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

Supreme Court 

SCPW-12-0000698 

06-SEP-2012 

03:25 PM 

NO. SCPW-12-0000698
 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
 

FRANCIS GRANDINETTI, Petitioner,
 

vs.
 

THE HONORABLE SHUNICHI KIMURA and THE HONORABLE RIKI 


MAY AMANO, JUDGES OF THE CIRCUIT


COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI'I, Respondents.
 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
 

(CR. NO. 93-0141)
 

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR 


WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND WRIT OF MANDAMUS
 

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ.)
 

Upon consideration of petitioner Francis Grandinetti’s
 

August 8, 2012 “Application for Habeas Corpus and Mandamus
 

Remedy”, which we review as a petition for a writ of habeas
 

corpus and a writ of mandamus, the documents attached thereto and
 

the record herein, it appears that petitioner is not entitled to
 

habeas or mandamus relief. Petitioner presents no special reason
 

for invoking the supreme court’s original jurisdiction. See Oili
 

v. Chang, 57 Haw. 411, 412, 557 P.2d 787, 788 (1976). Moreover,
 

petitioner fails to demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to
 
relief. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai'i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 

338 (1999) (A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that 

will not issue unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear and 

indisputable right to relief and a lack of alternative means to 

redress adequately the alleged wrong or obtain the requested 

action). Therefore, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the clerk of the appellate
 

court shall process the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and
 

a writ of mandamus without payment of the filing fee.
 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition is denied. 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, September 6, 2012. 

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald 

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama 

/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. 

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
 

/s/ Richard W. Pollack
 

-2­
**Exhibit 99.4**

** **

ANNUAL SUBSERVICER’SCERTIFICATE

 

GE COMMERCIALDISTRIBUTION FINANCE CORPORATION

 

Re:          YAMAHA MOTOR MASTER TRUST

 

The undersigned, duly authorized representative of GECommercial Distribution Finance Corporation, a Nevada Corporation (“GECDF”),as Servicer pursuant to the Servicing Agreement, dated as of March 1, 1994 (asamended, the “Servicing Agreement”), by and among Yamaha MotorCorporation, U.S.A. (“Yamaha”), and GECDF (f/k/a Deutsche Financial ServicesCorporation, which was f/k/a/ ITT Commercial Finance Corp.), does herebycertify after reasonable investigation that:

 

1.             GECDFis, as of the date hereof, the servicer (“the servicer”) under the ServicingAgreement as that term is defined in the Servicing Agreement.

 

2.             Theundersigned is duly authorized pursuant to the Servicing Agreement to executeand deliver this certificate to Yamaha.

 

3.             Thiscertificate is delivered pursuant to Section 2.4 of the Servicing Agreement.

 

4.             Areview of the activities of the Servicer during the annual period ended March31, 2004, and of its performance under the Servicing Agreement wasconducted under the undersigned’s supervision.

 

5.             Basedon such review, to the best of my knowledge (a) the Servicer has fullyperformed all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement throughoutsuch annual period and (b) no event which, with the giving of notice or passageof time or both, would constitute a Servicer Default has occurred.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executedthis Annual Subservicer’s Certificate as of May 31, 2004.

 

 
|   | SERVICER:                                        |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                             |
|   | GE COMMERCIAL DISTRIBUTION  FINANCE CORPORATION  |
|   |                                             |
|   |                                             |
|   |      /s/ Paul Puma |   |
|   | Name:                                            | Paul Puma |
|   | Title:                                           | Sr. Vice President |
|        |                                                  |  |  |

 

----
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

VERNA DOREEN SCOTT , by and through WENTWORTH A. INCE, Attorney

- in

- Fact, Appellant,

v.

TAMARAC REHABILITATION & HEALTH CENTER, INC., HBA MANAGEMENT, INC., MILLENNIUM HEALTH SYSTEMS, LLC, and NICOLA CHANDLER , Appellee s

.

No. 4D 2 1

- 3596

[ June 23, 2022 ]

Appeal of a non

- final order from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Br oward County ; Carol Lisa Phillips , Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE 1 9

- 0 25495

.
Lisa M. Tanaka of Wilkes & Associates, P.A.

, Tampa
, for appellant

.

Adam G. Rabinowitz and Yale I. Markus of Moore Rabinowitz Law

, Plantation

, for appellee s

.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed

.

G ERBER , F ORST and A RTAU , JJ., concur.

* * *

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








AMENDMENT TO SHORT-TERM COMMON STOCK PURCHASE WARRANT 
This AMENDMENT TO SHORT-TERM COMMON STOCK PURCHASE WARRANT (the “Amendment”) is entered into effective as of February 6, 2020, by and between Innovate Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Company”), and the holder named on the signature page hereto  (the “Holder”).
WHEREAS, the Company issued to the Holder a Short-term Common Stock Purchase Warrant, dated March 18, 2019 (the “Warrant”) pursuant to which the Holder is currently entitled to purchase from the Company shares of the Company’s common stock pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in the Warrant;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 5(l) of the Warrant, the amendment or waiver of any term of the Warrant must be in writing and signed by Holder and Company; and
WHEREAS, the Company and Holder desire to amend the Warrant to extend the exercise period of the Warrant. 
NOW THEREFORE, for good and adequate consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Company and Holder each agree as follows:
1.Unless otherwise indicated herein, words and terms that are defined in the Warrant shall have the same meaning where used in this Amendment.
2.The first paragraph of the Warrant is hereby amended and restated as follows:
“THIS SHORT-TERM COMMON STOCK PURCHASE WARRANT (the “Warrant”) certifies that, for value received, _________ or its assigns (the “Holder”) is entitled, upon the terms and subject to the limitations on exercise and the conditions hereinafter set forth, at any time on or after the date hereof (the “Initial Exercise Date”) and on or prior to the close of business on the eighteen (18) month anniversary of the Initial Exercise Date (the “Termination Date”), unless sooner terminated pursuant to Section 2(f) hereof; provided that, if such Termination Date is not a Trading Day, the Termination Date should be the immediately following Trading Day, but not thereafter, to subscribe for and purchase from Innovate Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), up to _____ shares (as subject to adjustment hereunder, the “Warrant Shares”) of Common Stock. The purchase price of one share of Common Stock under this Warrant shall be equal to the Exercise Price, as defined in Section 2(b).”
Except as specifically amended by this Amendment, all terms and conditions of the Warrant shall remain in full force and effect and shall not be affected by this Amendment.  This Amendment shall be governed by and construed under the laws of the State of New York.  This Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.  Facsimile signatures shall be as effective as original signatures. 


[Remainder of page intentionally left blank]



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Amendment to Short-Term Common Stock Purchase Warrant as of the day and year first written above.
Innovate Biopharmaceuticals, Inc.
By:          
Name: Edward J. Sitar
Title:     Chief Financial Officer








Holder
By:          
Name: 
Title:
EXHIBIT
32.1





STATEMENT
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO SECTION 1350 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE








Pursuant
to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned, Fred
O’Connor, Chief Executive Officer of Biofuels Power Corporation (the "Company"),
hereby certifies that:





The
Company's Form 10-Q Quarterly Report for the period ended March 31, 2008 (the
"Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








/s/ Fred
      O’ConnorFred
      O’Connor, Chief Executive OfficerDated:
      May 22, 2008
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Deanna T. HARRIS, Appellant.

No. WD 52730.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Feb. 11, 1997.

Gary E. Brotherton, Assistant Public Defender, Columbia, for Appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Lisa A. Fischer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for Respondent.

Before BRECKENRIDGE, P.J., and LAURA DENVIR STITH and HOWARD, JJ.

*317ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Deanna Harris appeals from her conviction, following a jury trial, of stealing, § 570.080, RSMo 1994.

Affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).
#### In the Matter of Malcolm S. ULRICH, Bankrupt-Appellant, Bridget Tuite, Creditor-Appellee.

No. 223.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

March 21, 1938.

David Tepp, of White Plains, N. Y., for bankrupt-appellant.

Stephen R. J. Roach, of White Plains, N. Y., for appellee.

Before MANTON, L. HAND and AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Order, 18 F.Supp. 919, affirmed.
#### Anna Marie STALLINGS, f/n/a Anna Marie Muir, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Dennis J. MUIR, Defendant/Respondent.

No. 67281.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Sept. 19, 1995.

Timmothy H. Battem, St. Louis, for appellant.

Richard B. Dempsey, Richard B. Dempsey, Jr., Washington, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and KAROHL and WHITE, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Former wife appeals from the judgment in her suit in equity, in which the court refused to divide former husband’s pension as undistributed marital property. We affirm. The trial court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
*First*Department,

January, 1909.

#### Sarah Crouter, as Administratrix, etc., of Joseph Crouter, Deceased, Appellant, *v.*The City of New York, Respondent.

*Negligence*— *municipal corporation*— *injury by turning on hydrant.*

Appeal from a judgment entered January 25, 1908, dismissing the complaint.

Per Curiam:

Judgment reversed and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide event, upon the ground that a question of fact was presented which should have been submitted to the jury as to the negligence of the defendant's servant. Present — Patterson, Ingraham, Laughlin, Clarke and Scott, JJ.

Ingraham, J. (dissenting):

I dissent upon the ground that it was not negli-

gent for the street cleaner, to turn on the hydrant, a horse and wagon being twenty-five feet or more from the hydrant; as such an accident as happened could not have been anticipated and that, therefore, there was no evidence to justify submitting the question of defendant’s negligence to the jury. Judgment reversed, new trial ordered, costs to appellant to abide event.
================================================================================


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                                 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 Arkson Nutraceuticals, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Periodic Report"),
I, David Roff, 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:

1.    the Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Company.


     Dated: May 5, 2010

     /s/ "David Roff"


     David Roff
     Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 13, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 47195]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18507]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Center for Research Resources; 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 commercial 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 Center for Research Resources; 
Special Emphasis Panel Oregon NPRC.
    Date: October 28-30, 2008.
    Time: 8 p.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Hilton Portland & Executive Tower, 921 SW. Sixth Avenue, 
Portland, OR 97204.
    Contact Person: Carol Lambert, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, 
Office of Review, National Center for Research Resources, National 
Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Blvd., 1 Dem. Plaza, Room 1076, 
Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-0814, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#026e636f60677076426f636b6e2c6c6b6a2c656d74"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="cea2afa3acabbcba8ea3afa7a2e0a0a7a6e0a9a1b8">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, 
Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research; 93.371, Biomedical 
Technology; 93.389, Research Infrastructure; 93.306, 93.333, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: August 5, 2008.
Anna Snouffer,
Deputy Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E8-18507 Filed 8-12-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-1902 HANS ALEXANDER LAWRENCE, by his parents and next friends, Trude and Dale Lawrence; TRUDE LAWRENCE; DALE LAWRENCE, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS; PAUL L. VANCE, Doctor, officially; MARY HELEN SMITH, Doctor, officially; RAYMOND W. BRYANT, Doctor, officially, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-96-330-JFM) Submitted: April 15, 1997 Decided: May 29, 1997 Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dale Lawrence, Appellant Pro Se. Zvi Greismann, Assistant Attorney General, Rockville, Maryland; Phillip Tyson Bennett, REESE & CARNEY, Annapolis, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Appellants appeal from the district court's order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and dismissing Appellants' action pursuantto the civil remedies provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C.A. § 1415(e)(4)(B) (West Supp. 1996). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Lawrence v. Montgomery County Pub. Schools , No. CA-96-330-JFM (D. Md. May 22, 1996). 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
#### In the Matter of William HOGAN, Debtor, William Hogan, Appellant, v. PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, a Corporation, and Hight State Bank, a Banking Corporation, Appellees.

No. 6371.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

March 10, 1938.

Charles G. Briggle, Jr., of Springfield, Ill., for appellant.

George E. Drach, of Springfield, Ill., and Wallace T. Filson of Danville, Ill., for appellees.

Before SPARKS and TREANOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

On motion of counsel for appellee Prudential Insurance Company of America, it is now here ordered, adjudged, and decreed by this court that this appeal be, and the same is hereby, dismissed, with costs.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. Section 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report ofFLM Minerals Inc.(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended February 29, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I,Jianxing Qian, 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:

|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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|  

Dated this 10thday of April, 2008.



JIANXING QIANJianxing QianChief Financial Officer





















---
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 514

To repeal the restrictions on foreign ownership of licensed telecommunications

facilities.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 13, 1995

Mr. OXLEY (for himself, Mr. BOUCHER, Mr. FIELDS of Texas, Mr. TAUZIN,

and Mr. HASTERT) introduced the following bill; which was referred to

the Committee on Commerce

A BILL

To repeal the restrictions on foreign ownership of licensed

telecommunications facilities.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF FOREIGN OWNERSHIP RESTRIC4 TIONS.

5 (a) REPEAL.—Subsection (b) of section 310 of the

6 Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 310(b)) is

7 repealed.

8 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—

9 (1) Section 309(c)(2) of such Act (47 U.S.C.

10 309(c)(2)) is amended—
2

•HR 514 IH

1 (A) by striking subparagraph (B); and

2 (B) by redesignating subparagraphs (C)

3 through (H) as subparagraphs (B) through (G),

4 respectively.

5 (2) Section 309(j)(6) of such Act (47 U.S.C.

6 309(j)(6)) is amended by striking ‘‘sections 308(b)

7 and 310’’ and inserting ‘‘section 308(b)’’.

8 (3) Section 332(c) of such Act (47 U.S.C.

9 332(c)) is amended by striking paragraph (6).

Æ
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 19

- 1085

_____________________________
J AMAL M ARQUISE L AMONT W ILLIAMS , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Angela M. Cox , Judge

. October 14, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. B.L. T HOMAS , O STERHAUS , and J AY , JJ., concur

.

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

.

_____________________________2 Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and M.J. Lord, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Talla hassee
, for Appellee.
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 549

To provide a veterans bill of rights.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 17, 1995

Mr. STEARNS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

A BILL

To provide a veterans bill of rights.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Veterans Bill of Rights

5 Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. ADMINISTRATION OF RIGHTS AND BENEFITS.

7 The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall take any ac8 tion necessary to ensure that any rights and benefits pro9 vided under title 38, United States Code, to veterans who

10 qualify for the rights and benefits—

11 (1) are made available to the veterans in any 1

12 State or geographic location to the same extent as
2

•HR 549 IH

1 the rights and benefits are made available to the vet2 erans in any other State or geographic location; and

3 (2) are not denied to any veteran on the basis

4 of race, ethnicity, sex, religion, age, or geographic lo5 cation.

6 SEC. 3. DEFINITION.

7 For purposes of this Act, the term ‘‘State’’ has the

8 same meaning given such term in section 101(20) of title

9 38, United States Code.

Æ
#### UNITED STATES of America v. Paul W. HARRIS, Trustee in Bankruptcy of the Estate of Chinook Lumber & Mfg. Co., a Corporation.

No. 8824.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

April 19, 1938.

Sam M. Driver, U. S. Atty., of Spokane, Wash., for appellant.

Davenport & Wakefield, of Spokjne, Wash., for appellee.

Before GARRECHT, HANEY," and STEPHENS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Upon stipulation of counsel for respective parties, and by direction of the court, ordered appeal in this cause dismissed, that a decree of dismissal be filed and entered accordingly, and that the mandate of this court issue forthwith.