alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT
32.3





STATEMENT
OF CHIEF ACCOUNTING 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, Sam H.
Lindsey, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of Biofuels Power Corporation (the
“Company”), hereby certifies that:





The
Company’s Form 10-Q Report for the nine months ended September 20, 2009 (the
“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 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/
Sam H. Lindsey, Jr.,


Sam H.
Lindsey, Jr., Chief Financial Officer


Dated:
November 20, 2009
#### Michael Timpano, Appellant, v. Morning Journal Association and Star Company, Respondents.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Hirscliberg, P. J., Woodward, Burr, Rich and Miller, JJ., concurred.
#### Job Toles, plaintiff in error, *vs.*Miles Cole, defendant in error.

*Error to Kane.*

In an action of debt, tbe proper judgment is for tbe amount of the debt, to be discharged on the payment of the damages and costs.

This cause was heard before Hugh T. Dickey, Judge, and a jury, at a special term of the Kane Circuit Court. The action was in debt. The jury, in their verdict, found for the plaintiff $281 81; and the judgment thereon was, *“*that the plaintiff have judgment against the defendant for said sum of two hundred and eighty-one dollars and eighty -one cents, together with his costs herein.” The defendant below sued out this writ of error.

*563Arnold & Lay, for plaintiff in error.

I. G. Wilson, for defendant in error.

Opinion by Treat, C. J.:

The action was debt, on a bond, in the penalty of $500, conditioned for the payment of whatever judgment might be recovered in a specified suit. Plea, *non est factum.*Verdict, “We, the jury, find for the plaintiff two hundred eight-one dollars and eighty-one cents; ” and judgment accordingly. The jury should have found the amount of the penalty of the bond, as the debt, and the amount of the recovery in the action referred to in the condition, as the damages; and the proper judgment thereon would have been for the amount of the debt, to he discharged on the payment of the damages and costs. The case of Austin vs. The People, *ante,*452, and the authorities there cited, are decisive.

Reverse the judgment, with costs, and remand the cause for further proceedings.

*Judgment reversed.*
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 21.1

                     SUBSIDIARIES OF SUMMIT PROPERTIES INC.

NAME OF SUBSIDIARY                                         STATE OF ORGANIZATION
------------------                                         ---------------------
Summit Properties Partnership, L.P.                              Delaware
Summit Financing, Inc.                                           Maryland
Summit Southwest I, Inc.                                         Maryland
Summit Southwest GP, Inc.                                        Maryland
Nagrom Enterprises, Inc.                                       Pennsylvania
Summit Management Company                                        Maryland
Summit Apartment Builders, Inc.                                   Florida
Home Ownership Made Easy, LLC                                    Delaware
Stony Point/Summit, LLC                                       North Carolina
Summit/Belmont Limited Partnership                               Virginia
Henderson/McGuire Partners (Limited Partnership)                 Delaware
McGregor/McGuire, LLC                                         North Carolina
Sand Lake Joint Venture                                           Florida
Portofino Place, Ltd.                                             Florida
Foxcroft East Associates                                      North Carolina
Summit Stonefield, LLC                                         Pennsylvania
Summit Southwest, L.P.                                           Delaware
Summit Valley Brook, LLC                                         Delaware
Summit Shiloh, LLC                                                Georgia
Summit Sweetwater, LLC                                            Georgia
Summit Grandview, LLC                                         North Carolina
Summit Grand Parc, LLC                                           Delaware
Summit Roosevelt, LLC                                            Delaware
PAPEC Silo Creek, LLC                                            Delaware
Summit Brickellview, LLC                                         Delaware
Exhibit
10.6


 


Greenrose
Acquisition Corp.


1000
Woodbury Road


Suite
#212


Woodbury,
New York 11797


 


February
11, 2020


 


Ladies
and Gentlemen:


 


This
letter will confirm our agreement that, commencing on the effective date (the “Effective Date”) of the
registration statement (the “Registration Statement”) for the initial public offering (the “IPO”)
of the securities of Greenrose Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”) and continuing until the earlier of
(i) the consummation by the Company of an initial business combination and (ii) the Company’s liquidation (in each case
as described in the Registration Statement) (such earlier date hereinafter referred to as the “Termination Date”),
Greenrose Associates LLC shall make available to the Company certain office space and administrative and support services as may
be required by the Company from time to time, at 1000 Woodbury Road, Woodbury, New York 11797. In exchange therefore, the Company
shall pay Greenrose Associates LLC $10,000 per month on the Effective Date and continuing monthly thereafter until the Termination
Date.


 


Greenrose
Associates LLC hereby agrees that it does not have any right, title, interest or claim of any kind in or to any monies that may
be set aside in a trust account (the “Trust Account”) that may be established upon the consummation
of the IPO and will not seek recourse against the Trust Account for any reason whatsoever.


 


This
agreement may not be amended, modified or waived as to any particular provision, except by a written instrument executed by the
parties hereto.


 


No
party hereto may assign this agreement or any rights, interests or contracted obligations hereunder without the prior written
approval of the other party. Any purported assignment in violation of this paragraph shall be void and ineffectual and shall not
operate to transfer or assign any interest or title to the purported assignee.


 


This
agreement shall be governed by, construed in accordance with, and interpreted pursuant to the laws of the State of New York, without
giving effect to its choice of law principles.


 


[SIGNATURE
PAGE FOLLOWS]


 



     


     


    

 


	 	Very
    truly yours,
	 	 
	 	Greenrose
    Acquisition Corp.
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ William F. Harley
    III
	 	Name: 	William F. Harley
    III
	 	Title:	Chief Executive
    Officer


 


	ACCEPTED
    AND AGREED	 
	 	 
	Greenrose
    Associates LLC	 
	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ William F. Harley
    III	 
	Name: 	William F. Harley
    III	 
	Title:	Manager
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices 

# Order

November 20, 2012

145542

- 3

VICKI L. ZUNICH, as Personal Representative

for the Estate of STEVEN ZUNICH, and as

Next Friend for CHARLES ZUNICH and

MATTHEW ZUNICH, Minors,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 145542

COA: 297456

Midland CC: 02

- 005382

- NH

MIDMICHIGAN MEDICAL CENTER

- MIDLAND, JEFFREY S. NEWMAN, M.D.,

FAMILY MEDICINE ASSOCIATES OF

MIDLAND, P.C., a/k/a FAMILY PRACTICE

ASSOCIATES OF MIDLAND, P.C.,

KENNETH M. MACKINNON, M.D.,

JAMES H. FRYE, M.D., MIDMICHIGAN

HEALTH, and FAITH D. FUENTES, M.D.,

Defendants

- Appellees.

______________________________________/

VICKI L. ZUNICH, as Personal Representative

for the Estate of STEVEN ZUNICH, and as

Next Friend for CHARLE S ZUNICH and

MATTHEW ZUNICH, Minors,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 145543

COA: 297457

Midland CC: 03

- 005843

- NH

FAMILY MEDICINE ASSOCIATES OF

MIDLAND, P.C.,

Defendant

- Appellee,

and

JERRY L. FERRELL, M.D., and ROBERTA

L. CORBAT,

Defendants.

______________________________________/I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk November 20, 2012

h1113 2

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 12, 2012

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

C AVANAGH and H ATHAWAY

, JJ., would grant leave to appeal.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

July 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 130396 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 130396 COA: 265920 Eaton CC: 04-020276-FH RONALD JAMES HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the December 1, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

d0724 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 31, 2006

Clerk
EX-10.7.1



 Exhibit 10.7.1 

 
 



 
 50 WEST 23rd STREET NEW YORK, NY 10010 

TELEPHONE: 212-807-9060 FAX: 212-590-6500 
 David Diamond 
  

							
	Title:	 	SVP, Human Resources
		
	Base Salary:	 	$360,000
		
	Bonus:	 	Target bonus of 30% of base salary (Target is guaranteed min. for fiscal 2013), payout in April, 2014.
		
	Res. Share Grant:	 	100,000 (3yr lapsing consistent with other RES grants)
		
	Stock Options:	 	100,000 (4yr vesting in equal annual installments) priced at market close on the effective date of this outline.
			
	Severance:	 	1)	 	Termination without cause will entitle you to receive:
				
		 		 	i.	 	Base Salary for 12 months following such termination (no mitigation) to be paid in accordance with the Company’s regular payroll schedule.
				
		 		 	ii.	 	All previously vested stock options and any unvested stock options or restricted shares that would have vested/lapsed in the next 12 months will accelerate and vest/lapse and
shall be exercisable for ninety (90) days after termination.
				
		 		 	iii.	 	Continued participation in all medical and dental plans at the same benefit level at which you were participating on the date of termination for 12 months.
			
		 	2)	 	Termination without cause within one (1) year after a Change in Control will entitle you to receive:
				
		 		 	i.	 	Base Salary for 12 months following such termination (no mitigation) to be paid in accordance with the Company’s regular payroll schedule.
				
		 		 	ii.	 	All previously vested stock options and any unvested stock options will accelerate and immediately vest and shall be exercisable for ninety (90) days after termination.
The restrictions on all shares of restricted stock where restrictions have not lapsed shall lapse as of the date of termination.
				
		 		 	iii.	 	Continued participation in all medical and dental plans at the same benefit level at which you were participating on the date of termination for 12
months.









 



 
 50 WEST 23rd STREET NEW YORK, NY 10010 

TELEPHONE: 212-807-9060 FAX: 212-590-6500 
  


							
			
		 	3)	 	Change of Control (The closing of any transaction regarding the sale or other transfer of substantially all the assets or stock of dELiA*s, Inc.)
				
		 		 	i.	 	If the acquiring entity requires Employee to relocate Employee’s principal place of employment, as in effect immediately prior to the Closing Date, outside of a
twenty-five (25) mile radius within 12 months following the Closing Date Employee may terminate employment and be entitled to severance as defined in number 1) i, ii, iii of this document.

  

									
	By:	 	



	 		 		 	
		 	Tracy Gardner, CEO	 		 		 	
				
	Accepted and Agreed:	 		 		 	
					
	By:	 	



	 		 	Date:	 	 7/28/13

		 	David Diamond
#### Maggie Hallock, as Administratrix, etc., of Gurney E. Hallock, Deceased, Respondent, v. The New York; Ontario and Western Railway Company, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concurred, except Williams, J.. who dissented.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

July 26, 2010 

p0719 

Order 

 

July 26, 2010 

140783 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 140783 

 COA: 285102 

St. Clair CC: 07-001697-FH 

ASMIR MILJKOVIC, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 26, 2010 judgment 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-40201

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ABRAHAM CONTRERAS-ARMENDARIS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:15-CR-978-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Abraham 

Contreras-Armendaris has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief 

in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States 

v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Contreras-Armendaris has not filed a 

response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the 

record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 2, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-40201 Document: 00513664055 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/02/2016
No. 16-40201

2

presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further 

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 16-40201 Document: 00513664055 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/02/2016
Denied and Opinion Filed July 12, 2024 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-24-00823-CV 

IN RE RED BIRD TRAILS APARTMENTS, 

BRIDGEWAY CAPITAL, LLC, AND NCM MANAGEMENT, LTD, 

Relators 

Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 1 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. CC-17-00945-A 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Nowell, and Miskel 

Opinion by Justice Partida-Kipness 

Before the Court are relators’ July 11, 2024 petition for writ of mandamus and 

emergency motion for temporary relief. In their petition, relators seek to compel the 

trial court to grant them a mandatory continuance or, alternatively, to either exclude 

certain newly disclosed evidence or grant a limited continuance and allow relators 

to conduct discovery on the newly disclosed evidence. In their emergency motion, 

relators seek to stay all trial court proceedings, including the July 15, 2024 jury trial, 

pending our action on the petition. 
 –2– 

Entitlement to mandamus relief requires a relator to show the trial court 

clearly abused its discretion and the relator lacks an adequate appellate remedy. In 

re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. 

proceeding). After reviewing relators’ petition and the record before us, we conclude 

relators have failed to demonstrate entitlement to mandamus relief. 

Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

52.8(a). Having denied relators’ petition, we also deny as moot relators’ emergency 

motion. 

240823F.P05 

/Robbie Partida-Kipness/

ROBBIE PARTIDA-KIPNESS 

JUSTICE
#### Sam HOWARD, as Trustee In Bankruptcy of CORPORATION SECURITIES CO. OF CHICAGO, a Bankrupt, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CENTRAL HANOVER BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, a corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 6041.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

March 4, 1938.

Henry A. Converse, of Springfield, Ill., and Carroll J. Lord, of Chicago, Ill., for appellant.

Hovey C. Clark of New York City, and Logan *Hay,. of Springfield, Ill., for appellee.

Before EVANS and MAJOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Now this day come the parties by their counsel and present and file a stipulation to dismiss this appeal, which said stipulation is in the words and figures following, to wit:

“It is hereby stipulated by and between the attorneys for the appellant and the attorneys for the appellee as follows:

“1. That the appeal of the appellant be dismissed without costs to either party as against the other; and

“2. That an order to the foregoing effect may he entered by the attorneys for either party without notice to the other.”

On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered and adjudged by this court that this appeal be, and the same is hereby, dis*1005missed, without costs to either party as against the other, pursuant to the foregoing stipulation.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, CASE NO: 08-20498

v. DISTRICT JUDGE THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES E. BINDER

LERON DEOUNTE DAVIS,

Defendant.

/

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT, FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

I. REPORT AND FINDINGS

On June 3, 2009, the case was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1(B) and 636(b)(3) for purposes of receiving, on consent of the parties,

Defendant’s offer of a plea of guilty. The Defendant, along with counsel, appeared before me

on June 3, 2009. In open court I examined the Defendant under oath, confirmed the

Defendant’s consent, and then advised and questioned the Defendant regarding each of the

inquiries prescribed by Rule 11(b) of the FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. Based

upon the Defendant’s answers and demeanor, I HEREBY FIND 1) that the Defendant is

competent to tender a plea, 2) that Defendant’s plea was knowingly, intelligently made, and 3)

that the offense(s) to which he pled are supported by an independent basis in fact containing

each of the essential elements of the offense(s). Therefore, I have ordered the preparation of a

presentence investigation report.

1:08-cr-20498-TLL-CEB Doc # 18 Filed 06/04/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 57
II. RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS RECOMMENDED that subject to the Court’s

consideration of the plea agreement pursuant to Rule 11(c) of the FEDERAL RULES OF

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, the Defendant be adjudged guilty and have sentence imposed.

III. REVIEW

The parties to this action may object to and seek review of this Report and

Recommendation within ten (10) days of service of a copy hereof as provided for in 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1). Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of

appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S. Ct. 466, 88 L. Ed.2d 435 (1985); Frontier Ins.

Co. v. Blaty, 454 F.3d 590, 596 (6th Cir. 2006); United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984

(6th Cir. 2005). The parties are advised that making some objections, but failing to raise

others, will not preserve all the objections a party may have to this Report and

Recommendation. McClanahan v. Comm’r of Social Security, 474 F.3d 830, 837 (6th Cir.

2006); Frontier Ins. Co., 454 F.3d at 596-97. Pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2), a copy of

any objections is to be served upon this Magistrate Judge.

 s/ Charles` E Binder 

CHARLES E. BINDER 

Dated: June 4, 2009 United States Magistrate Judge

CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that this Report and Recommendation was electronically filed this date,

electronically served on Norman Donker and Steve Jacobs, and served on District Judge

Ludington in the traditional manner.

Date: June 4, 2009 By s/Jean L. Broucek 

Case Manager to Magistrate Judge Binder

1:08-cr-20498-TLL-CEB Doc # 18 Filed 06/04/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 58
Pursuant to5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , th e court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except under the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 40539 C onfer enc e Cal endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f- A pp el l ee v. JU A N E S P IN O Z A - E L ISO N D O , al so kn ow n as Jua n E l i zond o- M art i n ez D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e S ou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SDC N o . 7 : 0 8 - CR- 6 9 - ALL B e fo r e H IG G IN B O T H A M , D E N N IS , a n d P R A D O , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R I A M: * Th e Feder alPu bl i c D ef enderappointed t o r epr es ent Juan E spi nozaE l i sond o ha s m oved f or l eave to w i t h draw an d h as fi l ed a bri ef i n accor da n ce w i t h A n d er s v . Ca lif

o rn ia , 3 86 U . S . 738 ( 196 7) . E spi n oza- E l i sond o ha s not f i l ed a respon se. O u r i n dep en den trevi ew of the rec ord an d coun sel ’ s bri ef di scl oses n o n on frivo l ou s is s u e fo r ap p ea l . A ccord i n gly, cou n sel’ s m oti on f or leav e to w i t hdr aw i s G RA N TE D , c o uns e li s e xc us e d f r o m f ur t he rr e s po ns ibi l i t i e s he r e i n, a n d th e A P P E A L IS D IS M IS S E D . S ee5 T H C IR . R. 42. 2. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Februar y 18, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk
SCWC-13-0000429

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

DISCOVER BANK, a Delaware Corporation, 

Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

BRADFORD W. ADAMS and EI RAYNA K. ADAMS, 

Petitioners/Defendants-Appellants.

 

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-13-0000429; CIV. NO. 1RC09-1-009133)

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

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

The application for writ of certiorari, filed on August

20, 2013, is hereby rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, September 5, 2013.

Bradford W. Adams and 

Ei Rayna K. Adams, 

petitioners pro se

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-13-0000429

05-SEP-2013

10:29 AM