alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LEROY STAFFORD

No. 8030SC319

(Filed 16 September 1980)

Criminal Law § 161- necessity for exceptions and assignments of error

Defendant violated App. R. 10(b) and (c) by failing to set forth any exceptions following the judicial action of which he complains and by failing to base his assignments of error on proper exceptions.

Appeal by defendant from *Friday, Judge.*Judgment entered 9 November 1979 in Superior Court, Haywood County. Heard in the Court of Appeals at Waynesville on 27 August 1980.

*Attorney General Edmisten, by Special Deputy Attorney General Thomas F. Moffitt, for the State.*

*John I. Jay for defendant appellant.*

HILL, Judge.

*741Defendant has violated App. R. 10(b) and (c) by failing to set forth any exceptions following the judicial action of which he complains and by failing to base his assignments of error on proper exceptions. Exceptions not preserved and set forth as required by the Appellate Rules are deemed abandoned. The Rules of Appellate Procedure are mandatory. *Craver v. Craver,*298 N.C. 231, 258 S.E. 2d 357 (1979); *State v. Brown,*42 N.C. App. 724, 257 S.E. 2d 668 (1979), *disc. rev. denied,*299 N.C. 123 (1980).

We have carefully examined the record on appeal in light of the provisions of Appellate Rule 2,.which permits this Court on its own initiative to vary or waive the rules to prevent manifest injustice. We find the State’s evidence of the defendant’s guilt to be substantial, and we find waiver of the rules in this case is not warranted.

For the reasons stated above, the appeal is

Dismissed.

Judges Clark and Martin (Harry C.) concur.
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  Annual  Report of  Dynadapt  Systems,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending April 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report").  I, Wesley
Whiting,  CEO of the  company,  certify,  pursuant  to 18 USC Section  1350,  as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that to the
best of my knowledge and belief.

        (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/ Wesley Whiting
                                         --------------------------------
                                         Wesley Whiting, CEO

Dated:  December 8, 2004
**EXHIBIT 31.2****SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION**I, Robert M. Neumeister, Jr., certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Dex Media, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors or (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’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 havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: August 4, 2005 /s/ Robert M. Neumeister, Jr.   Robert M. Neumeister, Jr.   Executive Vice President andChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SCREEN ACTORS GUILD-AMERICAN

FEDERATION OF TELEVISION AND

RADIO ARTISTS,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 13-56402

D.C. No. 2:11-cv-07123-DMGVBK

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Dolly M. Gee, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted October 22, 2015

Pasadena, California

Before: RAWLINSON and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges and PONSOR,

** Senior

District Judge.

 

Screen Actors Guild - American Federation of Radio and Television Artists

(SAG) appeals the district court’s decision denying its motion for summary

FILED

JAN 15 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The Honorable Michael A. Ponsor, Senior District Judge for the U.S.

District Court for Massachusetts, sitting by designation.
judgment and granting defendant-Appellee Federal Insurance Company’s (Federal)

motion for summary judgment. Because SAG has not identified a covered Loss for

which Federal breached its duty to indemnify, SAG’s claims for breach of contract

and for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing fail. See Davis v.

Farmers Ins. Grp., 134 Cal. App. 4th 100, 105 (2005) (explaining that “[t]he first

step in any insurance coverage dispute is to determine whether the insuring

provisions of the policy afforded coverage for the alleged losses”).

SAG is not entitled to coverage based solely on a claim for attorney’s fees

untethered to any insurable Loss. See Health Net, Inc. v. RLI Ins. Co., 206 Cal.

App. 4th 232, 257 (2012) (holding that “the claim for attorney’s fees is covered

only to the extent it arises out of the covered wrongful acts.”) Under California

law, a pre-existing obligation is not a covered loss. See August Entm’t, Inc. v.

Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co., 146 Cal. App. 4th 565, 578 (2007). As SAG

admittedly had a pre-existing obligation to pay the foreign levy funds to the state

court plaintiffs, SAG’s failure to honor that obligation is not a covered Loss as a

matter of law. See id. Accordingly, SAG is not entitled to coverage for the

$330,000.00 in attorney’s fees assessed against SAG in the state court case,

because the award was based on the state court plaintiffs’ success in securing

payment of the pre-existing obligation. See Health Net, 206 Cal. App. 4th at 257

2
(emphasizing that “[c]overage cannot be bootstrapped based solely on a claim for

attorney’s fees”). 

AFFIRMED.

3
Opinion issued December 1 4 , 2017

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 1 7
- 00 7 1 0
- CV

——————————— SUDERMAN CONTRACTING STEVEDORES, INC. AND GEORGE

ALDRIDGE , Appellant s

V . VICTOR FERRUFINO , Appellee

On Appeal from the 2 1 5 th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 201 6
- 1 34 98
MEMORANDUM OPINION A ppellant s , Suderman Contracting Stevedores, Inc. and George Aldridge, and appellee, Victor Ferrufino , h a ve filed a “ Joint Motion to Set Aside the Trial Court ’s Judgment and to Remand the Cause to the Trial Court for Entry of a Take

- Nothing Judgment

. ” The parties state that they have settled the case and have agreed to move2

to set aside the trial court’s judgment in this case , remand for rendition of judgment in accordance with the parties’ agreement, with appellate costs to be taxed against the party incurring the same

. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.1(a)(2)(B) , (d)

. N o other party has filed a notice of appeal and no opinion has issued

. See id. 42.1 (a)(1), (c). Accordingly, we grant the joint motion , set aside the trial court’s judgment without regard to the merits, remand this cause to the trial court for rendition of take

nothing judgment in accordance with the parties’ s ettlement a greement , and dismiss this appeal

. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.1(a)(2)(B) , 43.2(e) . We sua sponte direct the Clerk to issue the mandate within ten days of this opinion

. See id. 18.1(c). We dismiss any other pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Keyes , Brown, and L l oyd

.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Boardof Directors 

Regency Centers Corporation: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 333-930, No. 333-52089, No. 333 -44724, No. 333-114567, No. 333-125858, and No. 333-125913) on Forms S-3 and (No.333-134286, No. 333-149856, and No. 333-158635) on Form S-3ASR and (No. 333-127274-1) on Form S-4 and (No. 333-24971, No. 333-55062, No. 333-125857, and No. 333-149872) on Forms S-8 of RegencyCenters Corporation and (No. 333 -149856) on Form S-3ASR and (No. 333-127274) on Form S-4 of Regency Centers, L.P. of our reports dated February 26, 2010, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Regency CentersCorporation as of December 31, 2009 and 2008, and the related consolidated statements of operations, equity and comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2009, and relatedfinancial statement schedule, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2009, which reports appear in the December 31, 2009 annual report on Form 10-K of Regency Centers Corporation andRegency Centers, L.P. 

Our report dated February 26, 2010 refers to a change in the method of accounting for noncontrolling interests in2009.
**Exhibit 32.02****Pharma Services Intermediate Holding Corp.****Certification Pursuant To****18 U.S.C. Section 1350,****As Adopted Pursuant to****Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**In connection with the Quarterly Report of Pharma ServicesIntermediate Holding Corp. (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, John D. Ratliff,Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of theCompany certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, to my knowledge, that:     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended; and     (2) The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.     /s/ John D. Ratliff       John D. Ratliff *Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer*Date  November 14, 2005This Certification is being furnished solely to accompany theReport pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,and shall not be deemed “filed” by the Company forpurposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended, and shall not be incorporated by referenceinto any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933,as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,whether made before or after the date of this Report,irrespective of any general incorporation language contained insuch filing.A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staffupon request.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6941

In Re: RONALD ERIC MARSHALL,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(1:04-cv-00465-BEL)

Submitted: January 31, 2007 Decided: March 5, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald Eric Marshall, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Ronald Eric Marshall has filed a petition for writ of

mandamus in which he alleges that the district court has unduly

delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The

government filed a response noting that the district court has now

entered a final order denying relief on Marshall’s § 2255 motion.

In light of the district court’s action, we deny Marshall’s

mandamus petition, as well as his motion to expedite, as moot. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4887 Engrossed in House (EH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4887

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to ensure that health 
 coverage provided by the Department of Defense is treated as minimal 
                          essential coverage.

    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 ``TRICARE Affirmation Act''.

SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE HEALTH COVERAGE AS MINIMAL 
              ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.

    (a) In General.--Section 5000A(f)(1)(A) of the Internal Revenue 
Code of 1986, as added by section 1501(b) of the Patient Protection and 
Affordable Care Act, is amended--
            (1) by striking clause (iv) and inserting the following new 
        clause:
                            ``(iv) medical coverage under chapter 55 of 
                        title 10, United States Code, including 
                        coverage under the TRICARE program;'';
            (2) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (v);
            (3) by striking the period at the end of clause (vi) and 
        inserting ``; or''; and
            (4) by inserting after clause (vi) the following new 
        clause:
                            ``(vii) the Nonappropriated Fund Health 
                        Benefits Program of the Department of Defense, 
                        established under section 349 of the National 
                        Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 
                        (Public Law 103-337; 10 U.S.C. 1587 note).''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall take 
effect as if included in section 1501(b) of the Patient Protection and 
Affordable Care Act and shall be executed immediately after the 
amendments made by such section 1501(b).

            Passed the House of Representatives March 20, 2010.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
111th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4887

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to ensure that health 
 coverage provided by the Department of Defense is treated as minimal 
                          essential coverage.
```
Krista RAGSDALE, Guardian Ad Litem for Alec Seeburger v. Dr. John M. WHITLEY and Cumberland County Hospital System, Inc., D/B/A Cape Fear Valley Health System

No. 38P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 14, 2018

Coy E. Brewer, Jr., Allen W. Rogers, Fayetteville, Attorneys at Law, for Ragsdale, Krista GAL for Alec Seeburger

Patrick M. Meacham, Michael Joseph Crook, Catherine R.L. Lawson, Attorneys at Law, Raleigh, for Whitley, John M. (Dr.), et al.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 5th of February 2018 by Defendants 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."
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

BAINET PIERRE-LOUIS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D18-806

[September 27, 2018]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; John S. Kastrenakes, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 502009CF003621A.

Bainet Pierre-Louis, Indiantown, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Melynda L. 

Melear, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GERBER, C.J., WARNER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

* * *

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

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-40084

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LORENZO TORRES-KARACOSA

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:07-CR-863-ALL

Before KING, BARKSDALE, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Lorenzo TorresKaracosa has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Torres-Karacosa has not

responded. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses

no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 22, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-40084

2

withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein,

and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
#### In the Matter of Frank Rodriguez, Appellant, v City of Yonkers et al., Respondents.

[719 NYS2d 872]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent City of Yonkers terminating the petitioner’s employment as an environmental maintenance worker due to excessive absences, effective March 16, 1999, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Fredman, J.), entered June 6, 2000, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding as time-barred.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

“[T]he gravamen of the [petitioner’s] claim, that he was fired by the city without notice of the charges, a hearing, or other due process, presents the classic formulation of an article 78 proceeding and ‘whether the determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by error of law or was arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion’ (CPLR 7803 [3])” *(Foster v City of New York,*157 AD2d 516, 518). Since this proceeding was commenced more than four months after the determination was rendered and finalized, it is time-barred and must be dismissed *(see, Kowalczyk v Ricci,*269 AD2d 865; *Broderick v Board of Educ.,*253 AD2d 836; *Vanmaenen v Hewlett-Woodmere Pub. Schools,*226 AD2d 151).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Krausman, J. P., S. Miller, Luciano and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.
STATE of North Carolina v. Johnny BECKER, Jr., Defendant.

No. COA17-1311

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 7, 2018

NO ERROR.
<PAGE>   1
EXHIBIT 21.1


                  SUBSIDIARIES OF AAi.FOSTERGRANT, INC. ("AAI")

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           NAME OF SUBSIDIARY              JURISDICTION OF ORGANIZATION               SHAREHOLDER
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<S>                                                 <C>                         <C>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Grant Holdings, Inc. ("Holdings")            Delaware                    Common - AAi/Preferred - Bolle, Inc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fantasma, LLC                                       Delaware                    AAi
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AAi.FosterGrant of Canada Co.                       Nova Scotia, Canada         AAi
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vendome Accessories Limited                         Nova Scotia, Canada         51% -- AAi.FosterGrant of Canada, Co.
                                                                                49% -- Place Vendome Accessories, Inc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AAi.FosterGrant Limited                             United Kingdom              AAi
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AAi/JOSKE's, S. de R.L. de C.V.                     Mexico                      75% -- AAi
                                                                                25% -- Joske's de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
</TABLE>