alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE v. Joshua BOLEN

193P18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 25, 2018

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, C. Ricky Bowman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Joshua Bolen, for Bolen, Joshua.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 22nd of June 2018 by Defendant for Appropriate Relief:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 25th of June 2018."
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF**

**HOMEBANC CORP.**

**PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with HomeBanc Corp.’s (the “Company”) Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006 (the “Report”), I, Patrick S. Flood, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, do hereby 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. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 
| Date: August 9, 2006 | By:    | /s/ PATRICK S. FLOOD                   |
|----------------------|--------|----------------------------------------|
|                 |   | Patrick S. Flood                       |
|                 |   | *Chairman and Chief Executive Officer* |
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 12
                        PENNFED FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.
 
               COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                YEAR ENDED JUNE 30,
                                      ----------------------------------------
                                       1997    1996    1995    1994     1993
                                      ------- ------- ------- ------- --------
                                               (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
<S>                                   <C>     <C>     <C>     <C>     <C>
Earnings:
  Earnings before income tax
   expense........................... $11,091 $12,952 $ 9,561 $ 7,447 $  7,317
  Add: interest on borrowed funds....  12,901   5,520   1,522     789        1
                                      ------- ------- ------- ------- --------
  Earnings before fixed charges
   excluding interest on deposits....  23,992  18,472  11,083   8,236    7,318
  Interest on deposits...............  40,172  33,601  25,631  20,036   23,381
                                      ------- ------- ------- ------- --------
  Earnings before fixed charges...... $64,164 $52,073 $36,714 $28,272 $ 30,699
                                      ======= ======= ======= ======= ========
Fixed charges:
  Interest on borrowed funds......... $12,901 $ 5,520 $ 1,522 $   789 $      1
                                      ------- ------- ------- ------- --------
  Fixed charges excluding interest on
   deposits..........................  12,901   5,520   1,522     789        1
  interest on deposits...............  40,172  33,601  25,631  20,036   23,381
                                      ------- ------- ------- ------- --------
    Total fixed charges.............. $53,073 $39,121 $27,153 $20,825 $ 23,382
                                      ======= ======= ======= ======= ========
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
 excluding interest on deposits......   1.86x   3.35x   7.28x  10.44x 7318.00x
                                      ======= ======= ======= ======= ========
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
 including interest on deposits......   1.21x   1.33x   1.35x   1.36x    1.31x
                                      ======= ======= ======= ======= ========
</TABLE>
STATE of North Carolina v. Amia Smith ERVIN

No. 331P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 14, 2018

Mary McCullers Reece, Smithfield, Attorney at Law, For Ervin, Amia Smith

Narcisa Woods, Raleigh, Attorney at Law, N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, For State of North Carolina

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the conditional petition filed on the 3rd of November 2017 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of August 2018."
IN RE: Olander R. BYNUM

109P17-5

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 14, 2018

Olander R. Bynum, for Bynum, Olander R.

Joseph Finarelli, Special Deputy Attorney General, Ben R. David, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 25th of May 2018 by Petitioner for En Banc Consideration of Application for Writ of Mandamus:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of August 2018."
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15** 

**- 2508** 

In Re: MICHAEL DELL GRICE

,

Debtor

,

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

WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR.

,

Creditor

– Appellant

,

v.

MICHAEL DELL GRICE

,

Debtor,

CLARA P. SWANSON,

Trustee.

**No. 15** 

**- 2512** 

In Re: MICHAEL DELL GRICE

,

Debtor

,

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

WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR. , a/k/a William Scott Davis, II,

Creditor

– Appellant

,

v.

MICHAEL DELL GRICE

,

Debtor,2 CLARA P. SWANSON,

Trustee.

**No. 15** 

**- 2537** 

In Re: MICHAEL DELL GRICE

,

Debtor

,

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

WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR. , a/k/a William Scott Davis, II,

Creditor

– Appellant

,

v.

MICHAEL DELL GRICE

,

Debtor,

CLARA P. SWANSON,

Trustee.

**No. 15** 

**- 2538** 

In Re: MICHAEL DELL GRICE

,

Debtor

,

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

WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR. , a/k/a William Scott Davis, II,

Creditor

– Appellant

,

v.3 MICHAEL DELL GRICE

,

Debtor,

CLARA P. SWANSON,

Trustee.

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Newport News

. Rebecca Beach Smith

, Chief District Judge. ( 4:15

- cv

- 00059

- RBS

- DEM ; 4:15

- cv

- 00077

- RBS

- DEM )

Submitted : May 1 8 , 2016 Decided: July 5, 2016

Before SHEDD

, DIAZ , and HARRIS

, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

William Scott Davis, Jr. , Appellant Pro Se. Steve Clayton Taylor, LAW OFFICES OF STEVE C. TAYLOR, PC , Chesapeake, Virginia, for Debtor.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.4 PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, William Scott Davis, Jr.,

appeal s the district court’s orders affirming the bankruptcy

court’s orders returning several documents that Davis attempted

to file in a closed bankruptcy matter. W e have reviewed the

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for

the reasons stated by the district court. In re Grice , No.

4:15

- cv

- 00059

- RBS

- DEM (E.D. Va. filed Nov. 10 & entered Nov. 12,

2015); In re Grice

, No. 4:15

- cv

- 00077

- RBS

- DEM (E.D. Va. filed

Nov. 10 & entered Nov. 12, 2015). We deny Davis’ motion to

supplement and motions for appointment of counsel. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before this court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Edgar Beltran, Respondent, v Town of Oyster Bay, Appellant.

[719 NYS2d 285]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), dated March 13, 2000, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

General Municipal Law § 50-e (2) provides, *inter alia,*that a notice of claim shall set forth “the time when, the place where and the manner in which the claim arose.” The requirement that a notice of claim set forth the place where the claim arose is met when the notice describes the location with sufficient particularity to enable the defendant to locate the alleged defect and to conduct a meaningful investigation so as to assess the merits of the claim before conditions change and memories fade *(see, Thomas v Town of Oyster Bay,*190 AD2d 731; *Miles v City of New York,*173 AD2d 298, 299; *Caselli v City of New York,*105 AD2d 251). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the plaintiffs notice of claim complied with General Municipal Law § 50-e (2). Ritter, J. P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.
James E. PRICE v. Magistrate Donald PASCHALL and Magistrate Willis

James E. Price v. Magistrate D.C. Robinson

No. 210P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 14, 2018

James E. Price, For Price, James E.

Kathryn H. Shields, Assistant Attorney General, For Paschall, Donald (Magistrate), et al.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 9th of July 2018 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:

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

*387Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiff on the 9th of July 2018 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina 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."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 9th of July 2018 by Plaintiff to Proceed In Forma Pauperis:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of August 2018."
STATE of North Carolina, v. Gregory Garrison COLE, Defendant.

No. COA17-732

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 21, 2018

NO ERROR IN PART. REMANDED IN PART.
EXHIBIT 32.1
                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 13 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 Logica Holdings, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we,
Giuseppe Pino Baldassarre as Chief Executive Officer and Enzo Taddei as
Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 13 U.S.C.
Section 1350, 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.


Date: November 19, 2007




/s/ Giuseppe Pino Baldassarre
--------------------------------
Name: Giuseppe Pino Baldassarre
Chief Executive Officer





/s/ Enzo Taddei
--------------------------------
Name: Enzo Taddei
Chief Financial Officer
2001 OK JUD ETH 8.

#### JUDICIAL ETHICS OPINION 2001-8.

Oklahoma Judicial Ethics Advisory Panel.

Filed Oct. 1, 2001.

Modified Dec. 17, 2001.

T0 QUESTION 1: May a new elected or appointed judge continue to serve on a County Bar Association Professional Responsibility Committee which sereens ethical complaints against local lawyers for the General Counsel of the Oklahoma Bar Association?

11 SPECIFIC FACTS: The judge before appointment, served as a member of such committee; some of the lawyers the committee would sereen complaints against, would likely practice before the judge.

2 WE ANSWER: NO.

T3 Canon 2: "A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in all of the Judge's Activities.

1 4 Canon 2A: A judge should respect and comply with the law and act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary." (emphasis added)

*275T5 Canon 3D: "A judge should report to the appropriate disciplinary authority any unprofessional conduct of a judge or lawyer of which the judge may become aware."

T6 Canon 4A: "Extra-Judicial Activities in General. A judge should conduct all of the judge's extra-judicial activities so that they do not:

> 1. cast reasonable doubt on the judge's capacity to act impartially as a judge;

> 2. demean the judicial office; or

> interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties."

T7 Canon 4C(@B); "A judge may serve as an officer, director, trustee or non-legal ad-visor of an organization or governmental agency devoted to the improvement of the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice ..."

18 We agree with the Judicial Inquiry Commission of the State of Alabama, answering a similar inquiry, that while a sitting judge may generally continue to participate in a local bar organization after election, or appointment to the bench, and is in fact encouraged to do so by Canon 4, that to serve on a Professional Responsibility Committee which screens ethical complaints against members of the local bar, could easily cast doubt upon the judge's ability to decide cases involving such lawyers impartially as required by Canon 2A. Such participation could also conflict with the judge's responsibility under Canon 8D to report to the disciplinary authority, any unprofessional conduct by a lawyer of which the judge may have personal knowledge.

T 9 Robert L. Bailey, Chairman

Milton C. Craig, Secretary
CONLEYS CREEK LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a North Carolina Limited Partnership, and Marshall Cornblum, Plaintiffs and Michael Cornblum, Madeline Cornblum, M&D Creek, Inc., a North Carolina Corporation, Corndermay Partners, by and through its general partners, M&D Creek, Inc. and other unknown partners, and SMCC Clubhouse, LLC, a North Carolina Limited Liability Company, Counterclaim Defendant v. SMOKY MOUNTAIN COUNTRY CLUB PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., a North Carolina Nonprofit Corporation, Defendant, Counterclaimant

William Spute, Ronald Shulman, and Claudette Krizek, Defendants and Robert Young, Defendant in Counterclaim of SMCC Clubhouse

No. 366P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 5, 2018

William C. Robinson, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, James W. Kilbourne, Jr., Attorney at Law, Asheville, Dorothy M. Gooding, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Smoky Mountain Country Club Property Owners Association, Inc.

Katherine T. Armstrong, Attorney at Law, Charlotte.

Mark R. Sigmon, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for SMCC Clubhouse, LLC.

Robert E. Dungan, Attorney at Law, Asheville.

Sanford L. Steelman, Jr., Attorney at Law, James U. Downs, Senior Resident Judge, Forrest A. Ferrell, Attorney at Law, Hickory, for Conleys Creek Limited Partnership.

*597***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Plaintiff (Conleys Creek Limited Partnership) on the 26th of October 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 (Smoky Mountain Country Club Property Owners Association), 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 5th of April 2018."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 26th of October 2017 by Plaintiff (Conleys Creek Limited Partnership) 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 5th of April 2018."
STATE of North Carolina, v. Jonathan Adrian FULLER, Defendant.

No. COA17-495

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: July 3, 2018

NO ERROR.
# Official Journal C 35/29 J

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 35 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5929 January 2016 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 35

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5929 January 2016

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2016/C 035/1 | Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 December 2015 to 31 December 2015(Published pursuant to Article 13 or Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2016/C 035/1

Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 December 2015 to 31 December 2015(Published pursuant to Article 13 or Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council)

(Published pursuant to Article 13 or Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council)

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
ex10_2.htm








Exhibit 10.2








AMENDMENT No. 4 to the


PATENT AND TECHNOLOGY LICENSE AGREEMENT of July 26, 2010;


the AMENDMENT NO. 1 of December 2, 2011; the AMENDMENT NO. 2 of  April 5, 


2012; and the AMENDMENT No. 3 of December 17, 2012


 


This fourth amendment to the Patent and Technology License Agreement of July 26, 2010 (“Agreement”) as amended by Amendment No.1 of December 2, 2011; Amendment No. 2 of April 5, 2012; and Amendment No. 3 of December 17, 2012 (“Previous Amendments”) is by and between Quick-Med Technologies, Inc., a Nevada corporation having offices at 902 NW Fourth Street, Gainesville, Florida 32601 (“QMT”) and Viridis BioPharma Pvt. Ltd., an India corporation having offices at 6/10 Jogani Industrial Complex, V.N. Purav Marg, Chunabatti, Mumbai – 400022 India (“VIRIDIS”) (each singularly a “Party” and collectively the “Parties”).







WHEREAS, the Parties agree to amend the Patent and Technology License Agreement of July 26, 2010, as amended by the Previous Amendments, to extend the Initial Term provided for under section 11.1.







NOW, THEREFORE, as provided in section 13.7 of the Agreement, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree that section 11.1 of the Agreement as amended by the Previous Amendments is hereby further amended, retroactive to the Effective Date of the Agreement, to read as follows.







All other sections of the Agreement as amended by the Previous Amendments remain in force as previously stated.







11. Term and Termination.







11.1 Term. Unless terminated sooner as provided in this Section 11, the Initial Term of this Agreement shall extend from the Effective Date of July 26, 2010 for a period equal to four (4) years from the Effective Date (the “Initial Term”); provided, however, that the Initial Term shall further extend to March 31, 2018, in the event that by June 30, 2013 VIRIDIS shall have achieved a First Commercial Sale of a NIMBUS gauze product, in the field in the Territory.  The Parties agree to share and discuss market information during the term, to consider mutually acceptable performance requirements for a follow-on agreement, and to negotiate in good faith an extension or follow-on agreement at or before the expiration of the Initial Term. If the parties are unable to reach agreement and execute a mutually satisfactory follow-on agreement at or before the expiration of the Initial Term, a one (1) year extension will be granted solely for the purpose of servicing VIRIDIS’ existing customers at the time of the expiration of the Initial Term.









  





  











  






 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized representatives as of July 26, 2010.








	  	
VIRIDIS BIOPHARMA PVT.LTD


	  	  	  
	  	By:	 	 
	  	  	  
	  	
Date:

	 





 



	  	
QUICK-MED TECHNOLOGIES, INC.


	  	  	  
	  	By:	 	 
	 	 	
Bernd Liesenfeld


	 	 	
President


	  	  	  
	  	
Date:
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4664 

To amend the method by which the Social Security Administration determines 

the validity of marriages under title II of the Social Security Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 15, 2014 

Mr. KIND (for himself, Ms. SCHWARTZ, and Ms. ESTY) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the method by which the Social Security Administration determines the validity of marriages under title 

II of the Social Security Act. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Social Security and 

5 Marriage Equality Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DETERMINATION OF VALID MARRIAGE UNDER THE 

7 SOCIAL SECURITY ACT. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 216(h)(1)(A)(i) of the So9 cial Security Act (42 U.S.C. 416(h)(1)(A)(i)) is amended 

10 by striking ‘‘is domiciled’’ and all that follows through 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 4664 IH

1 ‘‘the District of Columbia,’’ and inserting ‘‘and such appli2 cant were married (or, if such insured individual and such 

3 applicant were not married in any State but were validly 

4 married in another jurisdiction, the courts of any State)’’. 

5 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

6 this section shall apply to all final determinations of family 

7 status made after June 26, 2013. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS