alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Sharon Wade, Respondent, v Sherman Pegues, Appellant.

[745 NYS2d 63]

In a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Lim, J.), dated June 11, 2001, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Fasone, H.E.), dated March 14, 2001, which, inter alia, directed him to pay a biweekly total of $224.35 in child support and child care expenses.

Ordered that the order dated June 11, 2001, is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion, without costs or disbursements, the objections are sustained, the order dated March 14, 2001, is vacated, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Kings County, for a recalculation of the father’s support obligations; and it is further,

Ordered that until a new order is made, the father shall continue to make biweekly child support payments of $106.35.

The court found that the father’s adjusted gross income was approximately $17,000 per year and ordered him to pay $106.35 biweekly for basic child support of the parties’ child. The court also ordered the father to pay an additional $118 biweekly as his proportionate share of future reasonable child care expenses, thereby making a total biweekly obligation of $224.35. The father is also obligated to pay $200 per month in child support for another child by a different mother, and he pays approximately $1,200 in annual medical insurance premiums to provide coverage for himself and the subject child.

*418Based upon, these figures, it appears that the total amount of support and child care expenses which the father was directed to pay will reduce his income to a level where he will be unable to provide for himself. Accordingly, the amount of support and child care expenses imposed is unjust and inappropriate *(see*Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [f], [g]; *see generally Matter of Cary v Megerell,*219 AD2d 334; *cf. Matter of Simmons v Williams,*255 AD2d 446). Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Kings County, for a recalculation of the father’s support obligations. Santucci, J.P., McGinity, Luciano and Adams, JJ., concur.
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 1Federal Reserve Bank of: BostonFilings received during the week ending December 20, 2014FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodEAST CAMBRIDGE SAVINGS BANK                                                                                             * 18C
#### Cairo D. RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a Municipality, Defendant, and Lee Zorne, individually; et al., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 02-56774. D.C. No. CV-99-13441-ABC.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 13, 2003.*

Decided Aug. 4, 2003.

Before SKOPIL, FERGUSON, and BOOCHEVER, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Cairo D. Rodriguez appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the City of Los Angeles, dismissing his second amended complaint alleging discrimination, violation of civil rights, racketeering, and other claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and our review is de novo. *See Weiner v. San Diego County,*210 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir.2000).

For the reasons set forth in the district court’s comprehensive order entered on June 25, 2002, we affirm the summary judgment.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit No.	 Description

  3.1	Registrant's Articles of Incorporation, as amended (1)
		  3.2	 		Registrant's Bylaws (2)
10.1	Amended and Restated 1990 Stock Option Plan (Compensatory   Plan)
(3)
10.2	Stock Purchase Agreement dated April 28, 2000 by and
 among
 the Company,
Amancio Victor Suarez, Carlos Ortega, Amancio J. Suarez and
Master Light Enterprises Ltd.,
as assignee of Starlight Marketing Development Ltd. and the
 related letter agreements supplementing and modifying the
terms of the Stock Purchase Agreement April 19, 2000,
 July 13, 2000, July 27, 2000, November 20, 2000 and
 August 20, 2001 (4)
              22.1	       		List of Registrant's Subsidiaries (5)


(1)  Filed in part herewith, and incorporated by reference
 to the exhibit with the
 same number filed with the Registrant's Annual Report on
 Form 10-K for the year
 ended December 31, 1992, as amended.

(2)  Incorporated by reference to the exhibit with the
 same number filed with the
 Registrant's Registration Statement No. 2-83088.

(3)  Incorporated by reference to  exhibit 10.2 filed
 with the Registrant's
 Annual Report
 on Form 10-K for fiscal 1990.

(4)  Filed herewith.

(5)  Filed in part herewith, and incorporated by
 reference to
 (i) exhibits 10.8, 10.9, 10.10, 10.11, 10.12 and
 10.13 filed
 with the
 Registrant's Annual Report on Form 10-K for fiscal 1989,
 and
(ii) exhibits 10.4 filed with the Registrant's
Annual Reports
 on Form 10-K for
fiscal 1990, 1991 and 1992, respectively.

(b) 	Reports on Form 8-K

No reports on Form 8-K were filed during the
 last quarter
 of the period
 covered by this report.


		1

10


~NEWY1:3591436:2:|12/21/2001 4:14 PM
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6652

THOMAS R. MORKE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ELLIS B. WRIGHT, JR., Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-94-42-R) Submitted: May 29, 1998 Decided: July 16, 1998 Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Thomas R. Morke, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant Thomas Morke noted his appeal on May 5, 1997 of three district court orders. Morke’s appeal from two of the orders, entered on November 5, 1996 and January 31, 1997, is untimely. The time periods for filing notices of appeal are governed by Fed. R.App. P. 4. These periods are “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). Parties to civil actions have thirty days within which to file in the district court notices of appeal from judgments or final orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The only exceptions to the appeal period are when the district court extends the time to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). Morke’s failure to file his notice of appeal as to these two orders within the thirty-day appeal period or to obtain an extension of the appeal period deprives us of jurisdiction to review these orders. We deny a certificate of probable cause and dismiss the appeal as to these orders. Morke’s appeal of the district court’s order denying his Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment, however, is timely. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Morke v. Wright , No. CA-94-42-R (W.D. Va. Apr. 17, 1997). We3 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
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 2Federal Reserve Bank of: New YorkFilings received during the week ending June 11, 2016FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodNONE
**Exhibit32.1**

PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE AND FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Vita Food Products, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, in thecapacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that: (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date: November 14, 2006 |                                         | /s/ Clifford K. Bolen  |   |
|-------------------------|----------------------------------------------|------------------------|--------|
|                    | Clifford K. Bolen,                           |
|                    | President and Chief Executive Officer        |
|                    | (Principal Executive Officer)                |
|                    |                                         |
|                    |                                         |
| Date: November 14, 2006 |                                         | /s/ William J. Kenealy |   |
|                    | William J. Kenealy,                          |
|                    | Chief Financial Officer                      |
|                    | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |

 

1

----
23

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

Estimated volume Share of total non-real-estate farm loans

(millions of dollars) (percent)

Year Total Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

1998...... 87 4 15 24 45 .198 .008 .036 .051 .095

1999...... 126 18 37 35 36 .280 .040 .086 .078 .080

2000...... 108 11 17 34 45 .259 .027 .041 .075 .098

2001...... 308 67 53 140 48 .656 .142 .118 .294 .101

2002...... 221 40 50 58 73 .471 .085 .114 .124 .157

2003...... 175 34 35 48 58 .382 .074 .080 .108 .128

2004...... 129 28 17 46 38 .284 .062 .039 .099 .081

2005...... 59 8 16 12 24 .124 .017 .035 .026 .048

2006...... 73 9 7 23 34 .146 .018 .015 .045 .064

2007...... 90 8 13 23 47 .170 .014 .025 .042 .085

2008...... 150 12 20 42 75 .269 .022 .037 .074 .129

2009...... n.a. 65 59 n.a. n.a. n.a. .111 .108 n.a. 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.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2085 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2085

 To protect Native American sacred sites located within the Valley of 
                Chiefs, Montana, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 6, 2001

Mr. Rahall (for himself, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Kildee, Mr. George Miller of 
    California, Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island, and Mr. Faleomavaega) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                               Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To protect Native American sacred sites located within the Valley of 
                Chiefs, Montana, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Valley of Chiefs Native American 
Sacred Site Preservation Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY OF MINERAL MINING, LEASING, AND DISPOSAL LAWS.

    (a) Reference.--Any reference in this Act to the ``Valley of 
Chiefs'' is a reference to the Weatherman Draw Area of Critical 
Environmental Concern located in Carbon County, Montana, designated by 
the Bureau of Land Management pursuant to a document entitled ``Areas 
of Critical Environmental Concern, Decision Record and Approved 
Amendment of the Billings, Powder River and South Dakota Resource 
Management Plans'' dated March 1999, United States Department of the 
Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Billings Field Office.
    (b) Restriction.--After the date of enactment of this Act--
            (1) lands within the Valley of Chiefs shall not be open to 
        the location of mining claims, mill, and tunnel sites under the 
        general mining laws of the United States;
            (2) the Secretary of the Interior shall not issue any lease 
        under the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181 and following) or 
        the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 100 and following) 
        for lands within the Valley of Chiefs; and
            (3) lands within the Valley of Chiefs shall not be 
        available for disposal of mineral materials under the Act of 
        July 31, 1947, commonly known as the Materials Act of 1947 (30 
        U.S.C. 601 and following).
    (c) Deadline for Permit Application Approvals.--After June 6, 2001, 
the Secretary of the Interior shall not approve any application for a 
permit to drill for any lease issued under the Mineral Leasing Act (30 
U.S.C. 181 and following) within the Valley of Chiefs.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 10.79

                           Amendment Number Two

  To That Certain Agreement by and between Carrington Laboratories, Inc.,
     and Carrington Laboratories Belgium, N.V. and CSC Pharmaceuticals
                      HandelsGmbhH., Vienna, Austria

       This attachment amends and revises that certain Sales Distribution
  Agreement dated April 17, 1998, by and between Carrington Laboratories,
  Inc., and Carrington  Laboratories Belgium  N.V. (together  hereinafter
  referred to  as  "Carrington") and  CSC  Pharmaceuticals  HandelsGmbH.,
  Vienna, Austria ("CSC").

       Article 7.     Trademarks

            7.5.a.    In the  event Carrington  in  the five-  (5-)  year
                 period  after   the   termination  of   this   Agreement
                 distributes the  Products  in the  Territory  under  the
                 Trademarks registered by CSC (RADIADERMA AND DIABDERMA),
                 directly  or   through  an   Affiliate  Company   or   a
                 Distributor other than CSC, Carrington shall pay CSC, as
                 consideration for  the goodwill  created by  CSC, a  sum
                 corresponding to the average  of the invoiced amount  of
                 the Products made  by CSC  in the  Territory during  the
                 three- (3-) year period  before the termination of  this
                 Agreement.

            7.5.b.    In the event CSC, during the term of this  contract
                 or subsequent renewals  of this  contract, breaches  the
                 contract and replaces  Carrington as  the developer  and
                 manufacturer of  the finished  products sold  under  the
                 trademarks Radiaderma  and Diabderma  and registered  by
                 CSC, CSC shall pay  Carrington as consideration for  the
                 research, composition of matter development and clinical
                 efforts  to  support  the   original  products,  a   sum
                 corresponding to the average  of the invoiced amount  of
                 the products sold  by CSC  in the  territory during  the
                 three  (3)  year  period   before  the  replacement   of
                 Carrington produced products.
<PAGE>
       This Amendment shall become effective  upon its execution by  both
  parties.

       All other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain unchanged.


                           AGREED AND ACCEPTED BY:

 CARRINGTON LABORATORIES, INC.           CARRINGTON LABORATORIES BELGIUM N.V.

 /s/ Carlton E. Turner                   /s/ Carlton E. Turner
 ---------------------                   ---------------------
 Name:  Carlton E. Turner, Ph.D., D.Sc.  Name: Carlton E. Turner, Ph.D., D.Sc.
 Title: President & CEO                  Title: President & CEO



 CSC PHARMACEUTICALS, HANDELSGMBH        DATE:   February 14, 2000

 /s/ Dr. Yervant Zarmanian
 -------------------------
 Name:  Dr. Yervant Zarmanian
 Title: CEO
#### In the Matter of Charles Benedict, Respondent, v Melody Zimmer, Appellant.

[744 NYS2d 717]

In a child custody and visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Richmond County (Boggio, R.), dated June 27, 2000, as awarded custody of the child to the father, and directed that her visitation would be supervised and take place in Pennsylvania.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Richmond County, for a hearing on the issue of custody and a de novo determination of the father’s petition for a change of custody; and it is further,

Ordered that the provisions of the order dated June 27, 2000 shall remain in effect pending the new determination.

It was error for the Family Court to issue an order concerning custody and visitation based on controverted allegations without conducting a full evidentiary hearing *(see Biagi v Biagi,*124 AD2d 770). Moreover, a custody determination should be made upon consideration of all of the circumstances to reach the disposition that promotes the best interests of the child *(see Metzger v Metzger,*240 AD2d 642). Accordingly, we remit the matter for a hearing where the parties and the Law Guardian can present their evidence. O’Brien, J.P., Krausman, Schmidt and Cozier, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Thomas Burke, Appellant.

[811 NYS2d 714]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kron, J.), rendered January 8, 2004, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his right to appeal as part of his plea agreement *(see People v Kemp,*94 NY2d 831, 833 [1999]; *People v Moissett,*76 NY2d 909, 910-911 [1990]; *People v Milgrom,*281 AD2d 492, 493 [2001]). His oral and written waivers constitute an unrestricted waiver of all possible appellate claims despite the fact that, at the time the appeal waiver was exacted, the defendant did not expressly waive every potential claim or available defense *(see People v Muniz,*91 NY2d 570, 574-575 [1998]). Thus, there was a valid waiver of the right to appeal, which encompassed the denial of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress certain identification evidence *(see People v Kemp, supra; People v Williams,*36 NY2d 829 [1975], *cert denied*423 US 873 [1975]). Since the suppression issue is the only issue raised on appeal, the judgment of conviction must be affirmed *(see People v Callahan,*80 NY2d 273, 283-285 [1992]). Cozier, J.P., Santucci, Spolzino and Skelos, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Delvis Damian Villa Diaz

v. Case No. 09-cv-12-SM

United States of America

O R D E R

Although he labels his petition as one seeking habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C.

Section 2241, it is in reality one seeking relief from his conviction and sentence, afforded under

Section 2255. In that respect, the petition must be dismissed as an unauthorized second or

successive petition - that is, one which the Court of Appeals has not authorized this court to

consider. See 28 U.S.C. Section 2244(b)(3)(A); Ranieri v. United States, 233 F.3d 96, 99 (1st

Cir. 2000). Petitioner filed a previous Section 2255 petition in Diaz v. United States, 

No. 07-cv-00081-SM, which was dismissed by order dated April 12, 2007. Petitioner may, of

course, seek authorization to file a second petition, but he must do so in the United States Court

of Appeals for the First Circuit, located in Boston, Massachusetts. The Petition is dismissed for

want of jurisdiction.

SO ORDERED.

February 9, 2009 _________________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Delvis Damian Villa Diaz, pro se

Case 1:09-cv-00012-SM Document 4 Filed 02/09/09 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 10.3



CERTIFICATION

I, Dale Kearns, Chief Financial Officer, certify that:

	1.	
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Zi
    Corporation; 

	 	 	 
	2.	
    Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not
    contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material
    fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
    under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the
    period covered by this annual report;

	 	 	 
	3.	
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and
    other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present
    in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and
    cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
    annual report;

	 	 	 
	4.	
    The registrant's other certifying officers and I are
    responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
    procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for
    the registrant and we have:

	 	 	 
	 	a.	
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or
    caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
    supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,
    including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others
    within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual
    report is being prepared; 

	 	 	 
	 	b.	
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's
    disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this annual report our
    conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and
    procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this annual report based
    on such evaluation; and

	 	 	 
	 	c.	
    disclosed in this annual report any change in the
    registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during
    the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is
    reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control
    over financial reporting; and 

	 	 	 
	5.	
    The registrant's other certifying officers and I have
    disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
    financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
    registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
    function): 

	 	 	 
	 	a.	
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in
    the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which
    are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to
    record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for
    the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and
    

	 	 	 
	 	b.	
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
    management or other employees who have a significant role in the
    registrant's internal controls. 



 

	Date: May 14, 2004.	
     

	 	
    "Dale Kearns" 

	 	Dale Kearns

    Chief Financial Officer