alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Daphne H. KENCHEFF, Appellant, v. Ehret B. PAGE, Appellee.

No. 74-87.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 19, 1974.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Tommy McDOUGALD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-152.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 4, 1971.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Indian River County; Wallace Sample, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Alfonso STREETER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 67-1036

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

June 4, 1968.

Robert L. Koeppel, Public Defender, and Herbert M. Klein, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Harold Mendelow, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant’s probation having been revoked in two cases, Nos. 64-9573 and 65-2661, he now appeals.

The state concedes that the probation period for Case No. 64 — 9573 had already ended prior to the revocation and that the court, therefore, lacked jurisdiction to impose further sentence for that case. See Fla.Stat. § 948.04, F.S.A. See also Carroll v. Cochran, Fla.1962, 140 So.2d 300.

The appellant has not argued in his brief the assignments of error directed to Case No. 65-2661; and they are therefore abandoned, 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals § 130. We, therefore, find no error in the sentence imposed in Case No. 65-2661.

Accordingly, the sentence imposed in Case No. 64-9573 was improper and is hereby set aside. The sentence imposed in Case No. 65-2661 is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

It is so ordered.
#### Hurley LEWIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-91.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Oct. 29, 1969.

Appeal dismissed.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 32.1


                             NORDSTROM CREDIT, INC.

                                13531 EAST CALEY

                           CENTENNIAL, COLORADO 80111

                            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 Annual Report of Nordstrom Credit, Inc (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the year ending January 29, 2005, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, Kevin T. Knight,
President (Principal Executive Officer), and Michael G. Koppel, Vice President
and Treasurer (Principal Financial Officer), of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      o     The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      o     The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.

                                          May 16, 2005

                                          /s/ Kevin T. Knight
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Kevin T. Knight
                                          President

                                          /s/ Michael G. Koppel
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Michael G. Koppel
                                          Vice President and Treasurer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Nordstrom Credit, Inc. and will be retained by Nordstrom Credit,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
251 La. 751

#### Robert BECKER, Hollis Becker v. Avery O. CHOATE d/b/a Choate Towing Service.

No. 49074.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 2, 1968.

In re: Robert and Hollis Becker applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Vermilion. 204 So.2d 680; 204 So.2d 686.

Application not considered, not having been timely filed.
#### The SECOND NATIONAL BANK OF NORTH MIAMI, Appellant, v. The HANNAN COMPANY and Hannan South Construction, Inc., Appellees.

No. 76-1608.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 25, 1977.

Ress, Gomez, Rosenberg, Berke & How-land and Sheldon Rosenberg, North Miami, for appellant.

Lapidus & Hollander and Richard L. La-pidus, Miami, for appellees.

Before HENDRY, C. J., and NATHAN and HUBBART, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *Hay v. Salisbury,*92 Fla. 446, 109 So. 617 (1926). See also *Super Service Products Corp.*v. *North Store Corp.,*214 So.2d 664 (Fla.3d DCA 1968), and compare *Donahue v. Davis,*68 So.2d 163 (Fla.1953).
251 La. 752

#### Allen J. FUSELIER v. TROPHY NUT COMPANY et al.

No. 49059.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 2, 1968.

In re: Trophy Company, Joseph N. Galley and American Fire and Casualty Company applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Allen. 204 So.2d 716.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal the result is correct.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Report of Evergreen
Solar, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 2, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael El-Hillow, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(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.

May 12, 2011



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Michael El-Hillow  
|Michael El-Hillow      
|Chief Executive Officer

This certification accompanies the
Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

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.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of BostonFed Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I David F.
Holland, Chief Executive 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 to the best of my knowledge and belief:

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 as of and for the period covered by the Report.

                                              /s/ David F. Holland
                                              Chief Executive Officer
                                              August 14, 2003
#### Gilbert NELSON, III, Appellant, v. William Maxie OLIVER and Home Insurance Company, a corporation, Appellees.

No. 72-824.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 18, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32

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

        This  certification  is intended to accompany  the Annual Report on Form
10-K of Berkshire Bancorp Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended December 31,
2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission (the "Report"),  and
is given  solely for the purpose of  satisfying  the  requirements  of 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002. The undersigned, in my capacity as set forth below, hereby certifies 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.

                                         /s/ STEVEN ROSENBERG
                                         --------------------------------------
                                             Steven Rosenberg,
                                             Chief Executive Officer, President
                                             and Chief Financial Officer

                                              March 26, 2007
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. UNIGARD INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, Petitioner, v. Carl C. DURRANCE, as Judge of the Circuit Court in and for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Hillsborough County, Florida, Respondent.

No. 43712.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 31, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 276 So.2d 112.

ERVIN, Acting C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T NO R MA L I Z E T H L OP E Z OY UE L A, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 09- 73724 A ge nc yN o. A 072- 776- 004 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d M ar c h 9, 2010 ** B efo re: F A R R IS , L E A V Y , an dB Y B E E , C i rcu i tJu d g es. N orm a L i ze th L op ez -O yuel a, a nat i ve and ci t i ze n o f H on du ra s, pet i t i on s pro s e f orr e vi e w of

the B oa r d of

I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ di s m i s s a l of he rappe a l f

r om the i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s de ni a l of he rappl i c a t i ons f

ora s y l um , w i thhol di ng of re m ov al , and rel i ef

un der the C on vent i on A gai nstT orture. 

# FI LED MA R 15 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 73724 2 L ope z - O yue l ac ont e nds tha tthe B I A e rr e d i n de ny i ng he rappl i c a t i ons f or r e l i e f be c aus e s he s uf

f e r e d pa s tpe r s e c ut i on, a nd s he f e ar s f utur e pe r s e c ut i on, due to h e rp o litic a l o p in io n s in s up p o rt o f am in o r ityp o litic a l p artyin H o n du r a s . L op ez -O yuel a f

ai l ed t o rai se her c l ai m of pers ec ut i on base d o n h erpo l i t i ca l opi ni on be f

or e the B I A , a nd the r e f

or e s he ha s f

a i l e d t o a dm i ni s tr a t i ve l ye xhaus tthe o n lyc la im th a t s h e r a is e s b e f o r e th is c o u rt. Se e B a rr o n v . A s h c r o ft , 358 F . 3d 674, 67 7-78 (9th C i r. 20 04 ). P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DI S MI S S E D.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER     I, Ronald W. Hovsepian, Chief Executive Officer of Novell, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the“Company”), hereby certify that to my knowledge: (1) The Company’s annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended October 31, 2007(the “Form 10-K”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and  (2) The information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.* * *   CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER     /s/ Ronald W. Hovsepian Ronald W. Hovsepian     Date: December 21, 2007
251 La. 755

#### Eulalie E. COOPER v. F. C. DOYAL, Jr., Administrator, Division of Employment Security, Department of Labor, State of Louisiana and Delta Airlines, Inc.

No. 49075.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 2, 1968.

In re: F. C. Doyal, Jr., Administrator of the Division of Employment Security, etc., applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Jefferson. 205 So.2d 59.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal there appears no error of law in its judgment.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Joseph S. Tibbetts, Jr., Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
Novell, Inc., certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Novell, Inc;

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 fourth
fiscal quarter 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: January 13, 2005

/s/ Joseph S. Tibbetts, Jr.
-------------------------------
Joseph S. Tibbetts, Jr.
Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T S A MU E L D . B A T E S ; J O Y C E M. BA TES, P et i t i o n ers - A p p el l an t s, v. C OMMI S S I ON E R OF I NT E RNA L RE VENU E, R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 09- 73333 T a x C t . N o. 1586- 08 ME MOR AN DU M *

A ppe a l f r om aD e c i s i on of

the U ni t ed S t at es T ax C ou rt S ubm i tt e d M ay24, 2011 ** B efo re: P R E G E R S O N , T H O M A S , an dP A E Z , C i rcu i tJu d g es. S a m ue l D . and J oy c e M . B a t e s appe a l pr o s e f r om the T a x C ourt ’ s de c i s i on up ho l di ng the C om m i ss i on erof Int ernal R evenue’ s det erm i nat i on of i ncom e t ax d e f i c i e n c i e s f

o ry e ar s 2 0 0 3 an d2 0 0 4 , an di mp o s i t i o n o f ap e n a l tyu n d e r2 6 U . S. C. 

# FI LED JU N 07 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 73333 2 § 6662. T he ya l s o appe a l f r om the T a x C ourt ’ s i m pos i t i on of s anc t i ons unde r26 U . S . C . § 6673. W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r26 U . S . C . § 7482( a ) . W e r e vi e w de n o v o th e T a x C o u rt’s le g a l c o n c lu s io n s an df o rc le are rr o rits f

a c tu a l f in d in g s . See C o m m ’ rv . D u n kin , 5 0 0 F. 3 d1 0 6 5 , 1 0 6 8 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 7 ) . W e a f f i rm. T h e c o n te n tio n th a t th e B a te s e s w e r e n o t s ub je c t to f e d e r a l in c o m e ta x e s is f r iv o lo u s . Se e U

n ite d Sta tes v . N

e ls o n ( I n r e B e c ra

ft) , 88 5 F . 2d 54 7, 54 8 (9th C i r. 1989) ( or de r ) ; T r e a s . R e g. § 1. 1- 1. N o othe rc ha l l e nge s ha ve be e n r a i s e d t o the T ax C ou rt ’ s det erm i nat i on of i ncom e t ax defi ci enci es , and thu s w e dee m them ab an d o n e d . See C o o k v. Sch ri ro , 53 8 F . 3d 10 00 , 10 14 n. 5 (9th C i r. 20 08 ) ( i ss ues no t ra i se d o n app ea l ar e dee m ed abando ned). T h e B a te s e s c o n c e d e dth e yw e r e liab le f o rth e a c c u r a c y - r e la te dp e n a lty u n d e r2 6 U. S . C . § 6 6 6 2 i f th e ywe r e s ub

j e c tt o f e d e r a l i n c o m e t a x e s , an dth u s we up h o ldth e im p o s itio n o f th is p e n a lty . See Spa rk m an v. C om m ’r , 509 F . 3d 1149, 11 61 (9th C i r. 20 07 ). T he T a x C ourtdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on byi m pos i ng s anc t i ons unde r26 U .S .C . § 6 6 7 3 f

o rth e B a te s e s ’ f

r iv o lo u s ar g u m e n ts . See W ol f v. C om m ’r , 4 F . 3d 70 9, 71 6 (9th C i r. 19 93 ) ( st andard of revi ew ). T he B at es es ’ re m ai ni ng cont ent i on s are un pers uasi ve. AF F I RME D.
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Nidhi H. Andalon, Chief Financial Officer of Qualstar Corporation (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:




(1) the Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2012 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 780(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.




Dated: October 29, 2012




/s/  NIDHI H. ANDALONNidhi H. Andalon,Principal Financial Officer
#### J. C. DAVIS, Jr., Appellant, v. John N. FOUNTAIN, Appellee.

No. 73-181.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 31, 1973.

Lloyd Campbell, Cocoa, for appellant.

John Minot, Shepard, Shepard & Minot, Cocoa, for appellee.

*472PER CURIAM.

The order appealed from dated December 27, 1971 refusing- to award appellant attorney’s fees was based upon testimony heard by the trial judge. Since that testimony has not been furnished ,us we are not able to review the propriety of said ruling. The same holds true for the order of February 12, 1973 refusing to tax costs.

Accordingly, the orders appealed from are affirmed.

OWEN, C. J., and WALDEN and DOWNEY, JJ., concur.
#### The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Leroy JACKSON, Appellee.

No. 70-1228.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 8, 1971.

Richard E. Gerstein, State’s Atty., and N. Joseph Durant, Jr., Miami, for appellant.

Philip Edelman, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., BARKDULL, J., and SACK, MARTIN, Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

The State seeks review of an order dismissing an information. The appellee was charged with careless driving, by leaving the roadway resulting in personal injuries, in the Metropolitan Court of Dade County and was acquitted. He was subsequently informed against in the Criminal Court of Record in and for Dade County for a violation of § 317.071, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., leaving the scene of an accident resulting in injury. Upon motion, the trial court dismissed the criminal information, indicating in his order that the subsequent prosecution constituted a second prosecution which was barred by Waller v. Florida, 397 U.S. 387, 90 S.Ct. 1184, 25 L.Ed.2d 435. We reverse.

The events which would support the charge of careless driving by leaving the roadway, resulting in personal injuries, were complete prior to the beginning of the series of events which would constitute leaving the scene of an accident, wherein injury had occurred. We therefore find that there were two separate occurrences on the date in question, and the fact of the initial prosecution in the metropolitan court would not be a bar to a subsequent prosecution in the criminal court of record. See: State v. Shaw, Fla.App.1969, 219 So. 2d 49; State v. Conrad, Fla.App.1971, 243 So.2d 174.

Therefore, the order here under review be and the same is hereby reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings in the trial court.

Reversed and remanded, with directions.
#### John CAMPBELL, Appellant, v. ALCAR ENGINEERING COMPANY, Inc., a foreign corporation, Appellee.

No. 70-331.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 17, 1971.

Rehearing- Denied March 18, 1971.

Michael J. Freedman, of Levine & Freedman, Tampa, for appellant.

Gary M. Witters, of Allen, Dell, Frank & Trinkle, Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on authority of Brant v. Matlin, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 902, cert. den. Fla., 177 So.2d 480.

PIERCE, C. J., and LILES and Mc-NULTY, JJ., concur.