alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Filed 9/8/16 P. v. French CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JOSEPH ANDREW FRENCH,

 Defendant and Appellant.

2d Crim. No. B268190

(Super. Ct. No. SA080855)

(Ventura County)

Joseph Andrew French was on a grant of postrelease community 

supervision (PRCS) (Pen. Code, § 3450 et seq.) following his release from prison for 

driving under the influence causing injury. (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a).) He was 

subsequently arrested while in custody and charged with possession of methamphetamine 

by an inmate and with a prior strike. (Pen. Code ,§§ 4573.6, 667, subd. (b).) While 

represented by counsel and facing a maximum term of 12 years in state prison, he agreed 

to plead guilty to the charge and admit that he violated his grant of PRCS. As part of the 

“bargain,” he was advised that for the methamphetamine possession he would receive a 

grant of probation, including a term that he serve 365 days in jail, and that for the PRCS 

violation he would serve a consecutive 180 days in jail. It was also understood that to be 

eligible for such a disposition, the court would strike the prior serious felony conviction. 
2

It was with full knowledge of his rights and these consequences and with the consent of 

his counsel, that he entered his plea. At sentencing the court kept its promise. No 

objection was voiced by appellant or his counsel. Appellant now voices his displeasure 

with the “deal.” His unhappiness is with the consecutive term of 180 days in jail ordered 

for the PRCS violation.

We decline to further review the matter. (People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 

331, 351 [“In order to encourage prompt detection and correction of error, and to reduce 

the number of unnecessary appellate claims, reviewing courts have required parties to 

raise certain issues at the time of sentencing. In such cases, lack of a timely and 

meaningful objection forfeits or waives the claim”].) Not only was no objection raised to 

the court’s orders, these orders were sought by defendant and his counsel.

The judgment (order) is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

PERREN, J.

We concur:

YEGAN, J., Acting P. J.

TANGEMAN, J.
Patricia M. Murphy, Judge

Superior Court County of Ventura

______________________________

Stephen P. Lipson, Public Defender, and Michael C. McMahon, Chief 

Deputy Public Defender for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant 

Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Shawn M. 

Webb, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Paul S. Thies, Deputy Attorney 

General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                       5


<S>                                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                       3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                   DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                      JAN-1-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                        MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                              21,298
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       720,542
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    764,961
<PP&E>                                              221,799
<DEPRECIATION>                                      88,695
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      1,950,658
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               1,826,169
<BONDS>                                             0
<COMMON>                                            28,555
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         10,208
<OTHER-SE>                                          77,957
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        1,950,658
<SALES>                                             1,726,524
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    1,726,524
<CGS>                                               1,435,721
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       1,435,721
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    353,876
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  4,593
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (67,666)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 (67,666)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (67,666)
<EPS-BASIC>                                         (0.005)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (0.005)


</TABLE>
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

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of ARKONA, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the  quarterly  period ended  December 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Alan Rudd,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the  Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted  pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that to the best of 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.


/s/ Alan Rudd
----------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
February 14, 2005
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§906 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Form 10-Q of Security Bank Corporation (the Company) for the period ended
March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the Date hereof (the Report), H. Averett Walker, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and James R. McLemore, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge 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 operation of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                           
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 8, 2007                                                          
|                                                                           
|/s/ H. Averett Walker                                                      
|H. Averett Walker President and Chief Executive
Officer                    
|                                                                           
|Date: May 8, 2007                                                          
|                                                                           
|/s/ James R. McLemore, Jr.                                                 
|James R. McLemore, Jr. Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002 and shall not,
except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### Selby adm’r. *v*. Dixon et al.

From Hyde.

A was indebted to B and C, B obtained a judgment against A, and before execution issued, a negro, the'only property of A, was sold *by*a Constable under an execution, when C. purchased him for *$396,*whereof he paid the Constable $18, the amount of his execution, and by consent of A, retained the balance of his bid to satisfy the debt which A owed him as far as it was sufficient for that purpose. A Bill filed by B against A, C, and the Constable, was dismissed. B had no lien on the negro either in Law or Equity.

The Complainant, who was the administrator of one *Tooley,*stated, that as adm’r he had recovered a judgment against *Thomas Smith*and his wife *Jinn,*for 25300 at May Term, 1822, of Hyde County Court j that he issued an execution thereon, which was returned *“*nothing to be found that before the execution issued, the Defendant *Dixon,*who was a Constable, levied an execution on a negro man the property of *Smith,*to satisfy an execution of §8, and sold the negro at public sale, when the Defendant Havens, purchased her for g39G : *425that *Havens*paid the amount of the execution S8, a«íl no more, and gave *Dixon*a bond to indemnify him, in case he should sustain damage for not exacting of *Havens*the whole amount, of his bid ; that *Havens*took the negro into his possession, and still owed for him. §388, or thereabouts; that *Smith*and wife owned no other property, and that Complainant’s debt would be lost unless the negro, or the balance due from *Havens*could be made liable. The bill further stated, that *Dixon*was about to collect the balance from Havens. and pay it over to *Smith*and wife, and charged Dixon, *Smith*and *Havens*with a conspiracy to defraud Complainant.

The Answers stated in substance (and the proofs sustained the answers) that *Havens*purchased fairly at execution sale; that ho paid the amount of the execution which *Dixon*had, and that by agreement with *Smith,*who was largely indebted to him, he retained the residue of his bid above *Dixon’s*execution, in part satisfaction of his claims against *Smith.*

Upon the hearing below, Judge Norwood dismissed the Bill, whereupon Complainant appealed.

Haul, Judge. —

I concur in opinion with the Judge below that Ibis bill should be dismissed; .the Complainant has no lien on the negro or his value, which is in the possession of theDefendant *Havens,*either in Law or Equity. *Havens*became the purchaser when the negro was sold, for valuable consideration ; after paying off the debt for which he was sold, he retained the balance of the money bid for the negro in his own hands, for a debt which *Smith*owed him, and this was done by the consent of Smith, he might have purchased of *Smith, bona fide,*without the intervention of a public sale, because, at that time there was no lien on the slave in favor of the Complainant.

I think *Dixon*should be allowed his costs, and that the other Defendants jointly, should be allowed costs.

And of this opinion were the other Judges.

By the Court,

JpdgmeNt Affirmed.
<PAGE>   1

             ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT TO THE ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                          LUDLUM CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.

Pursuant to the provisions of the Florida Statues, on October 24, 1997 all of
the directors and shareholders of Ludlum Construction Co., Inc., a Florida
corporation (the "Corporation"), adopted the following resolutions by written
consent:

         RESOLVED:                  That the number of authorized shares of
                                    common stock of the Corporation should be
                                    increased to ten million (10,000,000), $0.01
                                    par value per share, one (1) of which is
                                    designated "Class A" and nine million, nine
                                    hundred ninety nine thousand nine hundred
                                    ninety nine (9,999,999) of which are
                                    designated "Class B".

         RESOLVED:                  That the Articles of Incorporation as filed
                                    with the Florida State Department should be
                                    amended to reflect the foregoing resolution.

         RESOLVED:                  That the President of the Corporation is
                                    authorized to take any and all action
                                    necessary in order to reflect the change in
                                    authorized capital of the Corporation.

NOW THEREFORE, in accordance with the foregoing resolutions, the first sentence
of Article III of the Corporation's Articles of Incorporation is deleted and the
following inserted in its place:

                           ARTICLE III. CAPITAL STOCK

                  The total number of shares of all classes of stock which the
                  corporation has the authority to issue is ten million
                  (10,000,000) shares of common Stock, $0.01 par value per
                  share, one (1) of which is designated "Class A" and nine
                  million, nine hundred ninety nine thousand nine hundred ninety
                  nine (9,999,999) of which are designated "Class B".

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the President of the Corporation has executed and submitted
this instrument this 24th day of October, 1997.


                                          /s/ Noah W. Ludlum Jr. (Pres)
                                          -------------------------------------
                                          Noah W. Ludlum Jr., President
#### Regling, by Guardian *ad litem,*Respondent, vs. Schultz and wife, Appellants.

*September 8*

October *6, 1953.*

*601For the appellants there was a brief and oral argument by *Jack J. Schumacher*of Shawano.

For the respondent there was a brief by *Lehner & Lehner*of Oconto Falls, and *Kaftan, Kaftan & Kaftan*of Green *602Bay, and oral argument by *J. Robert Kaftan*and *Arthur Kaftan.*

Brown, J.

Much of defendants’ argument on the appeal concerns the proceedings had in the first action which was dismissed without prejudice by Judge Duquaine. No appeal was taken from the order of dismissal nor any other order in that action. The record made then was introduced in evidence in the second action and now forms a part ,of the bill of exceptions in the appeal from Judge Goodland’s judgment, but its physical presence in this court does not give us jurisdiction to review Judge Duquaine’s orders in the absence of a timely appeal from them.

The appellants’ brief and appendix flagrantly disregard the requirements concerning their preparation, as expressed in ch. II of Rules of Practice in this court. The record is 859 pages long and appellants list 18 questions for our consideration *but they*have neglected to print the orders or abstract the proceedings to which they take exception. Statements of fact made in the brief do not refer to the page of the appendix where such matter may be found. Search of the appendix fails to disclose many of such alleged facts and it became necessary for respondent to prepare a voluminous supplemental appendix to repair appellants’ omissions.

The only appeal before us is that in the action commenced by the guardian *ad litem.*Appellants complain of the rulings of Judge Arps and Judge Goodland on numerous preliminary procedural points. We have examined the record in these respects and conclude that if any of the objections had technical merit, rulings adverse to appellants were not prejudicial. In the trial proper before Judge Goodland, appellants’ objections to the admission of medical testimony concerning Regling’s physical and mental condition were properly overruled, since respondent in person and by his guardian *ad litem*waived the privilege.

*603On the merits, as disclosed by the entire record, we think it would have been impossible for a conscientious trial judge to have found that the deed was not procured by the undue influence of appellants exercised upon a person peculiarly susceptible to be so influenced. A more detailed statement is considered unnecessary. The judgment is affirmed.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed. Because of appellants’ failure to observe- the rules of this court in the preparation of their brief and appendix, the clerk is instructed to tax $25 additional costs, in accordance with Rule 10. This failure required an unusually lengthy brief and supplemental appendix by respondent, who has applied pursuant to Rule 10, for the costs of printing his brief exceeding' 50 pages. Such costs are granted.
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 587

To provide for the mandatory suspension of Federal benefits to convicted

drug traffickers, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 11, 1999

Mr. ASHCROFT introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To provide for the mandatory suspension of Federal benefits

to convicted drug traffickers, and for other purposes.

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 ‘‘No Federal Benefits

5 for Drug Traffickers Act of 1999’’.

6 SEC. 2. SUSPENSION OF FEDERAL BENEFITS.

7 (a) MANDATORY SUSPENSION FOR DRUG TRAFFICK8 ERS.—Section 421 of the Controlled Substances Act (21

9 U.S.C. 862) is amended—

10 (1) in subsection (a)(1)—
2

•S 587 IS

1 (A) by striking ‘‘at the discretion of the

2 court,’’ each place that term appears;

3 (B) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ‘‘not

4 less than 1 year and, at the discretion of the

5 court,’’ before ‘‘up’’; and

6 (C) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ‘‘not

7 less than 3 years and, at the discretion of the

8 court,’’ before ‘‘up’’;

9 (2) in subsection (c), by striking ‘‘subsections

10 (a) and’’ and inserting ‘‘subsection’’; and

11 (3) in subsection (e), by striking ‘‘The penalties

12 provided’’ and inserting ‘‘With the exception of bene13 fits denied pursuant to subsection (a)(1)(C), the sus14 pension of benefits authorized’’.

15 (b) SUSPENSION FOR INDIVIDUALS CONVICTED OF

16 OTHER DRUG OFFENSES.—Section 421(b)(1)(B) of the

17 Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 862(b)(1)(B)) is

18 amended—

19 (1) by inserting ‘‘not less than 1 year and, at

20 the discretion of the court,’’ before ‘‘up’’; and

21 (2) by striking ‘‘the court.’’ and all that follows

22 before the period at the end of the subparagraph

23 and inserting ‘‘the court, and the court may impose
3

•S 587 IS

1 the requirements described in clauses (ii) and (iii) of

2 subparagraph (A)’’.

Æ
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                               CERTIFICATE OF THE
                           CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF
                             TOWER AUTOMOTIVE, INC.

     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350):

     I, Dugald K. Campbell, Chief Executive Officer of Tower Automotive, Inc.,
certify, to the best of my knowledge and belief, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) that:

     (1) The quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2002, which this statement accompanies, fully complies with
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and;

     (2) The information contained in this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2002, fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Tower Automotive,
Inc.



                                       TOWER AUTOMOTIVE, INC.


Date: November 13, 2002                By: /s/ Dugald K. Campbell
                                           -----------------------
                                             Dugald K. Campbell
                                       Its:  Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 207 (Friday, October 25, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 85212-85213]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-25018]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: Wednesday, October 30, 2024, 10:00 a.m.

PLACE: Hybrid Meeting: 1050 First Street NE, Washington, DC (12\th\ 
Floor) and Virtual.

    Note: If you would like to virtually access the meeting, see the 
instructions below.


STATUS: This meeting will be open to the public. To access the meeting 
virtually, go to the commission's website www.fec.gov and click on the 
banner to be taken to the meeting page.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 
REG 2024-06 (Request to Modify or Redact Contributor Info)--Draft 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Management and Administrative Matters

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Judith Ingram, Press Officer, 
Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
    Individuals who plan to attend in person and who require special 
assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable 
accommodations, should contact Laura E. Sinram, Secretary and Clerk, at 
(202) 694-1040 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e695838594839287949fa6808385c8818990"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f380969081968792818ab3959690dd949c85">[email protected]</span></a>, at least 72 hours prior to the 
meeting date.


[[Page 85213]]


(Authority: Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b)

Vicktoria J. Allen,
Deputy Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2024-25018 Filed 10-23-24; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6715-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 206 (Thursday, October 24, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 84947]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-24602]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: October 24, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
October 15, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 478 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-82, K2025-80.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-24602 Filed 10-23-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P