alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA

No. 164A18

Filed 10 May 2019

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

v.

DAVID WOODARD DANIEL

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of 

the Court of Appeals, ___ N.C. App. ___, 814 S.E.2d 618 (2018), reversing an order 

granting defendant’s motion to suppress entered on 8 June 2017 by Judge Patrice A. 

Hinnant in Superior Court, Wilkes County and remanding for further proceedings.

Heard in the Supreme Court on 8 April 2019.

Joshua H. Stein, Attorney General, by Christopher W. Brooks, Special Deputy 

Attorney General, for the State.

Vannoy, Colvard, Triplett & Vannoy, PLLC, by Jay Vannoy, for defendantappellant.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.
11413.

#### District Grand Lodge No 18, etc., *v.*Morris *et al.*

Stephens, J.

1. Where it does not appear that the charter of a benefit society prohibits the society from designating what classes of persons may be named as beneficiaries in the benefit certificates issued by it to its members, and where there is nothing in the laws of the State in which the charter is granted prohibiting such designation, a rule or law of the society, printed on the back of the certificate and by the terms of the certificate expressly made a part thereof, prescribing that “ only persons related to members by consanguinity or who sustain the relation of husband and wife shall be designated . . as beneficiaries; provided, however, that the former class shall only be designated when they are dependent upon the member for support and maintenance,” is binding and enforceable. *Union Fraternal League*v. *Walton,*112 *Ga.*315 (37 S. E. 389).

2. Where it is provided in the application, which by the terms of the certificate is made a part of the contract, that knowledge by or information to the officers of the subordinate lodge of the society shall not be notice to the society or binding upon it, but that the society shall be bound only by knowledge or information in writing to the officers of the bureau of endowment of the society, any knowledge or information had by the officers of the subordinate lodge, either at the time of the issuance of the certificate or afterwards, that the beneficiaries named therein were not such as were entitled to be named as beneficiaries and receive benefits under the laws of the society, is not notice to the society. *Union Fraternal League*v. *Walton,*supra.

3. In a suit on the policy by the beneficiaries named therein, where it *372appeared, that none of them sustained the relation of husband or wife to the insured or were dependent upon him for support and maintenance, and when it appeared that no notice of these facts, either at the time the policy was issued or afterwards, was ever possessed by the officers of the bureau of endowment of the society; but was possessed only by certain officers of the subordinate lodge, a verdict for the plaintiffs was unauthorized.

Decided March 4, 1921.

Action on insurance policy; from city court of Sparta — Judge Johnson presiding. January 31, 1920.

*G. P. Goree,*for plaintiff in error. *Wiley & Lewis,*contra. .

*Judgment reversed.*

*Jenkins, P. J., and Hill, J., concur.*
#### In the Matter of Mary Faltings, Appellant, v Erik Faltings, Respondent.

[824 NYS2d 726]

In related child custody and visitation proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (MacKenzie, J.), dated November 3, 2005, which, inter alia, denied her petition for visitation.

*465Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The mother failed to establish changed circumstances sufficient to warrant modifying a custody order dated May 2, 2002, entered upon the parties’ stipulation, which awarded the father sole custody of the parties’ four children and effectively denied her visitation. Based on the record before it, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the mother’s petition for visitation (see Family Ct Act § 652 [b] [ii]; see *also Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer,*55 NY2d 89, 95 [1982]; *Messinger v Messinger,*16 AD3d 562, 563 [2005]; *Matter of Manos v Manos,*282 AD2d 749 [2001]). Schmidt, J.P., Adams, Skelos and Covello, JJ., concur.
```

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
            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,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  the  undersigned,  A. F.  Petrocelli,  Chairman,
President  and  Chief  Executive   Officer  of  United  Capital  Corp.,   (the
"Company"),  does hereby  certify,  with  respect to the Annual  Report of the
Company on Form 10-K/A for the period ended  December 31, 2006 (the  "Report")
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.

Dated: April 27, 2007

                                          By: /s/ A.F. Petrocelli
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              A. F. Petrocelli
                                              Chairman, President and Chief
                                              Executive Officer
```
#### R. S. Hudson, et al., *v.*Thomas S. Hudson, et al.

Sale to Defraud Creditors — Preference of Creditor.

An insolvent debtor cannot legally sell p'roperty to one creditor for tbe purpose of preferring hint to the exclusion of his other creditors- and in contemplation of insolvency.

APPEAL PROM PULASKI CIRCUIT COURT.

March 16, 1876.

Opinion by

Judge Peters :

At the times of the sales of the whisky and other personal property *633by Thomas S. Hudson to William Hubble, who had manifested some uneasiness on the subject, and the night before the sale by Thomas S. Hudson of the whisky there in Louisville to him, he went to where John P. Hudson lived, who was a partner in the whisky, and spent the night with him to prevail on him, to agree to a division of that whisky, and on the same day the agreement was made Hubble purchased it from Thomas S. Hudson. He afterwards purchased from him one yoke of oxen, eight head of cattle, two mules, one wagon, and one mare, at the agreed total price of $496, all of which he credited on the indebtedness of Hudson to him. The live stock and other personalty retained by Hudson were of little value compared with the value of that sold to Hubble.

*T. Z. Morrow, for appellants. A. J. James, for appellees.*

Besides his indebtedness to Hubble, he owed a number of other debts, amounting to a large sum, considering his means, and he was unable to pay them. He proves he was pressed by his creditors before and at the time of the sales to Hubble, and had no money; and J. P. Hudson proves that he told Hubble that the partnership debts of Thomas S. Hudson and himself were not paid; and he then told him that said debts must be paid, and Thomas S. Hudson’s only chance to raise money was by a sale of the whisky in Louisville, and that he was bound to sell it at some price to pay his debts. Besides Hubble and Thomas S. Hudson were brothers-in-law, and Hubble was in a situation to know the failing circumstances of Hudson.

From the evidence in the case all of Thomas S. Hudson’s property, real and personal, left after the sale to Hubble, was insufficient to pay his debts and he was insolvent at the time. We are, therefore, constrained to conclude that the sale was made to Hubble by Thomas S. Hudson for the purpose of preferring Hubble to the exclusion of his other creditors and in contemplation of insolvency.

Wherefore the judgment dismissing the petition is *reversed*and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1764 

To amend title 37, United States Code, to exclude the basic allowance for 

housing from the calculation of gross household income for purposes 

of the basic needs allowance for eligible members of the Armed Forces. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 23, 2023 

Mr. PANETTA (for himself, Mr. MOORE of Utah, Ms. STRICKLAND, Mr. 

BACON, Ms. JACOBS, Mr. LEVIN, and Mrs. RODGERS of Washington) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 

Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend title 37, United States Code, to exclude the basic 

allowance for housing from the calculation of gross 

household income for purposes of the basic needs allowance for eligible members of the Armed Forces. 

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 ‘‘Military Food Security 

5 Act of 2023’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1764 IH

1 SEC. 2. BASIC NEEDS ALLOWANCE: EXCLUSION OF BASIC 

2 ALLOWANCE FOR HOUSING FROM THE CAL3 CULATION OF GROSS HOUSEHOLD INCOME 

4 OF AN ELIGIBLE MEMBER OF THE ARMED 

5 FORCES. 

6 Section 402b(k)(1)(B) of title 37, United States 

7 Code, is amended— 

8 (1) by striking ‘‘in’’ and all that follows 

9 through ‘‘portion of’’; and 

10 (2) by striking ‘‘that the Secretary concerned 

11 elects to exclude’’ and inserting ‘‘paid to such mem12 ber’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 23, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 77038]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30039]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION

[NARA-2015-020]


Charter Renewal; State, Local, Tribal, and Private Sector Policy 
Advisory Committee

AGENCY: National Archives and Records Administration.

ACTION: Notice of Charter Renewal, State, Local, Tribal, and Private 
Sector Policy Advisory Committee.

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

SUMMARY: The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) 
announces renewal of the State, Local, Tribal, and Private Sector 
(SLTPS) Policy Advisory Committee, in accordance with section 9(a)(2) 
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.). 
The General Services Administration approved inclusion of the SLTPS 
Policy Advisory Committee in NARA's ceiling of federal advisory 
committees, under Executive Order 13549 and Executive Order 13652.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrice Little Murray, NARA's 
Committee Management Officer (CMO), by telephone at 301-837-2001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  NARA has determined that renewing the SLTPS 
Policy Advisory Committee is in the public interest due to the 
expertise and valuable advice the committee members provide on matters 
related to the Classified National Security Information Program for 
State, Local, Tribal, and Private Sector Entities.

    Dated: December 16, 2014.
David S. Ferriero,
Archivist of the United States.
[FR Doc. 2014-30039 Filed 12-22-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7515-01-P
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.21

                         EXECUTIVE OFFICER 2007 SALARIES

      On December 1, 2006, the Leadership and Compensation Committee of the
Board of Directors of Nashua Corporation approved the following 2007 annual base
salaries for Nashua Corporation's named executive officers (as defined in Item
402(a)(3) of Regulation S-K):

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Name and Position                                                               2007 Base Salary
-----------------                                                               ----------------
<S>                                                                             <C>
Andrew B. Albert ...........................................                        $  110,000
    Chairman

 Thomas G. Brooker...........................................                       $  400,000
    President and Chief Executive Officer

 John L. Patenaude ..........................................                       $  225,000
    Vice President - Finance, Chief Financial Officer
    and Treasurer

 Thomas M. Kubis.............................................                       $  180,000
    Vice President of Operations

 Michael Travis..............................................                       $  194,000
    Vice President of Marketing
</TABLE>
#### Mary Long, Ex’x, *v.*Wellington Harlan, et al.

Promissory Note — Defense—Gift.

Where the payee of a note retains it until her death and it then passed to her executrix, evidence that the testatrix said at one time that all she wanted was the interest during her life and after her death it (the note) was to he Mrs. Easthman’s, is not sufficient to sustain a claim of Mrs. Easthman to ownership of the note.

APPEAL PROM BOYLE CIRCUIT COURT.

December 9, 1874.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor :

The note of Harlan and Easthmaxi is made payable in one year from its date with interest. It contains no stipulation by which the note is to be surrendered, or any evidence upon its face indicating an intention to give the note or its proceeds to the wife of one of the obligors. The promise, if made, to give the money could not be enforced, and the statements contained in the answer present no defense to the action. The testatrix retained the possession of the note until her death, and it then passed to the appellant as her executrix. The evidence of her intention to xnake the gift, negatives an)!- other consideration fox- the promise-than the relation existing between testatrix and the wife of Easthman. There was no delivery of the note or its proceeds to any one for the use of the party asserting this right against the executrix.

The demurrer should have been sustained to the answer; but as there was no exception made to the judgment overruling it, it becomes necessary to look to the evidence, and in that there is nothing-to be found upoxi which this alleged gift can be maintained. The only witness for the defense says that the testatrix said all she wanted was the interest during her life, and after her death it was to be Mrs. Easthman’s. This only evidences an intention to give, and the evidence for-the appellant indicates clearly that if she ever *239intended to make such a disposition of the note it was afterwards abandoned.

*Durham & Jacobs, for appellant.*

The judgment of the court below is *reversed,*and cause remanded with directions to award the appellant a new trial, and for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Richard Gloss, Appellant.

[972 NYS2d 141]

— Motion for writ of error coram nobis denied. Present — Centra, J.E, Fahey, Peradotto, Sconiers and Whalen, JJ.
**Exhibit
31.2**
 
 **CERTIFICATION
PURUSANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE**
 **SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT**
 
 I, Ingo
K. Kozak, the Vice President Finance & Administration and CFO, certify
that:
 
 1.
    I
      have reviewed this 1st quarter report on Form 10-QSB of Bio-Lok
      International Inc.;
 
 2.
    Based
      on my knowledge, this quarterly 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, nor misleading with respect to the period covered by this
      quarterly report;
 
 3.
    Based
      on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
      included in this quarterly, fairly present in all material respects the
      financial condition, results of operations and cash flow of the registrant
      as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly
    report;
 
 4.
    The
      registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for the
      establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
      defined in Exchange Act Rule 13a- 14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and
      have:
 
 a)
    designed
      such disclosure controls and procedures 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 report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
      the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period
      covered by this report based on such evaluation;
and
 
 c)
    disclosed
      in this report any changes in the registrant’s internal control over
      financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent
      fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth quarter in the case of an annual
      report) 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, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit
      committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the
      equivalent functions):
 
 a)
    all
      significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
      which could 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 control
      over financial reporting.
  
 Date: March 15,
2005
    
    /s/ **Ingo K. Kozak
      , VP - Finance and CFO**Signature and Title
#### Samuel Garner, Appellant, v Chevalier Transportation Corp. et al., Respondents.

[872 NYS2d 495]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Martin, J.), dated July 15, 2008, which denied his motion for summaiy judgment on the issue of liability, with leave to renew upon the completion of discovery.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability is granted.

On June 23, 2004, the plaintiff’s vehicle was struck from behind by a vehicle owned by the defendant Chevalier Transportation Corp. and operated by the defendant Jeffery Martin. On his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, the plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting an affidavit in which he stated that his vehicle was stopped when it was struck in the rear. A rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence against the driver and owner of the moving vehicle, and imposes a duty of explanation on its driver *(see Johnston v Spoto,*47 AD3d 888, 889 [2008]). In opposition, the defendants failed to provide a nonnegligent explanation for the collision *(see Myrie v Atehortua,*275 AD2d 699 [2000]). Furthermore, contrary to the contention of the defendants, the plaintiffs motion was not premature *(see*CPLR 3212 [f]; *Kimya-garov v Nixon Taxi Corp.,*45 AD3d 736, 737 [2007]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiffs motion for summaiy judgment on the issue of liability. Spolzino, J.E, Covello, McCarthy and Belen, JJ., concur.
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Food and Drug Administration

          - [Docket No. FDA-2014-N-1104]

# AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled “State Petitions for Exemption from Preemption” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,                         *PRAStaff@fda.hhs.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    On October 27, 2014, the Agency submitted a proposed collection of information entitled “State Petitions for Exemption from Preemption” to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0277. The approval expires on November 30, 2017. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at                     *http://www.reginfo.gov/​public/​do/​PRAMain.*

Dated:  December 17, 2014. 

Leslie Kux,

Associate Commissioner for Policy.

[FR Doc. 2014-30012 Filed 12-22-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Century Pacific Tax Credit Housing
Fund-II (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2002
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Irwin J. Deutch, Chief Executive Officer of the Partnership,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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




/s/ Essie Safaie
-------------------------
Essie Safaie
Chief Financial Officer
February 11, 2003


                                       18