alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Patricia PINE, Employee v. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC. #1552, Employer, and National Union Fire Insurance Co., Carrier (Claims Management, Inc. Third-party Administrator)

No. 335A17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 1, 2018

Holly M. Stott, M. Duane Jones, Attorneys at Law, Charlotte, Linda Stephens, Attorney at Law, for Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. #1552, et al.

David A. Shelby, Attorney at Law, Salisbury, for Pine, Patricia.

Vernon Sumwalt, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for N.C. Advocates for Justice.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by Plaintiff on the 10th of October 2017 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30 (substantial constitutional question), the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the notice of appeal is

"Dismissed Ex Mero Motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of March 2018."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 10th of October 2017 by Plaintiff in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of March 2018."
#### Valerie FORTUNE, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Allan R. PANTIN, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

No. 5D02-1531.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Aug. 1, 2003.

Henry J. Martocci, Roekledge, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

Valerie Fortune, Sharpes, Pro Se.

Richard A. Manzo, Law Offices of Man-zo & Associates, P. A., Titusville, and Douglas W. Baker, of John H. Evans, P. A., Titusville, for Appellee/Cross-Appel-lant.

PER CURIAM.

Valerie Fortune, the former wife, appeals the downward modification of the alimony obligation of her former husband, Allan R. Pantin. The former husband cross-appeals the trial court’s order denying his request for a reduction of his child support obligation.

The record before this court contains no transcript of the proceedings below. In the absence of a transcript, this court is unable to evaluate the sufficiency of the evidence considered by the trial court in support of its factual findings, and instead presumes such findings to be correct. *Hirsch v. Hirsch,*642 So.2d 20, 21 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); *accord Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee,*377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1979). Our review is therefore limited to errors of law that are apparent on the face of the judgment. *Casella v. Casella,*569 So.2d 848, 849 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).

Having carefully reviewed the limited record before us, we find no errors of law apparent on the face of the order being appealed. Accordingly, the order of the trial court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

SAWAYA, C.J., ORFINGER and MONACO, JJ., concur.
Order entered December 1, 2020

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05 - 20 - 00729 - CR EX PARTE ALIX HENRY SANDERS On Appeal from the County Criminal Court No. 3

Dallas County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. MC20 - A1137 - C

ORDER Before the Court is the State’s November 25, 2020 motion for extension of time to file its brief

. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the State to file its brief by December 30, 2020. The record in this case doe s not include a certification of appellant’s right to appeal. The appeal cannot proceed without the trial court’s certification. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 25.2(d). Accordingly, we ORDER the trial court to prepare and file, by December 30, 2020, a certification o f appellant’s right to appeal.

/s/ BILL PEDERSEN, III JUSTICE
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 32.2

                  CERTIFICATION OF THE 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 Monadnock Community Bancorp, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Donald R. Blanchette, 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 and in connection with this quarterly report on Form
10-QSB that:

        3.      The Report fully complies with the requirements of sections
                13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
                amended, and

        4.      The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all
                material respects, the company's financial condition and results
                of operations.



Date: November 15, 2004                      /s/ Donald R. Blanchette
                                             ------------------------
                                             Donald R. Blanchette
                                             Chief Financial Officer




                                       20
Hunter F. GRODNER, Plaintiff, v. Andrzej GRODNER, Defendant.

No. COA17-570 No. COA17-813

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: July 3, 2018

AFFIRMED IN PART. DISMISSED IN PART.
Denied; Opinion Filed August 21, 2019.

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 19

- 00911

- CV

IN RE A.P. AND D. P. , INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIENDS FOR K.D.P., A MINOR, Relato r s

O riginal Proceeding from the 422nd Judicial District Court

Kaufman County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 102717

- CC



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Myers, Molberg, and Nowell Opinion by Justice Myers

Before the Court is relators ’ petiti on for writ of mandam us seeking to have our Court vacate
the trial court’s July 24, 2019 temporary orders and compel the trial court to return their child,
K.D.P., to their custody

. To be entitled to mandamus relief, relator s must show that the trial cour t
has clearly abused its discretion and that relator s ha ve no adequate appellate remedy. In re

Prudential I

ns. Co

. of Am

. , 148 S.W.3d 124, 135

– 36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). After
reviewing the petition and mandamus record, we conclude relator s ha ve not shown t he y are entitled
to the relief requested.– 2

–

Accordingly, we deny relators’ petition for writ of mandamus. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8( a )
( the court must deny the petition if the court determines relator is not entitled to the relief sought).

190911F.P05 /Lana Myers/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
IN RE: Charles Everette HINTON

No. 449P11-17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 12, 2018

Charles E. Hinton, for Hinton, Charles Everette.

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

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the application filed by Petitioner on the 11th of January 2018 in this matter for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Mecklenburg County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 12th of January 2018."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 11th of January 2018 by Petitioner for Full Evidentiary Hearing:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 12th of January 2018."

Ervin, J. recused
# Official Journal L 236/2012

| | ISSN 1977-0677
  doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2012.236.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 236 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 551 September 2012 |

ISSN 1977-0677

doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2012.236.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 236

English edition

Legislation

Volume 551 September 2012

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | | 2012/485/EU |
| | * | Commission Decision of 25 April 2012 on State aid SA.25051 (C 19/10) (ex NN 23/10) granted by Germany to the Zweckverband Tierkörperbeseitigung in Rhineland-Palatinate, Saarland, Rheingau-Taunus-Kreis and Landkreis Limburg-Weilburg
  (notified under document C(2012) 2557)

   (1) | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

DECISIONS

2012/485/EU

*

Commission Decision of 25 April 2012 on State aid SA.25051 (C 19/10) (ex NN 23/10) granted by Germany to the Zweckverband Tierkörperbeseitigung in Rhineland-Palatinate, Saarland, Rheingau-Taunus-Kreis and Landkreis Limburg-Weilburg
  (notified under document C(2012) 2557)

   (1)

(notified under document C(2012) 2557)

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
EX-10.1


 Exhibit 10.1 
 AMENDMENT TO 
 THE 

APACHE CORPORATION 2011 OMNIBUS EQUITY COMPENSATION PLAN 
 Effective May 16, 2013 
 WITNESSETH: 

WHEREAS, Apache Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), established and maintains the Apache Corporation
2011 Omnibus Equity Compensation Plan (the “Plan”), as it may be amended and restated from time to time; and 

WHEREAS, the Plan was approved by the Company’s stockholders on May 5, 2011; and 

WHEREAS, Section 4.1 of the Plan provides for the number of shares of $0.625 par value common stock of the Company (the
“Shares”) which are authorized for issuance under the Plan; and 
 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 16 of the
Plan, the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”) may, from time to time, amend or modify the Plan, subject to approval by the Company’s stockholders as required; and 

WHEREAS, the Board desires to amend the Plan to increase the number of Shares authorized for issuance under the Plan by adding
17,000,000 shares to the 25,500,000 Shares currently authorized under the Plan. 
 NOW THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby
amended as follows: 
 Effective May 16, 2013, Section 4.1 of the Plan is hereby amended to read in its
entirety as follows: 
 “4.1 Number of Shares. Subject to adjustments pursuant to Section 4.4 hereof, up to (a) 25,500,000
shares of Stock are authorized for issuance under the Plan plus (b) effective May 16, 2013, 17,000,000 additional shares of Stock are authorized for issuance under the Plan in accordance with the Plan’s terms and subject to such
restrictions or other provisions as the Committee may from time to time deem necessary. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the number of aggregate shares of Stock available for issuance under the Plan at any given time shall be reduced by (i) 1.0
share for each share of Stock delivered in settlement of any Stock Option or Stock Appreciation Right or Dividend Equivalent related to a Stock Appreciation Right, and (ii) 2.39 shares for each share of Stock delivered in settlement of any
Award that is not a Stock Option or Stock Appreciation Right or Dividend Equivalent related to a Stock Appreciation 

  
 1. 








 
Right. During the duration of the Plan, no Eligible Person may be granted Options which in the aggregate cover in excess of 5 percent of the total shares of Stock authorized under the Plan. No
Award may be granted under the Plan on or after the 10-year anniversary of the Effective Date. The foregoing to the contrary notwithstanding, within the aggregate limit described in the first sentence of this Section 4.1, up to 25,500,000
(effective May 16, 2013, up to 42,500,000) shares of Stock may be issued pursuant to ISOs granted under the Plan.” 

Except as specifically set forth above, the terms of the Plan shall continue in full force and effect. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed by a duly authorized officer. 

 

			
	APACHE CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Margery M. Harris

	Name:	 	Margery M. Harris
	Title:	 	 Executive Vice President,

Human Resources

	Date:	 	May 16, 2013



  
 2.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Victor Tunnon, Appellant.

[719 NYS2d 589]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.), rendered January 6, 1998, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), attempted robbery in the first degree, assault in the second degree, criminal trespass in the first degree, unlawful imprisonment in the first degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree (two counts), and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in allowing three police officers to testify as to statements made to them by bystanders is unpreserved for appellate review *(see, People v Medina,*53 NY2d 951, 953; *People v Simms,*222 AD2d 622). In any event, the statements were properly admitted into evidence for the limited purpose of explaining the officers’ conduct at the crime scene *(see, People v Berg,*59 NY2d 294; *People v Galloway,*54 NY2d 396).

The defendant’s sentence was neither harsh nor excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). Ritter, J. P., Altman, Luciano and Smith, JJ., concur.
Ron David METCALF v. Susan Hyatt CALL

No. 414A17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 1, 2018

Ron David Metcalf, for Metcalf, Ron David.

Kimberly N. Carpenter, Attorney at Law, Sylva, for Call, Susan Hyatt.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, *878filed by the Plaintiff on the 11th of December 2017 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the Defendant, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of March 2018."
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of SPHERE OF LANGUAGE (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended February 28, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Bruce Bicknell, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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.









Date: April 14, 2006

/s/ Bruce Bicknell

Bruce Bicknell

Principal Financial Officer
Order filed February 14 , 2019

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 18

- 00927

- CV

____________ STEPHANIE LYNN CHATH AM , Appellant

V.

BLAKE DWAYNE DOOLA N , Appellee

On Appeal from the 328th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas Tr ial Court Cause No. 17

- DCV

- 241661



### ORDER
On February 8, 2019, appellant filed a brief that is not in compliance with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. The brief fails generally to comply with the rules by failing to (1) contain an index of authoriti es, and (2) contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to
authorities and to the record. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(c) and (i).
Accordingly, we order appellant’s brief filed February 8
, 201 9 , stricken.
A ppell ant is ordered to file a brief that complies with the Texas Rules of AppellateProcedure within fifteen ( 15 ) days of the date of this order. See Tex. R. App. P.

38.1.
If appellant files another brief that does not comply with Rule 38, the court may strik e the brief, prohibit appellant from filing another, and proceed as if appellant had failed to file a brief. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.9(a). Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a), where an appellant has failed to file a brief, we may dismiss t he appeal for want of prosecution. If appellant fails to timely file a brief in accordance with Rule 38, the appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1).

PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Wise, Zimmerer, and Spai n.
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.                  

###### Judicial Conference of the United States

# AGENCY:

Judicial Conference of the United States Advisory Committee on Rules of Civil Procedure.

# ACTION:

Notice of cancellation of open hearing. 

      ( print page 57622)    

# SUMMARY:

                        The public hearing on proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, scheduled for October 26, 2005, in San Francisco, California, has been canceled. [Original notice of hearing appeared in the                         **Federal Register**                         of July 14, 2005.]                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John K. Rabiej, Chief, Rules Committee Support Office, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Washington, DC 20544, telephone (202) 502-1820.

Dated: September 26, 2005.

John K. Rabiej,

Chief, Rules Committee Support Office.

[FR Doc. 05-19679  Filed 9-30-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 2210-55-M
Exhibit 32.2

Section 906 CFO Certification

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 Colony Resorts LVH Acquisitions, LLC (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Robert Schaffhauser, Executive Vice President of Finance, respectively, 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 results of operations of the Company.



|                                   
|-----------------------------------
|/s/  Robert Schaffhauser           
|Robert Schaffhauser                
|Executive Vice President of Finance



- 25 -
#### Carmen Vazquez, as Administratrix of the Estate of Jeanette Rodriguez, Deceased, Appellant, v New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation et al., Respondents.

[720 NYS2d 20]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Stanley Sklar, J.), entered January 14, 2000, which dismissed plaintiffs complaint for wrongful death, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered September 24, 1999, which, *inter alia,*granted defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 to dismiss the complaint for failure to file a timely notice of claim, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the ensuing January 14, 2000 judgment.

It is undisputed that plaintiff, in this medical malpractice action for wrongful death against the City and the Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC), never filed a notice of claim for wrongful death in accordance with the requirements of McKinney’s Unconsolidated Laws of New York § 7401 (New York *369City Health and Hospitals Corporation Act § 20 [L 1969, ch 1016, § 1, as amended]) and General Municipal Law §§ 50-e and 50-i. To remedy this otherwise fatal defect, plaintiff seeks to amend the notice of claim filed by the decedent on August 4, 1994, wherein the latter alleged that HHC had been negligent in failing to diagnose and treat her ovarian tumor. In this connection, plaintiff contends that the decedent’s notice of claim was timely since the statutorily allotted 90-day period for filing a notice of claim was tolled by reason of the decedent’s continuous treatment by defendant Health and Hospitals Corporation (see, *Young v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.,*91 NY2d 291, 295). However, the decedent’s ongoing general relationship with the clinic for routine periodic health examinations was insufficient to satisfy the continuous treatment doctrine’s requirement that there be continuous treatment of the condition upon which the allegations of medical malpractice are based *(see, Young v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., supra,*at 296). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Tom, Ellerin and Friedman, JJ.
STATE of North Carolina v. Samantha Lucille REYNOLDS, Defendant.

No. COA17-1239

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: July 3, 2018

NO ERROR.
DTH MEDIA CORPORATION, et al. v. FOLT, et al.

142P18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 17, 2018

Mr. Hugh Stevens, Attorney at Law, for DTH Media Corporation, et al.

Mr. Michael J. Tadych, Attorney at Law, for DTH Media Corporation, et al.

Ms. Stephanie A. Brennan, Special Deputy Attorney General, for Folt, Carol L., et al.

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

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