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



CERTIFICATE OF
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
OF
AMERICAN CELLULAR CORPORATION
  a.
    
    complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and thatb.
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of
the Company at December 31, 2005, and the results of the Companys operations for the year ended December 31,
2005.
 March 15, 2006
    /s/ BRUCE R. KNOOIHUIZENBruce R. KnooihuizenExecutive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
and principal financial officer
Natasha SPENCER, Plaintiff, v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendant.

No. COA18-629

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 18, 2018

Law Office of Jonathan R. Miller, PLLC, d/b/a Salem Community Law Office, by Jonathan R. Miller, for plaintiff-appellant.

Smith Debnam Narron Drake Saintsing & Myers, LLP, by Caren D. Enloe and Zachary K. Dunn, Raleigh, for defendant-appellee.

STROUD, Judge.

*220Plaintiff appeals from an interlocutory order compelling arbitration. Because plaintiff has not demonstrated that a substantial right would be lost if her appeal is not heard, we dismiss.

On 23 January 2018, the trial court granted defendant's motion to compel arbitration. Plaintiff concedes that

> [t]his precise question of the appealability of an order compelling arbitration has previously been decided by a different panel of this Court in *The Bluffs, Inc. v. Wysocki* , 68 N.C. App. 284, 314 S.E.2d 291 (1984). This Court in *The Bluffs* held that an order compelling arbitration was interlocutory and did not affect a substantial right. We find the reasoning in *The Bluffs* persuasive and its holding dispositive of the case before us. Further, we are bound by it as precedent.

*N. Carolina Elec. Membership Corp. v. Duke Power Co.* , 95 N.C. App. 123, 127, 381 S.E.2d 896, 898 (1989).

The only argument plaintiff raises to distinguish this case from *N. Carolina Elec. Membership Corp.* is that it arose from an arbitration under the Revised Uniform Arbitration Act ("NC-RUAA"), but this case arises under the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"). But our prior cases have not relied upon any unique feature of the NC-RUAA. *See, e.g.,**N. Carolina Elec. Membership Corp.* , 95 N.C. App. 123, 381 S.E.2d 896. Plaintiff has not presented any single reason why an order for arbitration under the FAA would raise a substantial right but the NC-RUAA does not. Like the NC-RUAA, the FAA also normally does not allow interlocutory appeal of an order compelling arbitration.1 The hardships *221plaintiff argues here are the same as those of a party appealing an arbitration order under the NC-RUAA. Plaintiff has not identified any provision of the FAA which would make immediate review necessary. We see no reason, nor does plaintiff raise any substantive reason, why *741the substantial right analysis would be any different under the FAA versus the NC-RUAA.

Accordingly, we dismiss this interlocutory appeal.

DISMISSED.

Judges DIETZ and MURPHY concur.

1

"(b) Except as otherwise provided in section 1292(b) of title 28, an appeal may not be taken from an interlocutory order-(1) granting a stay of any action under section 3 of this title; (2) directing arbitration to proceed under section 4 of this title; (3) compelling arbitration under section 206 of this title; or (4) refusing to enjoin an arbitration that is subject to this title." 9 U.S.C.A. § 16 (West 2009).
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                  STATE OF            NAMES UNDER WHICH
SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT                     INCORPORATION           THEY DO BUSINESS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                              <C>             <C> 
Star Publishing Company                           AZ              The Arizona Daily Star
Pulitzer Technologies, Inc.                       MO              POSTnet 
News Information, Inc.                            DE                  N/A
WEJ Investment Company                            MO                  N/A
Pulitzer Ventures, Inc.                           DE                  N/A
Lerner Newspapers, Inc.                           DE                  N/A
Pulitzer Community Newspapers, Inc. and its       
  wholly-owned subsidiaries:                      DE              The Daily Herald
     PCN Service Company                          NV                  N/A
     Hanford Sentinel, Inc.                       WA              The Hanford Sentinel
     Pulitzer Missouri Newspapers, Inc.           DE              Daily Press Leader
     Napa Valley Publishing Company               WA              The Napa Valley Register
     Flagstaff Publishing Company                 WA              The Arizona Daily Sun
     Santa Maria Times, Inc.                      NV              Santa Maria Times
     Troy Daily News, Inc.                        OH              Troy Daily News
     Sonoma-Marin Publishing Company              DE              Argus-Courier
     Kauai Publishing Company                     DE              The Garden Island
     Northern Lakes Publishing Company            DE              The Daily News
     Northern Illinois Publishing Company         DE              The Daily Chronicle
     Southwestern Oregon Publishing Company       OR              The World
     Eastern Missouri Publishing Company          MO              The Daily Journal
     Southwest Montana Publishing Company         MT              Revalli Republic

</TABLE>
IN RE: B.O.A.

264PA18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 24, 2019

Edward Eldred, Attorney at Law, for Barber, Lauren Erica.

Holly Williamson Batten, Attorney at Law, N. Kyle Hicks, Attorney at Law, C. Gill Frazier, II, Attorney at Law, for Granville County DSS.

Derek Martin Bast, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for B.O.A.

Elizabeth Kennedy-Gurnee, Attorney at Law, Jamie Hamlet, Attorney at Law, for NCASSA

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 22nd of January 2019 by North Carolina Association of Social Services Attorneys for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 24th of January 2019."

Unless already submitted, the Amicus Brief shall be submitted to the court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i).
#### UNITED STATES of America, v. Lee ALEXANDER, Defendant. James R. McGraw, Attorney, Movant.

No. 87-CR-137.

United States District Court, N.D. New York.

Aug. 10, 1990.

Frederick J. Scullin, Jr., Syracuse, N.Y., Paula Ryan Conan, of counsel, for U.S. John Kinsella, Syracuse, N.Y., for mov-ant.

ORDER

McAVOY, District Judge.

James R. McGraw, one of defendant Lee Alexander’s two privately-re-tamed counsel, has moved pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A for appointment as counsel to Mr. Alexander retroactive to September 1986 and for waiver of the maximum compensation limits under the Criminal Justice Act. Familiarity with the facts of this case is presumed. *See United States v. Alexander,*736 F.Supp. 1236 (N.D.N.Y.1989), *aff'd,*901 F.2d 272 (1990) (per curiam). The motion is denied. There is simply no authority under the Criminal Justice Act for this court to grant a motion not by a defendant but by an attorney to have himself appointed, and well after the underlying criminal action has ended at that, as defendant’s counsel and then solely for the reason that his services rendered to the defendant have not been fully compensated. Moreover, even if there were authority to appoint Mr. McGraw as defendant’s counsel had he been Mr. Alexander’s only attorney, it cannot and will not do so here given that Mr. Alexander was represented by two privately-retained counsel in the underlying criminal proceeding. (The court also notes that Mr. McGraw has already received some $11,100 from Mr. Alexander and that Mr. Alexander’s other attorney has already been paid some $30,000.) The court closes by observing that appointments under the Criminal Justice Act are made to protect the rights of the indigent accused at trial and on appeal; such appointments are not to be sought or made for the purpose of providing income to attorneys. *See United States v. Cook,*628 F.Supp. 38, 41 (D.Colo.1985); *United States v. James,*301 F.Supp. 107, 128-129 (W.D.Tex.1969); 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a), (b), and (c) (1985 and Supp 1990). All the more is this so given that the underlying criminal proceeding has long since ended; in short, the purposes of the Criminal Justice Act simply would not be served here.
**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 Otelco Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q
      for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael D. Weaver,
      Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
      1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that
      to my knowledge:




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/
      Michael D. Weaver





Michael
      D. Weaver


Chief
      Executive Officer


November
      6, 2006
<PAGE>
                                                                    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 the Annual Report of Pulitzer Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the year ended December 26, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Alan G.
Silverglat, Senior Vice President-Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


         To my knowledge, (i) the Report 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 the Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         the Company.


                       /s/ Alan G. Silverglat
                       ----------------------
                       Alan G. Silverglat
                       Senior Vice President-Finance and Chief Financial Officer
                       March 16, 2005


         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.
Awn3mcn









Exhibit 10.92




 




Amendment No. 3




To




Trademark License And Technical

Assistance Agreement




Covering Men’s Products




 




This Amendment No. 3 is dated May 31, 2001 and

amends the Trademark License and Technical Assistance Agreement for Men’s

Collections dated January 15, 1998 by and between Latitude Licensing Corp. and

I.C. Isaacs & Co., L.P. covering Men’s Products (the “Agreement”).  Two previous amendments in November 12, 1998

and June 21, 2000, have been entered into. 

Capitalized terms used herein have the meaning ascribed to them in the

Agreement unless otherwise indicated.




 




For

good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which Is hereby  acknowledged, the parties agree to amend the

Agreement as follows:




 




1.             Paragraph

8.3

the Agreement is amended to read as follows:




“Licensee

shall exercise every reasonable effort to promote and advertise the Products

throughout the Territory and shall, prior to the end of each calendar year,

submit to Licensor, in reasonable detail, proposed plans and budgets for the

subsequent annual promotional campaign. 

In addition to the Minimum Advertising Expense, Licensee shall

participate in the production costs of photos and images for the advertising

campaign to the extent of $35,000, twice per year, paid directly to the

Licensor or the production agency as designated by the Licensor.  The first such payment shall apply to the

Spring/Summer 2002 season.  These

payments do not include any usage rights, which will be billed directly to

Licensee by such production agency. 

Licensor and Licensee shall cooperate closely in the creation and

execution of advertising programs”.




 




2.             This

Amendment is effective starting on the date stated above once it has been

signed by both parties.




 




3.             Except

for the terms amended by this Amendment, the Agreement as existing until the

execution of this Amendment No. 3 shall continue in full force and effect.




 




 




 








	

  LATITUDE

  LICENSING CORP.


  	

  I.C.

  ISAACS & COMPANY L.P.


  
	

   


  	

  By:

  I.C. Isaacs & Company, Inc., its General Partner


  
	

   


  	

   


  
	

   


  	

   


  
	

  By:


  	

  /s/ Antoine Feidt


  	

   


  	

  By:


  	

  /s/ Robert J. Arnot


  	

   


  
	

  Name:


  	

  Antoine Feidt


  	

   


  	

  Name:


  	

  Robert J. Arnot


  
	

  Title:


  	

   


  	

   


  	

  Title:


  	

  Chairman & CEO
STATE of North Carolina v. Kurt Deion FREDERICK

No. 146A18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Filed October 26, 2018

Joshua H. Stein, Attorney General, by J. Aldean Webster III, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender, and Amanda S. Hitchcock, Assistant Appellate Defender, for defendant-appellant.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5051 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.5051

                      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 
  23 Genesee Street in Hornell, New York, as the ``Zachary Smith Post 
                           Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. ZACHARY SMITH POST OFFICE BUILDING.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 23 Genesee Street in Hornell, New York, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Zachary Smith Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
or other record of the United States to the facility referred to in 
subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Zachary Smith 
Post Office Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5064 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5064

 To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for the tolling of 
  the timing of review for appeals of final decisions of the Board of 
               Veterans' Appeals, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 16, 2010

  Mr. Adler of New Jersey (for himself, Mr. Hall of New York, and Mr. 
  Ackerman) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for the tolling of 
  the timing of review for appeals of final decisions of the Board of 
               Veterans' Appeals, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Fair Access to Veterans Benefits Act 
of 2010''.

SEC. 2. TOLLING OF TIMING OF REVIEW FOR APPEALS OF FINAL DECISIONS OF 
              BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS.

    (a) In General.--Section 7266(a) of title 38, United States Code, 
is amended--
            (1) by striking ``In order'' and inserting ``(1) Except as 
        provided in paragraph (2), in order''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
    ``(2)(A) The 120-day period described in paragraph (1) shall be 
extended upon a showing of good cause for such time as justice may 
require.
    ``(B) For purposes of this paragraph, it shall be considered good 
cause if a person was unable to file a notice of appeal within the 120-
day period because of the person's service-connected disability.''.
    (b) Applicability.--
            (1) In general.--Paragraph (2) of section 7266(a) of such 
        title, as added by subsection (a), shall apply to a notice of 
        appeal filed with respect to a final decision of the Board of 
        Veterans' Appeals that was issued on or after July 24, 2008.
            (2) Reinstatement.--Any petition for review filed with the 
        Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims that was dismissed by such 
        Court on or after July 24, 2008, as untimely, shall, upon the 
        filing of a petition by an adversely affected person filed not 
        later than six months after the date of the enactment of this 
        Act, be reinstated upon a showing that the petitioner had good 
        cause for filing the petition on the date it was filed.
                                 <all>
```
#### MR. AND MRS. WILL MAULDIN v. T. C. BALLOU, T/A BALLOU CONSTRUCTION COMPANY OF LUMBERTON, N. C.

No. 7416DC206

(Filed 6 March 1974)

Contracts § 27— payment for partial construction of house — damages for inadequate work

The evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s determination that defendant was entitled to recover $7,655 from plaintiffs for work completed on a house for plaintiffs and that plaintiffs were entitled to recover liquidated damages of $1,530 for work not adequately completed by defendant.

On *certiorari*to review the order of *Britt, District Court Judge,*1 June 1978 Session of Robeson County District Court.

This action was instituted by plaintiffs to recover sums paid by them to defendant for the partial construction of a house, or, in the alternative, to compel defendant to complete the house and pay damages for the delay in completion. Defendant by answer averred that it had made diligent efforts to complete the home, and that plaintiffs requested the delay in order that they could reconsider the plans. Defendant averred also that once construction was resumed, plaintiffs delayed defendant’s efforts by insisting on frequent changes in the construction. Defendant thereupon prayed that the court award it $7,655 damages for work completed on plaintiffs’ house but not yet paid for.

After hearing evidence of both parties, Judge Britt made findings of fact and, based on these findings, concluded that *95defendant was entitled to recover $7,655 from plaintiffs for work completed and that plaintiffs were entitled to recover liquidated damages of $1,530 for work not adequately completed by defendant. The court concluded that the recoveries should be offset, leaving the defendant with a net recovery of $6,125 against plaintiffs.

From the entry and signing of judgment, plaintiffs appealed.

*J. H. Barrington, Jr., for plaintiff appellants.*

*Page, Floyd and Britt, by W. Earl Britt, for defendant appellee.*

MORRIS, Judge.

Plaintiffs assign as error the findings of fact. Basically, plaintiffs argue that the trial judge should have found facts in accordance with plaintiffs’ contentions. However, the findings of fact by the trial judge are conclusive if supported by competent evidence. We have carefully reviewed the evidence, and we conclude that it supports the facts, as found, even though it might have justified contrary findings upon some points.

The findings of fact support the conclusions of law. The judgment of the trial court is

Affirmed.

Chief Judge Brock and Judge Carson concur.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 13A-14 OF THE  SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT  TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

I, MICHAEL H. MCCLELLAN, Chief Financial Officer certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of ETS Payphones, Inc.;

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

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

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



6.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors
that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material
weaknesses.

Date:
May 13, 2005

| |  | /s/MICHAEL H. MCCLELLANMichael H. McClellan
Executive Vice President,
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
| |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks