alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael J. Tissiera, Appellant.

[736 NYS2d 273]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Hayes, J.), rendered November 30, 2000, convicting him of robbery in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted (see, *Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf., People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). S. Miller, J.P., O’Brien, McGinity, Schmidt and Townes, JJ., concur.
Exhibit ll

                 SCHEDULE OF COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE

 
<TABLE>
                                                                       Three Quarters Ended 
                                                             ---------------------------------------
                                                             October 31, 1998       October 31, 1997
<S>                                                         <C>                     <C>
Basic:

Net income                                                  $    3,697,000          $    3,867,000

Weighted average shares outstanding                              4,664,000               4,752,000
                                                            --------------          --------------

Basic income per common share                               $          .79          $          .81
                                                            ==============          ==============


Diluted:

Net income
                                                            $    3,697,000          $    3,867,000
Less - net income allocated to subsidiary
    dilutive stock options outstanding                                                    (145,000)                  (275,000)
                                                            --------------          --------------

Net income used in calculation of diluted income per
    common share                                            $    3,552,000          $    3,592,000
                                                            ==============          ==============


Weighted average shares outstanding                              4,664,000               4,752,000

Plus - common  equivalent  shares  (determined
     using the "treasury stock" method)
     representing shares issuable upon
     exercise of stock options                                     200,000                 324,000
                                                            --------------          --------------

Weighted average number of shares used in
   calculation of diluted income per common share                4,864,000               5,076,000
                                                            ==============          ==============


Diluted income per common share                             $          .73          $          .71
                                                            ==============          ==============


</TABLE>
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Reginald THOMPSON, Appellee.

No. 77-1836.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 16, 1978.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen. and Basil S. Diamond, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Jerry L. Schwarz, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The trial court transferred this cause to the county court on the assumption that attempted burglary was a misdemeanor. This court has recently ruled that attempted burglary was a felony of the third degree in *Gray v. State,*356 So.2d 848 (Fla. 4th DCA, opinion filed March 14, 1978). Accordingly, the order of transfer is hereby reversed with directions for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

ANSTEAD, LETTS and MOORE, JJ., concur.
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

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 officers of Phoenix Footwear Group, Inc. (the
Company), does hereby certify with respect to the quarterly report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October 2, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the 10-Q Report), that:



| | (1) | The 10-Q Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the 10-Q Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The undersigned have executed this Certification effective as of November 16, 2010.



/s/ James RiedmanJames RiedmanPresident and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Dennis T. NelsonDennis T. NelsonChief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer


A
signed original of this Certification required by Section 906 has been provided to Phoenix Footwear Group, Inc. and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
CHIEF JUSTICE

ROGELIO VALDEZ

JUSTICES

NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

DORI CONTRERAS GARZA

GINA M. BENAVIDES

GREGORY T. PERKES

NORA L. LONGORIA

CLERK

CECILE FOY GSANGER NUECES COUNTY COURTH OUSE

901 LEOPARD, 10TH FL OOR

CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 78401

361

- 888

- 0416 (TEL)

361

- 888

- 0794 (FAX)

HIDALGO COUNTY

ADMINISTRATION BLDG.

100 E. CANO, 5TH FLO OR

EDINBURG, TEXAS 7853 9

956

- 318

- 2405 (TEL)

956

- 318

- 2403 (FAX)

www.txcourts.gov/13thcoa 

# Court of Appeals

Thirteenth District of Texas

July 20, 2015

Hon. Douglas H. Pettit

Attorney At Law

680 E. St. Charles Ave., Ste 600

Brownsville, TX 78521

* DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL *

Hon. Rene B. Gonzalez

Assistant District Attorney

964 E. Harrison Street, 4th Floor

Brownsville, TX 78520

* DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL * Hon. Luis V. Saenz

District Attorney

964 E. Harrison

Brownsville, TX 78520

- 7123

* DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL *

Re: Cause No. 13

- 14

- 00457

- CR

Tr.Ct.No. 2013

- DCR

- 1953

- E
Style: Victor Hernandez v. The State of Texas

State ’s motion for extension of time to file brief in the above cause was this day
GRANTED by this Court. The time has been e xtended to Friday, August 14, 2015

.

Very truly yours,

Cecile Foy Gsanger, Clerk

CFG:ch

cc: Ms. Sue Chaney Saenz (DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL)
Exhibit 31.1   Certifications   I, Frederick W. Geissinger, President and Chief Executive Officer, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of American General Finance, Inc. (the registrant);  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 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;  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; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrant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 registrant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 registrants internal control over financial reporting.   Date:November 8, 2007/s/Frederick W. GeissingerFrederick W. GeissingerPresident and Chief Executive Officer    44
Exhibit
      32.1




CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
      connection with the annual report on Form 10-KSB of TheRetirementSolution.com,
      Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      Nicholas S. Maturo, the Chief Executive Officer, of the Company, do hereby
      certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief that:




(1) the
      Report 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.


July 2, 2007
              
              /s/
                  Nicholas S. MaturoNicholas
                  S. Maturo
                Chief
                  Executive Officer
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)


     In connection with the accompanying Annual Report of Sooner Holdings,  Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2006 (the
"Report"), I, R.C. Cunningham II, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
certify that to my knowledge:

          (1) The Report fully complies with the  requirements  of Section 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. ss.78o(d)); 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:  September 25, 2007


                                                        /s/ R.C. Cunningham II
                                                        ----------------------
                                                        R.C. Cunningham II Chief
                                                        Executive Officer


     The above  certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss.1350) and is not being filed as part of
the Form 10-KSB or as a separate disclosure document.




                                                                      Exhibit 32
                                                                Page 1 of 1 Page
Exhibit 12





AMERICAN GENERAL FINANCE, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges

(Unaudited)







|Three Months Ended March 31,                       | 2006     | 2005    
|-------------------------------------------------- | -------- | --------
|(dollars in thousands)                             |          | Restated
|Earnings:
Income before provision for income taxes | $189,738 | $228,292
|Interest expense                                   | 263,213  | 194,140 
|Implicit interest in rents                         | 5,101    | 4,708   
|Total earnings                                     | $458,052 | $427,140
|Fixed charges:
Interest expense                    | $263,213 | $194,140
|Implicit interest in rents                         | 5,101    | 4,708   
|Total fixed charges                                | $268,314 | $198,848
|Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                 | 1.71     | 2.15    







36
#### James THOMPSON, Jr., Petitioner, v. CITY OF MIAMI BEACH et al., Respondents.

No. 42654.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 12, 1972.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
#### Bret S. KLEIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Steve McCLAURY; Anthony Carochi; Chris Barr; Nancy Michaels; Katie Baxter; Gary Bardessona; Steve Rossi; Janelle Giganti; and Joe Paolino, in their official capacities, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 02-1138.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Aug. 29, 2002.

Bret S. Klein, Canon City, CO, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Ken Salazar, Attorney General, Denver, CO, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before KELLY, McKAY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

McKAY, Circuit Judge.

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

This is a pro se state prisoner § 1983 civil rights appeal. In 1999, Mr. Klein sought monetary damages, declaratory, and injunctive relief for alleged constitutional violations associated with prison disciplinary proceedings instituted against him. In December 1999, the district court *455dismissed the claims without prejudice to the extent that they requested expungement of disciplinary action from his record, ruling that such claims should have been brought pursuant to § 2254. To the extent that Mr. Klein sought monetary and injunctive relief, the district court dismissed the complaint as legally frivolous.

Mr. Klein filed three motions to reconsider, all of which the district court denied. We affirmed the district court’s decision on appeal. *Klein v. McClaury,*No. 00-1065, 2000 WL 1005238 (10th Cir. July 20, 2000). On March 4, 2002, Mr. Klein filed a motion seeking relief from judgment. The district court denied the motion as moot. Mr. Klein appeals to this court.

As detailed above, the district court originally dismissed Mr. Klein’s claims on December 15, 1999. Then, the district court thrice denied Mr. Klein’s motions to reconsider. We subsequently affirmed the dismissal. *Id.*The present action is moot. After a thorough review of the brief and the record, and for substantially the same reasons set forth in the district court’s March 6, 2002, Minute Order, we hold that no relief is available to Mr. Klein pursuant to § 1983.

The decision of the trial court is AFFIRMED. Appellant’s motion to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee is GRANTED. We remind Appellant that he must continue making partial payments on court fees and costs previously assessed until such have been paid in full.

*

This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
258 La. 563

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Charles TAYLOR.

No. 51390.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 12, 1971.

In re: Charles Taylor applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.

Writs refused.

The rulings complained of are correct.

BARHAM and TATE, JJ„ are of the opinion the writ should be granted and will assign separate written reasons.

DIXON, J., is also of the opinion the writ should be granted for the reasons assigned by Barham and Tate, JJ.

*390TATE, Justice

(dissenting).

The defendant was convicted of desecrating the flag of the United States, La.R.S. 14:116(4), because he displayed a flag which had a peace symbol in a blue field in its upper left-hand corner, and thirteen red and white horizontal stripes, resembling the American flag in its design. Also, at issue was the display of decals of a similar nature.

If the statute permits prosecution of this display of a somewhat similar flag as “desecration” of the American flag, it is imper-missibly vague and overbroad. If the statute does not apply, the conviction should be set aside as charging an offense beyond the terms of the statute as a matter of law. In either event, the conviction represents an infringement upon constitutional rights of free Americans to free speech and the free expression of their opinions, popular or unpopular.

I respectfully dissent from the denial of the writ.

BARHAM, Justice,

is of the opinion that the writ should be granted. The defendant filed a motion to quash a bill of information charging that he “publicly defiled and in other ways acted in such a manner as to cast contempt upon the flag of the United States of America”. The statute under which the bill was drawn is R.S. 14:116(4), which reads: “Flag desecration is the act of any person who. shall intentionally, in any manner, for exhibition or display: * * * (4) Publicly mutilate, defile, or by word or act cast contempt upon any flag. * * * ” That statute and of course the bill under which this accused was charged are vague, ambiguous, and in violation of United States Constitution, First and Sixth Amendments, and Louisiana Constitution of 1921, Article I, Section 3, and Article I, Section 10.
December 1, 1998

       Reference is made to that certain Amended and Restated Loan and
Security Agreement, dated as of September 5, 1996, as amended or otherwise
modified from time to time (the "Loan Agreement") between Congress Financial
Corporation (Central)("Lender") and each of Crowley, Milner and Company, a
Michigan corporation ("Crowley") and Steinbach Stores, Inc., an Ohio
corporation ("Steinbach").  Unless otherwise defined herein, capitalized terms
used herein shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Loan
Agreement.

       Pursuant to Section 1.23 of the Loan Agreement, the Maximum Credit for
(i) the period commencing on September 1, 1998 through and including November
30, 1998 is $50,000,000 and (ii) the period commencing on December 1, 1998
through and including August 31, 1999 is $43,000,000.  Notwithstanding the
foregoing, Borrowers have requested that Lender consent to the modification of
the Maximum Credit (the "Maximum Credit Modification") such that, for the
period commencing on September 1, 1998 through and including December 15, 1998,
the Maximum Credit shall be $50,000,000.  Lender hereby consents to the Maximum
Credit Modification, it being understood and agreed that, on and after December
16, 1998, the Maximum Credit shall be as provided by Section 1.23 of the Loan
Agreement without regard to the contents of this consent.  It is hereby
understood that such consent shall not constitute (a) a modification or
alteration of the terms, conditions or covenants of the Loan Agreement or any
document entered into in connection therewith, or (b) a waiver, release or
limitation upon the exercise by Lender of any of its rights, legal or
equitable, hereunder, except as to the matters to which Lender herein expressly
consents.  Except as set forth above, Lender reserves any and all rights and
remedies which it has had, has or may have under the Loan Agreement.  Except
as expressly provided herein, the Loan Agreement remains unchanged and in full
force and effect.

                               Very truly yours,

                               CONGRESS FINANCIAL CORPORATION
                               (CENTRAL)



                               By: /s/ BRETT MOOK
                                   --------------------------
                               Its:  Vice President
CALL BY: 

CALL TO: 

Organization: 

Date: 

Time: 

PMN: 15-0242 

Organization: 

Phone: 

Concerning what? 

CBI: No 

MEMORANDUM of TELEPHONE CONVERSATION (Contains No TSCA CBI)
#### INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, Petitioner, v. Cecil A. WELCH, Administrator of the Estate of James Reed Welch, Deceased, and James H. Pruitt Agency, Inc., Respondents.

No. 42881.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 12, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 28, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 266 So.2d 164.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, ADKINS and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 225 (Friday, November 21, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 62323]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30705]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration


Antiviral Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of Subcommittee 
Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory 
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will 
be open to the public.
    Name of Committee: Subcommittee meeting of the Antiviral Drugs 
Advisory Committee on immunosuppressive drugs.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and 
recommendations to the agency on FDA regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on January 14, 1998, 8:30 
a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Location: Quality Suites, Potomac Ballroom, Three Research Ct., 
Rockville, MD.
    Contact Person: Rhonda W. Stover or John B. Schupp, Center for Drug 
Evaluation and Research (HFD-21), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 
Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-443-5455, or FDA Advisory 
Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138 (301-443-0572 in the 
Washington, DC area), code 12531. Please call the Information Line for 
up-to-date information on this meeting.
    Agenda: On January 14, 1998, the subcommittee will discuss new drug 
application (NDA) 50-722, CellCept<Register> (mycophenolate mofetil), 
Syntex, USA, Inc., for immunosuppression following cardiac 
transplantation.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or 
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee. 
Written submissions may be made to the contact person by January 7, 
1998. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between 
approximately 11 a.m. and 12 m. Time allotted for each presentation may 
be limited. Those desiring to make formal oral presentations should 
notify the contact person before January 7, 1998, and submit a brief 
statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish 
to present, the names and addresses of proposed participants, and an 
indication of the approximate time requested to make their 
presentation.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: November 14, 1997.
Michael A. Friedman,
Deputy Commissioner for Operations.
[FR Doc. 97-30705 Filed 11-20-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F