alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SILVER, et al. v. The HALIFAX COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

338A17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 14, 2017

*579Mark Dorosin, Attorney at Law, Elizabeth Haddix, Attorney at Law, Pittsboro, Eileen O'Connor, Attorney at Law, Allen Buansi, Attorney at Law, for Silver, LaTonya, et al.

Brent Ducharme, Attorney at Law.

Garris Neil Yarborough, Attorney at Law, Fayetteville, Glynn Rollins, Attorney at Law, Roanoke Rpds, for The Halifax County Board Of Commissioners.

K. Ricky Watson, Jr., Co-Director of Youth Justice Project, Peggy Nicholson, Attorney at Law, Jennifer Story, Attorney at Law, Jane Wettach, Attorney at Law, Celia Pistolis, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Aisha Oni Forte, Attorney at Law, for Children's Law Clinic at Duke Law School, et al.

Seth Ascher.

George Hausen, Jr., Legal Aid.

Jennifer W. Marsh, Director of Research.

S. Luke Largess, Attorney at Law, Cheyenne Chambers, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for N.C. Advocates for Justice.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 7th of December 2017 by Children's Law Clinic at Duke Law School, Advocates for Children's Services of Legal Aid of North Carolina, and Public Schools First NC for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of December 2017."

Unless already submitted, the Amicus Brief shall be submitted to the court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i).
#### In re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Jonathan C. LEWIS, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 172017.

No. C0-02-2081.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Aug. 4, 2003.

ORDER

On January 8, 2003, this court suspended respondent Jonathan C. Lewis from the practice of law for a period of 60 days. *In re Lewis,*655 N.W.2d 319 (Minn.2003).

The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility has filed with this Court an affidavit certifying that respondent has filed an affidavit of compliance that respondent complied with the terms of the suspension order and that the Director does not object to reinstatement.

Based upon all the files, records and proceedings herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that respondent Jonathan C. Lewis is reinstated to the practice of law in the State of Minnesota effective immediately.

BY THE COURT:

/s/Paul H. Anderson Associate Justice
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4443 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 592
113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4443

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 9, 2014

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

                           November 13, 2014

               Reported by Mr. Carper, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 90 Vermilyea Avenue, in New York, New York, as the ``Corporal Juan 
                Mariel Alcantara Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. CORPORAL JUAN MARIEL ALCANTARA POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 90 Vermilyea Avenue, in New York, New York, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Corporal Juan Mariel Alcantara Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Corporal 
Juan Mariel Alcantara Post Office Building''.
                                                       Calendar No. 592

113th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4443

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 90 Vermilyea Avenue, in New York, New York, as the ``Corporal Juan 
                Mariel Alcantara Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           November 13, 2014

                       Reported without amendment
```
STATE of North Carolina v. Bernardo Roberto PENA aka Martin Rangel Pena

No. 8P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 9, 2018

W. Rob Heroy, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Pena, Bernardo Roberto.

Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*237***ORDER***

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 8th of January 2018 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Dissolved by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of May 2018."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by State of NC on the 8th of January 2018 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, 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 9th of May 2018."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 22nd of January 2018 by State of NC 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 9th of May 2018."
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3952 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend for one year the 

credits for energy-efficient appliances. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 28, 2014 

Mr. GRAYSON 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 extend 

for one year the credits for energy-efficient appliances. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF CREDITS FOR ENERGY-EFFI4 CIENT APPLIANCES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (b) of section 45M of 

6 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 

7 ‘‘or 2013’’ each place it appears in paragraphs (1)(E), 

8 (2)(F), and (3)(F) and inserting ‘‘2013, or 2014’’. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 3952 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 this section shall apply to appliances produced after De3 cember 31, 2013. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Sanjeev Seeramsingh, Appellant.

[719 NYS2d 587]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (McGann, J.), rendered September 16, 1999, convicting him of assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

Contrary to his contention, the defendant received the effective assistance of counsel *(see, People v Sinclair,*266 AD2d 482). “Mere losing tactics are not to be confused with ineffectiveness, and to sustain a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, proof of less than meaningful representation is required, rather than disagreement with counsel’s strategies and tactics” *(People v Sinclair, supra,*at 482).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Altman, J. P., Goldstein, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 15, 2017

No. 04-17-00345-CV

Elvia CHAPA,

Appellant

v.

Hector CHAPA,

Appellee

From the 63rd Judicial District Court, Val Verde County, Texas

Trial Court No. 32952

Honorable Enrique Fernandez, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The appellant’s motion for leave to file certificate of compliance is hereby GRANTED.

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 15th day of August, 2017.

___________________________________

Luz Estrada

Chief Deputy Clerk
STATE of North Carolina v. Manno Heshumi BEAM

No. COA17-1232

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: July 3, 2018

NO ERROR IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 1392** 

KAYSHEILA RAINS WADE; HENRY L. WADE , Plaintiffs

– Appellants ,

v.
CHASE BANK, USA NA; FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION; CHASE HOME FINANCE LLC; IBM LENDER BUSINESS PROCESS SERVICE, d/b/a Seterus Incorporated , Defendants

– Appellees , and

STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY , Defendant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Charleston

. Richard Mark Gergel , District Judge. ( 2:12

- cv
- 03565

- RMG )

Submitted : September 25, 2014 Decided: September 29, 2014

Before WILKINSON and AGEE , Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Kaysheila Rains Wade, Henry L. Wade, Appellants Pro Se. James Y. Becker, Emily H. Farr, Hamilton Osborne, Jr., HAYNSWORTH, SINKLER & BOYD, PA, Columbia, South Carolina; Brian Cantwell2 Duffy, Joseph Rutledge Young, III , DUFFY & YOUNG, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina; Shanon J. McGinnis, Shawna Marie Portner, WARGO & FRENCH, LLP, Atlanta, Georgia; Susan B. Shaw, RCO LEGAL PS, Atlanta, Georgia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circui t.3 PER CURIAM: Kaysheila Rains Wade and Henry L. Wade appeal the
district court ’ s order s granting summary judgment to the
Defendants in the Wades’ civil action regarding payment on an

insurance claim. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. Wade v. Chase Bank , No. 2:12

- cv
- 03565

-

RM G (D.S.C. Mar. 24, 2014) **.** We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal c ontentions are adequately presented

in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
STATE of North Carolina v. Angela Lynn SPAULDING

No. COA17-1016

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: April 3, 2018

REVERSED. REMANDED.
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT


TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002














In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sustainable Environmental Technologies Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Grant King, Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2001, that:





The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated: August 16, 2010






/s/ Grant King

Grant King

Principal Accounting Officer
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, Mark L. Heimbouch, as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:



| | (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 operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Mark L. Heimbouch                               
|Mark L. Heimbouch                                   
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|December 6, 2006
SCPR-14-0000534

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

IN RE SUE LIN CHONG, Petitioner.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ORDER GRANTING PETITION TO RESIGN AND SURRENDER LICENSE

(By Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ.,

and Intermediate Court of Appeals Associate Judge Ginoza,

assigned by reason of vacancy)

Upon consideration of Petitioner Sue Lin Chong’s

petition to resign and surrender her license to practice law in

the State of Hawai#i, filed pursuant to Rule 1.10 of the Rules of

the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai#i (RSCH), and of the

affidavits and exhibits in support thereof, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition is granted. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to RSCH Rule 1.10(g), 

that Petitioner shall comply with the notice, affidavit, and

record requirements of RSCH Rule 2.16(a), (b), (d), and (g).

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Clerk shall remove the

name of Petitioner Sue Lin Chong, attorney number 3659, from the

roll of attorneys of the State of Hawai#i, effective with the

filing of this order.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, March 28, 2014. 

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Lisa M. Ginoza

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPR-14-0000534

28-MAR-2014

10:57 AM
EX-10.2



 Exhibit 10.2 

AMENDMENT TO THE 

ORASURE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 2000 STOCK AWARD PLAN 

On March 24, 2014, the Company’s Board of Directors approved, and recommended for approval by stockholders, a 4,000,000 share
increase in the number of shares authorized under the Company’s Stock Award Plan (the “Award Plan”). In order to reflect this increase in authorized shares, Section 4.2.2 of the Award Plan was amended and restated, subject to
stockholder approval at the Company’s Annual Meeting of Stockholders on May 22, 2014 (the “2014 Annual Meeting”), to read as follows: 

“4.2.2 Number of Shares; Limits. 

(a) The maximum number of Shares for which Awards may be granted under the Plan on or after May 22, 2014, is 4,898,401
Shares, plus any Shares that become available as the result of the cancellation or expiration of any Award, subject to adjustment for changes in capitalization affecting the Corporation’s Common Stock pursuant to Section 14.2 of the Plan.
Any Shares granted on or after May 22, 2014 in connection with Options and Stock Appreciation Rights shall be counted against this limit on the basis of one Share for each Share subject to such Option or Stock Appreciation Right. Any Shares
granted on or after May 22, 2014 in connection with Restricted Awards, Performance Awards or Other Stock-Based Awards shall be counted against this limit on the basis of one and a half Shares for every one Share granted in connection with such
Awards. 
 (b) The maximum number of Shares that may be issued pursuant to paragraph (a) above on or after May 22,
2014 pursuant to Incentive Stock Options, is 4,898,401 Shares, subject to adjustment for changes in capitalization affecting the Corporation’s Common Stock pursuant to Section 14.2 of the Plan. 

The foregoing amendment to the Stock Award Plan was approved by stockholders at the 2014 Annual Meeting.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0485

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

CORY LEVI GOODMAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including March 23, 2023, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 27 2023

01/27/2023

Case Number: DA 21-0485
In the MATTER OF: J.R.

No. COA18-103

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: June 19, 2018

AFFIRMED.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

 v.

JOHN LEE BERRY III, aka JB, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-10197

D.C. No. 4:14-cr-00582-JD-3

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

James Donato, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 11, 2018** 

San Francisco, California

Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

A jury convicted Defendant John Berry III of agreeing to rig bids at home

foreclosure auctions, in violation of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. The district

court sentenced Defendant to 10 months’ imprisonment followed by a period of

supervised release. We affirm.

FILED

JUL 19 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
1. The government offered sufficient evidence for a reasonable juror to

conclude that Defendant’s conduct occurred "within the flow" of interstate

commerce. McLain v. Real Estate Bd. of New Orleans, Inc., 444 U.S. 232, 235

(1980). Although all auctions at issue took place in Alameda County, California,

the government offered evidence that those auctions functioned as "integral parts,"

Goldfarb v. Va. State Bar, 421 U.S. 773, 785 (1975), of various interstate transfers. 

For example, Danli Liu, one of Defendant’s co-conspirators, testified that she won

one of the rigged auctions and, as a result, sent a cashier’s check to a trustee in

Arizona. That same trustee later sent Liu, from Arizona to California, a partial

refund in conjunction with the same sale. That testimony and other evidence,

viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, United States v. Ubaldo, 859 F.3d

690, 699 (9th Cir. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 704 (2018), supports the

conclusion that the scheme at issue took place "within the flow" of interstate

commerce, McLain, 444 U.S. at 235, 241–43.

2. Bid rigging is a per se violation of the Sherman Act. United States v.

Green, 592 F.3d 1057, 1068 (9th Cir. 2010). To prove that a defendant committed

a per se Sherman Act violation, the government need not prove that the defendant

acted "with the purpose of achieving anticompetitive effects or with the knowledge

that such effects likely would result." United States v. Brown, 936 F.2d 1042,

2
1046 (9th Cir. 1991). Rather, in such cases, the government need prove only that

the defendant acted with the intent to enter the agreement at issue. Id. The

government’s evidence—for example, testimony that Defendant agreed to rig

certain auctions—is sufficient to support that conclusion here. Defendant’s

argument that he failed to realize that bid rigging was not merely "normal practice

in the industry" is unavailing because we must view the evidence in the light most

favorable to the verdict. Ubaldo, 859 F.3d at 699. 

AFFIRMED.

3
Report of Independent Public Accountants

To the Board of Directors and Stockholders
of TeleBanc Financial Corporation and Subsidiaries
   

We have  audited  the  accompanying  consolidated  balance  sheets  of  TeleBanc
Financial  Corporation (a Delaware  Corporation) and subsidiaries as of December
31,  1997  and  1996,  and  the  related  consolidated   statements  of  income,
stockholders'  equity, and cash flows for each of the three years ended December
31, 1997.  These financial  statements are the  responsibility  of the Company's
management.  Our  responsibility  is to express  an  opinion on these  financial
statements based on our audits.
    
We  conducted  our  audits  in  accordance  with  generally   accepted  auditing
standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material
misstatement.  An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting
the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements.  An audit also includes
assessing the  accounting  principles  used and  significant  estimates  made by
management,  as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.
We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.
   

In our opinion,  the financial  statements  referred to above present fairly, in
all material respects,  the financial position of TeleBanc Financial Corporation
and  subsidiaries  as of  December  31,  1997 and 1996,  and the  results of its
operations  and its cash flows for each of the three  years ended  December  31,
1997, in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.
    


                                                         /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP

Vienna, VA
February 20, 1998
Lenton C. BROWN v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, an agency of the State of North Carolina, and Division of Adult Correction and Juvenile Justice, a subunit contained within the North Carolina Department of Public Safety

No. 437P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 5, 2018

Mr. Walter S. Webster, Goldsboro, Attorney at Law, for Brown, Lenton C.

Ms. Tamika L. Henderson, Raleigh, Assistant Attorney General, for NC Department of Public Safety, et al *590***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 28th of December 2017 by Petitioner in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of April 2018."
NOONSOB v. STATE of NC

131P16-9

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 27, 2018

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Somchoi Noonsab, for Noonsab, Somchoi.

Somchoi Noorsob, for Noorsob, Somchoi.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 31st of May 2018 by Defendant for Verified Complaint:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 27th of June 2018."