alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE of North Carolina v. Tilmon Charles GOLPHIN

No. 441A98-4

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 1, 2018

*595Jay H. Ferguson, Attorney at Law, Kenneth J. Rose, Attorney at Law, Durham, for Golphin, Tilmon Charles.

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

James E. Williams, Jr., Attorney at Law, Carrboro, for N.C. Advocates for Justice.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 30th of May 2017 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Cumberland County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of March 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 Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15(g)(2).

Beasley, J., recused
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CertificationPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, Michael V. Mecca, asPresident and Chief Executive Officer of BH/RE, L.L.C. (the “Company”), certifypursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

(A)  the accompanying Quarterly Reporton Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(B)  the information in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 

Dated: May 15, 2008

 

 
|        | /S/ Michael V. Mecca                                                 |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Michael V. Mecca                                                     |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal  Executive Officer) |

 

----
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Ronnie WILLIAMS, Jr.

No. 2002-K-2024.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 19, 2003.

In re Williams, Ronnie Jr.; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 312912; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2001 KA 2009.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., would grant the writ.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**FERMAVIR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.**

**FORM 10-QSB/A FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JANUARY 31,2007**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002**

I am the ChiefFinancial Officer of FermaVir Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Florida corporation (the“Company”).  I am delivering thiscertificate in connection with the Form 10-QSB/A of the Company for the quarterended January 31, 2007 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission(“Form 10-QSB/A”).

Pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Form10-QSB/A fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained inthe Form 10-QSB/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| May 25, 2007 | By:    | /s/ Frederick Larcombe   |   |
|--------------|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|         |   | Frederick Larcombe,      |
|         |   | Chief Financial Officer  |
|         |   | (Principal Financial and |
|         |   | Accounting Officer)      |

 

----
#### ENVIRONMENTAL CONFEDERATION OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC., and Manasota-88, Inc., Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, and David Struhs, Secretary, Department of Environmental Protection, Appellees.

No. 1D03-1302.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 14, 2003.

David G. Guest and Aliki Moncrief, Tallahassee, for appellants.

David A. Ludder of Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation, Inc., Tallahassee; Dan Hendrickson, Tallahassee; Curt Levine of Mutch & Levine, P.A., Gaines-ville, for amici curiae Sierra Club, Inc., et al.

Thomas M. Beason, Chief Deputy General Counsel, Department of Environmental Protection, for appellee David Struhs.

Stephen H. Grimes and Lawrence E. Sellers, Jr., of Holland & Knight, LLP, Tallahassee for amicus curiae Florida Home Builders Association.

PER CURIAM.

Appellants seek review of an order of the circuit court dismissing their complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, in which they alleged that chapter 2002-261, Laws of Florida, violates the single subject requirement of the Florida Constitution. We conclude that as argued by appellee *350Struhs, the appeal has been rendered moot by the enactment of chapter 2003-25, Laws of Florida, which took effect on July 1, 2003, and reenacted the provisions of chapter 2002-261 as part of the legislature’s biennial readoption of the Florida Statutes. *See generally Tormey v. Moore,*824 So.2d 137 (Fla.2002)(stating general rule that a single subject violation is cured upon biennial readoption of the Florida Statutes).

Appellants argue that dismissal on this basis would be premature because under section 1 of chapter 2003-25, reenactment “shall take effect immediately upon publication” of the 2003 version of Florida Statutes, and such publication has not yet occurred. However, that same language has been used in prior reenactment acts, and those acts have been construed to make reenactment effective as of the date on which the act became law. *See, e.g., Trapp v. State,*760 So.2d 924 (Fla.2000); *Tormey v. Moore, supra; State v. Johnson,*616 So.2d 1 (Fla.1993). Consistent with these decisions, we hold that the reenactment of chapter 2002-261 took effect on July 1, 2003, thereby curing any single subject defect. Moreover, while it is true that appellants initiated their challenge during the window period for raising a single subject claim, they have failed to articulate any practical purpose that would be served by allowing this appeal from the denial of declaratory and injunctive relief to continue now that the window period has closed. Accordingly, we conclude that this appeal is moot, and dismiss it on that basis.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

ALLEN, KAHN and DAVIS, JJ., concur.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4354 

To prevent a taxpayer bailout of health insurance issuers. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 1, 2014 

Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To prevent a taxpayer bailout of health insurance issuers. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Obamacare Taxpayer 

5 Bailout Protection Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PREVENTION OF BAILOUT OF HEALTH INSURANCE 

7 ISSUERS. 

8 Section 1342 of the Patient Protection and Afford9 able Care Act (42 U.S.C. 18062) is amended by adding 

10 at the end the following: 

11 ‘‘(d) ENSURING BUDGET NEUTRALITY.—In imple12 menting this section, the Secretary shall ensure that payVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:47 Apr 02, 2014 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H4354.IH H4354

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4354 IH

1 ments out and payments in under paragraphs (1) and (2) 

2 of subsection (b) are provided for in amounts that the Sec3 retary determines are necessary to reduce to zero the cost 

4 (as defined in section 502 of the Federal Credit Reform 

5 Act of 1990 (2 U.S.C. 661a)) to the Federal Government 

6 of carrying out the program under this section.’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Jill C. Skidelsky, Respondent-Appellant, v Barry D. Skidelsky, Appellant-Respondent.

*[719*NYS2d 88]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis Gangel-Jacob, J.), entered October 4, 1999, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant father’s motion for the appointment of a law guardian and forensic psychologist and for an immediate hearing on the issue of transfer of custody or expanded visitation rights, and granted plaintiff mother’s cross motion to restrain the father from orally communicating with her except in an emergency and for an award of counsel fees to the extent of awarding $17,500, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to vacate the restraint against oral communications and the award of counsel fees, the matter remanded for a hearing on the issue of whether there should be an award of counsel fees, and, if so, in what amount, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The record supports the motion court’s finding that the mother has not willfully interfered with the father’s relationship with the child and that her continued custody of the child is otherwise in the child’s best interests *(see, Eschbach v Eschbach,*56 NY2d 167, 173-174). There was no need for a hearing since sufficient information to render an informed decision had been provided by the papers submitted on the instant motions, the papers submitted on prior motions for identical relief before another Justice, two prior extensive decisions by the other Justice delineating the parties’ contentions, and the impressions gained by the motion court in an in camera interview of the child *(see, Matter of Vangas v Ladas,*259 AD2d 755; *Melnitzky v Melnitzky,*278 AD2d 2). The same evidence shows that there is no need for either a law guardian or forensic expert *(see, Matter of Thompson v Thompson,*267 AD2d 516, 519). Concerning visitation, the motion court’s schedule comports with the parties’ settlement agreement, whereas the father’s proposals clearly do not, and, absent a showing of a material change of circumstances warranting major modifications of the settlement agreement, the schedule fixed by the motion court should not be disturbed.

However, the award of $17,500 in counsel fees to the mother was improper, the record being unclear as to the mother’s ability to pay her attorney, and utterly devoid of evidence pertinent to the reasonable value of the services that were rendered or *357how the motion court arrived at the $17,500 figure. Accordingly, we vacate the award of counsel fees and remand for a hearing thereon. We also modify to vacate the prohibition against the father’s orally communicating with the mother. The written correspondence relied on by the mother does not indicate the kind of abuse or threat as might warrant such a restraint. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Rubin, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

DIANE FLORIAN,

Petitioner

v.

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION (DEPT. 

OF MILITARY & VETERANS AFFAIRS),

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 138 WM 2018

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 12th day of October, 2018, the Petition for Leave to File Petition 

for Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is DENIED.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 192 (Wednesday, October 5, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 58256]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19900]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Fiscal Service


Financial Management Service; Senior Executive Service; Financial 
Management Service Performance Review Board (PRB)

AGENCY: Financial Management Service, Fiscal Service, Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice announces the appointment of members to the 
Financial Management Service (FMS) Performance Review Board (PRB).

DATES: This notice is effective on October 5, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth R. Papaj, Deputy Commissioner, 
Financial Management Service, 401 14th Street, SW., Washington, DC; 
telephone (202) 874-7000.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4), this notice 
is given of the appointment of individuals to serve as members of the 
FMS PRB. This Board reviews the performance appraisals of career senior 
executives below the Assistant Commissioner level and makes 
recommendations regarding ratings, bonuses, and other personnel 
actions. Four voting members constitute a quorum. The names and titles 
of the FMS PRB members are as follows:

Primary Members

Kenneth R. Papaj, Deputy Commissioner;
Nancy C. Fleetwood, Assistant Commissioner, Information Resources;
Gary Grippo, Assistant Commissioner, Federal Finance;
James M. Mills, Assistant Commissioner, Debt Management Services;
Judy Tillman, Assistant Commissioner, Regional Operations.

Alternate Members

Scott Johnson, Assistant Commissioner, Management (Chief Financial 
Officer);
Kerry Lanham, Assistant Commissioner, Agency Services;
Wanda Rogers, Assistant Commissioner, Financial Operations;
Donald J. Sturgill, Assistant Commissioner, Governmentwide Accounting 
Operations.

    Dated: September 29, 2005.
Kenneth R. Papaj,
Deputy Commissioner.
[FR Doc. 05-19900 Filed 10-4-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-35-M
Exhibit 99.2





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 Annual Report of Corinthian Colleges, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dennis N. Beal, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 result of operations of the Company.
|--- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




/s/ Dennis N. BealDennis N. Beal Chief Financial Officer


September 16, 2002




92
AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
                       ---------------------------------


         Subsection  (b) of  Section  8 of the  Employment  Agreement  made  and
entered into as of July 14, 1994 by and between  Penn  Federal  Savings Bank and
Joseph L. LaMonica is hereby amended to read as follows:

               (b)  Definitions.  For  purposes  of Sections 8, 9 and 11 of this
         Agreement, "Date of Termination" means the earlier of (i) the date upon
         which the Bank gives notice to the Employee of the  termination  of his
         employment  with  the Bank or (ii) the date  upon  which  the  Employee
         ceases to serve as an Employee of the Bank,  and "change in control" is
         defined solely as any acquisition of contro (other than pursuant to the
         Conversion or by a trustee or other fiduciary holding  securities under
         an employee  benefit plan of the Holding Compnay or a subsidiary of the
         Holding  Company),  as defined in 12 C.F.R. SS. 574.4, or any successor
         regulation,  of the Bank or Holding  Company  which  would  require the
         filing of an application for acquisition of control or notice of change
         in  control  in a manner as set forth in 12 C.F.R.  SS.  574.3,  or any
         successor regulation.

         IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the parties have  executied  this Amendment as of
this 13th day of October, 1998.

                                                      PENN FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK

                                                 By:  /s/William C. Anderson
                                                      ----------------------
                                                      William C. Anderson
                                                      Chairman of the Board

                                                      EMPLOYEE


                                                 By:  /s/Joseph L. LaMonica
                                                      ---------------------
                                                      Joseph L. LaMonica
#### Isaiah Leffand, Doing Business as Century Restaurant Equipment Company, Appellant, *v.*Fulton Systems, Inc., Respondent.*

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

June 28, 1943.

*Louis I. Fabricant*for appellant.

*Raphael E. Rhodes*for respondent.

*

 See, also, *Leffand*v. *Fulton System, Inc.,*180 Misc. 1041 and *Leffand*v. *Schwartz,*180 Misc. 709. — [Rep.

Order so far as appealed from affirmed, with ten dollars costs. No opinion.

Shientag and Hecht, JJ., concur; Hammeb, J., dissents, in memorandum.

Hammer, J. (dissenting).

I dissent and vote for reversal and that the plaintiff-appellant’s motion be granted. It seems to me the only logical inference drawable from the evidence is that the law firm participated in the contempt in that they, attor *1043neys of record for defendant, through one of their attorneys, obtained stay of execution, and through another of their attorneys drew and filed the defendant’s petition in bankruptcy during the stay period.
Anthony J. KIGGINS, Plaintiff, v. Jared CRAVEN, Defendant.

No. COA17-910

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: April 17, 2018

DISMISSED.
WALKER, et al. v. DRIVEN HOLDINGS, LLC

395A17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 18, 2017

*145David C. Boggs, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, Colin R. Stockton, Attorney at Law, for Walker, Ken, et al.

Michael W. Mitchell, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Jackson Wyatt Moore, Jr., Attorney at Law, for Driven Holdings, LLC.

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

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of December 2017."

Plaintiffs shall have up to and including the 29th day of January 2018 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
STATE of North Carolina v. Alfred Lamont BUTLER aka Hakeem Ahmad Muhammad

No. 220P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 28, 2017

*540William D. Spence, Attorney at Law, Kinston, for Butler, Alfred Lamont.

Rebecca E. Lem, Assistant Attorney General, Jon David, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 3rd of July 2017 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 28th of September 2017."
Exhibit 10.15
                                                                   -------------

                                ROBERT H. ALTMAN

                              Employment Agreement

December 17, 1997

To:         R. Guccione
            N. Guccione
From:       R.H. Altman
Re:         Employment Terms

1.    Position: Chief Executive Officer of General Media International, Inc.

2.    Authority; Responsibilities: Day-to-day business operations of GMI,
      including, but not limited to, financing, administration, acquisition,
      disposition, licensing, franchising, electronic media development in terms
      of financing, structure, licensing and contracts (not including creative
      and magazine content).

3.    Reporting Responsibilities: To the Chairman of the Board

4.    Term: Two years, renewable on terms mutually agreeable.

5.    Compensation:

      a.    "Sign-on" one time payment of $150,000 payable on initialing of this
            memorandum of employment

      b.    Base salary - $400,000

      c.    Bonus-Participation in all executive bonus plans in existence or
            formed hereafter.

      d.    Benefits-Participation in GMI medical, dental, disability etc. plans
            in existence or formed hereafter.

      e.    Life Insurance - $1,000,000 term insurance or split-dollar life
            insurance.

      f.    Vacation - four (4) weeks per annum.

      g.    Business expense reimbursement - upon presentation of proper
            receipts and only if deductible by GMI as a business expense.

      h.    Luncheon club dues and initiation fees - food etc. charges
            reimbursed only if incurred in business activities on behalf of GMI.
<PAGE>

      i.    Severance: One year base salary plus earned bonus to date of
            termination. Not applicable if terminated for proven theft,
            substance abuse, breach of terms of this memorandum or proven
            dishonesty ("cause").

      j.    Change of Control, Sale- Base salary plus previous year's bonus and
            then earned bonus multiplied by two. Not applicable if terminated
            for cause.

6.    Success bonuses:

      a.    Refinancing of long term debt and redemption of current bond issue
            -- $450,000.

      b.    Restructuring, reorganization and sale or public offering of
            automotive group -- $250,000.

      c.    Public offering of Internet and/or electronic media group --
            $300,000.

7.    Implement Directors and Officers Liability Insurance in coverage of at
      least $10 million as soon as practicable.

Agreed In Principle
/s/ R. Guccione
---------------------


                                       2