alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

ARCHON CORPORATION; PAUL W. 

LOWDEN; AND SUZANNE LOWDEN, 

Petitioners, 

vs. 

THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF 

CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE 

MARK R. DENTON, DISTRICT JUDGE, 

Respondents, 

and 

DAN RAIDER, AN INDIVIDUAL ON 

HIS OWN BEHALF AND ON BEHALF 

OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, 

RealParty in Interest. 

No. 68995 

FILED 

MAR 1 8 2016 

TRACIE K. LINDEMAN 

CLERer PREME COURT 

BY 

DEPUTY CLERK 

ORDER DENYING PETITION 

FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, PROHIBITION, OR CERTIORARI 

This original petition for a writ of mandamus, prohibition, or 

certiorari challenges a district court order denying a motion to dismiss in a 

contract action. Having considered the petition, answer, reply and 

supporting documents, we conclude that our extraordinary intervention is 

not warranted at this stage of the proceedings, when the district court has 

yet to definitively rule upon the jurisdiction, limitations, repose, and 

tolling issues. Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 113 Nev. 1343, 1344- 

45, 950 P.2d 280, 281 (1997) (explaining that this court generally will 

intervene at the motion to dismiss stage only when no factual disputes 

exist and clear authority requires dismissal); Smith v. Eighth Judicial 

(0) 1947A C7ifro 
J. 

Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991); 

Zarnarripa v. First Judicial Dist. Court, 103 Nev. 638, 640, 747 P.2d 1386, 

1387 (1987). Accordingly, we 

ORDER the petition DENIED.' 

/ SA ,J. 

Hardesty 

Saitta 

J. 

cc: Hon. Mark R. Denton, District Judge 

Dickinson Wright PLLC 

Goren, Goren & Harris, P.C. 

Law Offices of Steven J. Parsons 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

"We vacate our December 31, 2015, stay in this matter. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A en
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 5, 2005 / Notices 58193 

of Planning and Evaluation, Consumer 

Product Safety Commission, 

Washington, D.C. 20207; telephone: 

(301) 504–7671. 

Dated: September 29, 2005. 

Todd Stevenson, 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 05–19891 Filed 10–4–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Transmittal No. 05–44] 

36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification 

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense 

Security Cooperation Agency. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is 

publishing the unclassified text of a 

section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. 

This is published to fulfill the 

requirements of section 155 of Public 

Law 104–164 dated 21 July 1996. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

J. Hurd, DSCA/DBO/ADM, (703) 604–

6575. 

The following is a copy of a letter to 

the Speaker of the House of 

Representatives, Transmittal 05–44 with 

attached transmittal and policy 

justification. 

Dated: September 29, 2005. 

L.M. Bynum, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer 

Department of Defense. 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–M 

58194 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 5, 2005 / Notices 


EN05OC05.032</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 5, 2005 / Notices 58195 


EN05OC05.033</GPH>
58196 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 5, 2005 / Notices 

[FR Doc. 05–19897 Filed 10–4–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–C 


EN05OC05.034</GPH>
##### 



EIGHTH AMENDMENT OF
LOAN AGREEMENT
 th




---



##### 








---



##### 



FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF OMAHABy:Title:SUMMIT HOTEL PROPERTIES, LLC, a South
Dakota limited liability company, by its
Company Manager, THE SUMMIT GROUP, INC.By:
    
    /s/ Kerry W. BoekelheideKerry W. Boekelheide,PresidentSUMMIT HOSPITALITY V, LLC, a South Dakota
limited liability company, by its member,
SUMMIT HOTEL PROPERTIES, LLC, a South
Dakota limited liability company, by its
Company Manager, THE SUMMIT GROUP, INC.By:
    
    /s/ Kerry W. BoekelheideKerry W. Boekelheide,President
Exhibit
32.2




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned hereby certifies that the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 of Pure Biofuels Corp.
(the “Company”) 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 in such Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date:
      May 14, 2010
              
              /s/
      Gustavo GoyzuetaGustavo
      Goyzueta, Chief Financial Officer




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Pure Biofuels Corp. and will
be retained by Pure Biofuels Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
STATE v. Michelle Smith WHITE

302A18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 8, 2018

Andrew J. DeSimone, Assistant Appellate Defender, for White, Michelle Smith

Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General

L. Michael Dodd, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina

Roger A. Echols, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 29th of October 2018 by Defendant to Stay Briefing Schedule Until Resolution of the Motion to Dismiss:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of November 2018."
#### In re Appeal of Decision of DECISION DISCIPLINARY BOARD NO. 02-PDB-100.

No. 2003-OB-0175.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Aug. 29, 2003.

In re Klaimon, Stephen;—Plaintiff; Applying for Appeal of Decision of Disciplinary Board Office of the Disciplinary Board, No. 02-PDB-100.

Leave to appeal denied.
STATE v. George Reynold EVANS

200P18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 12, 2018

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, Jon David, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

George Reynold Evans, for Evans, George Reynold.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 11th of July 2018 by Petitioner of Writ of Mandamus as Alternative of the Writ of Habeas Corpus:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 12th of July 2018."
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, June 28, 2016.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, June 28, 2016

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A16A1674. RICKEY SMITH v. STATE OF GEORGIA.

The appellant in this case failed to comply with the notice of docketing mailed by this

Court and with Court of Appeals Rules 22 (a) and 23 (a), regarding the filing of an enumeration

of errors and brief within twenty days after the appeal was docketed. See also Court of Appeals

Rule 13.

On June 01, 2016, this Court ordered the appellant to file an enumeration of errors and a

brief no later than June 13, 2016. As of the date of this order, the appellant's enumeration of

errors and brief still have not been filed. Accordingly, this appeal is deemed abandoned and is

hereby ordered DISMISSED. Court of Appeals Rules 7, 23 (a).
Rhonda K. DANIELS, Plaintiff v. Jerry DANIELS, Defendant

No. COA18-73

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: June 19, 2018

DISMISSED.
In the MATTER OF: C.W-J.H., J.G.H., A.L-F.H., J.E-B.H.

No. COA18-187

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 7, 2018

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.1



Written Statement of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of CarrAmerica Realty Corporation, the general partner of CarrAmerica Realty Operating
Partnership, L.P. (the Operating Partnership), each hereby certifies that, to his knowledge on the date hereof:



|(a) | the Form 10-Q of the Operating Partnership for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(b) | information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Operating Partnership.
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Thomas A. CarrThomas A. CarrChief Executive Officer (of CarrAmerica Realty Corporation,
the General Partner of CarrAmerica Realty Operating Partnership, L.P.)August 3, 2005/s/ Stephen E. RiffeeStephen E. RiffeeChief Financial Officer (of CarrAmerica Realty Corporation, the General Partner of CarrAmerica Realty Operating Partnership, L.P.)August 3, 2005
EXHIBIT 32.1

                Certification of the Chief Executive 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 March 31, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, William M. Pierce, Jr., 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 and in connection with this
quarterly report on Form 10-QSB that:

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

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


Date: May 12, 2006                     /s/ William M. Pierce, Jr.
                                       --------------------------
                                       William M. Pierce, Jr.
                                       President and Chief Executive Officer


<PAGE>  23
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order
Lansing, Michigan
May 2, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver 136226 (22) Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices KELVIN DAVID MOFFIT,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 136226 COA: 281561 CHIPPEWA CIRCUIT JUDGE,

Defendant-Appellee.

___________________ ________________

On order of the Chief Ju stice, the motion to waive fees is considered and it is DENIED because MCL 600.2 963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be liable for filing fees. Within 21 days of the certification of this order, plaintiff shall pay to the Clerk of the Court the initial partial filing fee of $27.00, shall submit a copy of this order with the payment, and shall refile the copy of the pleadings which is being returned with this order. Failure to comply with this order shall result in the appeal not being filed in this Court. If plaintiff timely files the partia l fee and refiles the pleadings, monthly payments shall be made to the Department of Corrections in an amount of 50 percent of the deposits made to plain tiff’s account until the payments equal the balance due of $348.00. This amount shall then be remitted to this Court. Pursuant to MCL 600.2963(8) plaintiff shall not file furth er appeals in this Court until the entry fee in this case is paid in full. The Clerk of the Court sh all furnish two copies of th is order to plaintiff and return plaintiff’s pleadings with this order.

jm I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
May 2, 2008
Clerk
EXHIBIT 32.2
                                  CERTIFICATION

                       Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
                             As Adopted Pursuant to
                  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


     In  connection  with this annual report on Form 10-KSB of State of Franklin
Bancshares,  Inc., I, Charles E. Allen, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of State of
Franklin   Bancshares,   Inc.,   certify,   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 this report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations
          of State of Franklin Bancshares, Inc.





Date:  March 25, 2005                        /s/ Charles E. Allen, Jr.
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Charles E. Allen, Jr.
                                             Chief Executive Officer (principal
                                             accounting and financial officer)
STATE of North Carolina v. Maximilian Sage ALEXANDER

No. COA17-96

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 15, 2017

NO PREJUDICIAL ERROR.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4268 

To amend title 23, United States Code, with respect to United States Route 

78 in Mississippi, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 14, 2014 

Mr. NUNNELEE (for himself, Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi, Mr. HARPER, and 

Mr. PALAZZO) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend title 23, United States Code, with respect to 

United States Route 78 in Mississippi, and for other 

purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. UNITED STATES ROUTE 78 IN MISSISSIPPI. 

4 Section 127 of title 23, United States Code, is 

5 amended by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(j) UNITED STATES ROUTE 78 IN MISSISSIPPI.— 

7 If any segment of United States Route 78 in Mississippi 

8 from mile marker 0 to mile marker 113 is designated as 

9 part of the Interstate System, no limit established under 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4268 IH

1 this section may apply to that segment with respect to the 

2 operation of any vehicle that could have legally operated 

3 on that segment before such designation.’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 10.6--Long-Term Incentive Plan Notice




	
		
	Notice of Grant Form
For Performance Stock Options and Award of Performance Stock Units
	Advanced Energy Industries, Inc.
ID: 84-0846841
1625 Sharp Point Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80525 
(970) 221-4670 






	
			
	NAME
ADDRESS


	Grant Number:
Plan:
ID: 
	









LTI PERFORMANCE STOCK OPTION (PSO) GRANT


You have been granted a performance-based option to purchase Common Stock of Advanced Energy Industries, Inc. (the Company), subject to the terms and conditions in the 2008 Omnibus Incentive Plan, the Executive Long-Term Incentive Plan and the Performance Stock Option Agreement, as follows:
	
		
	Date of Grant:
	 

	 
	 

	Exercise Price Per Share:
	 

	 
	 

	Total Number of Shares Granted:
	 

	 
	 

	Total Option Price:
	 

	 
	 

	Type of Option:
	Performance Stock Option (PSO)

	 
	 

	Expiration Date of Option:
	If performance metrics not met for (PERFORMANCE PERIOD) as set forth in the Executive Long Term Incentive Plan






The number of shares that vest will be determined based on the Company meeting or exceeding the performance metrics outlined in the Executive Long-Term Incentive Plan.


LTI PERFORMANCE SHARE UNIT (PSU) GRANT


In addition to the PSO grant outlined above, you are also the recipient of a performance-based award of _______ performance stock units (PSUs), subject to the terms and conditions in the 2008 Omnibus Incentive Plan, the Executive Long-Term Incentive Plan and the Performance Stock Unit Agreement.  This award may result in shares of the Company's common stock being granted and vested, if the Company meets or exceeds the performance metrics outlined in the Executive Long-Term Incentive Plan.  Please note that the Company may settle all or a portion of the shares underlying the PSUs by the payment of cash as outlined in the Executive Long-Term Incentive Plan.


These PSOs and PSUs are granted and awarded, respectively, under and governed by the terms and conditions of the Company's 2008 Omnibus Incentive Plan, as amended, the Performance Stock Option Agreement, the Performance Stock Unit Agreement, and the Executive Long-Term Incentive Plan, all of which are attached and made a part of this document. 


Advanced Energy Industries, Inc.
STATE of North Carolina v. Lamar Emanuel BROWN

No. COA18-356

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: October 2, 2018

NO ERROR.
#### Clellan TYSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 2D02-5462.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Aug. 22, 2003.

*429PER CURIAM.

Clellan Tyson appeals the denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm because Tyson’s motion was facially insufficient.

In his motion, Tyson alleged that his sentencing guidelines scoresheet included seven prior convictions which had been “either dismissed or dropped” and that a corrected scoresheet would dictate a lower sentence. The State responded to the motion and submitted, as exhibits to its response, copies of judgments and sentences entered in some of the challenged cases to support the points scored for prior record. The exhibits were not a part of the trial court record in the proceeding in which the challenged sentence was imposed. The trial court relied upon the exhibits submitted by the State as the basis for denying Tyson’s motion on its merits. The merit of a rule 3.800(a) motion to correct a sentence can, however, be determined only by reference to the record of the proceedings in which the challenged sentence was imposed. It was thus inappropriate for the trial court to consider the extraneous records submitted by the State.

The trial court’s denial of Tyson’s motion was nonetheless correct-albeit not for the reasons articulated by the trial court. Tyson’s motion was facially insufficient because it did not “affirmatively allege!] that the court records [in the instant proceeding] demonstrate on their face an entitlement to th[e] relief’ sought. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(a). The trial court should have denied the motion on the basis of that facial insufficiency.

Ordinarily, the type of error raised by Tyson will not be apparent on the face of the record and therefore will not be a basis for relief under rule 3.800(a). *See Lomont v. State,*506 So.2d 1141, 1141-42 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (holding that trial court properly denied defendant’s motion asserting claim that prior felonies of which he was not convicted were improperly included in guidelines scoresheet computation because “the error complained of would require an evidentiary determination”); *cf. McCullough v. State,*777 So.2d 1091, 1091 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (holding that rule 3.800(a) motion alleging improperly calculated scoresheet was cognizable because motion “alleged that the error [could] be determined from a review of [the] presentence investigation report contained in the court record”).

Because we conclude that Tyson’s motion was facially insufficient and that he is therefore not entitled to relief in this instance, we affirm the denial of his motion. Affirmed.

FULMER, DAVIS, and CANADY, JJ., Concur.
<PAGE>
Exhibit 23



                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Registration Nos. 33-97586, 33-97588 and 333-71453) of
our report dated February 08, 2002, relating to the consolidated balance sheets
of Western Ohio Financial Corporation as of December 31, 2001 and 2000 and the
related consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income, changes in
shareholders' equity and cash flows for each of the three years in the period
ended December 31, 2001, which report is incorporated by reference in the
Company's annual report on form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002.



/s/ Crowe, Chizek and Company LLP


Columbus, Ohio
March 25, 2001
Denied in part; Dismissed in part; Opinion Filed April 16, 2013.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-13-00436-CV

IN RE BABU S. KALLUVILAYIL, Relator

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F91-00956-TH

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices FitzGerald, Lang, and Myers 

Opinion by Justice Lang

Relator filed this petition for writ of mandamus complaining that the district clerk 

mishandled certain motions he filed and that the trial court has failed to rule on those motions. 

The facts and issues are well-known to the parties, so we need not recite them herein. This Court 

does not have mandamus jurisdiction over the Dallas County District Clerk. See TEX. GOV’T 

CODE ANN. § 22.221 (West 2004). Accordingly, we DISMISS the petition to the extent it seeks 

relief against the clerk. We otherwise DENY relator’s petition for failure to show entitlement to 

the relief requested. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a); Simon v. Levario, 306 S.W.3d 318, 320-21 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (orig. proceeding).

130436F.P05 /Douglas S. Lang/

DOUGLAS S. LANG

JUSTICE
Karen CECCHETTINI v. Thomas CECCHETTINI

No. 50P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 14, 2018

R. Hayes Hofler, III, Attorney at Law, for Cecchettini, Thomas.

D. Caldwell Barefoot, Jr., Attorney at Law, Mariana G. Russell, Attorney at Law, Tobias S. Hampson, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Cecchettini, Karen.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 20th of February 2018 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 14th of August 2018."