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

|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      

I, Howard Thomson, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of Greenlite Ventures Inc. (the Company), hereby certify
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 my knowledge:

| | (i)  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company, for the fiscal
      quarter ended June 30, 2010, and to which this certification is attached
      as Exhibit 32.1 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
      and
| | ---- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Company.                                                                                                                                                       

| | By:    | /s/ Howard Thomson         
| | ------ | ---------------------------
| | Name:  | HOWARD THOMSON             
| |        | Chief Executive Officer and
| | Title: | Chief Financial Officer    
| | Date:  | August 20, 2010            

A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it
relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is
not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the
Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made
before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Lori Stoin FREEMAN

No. COA17-751

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: February 6, 2018

VACATED. REMANDED.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6483 ABDUL-AZIZ RASHID MUHAMMAD, a/k/a William A. Brown, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus J. BUNTS, Health Services Administrator; DAVID T. BUCKINGHAM, Nurse; E. MASTELLER, PA-C; P. BENDER, PA-C; T. PUCKETT, PA-C; DORIS WILLIAMS, Clinical Director, Defendants - Appellees, and J. D. HILL, Associate Warden of Programs; K. M. WHITE, Regional Director, Mid-Atlantic Regional Office; G. STONE, Superintendent of Industry; HARRELL WATTS, Administrator, National Inmate Appeals; B. A. BLEDSOE, Warden, FCI Gilmer, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief District Judge. (1:03-cv-00228-IMK) Submitted: September 26, 2007 Decided: November 19, 2007 Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.- 2 - Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Abdul-Aziz Rashid Muhammad, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel W. Dickinson, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 3 - PER CURIAM: Abdul-Aziz Rashid Muhammad appeals the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendations as modified and denying relief on his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Muhammad v. Bunts , No. 1:03-cv-00228-IMK (N.D. W. Va. Mar. 1, 2007). We d ispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
STATE of North Carolina v. Christopher Dewayne SMITH and John James Cunningham

No. COA 17-172

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: January 2, 2018

AFFIRMED.
PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES, INC., Petitioner, v. Beverly A. H. BUSCEMI, Ph.D., in her official capacity as State Director, South Carolina Department of Disabilities and Special Needs and The South Carolina Department of Disabilities and Special Needs, and Kelly Hanson Floyd, Nancy Banov, W. Robert Harrell, Rick Huntress, Deborah McPherson and Dr. Otis Speight in their Official Capacities as Members of the Department of Disabilities and Special Needs Commission, Respondents.

Appellate Case No. 2016-001983 Opinion No. 27795

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Heard May 1, 2018 Filed May 9, 2018

Anna Maria Darwin, of Greenville, and Thornwell Simons, of Columbia, both of Protection & Advocacy for People with Disabilities, Inc.; Reid T. Sherard, of Greenville, and Phillips Lancaster McWilliams, of Columbia, both of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP, for Petitioner.

William H. Davidson, II and Kenneth P. Woodington, both of Davidson & Lindemann, PA, of Columbia, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM:

**117We granted Protection and Advocacy for People with Disabilities, Inc.'s petition for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals in **118*Protection and Advocacy for People with Disabilities, Inc. v. Buscemi,*417 S.C. 267, 789 S.E.2d 756 (Ct. App. 2016). We now dismiss the writ as improvidently granted.

**DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED** .

BEATTY, C.J., KITTREDGE, HEARN, FEW and JAMES, JJ., concur.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2023-3291

_____________________________

BREA DISHAWN FREEMAN,

Petitioner,

v.

MANATEE COUNTY SCHOOL 

BOARD and JOHNS EASTERN 

COMPANY, INC.,

Respondents.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Prohibition—Original Jurisdiction.

Date of Accident: August 23, 2022.

January 24, 2024

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED.

ROBERTS, KELSEY, and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Nicolette E. Tsambis of Smith, Feddeler, Smith P.A., Lakeland, for

Petitioner.

Tracey J. Hyde of McConnaughhay, Coonrod, Pope, Weaver, Stern, 

P.A., Panama City, for Respondents.
#### Jon STUMPF, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 5D03-2371.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Aug. 5, 2003.

Jon Stumpf, Arcadia, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. *See Stumpf v. State,*677 So.2d 1298 (Fla. 5th DCA), *cause dismissed,*684 So.2d 1352 (Fla.1996); Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(f).

SHARP, W., PLEUS and TORPY, JJ„ concur.
Powell v. State of NC

260P16-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 26, 2017

Archie David Powell, Jr., for Powell, Archie David (Jr.)

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, For State of N.C.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 14th of November 2016 by Plaintiff to Proceed In Forma Pauperis:

> *370"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th of January 2017."
<PAGE>
 
                                  EXHIBIT 23.1

                          ASCEND COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8) pertaining to the First Amended and Restated 1989 Stock Option Plan
and 1994 Outside Directors Stock Option Plan; 1994 Employee Stock Purchase Plan;
Individual Option Agreements Issued by Morning Star Technologies, Inc. and
Assumed by Ascend Communications, Inc.; 401(k) Savings Plan; 1996 Restricted
Stock Plan; 1989 Stock Option Plan and Individual Option Agreements Issued by
NetStar, Inc. and Assumed by Ascend Communications, Inc.; Options Granted under
the Whitetree, Inc. 1993 Incentive Stock Plan, Cascade Communications Corp.
Amended and Restated 1991 Stock Plan, Cascade Communications Corp. 1994 Non-
Employee Director Stock Option Plan, Arris Networks, Inc. 1995 Stock Option Plan
and Sahara Networks, Inc. 1995 Stock Plan and Assumed by Ascend Communications,
Inc.; 1998 Stock Incentive Plan; 1996 Restricted Stock Plan and 1994 Outside
Directors Stock Option Plan; 1998 Supplemental Stock Incentive Plan; Options
Granted under the Stratus Computer, Inc. 1983 Stock Option Plan, as Amended,
Non-Qualified Common Stock Option Plan and 1997 Non-Qualified Common Stock
Option Plan and Assumed by Ascend Communications, Inc.; and First Amended and
Restated 1989 Stock Option Plan/ (1) / and in the Registration Statements (Form
S-3) No. 333- 13377, No. 333-11091, No. 333-21751, and No. 333-32781 and in the
related Prospectuses, of Ascend Communications, Inc. of our report dated January
22, 1999, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and financial
statement schedule of Ascend Communications, Inc. included in this Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1998.


Walnut Creek, California                                      ERNST & YOUNG LLP
March 26, 1999
#### OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner v. Raymond T. LE BON, Respondent.

No. 718 Disciplinary Docket No. 3.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Aug. 6, 2003.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 6th day of August, 2003, on certification by the Disciplinary Board that the respondent, RAYMOND T. LE BON, who was suspended by Order of this Court dated January 31, 2002, for a period of one year, has filed a verified statement showing compliance with all the terms and conditions of the Order of Suspension and Rule 217, Pa.R.D.E., and there being no other outstanding order of suspension or disbarment, RAYMOND T. LE BON, is hereby reinstated to active status, effective immediately.
#### In the Interest of A.N.M., D.M.M. and H.M.M. Juvenile Officer, Respondent, v. V.L.O. (Mother), Appellant, and M.D.M. (Father), Defendant.

Nos. WD 62245-WD 62247.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Aug. 5, 2003.

William E. Shull, Jr., Liberty, MO, for Respondent.

Susan E. Long, Liberty, MO, for Appellant.

David B. Sexton, Gladstone, MO, for Defendant.

James A. Fluker, N. Kansas City, MO, Guardian ad litem.

Before BRECKENRIDGE, P.J., and EDWIN H. SMITH and HOWARD, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Mother appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of Clay County, Family Court Division, terminating her parental rights to daughters, A.N.M. and H.M.M., and son, D.M.M. Mother raises three points on appeal. In her points on appeal, Mother argues the family court erred in terminating her parental rights because there was insufficient evidence to support *541the conclusion that it was in the children’s best interests to terminate in that: (1) all the evidence before the family court established that Mother had maintained continuous contact with her children; (2) there was no evidence that Mother had the ability to financially support her children, but failed to do so; and (3) there was insufficient evidence to support the finding that it was not likely that the provision of additional services would bring about lasting parental adjustment enabling the children to return to Mother’s custody.

Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 1**  **3**
**- 6**  **237**

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,

P laintiff

- Appell ee ,

v.
DURRELL TOPPIN, a/k/a Smiles ,
Defendant

- Appell ant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. James C. Cacheris , Senior District Judge. ( 1:07

- cr
- 00013

- JCC

- 3 )

Submitted : May 30 , 2013 Decided: June 5, 2013

Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirm ed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Durrell Toppin , Appellant Pro Se. Lawrence Joseph Leiser, Michael Edward Rich , Assistant United States Attorney s , Jessica R. Hertz , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virgini a , for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Durrell Toppin appeals the district court’s order
construing his motion as seeking relief under 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(2) (2006) and denying the motion. We ha ve reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm
for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v.
Toppin , No. 1:07

- cr
- 00013

- JCC

- 3 (E.D. Va. Jan. 9, 2013). We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
STATE of North Carolina v. Angela Marie RANKIN

No. 23A18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 1, 2018

Sarah Holladay, Attorney at Law, for Rankin, Angela Marie.

Amy Bircher, Teresa M. Postell, Assistant Attorney Generals, J. Douglas Henderson, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by State of NC on the 19th of January 2018 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the *587Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of March 2018."
State of North Carolina v. Dale Patrick Martin

No. 210P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2016

Charlotte G. Blake, Attorney at Law, Boone, Dale P. Martin, for Martin, Dale Patrick.

Michael T. Wood, Special Deputy Attorney General, James R. O'Neill, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**ORDER**

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 25th of May 20 16 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 18th of August 2016."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 25th of May 20 16 by Defendant to Proceed In Forma Pauperis:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of August 2016."
In the MATTER OF the WILL OF James Paul ALLEN, Deceased

No. 227PA17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 5, 2018

Jeremy Clayton King, Attorney at Law, Greenville, Steven F. Johnson, II, Attorney at Law, for Robinson, Hope Paiyton, et al.

H. Ranee Singleton, Attorney at Law, John M. Martin, Attorney at Law, Winterville, for Woolard, Melvin Ray.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 10th of July 2017 by Propounder 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:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of April 2018."

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this *159Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15(g)(2).
#### Andrew D. Berke, Appellant, v Robert I. Hamby et al., Respondents.

[719 NYS2d 280]

In an action for an accounting, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Phelan, J.), dated December 17, 1999, as granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

*492Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff was hired by the defendant Robert I. Hamby, M.D., P. C. (hereinafter the P. C.), pursuant to a written employment agreement which expired in 1993. The agreement provided that at the expiration of the plaintiff’s term of employment, if the parties “then mutually agree,” they “may” enter into a partnership agreement. The plaintiff continued to work for the P. C. until a dispute arose in 1995. In the instant action, the plaintiff alleged that he entered into an oral partnership agreement with the defendant Robert I. Hamby after termination of the employment agreement and that he is entitled to an accounting of partnership assets.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The defendants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and the plaintiff failed to produce evidentiary proof sufficient to establish the existence of a material issue of fact *(see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320). The medical practice in which the plaintiff claims to have been a partner operated as a professional corporation during the period of the plaintiff’s employment, and the plaintiff never became a shareholder. Assuming the validity of the plaintiff’s contention that Robert I. Hamby treated him as a partner following the expiration of their employment agreement, as a general rule, a partnership may not exist where the business is conducted in a corporate form, as each is governed by a separate body of law *(see, Weisman v Awnair Corp.,*3 NY2d 444; *see also, Notar-Francesco v Furci,*149 AD2d 490). Parties may not be partners between themselves while using the corporate shield to protect themselves against personal liability *(see, Weisman v Awnair Corp., supra).*Accordingly, as no fiduciary relationship existed between the plaintiff and the defendants, the equitable remedy of an accounting is not available *(see, Weisman v Awnair Corp., supra).*Bracken, Acting P. J., O’Brien, Santucci and Florio, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4465 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4465

 To amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 
  to repeal the requirement to establish catch limits for the Gulf of 
                      Mexico red snapper fishery.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 10, 2014

  Mr. Byrne introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 
  to repeal the requirement to establish catch limits for the Gulf of 
                      Mexico red snapper fishery.

    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 ``Supporting New Avenues to Protect 
Our Fishermen's Resources Act'' or the ``SNAPR Act''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF CATCH LIMITS REQUIREMENT FOR GULF OF MEXICO RED 
              SNAPPER FISHERY.

    Subsection (d) of section 407 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1884) is repealed.
                                 <all>
```
Victoria Elizabeth DUFRESNE, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia, Appellee.

Record No. 0281-15-2

Court of Appeals of Virginia.

April 24, 2018

*673In accordance with the mandate of the Supreme Court of Virginia entered on March 22, 2018 and the order of that Court entered on March 1, 2018, the opinion previously rendered by this Court on October 18, 2016 is withdrawn, the mandate entered on that date is vacated, and the judgment of the trial court convicting appellant of grand larceny is affirmed.

This order shall be published and certified to the trial court.
#### David ZERBY, v. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (READING ANTHRACITE COMPANY). Petition of Reading Anthracite Company.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

July 18, 2003.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 18th day of July, 2003, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. It is further ordered that the matter be CONSOLIDATED with *Colpetzer v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Standard Steel),*802 A.2d 1233 (Pa. Commw.2002), *appeal granted,*— Pa. -, 820 A.2d 163 (Pa.2003) (Nos. 646 MAL 2002 & 63 MAP 2003, granted April 22, 2003).
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 97-4383MN

_____________ Christopher D. Aburime; Bobby W. * Lucas; Blanche Clay; Joseph R. * Richburg; Sandra Williams; Alvin * Williams; Gwendolyn J. Stevens; Larry * Washington; Marcia L. Atkins; Robert * Garner; Richard M. Jones; James Baul; * Sandra Holmes; Deartice Sanders; Susan * Hagood; Gloria Williams; Marshall * Adams; Brandon Carter; Carolyn * Cockfield; Jeff A. Cooper; Darcy Davis; * David Francis; Lloyd Gay; Charles * Mack; Harold Richardson; Jarvis * Shotwell; Anthony Turner; Steven * Wagner, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the District Plaintiffs-Appellants, * of Minnesota. * v. * [UNPUBLISHED] * Northwest Airlines, Inc., * * Defendant-Appellee, * * Air Line Pilots Association * International; International Association * of Machinists and Aerospace Workers; * International Brotherhood of Teamsters; * Northwest Airlines, Foreman's * Association; Northwest Airlines, * Meteorologist's Association; Transport *-2-

Workers Union of America, * * Defendants. *

_____________ Submitted: June 8, 1998

Filed: July 7, 1997

_____________ Before FAGG, BRIGHT, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM. The Christopher D. Aburime appellants app eal the district court's order granting in part and denying in part the appellants' motion for attorneys' fees and expenses. The appellants also contend the district court denied them the opportunity to file a supplemental fee

motion. Having considered the record and the arguments and briefs of th e parties, we reject the appellants' arguments. The consent decree governin g attorneys’ fees for thiscase sets out in painstaking detail the circumstances when fees are to be awarded. Given this attention to detail, if the parties intended to awar d attorneys ’ fees incurred during the litigation of fee petitions, we believe they woul d have stat ed so. The consent decree contains no such provision, however, and w e refuse to imply one. Cf. Jones v. MacMillan Bloedel Containers, Inc. , 685 F.2d 236, 239 (8t h Cir. 1982) (unless expressly prohibited by the consent decree, the distric t co urt should award attorneys’ fees for litigating fee petition). The district court correctly determined that the appellants are not entitled to the fees resulting from their fee petition. We conclude that any further discussion o f the issues will serve no useful purposein this long-running class litigation that now appears before the court for the third time. We thus affirm the district court without an extended opinion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.-3-

A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
McKenzie v. Horne

327P16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016

Mr. Eugene Elliott McKenzie, Pro Se.

Mr. Ernie Lee, District Attorney, For State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 31st of August 2016 by Petitioner for Petition for Mandate:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."