alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Curtis Vann, Respondent, v Jennifer Vann, Appellant, et al., Respondent.

[789 NYS2d 261]

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Orange County (Bivona, J.), entered January 14, 2004, which, after a hearing, awarded custody of the subject children to the father.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the mother’s contentions, the Family Court correctly awarded custody of the parties’ daughters, who were 14 and 9 years old, respectively, at the time of the award, to the father. “Custody determinations are ordinarily a matter of discretion for the hearing court, whose determination will not be set aside on appeal unless it lacks a sound and substantial *711basis in the record” *(Matter of Ortiz v Maharaj,*8 AD3d 574 [2004]). The hearing court’s findings must be afforded great weight on appeal because it had the opportunity “to observe the demeanor of the witnesses ... as well as the desire of the child[ren] whose custody is in issue” *(Matter of Louise E.S. v*W. *Stephen S.,*64 NY2d 946, 947 [1985] [citations omitted]; *see Matter of Olson v Olson,*8 AD3d 285 [2004]).

The paramount concern in a custody dispute is to determine the best interests of the child *(see*Domestic Relations Law § 70; *Eschbach v Eschbach,*56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]). Factors to be considered in determining the child’s best interests include: “the quality of the home environment and the parental guidance the custodial parent provides for the child . . . the ability of each parent to provide for the child’s . . . emotional and intellectual development . . . the financial status and ability of each parent to provide for the child . . . the relative fitness of the respective parents, and the length of time the present custody arrangement has been in effect” *(Matter of Krebsbach v Gallagher,*181 AD2d 363, 364 [1992]).

Here, the Family Court conducted a full hearing in which it observed the testimony of the parties and a social worker, and interviewed the children in camera. Based on our review of the record, the Family Court weighed the appropriate factors and properly awarded custody of the children to the father *(see Matter of Olson v Olson,*supra;*Matter of Walton v Walton,*306 AD2d 491, 492 [2003]). Florio, J.P., Adams, S. Miller and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2113 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2113

 To amend part C of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to prohibit 
  the comparative cost adjustment (CCA) program from operating in the 
                           State of Michigan.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 25, 2004

Ms. Stabenow (for herself and Mr. Levin) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend part C of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to prohibit 
  the comparative cost adjustment (CCA) program from operating in the 
                           State of Michigan.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON OPERATION OF MEDICARE COMPARATIVE COST 
              ADJUSTMENT (CCA) PROGRAM IN MICHIGAN.

    (a) In General.--Section 1860C-1(b) of the Social Security Act, as 
added by section 241 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, 
and Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173), is amended by 
adding at the end the following:
            ``(3) No cca areas within michigan.--A CCA area shall not 
        include an MSA any portion of which is within the State of 
        Michigan.''
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall take 
effect as if included in the enactment of the Medicare Prescription 
Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173).
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>   1
                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.5(B)


                    AMENDMENT TO CHANGE OF CONTROL AGREEMENT


         This Amendment is entered into as of May 2, 2001 by and between
Resource Bancshares Mortgage Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("RBMG"), and
Steven F. Herbert and amends that certain Change of Control Agreement dated as
of July 27, 2000, as it may have been previously amended (the "Change of
Control Agreement").

         1. Section 9 (g) of the Change of Control Agreement is hereby
amended by changing the date set forth therein to December 31, 2002.

         2. As amended hereby, the Change of Control Agreement shall be
unchanged and shall remain in full force and effect.

         In witness whereof, the parties have executed this Amendment to Change
of Control Agreement as of the date first above written.



                                             RESOURCE BANCSHARES MORTGAGE
                                             GROUP, INC.



                                             By  /s/ Douglas K. Freeman
                                               --------------------------------
                                               Douglas K. Freeman
                                               Chief Executive Officer


                                              /s/ Steven F. Herbert
                                             ----------------------------------
                                             Steven F. Herbert
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-03-530-CR

BOBBY WAYNE PACK	APPELLANT

	V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS	STATE

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

	FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 4 OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	Bobby Wayne Pack appeals from his conviction for capital murder.  In a single issue on appeal, appellant complains that the trial court abused its discretion2 by admitting the 9-1-1 tape reporting the murder into evidence because the tape was hearsay.  We will affirm.

	A statement describing an event made while the declarant was perceiving the event or immediately thereafter is not excluded under the hearsay rule.  See Tex. R. Evid. 803(1) (present sense impression).  Joe Maldonado, the witness who reported the murder, testified that he saw appellant come out of the victim’s apartment carrying what looked like a body wrapped in a sheet with a telephone cord around it.  Maldonado “froze” and could not move because he had never seen anything like that in his life and did not know what to do.  After Maldonado saw appellant throw the body into the victim’s truck and peel out of the parking lot, Maldonado was able to move, and he called 9-1-1.  Thus, Maldonado’s report of the murder on the 9-1-1 tape was made immediately after he perceived the event, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the tape under the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule.  See id.; Kubin v. State, 868 S.W.2d 394, 396-97 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, pet. ref’d); see also Romero v. State, 800 S.W.2d 539, 543 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (holding that trial court’s ruling will be upheld if it is correct on any theory of law applicable to case).  We overrule appellant’s point and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

								PER CURIAM

PANEL F:	CAYCE, C.J.; GARDNER and WALKER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: December 9, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-QSB FOR THE PERIOD ENDED APRIL 30, 1999,
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENT.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1999
<CASH>                                       3,347,366
<SECURITIES>                                 1,928,432
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,127,770
<ALLOWANCES>                                   261,940
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            13,703,189
<PP&E>                                       7,818,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,287,920
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              28,077,531
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,452,942
<BONDS>                                         34,952
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        47,089
<OTHER-SE>                                  22,115,810
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                28,077,531
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            17,303,281
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               11,756,535
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,465,938
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                69,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,432
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,259,623
<INCOME-TAX>                                   926,400
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,333,223
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,333,223
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.27


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED BALANCE SHEET AS OF APRIL 29, 2000, AUDITED BALANCE SHEET AS OF
JANUARY 29, 2000 AND UNAUDITED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND CASH FLOWS FOR THE
QUARTERLY PERIODS ENDED APRIL 29, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH QUARTERLY REPORT FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED APRIL 29,
2000.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-29-2000
<CASH>                                           2,133
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,207
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      8,868
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                14,377
<PP&E>                                          28,740
<DEPRECIATION>                                  16,796
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  26,321
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,127
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        98,708
<OTHER-SE>                                    (97,554)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    26,321
<SALES>                                         10,946
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,946
<CGS>                                            6,991
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,214
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   375
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  36
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,598)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,598)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                      (1,598)
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,598)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.23)


</TABLE>
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Headquarters

Washington, DC 20546-0001

January 11, 2024

Reply to Attn of: General Law Practice Group

TO: Distribution

FROM: Agency Counsel for Ethics

SUBJECT: Determination Regarding Attendance by NASA employees at the Space 

Transportation Association (STA) Reception on January 11, 2024

On January 11, 2024, the Space Transportation Association (STA), a nonprofit organization 

under 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code, will host a reception at the House Science 

Committee, 2325 Rayburn House Office Building, in Washington, DC, starting at 4:30 p.m. –

6:00 p.m. Congressman Frank Lucas will help kickoff the new year with insight on what’s in 

store for the Committee, NASA, Space Exploration, and more in 2024 and beyond.

Approximately 100 people are expected to attend. Attendees will have a diversity of views or 

interests and will include members from the legislative branch, industry representatives,

academia, employees of Federal agencies, and media. The estimated cost of the event, 

including all food and beverages, is approximately $25 per person (no cost for attendees). 

STA is in control of the planning and invitations for this event. Attendance at this event will 

allow NASA attendees to exchange information regarding various NASA programs. I find 

that the event meets the requirements of a “widely attended gathering” as defined in 5 C.F.R. 

§ 2635.204(g)(2). 

I further determine that there is an Agency interest in having NASA personnel attend the 

event because it will provide an opportunity for the invited persons to exchange ideas and 

views pertaining to NASA’s policies, programs and operations. NASA employees, including 

NASA employees in non-career positions who are required to sign the ethics pledge under 

Executive Order 13989, who do not have a significant role in a matter affecting the interests 

of the sponsor may accept an invitation for free attendance to the event. In those 

circumstances, I find that the Agency’s interest in attendance outweighs any concern that the 

individual may be, or may appear to be, improperly influenced in the performance of their 

duties.

However, NASA employees who have a significant role in any pending matter affecting the 

interests of the STA, such as procurement duties, program management, or negotiating or 
2

administering a Space Act Agreement, should seek a separate determination from their local 

ethics counselor as to whether they may accept the invitation.

Adam F. Greenstone
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2022-3836

_____________________________

MICHAEL A. TORREY,

Appellant,

v.

WARDEN PAYNE GULF C. I.;

RICKY D. DIXON, Secretary, 

Florida Department of 

Corrections,

Appellees.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Gulf County.

Devin Collier, Judge.

August 9, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, WINOKUR, and LONG, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Michael A. Torrey, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Dan Johnson, Interim 

General Counsel, Florida Department of Corrections, Tallahassee, 

for Appellees.
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

ADMINISTRATOR A 

RICHARD H. TRULY 

I 

DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR 

AARON COHEN (ACTING) 

ASSOCIATE DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR 

SAMUEL W. KELLER 

ASSISTANT DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR 

JOHN E. OBRIEN 

EXECUTIVE OFFlCER 

JESSIE J. HARRIS 

THOMAS CAMPBELL EDWARD A. FRANKLE HARRIEll G. JENKINS 

p ~~ 

JOHN G. MANNIX DARLEEN A. DRUYUN SUE M. RICHARD (ACTING) 

I 

SPACE SYSTEMS 

DEVELOPMENT 

ARNOLD D. ALDRICH 

INSPECTOR w 

BILL D. COLVIN 

SMALL B USADVANTAGED K 

BUSINESS UTILIZATION 

EUGENE D. ROSEN 

I I I I I 

MARGARET G. FINARELLI MARTIN P. KRESS SPENCE M. ARMSTRONG 

I 

I J1 1 al 1 Xl 

MANAGEMENT 

SYSTEMS & 

FACILlTlES 

SAFETY 81 

MISSION QUALITY EXPLORATION 

I I I I I 1 

BENITA A. COOPER GEORGE A. RODNEY MICHAEL D. GRIFFIN 

SPACE SCIENCE 81 

I I 

SPACE FLIGHT 

I I 

AERONAUTICS & 

APPLICATIONS SPACE TECHNOLOGY 

I I 

SPACE 

COMMUNICATIONS 

I I I I 

LENNARD A. FISK WILLIAM B. LENOIR RICHARD H. PETERSEN CHARLES T. FORCE 

LYNDON B. JOHNSON AMES RESEARCH 

SPACE CENTER 

JOHN M. KLINEBERG AARON COHEN DALE L. COMPTON 

JOHN F. KENNEDY 

SPACE CENTER RESEARCH CENTER 

EDWARD STONE ROBERT L. CRIPPEN PAUL F. HOLLOWAY 

_ GEORGE C. MARSHALL LEWIS RESEARCH 

SPACE FLIGHT CENTER 

THOMAS J. LEE LAWRENCE J. ROSS 

JOHN C. STENNIS 

SPACE CENTER 

ROY S. ESTESS 

February 1992
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1920 Referred in House (RFH)]

  1st Session
                                S. 1920

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 8, 2003

               Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To extend for 6 months the period for which chapter 12 of title 11 of 
                  the United States Code is reenacted.

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

SECTION 1. SIX-MONTH EXTENSION OF PERIOD FOR WHICH CHAPTER 12 OF TITLE 
              11, UNITED STATES CODE IS REENACTED.

    (a) Amendments.--Section 149 of title I of division C of Public Law 
105-277 (11 U.S.C. 1201 note) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``January 1, 2004'' each place it appears 
        and inserting ``July 1, 2004''; and
            (2) in subsection (a)--
                    (A) by striking ``June 30, 2003'' and inserting 
                ``December 31, 2003''; and
                    (B) by striking ``July 1, 2003'' and inserting 
                ``January 1, 2004''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect on January 1, 2004.

            Passed the Senate November 25, 2003.

            Attest:

                                             EMILY J. REYNOLDS,

                                                             Secretary.
```
Exhibit 13.1

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

I, Raju Vegesna, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Annual Report on Form 20-F of Sify Technologies Limited for the year ended March 31, 2012, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that information contained in
such Annual Report on Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Sify Technologies Limited.

Date: August 13, 2012



By:

/s/ Raju VegesnaName: Raju VegesnaTitle: Chief Executive Officer


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,
and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference to any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any
general incorporation language in such filing.
#### CLAIRE ARROYO v. SOMERSET COUNTY BOARD OF SOCIAL SERVICES.

July 2, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
BYLAW AMENDMENT

                       Approved by the Board of Directors
                                 on May 7, 1998
                              Effective May 7, 1998


Section 6.05 of the By-laws of the Corporation is read in its entirety as
follows:

         "Section 6.05. President. The President, subject to the control of the
Board of Directors and at the direction of and with the Chief Executive Officer,
shall in general supervise and control all of the business and affairs of the
Corporation. He shall, when present and in the absence of the Chairman of the
Board and the Chief Executive Officer, preside at all meetings of the
stockholders and the Board of Directors. The President may appoint one or more
officers or assistant officers of the Corporation. He may sign, with the
Secretary or any other proper officer of the Corporation authorized by the Board
of Directors, certificates for shares of the Corporation and deeds, mortgages,
bonds, contracts, or other instruments which the Board of Directors has
authorized to be executed, except in cases where the signing and execution
thereof shall be expressly delegated by the Board of Directors or by these
By-laws to some other officer or agent of the Corporation, or shall be required
by law to be otherwise signed or executed; and in general shall perform all
duties incident to the office of President and such other duties as may be
prescribed by the Chief Executive Officer or the Board of Directors from time to
time."
EXHIBIT 32.1


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

This certification is intended to accompany the Annual Report of Sense Holdings,
Inc., on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the Date hereof, and is given solely for
the purpose of satisfying the requirements of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. The undersigned, in
my capacity as set forth below, hereby certifies that:

        1.      The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
                or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


/s/ Dore Scott Perler                           Date:  April 14, 2004
-------------------------                              --------------
Dore Scott Perler
CEO, Sense Holdings, Inc.
Exhibit 32    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 Annual Report of Silicon South, Inc. a Nevada corporation (the Company), on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Zagros Shahvaran, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to my knowledge:  (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.    /s/ Zagros Shahvaran Zagros Shahvaran Chief Executive Officer Date: March 5, 2009