alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Clarendon National Insurance Company, Respondent, v Francisco Nunez, Sr., et al., Appellants.

Submitted March 16, 2009;

decided April 2, 2009

Motion by New York State Trial Lawyers’ Association for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed.
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

v.

OMAR SHAKUR AKRAM, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 16-0827 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2010-006443-001

 CR2010-006840-002

The Honorable Pamela Hearn Svoboda, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix

By Diane Meloche

Counsel for Respondent

Omar Shakur Akram, Florence

Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen, Judge Kent E. Cattani and Judge 

Jennifer M. Perkins delivered the decision of the Court.

FILED 3-29-2018
STATE v. AKRAM

Decision of the Court

2

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Petitioner Omar Shakur Akram seeks review of the superior 

court's order denying his second and third petitions for post-conviction 

relief, filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. 

¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will 

not disturb a superior court's ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief. 

State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012). It is petitioner's burden to 

show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petition 

for post-conviction relief. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, ¶ 1 (App. 2011) 

(petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of discretion on review).

¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior 

court's order denying the petitions for post-conviction relief, and the 

petition for review. We find that petitioner has not established an abuse of 

discretion. 

¶4 For the foregoing reasons, we grant review and deny relief.
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions that have no

precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of wellsettled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on

the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this

opinion should not be published.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________

No. 93-3544

_______________________

KENNETH J. ARENSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER, ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

_________________________________________________________________

(May 11, 1995)

On Petition for Rehearing

Before JONES, HIGGINBOTHAM, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appellant Kenneth J. Arenson petitions this Court on

rehearing for a clear ruling on his claim to attorney's fees,

interest on his judgment, and relief based on his Title VII claim.

For purposes of clarification, we confirm that Arenson is entitled

to attorney's fees as a prevailing party at trial and on appeal and

to interest. We remand to the district court for determination of
2

a reasonable fee and appropriate interest. However, Appellant's

request for Title VII relief is denied because Arenson waived his

Title VII claim by failing to seek a ruling on that issue from the

Arenson I panel.

Except as specifically granted above, Appellant's

Petition for Rehearing is DENIED. This case is REMANDED to the

district court for determination of a reasonable attorney's fee and

appropriate interest.

Clarification GRANTED; case REMANDED.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 35 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 35

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the credit for 
                  production of electricity from wind.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 24, 2005

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the credit for 
                  production of electricity from wind.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF CREDIT FOR PRODUCTION OF ELECTRICITY FROM WIND.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 45(d) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to wind facility) is amended by striking 
``January 1, 2006'' and inserting ``January 1, 2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to electricity produced and sold after the date of the enactment of 
this Act, in taxable years ending after such date.
                                 <all>
```
#### Whitaker v. Whitaker

Case below: 181 N.C. App. 609

No. 120P07

Pit’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA06-465)

Denied 05/03/07
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Cubic Energy, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,as C.E.O., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 
| Date: November 15, 2010 |                               |
|------------------------------|------------------------------------|
|                         |                               |
| Signature:                   | /s/  Calvin A. Wallen, III    |   |
|                         | Calvin A. Wallen, III, C.E.O. |   |

 

----
#### Sea Ranch Owners Ass’n v. Sea Ranch, II, Inc.

Case below: 180 N.C. App. 226

No. 338P06

1. Pit’s Motion for Temporary Stay (COA05-1528 *&*1559)

2. Pit’s Petition for Writ of Supersedeas

3. Pit’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

4. Pit’s Motion for Leave to File a Rule 60(a) Motion in Superior Court

1. Allowed 06/26/06 360 N.C. 649 Stay Dissolved 03/08/07

2. Denied 03/08/07

3. Denied 03/08/07

4. Dismissed as Moot 03/08/07

Martin, J., and Hudson, J., Recused
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-2593

_____________________________

LAVONTREY PHONTEZ CARTER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County.

John F. Simon, Judge.

February 5, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WETHERELL, ROWE, and JAY, JJ., concur.

 

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

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

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant; Lavontrey Phontez 

Carter, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
#### In re S.L.G.

Case below: 181 N.C. App. 149

No. 070P07

1. Respondent’s (Father) PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA06-125)

2. Respondent’s (Father) PWC to Review the Decision of the COA

1. Denied 10/11/07

2. Denied 10/11/07
VI 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3699 

To provide private relief. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 20, 2006 

Mr. SPECTER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To provide private relief. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. PRIVATE RELIEF. 

4 The survivors of Christopher Kangas of Brookhaven, 

5 Pennsylvania, shall be eligible for an award of $250,000 

6 to be issued by the Bureau of Justice Assistance of the 

7 Department of Justice due to his death as a result of his 

8 acting in the capacity of a public safety officer. 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
2 

•S 3699 IS

1 SEC. 2. NATIONAL FALLEN FIREFIGHTERS MEMORIAL. 

2 The United States Fire Administration shall include 

3 the name of Christopher Kangas on the National Fallen 

4 Firefighters Memorial in Emmitsburg, Maryland. 

Æ 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
|Exhibit 32
|----------

ASPEN EXPLORATION CORPORATION

Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 of the
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (the Report) of Aspen Exploration Corporation (the Company) for the quarter ended December 31, 2009, each of the undersigned R.V. Bailey, the Chief Executive Officer and principal executive officer of the Company, and Kevan B. Hensman, the Chief Financial Officer and the principal financial officer of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of the undersigneds knowledge and belief:

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.

|                  |  |                                          
|----------------- |  | -----------------------------------------
|February 12, 2010 |  | /s/      R.V. Bailey                     
|                  |  | R.V. Bailey, Chief Executive Officer     
|                  |  |                                          
|February 12, 2010 |  | /s/      Kevan B. Hensman                
|                  |  | Kevan B. Hensman, Chief Financial Officer
|                  |  |                                          

---
#### Han Soo Lee et al., Plaintiffs, v Riverhead Bay Motors et al., Defendants. Edward H. Suh and Associates, P.C., Nonparty Appellant; Law Office of Kenneth A. Wilhelm, Nonparty Respondent.

[972 NYS2d 240]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Saliann Scarpulla, J.), entered October 18, 2011, which, after a hearing, apportioned less than 5% of the net contingency fee earned in a personal injury action to plaintiffs’ outgoing attorneys, nonparty appellant Edward H. Suh and Associates, PC., and the remainder to the incoming attorneys, Law Office of Kenneth A. Wilhelm, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly apportioned the legal fee to reflect that, while the Suh firm’s services placed plaintiffs on the right path, the Wilhelm firm’s extensive and complex work dwarfed the Suh firm’s contribution *(see e.g. Shabazz v City of New York,*94 AD3d 569 [1st Dept 2012]). The Suh firm, which represented plaintiffs for approximately six months, conducted preliminary investigative work, including interviewing the injured plaintiff, inspecting and taking photographs of the construction site where plaintiff’s accident occurred, communicating with plaintiffs employer and treating physicians, and obtaining accident reports, medical records and an unsigned statement from an eyewitness to *the*accident. It commenced an action and prepared initial discovery demands and responses, and retained counsel to file and prosecute plaintiff’s workers’ compensation case. Edward H. Suh performed approximately 28 hours of work *437on the matter, one third of which was devoted to travel, and an associate performed 15 hours of work. In contrast, the Wilhelm firm prosecuted the action for 7x/2 years and expended thousands of hours. It conducted and defended depositions, obtained summary judgment on liability, participated in mediation sessions, retained experts, represented plaintiffs in a two-week trial, successfully appealed the verdict in that trial and re-tried the action, settled the action during the second trial, and defended plaintiffs’ interests in an ancillary declaratory judgment action. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Sweeny, Acosta, Saxe and Clark, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2011 NY Slip Op 32849(U).]
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 19

- 00151

- CR

J OSE H ECTOR P ONCE A / K / A J OSE H.

P ONCE

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TA

TE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 372nd District

Court

of Tarrant County ( 1554835D )

October 8, 2020

Memorandum Opinion by Justice

Dauphinot

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was error in the trial court’s judgment. The judgment is modified to reflect that the

trial judge, not the jury, assessed Appellant ’ s punishment . It is ordered that the

judgment of the trial court is affirmed as modified.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEA LS

By

__ /s/ Lee Ann Dauphinot

_____________ Justi ce Lee Ann Dauphinot
**ENVOY COMMUNICATIONS GROUP INC.****NOTICE OF ANNUAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS****TAKE NOTICE**that the Annual Meeting of Shareholders (the “Meeting”) of **ENVOY COMMUNICATIONS GROUPINC.**(the “Corporation”) will be held at 300 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, on Tuesday, March28, 2006 at 11:00 a.m. (Toronto time) for the following purposes:(a) to receive the consolidated financial statements of the Corporation for its fiscal year endedSeptember 30, 2005 and the report of the auditors thereon; (b) to elect directors for the ensuing year; (c) to appoint auditors for the ensuing year and to authorize the directors to fix theirremuneration; and (d) to transact such other business as may properly come before the Meeting or anyadjournment thereof.A Management Information Circular and form of proxy accompany this Notice. Shareholders who areunable to attend the Meeting, or any adjournment thereof, in person are requested to date and signthe enclosed form of proxy. A proxy will not be valid unless it is deposited at the offices of**Computershare Trust Company of Canada, 100 University Avenue, 9th Floor, Toronto, Ontario, M5J 2Y1**on or before 11:00 a.m. (Toronto time) on the second business day preceding the Meeting or 48 hours(excluding Saturdays, Sundays and holidays) before any adjournment of the Meeting.* * * * *DATED February 22, 2006.       By Order of the Board of Directors
Exhibit 35
                                   ----------


                       COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP


                              OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                     ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MASTER SERVICER


                                   CWHEQ, INC.
                  CWHEQ HOME EQUITY LOAN TRUST, SERIES 2007-S1
           HOME EQUITY LOAN ASSET BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-S1


      The undersigned does hereby certify that the undersigned is an officer of
Countrywide GP, Inc., general partner of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP
(the "Master Servicer"), and does hereby further certify pursuant to Section
3.17 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the above-captioned Series (the
"Agreement") that:

(i)   A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar year and of the performance of the Master Servicer under the Agreement
has been made under my supervision; and

(ii)  To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has
fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects
throughout such calendar year.




/s/ Craig Baingo                                      Dated: March 14, 2008
-----------------


Craig Baingo
Executive Vice President, Finance
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 Quarterly Report of Diatect International Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jay W. Downs, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



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:  May 14, 2004

By:

/s/ Jay W. Downs________

Name:

Jay W. Downs,

Title:

Principal Executive Officer,

Principal Financial Officer
#### R. Bruce McLean, Appellant, v City of Kingston et al., Respondents.

Decided May 12, 2009

Appeal, insofar as taken from that part of the Appellate Division order that affirmed Supreme Court’s order denying appellant’s motion to renew, dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that such portion of the order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution; appeal otherwise dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.
Exhibit 35.1

                                  [logo] CHASE

                          SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT


RE: J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Trust 2007-CH2 Asset Backed Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2007-CH2: This Pooling and Servicing Agreement, is dated as
of February 1, 2007 (the "Agreement"), by and among J.P. Morgan Acceptance
Corporation I, a Delaware corporation, as Depositor (the "Depositor"), J.P.
Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation, as Seller (the
"Seller") for purposes of Section 2.03 and 2.06, JPMorgan Chase Bank, National
Association, as Servicer (the "Servicer"), Deutsche Bank National Trust Company,
as Trustee (the "Trustee") and Pentalpha Surveillance LLC as Trust Oversight
Manager (the "Trust Oversight Manager")

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of JPMorgan Chase Bank, National
Association, as servicer (the "Servicer") pursuant to the J.P. Morgan Mortgage
Acquisition Trust 2007-CH2 Asset Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series
2007-CH2 (The "Agreement"), does hereby certify that:

      (1) A review of the activities of the Servicer during the calendar year
ending December 31, 2007 and of the performance of the Servicer under the
Agreement has been made under my supervision; and

      (2) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has
fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects
throughout such year.

Date: 02/28/2008

                                      JPMorgan Chase Bank,
                                      National Association,
                                      as Servicer


                                      By: /s/ David Lowman
                                          ----------------
                                      Name:  David Lowman
                                      Title: Executive Vice President
Unassociated Document


    PROMISSORY
      NOTE

    


    $250,000.00
      USD.
      Date: May 17, 2007

    


    THIS
      AMENDED AND RESTATED PROMISSORY NOTE (THE “NOTE”) SUPERSEDES IN ITS ENTIRETY
      THAT CERTAIN PROMISSORY NOTE, DATED AS OF APRIL 12, 2007, ISSUED BY THE
      PROMISSOR TO THE HOLDER.

    


    FOR
      VALUE
      RECEIVED, RAVEN GOLD CORP. (the “Promissor”) hereby promises to pay to COACH
      CAPITAL, LLC, or such other holder for the time being hereof (the “Holder”), the
      principal amount of Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000.00) in
      United States currency (the “Principal Amount”), and to pay interest thereon at
      the rate of ten per cent (10%) per annum calculated annually from May 1, 2007
      on
      so much of the Principal Amount as shall be outstanding from time to time,
      ON
      DEMAND.

    


    Time
      shall be of the essence of this Note. Extension of time for payment of all
      or
      any part of the amount owing hereunder at any time or times, or failure of
      the
      Holder to enforce any of the rights or remedies hereunder, shall not release
      the
      Promissor and shall not constitute a waiver of the rights of the Holder to
      enforce such rights and remedies thereafter.

    


    Should
      suit be brought to recover on this Note, the Promissor promises to pay
      reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs in addition to the amount found to be
      due on this Note.

    


    The
      Holder acknowledges and agrees that the Promissor is a public company having
      reporting obligations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the
      Promissor shall file a Current Report on Form 8-K with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), upon the execution of this Note, setting forth
      the terms of this Note and filing a copy of this Note as an exhibit thereto.
      The
      Holder further acknowledges and agrees that the Promissor shall have the right
      to make any filing with the SEC or disclose the terms of this Note, without
      the
      prior approval of the Holder if such disclosure is required by law, court order
      or the SEC rules or regulations.

    


    IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF the Promissor has executed this Amended and Restated Note on
      May
      17, 2007.

    


    RAVEN
      GOLD CORP.

    


    


    By:
      /s/
      Gary Haukeland

    
      
        

      

    

    Name:
      Gary Haukeland

    Title:
      Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit
10(q)


 


FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY


2005 EXECUTIVE DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN


 


The
Hewlett-Packard Company 2005 Executive Deferred Compensation Plan, as amended
and restated effective October 1, 2006 (the “Plan”), is hereby amended as
follows:


 


1.             A new sentence is added to the
end of the definition of “Eligible Employee” in Article I to read as follows:


 


An
Eligible Employee shall also include a Newly Hired Employee.


 


2.             A definition for “Newly Hired
Employee” is added to Article I to read as follows:


 


“Newly
Hired Employee” means an Employee (i) who is hired by HP or one of its
affiliates for the first time after 2006, (ii) who would have qualified as an
Eligible Employee as of the November 1 preceding his date of hire based on his
initial position and Annual Rate of Pay, and (iii) whose base salary payable in
the year of hire is projected to exceed the Code section 401(a)(17) limit for
such year.


 


3.             A new Section 3.2 is added to
read as follows:


 


New Hires.  A Newly Hired Employee may elect within 30
days of becoming an Employee to defer base salary earned subsequent to the deferral
election becoming effective and in the year of hire.  Such an election shall become irrevocable and
effective at the end of this 30-day period.


 


4.             Sections 3.2 to 3.5 are
re-numbered 3.3 to 3.6.


 


This
First Amendment to the 2005 Hewlett-Packard Company Executive Deferred
Compensation Plan is hereby adopted this 15th day of March, 2007.


 


 


	
   

  	
  HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By

  	
  /s/ Marcela Perez de Alonso

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Marcela Perez de Alonso

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Executive Vice President

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Human Resources and Workforce Development