W.3d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Relator ’s complaints relate to matters that were presented or should have been presented in his app l ication for a writ of ha beas corpus to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals pursuant to article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure . 1 T o the extent that habeas corpus re lief is availabl e, relator must seek that relief in the Court of Crimi nal Ap peals . 2 W e dismiss relator’s petition for want of jurisdiction. 3 PER CURIAM Panel c onsis ts of J ustices Wise, Bourliot and Spain . Do Not Publish

— Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

1 See In re Bogus , No. WR - 90,434 - 03, 2021 WL 115556, at *1 (Tex. Crim. App. Jan. 13, 2021) ; Ex parte Bogus , No. WR - 90,434 - 01, 2019 WL 6139093, at *1 (Tex. Crim. App. No v. 20, 20 1 9) . 2 See In re Bogus , No. 14 - 20 - 00728 - CR, 2020 WL 6494973, at *1 (Tex. App.

— H ouston [ 14th Dist. ] Nov. 5, 2020) (orig. proceeding); In re Bogus , No. 14 - 20 - 00480 - CR, 2020 WL 4461310, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 4, 2020, no pet.); In re Bogus , No. 14 - 20 - 00196 - CR, 2020 WL 1469562, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] Ma r. 26, 2 020, no pe t.); In re Bogus , No. 14 - 19 - 01007 - CR, 2020 WL 372893, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 23, 2020, no pet.); In re Bogus , No. 14 - 19 - 00778 - CR, 2019 WL 5559915, at *1 (Tex. Ap p. — Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 29, 2019, no pet.); In re Bo gus , No. 14 - 18 - 008 08 - CR, 2018 WL 4495074, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] Sept. 20, 2018, no pet.) .

3 Because we are dismissing for lack of jurisdiction, we do not addre ss any procedural deficiencies with the mandamus petition or record.
Exhibit 31.1

SARBANES-OXLEY SECTION 302(a) CERTIFICATION

Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer

I, Slavko Bebek, certify that:

1. 	I have reviewed this quarterly report ofAdera Mines Limited;

2. 	Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

3. 	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 report;

4. 	The registrant's other certifying officer and I are 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 our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its 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 the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our 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 (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) 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 our 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 (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

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: September 16, 2005 | /s/ Slavko Bebek                                           
|------------------------ | -----------------------------------------------------------
|                         | Slavko Bebek                                               
|                         | Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer



---
STATE of North Carolina v. Kenneth Lee BONHAM

No. COA17-141

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 15, 2017

NO PREJUDICAL OR PLAIN ERROR.
STATE of North Carolina, Plaintiff, v. Mitchell Daniel PASTORE, Defendant.

No. COA16-1205

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 1, 2017

NO ERROR.
# C_2004094EN.01004001.xml

| 17.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/40

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

11 February 2004

in Case T-259/01: Nutrinveste — Comércio Internacional, SA, v Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(Regulation (EEC) No 2200/87 - Food aid - Transfer of the burden of risk - Deduction from payments)

(2004/C 94/115)

Language of the case: Portuguese

In Case T-259/01, Nutrinveste - Comércio Internacional, SA, established in Algés (Portugal), represented by A. Vasconcelos, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Berscheid and A. Alves Vieira), with an address for service in Luxembourg: Application for an order for payment by the Commission of the sum of EUR 61 226 in respect of a supply of food aid, the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of V. Tiili, President, P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras, Judges; I. Natsinas, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 February 2004, in which it:

Nutrinveste - Comércio Internacional, SA

Commission of the European Communities

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders the applicant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 17 of 19.01.2002.

1

---
EX-10.12



 Exhibit 10.12 

ASSIGNMENT OF PURCHASE AGREEMENT 

THIS ASSIGNMENT OF PURCHASE AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of this 26th day
of June, 2014, by and between CARTER VALIDUS PROPERTIES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Assignor”), and HC-11250 FALLBROOK DRIVE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Assignee”). 

RECITALS 
 A. Assignor is
the Purchaser under that certain Purchase Agreement made by and between Cy-Fair Surgical Properties, Ltd., a Texas limited partnership as Seller, and Assignor as Purchaser, having an effective date of June 5, 2014 ( the “Agreement”)
relative to certain real property, together with Improvements, Intangible Property and Personal Property (as defined in the Agreement) located or necessary for the operations at 11250 Fallbrook Drive, Houston, Texas (the “Property”). 

B. Assignor wishes to assign to Assignee all of its rights under the Agreement in return for Assignee’s agreement to assume all of
Assignor’s obligations under the Agreement. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, for valuable consideration to Assignor in hand paid by Assignee,
the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged by Assignor, the parties agree as follows: 
 Assignor does hereby sell,
assign, transfer and deliver unto Assignee all of Assignor’s right, title and interest in and to the Agreement (including, without limitation, the rights of Assignor in all deposit monies paid by Assignor under the Agreement) regarding and
relating to the Property which is the subject of the Agreement. 
 Assignee, by the acceptance hereof, hereby assumes all rights and
obligations of Assignor as Purchaser under the Agreement and agrees to be bound by all of the terms and conditions of the Agreement. 

[Signature page follows] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Assignment as of the day and year first above
written. 
  

							
	WITNESSES:	 	ASSIGNOR:
		
		 	 Carter Validus Properties, LLC,
 a
Delaware limited liability company

		
	/s/ Demetra Elliott	 	
	Print Name: Demetra Elliott	 	By: /s/ John E. Carter 
		
	/s/ Miles Callahan	 	Date: 06/26/2014
	Print Name: Miles Callahan	 	
		
	WITNESSES:	 	ASSIGNEE:
		
		 	HC-11250 Fallbrook Drive, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
			
		 	By:	 	Carter Validus Operating Partnership II, LP a Delaware limited partnership, Its Sole Member
				
	 /s/ Anatalia Sanchez
 Print Name:
Anatalia Sanchez
	 		 	By:	 	Carter Validus Mission Critical REIT II, Inc., a Maryland corporation, Its General Partner
				
		 		 		 	By: /s/ Lisa A. Drummond 
	/s/ Miles Callahan	 		 		 	Name: Lisa A. Drummond
	Print Name: Miles Callahan	 		 		 	Its: Secretary


  
 -2-