alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
YANCEY COUNTY ON BEHALF OF Jessica A. BUCHANAN, Plaintiff, v. Jonathon S. JONES, Defendant.

No. COA17-1214

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: July 17, 2018

AFFIRMED.
**IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No.**  **DA -**  **2 3**  **- 0265** 
SHAWNA L. JOHNSON , ) ) P etitioner and Appell ant, ) vs. ) ) MALACHI JOHNSON , )

Respondent and Appell ee . ) ) **ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME**  **ON APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT**  **F OURTH**  **JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA,**  **MISSOULA COUNTY**  **Honorable Leslie Halligan**  **, Presiding**

_____________________________________________________________ WHEREAS , the Respondent/Appellee by and through counsel of record has fil ed an Unopposed Motion for a 30 day extension of time to file the Appellee’s response and good cause appearing therefrom: IT IS ORDERED, the Appell ee ’s Motion is GRANTED and Appel lee shall have an additional 30 (thirty) days from the prior Response Brief deadline to file the Appell ee ’s opening brief
. 08/16/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0265
Unassociated Document


 



Exhibit 10.1

















AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


This Amendment dated March 13, 2013 (the “Amendment”) to the Employment Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated August 20, 2008, as amended on April 26, 2010, by and between Republic First Bank (the “Bank”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Republic First Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”), and Andrew J. Logue (the “Employee”).


 


WHEREAS, the parties thereto desire to change certain terms of the Agreement.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises set forth below and intending to be legally bound hereby, the parties agree as follows:


 


The following paragraph is added to Section 5.A(1) of the Agreement:


 


“If the Employee’s employment with the Bank ceases due to a termination by the Bank upon a Change in Control, the Employee shall be entitled to a severance payment (the “Severance Payment”) equal to the sum of the Employee’s annual base salary for the preceding 12 months (“Prior Base Salary”). The Severance Payment is payable within fifteen (15) days of such termination, provided, however, that if upon such termination, the Employee is offered a position at a successor to the Company or to the Company’s business with compensation (annual base salary, plus other annual compensation) that is substantially similar to or greater than the Employee’s compensation at the Bank immediately prior to such termination, no Severance Payment is payable by the Bank to the Employee.


 


 


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Bank has caused this Amendment to the Agreement to be executed by its duly authorized officer, and Employee has executed this Amendment to the Agreement, in each case as of the date first written above.


 



	
                                    

	  	
BANK:


	  	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  
	  	  	
By:

	
/s/ Harry D. Madonna


	  	  	  	
Harry D. Madonna


Chief Executive Officer


	  	  	  	  
	
                                   

	  	  
	  	  	  	  
	  	  	
EMPLOYEE:


	  	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  
	  	  	
By:

	
/s/ Andrew J. Logue


	  	  	  	
Andrew J. Logue
Exhibit 31.1
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, Lyle Berman, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of WPT Enterprises, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untruestatements of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statement made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered bythis quarterly report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this quarterly report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cashflows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisquarterly report; 4. WPT Enterprises, Inc.’s other certifying officer and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for WPTEnterprises, Inc., and have:
a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to WPT Enterprises, Inc.,including its subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly reportis being prepared; b. evaluated the effectiveness of WPT Enterprises, Inc.’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as ofthe end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and c. disclosed in this report any change in WPT Enterprises, Inc.’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during WPTEnterprises, Inc.’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, WPT Enterprises,Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting;
5. WPT Enterprises, Inc.’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to WPT Enterprises, Inc.’s auditors and the audit committee ofWPT Enterprises, Inc.’s board of directors or persons performing theequivalent functions):
a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect WPT Enterprises, Inc.’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in WPT Enterprises, Inc.’sinternal control over financial reporting.   Date: November 17, 2004 /s/ Lyle Berman
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 191 (Tuesday, October 4, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 57921]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19835]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>10205 and <greek-i>10206]


Louisiana Disaster <greek-i>LA-00004

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major 
disaster for the State of Louisiana (FEMA-1607-DR), dated 09/24/2005.
    Incident: Hurricane Rita.
    Incident Period: 09/23/2005 and continuing.
    Effective Date: 09/24/2005.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 11/23/2005.
    EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date: 06/26/2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Disaster Area Office 3, 14925 Kingsport Road Fort 
Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, Suite 
6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the President's major disaster declaration on 09/24/2005, applications 
for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other 
locally announced locations.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:

Primary Parishes:
    Beauregard, Calcasieu, Cameron, Jefferson Davis, and Vermilion.
Contiguous Parishes/Counties: Louisiana:
    Acadia, Allen, Evangeline, Iberia, Lafayette, and Vernon. Texas: 
Jefferson, Newton, and Orange.

    The Interest Rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homeowners With Credit Available Elsewhere:..................      5.375
Homeowners Without Credit Available Elsewhere:...............      2.687
Businesses With Credit Available Elsewhere:..................      6.557
Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives Without Credit        4.000
 Available Elsewhere:........................................
Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit             4.750
 Available Elsewhere:........................................
Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit             4.000
 Available Elsewhere.........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 102058 
and for economic injury is 102060. (Catalog of Federal Domestic 
Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

Herbert L. Mitchell,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 05-19835 Filed 10-3-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Circuit Court for Prince George’s County

Case No. CAE-13-20328

Argued: October 3, 2014

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

 OF MARYLAND

Misc. Docket AG No. 28

September Term, 2013

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION

 OF MARYLAND

v.

MICHAEL FRANCIS BARNETT

Barbera, C.J.

Harrell

Battaglia

Greene

Adkins

McDonald

Watts,

 JJ.

PER CURIAM ORDER

Filed: October 3, 2014
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE * In the

COMMISSION OF MARYLAND

 * Court of Appeals

v. * of Maryland

 * Misc. Docket AG No. 28 

MICHAEL FRANCIS BARNETT

 * September Term, 2013

 

 PER CURIAM ORDER

For reasons to be stated in an opinion later to be filed, it

is this 3rd day October 2014,

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the

Respondent, Michael Francis Barnett, be, and he is hereby,

disbarred, effective immediately, from the further practice of law

in the State of Maryland; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court shall strike the name of

Michael Francis Barnett from the register of attorneys, and

pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-760(e), shall certify that fact to the

Trustees of the Client Protection Fund and the clerks of all

judicial tribunals in the State; and it is further

ORDERED that Respondent shall pay all costs as taxed by the

Clerk of this Court, including the costs of all transcripts,

pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-761(b), for which sum judgment is

entered in favor of the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland

against Michael Francis Barnett. 

 /s/ Mary Ellen Barbera 

 Chief Judge
Order entered December 12, 2013

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 13

- 01021

- CV

TIC N. CENTRAL

, DALLAS 3, LLC ET AL, Appellant s

V.

ENVIROBUSINESS, INC ET AL, Appellee s

On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 13

- 02857

- E



### O RDER

The Court GRANTS Perkins & Will, Inc., Tom Reisenbichler, and David Collins’s

December 9, 2013 agreed motion for extension of time to file reply brief and ORDER their brief

be filed no later than December 13, 2013.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS

JUSTICE
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Special Grants Review Committee.                    

*Date:*                         October 24-25, 2005.                    

*Time:*                         8 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Double Tree Hotel, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Yan Z. Wang, PhD, MD, Scientific Review Administrator, National Institutes of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, 6701 Democracy Blvd., Suite 820, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594-4957,                         *wangy1@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.846, Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: September 22, 2005.

Anthony M. Coelho, Jr.,

Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 05-19544 Filed 9-29-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
# C_2013252EN.01002702.xml

| 31.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2013 — Spira v Commission

(Joined Cases T-108/07 and T-354/08) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements and abuse of a dominant position - Rough diamond market - ‘Supplier of Choice’ (SOC) system of distribution - Decision rejecting a complaint - No Community interest - Procedural rights of a complainant - Access to documents - Obligations in relation to the investigation of a complaint - Market foreclosure effects - Manifest error of assessment)

2013/C 252/42

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Diamanthandel A. Spira BVBA (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: Y. van Gerven, F. Louis, A. Vallery and J. Bourgeois, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by F. Castillo de la Torre, R. Sauer and J. Bourke, and subsequently by F. Castillo de la Torre and R. Sauer, Agents, and, in Case T-108/07, initially by S. Drakakakis, lawyer, and T. Soames, Solicitor, and subsequently by T. Soames and, in Case T-354/08, by T. Soames)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: De Beers (Luxembourg, Luxembourg); and De Beers UK Ltd, formerly The Diamond Trading Co. Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented: initially by W. Allan and S. Horwitz, Solicitors, and J. Ysewyn, lawyer, and subsequently by W. Allan, J. Ysewyn and N. Gràcia Malfeito, Solicitor, and lastly by N. Gràcia Malfeito, B. van de Walle de Ghelcke, J. Marchandise, lawyers, and P. Riedel, Solicitor)

Interveners in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Applications for the annulment of the Commission’s Decisions of 26 January 2007 (Case COMP/38.826/B-2 — Spira/De Beers/DTC Supplier of Choice) and of 5 June 2008 (Case COMP/38.826/E-2 — De Beers/DTC Supplier of Choice) rejecting the applicant’s complaint against the interveners alleging infringement of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC in the rough diamond market through their use of distribution agreements known as ‘Supplier of Choice’ (SOC) arrangements.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the actions; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the actions;

| 2. | Orders Diamanthandel A. Spira BVBA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Diamanthandel A. Spira BVBA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders De Beers and De Beers UK Ltd to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders De Beers and De Beers UK Ltd to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 9.6.2007.

1

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2


                       REPORT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



To the Board of Directors and Stockholder
of GreenPoint Credit, LLC



We have examined management's assertion about GreenPoint Credit, LLC's
compliance with the minimum servicing standards identified in the Mortgage
Bankers Association of America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for
                                 --------------------------------------
Mortgage Bankers (USAP) as of and for the year ended December 31, 1999 included
----------------
in the accompanying management assertion.  Management is responsible for
GreenPoint Credit, LLC's compliance with those minimum servicing standards.
Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about the
entity's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included
examining, on a test basis, evidence about GreenPoint Credit, LLC's compliance
with the minimum servicing standards and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances.  We believe that our examination
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide
a legal determination on GreenPoint Credit LLC's compliance with the minimum
servicing standards.

In our opinion, management's assertion that GreenPoint Credit, LLC complied
with the aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of and for the year
ended December 31, 1999 is fairly stated, in all materials respects.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

January 18, 2000
#### Julius A. GATHERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D02-1106.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 21, 2003.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Paula S. Saunders, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, and Karen M. Holland, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges sentences which were imposed for two counts of resisting arrest with violence. These are third degree felonies, for which a five year maximum term of imprisonment is allowed. § 848.01; § 775.082(3)(d), Fla. Stat. The concurrent fifteen year terms of imprisonment imposed for these offenses are illegal sentences, exceeding the maximum allowed by law. The appellant’s sentences are therefore vacated, and the case is remanded for resentencing.

ERVIN, BARFIELD and ALLEN, JJ., concur.
SHAUN HACKETT, BSc, MAusIMM, MAIG



CONSENT OF QUALIFIED PERSON

To:

US Securities and Exchange Commission



I, Shaun Hackett, BSc, MAusIMM, MAIG, do hereby consent to (i) the incorporation by reference of the following document(s) into the annual information form (the AIF) of Nevsun Resources Ltd. (the Issuer) dated March 22, 2006 to be filed with certain Canadian securities commissions and the annual report on Form 40-F (the 40-F) of the Issuer to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection therewith, and (ii) the inclusion of any extracts from or summary of such document(s) in the AIF and the 40-F:

1.

Technical Report on the Segala Property, Mali West Africa, dated May 17, 2004;

(collectively, the Technical Report)

I also certify that I have read the written disclosure (Mineral Properties AIF 2006 excerpt.doc Section 1.1, dated 17/03/2006) being filed and I do not have any reason to believe that there are any misrepresentations in the information derived from the Technical Report or that the written disclosure in the AIF or the 40-F of the Issuer contains any misrepresentation of the information contained in the Technical Report.

Dated this 21 day of March, 2006

signed

_______________________
Shaun Hackett, BSc, MAusIMM, MAIG

[Seal or Stamp]
KYLES v. The GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO.

438P17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 29, 2017

Kathleen G. Sumner, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, for Kyles, Anthony M.

Matthew J. Ledwith, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., et al.

M. Duane Jones, Attorney at Law, Charlotte.

Phillip A. Baddour, III.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 29th of December 2017 by Plaintiff for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 29th of December 2017."
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT C URLIN PENNIC K, III, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. JOE W ILLIAM SON, C ook, Sta fford C re e k C orre c tiona l C e nte r, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-35120 D.C . No. 3:11-c v-05971-R B L M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington R o n a ld B . Le ighton, District Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

M ay 13, 2014 ** B e fore : C LIFTON, B EA, a nd WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s. W a shington sta

te prisone r C urlin Pe nnic k , III, a ppe a ls pro se from the distric t c o urt’ s sum

m ary judgm e nt in his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c t ion a lle g ing tha t the de nia l of koshe r m e a ls for ove r two da y s during Pa ssove r viola

te d his First 

# FIL ED MAY29 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).Am e ndm e nt rights. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de

novo. Garc ia v . C

ounty of Me rc e d , 639 F.3d 1206, 1208 (9th C i r. 2011). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on theba sis of qua lifie d im

m unity be c a use the re wa s no ge nuine disputeof m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r de fe n d ant W illia m s on re a sona

bly re lie d on the Pa s sove r m e a ls-list whic h m ista ke nly om itte d Pe nnic k. Se e Estate of Ford v . Ramire z-Palme r , 301 F.3d 1043, 1049-50 (9th C ir. 2002) (holding tha t a prison offic ia l m a

y be e ntitle d

to qua lifie d im

m unity whe re he ha s a

re a sona ble , but m ista

ke n , be l ie f a

bout thefa c ts or a bout wha t the la w re quire s in a give n situa tion); se e also Hunter v . Bry ant , 502 U.S. 224, 229 (1991) (per c uriam ) (“ The qua lifie d im m unity sta nda rd ‘ give s a

m ple room for m ista ke n judgm e nts’ by

prote c ting ‘ a ll but the

pla i nly inc om pe te nt or those who knowingly

viola t e the la w.’ ” (c ita tion omitte d)). Pe nnic k ’ s m otion to supple m e nt the re c ord on a

ppe a l , file d on June 10, 2013, is de nie d. AFFIRM E D.

1 3 - 3 5 1 2 0 2