alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.2

              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                      SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

I, Roger Arnet, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of WestCoast Golf
     Experiences, Inc.;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
     information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all
     material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash
     flows of the registrant as of, and for, the period presented in this
     quarterly report;

4.   I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
     procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
     registrant and have:

     a.   designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly
          report is being prepared;
     b.   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
          and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
          this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
     c.   presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
          evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.   I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
     auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or
     persons performing the equivalent functions):

     a.   all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
          controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
          record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
          identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in
          internal controls; and
     b.   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
          employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
          controls; and

6.   I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were
     significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could
     significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most
     recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to
     significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
5th day of December, 2006.


/s/ Roger Arnet
----------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1  Certification  Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned hereby certifies that:  (1) I have reviewed the Quarterly Report on Form 10-K of Inland Land Appreciation Fund II, L.P. (the "Report") to which this statement is an Exhibit;  (2) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (3) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Inland Land Appreciation Fund II, L.P.  By:Inland Real Estate Investment CorporationGeneral PartnerBy:/s/ Brenda G. GujralName:Brenda G. GujralTitle:President of the General Partner andprincipal executive officer of Inland Land Appreciation Fund II, L.P.Date:March 6, 2009
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17A0804. SHEA BELCHER v. THE STATE.

In 2006, Shea Belcher pled guilty to two counts of armed robbery and one

count of simple kidnapping. He later filed a motion for an out-of-time appeal and a

motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The trial court denied the motions, Belcher

appealed, and this Court affirmed, holding that the record refuted Belcher’s attacks

on his guilty plea. See Belcher v. State, 304 Ga. App. 645 (697 SE2d 300) (2010). 

In May 2016, Belcher filed a “motion for out-of time appeal/plea in abatement,”

claiming that there were errors in the filing of the indictment. The trial court denied

the motion, and Belcher filed the instant appeal. We lack jurisdiction.

An out-of-time appeal is a judicial creation that serves as the remedy for a

frustrated right of appeal. Romano v. State, 297 Ga. 497, 497 (775 SE2d 151) (2015).

The denial of a motion for an out-of-time appeal is directly appealable when the

criminal conviction at issue has not undergone appellate review. Id. However, there

is no right to directly appeal the denial of such a motion filed by a defendant whose

conviction has been affirmed on direct appeal. Richards v. State, 275 Ga. 190, 191

(563 SE2d 856) (2002). Thus, in Romano, supra, the Supreme Court dismissed the

defendant’s appeal of the denial of his motion for an out-of-time appeal on the basis

his conviction had been reviewed and affirmed on the direct appeal of the denial of

his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. 297 Ga. at 497. Here, Belcher’s conviction

was reviewed and affirmed on the direct appeal of the denial of his motion to

withdraw his guilty plea and his first motion for an out-of-time appeal. Therefore, he

is not entitled to another out-of-time appeal. 

Further, Belcher had no right to withdraw his guilty plea, as a trial court lacks

February 02, 2017
jurisdiction to allow the withdrawal of a plea when the term of court in which the

defendant was sentenced has expired. See Rubiani v. State, 279 Ga. 299, 299 (612

SE2d 798) (2005); see also id. at 299 n. 1 (the substance of a motion, rather than its

nomenclature, controls). Once the term of court in which a defendant was sentenced

has expired, the only means for him to withdraw his guilty plea is through habeas

corpus proceedings. Id. 

Accordingly, the State’s motion to dismiss this appeal is hereby GRANTED,

and this appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. 

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

02/02/2017
Exhibit 10.1


AMENDMENT TO


RAYMOND L. KILLIAN, JR. EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


This AMENDMENT is made and
entered into as of December 19, 2006, by and between Investment Technology
Group, Inc. (the “Company”) and Raymond L. Killian, Jr. (the
“Executive”).


WHEREAS, the Company and the
Executive previously entered into an employment agreement dated as of October
1, 2004 (the “Employment Agreement”); and


WHERAS, the parties
previously amended the Employment Agreement to reflect that, effective October
4, 2006, the Executive’s position with the Company changed from Chief Executive
Officer and President to Chairman; and


WHEREAS, the parties now
wish to amend the Employment Agreement to reflect certain changes to the term
of the Employment Agreement and the level of the Executive’s compensation
thereunder.


NOW, THEREFORE, the parties mutually
acknowledge and agree that the Employment Agreement is hereby amended as
follows:


1.             Notwithstanding
any provision of Section 2.01 or Section 5.01 of the Employment Agreement to
the contrary, effective as of the date hereof, the Employement Period (as
defined in the Employment Agreement) is hereby amended to terminate on March
31, 2007.


2.             Effective
January 1, 2007, in lieu of the compensation contemplated by Sections 4.01,
4.02 and 4.07 of the Employment Agreement, and any other cash or equity
compensation for which the Executive may be eligible, the Executive hereby
agrees that the only compensation to which he will be entitled to receive for
the period from January 1, 2007 through March 31, 2007 shall be 25% of the cash
compensation paid to the Executive by the Company for the 2006 calendar year.


3.             In
no event shall the foregoing changes trigger the Executive’s right to any
severance benefits under Section 5.02 of the Employment Agreement.


4.             In all respects not
amended, the Employment Agreement is hereby ratified and affirmed.


[SIGNATURE
PAGE FOLLOWS]










 



 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the
Company and the Executive have caused this Amendment to be executed as of the
day and year first set forth above.


	
  

  	
  INVESTMENT
  TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Maureen
  O’Hara

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Maureen O’Hara

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Lead Director

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  EXECUTIVE:

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Raymond L.
  Killian, Jr.

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Raymond L.
  Killian, Jr.
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



The undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of Diedrich Coffee, Inc. (the Company), for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:



| |  |  | the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the period ended June 28, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | - |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
| | - |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                             |  |                                                                        
|---------------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated:    September 26, 2006 |  | /s/ Stephen V. Coffey                                                  
|                             |  | Stephen V. Coffey Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)



| | Note: A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Diedrich Coffee, Inc. and will be retained by Diedrich Coffee, Inc. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### FRANK FRANC ET AL. *v.*PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF BETHEL

*Nancy Burton,*in support of the petition.

*Daniel W. O’Grady*and *PeterS. Olson,*in opposition.

Decided April 8, 1998

The plaintiffs’ petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 47 Conn. App. 939 (AC 16473), is denied.
1

Filed 3/4/24 P. v. Velasco CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

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

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

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

SALVADOR VELASCO,

Defendant and Appellant.

E082338

(Super.Ct.No. RIF2301644)

OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Walter H. Kubelun, 

Judge. Affirmed.

Siri Shetty, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Charged with unlawful possession of a controlled substance in a correctional 

facility, with allegations of two prior strike offenses (Pen. Code, §§ 4573.6, 667, 

subds. (c), (e)(2)(A), 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)(A)), defendant and appellant Salvador 
2

Velasco declined an initial plea offer of four years in prison. He later pled guilty to the 

lesser offense of unauthorized in-custody possession of drugs (Pen. Code, § 4573.8) in 

exchange for a sentence of two years eight months, to run consecutively to his term for a 

Los Angeles County case, case No. VA060588. Velasco admitted a prior as part of the 

plea agreement (Pen. Code, § 192, subd. (a)), the trial court imposed the agreed-upon 

sentence, and Velasco now appeals.

On appeal, this court appointed counsel to represent defendant. Counsel’s review 

of the record uncovered no arguable issues, including after consultation with Appellate 

Defenders, Inc. (See People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109 [threshold for 

“an arguable issue” requires “a reasonable potential for success”]; see also Redante v. 

Yockelson (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1351, 1356 [counsel cannot contrive arguable issues].) 

Counsel therefore filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 

436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of facts, a 

statement of the case, and requesting that we independently review the record. Without 

suggesting any defect or omission, counsel suggested that we review whether defendant 

was sentenced according to his plea bargain terms. Defendant did not respond to notice 

of his opportunity to file a supplemental brief.

Defendant’s generic appeal requires no further background discussion. Having 

examined the record and completed our independent review (People v. Kelly (2006) 

40 Cal.4th 106), we find no arguable issues.
3

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

McKINSTER

Acting P. J.

We concur:

CODRINGTON

J.

FIELDS

J.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-40443 Summary Calendar

MOSES SMITH, JR. Petitioner-Appellant,

versus GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:95-CV-967

- - - - - - - - - - October 28, 1996 Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Moses Smith, Jr., Texas prisoner #579393, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as successive under Rule 9(b) of the Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings. Smith argues that his prior convictions may not be used to enhance his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) because the convictions were related. Smith originally filed a 28 U.S.C.No. 96-40443 - 2 - § 2254 habeas petition, and the district court construed it as a motion to vacate, correct, or set aside his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. However, the district court did not substitute the United States as the proper respondent after determining that Smith’s action should be construed as a § 2255 motion. Although Smith did not receive notice that the district court was considering dismissing his action as an abuse of the writ under Rule 9(b), Smith filed objections to the magistrate judge’s report responding to the recommendation that his action be dismissed under Rule 9(b). Because Smith filed a response to the proposed Rule 9(b) dismissal, the district court’s failure to give Smith notice of the Rule 9(b) dismissal was harmless error.
See Johnson v. McCotter , 803 F.2d 830, 832 (5th Cir. 1986). Smith’s appellate brief does not address the district court’s dismissal of his § 2255 motion as successive under Rule 9(b). Smith has not shown cause or prejudice for his failure to raise this specific argument in his first § 2255 motion. McCleskey v. Zant , 499 U.S. 467, 493-94 (1991). Smith has also failed to allege that a fundamental miscarriage of justice would result if the court does not hear his claim because he is actually innocent of the offense for which he was convicted.
See id. Therefore, Smith has not shown that he is entitled to relief. The district court did not abuse its discretion in construing Smith’s petition as a § 2255 motion and in dismissing it as successive under Rule 9(b). See United States v. Flores ,No. 96-40443 - 3 - 981 F.2d 231, 234 (5th Cir. 1993).
AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Restated Financial Data Schedule
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           JAN-2-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-28-1996
<CASH>                                          33,656
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   35,843
<ALLOWANCES>                                    10,722
<INVENTORY>                                      6,897
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                83,711
<PP&E>                                       1,090,028
<DEPRECIATION>                                 220,069
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,037,470
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          102,971
<BONDS>                                        519,833
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            5,646
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           423
<OTHER-SE>                                     360,383
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,037,470
<SALES>                                         12,188
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               180,206
<CGS>                                           12,603
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   98,272
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,755
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,371
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,642
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,560
<INCOME-TAX>                                       602
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                769
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       769
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02
        

</TABLE>
No. 13899 INTHE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1978

MONTANA SEEDS, 

### INC., a Montana Corporation, Plaintiff and Respondent,

MAURICE HOLLIDAY and/or HOLLIDAY LAND & LIVESTOCK, CO., Defendants and Appellants.
Appeal from: 

### DistrictCourt of the Fourteenth Judicial 

### District, Honrable Nat Allen, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants: Potter and 

### Neier, White Sulphur Springs, Montana John V. Potter argued, White Sulphur Springs, Montana For Respondent: 

### Keiland Gustafson, Conrad, Montana Dale 

### L. 

### Keilargued, Conrad, Montana

- - Submitted: May 3, 1978 Decided:

# 4;i: 

# 5 2 Filed: 

### q7- 

# - 2 

# &wy/ C erk
#### Indian River State Bank, a Corporation, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. Liverpool and London and Globe Insurance Company, *Defendant in Error.*

'This case was decided by Division A.

Writ of error to the Circuit Court for Brevard county.

*Geo. M. Robbins*and *Geo. P. Raney*for plaintiff in error. ■

*A. W. Cockrell & Son*for defendant in error.

Per Curiam.

The above stated cause coming on for final disposition before Division A of the court upon the transcript of record and briefs and arguments of counsel for the respective parties, after due consideration the court finds that the case made in the transcript of record is substantially the same in all material particulars as that of the Indian River State Bank as plaintiff in error against the Hartford Fire Insurance Company, as defendant in error decided by written opinion by Division A of the cóurt at the present term, in which substantially the same questions were preserited as are involved in the present case, and that what is said in that case is fully decisive of the questions presented in this case. It is, therefore, hereby considered, ordered and adjudged that the judgment of the Circuit Court in this cause be, and the same is hereby reversed with directions to overrule the demurrer of the defendant insurance company to the last amended declaration of the plaintiff below, the Indian River State Bank, and to sustain the demurrer,of the said plaintiff to the pleas of the defendant in all such particulars wherein such pleas may be inconsistent with the views expressed in the said opinion of this court in the said case of the *Indian River State Bank v. The Hartford Fire Insurance Company*herein above referred to, and for such further proceedings as shall be consonant with law. The costs of this appellate proceeding to be taxed against the defendant in error.
1 

### Troutman, Jake (FAA)

From: Troutman, Jake (FAA)

Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 10:52 AM

To: 'connect@dncinematics.com'

Cc: Pappas, Rob (FAA)

Subject: Request for Additional Information - D&N Cinematics LLC

Dear Messers. Diebel and Nordgaard:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA

‐ 2015

‐ 1505). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

• Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) which is required by Order

8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to proceed without this manual and remove closed set filming

from your proposed operation please inform of us of your intention by the requested response date listed below.

Please submit the additional information (non proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit any

proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via email to 333exemptions@faa.gov

. If you want us

to process your request any further, we must receive the information described above by 7/16/15. If we do not receive

the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267

‐ 9521.

Sincerely,

Jake J Troutman

Program Analyst | Rulemaking

FAA Office of Aviation Safety

Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

202

‐ 267

‐ 9521