alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
On appellant’s motions to reactivate case and for reconsideration filed January 12, defendant’s motions to reactivate and to reconsider allowed;

opinion (124 Or App 667, 862 P2d 115) withdrawn; affirmed February 22, 1995

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*WESLEY RAYMOND CROCKRELL, *Appellant.*

(10-91-08474; CA A73594)

890 P2d 1014

Sally L. Avera, Public Defender, and Jesse Wm. Barton, Deputy Public Defender, for motion.

No appearance *contra.*

Before Riggs, Presiding Judge, and De Muniz and Leeson, Judges.

De MUNIZ, J.

*198De MUNIZ, J.

We allow defendant’s motion to reactivate this case, held in abeyance pending the Supreme Court’s decision in *State v. Kephart,*320 Or 433, 887 P2d 774 (1994), and also allow his motion for reconsideration.

Defendant appealed his sentence after he was convicted, pursuant to a plea agreement, of rape in the first degree and sexual abuse in the first degree. He argued that the sentencing court erred when, at a single sentencing hearing, it first sentenced him on the sexual abuse conviction and then used that conviction to increase his criminal history score on the rape conviction. We reversed and remanded on the basis of our decisions in *State v. Seals,*113 Or App 700, 833 P2d 1344 (1992), and *State v. Bucholz,*113 Or App 705, 834 P2d 456 (1992). *State v. Crockrell,*117 Or App 357, 844 P2d 239 (1992). On the state’s motion, we withdrew that opinion on the ground that the sentence was not reviewable under *State v. Adams,*315 Or 359, 847 P2d 397 (1993), and *State v. Johnston,*120 Or App 165, 851 P2d 1156, *rev den*317 Or 272 (1993). *State v. Crockrell,*124 Or App 667, 862 P2d 115 (1993). On reconsideration, defendant contends that we erred.

Under *State v. Kephart, supra,*defendant is correct. Defendant’s plea agreement was not the kind of stipulation that the legislature intended to be immune from review under ORS 138.222(2)(d). *See State v. Upton,*132 Or App 579, 889 P2d 376 (1995). Accordingly, we withdraw our second opinion in this case.

On the merits, defendant loses. The trial court did not err in imposing sentence on the first conviction and then adjusting defendant’s criminal history score for the purpose of imposing sentence on the conviction based on the later-in-time crime. *State v. Bucholz,*317 Or 309, 855 P2d 1100 (1993); *State v. Miller,*317 Or 297, 855 P2d 1093 (1993).

Defendant’s motions to reactivate and to reconsider allowed; opinion withdrawn; affirmed.
I

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5217

To provide adequate sanctions for unfair labor practices resulting in the

discharge of employees.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 20, 2000

Mr. MEEHAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Education and the Workforce

A BILL

To provide adequate sanctions for unfair labor practices

resulting in the discharge of employees.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Effective Labor Law

5 Sanctions Act of 2000’’.

6 SEC. 2. LABOR RELATIONS REMEDIES.

7 (a) BOARD REMEDIES.—Section 10(c) of the Na8 tional Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 160(c)) is amended

9 by inserting after the fourth sentence the following new

10 sentence: ‘‘If the Board finds that an employee was dis-
2

•HR 5217 IH

1 charged as a result of an unfair labor practice, the Board

2 in such order shall (1) award back pay in an amount equal

3 to 3 times the employee’s wage rate at the time of the

4 unfair labor practice and (2) notify such employee of such

5 employee’s right to sue for punitive damages and damages

6 with respect to a wrongful discharge under section 303

7 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 (29 U.S.C.

8 187), as amended by the Fair Labor Organizing Act.’’.

9 (b) COURT REMEDIES.—Section 303 of the Labor

10 Management Relations Act, 1947 (29 U.S.C. 187) is

11 amended by adding at the end the following new sub12 sections:

13 ‘‘(c) It shall be unlawful, for purposes of this section,

14 for any employer to discharge an employee for exercising

15 rights protected under the National Labor Relations Act.

16 ‘‘(d) An employee whose discharge is determined by

17 the National Labor Relations Board under section 10(c)

18 of the National Labor Relations Act to be as a result of

19 an unfair labor practice under section 8 of such Act may

20 file a civil action in any district court of the United States,

21 without respect to the amount in controversy, to recover

22 punitive damages or if actionable, in any State court to

23 recover damages based on a wrongful discharge.’’.

Æ
Submitted on record and briefs July 22,

reversed and remanded for reconsideration August 26, 1992

#### In the Matter of the Compensation of John D. Murphy, Claimant. JIM HENDERSON LOGGING and Employers Insurance of Wausau, a Mutual Company, *Petitioners, v.*John D. MURPHY, *Respondent.*

(WCB 90-22632; CA A73237)

836 P2d 143

Kathryn M. Ricciardelli, Wausau Insurance Companies, Beaverton, filed the brief for petitioners.

Dolores Empey and Pozzi, Wilson, Atchison, O’Leary & Conboy, Portland, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Deits and Durham, Judges.

PER CURIAM

Reversed and remanded for reconsideration. *SAIF v. Herron,*114 Or App 64, 836 P2d 131 (1992).
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

ALEJANDRO ESPINOZA, CASE NO.: 1:22-cv-22389-RKA

Plaintiff,

vs.

AE Outfitters Retail Co.

a Foreign for Profit Corporation 

Defendant,

____________________________________________/

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT

Plaintiff, ALEJANDRO ESPINOZA by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby gives the 

Court notice that Plaintiff, ALEJANDRO ESPINOZA and Defendant, AE Outfitters Retail Co,

have reached a settlement in this matter. The parties are finalizing the settlement documents and 

will file a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal in the near future.

Respectfully Submitted,

MENDEZ LAW OFFICES, PLLC

Attorney for Plaintiff

P.O. BOX 228630

Miami, Florida 33172

Telephone: 305.264.9090

Facsimile: 305.809.8474

Email:info@mendezlawoffices.com

By: /s/ Diego German Mendez

DIEGO GERMAN MENDEZ, ESQ.

FL BAR NO.: 52748

###

Case 1:22-cv-22389-RKA Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2022 Page 1 of 1
Argued and submitted January 30,

affirmed February 22,

petition for review allowed May 23, 1995 (321 Or 246)

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*K. P., *Appellant.*

(D902635M; CA A84028)

889 P2d 1370

Mark Blackman argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were Ransom, Blackman & Weil, Henry J. Kaplan and Bennett & Hartman.

Stephanie S. Andrus, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General.

Before Richardson, Chief Judge, and Landau and Leeson, Judges.

PER CURIAM

Affirmed. *State v. Smith,*117 Or App 320, 843 P2d 1015 (1992), *rev den*315 Or 644 (1993).
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 6 A0 04 6

. A RTHUR STARLI NG A/ K/ A RI C KY STARLI NG v

. THE STATE.

Art h u r St arl in g a/ k/ a Ri ck y St arl in g w as co n v i ct ed o f m a l i c e m u rd er an d

n u m ero u s o t her ch arg es

. Th e t ri al co u rt d en i ed h i s m o t i o n fo r n ew t ri al

, an d St arl i n g

fi led a d i rect ap peal t o t h i s Co u rt

. Un d er o ur Co n s t i t u ti o n , h o wev er, t h e Su p rem e Co u rt h as ap p el l at e j u ri s d i ct i o n

o v er “ [a] l l cas es in wh i ch a sen t en ce o f d eat h was i m p o s ed o r co u l d b e i m

p o s ed .” See

Ga. Co n s t

. o f 1 9 8 3, Art

. VI, Sec. VI, Par. III (8 ). Becau s e a p en al t y of d eat h can b e

i m p o s ed fo r t h e cri m e o f m urd er, ju r i s d i ct i o n i s p ro p er i n t he Su p rem e Co u rt

. See

OCGA § 1 7 -1 0 -3 0 (b ); Nea l v. S t a t e , 29 0 G a. 5 6 3

, 5 7 2 (7 22 SE2 d 7 6 5 ) (2 0 1 2 )
(Hu ns t ei n , J

., co n cu rri n g ); see al s o S t a t e v. Th o r n t o n , 2 53 Ga. 5 24 (3 2 2 SE2 d 7 1 1 )
(1 9 8 4) (d i rect i n g t h i s Co u rt to tran s fer “ al l cas es i n wh i ch ei t h er a s en t en ce o f d eat h

o r o f l i fe im

p ri s o n m en t h as b een i m

p o s ed u p o n co n v i ct i on o f m u rd er”). Acco rd i n g l y , St arl in g ’ s ap p eal i s h ereb y TRANSFERRED t o t he Su p rem e Co u rt fo r d i sp o s i t i on

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e
, A t la n t a
,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 09/10/2015 September 10, 2015
#### § 52.66 Notification.

After final action is taken under § 52.64, the Board shall send a copy of the final decision to the applicant. The applicant may inspect the permanent record of proceedings at Board offices.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 29, 2015

d0422 

# Order

Clerk April 29, 2015

150686

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 150686

COA: 323787

Kalamazoo CC: 2014

- 000115

- FH

ANTWON DONTAE ROLLAND, SR.,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 6, 2014

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 18

- 00241

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.E.P. and E.D.P., Children

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017PA00213

Honorable Karen Crouch, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI

, JUSTICE ALVAREZ , AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order is AFFIRMED.

No costs of court are taxed in this appeal.

SIGNED October 10, 2018.

_____________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
II

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5210

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 18 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 22), 2000

Received

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service

located at 200 South George Street in York, Pennsylvania, as the ‘‘George Atlee Goodling Post Office Building’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 5210 RDS

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

2 The facility of the United States Postal Service lo3 cated at 200 South George Street in York, Pennsylvania,

4 shall be known and designated as the ‘‘George Atlee Good5 ling Post Office Building’’.

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the facility

9 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference

10 to the ‘‘George Atlee Goodling Post Office Building’’.

Passed the House of Representatives October 17,

2000.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.
§ 334.760 Naval Support Activity Panama City and Alligator Bayou, a tributary of St. Andrew Bay, Fla.; naval restricted area. ( a ) *The area.* The waters within an area beginning at a point located along the shore at the southern end of the facility designated by latitude 30°09′45.6′′ N., longitude 85°44′20.6′′ W.; thence proceed 100 feet waterward of the mean high water line directly to a point at latitude 30°09′46.8′′ N., longitude 85°44′20.6′′ W. From this position the line meanders irregularly, following the shoreline at a minimum distance of 100 feet from the mean high water line to a point at latitude 30°10′16.7′′ N., longitude 85°45′01.2′′ W. located east of the south side of the entrance to Alligator Bayou; thence directly across the entrance to a point at latitude 30°10′23.4′′ N., longitude 85°45′05.7′′ W. located east of the north side of the entrance to Alligator Bayou; thence continuing the northerly meandering, following the shoreline at a minimum distance of 100 feet from the mean high water line to a point at latitude 30°11′11.3′′ N., longitude 85°45′02.8′′ W.; thence directly to the shoreline to a point at latitude 30°11′12.3′′ N., longitude 85°45′03.2′′ W. This encompasses an area reaching from the southern extent described to the northern extent described and extending from the mean high water line waterward a minimum distance of approximately 100 feet.
( b ) *The regulations.* ( 1 ) No vessel, person, or other craft shall enter, transit, anchor, drift or otherwise navigate within the area described in paragraph (a) of this section for any reason without written permission from the Officer in Charge, Naval Support Activity Panama City, Panama City Beach, Florida, or his/her authorized representative.
( 2 ) The restriction noted in paragraph (b)(1) of this section is in effect 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
( 3 ) The regulations in this section shall be enforced by the Officer in Charge, Naval Support Activity Panama City, Panama City Beach Florida, and such agencies as he/she may designate.
[70 FR 67372, Nov. 7, 2005]
! "# $ & '( ) ' *( + , - .+)/ + 0, # - # 1 
 ! "# $ & '( ) ' *( + , - .+)/ + 0, # - # 1 !
 ! "# $ & '( ) ' *( + , - .+)/ + 0, # - # 1 "
 ! "# $ & '( ) ' *( + , - .+)/ + 0, # - # 1 #
 ! "# $ & '( ) ' *( + , - .+)/ + 0, # - # 1 $
 ! "# $ & '( ) ' *( + , - .+)/ + 0, # - # 1 %
 ! "# $ & '( ) ' *( + , - .+)/ + 0, # - # 1 &
 ! "# $ & '( ) ' *( + , - .+)/ + 0, # - # 1 '
 ! "# $ & '( ) ' *( + , - .+)/ + 0, # - # 1 (
 ! "# $ & '( ) ' *( + , - .+)/ + 0, # - # 1 )
 ! "# $ & '( ) ' *( + , - .+)/ + 0, # - # 1 
 ! "# $ & '( ) ' *( + , - .+)/ + 0, # - # 1 !
 ! "# $ & '( ) ' *( + , - .+)/ + 0, # - # 1 "
 ! "# $ & '( ) ' *( + , - .+)/ + 0, # - # 1 #
 ! "# $ & '( ) ' *( + , - .+)/ + 0, # - # 1 $
 ! "# $ & '( ) ' *( + , - .+)/ + 0, # - # 1 %
 ! "# $ & '( ) ' *( + , - .+)/ + 0, # - # 1 &
 ! "# $ & '( ) ' *( + , - .+)/ + 0, # - # 1 '
 ! "# $ & '( ) ' *( + , - .+)/ + 0, # - # 1 (
 ! "# $ & '( ) ' *( + , - .+)/ + 0, # - # 1 ! )
 ! "# $ & '( ) ' *( + , - .+)/ + 0, # - # 1 ! 
 ! "# $ & '( ) ' *( + , - .+)/ + 0, # - # 1 ! !
 ! "# $ & '( ) ' *( + , - .+)/ + 0, # - # 1 ! "
 ! "# $ & '( ) ' *( + , - .+)/ + 0, # - # 1 ! #
 ! "# $ & '( ) ' *( + , - .+)/ + 0, # - # 1 ! $
 ! "# $ & '( ) ' *( + , - .+)/ + 0, # - # 1 ! %
 ! "# $ & '( ) ' *( + , - .+)/ + 0, # - # 1 ! &
 ! "# $ & '( ) ' *( + , - .+)/ + 0, # - # 1 ! '
 ! "# $ & '( ) ' *( + , - .+)/ + 0, # - # 1 ! (
 ! "# $ & '( ) ' *( + , - .+)/ + 0, # - # 1 " )
 ! "# $ & '( ) ' *( + , - .+)/ + 0, # - # 1 " 
 ! "# $ & '( ) ' *( + , - .+)/ + 0, # - # 1 " !
 ! "# $ & '( ) ' *( + , - .+)/ + 0, # - # 1 " "
 ! "# $ & '( ) ' *( + , - .+)/ + 0, # - # 1 " #
 ! "# $ & '( ) ' *( + , - .+)/ + 0, # - # 1 " $
 ! "# $ & '( ) ' *( + , - .+)/ + 0, # - # 1 " %
 ! "# $ & '( ) ' *( + , - .+)/ + 0, # - # 1 " &
 ! "# $ & '( ) ' *( + , - .+)/ + 0, # - # 1 " '
 ! "# $ & '( ) ' *( + , - .+)/ + 0, # - # 1 " (
 ! "# $ & '( ) ' *( + , - .+)/ + 0, # - # 1 # )
 ! "# $ & '( ) ' *( + , - .+)/ + 0, # - # 1 # 
 ! "# $ & '( ) ' *( + , - .+)/ + 0, # - # 1 # !
 ! "# $ & '( ) ' *( + , - .+)/ + 0, # - # 1 # "
 ! "# $ & '( ) ' *( + , - .+)/ + 0, # - # 1 # #
 ! "# $ & '( ) ' *( + , - .+)/ + 0, # - # 1 # $
 ! "# $ & '( ) ' *( + , - .+)/ + 0, # - # 1 # %
 ! "# $ & '( ) ' *( + , - .+)/ + 0, # - # 1 # &
 ! "# $ & '( ) ' *( + , - .+)/ + 0, # - # 1 # '
 ! "# $ & '( ) ' *( + , - .+)/ + 0, # - # 1 # (
 ! "# $ & '( ) ' *( + , - .+)/ + 0, # - # 1 $ )
 ! "# $ & '( ) ' *( + , - .+)/ + 0, # - # 1 $ 

2 ' + */ 0' 2 ') 3 ) ' 4 + 356 ' 7 0 8 ' 07 ) 7 ) 9 8 ' 07
 ! "# $ & '( ) ' *( + , - .+)/ + 0, # - # 1 $ !

6 ': 5; <' = > ? @ A = B = > @C D E B = A E F B @ G @ B B H C = > ?

B H E H > > = B D D I J > H E D E I > ? K L 1 K H B M N @ A J = > = > N

> @C D E ? F H O F N N D F H M ? > H H P I D N @D Q Q = N @> G D E = O H
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-41430 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus FELIPE ALBERTO GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. L-99-CR-284-1

-------------------- August 22, 2000 Before KING, Chief Judge, and POLITZ and WIENER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Felipe Alberto Gonzalez appeals his sentence from his guilty-plea conviction for possession with the intent to distribute heroin. We decline the appellee’s suggestion to dismiss the appeal without consideration of the arguments submitted by Gonzalez’s retained counsel. Gonzalez challenges the prior conviction used to enhance his sentence pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 851. He contends that his prior conviction is unconstitutional because the applicable Texas statute at the time of that conviction, 1968, treated differentlyNo. 99-41430 -2- males and females of the same age for purposes of trying seventeen-year old individuals as adults. Gonzalez’s argument is foreclosed by the limitation period of § 851(e). See United States v. Gonzales , 79 F.3d 413, 426-27 (5th Cir. 1996). Gonzalez also challenges the district court’s decision not to award Gonzalez the additional one-level reduction to his offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b). We detect no clear error by the district court. See United States v. Williams , 74 F.3d 654, 656-57 (5th Cir. 1996).
AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Alaska Airlines, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Bradley D. Tilden,
Chief 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/ Bradley D. Tilden


Bradley D. Tilden
Chief Financial Officer
March 28, 2003
#### § 4.3 Postmaster General.

The appointment and role of the Postmaster General are described at 39 U.S.C. 202(c), 203. The Governors set the compensation and benefits of the Postmaster General by resolution, subject to 39 U.S.C. 1003(a) and 3686.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002

I, James H.
Morgan, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the accompanying Annual
Report on Form 10-K of Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc. (the Company) for the
fiscal year ended February 3, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information
contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ James H. MorganJames H.
      MorganChief Executive
      Officer


Date: April 17, 2008

This
certification shall not be deemed to be filed for the purpose of Section 18 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and will not be incorporated by
reference into any registration statement filed under the Securities Act of
1933, as amended, unless specifically identified therein as being incorporated
therein by reference.

A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc. and will be retained by Krispy Kreme Doughnuts,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.

---
**Exhibit 23**

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLICACCOUNTANT

 

To the Board of Directors

Vubotics, Inc.

 

We hereby consent to the use in the 10-KSB of Vubotics, Inc. of ourreport dated March 29, 2006 relating to the financial statements of Vubotics,Inc. as of December 31, 2005.

 

 
| E. PHILIP BAILEY, CPA, P.C.     |
|---------------------------------|
|                            |
|                            |
| /s/ E. Philip Bailey, CPA, P.C. |   |
| P O Box 950                     |
| Alpharetta, GA 30009            |
|                            |
| March 31, 2006                  |

 

1

----
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT MICHEL THOMAS, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-513 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ________________________________ ) Opinion filed June 5, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Charlotte County; George C. Richards, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Terrence E. Kehoe, Special Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Richard L. Polin, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT, SILBERMAN, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
Exhibit 32.2

RELM WIRELESS CORPORATION

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 RELM Wireless Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, William P. Kelly, Executive Vice President and Chief 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 results of operations of the Company.

| |                             
| | ----------------------------
| | RELM Wireless Corporation   
| |                             
| | /s/ WILLIAM P. KELLY        
| | William P. Kelly            
| | Executive Vice President and
| | Chief Financial Officer     

May 7, 2008