alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2023 ND 175

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Alexis Patricia-Nichole Hanson, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20230053

Appeal from the District Court of Morton County, South Central Judicial 

District, the Honorable Douglas A. Bahr, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Chase R. Lingle, Assistant State’s Attorney, Mandan, ND, for plaintiff and 

appellee; submitted on brief.

Justin M. Balzer, Bismarck, ND, for defendant and appellant; submitted on 

brief.

FILED 

IN THE OFFICE OF THE 

CLERK OF SUPREME COURT 

SEPTEMBER 28, 2023 

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
1

State v. Hanson

No. 20230053

Per Curiam.

[¶1] Alexis Hanson appeals from a district court judgment entered after a 

jury convicted her of child abuse and child neglect. Hanson argues the evidence 

was insufficient to find her guilty of both charges and the evidence created 

reasonable doubt. Hanson also argues the court erred in sentencing her to one 

year of incarceration. We affirm.

[¶2] “In reviewing challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, the 

defendant ‘bears the burden of showing the evidence reveals no reasonable 

inference of guilt when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict.’” State 

v. Rai, 2019 ND 71, ¶ 13, 924 N.W.2d 410 (citing State v. Truelove, 2017 ND 

283, ¶ 7, 904 N.W.2d 342). When viewing the evidence in the light most 

favorable to the verdict, we conclude sufficient evidence exists that could allow 

a jury to convict on both charges. 

[¶3] When determining if a court abused its discretion in sentencing, we look 

to whether the district court acted within the statutorily prescribed sentencing 

limits or relied on impermissible factors. State v. Thomas, 2020 ND 30, ¶ 17, 

938 N.W.2d 897 (citing State v. Clark, 2012 ND 135, ¶ 18, 818 N.W.2d 739).

The court here acted within the statutory limits by imposing the mandatory 

minimum sentence under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-22(1) and (4). We summarily affirm 

under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).

[¶4] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. 

Daniel J. Crothers 

Lisa Fair McEvers 

Jerod E. Tufte

Stacy J. Louser, D.J. 

[¶5] The Honorable Stacy J. Louser, D.J., sitting in place of Bahr, J., 

disqualified.
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 38 (Monday, February 27, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 11565]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4554]



[[Page 11565]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of the Secretary


National Commission on Indian Trust Administration and Reform

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of meeting; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Office of the Secretary published a document in the 
Federal Register of February 3, 2012, announcing the first meeting of 
the National Commission on Indian Trust Administration and Reform (the 
Commission). This notice corrects the times and address of the first 
meeting and extends the RSVP date to February 29, 2012.

DATES: Effective Date: The Commission's first meeting will occur from 9 
a.m.-5 p.m. on March 1, 2012, and 9 a.m.-5 p.m. on March 2, 2012. 
Attendance is open to the public, but limited space is available. 
Members of the public who wish to attend should RSVP by February 29, 
2012 to: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#86f2f4f3f5f2e5e9ebebeff5f5efe9e8c6efe9f5a8e2e9efa8e1e9f0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="196d6b6c6a6d7a767474706a6a7076775970766a377d7670377e766f">[email protected]</span></a>.

ADDRESSES: The first meeting will be held at National Park Service, 
1201 Eye Street, NW., Conference Room 202, Washington, DC 20005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Designated Federal Officer, Jodi 
Gillette, Deputy Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs, 1849 C Street, 
NW., Washington, DC 20240; telephone (202) 208-7163; or email to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ade7c2c9c483eac4c1c1c8d9d9c8edcfc4cc83cac2db"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e1ab8e8588cfa6888d8d84959584a1838880cf868e97">[email protected]</span></a>. Members of the public who wish to attend the 
meeting should RSVP by February 29, 2012, to: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#97e3e5e2e4e3f4f8fafafee4e4fef8f9d7fef8e4b9f3f8feb9f0f8e1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ff8b8d8a8c8b9c909292968c8c969091bf96908cd19b9096d1989089">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Corrections

    In the Federal Register of February 3, 2012, in FR Doc. 2012-2401, 
on page 5528, in the first column, correct the times listed in the 
DATES section with the following:
    The Commission's first meeting will occur from 9 a.m.-5 p.m. on 
March 1, 2012, and 9 a.m.-5 p.m. on March 2, 2012.
    In the same issue of the Federal Register, replace the address in 
the ADDRESSES section with the following: National Park Service, 1201 
Eye Street, NW., Conference Room 202, Washington, DC 20005.

    Dated: February 22, 2012.
David J. Hayes,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-4554 Filed 2-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-W7-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
AERO CONTRACTORS, LTD. • Johnston County Airport • P.O.Box1139 • Smithfield.N.C.27577 

(919) 934-0978 

934·0979 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Mr. Timothy Shaver 

Avionics Branch Manager, 

Avionics Branch AFS-360 

5th Floor, 950 L'Enfant Plaza, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20024 

Aero Contractors, Ltd. 

3463 Swift Creek Road 

Smithfield, NC 27577 

(919) 934-0978 

(919) 934-1161 fax 

January 17, 2012 

Aero Contractors, Ltd. is requesting a 24 month exemption from 14 CFR Part 125.225 and 125.226 to 

operate a Turbo DC-3 (N845S, SIN 25509) without a Digital Flight Data Recorder. 

Petition for Relief: 

Aero Contractors, Ltd. is requesting an exemption from 14 CFR Part 125.226 (b) (1) based upon there is 

no Supplemental Type Certificate for a Digital Flight Data Recorder installation that covers the 18 

parameters required in 14 CFR Part 125.226 (a) (1) through (a) (18). 

Currently there is no Flight Data Recorder parameter collection on the DC-3 aircraft based upon 

previous operations as a 14 CFR Part 91 aircraft. The requirements to operate 14 CFR Part 125.225 (a) 

has a requirement to collect 11 parameters, which is current operate with an exemption until January 31, 

2012. 

No reduction in operational functionality will be experienced during this period that the exemption will 

be in force for these aircraft. The aircraft will also have a fully equivalent level of safety to any other 

aircraft operating in FAR 125 in the country. Thus, this exemption will not adversely affect safety. 

Supportive Information: 

Aero Contractors, Ltd. has been working with a manufacturer who produces Data Image Recorder 

System installations. The Data Image Recorder system is being reviewed as an equivalent means of 

compliance for the Digital Flight Data Recorder. Once the installation of the Data Image Recorder 

Turbo DC-3 exemption 14 CFR Part 125.226 Page 1 
System is complete, and given the aircraft's current configuration, this aircraft will pose no detrimental 

effect on National Airspace System Safety. Aero Contractors, Ltd. is working with the Data Image 

Recorder System Manufacturer as a member of a beta group in providing installation and operational 

data from the device. 

Description of operation under the proposed exemption: 

Aero Contractors, Ltd. will operate the aircraft under the rules and regulation of 14 CFR 125 as a 

passenger and cargo airplane with a 24 month exemption for the Digital Flight Data Recorder. Aero 

Contractors, Ltd. will continue to work with the Data Image Recorder Manufacturer, FAA Avionics 

Branch AFS-360, and FAA Flight Standards District Office, EA-39 on the approval process for the 

device as an equivalent means of compliance until such time as FAA Avionics Branch AFS-360 

determines the Data Image Recorder acceptable. 

~~ Freddy Pearce (fpearce@aerocontractors.com) 

Director of Maintenance 

Turbo DC-3 exemption 14 CFR Part 125 Page2
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

 

In connection with the report of ToroVentures Inc. (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Yan Liu, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Sect 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Sect 1350), 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 result of operations of the Company. 

 

/s/ Yan Liu                                   

Yan Liu, 

Chief Executive Officer

Dated: February 9, 2007
NO. 07-10-00312-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A SEPTEMBER 15, 2010

RANDY LACKEY, APPELLANT

v. ROBERT MCCOOL, APPELLEE

FROM THE 287TH DISTRICT COURT OF BAILEY COUNTY; NO. 7764; HONORABLE GORDO N HOUSTON GREEN, JUDGE

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Randy Lackey, an inmate proceedi ng pro se, filed a notice of appeal in

cause number 7764 in the 287 th District Court of Bailey County, Texas. 1 By letter dated July 29, 2010, Lackey was notif ied that, among other things, a filing fee of $175 had not been paid, noting that failure to do so within ten days could result in dismissal pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3( c). No fee having been received within the deadline, by letter dated August 18, 2010, La ckey was again advised of the outstanding

1 The clerk’s record has not been received in this cause and Lackey’s notice of appeal simply indicates that Lackey seek s appeal “in Cause # 7764 to The District Court, Bailey County, Texas, 287 th Judicial District.”2 filing fee and the consequences of failing to pay . He was also specifically notified of and given the opportunity to, in li eu of paying the filing fee, file an affi davit of indigence on or before September 8, 2010. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 44.3; see also Higgins v. Randall County Sheriff's Office , 193 S.W.3d 898 (Tex. 2006) (holding that a court of appeals can dismiss an appeal for noncompli ance only after allowing a r easonable time to correct a defect). Despite two notices and a reasonable ti me in which to comply with this Court's request, Lackey has failed to respond. Consequently, this Court is authorized to dismiss this appeal.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Mackey K. Hancock Justice
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION





Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


(Subsections
(a) and (b) of Section 1350,


Chapter
63 of Title 18, United States Code)





Pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of Smart Balance, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
“Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:





The
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 (the “Form
10-Q”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and information contained in the
Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.




Date:
      August 5, 2010
            By:
            /s/ Stephen B. HughesStephen
      B. HughesChairman
      of the Board and Chief Executive Officer(Principal
      executive officer)
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  I, Paul J.B, Murphy, III,
as Chief Executive Officer of New World Restaurant Group, Inc. (the Company),
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1)the Annual Report of the
Company on Form 10-K for the year ended December 28, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (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.   March 11, 2005
  By: /s/ PAUL J. B. MURPHY, IIIPaul J. B. Murphy, IIIChief Executive OfficerPrincipal Executive Officer
#### Frank A. Scappaticci, Doing Business as Corporate Financing, Appellant, v Ursula Willet et al., Respondents.

—In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Shaughnessy, J.), entered August 14, 1989, which denied his motion for summary judgment.

Ordered, that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for the entry of an appropriate judgment of foreclosure.

The defendant Ursula Willet’s only defense to the present action to foreclose a mortgage consists of her claim that the plaintiff mortgagee conspired with her former attorney, Jack Solerwitz, to defraud her. The most that the evidence in the record establishes is that the plaintiff mortgagee made several *534loans to individuals who were clients of Mr. Solerwitz, and that some of these individuals improvidently gave the proceeds of these loans to Mr. Solerwitz in return for his promise to make the payments to the plaintiff. However, there is no evidentiary proof in admissible form to support the position of the defendant Ursula Willet that the plaintiff, who denied ever speaking to Mr. Solerwitz, made misrepresentations himself, or otherwise participated in a scheme to defraud. There is nothing in the record which indicates the existence of a triable issue of fact on the defense of fraud *(see, Bank for Sav. v Rellim Constr. Co.,*260 App Div 70, *affd*285 NY 708; *Barclays Bank v Sokol,*128 AD2d 492; 78 NY Jur 2d, Mortgages and Deeds of Trust, § 600, at 473). Also, the defendant Ursula Willet is not entitled to denial of the present motion with leave to renew after further discovery (CPLR 3212 [f]), since she has failed to show the existence of evidence to which such disclosure might lead *(see, e.g., American Prescription Plan v American Postal Workers Union,*170 AD2d 471) and since she failed to take reasonable steps to obtain disclosure earlier *(see, e.g., Monteleone v Incorporated Vil. of Floral Park,*123 AD2d 312). Kunzeman, J. P., Balletta, Miller and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-16-00434-CV

Alejandro Sanchez d/b/a Sanchez Construction, Appellant

v.

D. Bryand Consulting, LLC, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BASTROP COUNTY, 423RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 423-2757, HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER DARROW DUGGAN, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant’s brief was due on August 10, 2016. On August 16, 2016, this Court

notified appellant that his brief was overdue and that a failure to respond by August 26, 2016, would

result in the dismissal of this appeal for want of prosecution. To date, appellant has not filed a brief

or a motion for extension of time. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See

Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b).

__________________________________________

Cindy Olson Bourland, Justice

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Goodwin and Bourland

Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

Filed: September 2, 2016
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 23

                              Accountants' Consent



The Board of Directors
Central Parking Corporation

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
33-98118, 33-98120, 33-98122, 333-37909 and 333-74837) on Form S-8 and the
registration statement (No. 333-52497) on Form S-3 of our report dated December
8, 1999, except as to Note 8 which is as of December 28, 1999, relating to the
consolidated balance sheets as of September 30, 1998 and 1999, and the related
consolidated statements of earnings, shareholders' equity and comprehensive
income, and cash flows for each of the years in the three year period ended
September 30, 1999, which report is incorporated by reference into the September
30, 1999 Form 10-K of Central Parking Corporation.



KPMG LLP
Nashville, Tennessee
December 28, 1999