alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Francis X. DE LUCA and the New Hanover County Board of Education v. Josh STEIN, in His Capacity as Attorney General of the State of North Carolina and North Carolina Coastal Federation and Sound Rivers, Inc., Intervenors

No. 339A18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 30, 2019

Paul Stam, Attorney at Law, Apex, R. Daniel Gibson, Attorney at Law, For The New Hanover County Board Of Education

Amy O'Neal, Attorney at Law, For De Luca, Francis X., et al

Jennie Wilhelm Hauser, Special Deputy Attorney General

Mary MacLean Asbill, Attorney at Law, Brooks Rainey Pearson, Attorney at Law, Blakely E. Hildebrand, Attorney at Law, For North Carolina Coastal Federation, et al.

Marc Bernstein, Special Deputy Attorney General, Matthew W. Sawchak, Solicitor General, James W. Doggett, Deputy Solicitor General, Matt Burke, Solicitor General Fellow, For Stein, Josh (Attorney General)

Lindsey Vance Smith, Attorney at Law, Deborah R. Stagner, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Allison Schafter, Attorney at Law, For N.C. School Boards Association

Allison B. Schafer, Legal Counsel/Director of Policy

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition for discretionary review, filed by Intervenors on the 19th of October 2018 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 and the Appellate Rule 16(b) as to issues in addition to those presented as the basis for the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the petition for discretionary review as to additional issues is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 30th of January 2019."

Accordingly, the new brief of the Intervenors shall be filed with this Court not more than 30 days from the date of certification of this order.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999             JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999             JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           7,015                   7,015
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,538                  16,538
<ALLOWANCES>                                       251                     251
<INVENTORY>                                      5,109                   5,109
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                29,295                  29,295
<PP&E>                                          24,245                  24,245
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,734                   5,734
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 213,579                 213,579
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,442                  14,442
<BONDS>                                        146,000                 146,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                      49,797                  49,797
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   213,579                 213,579
<SALES>                                         16,988                  85,967
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                16,988                  85,967
<CGS>                                           11,291                  55,199
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,291                  55,199
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   114                     240
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,237                  16,740
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,870)                 (5,456)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,021)                   (340)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,849)                 (5,116)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,849)                 (5,116)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0




</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 6, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-30325

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GERALD BURRELL, also known as Gerald Floyd,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:04-CR-116-ALL

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

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges,

PER CURIAM:*

Gerald Burrell appeals his conviction of possession of a

firearm by a convicted felon. He argues that the district court

erred by departing upwardly based on his criminal history,

pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(a)(1), p.s., and that the district

court erred by denying him a downward adjustment for acceptance

of responsibility.

Regardless whether the district court relied in part on

criminal episodes that should not have been considered, at least

one episode that did not result in a conviction was properly
No. 06-30325

-2-

considered in the upward departure decision. Nothing in the

record suggests that the district court would have imposed

anything less than the maximum sentence allowed by the sentencing

range that resulted from its conservative method of determining

an appropriate range. See Williams v. United States, 503 U.S.

193, 203 (1992). The decision to depart upwardly was not an

abuse of discretion, see United States v. Simkanin, 420 F.3d 397,

416 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1911 (2006), and

the resulting sentence was reasonable. See United States v.

Smith, 417 F.3d 483, 490 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 713

(2005).

Burrell engaged in criminal conduct while on pretrial

release. The district court did not err by denying him a

downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. See United

States v. Hooten, 942 F.2d 878, 883 (5th Cir. 1991).

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification

I, Naj Allana, certify, pursuant to Rule 13(a)-14(b) or Rule 15(d)-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, that (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MMR Information Systems, Inc. for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2009 fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in such
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of MMR Information
Systems, Inc.

|              
|--------------
|/s/ Naj Allana
|Name:         
|Title:        
|Date:         

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and is not being "filed" as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document for purposes of Section
18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), or otherwise subject to liability under that section. This
certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Exchange Act except to the extent that this Exhibit 32.1 is expressly and specifically incorporated by reference in any such filing.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
Exhibit
13.2







CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 USC. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002






I, V. Balakrishnan,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report on Form 20-F of
Infosys Technologies Limited for the year ended March 31, 2010 fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, and that information contained in such Annual Report on
Form 20-F fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and
results of operations of Infosys Technologies Limited.






Date: April 30,
2010






/s/ V.
BALAKRISHNAN




V.
Balakrishnan


Chief
Financial Officer
#### Thomas A. Walker, plaintiff in error, *vs.*Albert M. Rixey, defendant in error.

It is error for the Court to charge the jury upon an assumed state of facts not disclosed by the evidence in the case.

For the necessary facts, see the opinion.

Underwood & Rowell *;*Printup & Fohche, for plaintiff in error.

Wright & Featherston ; Smith & Branham, for defendant.

*29Warner, Judge.

This was an action by the plaintiff against the defendant on three promissory notes for the sum of $16,498 00 for the rent of a plantation in the State of Alabama, two of said notes due 25th December, 1867, and the other due 25th December, 1868. The notes were signed by the defendant and Porter, who rented the plantation, as partners, for three years. After working the plantation one year, Rixey, the defendant, came to this State, and one of the main grounds of defense was that the plaintiff had evicted the defendant from the plantation after the first year, and had cultivated the same in conjunction with Porter, the other partner, for the .remaining two years. The evidence in the record is quite voluminous, and conflicting in relation to some questions involved in it. On the trial of the case the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for the sum of $500 00 only. A motion was made for a new trial on several grounds, one of which was that the Court erred in charging the jury at the request of defendant’s counsel, that *“*If the evidence shows that plaintiff and Porter have colluded together, and have taken possession of the farm, and have excluded Rixey the defendant from participation in its management, then Rixey is discharged from liability from the time of such collusion and eviction, and the jury may consider how the cotton raised on the place was marked, how the crops were made, who controled the crops, who made advances, in determining this question.” The Court overruled the motion for ^ new trial, and the plaintiff excepted. In our judgment, the Court below erred in charging the jury in relation to the plaintiff having colluded with Porter to take possession of the farm and excluding the defendant from participation in the management of it, inasmuch as there is no evidence in the record of such collusion to authorize the charge as given. Not being satisfied with the verdict rendered in this case from the evidence disclosed in the record, we reverse the judgment *30of the Court below for error in the foregoing charge of the Court to the jury, and order a new trial.

Judgment reversed.
lvex103.htm






  





  


 





  








AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE ADVISORY AGREEMENT


 


This AMENDMENT NO. 1 dated as of the 24th day of January 2013 to the ADVISORY AGREEMENT made as of the 30th day of April, 2007, among CERES MANAGED FUTURES LLC (formerly Demeter Management Corporation), a Delaware limited liability company (the “Trading Manager”), MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY CHESAPEAKE DIVERSIFIED I, LLC (formerly Morgan Stanley Managed Futures Chesapeake I, LLC), a Delaware limited liability company (the “Trading Company”) and CHESAPEAKE CAPITAL CORPORATION,  an Illinois corporation (the “Trading Advisor”).


 







 


W I T N E S S E T H:


 


WHEREAS, the Trading Manager, the Trading Company and the Trading Advisor wish to amend the Advisory Agreement to reflect a change in the Trading Advisor’s management fee compensation (from 2% per year to 1% per year).


 


NOW, therefore, the parties agree as follows:


 


1. The first sentence of Section 5(a)(i) shall be deleted and replaced by the following:


 


(i)           The Trading Company shall pay the Trading Advisor a monthly management fee equal to 1/12 of 1% (a 1% annual rate) of the Net Assets (as defined in Section 5(c) hereof) as of the first day of each month (the “Management Fee”).


 


2. The effective date of this Amendment shall be January 1, 2013.


 


3. In all other respects the Advisory Agreement remains unchanged and of full force and effect.


 




  





  











  






IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed for and on behalf of the undersigned as of the day and year first above written.


 


CERES MANAGED FUTURES LLC












By /s/ Walter Davis


Walter Davis


President







MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY CHESAPEAKE DIVERSIFIED I, LLC 







By:  Ceres Managed Futures LLC


(Trading Manager)












By /s/ Walter Davis


Walter Davis


President












CHESAPEAKE CAPITAL CORPORATION












By /s/ Rick Rusin


Rick Rusin


Chief Operating Officer




















- 2 -
Order entered November 16 , 2022

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05 - 21 - 00935 - CV IN THE INTEREST OF G.K., A CHILD On Appeal from the 330th Jud icial District Court

Dalla s County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF - 19 - 16123

O RDER On the Court ’ s own motio n, this case is removed from submission on December 13, 2022. The case will be reset for submission in due course.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
REQUIRED BY RULE 13a-14(b) or RULE 15d-14(b)
AND SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
  (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 result of operations of the Company.
 /s/ JOHN A BUTLERJohn A. ButlerChief Financial Officer
Clearwire CorporationMay 15, 2007
H. R. 4861 

One Hundred Eleventh Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the fifth day of January, two thousand and ten 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1343 West 

Irving Park Road in Chicago, Illinois, as the ‘‘Steve Goodman Post Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. STEVE GOODMAN POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 1343 West Irving Park Road in Chicago, Illinois, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Steve Goodman Post Office 

Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Steve Goodman Post Office Building’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
<PAGE>

         AMENDMENT No. 2, dated as of August 30, 1999, to WARRANT AGREEMENT
dated as of September 15, 1998, as previously amended by Amendment No. 1 dated
as of December 18, 1998 (the "Original Agreement"), between Insignia Financial
Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation formerly known as Insignia/ESG Holdings,
Inc. (the "Corporation"), and APTS V, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability
company ("APTS"), providing for the issuance of warrants to purchase 51,944
shares of common stock, par value $.01 per share, of the Corporation.

         WHEREAS, the Corporation and APTS desire to extend the Expiration Date
(as defined in the Original Agreement) of the Warrants provided for in the
Original Agreement;

         NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:

         1. Terms used herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Original
Agreement, unless otherwise defined herein.

         2. The Expiration Date of the Warrants is hereby extended from
September 1, 1999 to September 15, 1999.

         3. Except as set forth in this Amendment No. 2, the Original Agreement
is hereby ratified and conformed in all respects.

         4. Any Warrant Certificate evidencing Warrants need not be amended to
reflect the change in Expiration Date provided for herein in order to give full
effect to such change.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment No. 2
to the Original Warrant Agreement to be duly executed and delivered by their
proper and duly authorized officers, as of the date and year first above
written.

                                 INSIGNIA FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.

                                 By: /s/ Adam B. Gilbert
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     Name:  Adam B. Gilbert
                                     Title: Executive Vice President

                                 APTS V, L.L.C.
                                 By: APTS Partners, L.P., the managing member
                                 By: APTS GP Partner, L.P., its general partner
                                 By: APTS Acquisition Corporation, its general
                                       partner

                                 By: /s/ John R. S. Jacobsson
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     Name:  John R. S. Jacobsson
                                     Title: Vice President
H. R. 4938 

One Hundred Eleventh Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the fifth day of January, two thousand and ten 

An Act 

To permit the use of previously appropriated funds to extend the Small Business 

Loan Guarantee Program, and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF SMALL BUSINESS LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM. 

(a) AUTHORITY TO USE FUNDS.—Up to $40,000,000 of the 

amount made available under the heading ‘‘Small Business 

Administration—Business Loans Program Account’’ in title V of 

division C of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (Public 

Law 111–117) also may be utilized for fee reductions and eliminations under section 501 of title V of division A of the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–5) and 

for the cost of guaranteed loans under section 502 of such title. 

Such costs, including the cost of modifying such loans, shall be 

as defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. 

(b) EXTENSION OF SUNSET DATE.—Section 502(f) of title V of 

division A of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 

2009 (Public Law 111–5) is amended by striking ‘‘March 28, 2010’’ 

and inserting ‘‘April 30, 2010’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
STATE of North Carolina v. Eric Wilson TAYLOR

No. 3P19

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 30, 2019

Sarah Holladay, Attorney at Law, for Taylor, Eric Wilson.

Kathryne E. Hathcock, Assistant Attorney General, Locke Bell, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 4th of January 2019 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Dissolved by order of the Court in conference, this the 30th of January 2019."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by State of NC on the 4th of January 2019 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 30th of January 2019."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 4th of January 2019 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 30th of January 2019."
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

EASTERN DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent 

 v. 

JASPER WASHINGTON, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 89 EM 2015 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 14th day of September, 2015, the Application for Leave to File 

Original Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4703 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4703

    To prohibit the further extension or establishment of national 
  monuments in California except by express authorization of Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 25, 2010

Mr. Herger (for himself, Mr. McClintock, Mr. McKeon, Mr. Gallegly, Mr. 
  Hunter, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. Campbell, and Mr. Daniel E. Lungren of 
 California) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To prohibit the further extension or establishment of national 
  monuments in California except by express authorization of Congress.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON FURTHER EXTENSION OR ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL 
              MONUMENTS IN CALIFORNIA.

    This proviso of the last sentence of the first section of the Act 
of September 14, 1950 (64 Stat. 849, chapter 950; 16 U.S.C. 431a), is 
amended by inserting ``or California'' after ``Wyoming''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>   1
                                                                 Exhibit 10.13


EXECUTIVE BONUS PLAN

     The Company maintains an Executive Bonus Plan for the purpose of providing
incentives in the form of an annual cash bonus to officers and other key
employees. Awards are equal to a percentage of base salaries specified in an
annual plan by reference to the Company's target for sales and net income.
Bonuses awarded to senior executives are equal to 50% of compensation if the
sales and income targets are met. If the targets are not met, the amount of the
bonuses, if any, is subject to the discretion of the Board of Directors.