alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-15-0000640 05-APR-2016 09:38 AM

SCWC-15-0000640 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ' I

In re Application of MAUI ELECTRIC COMPANY, LIMITED, For Approval of the Amended and Restated Power Purchase Agreemen With Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Company t

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-15-0000640; PUC DOCKET NO. 2015-0094)
ORDER ACCEPTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.) Petitioner Sierra Club’s application for writ of certiorari, filed on February 19, 2016, is hereby accepted and will be scheduled for oral argument. The parties will be notified by the appellate clerk regarding scheduling. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ' i, April 5, 2016.
Isaac H. Moriwake and Kylie W. Wager, for petitioner SIERRA CLUB /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson Thomas C. Gorak and Mark J. Kaetsu for respondent STATE OF HAWAI ' I, PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION Randall C. Whattoff, James E. Abraham, and Rebecca Dayhuff Matsushima for respondent MAUI ELECTRIC COMPANY, LTD.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6144

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

LEROY ELLIS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District

Judge. (CR-94-36-D, CA-99-981)

Submitted: May 25, 2000 Decided: June 5, 2000

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Leroy Ellis, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Paul Crouch, Jr., United

States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Leroy Ellis seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999). We

have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. See United States v. Ellis, Nos. CR-94-36-D; CA-99-981 (W.D.

Va. Dec. 29, 1999). We dispense 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.

DISMISSED
#### William E. MORRIS and Barbara J. Morris, Appellant, v. PAINEWEBBER INCORPORATED and Arthur D. Dobosiewicz, Appellee.

No. 1D03-0881.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 14, 2003.

Robert Dyer, of Alen, Dyer, Doppelt, Milbrath & Gilchrist, Orlando, for Appellant.

Richard L. Martens and Ronald E. Crescenzo of Boose, Casey, Ciklin and Lu-titz, West Palm Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the appellee’s motion to dismiss and the appellants’ response thereto, as well as the appellants’ response to the Court’s order of May 19, 2003, the Court has determined that the order on appeal is not final. Specifically, because the lower tribunal’s Final Judg*353ment Confirming Arbitration Award indicates that the appellants’ cross-claim to the Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award remains pending, judicial labor remains, and the appeal is consequently premature. *See generally Carlton v. Wal-Mart Stores,*621 So.2d 451, 452 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)(observing that “a final decree marks the end of judicial labor,” and applying finality test: “whether the case is disposed of by the order and whether a question remains open for judicial determination”). Accordingly, the motion is granted and the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

ERVIN, KAHN and HAWKES, JJ„ CONCUR.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Chun K. Hong, certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewed this Amendment No.2 to Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Netlist, Inc.; and

 

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.

 

 

Date: August 24, 2011

 

 
| /s/   Chun K. Hong                                             |   |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
| Chun   K. Hong                                                 |   |   |
| President,   Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board |   |   |

 

----
ALLEN et al v. BRYANT.

S17A1525

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Decided: February 19, 2018

**Per Curiam**.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed without opinion pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 59.

*Affirmed without opinion.*

All the Justices concur.
STATE of North Carolina v. Robert Tobiah LEONARD

No. COA17-898

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: April 3, 2018

NO ERROR.
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service
 AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
 ACTION: Notice of issuance of permits for endangered species and marine mammals.
 SUMMARY: The following permits were issued.
 ADDRESSES: Documents and other information submitted with these applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act, by any party who submits a written request for a copy of such documents to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Management Authority, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 700, Arlington, Virginia 22203; fax (703) 358-2281.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Division of Management Authority, telephone (703) 358-2104.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that on the dates below, as authorized by the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 
                    *et seq.*), and the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 
                    *et seq.*), the Fish and Wildlife Service issued the requested permits subject to certain conditions set forth therein. For each permit for an endangered species, the Service found that (1) the application was filed in good faith, (2) the granted permit would not operate to the disadvantage of the endangered species, and (3) the granted permit would be consistent with the purposes and policy set forth in Section 2 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Permit No.
Applicant
Receipt of application 
                            **Federal Register**
                             notice
Permit issuance date**Endangered Species**106618
Grant R. Gilbert
70 FR 44679; August 3, 2005
September 8, 2005.**Marine Mammals**103609
Mark A. Wayne
70 FR 41782; July 20, 2005
September 7, 2005.104865
George R. Harms
70 FR 41782; July 20, 2005
September 7, 2005.104866
Kevin D. Harms
70 FR 41782; July 20, 2005
September 7, 2005.104867
Robert G. Harms
70 FR 41782; July 20, 2005
September 7, 2005.
 Dated: September 9, 2005. Monica Farris, Senior Permit Biologist, Branch of Permits, Division of Management Authority.


[FR Doc. 05-19971 Filed 10-4-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
STATE v. Juan Antonia MILLER

2PA17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 26, 2017

Mr. Jason C. Yoder, Attorney at Law, For Miller, Juan Antonia..

Mr. John G. Batherson, Special Deputy Attorney General, For State of North Carolina.

Mr. Derrick Mertz, Assistant Attorney General, For State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 25th of October 2017 by Defendant:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th of October 2017."
#### Ramesh SINGH, Appellant, v. GALE INSULATION and Specialty Risk Services, Appellees.

No. 1D02-2967.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 6, 2003.

L. Barry Keyfetz of L. Barry Keyfetz, P.A., and Bradley Asnis of Asnis & Sreb-nick, L.L.C., Miami, for Appellant.

Daniel L. Koch of Herzfeld *&*Rubin, Miami, for Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The workers’ compensation order finding claimant’s accident not compensable because claimant had substantially deviated from the course and scope of his employment when the accident occurred is erroneous as a matter of law. *See Taylor v. Dixie Plywood Co.,*297 So.2d 553 (Fla. 1974).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

ERVIN, BARFIELD and ALLEN, JJ„ concur.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofMerisant Worldwide, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended June 30,2008 (the “Report”), the undersigned, as Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

 

(2) The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   | /s/ Paul  Block          |
|--------|--------------------------|
|   | Paul Block               |
|   | Chief  Executive Officer |
|   | August 13,  2008    |

 

----
STATE v. Mollie Elizabeth B. MCDANIEL

161P18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 1, 2018

Gilda C. Rodriguez, Attorney at Law, for McDaniel, Mollie Elizabeth B.

Deborah Greene, Assistant Attorney General, Ted Bell, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 1st of June 2018 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of June 2018."
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Gail M. Sasaki, certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewed this Amendment No.1 to Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Netlist, Inc.; and

 

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.

 

 

Date: April 1, 2011

 

 
| /s/   Gail M. Sasaki                         |   |
|----------------------------------------------|--------|
| Gail   M. Sasaki                             |   |
| Vice   President and Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

----
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service 

          - 26 CFR Part 1 
          - [REG-106030-98] 
          - RIN 1545-AW50 

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. 

# ACTION:

Correction to notice of proposed rulemaking.

# SUMMARY:

                        This document corrects the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-106030-98) that was published in the                         **Federal Register**                         on Monday, September 19, 2005 (70 FR 54859) under section 863(d) governing the source of income from certain space and ocean activities.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Edward R. Barret, (202) 622-3880 (not a toll-free number). 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Background 

The notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-106030-98) that is the subject of this correction is under section 863(d) of the Internal Revenue Code. 

## Need for Correction 

As published, REG-106030-98 contains an error that may prove to be misleading and is in need of clarification. 

## Correction of Publication 

Accordingly, the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-106030-98), that was the subject of FR Doc. 05-18265, is corrected as follows: 

§ 1.863-9 

                        On page 54875, column 3, § 1.863-9, paragraph (e), line 2, the language “                        *communications income.*                         Income” is                               ( print page 57808)                            corrected to read “                        *communications income.*                         The source of income”.                     

Cynthia Grigsby,

Acting Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration). 

[FR Doc. 05-19779 Filed 10-3-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
STATE v. Robert Dwayne LEWIS

140P18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 17, 2018

Ms. Kathryn L. VandenBerg, Assistant Appellant Defender, for Lewis, Robert Dwayne

Mr. Milind Kumar Dongre, Attorney at Law, for State of North Carolina

Mr. Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender

Ms. Kathryn L. VandeBerg, Assistant Appellate Defender

Ms. Kristy M. Newton, District Attorney, for the State *857***Amended***

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 16th of May 2018 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of May 2018."
**Exhibit 32.2**

In connection with the QuarterlyReport of Merisant Worldwide, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended March 31,2006 (the “Report”), the undersigned, as Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

(1) The Report fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange 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/ Anthony J. Nocchiero |
|--------|--------------------------|
|   | Anthony J. Nocchiero     |
|   | Chief Financial Officer  |
|   | May 12, 2006        |

 

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

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

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PREM CHAND LAL; RACHAEL

PUSHPANJALI LAL; NAVEEL LAL,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-72882

Agency Nos. A071-625-646

 A071-625-647

 A071-625-649

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 8, 2011** 

Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. 

Prem Chand Lal, Rachael Pushpanjali Lal, and Naveel Lal, natives and

citizens of Fiji, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order

dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their

application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the

Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. §

FILED

MAR 30 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-72882

1252. We review for substantial evidence, Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148,

1151 (9th Cir. 2005), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that petitioners’

experiences in Fiji, including stoning of the family home, and a beating and

robbery suffered by Prem Chand Lal in 1987, did not constitute persecution. See

Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003); Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d

336, 339-40 (9th Cir. 1995). Further, substantial evidence supports the agency’s

conclusion that petitioners failed to establish they have a well-founded fear of

persecution. See Nahrvani, 399 F.3d at 1154; see also Aruta v. INS, 80 F.3d 1389,

1395-96 (9th Cir. 1996) (record evidence did not compel finding that petitioner’s

fear of future persecution was objectively reasonable). Accordingly, petitioners’

asylum claim fails.

Because petitioners failed to demonstrate they were eligible for asylum, they

necessarily failed to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. 

See Nahrvani, 399 F.3d at 1154.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because

petitioners failed to establish it is more likely than not they would be tortured if

returned to Fiji. See id.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Herbert Lopez, Appellant.

[719 NYS2d 844]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J.), rendered April 22, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 4V2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

Contemporaneous uncharged sales were properly admitted to complete the narrative of events and to establish the extent of the officer’s opportunity to observe defendant and make a reliable identification *(see, People v Pressley,*216 AD2d 202, *lv denied*86 NY2d 800).

The court’s compromise *Sandoval*ruling balanced the appropriate factors and was a proper exercise of discretion *(see, People v Walker,*83 NY2d 455, 458-459).

Defendant failed to preserve his argument that the mandatory minimum sentence is unconstitutional as applied *(see, People v Ingram,*67 NY2d 897, 899), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the sentence does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment *(see, People v Thompson,*83 NY2d 477). Concur — Williams, J. P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.
Charles GARY, Petitioner, v. Hattie M. ASKEW, Will Outlaw, and Deboria Outlaw, individually and d/b/a Low Country Medical Transport, Low Country Medical Transport, Inc., Eugene A. Kirkland, and American Medical Response, Inc. (d/b/a Access2Care), Defendants.

Of Whom American Medical Response, Inc. (d/b/a Access2Care) is the Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2016-001937 Opinion No. 27791

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Heard April 18, 2018 Filed April 25, 2018

Joseph Dawson III, of North Charleston, for Petitioner.

C. Mitchell Brown and Brian P. Crotty, both of Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP, of Columbia; and Robert H. Hood and Robert H. Hood, Jr., both of Hood Law Firm, LLC, of Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:

**48Petitioner Charles Gary sought a writ of certiorari to review the court of appeals' decision in *Gary v. Askew* , 417 S.C. 232, 789 S.E.2d 94 (Ct. App. 2016). Respondent American Medical Response, Inc. (Access2Care) contracted with the South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to administer Medicaid's Nonemergency Medical Transportation Program. Pursuant to its contract with DHHS, Access2Care served as broker, whereby it contracted with Low Country **49Medical Services, the entity that transported patients for nonemergency medical appointments.

The underlying suit arose after Gary was injured in a collision while being transported in an ambulance operated by Low Country Medical Services. Less than three months after Access2Care filed its amended answer and without any meaningful discovery, Gary moved for summary judgment, arguing both public policy and the contract between Access2Care and DHHS imposed a nondelegable duty on Access2Care to ensure safe transportation of patients. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Gary, but the court of appeals reversed, holding Access2Care did not owe a nondelegable duty to safely transport Gary.

Because the record contains minimal evidence about the nature of the collision and the parties have not had an opportunity to conduct significant discovery, we find summary judgment is premature. *Helena Chem. Co. v. Allianz Underwriters Ins. Co.* , 357 S.C. 631, 644, 594 S.E.2d 455, 462 (2004) ("[S]ince it is a drastic remedy, summary judgment should be cautiously invoked to ensure that a litigant is not improperly deprived of a trial on disputed factual issues."); *Baird v. Charleston Cty.* , 333 S.C. 519, 529, 511 S.E.2d 69, 74 (1999) ("[S]ummary judgment must not be granted until the opposing party has had a full and fair opportunity to complete discovery."); *Baughman v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co.* , 306 S.C. 101, 410 S.E.2d 537 (1991) (holding summary judgment was premature where the plaintiff did not have an adequate opportunity to conduct discovery on the issue of medical causation). Accordingly, we vacate the court of appeals' opinion and remand to the circuit court for further proceedings.1

**VACATED AND REMANDED.**

BEATTY, C.J., KITTREDGE, HEARN, JAMES, JJ. and Acting Justice Paul E. Short Jr., concur.

1

We express no opinion as to the merits of Gary's nondelegable duty claim.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Merisant Worldwide, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,2005 (the “Report”), the undersigned, as Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted 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) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934;

 

(2) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   | /s/   Paul  Block |   |
|--------|-----------------------------|--------|
|   | Paul Block                  |
|   | Chief Executive  Officer    |
|   | November 14,  2005     |

 

----
STATE of North Carolina v. Robert Dwayne LEWIS

No. COA17-1051

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: May 1, 2018

VACATED. REMANDED.