alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### WILLARD L. KERN, Appellant, v. ROSALIE M. KERN, on Behalf of Linda K. Kern, a Minor, Respondent.

No. 11474

January 3, 1980

604 P.2d 354

*21*Jacquette & Kilpatrick,*Carson City, for Appellant.

*Sheerin, O’Reilly & Walsh,*Carson City, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

Willard and Rosalie Kern were divorced in Wisconsin on March 26, 1966. The decree awarded custody of their child, Linda, now age 14, to respondent Rosalie. Shortly after the divorce, Rosalie and Linda moved to North Carolina. Subsequently, in December of 1978, appellant Willard removed Linda, at her request, from respondent’s residence to his home in Carson City, Nevada.

After obtaining a temporary custody award in North Carolina, respondent instituted a habeas proceeding in the First Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada to have her daughter returned. In defense thereto, appellant requested the court to conduct a full custody hearing to modify the Wisconsin decree, alleging by affidavit a change of circumstances. This motion was denied and the writ was granted.

At issue is whether the district court erred in refusing to hold an evidentiary custody hearing before granting or denying the writ.

Although a foreign judgment has already determined the issue of custody, the full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution does not foreclose another custody order based upon a subsequent change of circumstances. Cole v. Dawson, 89 Nev. 14, 504 P.2d 1314 (1973); Lyerla v. Ramsay, 82 Nev. 250, 415 P.2d 623 (1966). Thus, a Nevada court may subsequently conduct a full custody hearing in a habeas proceeding involving the child.

The district court’s reliance upon Lyerla v. Ramsay, 82 Nev. 250, 415 P.2d 623 (1966), as mandating a hearing in North Carolina is misplaced. In *Lyerla*we held that the most appropriate forum for determining the welfare of the child was the court having maximum access to the relevant evidence. In this *22case, there is substantial evidence available to this state concerning the child’s present and future care, protection and personal relationships. Moreover, the parties’ daughter, 14 years of age, has stated by affidavit her desire to remain with her father and her fear of returning to her mother.

The district court’s order granting the writ of habeas corpus without a full evidentiary hearing is reversed and this case is remanded with direction that such a hearing be held. See, Cole v. Dawson, 89 Nev. 14, 504 P.2d 1314 (1973).

Reversed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6501

BERRY LOCKLEAR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CORRECTIONAL OFFICER PERRY; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER FOUNTAIN; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER BOONE; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER HARRIS; SEBASTIAN MITCHELL; FURMAN CAMEL, Defendants - Appellees, andPAM BOWES; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER GAINER; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER JOHNSON; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER STONE; JOHN DOE, various John Doe defendants, including Sargeant John Doe, and John Doe, Medical Administrator, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-99-385-5-BO) Submitted: August 31, 2001 Decided: September 26, 2001 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.2 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Berry Locklear, Appellant Pro Se. John Payne Scherer, II, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Berry Locklear appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint inwhich he alleged application of excessive force. The record discloses he suffered de minimis injury. See Norman v. Taylor , 25 F.3d 1259 (4th Cir. 1994) (en banc). Because Locklear has not alleged extraordinary circumstances warranting relief, we conclude summary judgment was appropriate. We deny Locklear’s motion to view a videotape contained in the record and affirm. 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.

AFFIRMED
Document

                                                

                                                Exhibit 10.2.1


SCHEDULE OF EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENTS




In accordance with Instruction 2 to Item 601 of Regulation S-K, Fulton Financial Corporation (the "Corporation") has omitted filing Executive Employment Agreements by and between the Corporation and the following Executive Officers because they are substantially identical in all material respects to the form of the Executive Employment Agreement filed as Exhibit 10.1 to the Corporations Current Report on Form 8-K filed January 4, 2018:


1.Mark R. McCollom
2.Curtis J. Myers
3.David M. Campbell
4.Beth Ann L. Chivinski
5.Natasha R. Luddington
6.Meg R. Mueller
7.Angela M. Sargent
8.Angela M. Snyder
9.Daniel R. Stolzer
10.Bernadette m. Taylor
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-11014 

Conference Calendar

__________________

GEORGE ARCE,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

MEGAN MITCHELL,

 Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:95-CV-1356-G

- - - - - - - - - -

March 1, 1996

Before GARWOOD, JONES, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

George Arce appeals the dismissal of his civil rights

complaint as frivolous. Arce's argument that the dismissal

violates his right to due process lacks merit. Arce does not

argue that the district court abused its discretion by

determining the defendant was not a state actor and dismissing

his appeal. Thus, this issue is abandoned on appeal. He was put

on notice in the magistrate judge's report that his suit could be
No. 95-11014

-2-

dismissed. He filed objections to the report, but did not seek

to amend his complaint. His contention that he did not have the

opportunity to amend his complaint is frivolous.

Arce also argues that he did not receive a copy of an

amended report and recommendation by the magistrate judge and,

thus, was not allowed the opportunity to file objections to it in

violation of his due process rights. The amended findings and

recommendation referred to by the district court in its order of

dismissal is not part of the record and mention of it was

apparently a mistake. Because an amended report and

recommendation does not exist, this argument lacks a factual

basis.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 10.12


 


Option Grant Notice


 


January 3, 2022


Mr. Joseph Ragan


107 Shore Oaks


Austin, Texas 78738


 


Dear Joe,


This letter is to confirm the previous agreement of Sports Ventures
Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”), to grant you an option to purchase 25,000 shares of the Company’s Class A Ordinary
Shares in consideration of your service as a director. This option is intended to be awarded to you as Ordinary Shares of the Company
under its Employee Stock Plan promptly following the completion of the Company’s combination with Prime Focus World, N.V.





	 	Sincerely,
	 	 
	 	Sports Ventures Acquisition Corp.
	 	 
	 	By: 	/s/ Alan Kestenbaum
	 	 	Alan Kestenbaum,
	 	 	Chairman of the Board of Directors
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ALFONSO BODDIE,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 557 EAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 13th day of February, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
# C_2007089EN.01003701.xml

| 24.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 89/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 89/37

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4566 — Carrefour-Marinopoulos/Credicom/CMCC)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 89/10)

On 22 February 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4566. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4566. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
EXHIBIT
32.2


CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


RULE
13a-14(1) OR RULE 15d-14(b) AND 18 U.S.C. SEC. 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE


SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002








In
connection with the quarterly report of Petrosearch Energy Corporation, (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David
Collins, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:





(1)
            The
      report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and


(2)
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
      company.








Date:
January 15, 2009





By:
            /s/ David
      CollinsDavid
      CollinsChief
      Financial Officer, Chief Accounting Officerand
      Principal Financial Officer
# L_2007095EN.01000701.xml

| 5.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 95/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 95/7

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 380/2007

of 4 April 2007

establishing that certain limits for issuing import licences for sugar products under tariff quotas and preferential agreements are no longer reached

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 950/2006 of 28 June 2006 laying down detailed rules of application for the 2006/07, 2007/08 and 2008/09 marketing years for the import and refining of sugar products under certain tariff quotas and preferential agreements (2), and in particular Article 5(4) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | The records referred to in Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 950/2006 show that quantities of sugar are still available for the obligations laid down under Article 24 of Regulation (EC) No 950/2006 bearing the serial number 09.4318. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The records referred to in Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 950/2006 show that quantities of sugar are still available for the obligations laid down under Article 24 of Regulation (EC) No 950/2006 bearing the serial number 09.4318.

| (2) | Under these circumstances, the Commission must indicate that the limits concerned are no longer reached, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Under these circumstances, the Commission must indicate that the limits concerned are no longer reached,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The limits for the obligations laid down under Article 24 of Regulation (EC) No 950/2006 bearing the serial number 09.4318 are no longer reached.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 6 April 2007.

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

Done at Brussels, 4 April 2007.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 58, 28.2.2006, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2011/2006 (OJ L 384, 29.12.2006, p. 1).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 178, 1.7.2006, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2031/2006 (OJ L 414, 30.12.2006, p. 43).

2

---
# L_2007038EN.01000301.xml

| 10.2.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 38/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.2.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 38/3

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 125/2007

of 9 February 2007

on the issue of import licences for high-quality fresh, chilled or frozen beef and veal

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 936/97 of 27 May 1997 opening and providing for the administration of tariff quotas for high-quality fresh, chilled and frozen beef and for frozen buffalo meat (2),

Whereas:

| (1) | Regulation (EC) No 936/97 provides in Articles 4 and 5 the conditions for applications and for the issue of import licences for meat referred to in Article 2(f). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 936/97 provides in Articles 4 and 5 the conditions for applications and for the issue of import licences for meat referred to in Article 2(f).

| (2) | Article 2(f) of Regulation (EC) No 936/97 fixes the amount of high-quality fresh, chilled or frozen beef and veal meeting the definition laid down therein which may be imported on special terms for the period 1 July 2006 to 30 June 2007 at 11 500 t. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Article 2(f) of Regulation (EC) No 936/97 fixes the amount of high-quality fresh, chilled or frozen beef and veal meeting the definition laid down therein which may be imported on special terms for the period 1 July 2006 to 30 June 2007 at 11 500 t.

| (3) | It should be recalled that licences issued pursuant to this Regulation will, throughout the period of validity, be open for use only in so far as provisions on health protection in force permit, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

It should be recalled that licences issued pursuant to this Regulation will, throughout the period of validity, be open for use only in so far as provisions on health protection in force permit,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1.   All applications for import licences from 1 to 5 February 2007 for high-quality fresh, chilled or frozen beef and veal as referred to in Article 2(f) of Regulation (EC) No 936/97 shall be granted in full.

2.   Applications for licences may be submitted, in accordance with Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 936/97, during the first five days of March 2007 for 7 368,045 t.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 11 February 2007.

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

Done at Brussels, 9 February 2007.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 21. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1913/2005 (OJ L 307, 25.11.2005, p. 2).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 137, 28.5.1997, p. 10. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1745/2006 (OJ L 329, 25.11.2006, p. 22).

2

---
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A24I0220. MICHAEL HRIB v. SOPHY PROPERTIES, LLC.

Michael Hrib filed the underlying petition against Sophy Properties, LLC,

seeking declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief, for claims arising out of a

purported easement. Sophy Properties answered and counterclaimed. The parties

filed cross-motions for summary judgment. In a single order, the trial court denied

Hrib’s motion and partially granted Sophy Properties’s motion. Hrib seeks

interlocutory review of the court’s order.

Under OCGA § 9-11-56 (h), the grant ofsummary judgment on any issue or as

to any party is reviewable by direct appeal. See City of Demorest v. Town of Mt. Airy,

282 Ga. 653, 654 n. 1 (653 SE2d 43) (2007); Whiddon v. Stargell, 192 Ga. App. 826,

827-828 (386 SE2d 884) (1989). “This Court will grant a timely application for

interlocutory review if the order complained of is subject to direct appeal and the

applicants have not otherwise filed a notice of appeal.” Spivey v. Hembree, 268 Ga.

App. 485, 486 n. 1 (602 SE2d 246) (2004).

Accordingly, this interlocutory application is hereby GRANTED. Hrib shall

have ten days from the date of this order to file a notice of appeal in the trial court.

June 07, 2024
If he has already filed a notice of appeal from the order at issue here, he need not file

a second notice. The clerk of the trial court is DIRECTED to include a copy of this

order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office,Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

06/07/2024
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

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

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

JOSEF FRANZ BOEHM,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 12-30086

D.C. No. 3:04-cr-00003-JWS

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Alaska

John W. Sedwick, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 11, 2013** 

Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges. 

Josef Franz Boehm appeals from the district court’s order denying his 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence. We have jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. 

FILED

FEB 21 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 12-30086

Boehm contends that the district court erred by denying his motion to reduce

his sentence under the retroactive amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines for

crack cocaine offenses. He argues that his sentence is longer than necessary in

light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. We review a district court’s

decision to deny a section 3582(c)(2) motion for abuse of discretion. See United

States v. Chaney, 581 F.3d 1123, 1125 (9th Cir. 2009). We review de novo

whether the district court had jurisdiction to modify a sentence under section

3582(c)(2). See United States v. Austin, 676 F.3d 924, 926 (9th Cir. 2012). 

The government contends that the district court lacked jurisdiction to

consider Boehm’s motion because his sentence was based on a plea agreement

entered into under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C), rather than on

a Guidelines range that has been lowered. Even assuming that the plea agreement

was entered into under Rule 11(c)(1)(C), however, the district court had

jurisdiction to consider Boehm’s motion because the agreement used as the

stipulated sentencing range a Guidelines range that has been lowered. See

Freeman v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2685, 2699-700 (2011) (Sotomayor, J.,

concurring). 

Nevertheless, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying

Boehm’s motion in light of the section 3353(a) sentencing factors, particularly the
3 12-30086

nature of Boehm’s offense conduct and the danger he poses to the public. See 18

U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3582(c)(2).

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> BD
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           14130
<RECEIVABLES>                                   638095
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                                  0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                           270638
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                             272244
<PP&E>                                           13377
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1233271
<SHORT-TERM>                                    134762
<PAYABLES>                                      210848
<REPOS-SOLD>                                         0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                             216275
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                              149189
<LONG-TERM>                                      41308
<COMMON>                                           109
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      123558
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1233271
<TRADING-REVENUE>                                44776
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                             72739
<COMMISSIONS>                                   129825
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                    37606
<FEE-REVENUE>                                    33491
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               40498
<COMPENSATION>                                  182705
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  29429
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     17952
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.92
        

</TABLE>