alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

v.

NELSON OTERO and MAXCIME

CAGAN, 

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Criminal No. 11-23 (SRC)

ORDER

CHESLER, District Judge

This matter having come before the Court on the motion filed by pro se Defendant Nelson

Otero ("Otero") for a judgment of acquittal pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29(c)

[docket entry 92]; and Plaintiff the United States of America having opposed the motion; and the

Court having considered the papers filed by the parties; and for the reasons expressed in the

Opinion filed herewith;

IT IS on this 8th day of June, 2012, 

ORDERED that Defendant Otero's motion for judgment of acquittal [docket entry 92] be

and hereby is DENIED.

 s/Stanley R. Chesler 

STANLEY R. CHESLER

United States District Judge
Labor Employer Reporting Instructions

Part IV – Particular Types of Compensation Payments

Chapter 4: Selected Fringe Benefits

1

Group Term Life Insurance

 

The cost of coverage of group term life insurance greater than $50,000 is considered 

compensation under the RRA to the extent that it is included in the gross income of an employee 

and subject to railroad retirement tax. The cost of group term life insurance with respect to 

periods within an employment relationship is treated the same as ordinary compensation 

creditable for both Tier I and Tier II purposes. See Internal Revenue Code (IRC) section 79 for 

detailed information. 

A taxable fringe benefit arises if coverage exceeds $50,000 and the policy is considered carried 

directly or indirectly by the employer, in which case: 

• The employer pays any cost of the life insurance; or 

 

• The employer arranges for the premium payments. 

Reporting Life Insurance in "Earned" Versus "Paid" Situations 

If compensation is being reported for the period that the compensation was earned, the cost of 

group term life insurance, with respect to periods after the termination of the employment 

relation, should be reported to the month in which the employment relation ended, up to the 

applicable annual Tier I and Tier II maximums. If the maximum creditable Tier I amount has 

been received, additional amounts would be considered miscellaneous compensation because the 

payment meets all the conditions described in Chapter 10 of this Part, about miscellaneous 

compensation. 

If compensation is being reported for the period the payment was made, the cost of group term 

life insurance would be reported as Tier I, Tier II, and RUIA compensation for the year paid. No 

service month can be reported because the individual is no longer an employee. 

Pension Plans 

Amounts withheld from the employee's compensation for deposit into an employer pension plan 

account, amounts deposited into an employer pension plan account in lieu of a pay increase as 

negotiated with a labor union, or amounts deposited into a 401(k) pension plan for the employee, 

are considered to be the employee's funds and are creditable railroad compensation at the time of 

contribution. These amounts are subject to the railroad retirement tax. Employer matching funds 

are not considered compensation and are not subject to the railroad retirement tax.
S05Y1031.

#### IN THE MATTER OF DARRIN SHANE COATS.

(612 SE2d 306)

Per curiam.

This disciplinary matter is before the Court pursuant to the report and recommendation of a special master who was appointed pursuant to Bar Rule 4-106 (a) to recommend the appropriate discipline for Respondent Darrin Shane Coats’ violations of Rule 8.4 of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct as set out in Bar Rule 4-102 (d). Because Coats, though properly served, has not responded to the allegations nor made an appearance in these proceedings, we accept the report and recommendation which found that Coats, who has been a member of the State Bar of Georgia since 2003, pled guilty in the Superior Court of Houston County to one count each of sexual battery, interference with child custody, and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Each of the former two counts is a “felony” under Rule 8.4 (a) (2). Therefore, the convictions on those counts constitute violations of Rule 8.4 of Bar Rule 4-102 (d). Because the maximum penalty for a violation of Rule 8.4 (a) (2) is disbarment and because we find no mitigating circumstances that would dictate a *323lesser sanction, we accept the recommendation of the special master that disbarment is the appropriate sanction in this case. Accordingly, we hereby order that the name of Darrin Shane Coats be removed from the rolls of persons entitled to practice law in the State of Georgia. Coats is reminded of his duties under Bar Rule 4-219 (c).

Decided April 26, 2005

Reconsideration denied May 23, 2005.

*William P. Smith III, General Counsel State Bar, K. Gene Chapman, Assistant General Counsel State Bar,*for State Bar of Georgia.

*Disbarred.*

*All the Justices concur.*
#### Allstate Insurance Company et al., Appellants, v Alex Buziashvili et al., Defendants, and Moshe Fuld, Esq., et al., Respondents.

[853 NYS2d 876]

In support of their claim for violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), plaintiffs failed to set forth nonconclusory allegations that the attorney Fuld defendants participated in the “operation or management” of the allegedly corrupt enterprise *(see Reves v Ernst & Young,*507 US 170, 179, 182-185 [1993]; *cf. Jinaran Land Corp. v Shahbazi,*247 AD2d 263 [1998]). Because the substantive RICO claim was deficient, so was the conspiracy claim *(Crab House of Douglaston, Inc. v Newsday, Inc.,*418 F Supp 2d 193, 212 [2006]; *see generally Small v Lorillard Tobacco Co.,*94 NY2d 43, 57 [1999]). Furthermore, dismissal of the common-law fraud cause of action was proper, where plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege false representations or omissions by the Fuld defendants *(id.; see*CELR 3016 [b]); plaintiffs no longer challenge the dismissal of their General Business Law § 349 claim; and in view of the foregoing, plaintiffs’ cause of action for injunctive relief as against the Fuld defendants must fail.

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Andrias, Nardelli, Buckley and Acosta, JJ.
Order entered July 22, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00563-CR

BILLY JOE CAMPBELL, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 416th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 416-81619-2012

ORDER

On July 8, 2015, we ordered appellant for the second time to file an amended brief that 

included only the initials of the complaining witness and her sister. The amended brief was due 

within three days of our order. Appellant missed the deadline and tendered his second-amended 

brief to the Court today, without seeking an extension of time to file it. We ORDER appellant to 

file, by 5 p.m. on July 23, 2015, a motion for an extension of time to file his brief. 

/s/ CRAIG STODDART 

PRESIDING JUSTICE
### PUBLISHED Filed: March 14, 2006



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  E ARLEB. G REGORY ; K ENB LINKO ; B ETTY C. C OLEY ; V ICKI G RAINGER ; E THELE. G RAVES ; B ECKY H ALSALL ; J OHN S. H ALSALL , III; J ERRY F. M C D ANIEL ; V ERONICA T. M C D ANIEL ; L AVERNEM C K ENZIE ; M ARIANNE M C K ENZIE ; N ATHANJ. N EELY ; Z EVIE H. N EELY ; S ULINA P RATHER ; K ATHRYN R ODDEY ; G INA T IBBS ; J OHN A. T IBBS ; J OHNC. T IBBS ; B RENDA D. W ATTS ; G ERALD D. W ATTS ; C. A NN No. 05-2118



# 
W ILLIAMS ; H ENRY M. W ILLIAMS , J R .; W ESLEY L. W ILLIAMS , J R .; G RANT H ALL ; T OM M OORE ; A NNA N UNNERY ; C HARLES S HOPE ; P ENELOPES HOPE ; K ATHY A NNETTEW OOD ; S AM J ONES W OOD ; R UTH A NNH ALL ,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v. F INOVA C APITALC ORPORATION ,

Defendant-Appellant. 

# O R D E R

Our order of October 6, 2005, as corrected by our order of October14, 2005, stayed the proceedings in the district court during the pendency of the appeal or until the further order of this court. *
The case was argued on February 2, 2006, and our decision was filed March 14, 2006, reversing the order of the district court which, on June 8, 2005, had certified the case as a class action.
While Judge Widener, with whom Judge Luttig agrees, are of opinion to reverse the district court’s certification of a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, and Judge King dissents therefrom, all of the judges of the said panel agree that our orders of October 6, 2005, as corrected October 14, 2005, should be vacated in so far as they stay proceedings in the district court during pendency of this appeal or until the further order of this court.
It is accordingly ADJUDGED and ORDERED that our said orders of October 6, 2005 and October 14, 2005 shall be, and they herebyare, forthwith vacated in so far as they, in any manner, stay the proceedings in the district court.
With the concurrences of Judge Luttig and Judge King.

/s/ H. E. Widener, Jr. For the Court

*Our order filed October 6, 2005 was under case No. 05-337, which number was changed to 05-2118 upon permission to appeal being granted. The cases are the same, only the numbers differ. 2 G REGORY v. F INOVA C APITALC ORP

.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2008-5036 HARVEST INSTITUTE FREEDMAN FEDERATION, BLACK INDIANS UNITED LEGAL DEFENSE FUND,

and WILLIAM WARRIOR,

Plaintiffs Appellants,
v. UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in 06-CV-907,

Senior Judge Robert H. Hodges, Jr.

ON MOTION ORDER Harvest Institute Freedman Federation et al. move without opposition (1) for leave to file the joint appendix out of time, with appendix attached, and (2) for reconsideration of the court's December 31, 2008 order dismissing the appeal for failure to file the appendix. Upon consideration thereof, IT IS ORDERED THAT: The motions are granted, the mandate is recalled, and the appeal is reinstated. FOR THE COURT 

# FEB 2 6 2009 /s/ Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly FILED Clerk U.S.COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT FEB 2 6 2009 JAN NORM'S CLERK Date
cc: Percy Squire, Esq. Elizabeth Ann Peterson, Esq. s17
Exhibit 31.1 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 I, Jeffrey Binder, certify that: 

1.      I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Fearless International, Inc.; 

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 suchstatements 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 smallbusiness issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4.      The small business issuer’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)) for the smallbusiness issuer 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 small business issuer,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.      Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; 

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

5.      The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committeeof the small business issuer’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 small business issuer's ability to record,process, summarize 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 small business issuer's internal control overfinancial reporting.
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Patient Safety Technologies,
Inc. (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Steven
H. Kane, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Marc L. Rose, as Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, 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;
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/ Steven H. KaneName:
      Steven H. KaneTitle:
      Chief Executive OfficerDate:
      April 30, 2010/s/ Marc L. RoseName:
      Marc L. RoseTitle:
      Chief Financial OfficerDate:
      April 30, 2010





The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and
is not being “filed” as part of the Form 10-K/A or as a separate disclosure
document for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (the “Exchange Act”), or otherwise subject to liability under that
section. This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference
into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange
Act except to the extent that this Exhibit 32.1 is expressly and specifically
incorporated by reference in any such filing.





A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JULY 23, 2015

NO. 03-14-00331-CV

Randolph A. Lopez, d/b/a Brown Hand Center and d/b/a Brown Medical Center, Appellant

v.

Cox Texas Newspapers, L.P., d/b/a Austin American-Statesman, Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, PEMBERTON, AND BOURLAND

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE BOURLAND

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on March 18, 2014. Having 

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error 

in the trial court’s judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment. The 

appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of AppealsCAAP-11-000102628-NOV-201209:31 AM
#### MASON v. ROYAL INDEMNITY CO.

No. 2143.

District Court, N. D. Georgia, Atlanta Division.

March 1, 1940.

George & John L. Westmoreland, of Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff.

W. Neal Baird and Neely, Marshall & Greene, all of Atlanta, Ga., for defendant.

UNDERWOOD, District Judge.

Defendant’s motion to dismiss came on regularly to be heard and was argued by counsel.

The ground for dismissal urged by defendant is in substance that the suit should be dismissed because brought by plaintiff, who is the real party in interest, instead of by the insured under the policy in question, for the use of plaintiff.

A Georgia statute provides that, “As a general rule, the action on a contract, whether express or implied, or whether by parol or under seal, or of record, shall be brought in the name of the party in whom the legal interest in such contract is vested, and against the party who made it in person or by agent.” Georgia Code 1933, § 3-108.

Rule 17(a) of Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, provides, “Every action shall be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest; but * * * a party with whom or in whose name a ■ contract has been made for the benefit of another, * * * may sue in his own name without joining with him the party for whose benefit the action is brought.”

The policy of insurance which forms the basis of this suit expressly provides that, “Any person or his legal representative who has secured such judgment or written agreement shall thereafter be entitled to recover under the terms of this *177policy in the same manner and to the same extent as the insured.”

In whatever name the suit may be brought, plaintiff is the party who will receive the proceeds of any recovery. On this motion, therefore, the contest is over the shadow and not the substance, and is not particularly significant or interesting.

Being of opinion that the matter is procedural and not substantive, Rule 17 (a) of Rules of Civil Procedure is fol-lowed and the motion is overruled.
Exhibit 31.2

Porter Bancorp, Inc.

Rule 13a-14(a) Certification

of Chief Financial Officer

I, David B. Pierce, Chief
Financial Officer of Porter Bancorp, Inc. (the Company), certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the
Company;

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 such 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(s) 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)) 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; and

(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.



|                      |  |  |  |                        
|--------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Dated: August 8, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ David B. Pierce    
|                      |  |  |  | David B. Pierce        
|                      |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32



                            CERTIFICATION 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. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned President and Sole
Executive Officer of 4net Software, Inc. (the "Company"), certifies, that to his
knowledge:

         1) the Company's Form 10-KSB for the annual period ended September 30,
         2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
         the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

         2) the information contained in the Company's Form 10-KSB for the
         annual period ended September 30, 2004 fairly presents, in all material
         respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
         Company.



                                            /s/ Steven N. Bronson
                                            -----------------------------------
                                            Steven N. Bronson, President
**Exhibit 32****.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Pursuant to18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of Shermen WSC Acquisition Corp. (the“Company”) hereby certifies that the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended June 30, 2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 
|                               |   | /s/ John E. Toffolon, Jr. |
|-------------------------------|--------|---------------------------|
|                          |   | Name:                     | John E. Toffolon, Jr. |
|                          |   | Title:                    | Chief Financial Officer and |
|                          |   |                      | Director (Principal Financial and |
|                          |   |                      | Accounting Officer) |
|                          |   |                      |   |
| Dated:  August  14, 2007 |   |                      |   |

 

----
# Multimedia About 75th Anniversary

75th Anniversary Hidden Histories: Racial Injustice at St. Elizabeths Mental Hospital

75th Anniversary The Evolution of Brain Stimulation Therapy 

75th Anniversary Depression: The Case for Ketamine

75th Anniversary Understanding and Preventing Youth Suicide

75th Anniversary The People Behind NIMH

75th Anniversary 75 Years and 75 Seconds