alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]



# United States Court of Appeals

**For the First Circuit**

No. 00-1183

IN RE: ANDREW J. KEHOE; CATHERINE M. KEHOE, Debtors,

___________________ ANDREW J. KEHOE; CATHERINE M. KEHOE,

Debtors, Appellants,

v. MEETINGHOUSE COOPERATIVE BANK; GARY CRUICKSHANK, TRUSTEE,

Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Reginald C. Lindsay, U.S. District Judge ] Before Torruella, Chief Judge , Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges . Andrew J. Kehoe and Catherine M. Kehoe on brief pro se. David J. Reier and Schnader, Harrison, Goldstein & Manello on brief for appellee Meetinghouse Cooperative Bank.-2- December 11, 2000

Per Curiam . We have read carefully the record in this case, including the briefs of the parties. We affirm the grant of summary judgment to appellees essentially for the reasons given by the bankruptcy court at the hearing held on January 14, 1999. We add only the following.

The Disclosure Statement, filed by debtors with the bankruptcycourt and dated October 29, 1996, conclusively establishes that, one month prior to entering into the settlement agreement, the debtors were aware of the facts whose non-disclosure they now allege induced them to make that agreement. Their claim is therefore without merit.

More over, in light of this fact, the court below comm itted no cognizable error in not granting debtors' request for further discovery on this issue. See Morrisey v. Boston Five Cents Sav. Bank , 54 F.3d 27, 35 (1st Cir. 1995) (party seeking further discovery must show, inter alia , "a plausible basis for [a] belief that facts exist that would likely suffice to raise a genuine and material issue").-3- Finally, since appellees filed with the bankruptcy court an accounting of all payments they claim to have received and how those funds were credited, see Affidavit of Philip M. O'Connor, Exh. A, they appear to have satisfied anyduty they might have had to render an accounting to debtors. Since debtors have not brought forth any competent evidence to challenge the accuracy of this accounting, the entry of summary judgment was appropriate.

Affirmed . See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27(c).
In the MATTER OF: A.R.

No. COA18-27

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: July 17, 2018

AFFIRMED.
# C_2009256EN.01000501.xml

| 24.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 256/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/5

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 September 2009 — William Prym GmbH & Co. KG, Prym Consumer GmbH & Co. KG v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-534/07 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European haberdashery market (needles) - Market sharing agreements - Infringement of the rights of the defence - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Fine - Guidelines - Gravity of the infringement - Actual impact on the market - Implementation of the cartel)

2009/C 256/08

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellants: William Prym GmbH & Co. KG, Prym Consumer GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: H.-J. Niemeyer, C. Herrmann and M. Röhrig, Rechtsanwälte)

Appellants:

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and K. Mojzesowicz, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 12 September 2007 in Case T-30/05 Prym and Prym Consumer v Commission, in which the Court fixed the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants by Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2004) 4221 final of 26 October 2004 relating to a procedure for the application of Article 81 EC (Case COMP/F-1/38.338-PO/Needles) at EUR 27 million — Agreement, decision or concerted practice in the market for haberdashery (needles)

Prym and Prym Consumer

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders William Prym GmbH & Co. KG and Prym Consumer GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders William Prym GmbH & Co. KG and Prym Consumer GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 9.2.2008.

1

---
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

                 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a - 14(b) AND
                  SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE
                    UNITED STATES CODE AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Kahiki Foods, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2005 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned certify, pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of
Title 18 of the United States Code as adopted pursuant to Section 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/ Alan L. Hoover
----------------------
Alan L. Hoover
Acting President
November 14, 2005

/s/ Julia A. Fratianne
----------------------
Julia A. Fratianne
Treasurer and CFO
November 14, 2005

This certification is being furnished as required by Rule 13a-14(b) under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and Section
1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, and shall not be
deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise
subject to the liability of that Section. This certification shall not be deemed
to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933
or the Exchange Act, except as otherwise stated in such filing.

                                       18
#### In re Yolanda Navarro FLORES, Relator.

No. 01-03-00041-CV.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (1st Dist.).

July 18, 2003.

Armando Lopez, Armando Lopez, P.C., Houston, TX, for Relator.

Wayne H. Paris, Gillis, Paris & Heinrich, P.L.L.C., Houston, TX, Real Party in Interest.

Panel consists of Chief Justice RADACK and Justices ALCALA and HIGLEY.

*818OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Relator Yolanda Navarro Flores has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus complaining of Judge Garner’s1 October 15, 2002 order granting real party in interest Mark T. Sandoval’s motion to nonsuit Flores and A. Craig Eiland. Flores contends that the district court had no jurisdiction to grant the October 15, 2002 order because the court had previously rendered a final judgment on October 14, 2001.

A court of appeals may issue a writ of mandamus, “agreeable to the principles of law regulating those writs,” against a judge of a district court. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221(b)(1) (Vernon Supp.2003). We may grant mandamus relief to correct a clear abuse of discretion or a violation of a duty imposed by law when there is no adequate remedy by appeal. *Canadian Helicopters Ltd. v. Wittig,*876 S.W.2d 304, 305 (Tex.1994); *Walker v. Packer,*827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex.1992); *Johnson v. Honorable Fourth Court of Appeals,*700 S.W.2d 916, 917 (Tex.1985). Mandamus relief is proper when a trial court issues a void order, and a relator need not show she does not have an adequate remedy by appeal. *In re*S.W. *Bell Tel. Co.,*35 S.W.3d 602, 605 (Tex.2000).

Unlike other original proceedings in which a relator only seeks mandamus relief from the trial court’s alleged void order, here Flores has filed both an appeal and a petition for a writ of mandamus. *See Flores v. Advanced Mgmt. Sys., Inc.,*No. 01-02-01197-CV (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] filed Nov. 12, 2002). Flores has voluntarily shown she has an adequate remedy by appeal.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.

1

. The Honorable David E. Gamer, judge of the 10th District Court of Galveston County, Texas. The underlying lawsuit is *Parrish v. Advanced. Management Systems, Inc.,*No. 00CV0549, 2001 WL 1825178 (10th Dist. Ct., Galveston County, Tex.2001).
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4656 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4656

  To amend title 10, United States Code, to improve access to mental 
               health services under the TRICARE program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 13, 2014

Mr. Gardner (for himself and Mrs. Capps) introduced the following bill; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 10, United States Code, to improve access to mental 
               health services under the TRICARE program.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Caring for America's Heroes Act''.

SEC. 2. IMPROVEMENT OF ACCESS TO MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES UNDER THE 
              TRICARE PROGRAM.

    (a) Elimination of Limit on Days of Inpatient Services.--Section 
1079 of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)--
                    (A) by striking paragraph (6); and
                    (B) by redesignating paragraphs (7) through (17) as 
                paragraphs (6) through (16), respectively;
            (2) by striking subsection (i); and
            (3) by redesignating subsections (j) through (q) as 
        subsections (i) through (p), respectively.
    (b) Repeal of Requirement for Nonavailability Statement or 
Preauthorization.--Section 721(a) of the Floyd D. Spence National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (10 U.S.C. 1073 note) is 
amended by striking ``(other than mental health services)''.
    (c) Conforming Amendments.--Chapter 55 of title 10, United States 
Code, is amended--
            (1) in section 1079(e)(7), by striking ``subsection 
        (a)(13)'' and inserting ``subsection (a)(12)'';
            (2) in section 1086--
                    (A) in subsection (d)(4)(A)(ii), by striking 
                ``section 1079(j)(1)'' and inserting ``section 
                1079(i)(1)''; and
                    (B) in subsection (g), by striking ``Section 
                1079(j)'' and inserting ``Section 1079(i)''; and
            (3) in section 1105(c), by striking ``section 1079(a)(7)'' 
        and inserting ``section 1079(a)(6)''.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of ADESA, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30,2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, David G. Gartzke, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 USC 1350), that:

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

(2)   Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
| /s/  DAVID G. GARTZKE                                 |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| David G. Gartzke                                                |   |
| *President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman  of the Board* |

 

*This certification accompanies the Report pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except tothe extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by theCompany for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended.*

51

----
JAMBA, INC.


NOTICE OF GRANT OF STOCK OPTION


 


Jamba, Inc. (the “Company”)
has granted to the Participant an option (the “Option”) to purchase certain shares of Stock of the Company
pursuant to the 2013 Equity Incentive Plan of Jamba, Inc. (the “Plan”), as follows:


 


	Participant:	_____________________________________	 	Grant Number:	__________________________
	 	 	 	 
	Date of Grant:	_____________________________________
	 	 
	Number of Option Shares:	_____________________________________, subject to adjustment as provided by the Option Agreement.
	 	 
	Exercise Price:	$____________________________________
	 	 
	Vesting Commencement Date:	_____________________________________
	 	 
	Option Expiration Date:	______________________________________
	 	 
	Tax Status of Option:	______________________________ Stock Option (Enter “Incentive” or “Nonstatutory.”  If blank, this Option be a Nonstatutory Stock Option.)
	 	 
	Vested Shares:	
        [Insert Vesting Schedule and Other
        Vesting Conditions]

        

	 	 
	Superseding Agreement:	None/_______________.  To the extent that a Superseding Agreement is listed, to the extent that such Superseding Agreement provides for more beneficial vesting and/or exercise terms, then, notwithstanding anything in this Grant Notice or the Stock Option Agreement to the contrary, the provisions of that Superseding Agreement shall govern.


 


By their signatures below or by electronic
acceptance or authentication in a form authorized by the Company, the Company and the Participant agree that the Option is governed
by this Grant Notice and by the provisions of the Plan and the Stock Option Agreement, both of which are made a part of this document.
The Participant acknowledges that copies of the Plan, Stock Option Agreement and the prospectus for the Plan are available on the
Company’s internal web site and may be viewed and printed by the Participant for attachment to the Participant’s copy
of this Grant Notice. The Participant represents that the Participant has read and is familiar with the provisions of the Plan
and Stock Option Agreement, and hereby accepts the Award subject to all of their terms and conditions.


 





	JAMBA, INC. 	 	PARTICIPANT
	 	 	 
	By: 	 	 	 
	 	 	Signature
	 	 	 
	 	 	Date:	 
	 	 	 	 
	Address:	_______________________________	 	Address:	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	_______________________________
Exhibit 13.01

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United
States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Brasil Telecom Participações S.A. (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

The annual report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the company.



|                    |  |                                      
|------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Dated: July 9, 2009 |  | /s/ Luiz Eduardo Falco Pires Corrêa  
|                    |  | Name: Luiz Eduardo Falco Pires Corrêa
|                    |  | Title: Chief Executive Officer       
|                    | 
|Dated: July 9, 2009 |  | /s/ Alex Waldemar Zornig             
|                    |  | Name: Alex Waldemar Zornig           
|                    |  | Title: Chief Financial Officer
STATE of North Carolina v. Jawanz BACON

No. 266P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 14, 2018

Sarah Holladay, Attorney at Law, For Bacon, Jawanz

James Bernier, Jr., Special Deputy Attorney General, Kathleen N. Bolton, Assistant Attorney General, Jon David, District Attorney, For State of North Carolina

***ORDER***

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 4th of August 2017 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Dissolved by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of August 2018."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by State of NC on the 4th of August 2017 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 14th of August 2018."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 21st of August 2017 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 14th of August 2018."
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

PATRICK HARRIS and PAULINE HARRIS

, Appellant s

,

v.

BENTLEY ROOFING, LLC

, Appellee.

No. 4D2022

- 2457

[ December 14, 2023 ]

Appeal from the County Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm

Beach County; Hon. Sarah Shullman, Judge; L.T. Case No.

502021CC004961.

Patrick Harris, Boca Raton, pro se.

Benjamin T. Lute of Adams and Reese LLP, Tampa, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

.

K LINGENSMITH

, C.J., G ROSS and L EVINE

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
**Exhibit 12.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, David Melcon Sanchez-Friera, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Telefônica Brasil S.A.;

2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.  The Company’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the Company and have:

a.   designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b.   designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

c.   evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

d.   disclosed in this report any change in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.  The Company’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company’s auditors and the audit committee of the Company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a.   all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

b.   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.

----
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 on Form 10-QSB ("Form 10-QSB") of Denia Enterprises Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Norma Dority, Chief Executive 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, that:



(1)  The Form 10-QSB 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 Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/ Norman Dority

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

Norman Dority

Chief Executive Officer

November 26, 2007
113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 45 

AN ACT 

To repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

and health care-related provisions in the Health Care 

and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 45 EH

1 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF PPACA AND HEALTH CARE-RE2 LATED PROVISIONS IN THE HEALTH CARE 

3 AND EDUCATION RECONCILIATION ACT OF 

4 2010. 

5 (a) PPACA.—Effective as of the enactment of the 

6 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 

7 111–148), such Act is repealed, and the provisions of law 

8 amended or repealed by such Act are restored or revived 

9 as if such Act had not been enacted. 

10 (b) HEALTH CARE-RELATED PROVISIONS IN THE

11 HEALTH CARE AND EDUCATION RECONCILIATION ACT OF

12 2010.—Effective as of the enactment of the Health Care 

13 and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Public Law 

14 111–152), title I and subtitle B of title II of such Act 

15 are repealed, and the provisions of law amended or re16 pealed by such title or subtitle, respectively, are restored 

17 or revived as if such title and subtitle had not been en18 acted. 

19 SEC. 2. BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF THIS ACT. 

20 The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of 

21 complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, 

22 shall be determined by reference to the latest statement 

23 titled ‘‘Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation’’ for this 

24 Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional Record 

25 by the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the 
3 

•HR 45 EH

1 House of Representatives, as long as such statement has 

2 been submitted prior to the vote on passage of this Act. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 16, 2013. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 45 

AN ACT 

To repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable 

Act of 2010. the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Care Act and health care-related provisions in