alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
73 A.3d 524

#### COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Petitioner v. Gerald M. DUNNAVANT, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

July 31, 2013.

*19
      *ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 31st day of July, 2013, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issue, rephrased for clarity, is:

> Whether the suppression court erred by suppressing at trial evidence obtained by the use of a silent video camera worn by an informant inside of respondent’s residence.
Skip to main content    

      Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission    

En Español

            - About FMSHRC               - News
              - Commissioners
              - Chairman and Commissioner Tenure
              - Administrative Law Judges
            - Guides               - Frequently Asked Questions
              - FOIA Guide
              - How a Case Proceeds Before the Commission
              - Guide to Commission Proceedings
              - Requests to Reopen
              - Instructions for Electronic Filing
              - Videoconference Hearings
              - Section 105(c)(3) Complaints
            - Decisions               - Review Commission Decisions
              - ALJ Decisions
              - Blue Books
            - Review Commission Arguments & Meetings               - Oral Arguments
              - Meetings
            - The Mine Act & Procedural Rules               - The Mine Act
              - Procedural Rules
              - Changes to Procedural Rules
            - FOIA               - Submit a FOIA Request
              - FOIA Guide
              - Rules
              - FOIA References
              - FOIA Library
              - FOIA Public Liaison
              - FOIA Reports
              - Proposed FOIA Rules
            - Reports & Budget Submissions               - Strategic Plans
              - Budget and Annual Performance Reports
              - Buy American Reports
              - Performance Accountability Reports
              - Sustainability Report
              - Reports to Congress
              - Contingency Plan
              - Reports to the President
            - Cases on Review               - Cases Currently on Review Before the Commission
              - Commission Decisions On Appeal
            - Contact Us

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-                   Michael K. McNary v. Alcoa World Alumina, Inc.              

#   Michael K. McNary v. Alcoa World Alumina, Inc.

Alcoa CENT 2015-279-DM Meeting Notice 11-18-16.pdf

Alcoa CENT 2015-279-DM Meeting Notice 11-18-16.htm

michael-mcnary-v.alcoa-world-aluminia-2015-279-dmnov18-2016.mp3

##### Footer Links

-  EEO Policies 
-  No Fear Act Notice 
-  Employee Ethical Conduct 
-  Equal Access to Justice Act 
-  Motions to Approve Settlement 
-  Non-Discrimination 
-  Reasonable Accommodation Procedures 
-  Privacy Act 
-  Sunshine Act Regulations 
-  USA.gov 
-  FMSHRC Privacy Policy 
-  Vulnerability Disclosure Policy 

### The Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

#### 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,Suite 520NWashington, DC 20004-1710Phone: 771-210-1887 TTY/TDD (202)434-4000 ext. 293E-mail: fmshrc@fmshrc.gov
#### Eddie Lee WORSLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Beverly PERDUE, Governor, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 10-1848.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 21, 2010.

Decided: Jan. 3, 2011.

Eddie Lee Worsley, Appellant Pro Se.

Before ÑIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Eddie Lee Worsley appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006). On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. *See*4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Worsley’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Worsley has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade*753quately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
Skip to main content    

      Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission    

En Español

            - About FMSHRC               - News
              - Commissioners
              - Chairman and Commissioner Tenure
              - Administrative Law Judges
            - Guides               - Frequently Asked Questions
              - FOIA Guide
              - How a Case Proceeds Before the Commission
              - Guide to Commission Proceedings
              - Requests to Reopen
              - Instructions for Electronic Filing
              - Videoconference Hearings
              - Section 105(c)(3) Complaints
            - Decisions               - Review Commission Decisions
              - ALJ Decisions
              - Blue Books
            - Review Commission Arguments & Meetings               - Oral Arguments
              - Meetings
            - The Mine Act & Procedural Rules               - The Mine Act
              - Procedural Rules
              - Changes to Procedural Rules
            - FOIA               - Submit a FOIA Request
              - FOIA Guide
              - Rules
              - FOIA References
              - FOIA Library
              - FOIA Public Liaison
              - FOIA Reports
              - Proposed FOIA Rules
            - Reports & Budget Submissions               - Strategic Plans
              - Budget and Annual Performance Reports
              - Buy American Reports
              - Performance Accountability Reports
              - Sustainability Report
              - Reports to Congress
              - Contingency Plan
              - Reports to the President
            - Cases on Review               - Cases Currently on Review Before the Commission
              - Commission Decisions On Appeal
            - Contact Us

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-                   Secretary of Labor v. Peabody Twentymile Mining, LLC              

#   Secretary of Labor v. Peabody Twentymile Mining, LLC

Peabody WEST 2014-930-R Argument Notice 11-10-16.pdf

Peabody WEST 2014-930-R Argument Notice 11-10-16.htm

Secretary of Labor v. Peabody Twentymile Mining Docket WEST2014-930-R etal_Nov10-2016.mp3

##### Footer Links

-  EEO Policies 
-  No Fear Act Notice 
-  Employee Ethical Conduct 
-  Equal Access to Justice Act 
-  Motions to Approve Settlement 
-  Non-Discrimination 
-  Reasonable Accommodation Procedures 
-  Privacy Act 
-  Sunshine Act Regulations 
-  USA.gov 
-  FMSHRC Privacy Policy 
-  Vulnerability Disclosure Policy 

### The Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

#### 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,Suite 520NWashington, DC 20004-1710Phone: (202)434-9900TTY/TDD (202)434-4000 ext. 293E-mail: fmshrc@fmshrc.gov
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Balance Sheet at September 30, 1997 (Unaudited) and the Statement of
Operations for the Nine Months Ended September 30, 1997 (Unaudited) and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          22,460
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  124,925
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               147,385
<PP&E>                                       5,437,136
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,125,109
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,459,412
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              356
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,459,056
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,459,412
<SALES>                                      1,101,912
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,103,411
<CGS>                                          628,839
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  628,839
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               159,765
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                314,807
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            317,807
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   314,807
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    20.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    20.28
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.2


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, David Kreinberg, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
Comverse Technology, Inc. (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 to my knowledge:

(1)   the accompanying Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K of the
      Company for the period ending January 31, 2003 (the "Report") filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission, 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 Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.





Dated: May 30, 2003

                                       /s/ David Kreinberg*
                                       ---------------------------------------
                                       Name: David Kreinberg
                                       Title: Executive Vice President and
                                              Chief Financial Officer




*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.
----

|   | Pilgrim’s      Pride Corporation, as Servicer |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------|

|   | Pilgrim’s      Pride Funding Corporation, asSeller |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------|

----

|   | BMO      Capital Markets Corp., asAdministrator |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------|

|   | BMO      Capital Markets Corp., as PurchaserAgent |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------|

|   | Fairway      Finance Company, LLC, as Uncommitted Purchaser and as Related Committed      Purchaser |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
Exhibit 10.27


 


TRANSOMA
MEDICAL, INC.


NON-EMPLOYEE
DIRECTOR COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS


 


In August 2007, our board of directors adopted a new
cash compensation program for non-employee directors to be effective upon the
closing of this offering. Pursuant to this program, each member of our board of
directors who is not our employee will receive the following cash compensation
for board services, payable in equal quarterly installments, as applicable:


 


•                  $10,000 per year for service as a
board member and $3,500 for each board meeting attended in person ($1,500 for
meetings attended by video or telephone conference);


 


•                  $15,000 per year for service as
chairman of the audit committee and $7,500 per year for service as a
non-chairman member of the audit committee;


 


•                  $10,000 per year for service as
chairman of the compensation committee and $5,000 per year for service as a
non-chairman member of the compensation committee;


 


•                  $7,500 per year for service as
chairman of the nominating and corporate governance committee and $3,750 per
year for service as a non-chairman member of the nominating and corporate
governance committee;  and


 


•                  $5,000 per year for service as the
lead independent director.


 


We will continue to reimburse our non-employee
directors for their reasonable expenses incurred in attending meetings of our
board of directors and committees of the board of directors.


 


Additionally, members of our board of directors who
are not our employees will receive non-statutory stock options under our 2007 Stock
Incentive Plan, which became effective in August 2007. Each non-employee member
of our board of directors will, upon the closing of this offering,
automatically be granted a non-statutory stock option to purchase 75,000 shares
of common stock with an exercise price equal to the fair market value on the
end of the first trading day following the listing of our common stock on the
Nasdaq Global Market. This initial grant will vest monthly over three years. On
the date of each annual meeting of our stockholders beginning in Fiscal 2008,
each non-employee director will automatically be granted a non-statutory stock
option to purchase 30,000 shares of our common stock on that date with an
exercise price equal to the then fair market value of our common stock. These annual
grants will vest monthly over one year. All stock options granted under our
2007 Stock Incentive Plan will have a term of 10 years.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Myra Boleche MINKS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-10454.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 7, 2010.*

Filed Dec. 9, 2010.

Allison Marston Danner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Erik G. Babcock, Law Office of Erick G. Babcock, Oakland, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: COWEN **, TASHIMA and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

**

 The Honorable Robert E. Cowen, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Myra Minks appeals the district court’s revocation of her supervised release. She argues that the district court’s admission of hearsay testimony at her revocation hearing violated her due process rights *117and was prejudicial.1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo whether the district court violated Minks’s due process rights. *United States v. Perez,*526 F.3d 543, 547 (9th Cir.2008). Violations of such constitutional guarantees are subject to harmless error review. *Id.*

The Sixth Amendment right of confrontation does not apply in supervised release revocation hearings, *United States v. Hall,*419 F.3d 980, 985 (9th Cir.2005); and, generally speaking, hearsay may be admissible, *see United States v. Comito,*177 F.3d 1166, 1170 (1999). However, under some circumstances, the admission of unreliable hearsay at a revocation hearing can rise to the level of a due process violation. *See Hall,*419 F.3d at 986.

Lirakis’s statements to the police officer were hearsay but were amply corroborated by the testimony of other witnesses and by physical evidence found by Minks’s person. However, even if the statements should not have been received, the indisputably admissible evidence overwhelmingly established Minks’s violation of supervised release beyond any doubt, much less by a preponderance of the evidence.

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

1

. Although the parties do not address mootness, we note that Minks's release from custody on October 30, 2010 did not render this appeal moot because she remains on supervised release until January 26, 2012. *See United States v. Radmall,*340 F.3d 798, 800 n. 3 (9th Cir.2003); *United States v. Verdin,*243 F.3d 1174, 1178 (9th Cir.2001) (appeal not moot because "success for [defendant] could alter the supervised release portion of his sentence”) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
INCLUDED IN SUCH REPORT.
</LEGEND>

       
<S>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>           12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>       DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>            DEC-31-1996

<CASH>                          4,841,921 
<SECURITIES>                         0    
<RECEIVABLES>                     283,579 
<ALLOWANCES>                         0    
<INVENTORY>                          0    
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                5,125,500 
<PP&E>                         20,565,034 
<DEPRECIATION>                       0    
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 26,800,500 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>          10,713,900 
<BONDS>                         6,916,941 
<COMMON>                             0    
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                0    
<PREFERRED>                          0    
<OTHER-SE>                      8,722,471 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>   26,800,500 
<SALES>                         3,825,139 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                4,062,885 
<CGS>                                0    
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   2,182,623 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  324,616 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                1,103,533 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              1,469,328 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                (1,017,215)
<INCOME-TAX>                         0    
<INCOME-CONTINUING>            (1,154,936)
<DISCONTINUED>                       0    
<EXTRAORDINARY>                      0    
<CHANGES>                            0    
<NET-INCOME>                   (1,154,936)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                      (32.40)
<EPS-DILUTED>                      (32.40)

        



</TABLE>
105 A.3d 626

#### IN THE MATTER OF JOHN E. CERZA, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW (ATTORNEY NO. 026661996).

January 15, 2015.

CORRECTED ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 14-102, concluding that JOHN E. CERZA of BLOOMFIELD, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1996, should be reprimanded for violating *RPC*1.15(b) (failure to promptly deliver funds to a client), *RPC*3.4(c) (knowingly disobeying an obligation under the rules of a tribunal), and *RPC*8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice);

*216And the Disciplinary Review Board having further concluded that respondent should be required to return the sum of $2,004.24 in the *Houston*matter and provide proof of the refund to the Office of Attorney Ethics;

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that JOHN E. CERZA is hereby reprimanded; and it is further

ORDERED that within thirty days after the filing date of this Order, respondent shall submit proof to the Office of Attorney Ethics that he has returned the sum of $2,004.24, in the *Houston*matter; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs and actual expenses incurred in the prosecution of this matter, as provided in *Rule*1:20-17.
EX-10.2






ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF PURCHASE AGREEMENT




THIS ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF PURCHASE AGREEMENT (this “Assignment”) dated as of
September 28, 2007, is made and entered into by and between TRIPLE NET PROPERTIES, LLC, a Virginia
limited liability company (“Assignor”), and NNN HEALTHCARE/OFFICE REIT E FLORIDA LTC, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company (“Assignee”), with reference to the following
Recitals:



R E C I T A L S




A. Assignor is “Buyer” under that certain Purchase Agreement mutually executed as of August 6,
2007, by and between Assignor and Health Quest Realty XVII, an Indiana general partnership, Health
Quest Realty XXII, an Indiana general partnership, and Health Quest Realty XXXV, an Indiana general
partnership, as the same may be amended (the “Purchase Agreement”), wherein Assignor agreed
to purchase certain real property commonly known as the Health Quest Group Properties, as more
particularly described in the Purchase Agreement, on the terms and conditions set forth in the
Purchase Agreement.



B. Assignor desires to assign and transfer to Assignee, and Assignee desires to assume from
Assignor, all of Assignor’s right, title, claim and interest in, to and under the Purchase
Agreement.



NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing Recitals (which are incorporated herein by
this reference) and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which
are hereby acknowledged, Assignor and Assignee hereby agree as follows:



A G R E E M E N T




1. Assignment; Assumption. Assignor hereby assigns and transfers to Assignee all of
Assignor’s right, title, claim and interest as “Buyer” or otherwise in, to and under the Purchase
Agreement. By executing this Assignment, Assignee hereby accepts such assignment and expressly
agrees to assume and be bound by all of the provisions of the Purchase Agreement from and after the
date hereof.



2. Successors and Assigns. This Assignment shall inure to the benefit of, and be
binding upon, the successors, executors, administrators, legal representatives and assigns of the
parties hereto.



3. Counterparts. This Assignment may be executed in any number of counterparts with
the same effect as if all of the parties had signed the same document. All counterparts shall be
construed together and shall constitute one agreement.



[Signatures on next page]





1






IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Assignment to be executed by their
duly authorized representatives as of the date first written above.



	 	 	 
	ASSIGNOR:

	 	TRIPLE NET PROPERTIES, LLC,

a Virginia limited liability company
	
 
	 	By: /s/ Richard Hutton

Name: Richard Hutton

Title: Executive Vice President
	ASSIGNEE:

	 	NNN HEALTHCARE/OFFICE REIT







	 	 	E FLORIDA LTC, LLC,






a Delaware limited liability company




By: /s/ Shannon K S Johnson




	 	 	Authorized Signatory






2