alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: May 12, 2016 521744 

________________________________

In the Matter of JORDAN Y. 

CORP,

Petitioner,

v MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

DONALD VENETTOZZI, as Acting 

Director of Special Housing 

and Inmate Disciplinary 

Programs,

Respondent.

________________________________

Calendar Date: March 29, 2016

Before: Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Egan Jr., Lynch and 

 Aarons, JJ.

__________

Jordan Y. Corp, Marcy, petitioner pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J.

Mastracco of counsel), for respondent.

__________

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this

Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to

review a determination of the Commissioner of Corrections and

Community Supervision finding petitioner guilty of violating a

prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner, an inmate, was charged in a misbehavior report

with using drugs after his urine twice tested positive for

buprenorphine. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, he was

found guilty and the determination was affirmed on administrative

appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.
-2- 521744 

We confirm. The misbehavior report, urinalysis test

results and related documentation and the testimony of the

testing officer provide substantial evidence to support the

determination (see Matter of Martinez v Annucci, 134 AD3d 1380,

1380-1381 [2015]; Matter of Green v Annucci, 134 AD3d 1376, 1376

[2015]). With regard to petitioner's contentions that an

incorrect identification number appeared on the testing

documentation, the testimony of the testing officer adequately

explained that the error in the last digit of petitioner's

identification number was a typographical error, which he

corrected on the documentation (see Matter of Smith v Unger, 100

AD3d 1171, 1171 [2012]). Insofar as petitioner claims that the

sample tested was not his, the testing officer confirmed that he

had collected the urine sample from petitioner, which petitioner

admitted providing, and the officer's testimony established the

chain of custody and positive results for that sample and that it

belonged to petitioner (see id.; see also Matter of Jenkins v

Annucci, 136 AD3d 1093, 1093 [2016]; Matter of Martinez v

Annucci, 134 AD3d at 1381). Petitioner's remaining contentions

have been considered and determined to lack merit.

Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Egan Jr., Lynch and Aarons, JJ.,

concur.

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without

costs, and petition dismissed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 21.1


                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
                         ------------------------------

TEAM America Corporation has the following subsidiaries, all of which are wholly
owned:

Ohio corporations:

                          TEAM America 5, Inc.
                          TEAM America 10, Inc.
                          TEAM America 12, Inc.
                          TEAM America of Orlando, Inc.
                          TEAM America of Ohio, Inc.
                          TEAM America Professional Employer, Inc.
                          TEAM America of California, Inc.
                          TEAM America of Texas, Inc.
                          TEAM America of Oregon, Inc.
                          TEAM America of Washington, Inc.
                          TEAM America Information Resources, Inc.
                          Columbus E.L., Inc.

Michigan corporations:

                          The Personnel Department, Incorporated
                          The Personnel Department of Metropolitan Detroit, Inc.
                          PTM Management Company, Incorporated

Indiana corporation:

                          The Personnel Department-Midwest, Inc.

Idaho corporation:

                          TEAM America West, Inc.

Mississippi corporation:

                          TEAM America Mid-South, Inc.

Tennessee corporation:

                          TEAM America of Tennessee, Inc.

Montana corporation:

                          TEAM America of Montana, Inc.
**EXHIBIT 99.1**

 

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

 

 

         In connection with theMarch 31, 2003 Form 10-Q of Cornell Companies, Inc. (the “Company”) as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Harry J. Phillips, Jr., certify that the Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

         A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to Cornell Companies, Inc.and will be retained by Cornell Companies, Inc. and furnished to the Securitiesand Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 
|   | /s/  Harry J. Phillips, Jr              |
|--------|----------------------------------------------|
|   | Harry  J. Phillips, Jr., Executive Chairman, |
|   | Chairman  of the Board and Director          |
|   | May 15, 2003                                 |

 

 

----
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA

#### Sanders v. Reynolds Associates et al.

April 17, 1986

Case No. (Law) 9633

By JUDGE ALFRED D. SWERSKY

The matter is before the Court on defendant Westinghouse’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Plea in Bar. The basis for the Motion is the five year statute of limitations contained in Section 8.01-250 of the Code of Virginia. Westinghouse claims that the elevator in question is an "improvement" to the realty not simply "equipment or machinery or other articles installed in a structure upon real property." Westinghouse contends that if the elevator is an improvement then it would be protected by the five year statute of limitations provided for in 8.01-250.

In view of the legislative history of the amendments to this Code section and in view of the Supreme Court’s holding in *Cape Henry Towers, Inc.*v. *National Gypsum, Co., et al.,*229 Va. 596 (1985), it is clear that the five year statute does not apply to this elevator.

It is not in dispute that the elevator is actually a machine. It is, however, contended that this machine, by its nature and character, became an improvement to the real property.

The legislature in excluding "equipment or machinery or other articles installed in a structure upon real property" intended that these items be excluded even if they became, in some sense of the word, an "improvement.” There is language in the 1973 amendment to that effect. This amendment read:

> *163This limitation shall not apply to the manufacturer or supplier of any equipment or machinery or any other articles which are installed in or become a part of any real property *either as an improvement or*otherwise. . . (Emphasis added.)

In recodifying this statute in 1977, as a part of the enactment of Title 8.01, this paragraph was modified to read in its present form. The key phrase now is "installed in a structure upon real property.*

The Supreme Court in *Cape Henry Towers,*supra, found that, in spite of the 1977 modification, the General Assembly intended to perpetuate the distinction between those who furnish ordinary building materials incorporated into construction work outside of their control and those who furnish machinery or equipment 229 Va. 596 at 602.

For the foregoing reasons the Motion of Westinghouse will be denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Dura Automotive Systems, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending October 1, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Keith
R. Marchiando, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal 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; and

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

/s/ Keith R. Marchiando
    ---------------------
 Keith R. Marchiando
 Vice President and
 Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
 November 13, 2006
|   | (1)  the      Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December      31, 2007 (the "Report") of The Savannah Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company")       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. |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |                                                                                                                                     |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date:    3/14/08                                 |  /s/      John C. Helmken IIJohn      C. Helmken IIPresident      and Chief Executive Officer(Principal      Executive Officer)     |
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |                                                                                                                                     |
| Date:    3/14/08                                 |  /s/ Robert      B. BriscoeRobert      B. BriscoeChief      Financial Officer(Principal      Financial and Accounting Officer) |
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND

#### Michael A. Cooper v. Cenric Services, Inc.

August 14, 1995

Case No. LW-1387-1

By Judge Melvin R. Hughes, Jr.

This case is before the court again on plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration and Memorandum. The motion was addressed at a hearing on August 7,1995.

Essentially, counsel for plaintiff argues that the hearing on July 26, 1995, should not have resulted in the grant of summary judgment in defendant’s favor because summary judgment is not available as a sanction in discovery disputes, at least without there first being an order compelling discovery. This assessment is in error. Rule 4:12(d) allows the court to move directly to sanctions if any of the conditions mentioned there are satisfied. The court found the conditions mentioned therein had been met and imposed sanctions under Rule 4:12(d).

Counsel did not adequately explain why she did not attend the July 26 hearing or why she did not earlier advise the court of her inability to be present.

However, the court decides to vacate the July 26, 1995, order and replace it with an order dismissing the action without prejudice with the assessment of the payment of $500.00 attorney’s fee in connection with the bringing of the motion for summary judgment for failure to respond to discovery.
```

[United States Government Policy and Supporting Positions (Plum Book), 1996]
[Independent Agencies and Government Corporations]
[Surface Transportation Board]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

The Plum Book (United States Government Policy
        and Supporting Positions): 1996 EditionBRANCH: EXECUTIVE SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARDLocationPosition TitleName of IncumbentPay PlanType of Appt.Level Grade or PayTenureExpires**OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN**Washington, DCChairmanLinda J. MorganEXPASIII5 Years12/31/1998Washington, DCConfidential AssistantMary L. TurekGSSC12..................**OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONERS**Washington, DCCommissionerJ. J. SimmonsEXPASIV5 Years12/31/1995Washington, DCCommissionerGus A. OwenEXPASIV5 Years12/31/1997Washington, DCStaff Advisor (Management)Frank N. WilnerGSSC15..................**OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AND 
              EXTERNAL AFFAIRS**Washington, DCCongressional Affairs AdvisorRichard FitzsimmonsGSSC15..................**OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL**Washington, DCGeneral Counsel Career IncumbentESCA............................Washington, DCDeputy General Counsel Career IncumbentESCA............................**OFFICE OF PROCEEDINGS**Washington, DCDirector Career IncumbentESCA............................
```
Exhibit
23.2








Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm







To the
Board of Directors and Shareholders


of The
Savannah Bancorp, Inc.





We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form
S-3 (No. 333-146547) and Form S-8 (No. 333-69175) of The Savannah Bancorp, Inc.
of our report dated March 8, 2007, relating to the consolidated financial
statements as of December 31, 2006 and for the two years then ended, which
appear in the Annual Report to Shareholders, which is incorporated by reference
in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.








/s/BDO Seidman,
LLP





Atlanta,
Georgia


March 10,
2008
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

NOTICE OF ORDER ON MOTION

November 7, 2008 Revision

Cause number: 01-12-00723-CR, 01-12-00724-CR, 01-12-00725-CR

Style: Chikevia Rena Roberts

v The State of Texas

Date motion filed*: March 26, 2014

Type of motion: Motion for extension of time

Party filing motion: Appellant, Chikevia Rena Roberts

Document to be filed: motion for rehearing

If motion to extend time:

Deadline to file document: March 26, 2014

Number of previous extensions granted: 0

Length of extension sought: 60 days

Ordered that motion is:

X Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: June 23, 2014

 The Clerk is instructed to file the document as of the date of this order

X Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant additional motions to extend 

time

 Denied

 Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

We construe appellant’s motion as an extension of time to file a motion for rehearing in this Court 

for each of the above-named cause numbers.

We do not have jurisdiction to consider motions to extend time to file a petition for review. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2 (providing time to file petition for review in Court of Criminal Appeals and 

procedure for obtaining extension of time).

Judge's signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Panel consists of ______________________________.

Date: May 8, 2014
**UNITEDSTATES**

**SECURITIES AND EXCHANGECOMMISSION**

**Washington****, DC 20549**

 

**Form10-K**

** **

(Mark One)

[X] ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANTTO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

For thefiscal year ended December 31, 2008

 

or

 

[ ] TRANSITION REPORTPURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF1934

 

For thetransition period from __________ to ___________

 

Commission File Number0-20610

 

NATIONAL TAX CREDIT INVESTORS II

(Exactname of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

 

                                    55 Beattie Place, PO Box 1089 

                                  Greenville, South Carolina 29602

                              (Address of principal executive offices)

 

                  Registrant’s telephone number, including area code (864) 239-1000

                                                  

                     Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

 

**NONE**

 

                     Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

 

Units ofLimited Partnership Units

                                          (Title of class)

 

Indicate by check mark ifthe registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of theSecurities Act. Yes [ ] No [X]

 

Indicate by check mark ifthe registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d)of the Act. Yes [ ] No [X]

 

Indicate by check markwhether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file suchreports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90days. Yes [X] No [ ]

 

Indicate by check mark ifdisclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (section229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, tothe best of the registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or informationstatements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or anyamendment to this Form 10-K. [X]

 

Indicate by check markwhether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, anon-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of“large accelerated filer”, “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company”in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

 

 

Indicate by check markwhether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).Yes [ ] No [X]

 

State the aggregate marketvalue of the voting and non-voting partnership units held by non-affiliatescomputed by reference to the price at which the partnership units were lastsold, or the average bid and asked prices of such partnership units as of thelast business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscalquarter.  No market exists for the limited partnership units of theRegistrant, and, therefore, no aggregate market value can bedetermined.

 

**DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BYREFERENCE**

**None**
SCWC-18-0000506

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

STATE OF HAWAI‘I,

Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellant,

vs.

ANDREW HINESLEY,

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellee.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-18-0000506; CASE NO. 1CPC170001383)

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ.)

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellee’s Application for Writ 

of Certiorari filed on November 11, 2021, is hereby rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, December 22, 2021.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ Todd W. Eddins

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-18-0000506

22-DEC-2021

07:52 AM

Dkt. 4 ODAC
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
UNAUDITED  CONDENSED  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  FILED WITH THE COMPANY'S  JUNE 30,
2000,  QUARTERLY  REPORT ON FORM  10-QSB AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY  BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<CIK>         0001016069
<NAME>       Cyberbotanical, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                  1
<CURRENCY>                                    U.S. Dollars

<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                  JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                               1
<CASH>                                        411
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 0
<ALLOWANCES>                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              411
<PP&E>                                        0
<DEPRECIATION>                                0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                411
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         1,010
<BONDS>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                      2,042
<OTHER-SE>                                    (2,641)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  411
<SALES>                                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              0
<CGS>                                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              959
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (959)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (959)
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (959)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (0.00)








</TABLE>