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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6102

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

FRANCINA MARGARITA JEMMOTT,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District

Judge. (CR-92-33, CA-95-956-5-H)

Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: June 5, 1996

Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Francina Margarita Jemmott, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Edwin

Hamilton, III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying her

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) 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 on the reasoning

of the district court. United States v. Jemmott, Nos. CR-92-93; CA95-956-5-H (E.D.N.C. Dec. 12, 1995). 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
#### IN RE APPEAL OF WALLIN

No. 362PA00

Case below: 137 N.C. App. 207

Petition by respondent for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 allowed 20 December 2000.
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

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of Serologicals Corporation (the "Company"), hereby certifies that the Company's Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the year ended March 28, 2004 (the "Report") as filed on the date hereof with the securities and Exchange Commission fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.

|Dated: May 7, 2004 |  |                                                                              
|------------------ |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                   |  | /s/DAVID A. DODDDavid A. Dodd
President, Chief Executive Officer and Director

---



QuickLinks
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2144 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to apply Medicare competitive 

bidding to vacuum erection systems and to require the Secretary of 

Health and Human Services to implement a national mail order program 

for such devices. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 13, 2014 

Mrs. MCCASKILL introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to apply 

Medicare competitive bidding to vacuum erection systems 

and to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to implement a national mail order program for 

such devices. 

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 ‘‘Preventing Unneces5 sary Medicare Payments (PUMP) Act of 2014’’. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2144 IS

1 SEC. 2. APPLICATION OF MEDICARE COMPETITIVE BID2 DING TO VACUUM ERECTION SYSTEMS AND 

3 REQUIRING A NATIONAL MAIL ORDER PRO4 GRAM FOR SUCH DEVICES. 

5 (a) INCLUSION IN PROGRAM.—Section 1847(a)(2) of 

6 the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w–3(a)(2)) is 

7 amended by adding at the end the following new subpara8 graph: 

9 ‘‘(D) VACUUM ERECTION SYSTEMS.—Vacu10 um erection systems covered as prosthetic de11 vices described in section 1861(s)(8) for which 

12 payment would otherwise be made under section 

13 1834(h).’’. 

14 (b) NATIONAL MAIL ORDER PROGRAM.—Section 

15 1847(a)(1)(D) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

16 1395w–3(a)(1)(D)) is amended by adding at the end the 

17 following new clause: 

18 ‘‘(iv) NATIONAL MAIL ORDER PRO19 GRAM FOR VACUUM ERECTION SYSTEMS.— 

20 The Secretary shall phase in a national 

21 mail order program under this section for 

22 vacuum erection systems described in para23 graph (2)(D). The first round of competi24 tion for such program shall occur in 2016, 

25 with contracts taking effect after the com26 petition is completed. Chapter 35 of title 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2144 IS

1 44, United States Code (commonly re2 ferred to as the ‘Paperwork Reduction Act 

3 of 1995’) shall not apply to the first round 

4 competition for such program.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. &1350)

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. &1350), the undersigned, Isaac J. Gaon, Chief Executive Officer of Datatec Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to his knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three month period ended July 31, 2003 of the Company (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.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

                    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices                           ( print page 61421)                        of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than October 29, 2008.                

**A. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco**                     (Kenneth Binning, Vice President, Applications and Enforcement) 101 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105-1579:                

*1. Fife Commerical Bank 401K ESOP*, to acquire voting shares of Puget Sound Financial Services, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Fife Commercial Bank, all of Fife, Washington.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, October 9, 2008.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. E8-24528 Filed 10-15-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the Quarterly Report of HealthAxis Inc.
(the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
John M. Carradine, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Jimmy D. Taylor, Chief Financial Officer, do each hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 (15 U.S.C.78m or 78o(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.




By: /s/ John M. Carradine




John M. Carradine Chief Executive Officer November 9, 2005




By: /s/ Jimmy D. Taylor




Jimmy D. Taylor Chief Financial Officer November 9, 2005




Page 27 of 27


---
8-K DISCLOSURE
NOTICE





Institutions
subject to SEC regulation may be required to disclosure certain information
regarding this amendment within four days
following implementation of this or any other executive or director
compensation program. Institutions should consult with SEC counsel as to
applicability of this requirement to this amendment.








IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THE
PRACTICE OF LAW AND ACCOUNTING





Nothing
in this document should be construed as tax, legal, or accounting
advice.  Benmark does not practice law or accounting.  The
attached Split Dollar Amendment contains recommended changes intended to
facilitate discussion between you and your legal and/or tax
advisor.  Benmark strongly recommends that you seek review by outside
counsel before signing this amendment.





Amendment


to
the


Temecula
Valley Bank


Split
Dollar Agreement for


Martin
Plourd





Temecula
Valley Bank (“Company”) and Martin Plourd (“Executive”) originally entered into
the Temecula Valley Bank Split Dollar Agreement (“Agreement”) on December 29,
2006. Pursuant to Section 7 of the Agreement, the Company and the Executive
hereby adopt this Split Dollar Amendment, effective September 30,
2007.





RECITALS








1)
Section 2.2.1, “Death During Active Service”, shall be amended to delete the
words “$793,974 (Seven Hundred Ninety-three Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy-four
Dollars)” and to replace them with the words “$992,467 (Nine Hundred Ninety-two
Thousand Four Hundred Sixty-Seven Dollars)”.








Therefore,
the foregoing changes are agreed to.











/s/Stephen H.
Wacknitz                                                                           /s/ Martin
Plourd


For the
Company                                                                            Martin
Plourd








Date:  December
31,
2007                                                                Date:                    December
31, 2007
##### 



Exhibit 10.2(c)
 2003-000017-i
 HEALTH INSURANCE CONTRACT
NO. 03-017 FOR THE
NORTH HEALTH REGION
BETWEEN
PUERTO RICO HEALTH INSURANCE ADMINISTRATION
AND
TRIPLE S, INC.
 31th day of October, 2006 PUERTO RICO HEALTH INSURANCE ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION Minerva Rivera, Esq. TRIPLE S, INC. INSURER Socorro Rivas
 WITNESSETH
  WHEREAS: ADMINISTRATION INSURER st North Health Area/Region Arecibo, Barceloneta, Camuy, Ciales, Florida, Hatillo, Lares, Manatí,
Morovis, Quebradillas, Utuado and Vega Baja.
 WHERAS: ADMINISTRATION st




---



##### 



HENCEFORTH:
 ARTICLE XVIII
PAYMENT OF PREMIUMS
 In Article XVIII paragraph three (3) letters (a) to (e) are deleted, substituted with the following
to read as follows:
 3.
    
    a.The final monthly premiums for all beneficiaries, including all those who are
sixty-five (65) years and older who are Medicare beneficiaries Part A or Part A
and B those who are sixty-five years and older who are not Medicare recipients
is establish in sixty nine dollars and seventy five cents ($69.75) per member per month
(pmpm).
 b.
    
    The aforementioned premium rate constitutes the finalrates for the period
beginning July 1st, 2006 to October 31, 2006. Payments will be made from
account number 5030-113.c.
    
    The premium payments for that period will be adjusted to reflect
the difference between the interim rate and this final agreed premium rate. The
stop-loss for the 4 months period will be $5,500.00.d.
    
    For the period beginning November 1st, 2006 to September 30, 2007 a
different rate will be negotiated between the parties in accordance with the new
coverage that will become effective on November 1st, 2006.
 The present amendments take precedence and shall prevail over any remaining sections and articles
of the contract which are maintained but could conflict with these amendments.
 2




---



##### 



31 day of October, 2006.
 /s/ MINERVA RIVERA, ESQ

MINERVA RIVERA, ESQExecutive DirectorPuerto Rico Health Insurance Administration/s/ SOCORRO RIVAS

SOCORRO RIVASChief Executive OfficerTriple S, Inc./s/ LUIS A. MARINI, DMD

LUIS A. MARINI, DMDChief Executive OfficerTriple-C, Inc.
 3
Opinion filed November 17, 2022

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-15-00248-CV

__________

TNC ENERGY, LLC, Appellant

V.

CRESCENT SUPPLY COMPANY, Appellee

On Appeal from the 350th District Court

Taylor County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 10328-D

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant, TNC Energy, LLC, timely filed a restricted appeal from a final

default judgment signed by the trial judge on April 10, 2015. Soon thereafter, 

Appellant filed in this court a notice indicating that it was the subject of an 

involuntary bankruptcy proceeding, and we immediately abated the appeal. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 8.1, 8.2. Over the past several years, we have requested that the 

parties inform this court of the status of the bankruptcy proceedings or any other 
2

event that would allow this appeal to be reinstated. See TEX. R. APP. P. 8.3. On 

October 26, 2022, Appellant advised this court that “the Bankruptcy was fully 

administered and closed, which included a discharge of the remaining claim by 

Crescent Supply Company” against Appellant. Appellant therefore suggested that 

this appeal could be reinstated and dismissed. 

After receiving the notification from Appellant regarding the discharge in 

bankruptcy, we informed the parties by letter that the appeal appeared to be moot 

and subject to dismissal. We requested that the parties respond and show grounds 

to continue the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3. Neither of the parties did so.

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. 

PER CURIAM

November 17, 2022

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. VINCENT BRUNO.

October 29, 1985.

Petition for certification denied.
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




In
      connection with the quarterly report of Titan Global Holdings Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending May 31, 2008 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Scott
      Hensell, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      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 and Exchange Act
              of
                1934; and





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





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to Titan Global Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by Titan Global
      Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
      staff upon request.





Date:
                July 15, 2008
            By:*/s/*Scott
                Hensell**Scott
                HensellChief
                Financial Officer
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1265 CA 15-00693** 
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, AND VALENTINO, JJ.

GEORGE J. ROBERTS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MICHAEL J. ANDERSON, MICHAEL SCHRADER AND TOWN OF AMHERST, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

SHAW & SHAW, P.C., HAMBURG (JACOB A. PIORKOWSKI OF COUNSEL), FOR
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.

BOUVIER PARTNERSHIP, LLP, BUFFALO (NORMAN E.S. GREENE OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Timothy J. Drury, J.), entered December 23, 2014. The order, among other things, granted the motion of defendants for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries he sustained when he was struck by the wing blade of a snowplow while he was clearing snow from his driveway. The snowplow was operated by defendants Michael J. Anderson and Michael Schrader, who were employed by defendant Town of Amherst. We conclude that Supreme Court properly granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Defendants established in support of their motion that Anderson and Schrader were clearing snow from the road in front of plaintiff’s driveway, and they thus met their initial burden of establishing that the snowplow was a vehicle “actually engaged in work on a highway” that was exempt from the rules of the road except to the extent that those operating the snowplow acted with “reckless disregard for the safety of others” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 [b]; see Riley v County of Broome , 95 NY2d 455, 462-463; Catanzaro v Town of Lewiston , 73 AD3d 1449, 1449). Defendants further established that Anderson and Schrader took several safety precautions before reversing the snowplow, including checking both side mirrors and sounding the horn as a warning, as well as ensuring that the snowplow’s backup lights and “beeping” alert were activated while the vehicle was traveling in reverse at a slow speed. Schrader, whose view was partially obstructed by the snowplow’s raised wing blade, nevertheless informed Anderson that he was clear to reverse the snowplow, and he failed to warn Anderson of plaintiff’s presence in**-2- 1265 CA 15-00693** 

the street just beyond the apron of the driveway. We conclude that defendants established that the conduct of Anderson and Schrader in striking plaintiff with the snowplow “did not rise to the level of recklessness required for the imposition of liability” ( Ferreri v Town of Penfield , 34 AD3d 1243, 1243; see Primeau v Town of Amherst , 17 AD3d 1003, 1003-1005, affd 5 NY3d 844; Catanzaro , 73 AD3d at 1449). Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to the motion ( see Catanzaro , 73 AD3d at 1449; Ferreri , 34 AD3d at 1243- 1244).

Entered: November 20, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
| Skip to Content*Release Date: March 8, 2012*Release dates |  Announcements |   Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB) |  Data Download Program (DDP)**F.219 Multifamily Residential Mortgages** |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
_ ;. 

MARK WHITE 

Attorney General 

The Attorney General of Texas 

September 25, 1981 

Honorable Gibson D. (Gib) Lewis 

Chairman, House Committee on 

Intergovernmental Affairs 

John A. Reagan.Building 

Austin, Texas 78769, 

Dear Representative Lewis: 

Opinion No. MW-370 

Re: Partial vacation of 

subdivision plats 

You inform us that in 1966 a developer subdivided a tract of land 

into large lots and filed a'subdivision plat which was duly recorded. 

You further state that the developer also filed, and had recorded 

cettaln~testtictions, covenants , and conditions applicable to lots in 

the subdivision. One such restriction reada as follows: 

1. MinImum Plot Size: 

The plots as shown on the recorded plat, above 

mentioned. [hete there is reference to the plat 

recording date] may be subdivided into separate 

lots in a manner approved by the developer. 

Developer has on file ,in his office, and may 

maintain on file there, a plan of such 

subdivisions of plots, which may be followed by 

any purchaser; or, a different style of 

subdivision of a plot may be made with the 

approval of the developer. (Bmphasis added.) 

A number of lots in the subdivision were thereafter sold and the 

buyers were made aware of the restrictions at the tims of purchase. 

One of the purchasers of a five acre lot in the subdivision now wants 

to further subdivide his lot into three lots under the provision cited 

above and has obtained the consent for a vacation to allow such 

resubdivislon from all the owners in the subdivision except two. 

You ask the following question: 

Does .an owner by the purchase of a lot in a 

subdivision where Deed Resttictions ~peci.fically 

set out further subdivision of those lots as 

permissible, waive his consent or give a prior 

consent pursuant to Article 974(a). Section S to 

p. 1239 
-- 

Gibson D. Lewis - Page 2 (MW-370) 

the tesubdivision of the original subdivision 

lots? 

All purchases of lots in the subdivision were msde subject to the 

plat as filed along with appropriately recorded covenants, 

restrictions. and conditions. Under the facts submitted. a purchaser 

of lots in the subdivision has the tight to resubdivide upon proper 

approval of the developer pursuant to the recorded plat. covenants, 

restrictions. and conditions. 

We note that In cases in which teplattiug is required pursuant to 

Article 974(a). V.A.T.S.. the 67th Legislature passed Senate Bill No. 

767 amending Section 5 of Article 974(a) which considerably modifies 

the procedure for vacating a plat. 

SUHMARY 

Under the facts submitted, a purchaser of lots may 

resubdivide upon proper approval pursuant to the 

recorded plats covenants. restrictions, and 

conditions. 

JORN W. FAINTER, JR. 

First' Assistant Attorney Gsoetal 

RICRARD E. GRAY III 

Executive Assistant Attorney General 

Prepared by John W. Fainter, Jr. 

Assistant Attorney General 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

SusanL. Garrison, Chairman 

p. 1240