alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In re LaDonna JONES, Debtor. LaDonna Jones, Debtor-Appellant, and Zvi Guttman, Trustee, v. Rebecca Daley, Esq.; Marc Kivitz, Esq.; John H. Denick, Esq.; David Ellin, Esq.; Kim Parker, Esq., Respondents-Appellees.

No. 13-1909.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 25, 2014.

Decided: March 27, 2014.

LaDonna Jones, Appellant Pro Se.

Before GREGORY, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

*177Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

LaDonna Jones appeals the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s rulings on her motions for contempt. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed informa pauperis and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Jones v. Kivitz,*No. 1:12-cv-03559-WMN, 2013 WL 3233546 (D.Md. June 25, 2013). We deny Jones’ motion for oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
 Docket Nos.SunE Beacon Site 2 LLC
EG17-122-000Great Bay Solar I, LLC
EG17-123-000Lackawanna Energy Center LLC
EG17-124-000SunE Beacon Site 5 LLC
EG17-125-000Rattlesnake Power, LLC
EG17-126-000Apple Blossom Wind, LLC
EG17-127-000Stuttgart Solar, LLC
EG17-130-000Cap Ridge Wind I, LLC
EG17-131-000Cap Ridge Wind II, LLC
EG17-132-000Cap Ridge Wind III, LLC
EG17-133-000Cap Ridge Wind IV, LLC
EG17-134-000Cap Ridge Interconnection, LLC
EG17-135-000Aguaytia Energy del Peru SRL (I Squared Capital)
FC17-4-000
 Take notice that during the month of September 2017, the status of the above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators or Foreign Utility Companies became effective by operation of the Commission's regulations. 18 CFR 366.7(a) (2017). Dated: October 11, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.


[FR Doc. 2017-22461 Filed 10-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
#### Lloyd Barden, Appellant, v Lucille Barden, Respondent.

[664 NYS2d 859]

Spain, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Coutant, J.), entered November 6, 1996 in Broome County, which, *inter alia,*granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

After 45 years of marriage, plaintiff and defendant were divorced on January 29, 1993. On December 17, 1992, the parties entered into an oral stipulation which was not merged into the judgment of divorce. Pursuant to the terms of the stipulation, plaintiff agreed that, commencing on February 1, 1993 and continuing for a five-year period, he would pay defendant maintenance in the amount of $17,500 in equal monthly installments and that, in addition, he would pay her maintenance of $300 per week for the rest of her life.

*696In February 1996, plaintiff commenced this action seeking the downward modification of his maintenance obligation alleging a substantial and unanticipated change in his financial circumstances. Defendant served an answer and counterclaim seeking to recover arrears in maintenance payments. Thereafter, both parties moved for summary judgment and Supreme Court, *inter alia,*granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. This appeal by plaintiff ensued.

Initially, it is well settled that in order to obtain the downward modification of a maintenance obligation set forth in a stipulation that has not been merged into a judgment of divorce, the party seeking such modification must demonstrate extreme hardship *(see, Haydock v Haydock,*237 AD2d 748, 750; *Matter of Alice C. v Bernard G. C.,*193 AD2d 97, 111; *Katz v Katz,*188 AD2d 827; *see also,*Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [9] [b]). In addition, absent a prima facie showing of one’s entitlement to downward modification, there is no necessity for a hearing *(see, Haydock v Haydock, supra,*at 750).

Under the particular circumstances presented here, we find no error in Supreme Court’s dismissal, without a hearing, of plaintiff’s application for the downward modification of his maintenance obligation. While plaintiff averred that his financial circumstances have steadily worsened subsequent to the date of the stipulation due to the decline in the home building industry, a perusal of his tax returns fails to substantiate this claim. Indeed, these records reveal neither a progressive growth nor a decline in plaintiffs business, but rather inconsistent earnings from year to year. For example, while plaintiffs business returned a net profit of only $12,080 in 1992, it returned a net profit of $26,769 in 1993. In 1994, it suffered a net loss of $7,719, but in 1995 it returned a net profit of $19,910. In view of this, as well as plaintiffs failure to show that the continued payment of the maintenance obligations set forth in the stipulation will cause him extreme hardship, we find no reason to disturb Supreme Court’s order *(cf., Matter of Talandis v Talandis,*233 AD2d 689).

Mikoll, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Peters and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT AUDREY KNAPP, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-1227 ) SPEEDWAY LLC, a Florida corporation, ) and SPEEDWAY (DELAWARE) LLC, a ) foreign corporation, ) ) Appellees. ) ________________________________ ) Opinion filed April 11, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sarasota County; Lon Arend, Judge. Virlyn B. Moore, III, of Virlyn B. Moore III, Nokomis, for Appellant. Christopher D. Donovan of Roetzel & Andress, LPA, Naples, and Brian J. Hoops of Roetzel & Andress, LPA, Fort Myers, for Appellee, Speedway (Delaware) LLC. No appearance for Appellee Speedway LLC.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT, SALARIO, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jonathan Craig SINGLETON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-6005.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 28, 2008.

Decided: May 9, 2008.

Jonathan Craig Singleton, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer R. Bockhorst, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Remanded by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jonathan Singleton seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion to defer payment of his criminal fine. In criminal cases, the defendant must file the notice of appeal within ten days after the entry of judgment. Fed. R.App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). With or without a motion, upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause, the district court may grant an extension of up to thirty days to file a notice of appeal. Fed. R.App. P. 4(b)(4); *United*
      *318
      *States v. Reyes,*759 F.2d 351, 353 (4th Cir.1985).

The district court entered its order on October 19, 2007. Singleton filed the notice of appeal on November 18, 2007,* after the ten-day period expired but within the thirty-day excusable neglect period. Because the notice of appeal was filed within the excusable neglect period, we remand the case to the district court for the court to determine whether Singleton has shown excusable neglect or good cause warranting an extension of the ten-day appeal period. The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further consideration.

*REMANDED.*

For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R.App. P. 4(c); *Houston v. Lack,*487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).
#### June Anderson, Respondent, v State of New York, Appellant.

(Claim No. 98730.)

(Appeal No. 1.)

[858 NYS2d 645]

Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims (Nicholas V Midey, Jr., J.), entered November 13, 2006 in a personal injury action. The judgment awarded claimant the sum of $2,202,890 after a nonjury trial.

*1282It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs. Present—Hurlbutt, J.P, Martoche, Smith, Green and Pine, JJ.
Exhibit 10.15

WARNER MUSIC INC.

75 Rockefeller Plaza

New York, New York 10019

December 13, 2013

Paul M. Robinson

Dear Paul:

Please refer to the employment agreement between Warner Music Inc. (Company”) and you dated February 11, 2011, effective October 1, 2011 (the “Agreement”).

This letter, when countersigned, shall constitute our agreement to amend the Agreement as set forth herein.  Unless otherwise indicated, capitalized terms shall have the meanings set forth in the Agreement.

Paragraph 3(a) of the Agreement is hereby amended to provide that effective as of January 1, 2014, your salary during and throughout the remainder of the Term shall be $700,000.

Except as expressly amended herein, the terms and provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

If the foregoing correctly sets forth our understanding, please sign below and return this agreement to Company.


	
 
	
WARNER MUSIC INC.

	
 
	
By:
	
/s/ Steve Cooper

	
 
	
 
	
 

	
Accepted and Agreed:
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 

	
/s/ Paul M. Robinson
	
 
	
 

	
Paul M. Robinson
<PAGE>

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS




We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.
33-97450, No. 33-86116, 333-14601 and No. 333-48446) on Form S-8 of PVF Capital
Corp. of our report dated July 17, 2002, relating to the consolidated statement
of financial condition of PVF Capital Corp. and subsidiaries as of June 30,
2002, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders'
equity, and cash flows for the year ended June 30, 2002, which report appears in
the June 30, 2002 Annual Report on Form 10-K of PVF Capital Corp.



/s/ Crowe, Chizek and Company, LLP


Cleveland, Ohio
September 26, 2002
---

Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER 
REQUIRED BY RULE 13A - 14(B) OR RULE 15D - 14(B) AND 18 U.S.C.
1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Inova Technology
Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ended January 31, 2011, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report" ), I, Bob
Bates, CFO of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, 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.

| | By:
      /s/ Bob Bates
| | -----------------------
| | Bob Bates              
| | CFO                    
| | March 22, 2011         

---
1

Filed 9/14/16 Ballena Bay Townhouse Assoc. v. Kramer CA1/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or 

ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for 

purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

BALLENA BAY TOWNHOUSE 

ASSOCIATION NO.1,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

AUDREY KRAMER et al.

Defendants and Appellants.

 A147087

 (Alameda County

 Super. Ct. No. RG12655656)

Appellants Audrey and Leo Kramer appeal from a default judgment against them 

on the ground that the judgment was entered in violation of orders entered in federal 

bankruptcy proceedings.1 Respondent Ballena Bay Townhouse Association No. 1 has 

advised this court “that it does not object to the relief sought in Appellant’s Opening 

Brief.” Therefore, the default judgment dated December 14, 2015 is reversed and the 

matter is remanded to the superior court for such further proceedings as may be 

appropriate under the circumstances.2

The parties shall bear their respective costs on appeal.

 

1 Appellants’ unopposed motion to augment the records to include federal bankruptcy 

case documents and for judicial notice is granted.

2 Appellants’ prayer in their opening brief also requests the reversal of a default judgment 

dated July 7, 2014. However, the record reflects no such judgment having been entered 

and the appeal was taken only from the judgment of December 14, 2015. The record 

reflects that on July 7, 2014, the trial court ordered the entry of appellants’ default. Upon 

proper motion or stipulation of the parties, the trial court may consider any application to 

set aside the default. 
2

_________________________

Pollak, J.

We concur:

_________________________

McGuiness, P. J.

_________________________

Siggins, J.

A147087
EXHIBIT 35.3
                  SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)
                           HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL, LLC
              RFMSI SERIES 2006-S2 TRUST (THE "ISSUING ENTITY")

The undersigned,  a duly authorized  officer of Homecomings  Financial,  LLC, as
servicer (the "Servicer") pursuant to the applicable  servicing agreement,  does
hereby certify that:

1.   A review of the  Servicer's  activities  during the  period  covered by the
     Issuing  Entity's  report  on Form 10-K and of the  Servicer's  performance
     under  the   applicable   servicing   agreement  has  been  made  under  my
     supervision.

2.   To the  best of my  knowledge,  based  on such  review,  the  Servicer  has
     fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable  servicing  agreement
     in all material respects throughout such period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 26th
day of March 2007.

By:      /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
      Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
      Title:    Managing Director
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 Amended Quarterly Report of Poseidis, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ending May 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John J.
McGovern, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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) 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 for the period presented in the Report.


Dated: November 21, 2007
                                                 /S/ JOHN J. MCGOVERN
                                                 -----------------------------
                                                 John J. McGovern
                                                 Executive Vice President and
                                                 Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gary Ghee, Appellant.

[987 NYS2d 859]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mondo, J.), rendered March 7, 2013, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with *Anders v California*(386 US 738 [1967]), in which she moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We are satisfied with the sufficiency of the brief filed by the defendant’s assigned counsel pursuant to *Anders v California*(386 US 738 [1967]), and, upon an independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on the appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is, therefore, granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.],*89 AD3d 252 [2011]; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631 [1976]; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606 [1979]; *cf. People v Sedita,*113 AD3d 638 [2014]).

Mastro, J.E, Hall, Lott, Austin and Duffy, JJ., concur.
#### SJD-CC, L.L.C., Plaintiff-Appellant v. MARSH USA, INC., doing business as Marsh USA Risk Services; Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut, Defendants-Appellees *443SJD-CC, L.L.C., Plaintiff-Appellant v. Marsh USA, Inc., doing business as Marsh USA Risk Services; Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut, Defendants-Appellees.

Nos. 10-30131, 10-30605.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 4, 2011.

Jack Edward Morris, Metairie, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

William F. Grace, Jr., Chaffe McCall, L.L.P., John Roumain Peters, III, Leake & Andersson, L.L.P., New Orleans, LA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before JOLLY, ELROD, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

In this consolidated appeal, SJD-CC, L.L.C. challenges the judgment of the district court granting a partial summary judgment and judgment on a jury verdict. It also challenges the award of costs to Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut, the prevailing party.1 We have carefully considered the record below, the briefs of the parties, and the oral arguments presented to this court. We con-elude that no error warranting reversal was committed by the district court.

AFFIRMED.

*

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

1

. Defendant Marsh USA was not a party to this appeal.
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 21

              CONSOLIDATED WATER CO. LTD. AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

         The following list includes all of the Registrant's wholly-owned
subsidiaries as of December 31, 2003. All subsidiaries of the Registrant
appearing in the following table are included in the consolidated financial
statements of the Registrant.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Name of Subsidiary                             Jurisdiction of Incorporation
------------------                             -----------------------------
<S>                                            <C>
Belize Water Limited                           Belize
Cayman Water Company Limited                   Cayman Islands
DesalCo Limited                                Cayman Islands
DesalCo (Barbados) Ltd.                        Barbados
Ocean Conversion (Cayman) Limited              Cayman Islands
Waterfields Company Limited                    Commonwealth of the Bahamas
</TABLE>
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.

EDMUND HERALD ADAMS, Petitioner. 

No. 1 CA-CR 17-0558 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Mohave County

No. S8015CR201300484 

The Honorable Rick A. Williams, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Mohave County Attorney’s Office, Kingman

By Matthew J. Smith

Counsel for Respondent

Edmund Herald Adams, Florence

Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Jon W. Thompson, Judge Peter B. Swann, and Judge James 

P. Beene delivered the decision of the Court.

FILED 2-20-2018
STATE v. ADAMS

Decision of the Court

2 

P E R C U R I A M: 

¶1 Petitioner Edmund Herald Adams seeks review of the 

superior court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief, filed 

pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is the 

petitioner’s second successive petition.

¶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, 576-77, ¶ 19 (2012). It is the petitioner’s 

burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion in denying the 

petition. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 538, ¶ 1 (App. 2011). 

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

court’s order denying the petition for post-conviction relief, and the petition 

for review. We find that petitioner has not shown an abuse of discretion. 

¶4 Accordingly, we grant review and deny relief.
#### Raymond DESCH, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Richard WHEATLEY, Sr., Individually and As Representative of 7701 Wurzbach Tower Council of Co-Owners, Incorporated; Kenneth Shannon, Individually, and as Representative of 7701 Wurzbach Tower Council of Co-Owners, Incorporated; 7701 Wurzbach Tower; Delores Ann Moseley, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-50296.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 7, 2011.

Jeffrey D. Small, Law Offices of Jeff Small, Karen Dalglish Seal, Esq., Law Office of Karen Dalglish Seal, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Neil Howard Stone, Gendry & Sprague, Keith MacArthur Baker, San Antonio, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before GARWOOD, GARZA and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The judgment of the district court is affirmed, essentially for the reasons stated in the January 19, 2010 Memorandum and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, accepted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), by the District Court in its March 18, 2010 judgment.

AFFIRMED.

*

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