alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### MARSHA A. EARLY, Petitioner v. COUNTY OF DURHAM DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Respondent

No. 524PA05

(Filed 15 December 2006)

On discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 of a unanimous decision of the Court of Appeals, 172 N.C. App. 344, 616 S.E.2d 553 (2005), affirming an order entered 11 July 2003 by Judge Evelyn Werth Hill in Superior Court, Wake County. Heard in the Supreme Court 20 November 2006.

*Patrice Walker for petitioner-appellee.*

*S.C. Kitchen, County Attorney, by Lowell L. Siler, Deputy County Attorney, for respondent-appellant.*

*James B. Blackburn, III, General Counsel, for North Carolina Association of County Commissioners, amicus curiae.*

PER CURIAM.

DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IMPROVIDENTLY ALLOWED.
#### Benfield Electric Supply Corp., Respondent, v C & L Elevator Controls, Inc., et al., Defendants, and Anthony Marchese, Appellant.

[870 NYS2d 304]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard H. Sherman, J.), entered September 6, 2007, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, in an action for payment due on goods sold and delivered, granted plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on its cause of action for breach of contract and denied defendant-appellant’s cross motion to dismiss the action as against him, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of denying plaintiffs motion except to the extent of invoices dated after June 30, 2004, and otherwise affirmed, with costs in favor of plaintiff-respondent payable by defendant-appellant.

Plaintiff established as a matter of law that it was entitled to collect on invoices, generated by purchases made by defendant *424C & L Elevator Controls, from its sole corporate officer appellant Márchese, which postdated said corporation’s dissolution date (June 30, 2004), since appellant was personally responsible for those charges *(see Matter of Morris v New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin.,*82 NY2d 135 [1993]; *Brandes Meat Corp. v Cromer,*146 AD2d 666, 667 [1989]). However, with respect to the pre-June 30, 2004 invoices, the record presents triable issues of fact as to whether appellant disregarded the corporate formalities of his now-dissolved closely-held corporations, and exercised domination over them to commit a fraud or wrong against plaintiff that resulted in plaintiffs injury *(see e.g. First Capital Asset Mgt. v N.A. Partners,*300 AD2d 112, 116 [2002]). Concur—Saxe, J.E, Nardelli, Buckley, Moskowitz and Renwick, JJ.
United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 8, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 06-31068

Summary Calendar

MATTIE WYRE

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

ST. HELENA PARISH SCHOOL BOARD,

Defendant-Appellee.

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

GUSTAVIA CEASAR

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

IBERVILLE PARISH SCHOOL BOARD,

Defendant-Appellee.

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

LIONEL DUNN, Individually and on behalf of all other similarly

situated individuals,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH SCHOOL BOARD,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Middle District of Louisiana

(3:04-CV-82)
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under

the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

2

Before DeMOSS, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appellants appeal the district court’s denial of their motion

for conditional class certification pursuant to § 216(b) of the

Fair Labor Standards Act. Appellees contend that we do not have

jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

This Court’s jurisdiction is limited to appeals from final

decisions under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, interlocutory decisions under 28

U.S.C. § 1292, non-final judgments certified as final under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), and other non-final orders or

judgments to which an exception applies. Clark v. Johnson, 278 F.3d

459, 460 (5th Cir. 2002). The denial of a § 216(b) class

certification is not a final decision under § 1291, nor does it

fall under the “collateral order” exception to § 1291's final

judgment rule. See Baldridge v. SBC Commc’ns, Inc., 404 F.3d 930,

931, 933 (5th Cir. 2005). Further, absent certification under

§ 1292(b), it is not an interlocutory decision over which we have

jurisdiction. See § 1292(a). The district court did not certify its

decision as final under Rule 54(b), and there is no other exception

that applies to give us jurisdiction. Accordingly, the appeal is

DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 2, 2015

No. 04-15-00245-CR

Julio Alejandro ZUNIGA,

Appellant

v.

The State of TexasAppellee/s

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014CR0936

Honorable Raymond Angelini, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The Appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief has this date been received 

and filed in the above styled and numbered cause. Extension of time to file the Appellant’s brief 

is this date GRANTED. Time is extended to August 3, 2015.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: ____________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE

CLERK OF COURT

cc: Nicolas A. LaHood

District Attorney, Bexar County

101 W. Nueva, Suite 370

San Antonio, TX 78205

Richard B. Dulany Jr.

Bexar County Appellate Public Defender's Office

Paul Elizondo Tower

101 W. Nueva St., Suite 310

San Antonio, TX 78205
#### Estate of James Brown et al., Respondents, v The Pullman Group, Appellant.

Submitted July 27, 2009;

decided September 22, 2009

Reported below, 60 AD3d 481.

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from that portion of the Appellate Division order that affirmed Supreme Court’s order denying appellant’s motion for leave to renew and to amend its answer, dismissed upon the ground that such portion of the order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution; motion for leave to appeal otherwise 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
Team, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended February 28, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ted W. Owen, Executive Vice President  Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to 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 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/    TED W.
OWEN                                              
|Ted W. Owen Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

April 8, 2011
Exhibit 32

                          ASPEN EXPLORATION CORPORATION

                   Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350

         To my knowledge: the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter
ended March 31, 2007, containing financial statements for the quarter then
ended, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
Act of 1934; and the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Aspen Exploration Corporation for the periods presented.


May 14, 2007



/s/ Robert A. Cohan
-----------------------------------------
Robert A. Cohan, Chief Executive Officer,
Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the balance
sheets and statements of operations found on pages 2 and 3 of the Company's Form
10-QSB for the year to date, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000318852
<NAME>                        Colorado Wyoming Reserve Company
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                  OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                           1
<CASH>                              530,026
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                        18,461
<ALLOWANCES>                              0
<INVENTORY>                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    609,700
<PP&E>                               13,646
<DEPRECIATION>                            0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      646,081
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                80,901
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                             16,451
<OTHER-SE>                         3,415,295
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         646,081
<SALES>                               22,094
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      22,094
<CGS>                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     537,653
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     (492,155)
<INCOME-TAX>                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 (492,155)
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                        (492,155)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           (.30)
<EPS-DILUTED>                           (.30)
        


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Nicole Clemons, Appellant, v New York City Housing Authority, Respondent.

[972 NYS2d 891]

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Doris Ling-Cohan, J.), entered July 10, 2012, which denied the petition, and granted respondent’s (NYCHA) cross motion to dismiss this CPLR article 78 proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

On October 6, 2011, petitioner commenced this proceeding seeking to annul NYCHA’s September 17, 2010 denial of her application to vacate her default in failing to appear at a hearing on charges against her tenancy. The proceeding is time-barred *(see*CPLR 217 [1]) and this Court cannot extend the statute of limitations *(see*CPLR 201).

Petitioner’s excuse for the untimeliness of the petition is improperly raised for the first time on appeal *(see Liddle, Robinson & Shoemaker v Shoemaker,*12 AD3d 282, 283 [1st Dept 2004]). In any event, her claimed ignorance of the requirement to commence an article 78 proceeding within four months of NYCHA’s final determination does not excuse her failure to comply with the statute of limitations *(see generally Harris v City of New York,*297 AD2d 473 [1st Dept 2002], *lv denied*99 NY2d 503 [2002]). Respondent was not under any duty to advise petitioner of the applicable statute of limitations *(see Matter of Sumpter v New York City Hous. Auth.,*260 AD2d 176 [1st Dept 1999]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Freedman and Gische, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3732 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3732

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain liquid crystal device (LCD) 
                          flat panel displays.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 26, 2006

   Mr. Pryor introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To suspend temporarily the duty on certain liquid crystal device (LCD) 
                          flat panel displays.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN LIQUID CRYSTAL DEVICE (LCD) FLAT PANEL DISPLAYS.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.90.01      Liquid crystal      Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         device (LCD) flat                                                  31/2009
                         panel displays
                         (provided for in
                         subheading
                         9013.80.90)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Stealth Props., LLC v. Town of Pinebluff Bd. of Adjust.

Case below: 183 N.C. App.-(5 June 2007)

No. 375P07

Respondent’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA06-705)

Denied 10/11/07
Exhibit 32.2

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


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Global Gold Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert
A. Garrison, the President, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer
of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S. C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, following due inquiry, that I
believe 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 result of operations of the
Company.


Dated: August 14, 2002                 GLOBAL GOLD CORPORATION


                                       By: /s/  Robert A. Garrison
                                           ----------------------------------
                                           Robert A. Garrison
                                           President, Chief Operating Officer
                                           and Chief Financial Officer
#### In the Matter of Michael J. Anderson, Respondent, v Francesca Pappalardo, Appellant.

[963 NYS2d 595]

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Richmond County (Wolff, J.), dated January 9, 2012, which, after a hearing, denied her objections to two orders of the same court (Hickey, S.M.), dated January 23, 2011, and August 23, 2011, respectively, awarding child support to the guardian of the subject child in the sum of $500 per month, based on the needs of the subject child, pursuant to Family Court Act § 413 (1) (k).

Ordered that the order dated January 9, 2012, is reversed, on the facts, without costs or disbursements, the mother’s objections are granted, the orders dated January 23, 2011, and August 23, 2011, are vacated, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Richmond County, for a new hearing on the petition and a new determination thereafter.

The Support Magistrate improperly awarded child support based on the needs of the child rather than the mother’s income, upon concluding that the mother failed to substantiate her income *(see*Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [k]). The record reflects that, prior to the hearing at which the Support Magistrate issued the order, the mother had appeared before the Support Magistrate only twice and, on both occasions, the appearances were very brief. The record does not reflect what directives the *1044mother, who was appearing pro se, received regarding the financial disclosure affidavit which she had failed to complete, or what additional documents she was specifically directed to submit to prove her inability to work full-time. Moreover, the Support Magistrate failed to advise the mother that her failure to fill out the financial disclosure affidavit would result in an award of support based on the child’s needs, instead of the mother’s income *(cf. Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. v Kastriot D.,*101 AD3d 574 [2012]; *Matter of Saladin v Vicari,*23 AD3d 215, 215-216 [2005]). Accordingly, the matter must be remitted to the Family Court, Richmond County, for a new hearing on the petition and a new determination thereafter as to the mother’s support obligation.

Mastro, J.E, Rivera, Chambers and Miller, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

    <ARTICLE>                         5
           
    <S>                               <C>
    <PERIOD-TYPE>                     3-MOS
    <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1996
    <PERIOD-START>                          JUL-01-1996
    <PERIOD-END>                            SEP-30-1996
    <CASH>                                            0
    <SECURITIES>                                      0
    <RECEIVABLES>                                     0
    <ALLOWANCES>                                      0
    <INVENTORY>                                       0
    <CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  0
    <PP&E>                                            0
    <DEPRECIATION>                                    0
    <TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    0
    <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             0
    <BONDS>                                           0
    <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
    <PREFERRED>                                       0
    <COMMON>                                          0
    <OTHER-SE>                                  2384819
    <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      0
    <SALES>                                           0
    <TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  0
    <CGS>                                             0
    <TOTAL-COSTS>                                     0
    <OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  0
    <LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
    <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                0
    <INCOME-PRETAX>                                   0
    <INCOME-TAX>                                      0
    <INCOME-CONTINUING>                               0
    <DISCONTINUED>                                    0
    <EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
    <CHANGES>                                         0
    <NET-INCOME>                                      0
    <EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0
    <EPS-DILUTED>                                     0

    
</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Keman Devont CALDWELL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-50389

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 15, 2009.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western *384District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Keman Devont Caldwell, Bastrop, TX, pro se.

Before KING, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Keman Devont Caldwell, federal prisoner # 15039-180, pleaded guilty to distribution of less than five grams of crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Caldwell was sentenced as a career offender pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 to 151 months of imprisonment. Caldwell appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a reduction of sentence based on Amendment 706 that modified the sentencing ranges applicable to crack cocaine offenses. *See*United States Sentencing Commission, *Guidelines Manual,*Supp. to Appendix C, Amendment 706, p. 226-31 (Nov. 1, 2007) (amending U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(c)).

This court reviews for an abuse of discretion the district court’s decision whether to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2). *United States v. Shaw,*30 F.3d 26, 29 (5th Cir.1994); *see United States v. Drath,*89 F.3d 216, 218 (5th Cir.1996). A reduction in Caldwell’s base offense level under § 2D1.1 pursuant to Amendment 706 would not affect his guidelines range of imprisonment because the guidelines range was calculated under § 4B1.1. Because Caldwell’s guidelines range of imprisonment was not derived from the quantity of crack cocaine involved in the offense, Caldwell was not sentenced based on a sentencing range that was subsequently lowered by the Sentencing Commission. *See*§ 3582(c)(2). Accordingly, under the plain language of § 3582(c)(2), a sentence reduction was not authorized and not consistent with the applicable policy statement. *See*U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(a), p.s. To the extent that Caldwell argues that the district court had the discretion to reduce his sentence under § 3582(c)(2) in light of *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), the argument is unavailing because *Booker*was not “based on a retroactive amendment to the Guidelines.” *See Shaw,*30 F.3d at 29. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Caldwell’s motion for a reduction of sentence.

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Exhibit 32

ASPEN
EXPLORATION CORPORATIONCertification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350

To
my knowledge: the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March
31, 2006, containing financial statements for the quarter then ended, fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Act of 1934;
and the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Aspen
Exploration Corporation for the periods presented.

May 15, 2006

| | /s/   
Robert A. Cohan Robert A. Cohan,
Chief Executive Officer,Chief Financial Officer
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Alvin Allen, Appellant.

[825 NYS2d 375]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Zambelli, J.), rendered March 23, 2004, convicting him of kidnapping in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631 [1976]; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606 [1979]). Schmidt, J.P., Crane, Rivera, Skelos and Lunn, JJ., concur.