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

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 3431

_____________________________
M ARCIAL H. R IVERA , Appellant,

v.

E VERBANK ; O LGA R IVERA ; ET AL

. , Appellee s

.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Robert M. Dees , Judge

.

June 11, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. W OLF , B ILBREY , and W INSOR , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Michael Farrar
, Aventura
, for Appellant.

Ileen J. Cantor an d Ronald M. Gach é of Shapiro, Fishman & Gaché
, LLP, Boca Raton
, for Appellee Everbank

.
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILMA CHAMBERS

No. 7426SC317

(Filed 1 May 1974)

Homicide § 30— submission of manslaughter to jury — error favorable to defendant

Even if the court in a trial for second degree murder erred in submitting involuntary manslaughter as a possible verdict to the jury, such error was favorable to defendant, and she is without standing to challenge the verdict finding her guilty of that offense.

Appeal by defendant from *Chess, Judge,*12 November 1973 Schedule “D” Criminal Session of Superior Court held in Meck-lenburg County.

*451Although charged with the first-degree murder of Carolyn Louise Scott, defendant was tried for second-degree murder. The trial court submitted the case to the jury with instructions to return a verdict of guilty of second-degree murder, guilty of voluntary manslaughter, guilty of involuntary manslaughter, or not guilty. The jury found defendant guilty of involuntary manslaughter, and from judgment imposing prison sentence of 10 years, she appealed.

*Attorney General Robert Morgan, by Assistant Attorney General Myron C. Banks, for the State.*

*T. 0. Stennett for defendant appellant.*

BRITT, Judge.

The sole assignment of error presented by defendant is that the trial court erred in charging the jury that they might return a verdict of involuntary manslaughter and providing instructions on that offense. Defendant argues that there was no evidence to support the offense of involuntary manslaughter.

The assignment has no merit. Assuming, *arguendo,*that there was no evidence to support the offense of involuntary manslaughter, the error was favorable to defendant and she is without standing to challenge the verdict finding her guilty of that offense. *State v. Vestal,*283 N.C. 249, 195 S.E. 2d 297 (1973), cert. den. 414 U.S. 874, 94 S.Ct. 157, 38 L.Ed. 2d 114; *State v. Rogers,*273 N.C. 208, 159 S.E. 2d 525 (1968); *State v. Simpson,*14 N.C. App. 456, 188 S.E. 2d 535 (1972).

No error.

Judges Hedrick and Carson concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2024 ND 185

Angelica Maria Cruz Martinez, Petitioner and Appellant

v.

State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee

No. 20240064

Appeal from the District Court of Stark County, Southwest Judicial District, the 

Honorable James D. Gion, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam. 

Kiara C. Kraus-Parr, Grand Forks, ND, for petitioner and appellant.

Amanda R. Engelstad, State’s Attorney, Dickinson, ND, for respondent and 

appellee; submitted on brief.
1

Martinez v. State

No. 20240064

Per Curiam. 

[¶1] Angelica Martinez appeals from a district court order denying her 

application for postconviction relief from the judgment. Martinez argues her 

attorney was ineffective as she failed to present mitigating evidence during her 

probation revocation hearing, resulting in the court resentencing her to seven 

years on her first probation violation.

[¶2] After review of the record, the judgment of the district court is supported 

by findings meeting the required standard of proof. We summarily affirm the 

judgment under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

[¶3] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. 

Daniel J. Crothers 

Lisa Fair McEvers 

Jerod E. Tufte 

Douglas A. Bahr
# L_2006367EN.01006701.xml

| 22.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 367/67 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 367/67

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1960/2006

of 21 December 2006

concerning tenders notified in response to the invitation to tender for the export of barley issued in Regulation (EC) No 935/2006

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of barley to certain third countries was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 935/2006 (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of barley to certain third countries was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 935/2006 (2).

| (2) | Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals (3), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals (3), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,

| (3) | On the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95, a maximum refund should not be fixed. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

On the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95, a maximum refund should not be fixed.

| (4) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

No action shall be taken on the tenders notified from 15 to 21 December 2006 in response to the invitation to tender for the refund for the export of barley issued in Regulation (EC) No 935/2006.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 22 December 2006.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 21 December 2006.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 78. Regulation as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1154/2005 (OJ L 187, 19.7.2005, p. 11).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 172, 24.6.2006, p. 3.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 147, 30.6.1995, p. 7. Regulation as last modified by Regulation (EC) No 777/2004 (OJ L 123, 27.4.2004, p. 50).

3

---
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



The undersigned executive officer of the registrant hereby certifies that this Form 10-K fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained herein fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.



|                         
|-------------------------
|/s/ David L. Mead        
|David L. Mead            
|Chief Financial Officer  
|                         
|Date:  September 29, 2003
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.1


                                  CERTIFICATION

            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                    (SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350,
                  CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officers of Sancon Resources Recovery, Inc., a Nevada corporation
(the "Company"), do hereby certify with respect to the Quarterly Report of the
Company on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "10-QSB Report") that:
(1) the 10-QSB 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 10-QSB Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                                Sancon Resources Recovery, Inc.
Date:  August 18, 2006
                                                              By: /s/ Jack Chen
                                                -------------------------------
                                                                      Jack Chen
                                                        Chief Executive Officer

Date:  August 18, 2006
                                                           By:  /S/ Richard Yan
                                                     --------------------------
                                                                    Richard Yan
                                                 Acting Chief Financial Officer

Date:  August 18, 2006
                                                            By:  /S/ David Chen
                                                     --------------------------
                                                                     David Chen
                                                                       Chairman

Date:  August 18, 2006
                                                             By:  /S/ Jimmy Yiu
                                                     --------------------------
                                                                      Jimmy Yiu
                                                                       Director

Date:  August 18, 2006
                                                          By:  /S/ Helen Bouzas
                                                     --------------------------
                                                                   Helen Bouzas
                                                           Independent Director

Date:  Aug 18, 2006
                                                           By:  /S/ Cong Yuanli
                                                     --------------------------
                                                                    Cong Yuanli
                                                           Independent Director
#### BADER ENTERPRISES, INC., Appellant, v. ERNEST A. BECKER dba CHARLESTON HEIGHTS SHOPPING CENTER, Respondent.

No. 15036

June 27, 1986

720 P.2d 1232

[Rehearing denied December 15, 1986]

*Stanley W. Pierce,*Las Vegas, for Appellant.

*O’Brien & Johnson,*Las Vegas, for Respondent.

2

The Governor designated the Honorable Thomas A. Foley, Judge of the Eighth Judicial District Court, to participate in this appeal. Nev. Const., art. 6, sec. 4. The Honorable Cliff Young, Justice, did not participate in the consideration of the appeal or the petition for rehearing.

OPINION ON REHEARING

*Per Curiam:*

On June 26, 1985, this court issued an Order Dismissing Appeal in the case of Bader Enterprises, Inc. v. Ernest A. Becker dba Charleston Heights Shopping Center. Bader has petitioned for a rehearing, contending that this court erred in sustaining the district court’s finding that Becker’s claim to certain attached equipment was superior to Bader’s. NRAP 40. We grant rehearing for the limited purpose of considering that contention.

The district court’s finding that Becker’s claim to the attached equipment was superior to Bader’s was based upon its interpretation of a ground lease and security agreement. The district court’s interpretation “arose solely from the four corners of the written instrument[s] rather than from any extrinsic evidence as to the meaning of the terms used.” Caldwell v. Consolidated Realty, 99 *340Nev. 635, 638, 668 P.2d 284 (1983). Consequently, we are bound neither by the district court’s interpretation of the ground lease and security agreement nor by the district court’s finding that Becker’s claim to the attached equipment was superior to Bader’s.

Under the terms of the ground lease, Bader’s claim to the attachment equipment was superior to Becker’s. In the ground lease, Becker specifically disclaimed any interest in the attached equipment. In addition, the ground lease gave Bader the right to remove the attached equipment. The district court’s finding that Becker’s claim to the attached equipment was superior to Bader’s was incorrect. This court erred in sustaining the district court’s finding. Accordingly, we modify our prior Order Dismissing Appeal and remand the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.1

Mowbray, C. J., and Springer, Gunderson, and Steffen, JJ., and Foley, D. J.,2 concur.

1

Bader’s remaining assignments of error are meritless.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 210 (Tuesday, November 1, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 65911]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21653]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commerical property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Mental Health Special 
Emphasis Panel PTSD Application.
    Date: October 27, 2005.
    Time: 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 
Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference 
Call).
    Contact Person: David I. Sommers, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute 
of Mental Health, NIH, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., 
Room 6144, MSC 9606, Bethesda, MD 20892-9606, 301-443-7861, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#91f5e2fefcfcf4e3e2d1fcf0f8fdbffff8f9bff6fee7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="274354484a4a425554674a464e4b09494e4f09404851">[email protected]</span></a>.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.242, 
Mental Health Research Grants; 93.281, Scientist Development Award, 
Scientist Development Award for Clinicians, and Research Scientist 
Award; 93.282, Mental Health National Research Service Awards for 
Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: October 20, 2005.
Anthony M. Coelho, Jr.,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 05-21653 Filed 10-31-05; 8:45am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
First Amend. to Employment Agt









EXHIBIT 10.16




 




FIFTH

AMENDMENT TO




OUTSIDE DIRECTORS’ 1996 STOCK OPTION PLAN




 




THIS FIFTH AMENDMENT to

the Outside Directors’ 1996 Stock Option Plan of CTN Media Group, Inc. (the “Company”),

a Delaware corporation formerly known as College Television Network, Inc.,

(this “Amendment”) is made effective as of the 6th day of

June, 2000 (the “Effective Date”). 

All capitalized terms in this Amendment have the meaning ascribed to

such terms in the Outside Directors’ 1996 Stock Option Plan (the “Plan”),

unless otherwise stated herein.




W  I  T  N  E  S  S  E  T  H:




WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company desires to amend the Plan to

change the name of the Company as it is referred to in the Plan.




NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual promises

contained herein, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:




1.             All references in the Plan to “College Television

Network, Inc.” are deleted, and the name “CTN Media Group, Inc.” is substituted

therefor in each instance.




2.             Except as specifically amended by this Amendment, the

Plan shall remain in full force and effect as prior to this Amendment.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the

Company has caused this Amendment to be executed as of the Effective Date.




 




                                                                                                CTN Media Group, Inc.




 




 




	

  By:


  	

  /s/ Jason Elkin


  
	

   


  	

  Jason Elkin


  
	

   


  	

  Chief Executive

  Officer


  





ATTEST:




 




 




	

  By:


  	

  /s/ Patrick Doran


  
	

   


  	

  Patrick Doran, Secretary
<PAGE>


 [WILLIAM
 MATTHEWS
C.P.A., S.C.
LETTERHEAD]



October 11, 1999



Roseland Oil and Gas, Inc.
1720 Northwest Highway
Suite 320
Garland, TX 75041


As Certified Public Accountants, we hereby consent to the reference in the
Form 10-KSB of Roseland Oil and Gas, Inc., to our firm's name and to the
Audited Restated Financial Statement date June 30, 1977, to be used in the
reports for the period ending June 30, 1999. Roseland has our permission to
use this report and references to William Matthews, CPA, SC in its annual
report to the Securities and Exchange Commission in Roseland's Form 10-KSB
filing and other S.E.C. matters. This report may also be used in any other
consistent manner by Roseland.

Sincerely,

/s/ William Matthews

William Matthews
#### William Jackman Sons, Inc., Plaintiff, *v.*John A. Hauffman, Defendant.*

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

November 1, 1935.

*Louis B. Stein,*for the plaintiff.

*Henry Simon,*for the defendant.

*

 See *Bloomingdale Bros., Inc.,*v. *Butler*(150 Misc. 903).

*183Collins, J.

A judgment debtor who is a pilot engaged solely in work in New York harbor and the Hudson river is a seaman, but his wages are subject to be garnisheed, as the La Follette Act (U. S. Code, tit. 46, § 601) exemption is inapplicable to him (U. S. Code, tit. 46, § 544). His motion to vacate the garnishee order is denied. A cross-motion is made to have a receiver appointed for a certificate of membership in a pilot’s association. That certificate by its terms and by necessity is not assignable. There are, however, certain property rights which accrue to the judgment debtor. They relate to money payments. Section a of the certificate provides for a payment of twenty-five dollars per month. As soon as that becomes due it goes under the garnishee. There is no necessity for a receiver for that. Upon retirement the pilot is entitled to a certain sum per month (§ d). A receiver may be appointed for those sums, the receiver to take title when and if those sums become due. I rule, however, that he can take only ten per cent, as those sums are income. If he takes the ten per cent the garnishee order is suspended. The pilot is also entitled to an indefinite monthly income (§§ b and c). The garnishee covers that. There is a death benefit (§ e) payable to the pilot’s estate. The receiver can take that up to the debt when and if it accrues. But the receiver may not take the certificate. As the papers show that the garnishee execution will realize over fifty dollars per month, the entire debt should be paid off in about eight months. The appointment of a receiver seems unnecessary, but the judgment creditor is entitled to it. Settle order.
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

C.B., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

U.S. CUSTOMS & BORDER PROTECTION, 

San Diego, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket Nos. 21-1280 &

20-1050

Issued: October 28, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL IN DOCKET NO. 21-1280

AND DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION

IN DOCKET NO. 20-1050

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On August 24, 2021 appellant sought an appeal from a purported May 14, 2020 decision 

of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards

docketed the appeal as No. 21-1280.

The Board, having duly considered the matter, notes that its jurisdiction is limited to the 

review of final adverse OWCP decisions issued under the Federal Employees’Compensation Act.1 

The case record as transmitted to the Board does not contain a final adverse decision of OWCP 

issued within 180 days from the date of docketing of the current appeal.2 The most recent final 

adverse decision was issued by OWCP on October 6, 2015. By an order dated May 14, 2020, this 

Board dismissed an appeal from OWCP’s October 6, 2015decision as untimely filed under Docket 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8149; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a).

2

20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e) provides in pertinent part: “Any notice of appeal must be filed within 180 days from the 

date of issuance of a decision of the OWCP.”
2

No. 20-1050.

3

 As there is no final adverse decision issued by OWCP over which the Board may 

properly exercise jurisdiction, the Board concludes that the appeal docketed as No. 21-1280 must 

be dismissed. 

Regarding whether appellant’s August 24, 2021 appeal may be construed as a timely 

petition for reconsideration of the Board’s May 14, 2020 order dismissing appeal in Docket No. 

20-1050, the Board notes that its order became final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date 

of issuance.4 Further, as appellant did not file his disagreement with the Board’s May 14, 2020

order until August 24, 2021, this submission may not be deemed as a timely petition for 

reconsideration as it was filed in excess of 30 days from the date of issuance of the Board’s order.

5

 

Thus, the petition for reconsideration of the May 14, 2020 Board order must be dismissed as 

untimely filed. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 21-1280 is dismissed. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the petition for reconsideration in Docket No. 

20-1050 is dismissed as untimely filed.

Issued: October 28, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

3 Docket No. 20-1050 (issued May14, 2020).

4

20 C.F.R. § 501.6(d).

5

See id. at § 501.7(a).