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



Exhibit 31.1 Certification of the Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to
Securities Exchange Act Rules 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a)
As Adopted Pursuant to
Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 I, John Adam Kanas, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of North Fork
Bancorporation, 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; andc)
    
    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; andb)
    
    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: May 10, 2004 By:
    /s/ John Adam KanasJohn Adam KanasPresident and
Chief Executive Officer
I 

I 

REF. ID:A66202 \ 

• e ·~ 

, . 

DlVXSltll '' : i.· • '" .O·. 5-Slt- ·. 

'Elmirlm'1 Delep.t:lan ot au:t~on:t; t.o Chier, n,tser, om, to act .. Cbie:t, 

IBA ~ tor Cclll81iltara.ta. . . 

i. !he c:id.er, D&tSor, o::&. "111 8PJ0111.te4 Ob1e:t, IBARO, vitla autlmr.l:tJ' 

to per:tam hi• m1••1or1 u OU'tl. m SeotioA n, llD4 41actaarp hi• n.-

JGllll:f.bU1t1ea aa outlined. 1D Seqtion If or JISl BeauJ,atian" 10-30, tub.1eet1 

Jlat1ollal Seeuri.V #,mlq Jtes1ati7 _. Cmulul.'tauta, 11bicb ._. .tozwraea to 

tbe .AC :tor ~1cat:lm 2' ."Ame 195'1-. !'be Re111Ja'Ucm -. pNpl"4 at 1ilut 

41ntrt:lclll o:t C/B amt baa 'the ~ or· tbe S/ASl!ll!S ar&4 apn.1i1D& 

ott:la:lala. 

. a. ~- atan4!ng operating proce4urell are to be 4enlo»e4 

'b7 all 1ep-nt8 at PIBS ~ernecl W11ih tba operatioa or IBAIO. !be SCIP'e 

V111 Ccmtl' internal. ogera:t:laas aa4 mlat1oub1pa Vitb otller ....,.ta -.:ll .. die• BBABAB. tXllP. zm. · sxmo. cxvw. (a.. m Rea· 10-28, 11 1111.rcb 19,..., b: ~~ OD .. prepL'l'&t1on Gr SOP' a.) 

3. AwJ · u~ paoelUN• 1'r tbe ~ or acmaultanta lllMl 

apirt;a an now~ 111 Section 1 or EA ORI ~ .A2. 9ae.\t &N 

under :rev1ev 'b,f ._., OPJIS, 11114 vil1 be • antea vbere aeaes-.i;r to 81.UJ.PJ.e- · 

mnt, or zamn acmt.L1at with, llSA -.•laUcm 10 .. 30. · 

I f; \j •«I; \l t , I 

Obie:t, .PJIRS - 1 

Aast. Cid.et', JDS - 1 

. om - i. 

DetSer - 3 

1lana .. 2 

CivPen .. 4 

Manclaas - 5 .... - 5 

c1 -ti> c"+" . . 

E\pproved for Release by NSA on 03-26-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a .. ~·:. ·-!.!,. 

... ~.,,;,
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, November 17, 2016.

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.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, November 17, 2016

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A17I0066. JAMES MICHAEL RINEY et al. v. FRANK SARGENT.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of 

this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record 

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

2015CV1249
99-421.

#### Hillyer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

Cuyahoga App. No. 75073. Reported at 85 Ohio St.3d 1498, 710 N.E.2d 717. On motion for reconsideration. Motion granted and discretionary appeal allowed; *sua sponte,*cause held for the decision in 98-1607, *Hillyer v. State Farm Ins. Co.,*Lake App. No. 97-L-031; briefing schedule stayed.

Moyer, C.J., Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., dissent.
# C_2014129EN.01000101.xml

| 28.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/1

---

(2014/C 129/01)

Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

OJ C 112, 14.4.2014

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 102, 7.4.2014

OJ C 93, 29.3.2014

OJ C 85, 22.3.2014

OJ C 78, 15.3.2014

OJ C 71, 8.3.2014

OJ C 61, 1.3.2014

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of --

Hensel Phelps Construction Co. 

Under Contract No. N40080-11-C-O 154 

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 60571 

Todd R. Metz, Esq. 

Brian R. Dugdale, Esq. 

Varela, Lee, Metz & Guarino, LLP 

Tysons Corner, VA 

Ronald J. Borro, Esq. 

Navy Chief Trial Attorney 

Ellen M. Evans, Esq. 

Senior Trial Attorney 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Appellant's unopposed motion to withdraw the appeal without prejudice, filed prior 

to the government filing an answer, is granted. 

Dated: 17 November 2016 

-

~($£- MARK N. STEMPLE 

Administrative Judge 

Acting Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 60571, Appeal of Hensel Phelps 

Construction Co., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
I REF ID:A60814 ...._ \ 

11\JU"-

~ 

\Nit,, 

-f.-o '-"G""\I~ 

<iv,~a; 

OGA 0CCP SE:RE1 

Declassified and approved for release bv NSA on 06-18-2014 pursuant to E.O. 13529
**Exhibit 32.2**
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO****18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,****AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**
     In connection with the Annual Report of BrantleyCapital Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Tab A. Keplinger, Chief FinancialOfficer of Brantley Capital Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to thebest of my knowledge:
     (1) The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and
     (2) The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ TAB A. KEPLINGER      Tab A. Keplinger     Chief Financial Officer    March 30, 2004
55
:!-:!' ~ • Address only DEPARTMENT OF COM~~ SERIAL NUMBER 

el.~~· ~~~1:1JgM~.r~:~rs REE P:l~zur. 9 5 4 9 0 8 6 ~1: g" • _. SERIES OF 1935 C 

~wx APPLICANT --~~t~~~o~' ~L~ 1'A F l'lJG,rn~1;.J9!:' ~ :.§ C INVFNTION ---~-~~9-IB_I C AU $Y ST EM t~~M~~T:n 

~BH ACT OF PPR ~ 1928 ___ :-16 

·;!·1 WI LL I Ni D HALL f~~:;: c/o CH I EF SIGNAL OFFICER 

; ;·;i::: PENTAGON BLOO 

Jl="' j WASHINGTON 0 C ;; ., ' 

' T~e petition, specification, oa•h "l-Jrawing, and U.al kc of TlllRTI DOt!b'cM of your i. 

application for PATENT above iden~ed received_ 

II Respectfully, i · CONWAY P. COE 

For:moaoa 11..,..._r_o_v-ed..,..,.fo~r~R~e~le~a~se-'""'b~.,,..,..---=,...,,..,,.L,i:li!ll,lll,l.s.sil.:wa;.gL.~~i,,.....,..,,.,,.,,,...
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 23

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

Ortec International, Inc.
New York, New York

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-80799) of Ortec International, Inc. of our report
dated March 23, 2005, relating to the consolidated financial statements, which
appear in this Form 10-KSB. Our report contains an explanatory paragraph
regarding the Company's ability to continue as a going concern.

/s/ BDO Seidman, LLP

New York, New York
March 30, 2005
.. - ~ ~= . ~~-

., /~ _._)¥/j - ~ ~ X' \' ~ ~ "1 /(' • TOI' SEel!E'.f 

~ :t ;YV From: sa.ntiago · { am:LE) _\J_r J\\N" )\/. ·- .- To: Buenos Aires (HI1WGUl'J) 

J' ~ 4 Decembe~ 1Q41 rf'-~ 1 JAS . . 

J}t1" \,)" 474 Parts l and 2 Complete 

REF ID:A487808 / 

• 

:~ ~ To the Gene~s.1 Affairs [ Section) • 

\3 \ Tokyo and Argentina. wires open code supplement: 

Army~ (Y&'\W.GATA); 

Navy, (TOGO); 

Air Army, (TOKUGAWA); 

---

The es·ta.blishment of military bases,. (K.IUJP..SAI\:I); 

~ --lG--1 a,, (MIZUMOTO). 

Chile seve1?ing relations soon (YOSHIXO i·s. in poo:l? 

health); Chile about to entez• the var, {YOSHIKO has been 

taken 111); Chile is maintaining an a:ttitude of neu"!;:r•a.lity 

for the time being, (YOSHIKO is well) 

Propaganda expenses, (hm1.1a.n rights)bo 

e, - Imperfect text permits nmili ta.1•1 e,ffa.:irs u, 11propaga.nd~a Iii~ 

'

1

entZ'y into wa.1"1n, or "diplome,cy" o 

. " ii b - ZINKErJ., pos.sibl:,y ra.Jj'on • 

Intec ? (53) 

Rec 0d ? 

Trana 29 MB.!' 45 (14380-q) 

Japanese 

:?OP BH0!lE'!' 

eclassified and approved for release by NSA 

n 11-12-2013 ursuantto E.O. 13526
Document

EXHIBIT A
FORM OF SHAREHOLDER SUPPORT AGREEMENT
The undersigned shareholder of First Trust Corporation (“FTC”), in consideration of the benefits to be derived by FTC, its shareholders and the undersigned shareholder pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Share Exchange and Merger dated ______________, 2021 (the “Agreement”) by and between FTC, BancPlus Corporation (“Corporation”), First Bank & Trust (“FBT”), and BankPlus (“BankPlus”) (the defined terms in which are used herein as defined therein) and the expenses to be incurred by Corporation and BankPlus in connection therewith, hereby agrees with Corporation as follows:
1.    Such shareholder, acting solely in such shareholder’s capacity as such, agrees and undertakes to vote or cause to be voted all shares of FTC Common Stock as to which such shareholder has voting power at any meeting or meetings (including any and all adjournments thereof) before which the Agreement or any similar agreement may come for consideration by FTC shareholders, in favor of the approval of the Agreement and the Share Exchange and against any similar agreement, unless (i) Corporation or BankPlus is then in breach or default in any material respect with respect to any covenant, representation or warranty as to them contained in the Agreement to an extent that would permit FTC and FBT to terminate the Agreement pursuant to Section 8.1(d) of the Agreement or (ii) the Board of Directors of FTC determines in accordance with Sections 6.3 and 6.10 of this Agreement to announce a FTC Adverse Recommendation Change. Such shareholder further agrees not to transfer any of the shares of FTC Common Stock over which such shareholder has dispositive power or grant any proxy thereto (except any such proxy approved by Corporation) until the earlier of the Effective Time or the date that the Agreement has been terminated pursuant to its provisions, except (i) for transfers by operation of law, and (ii) for transfers in connection with which the transferee shall agree in writing with Corporation to be bound by this Shareholder Support Agreement as fully as the undersigned. In the case of any transfer by operation of law, the provisions of this Shareholder Support Agreement are intended to be binding upon and to inure to the benefit of such transferee, and such transferee shall be bound thereby.
2.    The provisions of this Shareholder Support Agreement shall be enforceable through an action by Corporation for damages at law or a suit for specific performance or other appropriate extraordinary relief, the signatory shareholder acknowledging that remedies at law for breach or default under this Shareholder Support Agreement are inadequate.
All provisions hereof shall survive the Effective Time of the Share Exchange.
This Shareholder Support Agreement is executed by the undersigned on September __, 2021.
Signature of Shareholder


    
{JX489484.11}
PD.35183901.7
# CA2014137EN.01000301.xml

| 7.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 137/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 137/3

---

REVIEW OF COMPETITION C A OFFICIAL JOURNALS

2014/C 137 A/02

Please find below the list of C A Official Journals published during the present year.

Unless otherwise indicated, the Official Journals are published in all language versions.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 6 | |
| 11 | |
| 19 | |
| 21 | |
| 26 | |
| 27 | |
| 30 | (PL) |
| 35 | |
| 41 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 42 | |
| 43 | |
| 46 | |
| 47 | |
| 48 | |
| 55 | |
| 56 | |
| 60 | |
| 62 | |
| 65 | |
| 73 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 74 | |
| 81 | |
| 88 | |
| 92 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 97 | |
| 98 | |
| 99 | |
| 108 | |
| 109 | |
| 116 | |
| 119 | |
| 133 | |
| 134 | |
| 136 | |
| 137 | (DE/EN/FR) |

5

6

11

19

21

26

27

30

(PL)

35

41

(DE/EN/FR)

42

43

46

47

48

55

56

60

62

65

73

(DE/EN/FR)

74

81

88

92

(DE/EN/FR)

97

98

99

108

109

116

119

133

134

136

137

(DE/EN/FR)

---
1 

### In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________ NO. 09

- 14

- 00 456

- CV

________________ IN THE INTEREST OF V.L.L., J.L.L., AND J.J.L.

__________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 253rd District Court Liberty County, Texas Trial Cause No. C V1206391

__________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION

D.J.L. appeals from an order terminating his parental rights to his minor children,

V.L.L., J.L.L., and J.J.L. The trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence , that

statutory grounds exist for termination of D.J.L.’s parental rights and that termination o f

D.J.L.’s parental rights would be in the best interest of the children. See Te x. Fam. Code

Ann. § 161.001(1)(D )
, (E)
, (O ) (West 2014).

D.J.L.’s court

- appointed appellate counsel submitted a brief in which counsel

contends there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. See Anders v.

California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In re L. D. T. , 161 S.W.3d 728, 731 (Tex. App.

— Beaumont 2005, no pet.). The brief provides counsel’s professional evaluation of the2 record. Counsel certifi ed that D.J.L. was served with a copy of the Anders brief filed on

his behalf. This C ourt notified D.J.L. of his right to file a pro se response, as well as the

deadline for doing so. This Court did not receive a pro se response

. We have independently re viewed the appellate record and counsel’s brief, and we

agree that any appeal would be frivolous. We find no arguable error requiring us to order

appointment of new counsel to re

- brief this appeal. Compare Stafford v. State , 813

S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s order terminating

D.J.L.’s parental rights, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. 1

AFFIRMED.



### ______________________________ STEVE McKEITHEN Chief Justice

Submitted on January 13, 2015 Opinion Delivered February 19, 2015

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton , JJ.

1 

### With respect to withdrawing from the case, counsel shall inform D.J.L. of the outcome of this appeal and inform him that he has the right to file a petition for review with the Texas Supreme Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 53; In the Interest of K.D. , 127 S.W.3d 66, 68 n.3 (T ex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.).
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1068 

TP 16-00196 

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, DEJOSEPH, NEMOYER, AND TROUTMAN, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF LUIS ROSALES, PETITIONER, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DONALD E. VENETOZZI, DIRECTOR, SPECIAL HOUSING 

UNIT, DISP. PROGRAM, AND NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT 

OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, 

RESPONDENTS. 

 

LUIS ROSALES, PETITIONER PRO SE.

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (MARTIN A. HOTVET OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENTS. 

 

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial

Department by order of the Supreme Court, Erie County [Russell P.

Buscaglia, A.J.], entered February 2, 2016) to review a determination

of respondents. The determination placed petitioner in administrative

segregation. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously

confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed. 

Memorandum: In this CPLR article 78 proceeding transferred to

this Court pursuant to CPLR 7804 (g), petitioner challenges the

determination placing him in administrative segregation (see 7 NYCRR 

301.4). Petitioner contends that the administrative segregation

recommendation was vague and deprived him of the opportunity to

present his views at the hearing. We reject that contention. “A

petitioner’s due process rights with respect to matters of involuntary

administrative segregation are ‘satisfied by notice to petitioner and

an opportunity to present his [or her] views’ ” (Matter of Gutierrez v

Fischer, 107 AD3d 1463, 1463, lv denied 22 NY3d 855, rearg denied 23

NY3d 938; see Matter of Blake v Coughlin, 189 AD2d 1016, 1017; see

also Matter of Abdus-Samad v Annucci, 141 AD3d 1101, 1101; Matter of

Roe v Selsky, 250 AD2d 935, 936). Here, we conclude that the

administrative segregation recommendation could not have included

greater detail without compromising confidential information and the

person from whom that information was obtained (see Roe, 250 AD2d at

936). Moreover, the hearing record, including the documentary

evidence submitted by petitioner in connection therewith, supports the

fact that petitioner was generally aware of the basis of the

administrative segregation recommendation. Thus, given the particular
-2- 1068 

TP 16-00196 

circumstances presented in this case, we conclude that petitioner was

provided sufficient notice and an opportunity to present his views at

the hearing.

Contrary to petitioner’s further contention, the determination

placing him in administrative segregation is supported by substantial

evidence, including the confidential information considered by the

Hearing Officer (see Abdus-Samad, 141 AD3d at 1102; Matter of H’Shaka

v Fischer, 121 AD3d 1455, 1456, lv denied 24 NY3d 913).

Entered: November 18, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
-

! ·. ' 

'oc'' • ' I / 

. J r -.;- . 

8001, · - 27066v 

7381 ;;---'261~;· 7128 25849 

7178 - 25877V' 

7176 -268'6v' 

7184 - 26866.<" 

7111 2,_68171" 

714-9 - 2g&sa/ . 

7063 25773/ 

7089 26762 / 

ns•·= > ·. 26801/ 

7069 25730'/ 

7105 257311/ 

6944 

S89l 

6896 

8841 

6636 

25660/ 

25659~B / 

25~6'."' 

25554-" 

25555/ 

25442 / 

25435__.......-

25436 y" 

25944':"" 

24878/ 

24656. 

2466~/ 

6017 23859"' 

5901 2363lV'°. . . 5854 23570 ......... 

5854 23516/ 

...-·-eaQa ~25445/ 

y 7145 25850/ 

Y-6710 2Q.l38"' 

• 

., 

p.. .• 

'"-~441~ ... · .. ·: 

;,;·r· .. ~~-~ .. ~ ...... ,-- . . . REF ID:A488544 

1'0P· S!HO!tml! • \'.~ p ·: • • 

NAVY TRAlJSLATION 

llavy lo. Anny lo-. 

., . 7086 25825¥" ; . 7042 26715..-' 

7098 26785/ 

7050 2572V 

7057 26726,,,... 

7065 26727/' . / 

7092 26783/ 

6991 26644 ... ·< 

6983 26606/ 

69,22 254g7/ 

6921 ' 25496~ 

6899 25446/ 

6850 25392 

6848 2539C>V"' 

6254 -24373.......-

6016 23860 ... 

5905 2367,3 \/'' 

,-·5975 25432V' 

..--7143 ?.5f>43 / 

~-. - ' 

.,._,'.l_" .. :.\..· ____ •. 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 11-06-2013 pursuant to E .0. 1352a
[Cite as State v. Myers, 2016-Ohio-7832.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO 

BUTLER COUNTY 

STATE OF OHIO, : 

 CASE NOS. CA2016-04-072 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, : CA2016-04-073 

 : D E C I S I O N 

 - vs - 11/21/2016 

 : 

CHRISTOPHER T. MYERS, : 

 Defendant-Appellant. : 

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

Case No. CR2013-06-0896 

Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Lina N. Alkamhawi, Government 

Services Center, 315 High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for plaintiff-appellee 

John T. Willard, P.O. Box 35, Hamilton, Ohio 45012, for defendant-appellant 

 Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} This cause came on to be considered upon a notice of appeal, the transcript of 

the docket and journal entries, the transcript of proceedings and original papers from the 

Butler County Court of Common Pleas, and upon a brief filed by appellant's counsel. 

{¶ 2} Counsel for appellant, Christopher T. Myers, has filed a brief with this court 

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), which (1) indicates that 

a careful review of the record from the proceedings below fails to disclose any errors by the 
Butler CA2016-04-072 

 CA2016-04-073 

- 2 - 

trial court prejudicial to the rights of appellant upon which an assignment of error may be 

predicated; (2) lists one potential error "that might arguably support the appeal," Anders at 

744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; (3) requests that this court review the record independently to 

determine whether the proceedings are free from prejudicial error and without infringement of 

appellant's constitutional rights; (4) requests permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant 

on the basis that the appeal is wholly frivolous; and (5) certifies that a copy of both the brief 

and motion to withdraw have been served upon appellant. 

{¶ 3} Having allowed appellant sufficient time to respond, and no response having 

been received we have accordingly examined the record and find no error prejudicial to 

appellant's rights in the proceedings in the trial court. The motion of counsel for appellant 

requesting to withdraw as counsel is granted, and this appeal is dismissed for the reason that 

it is wholly frivolous. 

 M. POWELL, P.J., HENDRICKSON and PIPER, JJ., concur.