alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Star Jada Rivera, Appellant, v Department of Education, City of New York, Respondent.

[806 NYS2d 427]

In a proceeding pursuant to CELR article 78, inter alia, to review a determination of the Department of Education, City of New York, dated November 19, 2003, terminating the petitioner’s employment as a probationary parent coordinator, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jacobson, J.), dated December 1, 2004, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

A probationary employee may be discharged without a hearing and without a statement of reasons in the absence of a demonstration that the termination was in bad faith, for a constitutionally impermissible or an illegal purpose, or in violation of statutory or decisional law *(see Matter of York v McGuire,*63 NY2d 760 [1984]; *Matter of Rossetti-Boerner v Hampton Bays Union Free School Dist.,*1 AD3d 367 [2003]). Here, the petitioner failed to carry her burden of presenting competent proof that her termination was in bad faith, for illegal reasons, or in violation of statutory or decisional law *(see Matter of Johnson v Katz,*68 NY2d 649 [1986]; *Matter of Santoro v County of Suffolk,*20 AD3d 429 [2005]; *Matter of Weintraub v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of N.Y.,*298 AD2d 595 [2002]; *Matter of Cardo v Murphy,*104 AD2d 884 [1984]). Further, she failed to demonstrate entitlement to a name-clearing hearing *560
      *(see Matter of Swinton v Safir,*93 NY2d 758 [1999]; *Matter of Cardo v Murphy, supra).*Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. Cozier, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein and Lifson, JJ., concur.
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

____________________________

No. 09-1552

UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

PHILLIP RAWNSLEY

Defendant - Appellant

____________________________

JUDGMENT

Entered: July 9, 2009

Pursuant to 1st Cir. R. 27.0(d)

Upon consideration of appellant’s unopposed motion, it is hereby ordered that this

appeal be voluntarily dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 42(b).

Mandate to issue forthwith.

By the Court:

/s/ Richard Cushing Donovan, Clerk

cc:

Bjorn Lange

Aixa Maldonado

Kenneth Perkes

Phillip Rawnsley

Case 1:08-cr-00085-SM Document 55 Filed 07/10/09 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 08-cr-114-01-SM

Wilfredo Morales

O R D E R

Defendant Morales’ motion to continue the final pretrial conference and

trial is granted (document 11). Trial has been rescheduled for the January 

2009 trial period. Defendant Morales shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights

not later than December 4, 2008. On the filing of such waiver, his continuance

shall be effective. 

The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Final Pretrial Conference: January 12, 2009 at 11:30 p.m.

Jury Selection: January 21, 2009 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:08-cr-00114-SM Document 12 Filed 11/20/08 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

November 20, 2008

cc: Swen Wiberg, Esq.

Robert Veiga, Esq.

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:08-cr-00114-SM Document 12 Filed 11/20/08 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of BPZ Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Manuel Pablo Zuniga-Pflucker, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to and solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

 

(1)          The Report fully complies with the requirements of sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

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

 
| */s/ Manuel Pablo Zuniga-Pflucker*    | * * |
|---------------------------------------|----------|
| Manuel Pablo Zuniga-Pflucker          |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |
| January 17, 2006                 |

 

1

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6940

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ANDRÉ TERRY HALL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District

Judge. (CR-94-92, CA-97-745-R)

Submitted: October 20, 1998 Decided: November 4, 1998

Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eric Richard Nordman, Westerville, Ohio; Malcolm McLeod Doubles,

Salem, Virginia, for Appellant.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

André T. Hall seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to reinstate his 28 U.S.C.A.

§ 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998) motion. We have reviewed the record

and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v.

Hall, Nos. CR-94-92, CA-97-745-R (W.D. Va. June 9, 1998). 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.

DISMISSED
#### Mrs. Mary NEIL, Widow of George Alexander, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. GRAND LODGE OF KNIGHTS OF PYTHIAS, etc. (Colored), Defendant and Appellant.*

No. 14506.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

March 27, 1933.

Frank B. Smith, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Jos. M. Bowab, of New Orleans, for appel-lee.

PEE CUEIAM.

Por the reasons assigned in Mrs. Ernestine Flowers, Widow of William Johnson, v. Grand Lodge Knights of Pythias (La. App.) 146 So. 782, decided by us this day, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment herein appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                 Exhibit 23.4


                   Consent of Independent Public Accountants
                   -----------------------------------------


The Board of Directors
WM Bancorp:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Keystone Financial, Inc.'s 
Registration Statements on Form S-8 No. 33-38427, No. 33-34644, No. 33-48031, 
No. 33-59372, No. 33-68800, No. 33-77358, No. 33-77354, No. 33-82088, No. 
33-91572, No. 33-91574 and No. 33-91576 and Registration Statements on Form S-3 
No. 33-37382 and No. 33-50526 of our report dated January 28, 1994, with respect
to the consolidated financial statements of WM Bancorp included in the Annual 
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1995 of Keystone Financial, 
Inc.
 


                              KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP

Baltimore, Maryland
March 25, 1996
EXHIBIT 32.2



CFO CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT



I, Kevin T. Michaels, Senior Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer of Powerwave Technologies, Inc. (the Company),
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



1. the Quarterly Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the quarterly period ended October 3, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 780(d)); and



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





|                        |  |     |  |                                   
|----------------------- |  | --- |  | ----------------------------------
|Date: November 11, 2004 |  | By: |  | /s/ KEVIN T. MICHAELS             
|                        |  |     |  | Kevin T. Michaels                 
|                        |  |    
|                        |  |     |  | Senior Vice President, Finance and
|                        |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer           
|                        |  |    
|                        |  |     |  | Powerwave Technologies, Inc.
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**

 

I, Wm. Barrett Wellman, Chief Financial Officer of CoJax Oil and Gas Corporation (the "Company"), do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2019 (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 for the periods presented therein.
*Release Date: December 31, 2008*

*Other formats:*
ASCII (2 KB)
PDF (3 KB)
CSV (2 KB)

----

```
B.3. Net Charge-offs of Non-real-estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks
```

| Year | Estimated volume (billions of dollars) | Share of outstanding farm production loans (percent) |
|------|----------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|
||
| 93   | 6                                      | 19                                                   | 19 | 50 | .230 | .014 | .049 | .045 | .112 |
| 87   | 4                                      | 15                                                   | 24 | 45 | .198 | .008 | .036 | .051 | .095 |
| 126  | 18                                     | 37                                                   | 35 | 36 | .280 | .040 | .086 | .078 | .080 |
| 108  | 11                                     | 17                                                   | 34 | 45 | .259 | .027 | .041 | .075 | .098 |
| 308  | 67                                     | 53                                                   | 140 | 48 | .656 | .142 | .118 | .294 | .101 |
| 221  | 40                                     | 50                                                   | 58 | 73 | .471 | .085 | .114 | .124 | .157 |
| 175  | 34                                     | 35                                                   | 48 | 58 | .382 | .074 | .080 | .108 | .128 |
| 129  | 28                                     | 17                                                   | 46 | 38 | .284 | .062 | .039 | .099 | .081 |
| 59   | 8                                      | 16                                                   | 12 | 24 | .124 | .017 | .035 | .026 | .048 |
| 73   | 9                                      | 7                                                    | 23 | 34 | .146 | .018 | .015 | .045 | .064 |
| 90   | 8                                      | 13                                                   | 23 | 47 | .170 | .014 | .025 | .042 | .085 |
| n.a. | 12                                     | 20                                                   | 42 | n.a. | n.a. | .022 | .037 | .074 | n.a. |
```
   Note. Components might not sum to totals because of rounding. Reported
amounts are adjusted to exclude foreign results for large banks that
report farm net charge-offs on a consolidated basis and for small banks
that are allowed to report net charge-offs according to their internal
definition of agricultural loans. Quarterly data are as of end of quarter.
   n.a. Not available.
```

*Other formats:*
ASCII (2 KB)
PDF (3 KB)
CSV (2 KB)

Statistical releases

----

HomeEconomic research and dataAccessibilityContact Us
#### Susan Sommers, Respondent, v Harold Sommers, Appellant.

[807 NYS2d 308]

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from (1) so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Blydenburgh, J.), dated September 11, 2003, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for an award of an attorney’s fee, and (2) so much of an amended judgment of divorce of the same court entered September 19, 2003, as awarded the plaintiff 50% of the parties’ two IRA accounts.

Ordered that on the Court’s own motion, the decision and order on application of this Court dated March 22, 2004, which granted the defendant’s application to withdraw his appeal from the order dated September 11, 2003, is recalled and vacated; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated September 11, 2003, is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings consistent herewith; and it is further,

Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly amended the judgment of divorce with respect to the value of the parties’ IRA accounts in order to effect the clear intent of the court and the parties as expressed at the inquest resolving issues of equitable distribution *(see*CPLR 5019 [a]; *Verdrager v Verdrager,*230 AD2d 786 [1996]; *Bauman v Bauman,*200 AD2d 380 [1994]).

With respect to the award of an attorney’s fee, the defendant did not consent to a determination without a hearing *(see Devivo*
      *686
      *v Devivo,*2 AD3d 483 [2003]) and specifically objected to that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for an award of an attorney’s fee. Therefore, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for a hearing on the amount of the attorney’s fee to be awarded, if any *(see Patterson v Patterson,*302 AD2d 507 [2003]; *Lynch v Lynch,*97 AD2d 814 [1983]; *Weinberg v Weinberg,*95 AD2d 828 [1983]; *Ryan v Ryan,*92 AD2d 889 [1983]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Cozier, Santucci and Luciano, JJ., concur.
Form of Specimen Certificate of Registrant's Common Stock



 Exhibit 4.1 
 

 
  
 INCORPORATED UNDER
THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 THIS CERTIFICATE IS TRANSFERABLE 
 IN CANTON, MA, JERSEY CITY, NJ 
 OR NEW YORK, NY 
 FULLY PAID AND NONASSESSABLE SHARES OF COMMON STOCK, PAR VALUE $.0001 PER SHARE,
OF 
 SEVEN NETWORKS, INC. 
 transferable on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in person or by duly authorized attorney upon surrender of this certificate properly endorsed. This certificate is not valid until
countersigned by the Transfer Agent and Registrar. 
 WITNESS the facsimile seal of the Corporation and the facsimile
signatures of its duly authorized officers. 







 

 
  
 SEVEN NETWORKS,
INC. 
 THE CORPORATION WILL FURNISH WITHOUT CHARGE TO EACH STOCKHOLDER WHO SO REQUESTS A STATEMENT OF THE POWERS,
DESIGNATIONS, PREFERENCES AND RELATIVE, PARTICIPATING, OPTIONAL OR OTHER SPECIAL RIGHTS OF EACH CLASS OF STOCK OR SERIES THEREOF OF THE CORPORATION, AND THE QUALIFICATIONS, LIMITATIONS OR RESTRICTIONS OF SUCH PREFERENCES AND/OR RIGHTS. SUCH REQUEST
MAY BE MADE TO THE CORPORATION OR THE TRANSFER AGENT. 
 The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face
of this certificate, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations: 
 TEN COM- as tenants in common UNIF GIFT MIN ACT Custodian 
 TEN ENT- as tenants by the entireties (Cust)
(Minor) 
 JT TEN- as joint tenants with under Uniform Gifts to Minors 
 right of survivorship and 
 not as tenants in common Act              
 (State) 
 UNIF TRF MIN ACT- Custodian (until age) 
 (Cust) 
 under
Uniform Transfers to Minors 
 (Minor) 
 Act 
 (State) 
 Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list. 
 Dated, 
 X

 NOTICE: THE SIGNATURE TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE, IN
EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT, OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER. 
 SIGNATURE GUARANTEED 
 THE SIGNATURE(S) MUST BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR INSTITUTION (BANKS, STOCKBROKERS, SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS AND CREDIT
UNIONS WITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN APPROVED SIGNATURE GUARANTEE MEDALLION PROGRAM) PURSUANT TO S.E.C. RULE 17Ad-15.
Amendment to Agreement for Sale of Commercial



 Exhibit 10.97 
  
 AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF COMMERCIAL TIME 
  
 This Amendment dated as of January 13, 2004 by and between Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. (“Nexstar”) and Mission Broadcasting, Inc. (“Mission”) is made
to that certain Agreement for Sale of Commercial Time dated as of May 9, 2003 by and between Mission and Nexstar Broadcasting of the Midwest, Inc. (the “Agreement”). 
  
 WHEREAS, Mission is the proposed assignee of television broadcast station WBAK-TV, Terre Haute, Indiana (the “Station”) in a
pending application for FCC consent to assignment of license (File No. BALCT-20030522AFE) and is programming the Station pursuant to a time brokerage agreement; 
  

WHEREAS, Nexstar, as successor to Nexstar Broadcasting of the Midwest, Inc., is the licensee of television broadcast station WTWO, Terre Haute, Indiana; 
  
 WHEREAS, Mission and Nexstar entered into the Agreement for their mutual benefit; 

 
 NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing, Nexstar and Mission hereby amend
the Agreement as follows: 
  
 1. Nexstar has assumed all of Nexstar Broadcasting
of the Midwest, Inc.’s rights and obligations under the Agreement. 
  
 2.
Paragraph 3 and Schedule A of the Agreement are deleted in their entirety and replaced with the following: “Payments. During the term of this Agreement, from the revenues that Nexstar collects pursuant to this Agreement, Nexstar will pay
seventy (70) percent to Mission (the “Monthly Payment”). In exchange for the services Nexstar provides under this Agreement, Nexstar will retain thirty (30) percent of the revenues it collects as its fee for such services. 
  
 3. These revised payment terms will become effective February 1, 2004. 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this amendment as of the date first written
above. 
  

			
	 NEXSTAR BROADCASTING, INC.

		
	By:	 	 /s/ Shirley Green

	 	 	

	 Name:
	 	 Shirley Green

	 Title:
	 	 VP Finance



  

			
	 MISSION BROADCASTING, INC.

		
	By:	 	 /s/ David S. Smith

	 	 	

	 Name:
	 	 David S. Smith

	 Title:
	 	 President
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

LEWIS T. BABCOCK, JUDGE

Civil Case No. 11-cv-02215-LTB-KLM

CHARLES MASON,

Plaintiff,

v.

SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT COMPANY, 

Defendant.

________________________________________________________________________

ORDER 

________________________________________________________________________

THIS MATTER having come before the Court on the Stipulation of Dismissal With

Prejudice (Doc 28 - filed April 4, 2013), and the Court being fully advised in the premises,

it is therefore

ORDERED that this matter shall be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, each party to

pay their own fees and costs. 

BY THE COURT:

 s/Lewis T. Babcock 

Lewis T. Babcock, Judge

DATED: April 5, 2013

Case 1:11-cv-02215-LTB-KLM Document 29 Filed 04/05/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
1 In The



### Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO

. 09

- 1 7

- 00 049

- C V



### ____________________

KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY

, Appellant

V.

KERRY L. THOMAS , Appellee

________________________________________ _______________ ______________

On A ppeal from the 172nd District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No

. E

- 197,566

________________________________________ ________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The appellant, Kansas City Southern Railway Company , filed a motion to

dismiss this accelerated appeal because the claims against the appellant have been

non

- suited . The motion is voluntarily made by the appellant prior to any decision of

this Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1). No other party filed a notice of appeal.

We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.2 ________________________________ HOLLIS HORTON

Justice

Submitted on March 1, 2017

Opinion Delivered March 2, 2017

Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Philip A. Brimmer

Civil Action No. 11-cv-002238-PAB-KLM

THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF ADAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

LELAND ASAY,

SAMUEL VIDAL GOMEZ, and

DENNIS GLENN COEN,

Defendants.

ORDER

The Court, upon consideration of the Motion for Entry of Stipulated Judgment,

Stipulated Restitution Order, and Stipulated Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice of

Complaint Against Defendant Samuel Gomez [Docket No. 132], ORDERS:

1. The Motion for Entry of Stipulated Judgment, Stipulated Restitution Order,

and Stipulated Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice of Complaint Against Defendant

Samuel Gomez [Docket No. 132] filed by plaintiff The Board of County Commissioners

of the County of Adams is GRANTED. 

2. The parties’ Stipulated Judgment [Docket No. 132-1] (without exhibits) is

entered as a stipulated judgment of the Court. 

3. The Total Settlement Amount of $500,000, as defined in the parties’

Stipulated Judgment, constitutes “restitution” for purposes of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-54-

111.

4. Defendant Gomez shall pay the Total Settlement Amount of $500,000

Case 1:11-cv-02238-PAB-KLM Document 135 Filed 05/07/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

according to the terms set forth in the parties’ Stipulated Judgment.

5. Plaintiff’s claims against defendant Gomez as set forth in its complaint are

dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2).

6. Defendant Gomez shall voluntarily appear at depositions, hearings, and

trial in the above-captioned case. In addition, defendant Gomez shall:

a. accept service by mail or electronic transmission of notices or

subpoenas issued by plaintiff for testimony at depositions,

hearings, or trials;

b. with respect to such notices and subpoenas, waive the territorial

limits on service contained in Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure and any applicable local rules, provided plaintiff

reimburses defendant Gomez for travel and lodging at a

reasonable rate; and

c. consent to personal jurisdiction in any United States District Court

for purposes of enforcing any such subpoena.

7. Plaintiff’s dismissal without prejudice against defendant Gomez shall not

affect plaintiff’s claims in its complaint against the remaining defendants.

DATED May 7, 2013.

BY THE COURT:

 s/Philip A. Brimmer 

PHILIP A. BRIMMER

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02238-PAB-KLM Document 135 Filed 05/07/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2