alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of William Felix Bankhead, Petitioner, v Yvonne Lewis et al., Respondents.

[971 NYS2d 899]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, in the nature of mandamus to compel the respondent Julie Maya StoilFernandez, the guardian of the guardianship estate of Linda Bankhead, to prepare and file a final accounting of that guardianship estate in connection with a proceeding entitled *Matter of Bankhead,*commenced pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 81 in the Supreme Court, Kings County, under index No. 100270/03, to recuse the respondent Yvonne Lewis, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Kings County, from presiding over that *792proceeding, to compel the respondent Julie Maya StoilFernandez to return the sum of $70,000 to the guardianship estate of Linda Bankhead, to compel the removal of the respondent Julie Maya Stoil-Fernandez as the guardian of the guardianship estate of Linda Bankhead, and to compel the distribution of the assets of the estate of the decedent Linda Bankhead in connection with an administration proceeding entitled *Matter of Bankhead,*commenced in the Surrogate’s Court, Kangs County, under file No. 573/12, and in the nature of prohibition to prohibit the respondent Julie Maya StoilFernandez from accessing or handling the assets of the estates of Linda Bankhead, and application by the petitioner for poor person relief.

Ordered that the application for poor person relief is granted to the extent that the filing fee imposed by CPLR 8022 (b) is waived, and the application is otherwise denied; and it is further,

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The extraordinary remedy of mandamus will lie only to compel the performance of a ministerial act, and only where there exists a clear legal right to the relief sought *(see Matter of Legal Aid Socy. of Sullivan County v Scheinman,*53 NY2d 12, 16 [1981]). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought.

“Because of its extraordinary nature, prohibition is available only where there is a clear legal right, and then only when a court — in cases where judicial authority is challenged — acts or threatens to act either without jurisdiction or in excess of its authorized powers” *(Matter of Holtzman v Goldman,*71 NY2d *564, 569*[1988]; *see Matter of Rush v Mordue,*68 NY2d 348, 352 [1986]). The petitioner failed to establish a clear legal right to relief in the nature of prohibition. Skelos, J.P., Balkin, Leventhal and Cohen, JJ., concur.
From: The District Court of the 7th Judicial District. County of Dawson.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. JEREL DRIVER, Defendant,

CAUSE NO. DC-08-004 DECISION

On October 22,2008, the defendant was sentenced to a commitment to the Department of Corrections for a term of two (2) years, for Violation of Order of Protection, Third or Subsequent Offense, a felony.

On February 12,2009, the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The defendant was present and was represented by Eric Olson. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana provides that “the sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive.” (§46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

Done in open Court this 12th day of February, 2009.

DATED this 27th day of February, 2009.

Chairperson, Hon. Stewart Stadler, Member, Hon. Blair Jones and Alt. Member, Hon. Kurt Krueger.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3624 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to enhance disproportionate 

share hospital treatment for sole community hospitals under the Medicare 

program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 29, 2006 

Mr. BURR (for himself and Mrs. LINCOLN) 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 enhance 

disproportionate share hospital treatment for sole community hospitals under the Medicare program. 

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 ‘‘Helping Sole Commu5 nity Hospitals Act of 2006’’. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•S 3624 IS

1 SEC. 2. ENHANCED DISPROPORTIONATE SHARE HOSPITAL 

2 TREATMENT FOR SOLE COMMUNITY HOS3 PITALS UNDER THE MEDICARE PROGRAM. 

4 Section 1886(d)(5)(F)(xiv)(II) of the Social Security 

5 Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(5)(xiv)(II)), as amended by 

6 section 5003(d) of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 

7 (Public Law 109–171), is amended by inserting ‘‘or as a 

8 sole community hospital under subparagraph (D)(iii)’’ be9 fore the period at the end. 

Æ 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6834
ROBERT LEWIS BRANTNER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus EUGENE M. NUTH, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-96- 75) Submitted: September 11, 1997 Decided: September 23, 1997 Before RUSSELL, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Lewis Brantner, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Mary Ellen Barbera, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994) (current version at 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997)). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversibleerror. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Brantner v. Nuth , No. CA-96-75 (D. Md. May 14, 1997). See Lindh v. Murphy , 65 U.S.L.W. 4557 (U.S. June 23, 1997) (No. 96-6298). 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
<PAGE>


                                 HOLLINGER INC.
                  RETRACTION PRICE OF RETRACTABLE COMMON SHARES

Toronto, Ontario, Canada, April 19, 2005 -- Hollinger Inc. (TSX: HLG.C;
HLG.PR.B) today announced that the retraction price of the retractable common
shares of the Corporation as of April 20, 2005 shall be $5.32 per share.

         Hollinger's principal asset is its approximately 66.8% voting and 17.4%
equity interest in Hollinger International Inc., which is a newspaper publisher,
the assets of which include the Chicago Sun-Times, a large number of community
newspapers in the Chicago area and a portfolio of news media investments.
Hollinger also owns a portfolio of revenue-producing and other commercial real
estate in Canada, including its head office building located at 10 Toronto
Street, Toronto, Ontario.

Media contact:
Larry Parnell
Hill & Knowlton
416-413-4623
larry.parnell@hillandknowlton.ca

                              www.hollingerinc.com
I, James Steffey, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this 10-Q of Tasa Products Limited;

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 the statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

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

4.The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d- 15(e)) and internal control over financial
reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f)) for the registrant and
have:

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

b. Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision,
to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting
and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles;

c. 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

d. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

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

a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summerize and report financial information; 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: 11-2-05


/s/James Steffey
Co-General Partner
<PAGE>


                                                                 EXHIBIT 15.1


August 9, 1999


The Board of Directors and Stockholders
Genentech, Inc.

We are aware of the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
pertaining to the 1999 Stock Plan, the 1996 Stock Option/Stock Incentive
Plan, the 1994 Stock Option Plan, and the 1990 Stock Option/Stock Incentive
Plan and in the related prospectuses, as applicable, contained in such
Registration Statements of our report dated July 9, 1999 relating to the
unaudited condensed consolidated interim financial statements of Genentech,
Inc. which are included in its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 1999.

Pursuant to Rule 436(c) of the Securities Act of 1933 our report is not a
part of the registration statement prepared or certified by accountants
within the meaning of section 7 or 11 of the Securities Act of 1933.


Very truly yours,




/S/ERNST & YOUNG LLP
--------------------------
Ernst & Young LLP
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6599

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

SEAN BURNETT THOMAS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District

Judge. (7:05-cr-00526-HMH; 7:06-cv-70010-HMH)

Submitted: August 30, 2007 Decided: September 7, 2007

Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sean Burnett Thomas, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Sean Burnett Thomas seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his motion for reconsideration of the denial of 28

U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) relief. The order is not appealable unless a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will

not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner

satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists

would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the

district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive

procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable.

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v.

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-

84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and

conclude that Thomas has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. 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
Exhibit 3.6



                                  AMENDMENT TO
                   CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF PREFERENCES
                                       OF
                   9.20% CUMULATIVE PREFERRED STOCK, SERIES B
                                       OF
                              PUBLIC STORAGE, INC.



                  The undersigned, John Reyes and David Goldberg, Senior Vice
President and Secretary, respectively, of PUBLIC STORAGE, INC., a California
corporation (the "Corporation"), do hereby certify:


                  FIRST: Pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of
Section 401(c) of the California Corporations Code and the Articles of
Incorporation of the Corporation, the Board of Directors of the Corporation has
duly adopted the recitals and resolutions attached hereto as Exhibit A and
incorporated herein by reference reducing the authorized number of shares of the
Corporation's 9.20% Cumulative Preferred Stock Series B, from 2,386,000 to 0.


                  SECOND: There are no currently outstanding shares of the
Corporation's 9.20% Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series B.


                  We further declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of
the State of California that the matters set forth in the foregoing certificate
are true and correct of our own knowledge.


                  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this
certificate on June 17, 2004.




                                            /s/ John Reyes
                                            --------------------
                                            John Reyes
                                            Senor Vice President




                                            /s/ David Goldberg
                                            --------------------
                                            David Goldberg
                                            Secretary



<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 3.6


                                    EXHIBIT A

                      RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
                                       OF
                              PUBLIC STORAGE, INC.

               DECREASING TO 0 THE AUTHORIZED NUMBER OF SHARES OF
                   9.20% CUMULATIVE PREFERRED STOCK, SERIES B





         RESOLVED: That, pursuant to the authority conferred in the Board of
         Directors by Article III of the Restated Articles of Incorporation of
         this corporation and the resolutions creating the corporation's 9.20%
         Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series B, the number of shares constituting
         the corporation's 9.20% Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series B, is
         decreased from 2,386,000 shares to 0.
#### Kessler v. Shimp

Case below: 181 N.C. App. 753

No. 207P07

Pit’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA06-736)

Denied 08/23/07
ex4-1.htm


Exhibit 4.1


 



AMENDMENT


TO THE $110,000 PROMISSORY NOTE DATED January 21, 2015


 

 







The parties agree that the $110,000 Promissory Note by and between Innovus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Company”) and Vista Capital Investments, LLC (“Holder”) is hereby amended as follows:







Maturity: Company and Holder agree that the maturity and repayment of the Note shall be amended as follows:








	
-  

	
$50,000 shall be paid by Company to Holder on July 31, 2015








	
-  

	
$22,933 shall be paid by Company to Holder on September 1, 2015








	
-  

	
$22,933 shall be paid by Company to Holder on October 1, 2015








	
-  

	
$22,933 shall be paid by Company to Holder on November 1, 2015












Inducement: As inducement to enter into this Amendment, Holder shall issue and ship via overnight carrier a certificate in the amount of 100,000 (one hundred thousand) restricted common shares in the Company, in the name of Vista Capital Investments, LLC, on or before August 5, 2015.







ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE $110,000 PROMISSORY NOTE REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT.







Please indicate acceptance and approval of this amendment dated August 2, 2015 by signing below:












 




	/s/ Bassam B. Damaj	/s/ David Clark
	
Dr. Bassam B. Damaj Ph.D. 


Innovus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 

	David Clark 

Vista Capital Investments, LLC


	Chief Executive Officer 	Principal
**Exhibit31.2**

 

Certificationof Chief Financial Officer

 

I, Don E. Cosby, certify that:

 

1.     I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q of Independent Bankshares, Inc.;

 

2.     Based on my knowledge, thisquarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

 

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

 

4.     The registrant’s othercertifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

 

(a)   designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the  registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this quarterly is being prepared;

 

(b)  evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

(c)  disclosed in this report and change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

 

5.     The registrant’s othercertifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):

 

(a)  all significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b)  any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 

 
|   | Date:  August 8, 2003                             |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                   |
|   | /s/ Don E. Cosby                                       |
|   | Don E. Cosby                                           |
|   | Executive Vice President  and Chief Financial  Officer |

 

----
#### Rebecca Chusid, Respondent, v Daniel Silvera, Appellant.

[972 NYS2d 96]

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Janowitz, J.), dated January 17, 2013, which, without a hearing, inter alia, denied, as academic, that branch of his motion which was, in effect, for expanded pendente lite visitation with the parties’ child.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, by deleting the provision thereof denying, as academic, that branch of the defendant’s motion which was, in effect, for expanded pendente lite visitation with the parties’ child, and substituting therefor a provision granting the motion to the extent of awarding the defendant, pendente lite, four weeks of summer visitation with the parties’ child, and *663otherwise denying that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the defendant’s motion which was, in effect, for expanded pendente lite visitation with the parties’ child. On this record, the best interests of the subject child *(see generally Eschbach v Eschbach,*56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]) would be served by granting the motion to the extent of awarding the defendant, pendente lite, four weeks of summer visitation.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either without merit or not properly before this Court. Rivera, J.P., Balkin, Leventhal and Cohen, JJ., concur.

Motion by the appellant, inter alia, for this Court to deem the forensic reports of Marvin Aronson and Paul Marcus to be part of the record on the appeal from the order dated January 17, 2013. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated April 16, 2013, that branch of the motion which was for this Court to deem the forensic reports of Marvin Aronson and Paul Marcus to be part of the record on the appeal from the order dated January 17, 2013, was held in abeyance, and was referred to the Justices hearing the appeal for determination upon the argument or submission thereof.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the argument of the appeal, it is

Ordered that the branch of the motion which was for this Court to deem the forensic reports of Marvin Aronson and Paul Marcus to be part of the record on the appeal from the order dated January 17, 2013, is denied. Rivera, J.P., Balkin, Leventhal and Cohen, JJ., concur.