alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### * Thomas Melville *versus*Henry C. Brown.

l’he sheriff seized on execution, and sold, a chattel owned by the judgment debtor and another in common, and paid the whole proceeds over to the judgment creditor: it was holden that, although he might lawfully seize the whole, he should have sold but the share of the judgment debtor; and that the abuse of his authority made him a trespasser *ab initia,*and he was liable to the other part-owner of the chattel, in trover or trespass, at his election.

The case was thus: There were two tenants in common of a chattel, and the sheriff, upon an execution against one of them, seized the chattel and sold the whole of it, and paid over the whole money to the judgment creditor. The other part-owner of the chattel brought trespass against the sheriff; and it was holden that the action well lay.

It was objected that, as the sheriff was authorized to seize the whole on the execution, he could not be a trespasser; and that the plaintiff ought to have brought trover, or *assumpsit,*for the proceeds of the sale of his share. But it was answered, and resolved by the whole Court, that, although the sheriff might seize the whole, yet that he ought to have sold but the share of the judgment debtor ; the subsequent abuse of his authority made him a trespasser *ab initia;*and the other part-owner, in such a case, might maintain either trover or trespass, at his election, *(a)*

The *Solicitor-General*and *Shaw*for the plaintiff.

*W. Sullivan*for the defendant.

(a)

*Collyer on Part.*473. — *Gow. Part.*205, 3d ed. The creditor of any one partner may take in execution that partner’s interest in all the tangible property of the partnership, but. the levy under the execution transfers no part of the joint property; it merely gives a -ight to an account, each partner having an interest, not in the whole, but in the surplus merely. And after the accounts have been taken, the apparent interest may, in reality, dwindle-to nothing. Lord *Eldon*expressed his opinion to be, that, where the interer*- of a dormant partner is confined to the profits, but does not extend to the capital, his separate creditor cannot issue execution against the effects of the partnership even subject to an account. — *Ex Parte Harper,*17 *Ves.*404; and see *Lord*vs. *Baldwin,*6 *Pick.*348. — *Ex Parte Enderby,*2 *B. & Cr.*389. — *French*vs. *Chase,*6 *Greenl.*166.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Dakwon Matthews, Appellant.

[770 NYS2d 625]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William Leibovitz, J), rendered June 28, 2001, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of five years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence, and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility *(see People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). The victim’s credible testimony established that this incident was a robbery, and not merely an altercation as contended by defendant.

The People established a proper foundation under CPL 60.25 (1) (a) for the admission of testimony from police officers recounting the victim’s out-of-court identification of defendant *(see People v Bayron,*66 NY2d 77, 81 [1985]). The victim’s inability to make an in-court identification was clearly the result of the lapse of time between the incident and the trial, and defendant’s drastic change in his appearance *(see People v Mendoza,*293 AD2d 326 [2002], *lv denied*98 NY2d 678 [2002]).

The court’s response to a note from the deliberating jury was meaningful and appropriately conveyed the applicable legal principles *(see People v Almodovar,*62 NY2d 126, 131 [1984]; *People v Malloy,*55 NY2d 296, 301-302 [1982], *cert denied*459 US 847 [1982]). The jury’s note requested specific information and did not call for a complete reinstruction on the subject of accessorial liability. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Lerner, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF PERIODIC REPORT**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, the undersigned, Richard N. Snyder, Chief Executive Officer ofForgent Networks, Inc. (the “Company”), do hereby certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

 
|   | 1.     | The quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period  ended April 30, 2008 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of  section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as  amended, 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/ RICHARD N. SNYDER   |
|--------|-------------------------|
|   | Richard N. Snyder       |
|   | Chief Executive Officer |
|   | June 16, 2008      |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906has been provided to Forgent Networks, Inc. and will be retained byForgent Networks, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request. The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as aseparate disclosure document.

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS FILED AS
PART OF THE APACHE MEDICAL SYSTEMS INC. FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED
MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q
FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1999.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           6,450
<SECURITIES>                                       549
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,958
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,131
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,464
<PP&E>                                           3,592
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,843
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  12,244
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,826
<BONDS>                                             69
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            73
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,206
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    12,244
<SALES>                                          3,309
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,309
<CGS>                                              261
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      261
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,677
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  84
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    456
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                456
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       456
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    $0.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $0.06
        

</TABLE>
#### Alexander C. BAKER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clair MARLO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-56893

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*382Submitted September 26, 2017 *

FILED OCTOBER 5, 2017

Alexander C. Baker, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.

Michael Anthony Dinardo, Kelly, Lowry & Kelley, LLP, Woodland Hills, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Clair Mario appeals from the district court’s judgment in a copyright action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. *New-Gen, LLC v. Safe Cig, LLC,*840 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2016) (grant of motion to enter default judgment); *Brandt v. Am. Bankers Ins. Co. of Fla.,*663 F.3d 1108, 1110 (9th Cir. 2011) (denial of motion to set aside entry of default and denial of motion to set aside default judgment). We affirm for the reasons stated in the district court’s orders entered on August 8, 2016, September 23, 2016, and December 1, 2016.

Appellee’s motion to take judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 10) is denied as unnecessary.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Donald P. BALDAUF v. Julia Helen BALDAUF

2160113

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

June 9, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Allen Lee DAVIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3239

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed February 16, 2018

Allen L. Davis, Lowell, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Allen Davis appeals the summary denial of his amended motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. In his first claim, Davis alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to file a motion to suppress certain incriminating statements that Davis had made to a detective. In summarily denying the claim, the trial court relied on the detective's trial testimony to determine that a motion to suppress would have been fruitless. However, the record does not conclusively refute Davis' claim that his statements were made during a custodial interrogation, during which he was not advised of his *Miranda*1 rights. Accordingly, on remand, the trial court must either attach records conclusively refuting this claim or hold an evidentiary hearing. We affirm, without discussion, the summary denial of the remainder of Davis' claims.

AFFIRMED, in part; REVERSED, in part; and REMANDED.

PALMER, EVANDER and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.

1

*Miranda v. Arizona* , 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).
Troy MANN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-5051

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 6, 2018 Rehearing Denied April 11, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
FOREST MERE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellant/petitioner(s), v. JORDAN BP, LLC, Appellee/respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3595

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

October 19, 2017

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

The appellant's notice of voluntary dismissal "without prejudice to an appeal of the Order following final judgment" is treated as an unconditional notice of voluntary dismissal, as a party may appeal an adverse final judgment without such a reservation. The notice of voluntary dismissal is accepted, and this appeal is dismissed. The appellee's motion to dismiss is denied as moot. The appellee's notice of withdrawal of motion for attorney's fees is accepted. The appellee's motion for appellate attorney's fees is withdrawn.
Michael SACCOCCIO, Jr., Appellant, v. USROF IV LEGAL TITLE TRUST 2015-1, BY U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, As Legal Title Trustee, Appellee.

No. 4D17-1864

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[June 21, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
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  Annual  Report  of  Compuprint,   Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending  December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
David R. Allison, 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;

         (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.

         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.


/s/ David R. Allison
-------------------------
Chief Executive Officer

April 14, 2004

{00067594.1 / 0746-007}


                                       20
<PAGE>
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.1a


Amendment to
Outstanding Awards under the 
Kinsale Capital Group Inc. 2016 Omnibus Incentive Plan


This amendment (the “Amendment”), dated as of December 31, 2018, hereby amends the Kinsale Capital Group Inc. 2016 Omnibus Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) and each restricted stock award agreement and stock option award agreement evidencing a currently outstanding restrict stock award or stock option award (each, an “Award”) under the Plan as follows:


		
	1.
	Section 2(r) of the Plan is hereby deleted and replaced with the following:




“‘Disability’ means, with respect to any Participant, that such Participant as determined by the Administrator in its sole discretion, is unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than twelve (12) months.”


		
	2.
	Section 3.2 of each outstanding restricted stock award agreement is hereby deleted and replaced with the following:




“If the Grantee’s Continuous Status as an Employee, Director or Consultant terminates for any reason other than due to death or Disability prior to an applicable Vesting Date, as of the Termination Date, the Grantee shall forfeit any unvested Restricted Shares.  If the Grantee’s Continuous Status as an Employee, Director or Consultant terminates due to death or Disability prior to an applicable Vesting Date, all then-unvested Time-Vested Stock shall fully vest as of the Termination Date and all then-unvested Performance-Vested Stock shall vest as of the Termination Date based on actual level of achievement as of the Termination Date.”


		
	3.
	Sections 2.2.4.1 and 2.2.4.2 of each outstanding stock option agreement is hereby deleted and replaced with the following:




“2.2.4.1.    the portion of the Option that is unvested as of the Termination Date shall become fully vested and exercisable as of the Termination Date; and”


2.2.4.2.    the portion of this Option that is vested and exercisable as of the Termination Date (including any portion of the Option which vests pursuant to Section 2.2.4.1 above) shall terminate and be cancelled on the earlier of (a) the expiration of the Term and (b) the date that is six (6) months after such of the Termination Date.”


		
	4.
	Except as expressly amended by this Amendment, all terms and conditions of the Plan and the outstanding Awards thereunder shall remain in full force and effect.




		
	5.
	This Amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware, without reference to principles of conflict of laws.
Jason Dale LUND v. STATE

CR-14-1589

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 21, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Tyrone KNIGHT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D16-5822

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 17, 2018

Tyrone Knight, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Robert Charles Lee, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Lewis, Roberts, and Jay, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 99.1

                    STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
             CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350

         In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the period
ended  June 30,  2002  (the  "Form  10-Q")  of  Grayson  Bankshares,  Inc.  (the
"Company"),  we, Jacky K. Anderson,  Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and
Blake M.  Edwards,  Chief  Financial  Officer  of the  Company,  hereby  certify
pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  as adopted  pursuant  to Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to our knowledge:

         (a)      the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements  of Section
13(a) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

         (b)      the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in
all material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of
the Company as of and for the periods presented in the Form 10-Q.



         By:      /s/ Jacky K. Anderson            Date:    August 14, 2002
            ----------------------------------          ------------------------
                  Jacky K. Anderson
                  Chief Executive Officer



         By:      /s/ Blake M. Edwards             Date:    August 14, 2002
            ----------------------------------          ------------------------
                  Blake M. Edwards
                  Chief Financial Officer
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk April 1, 2013

d0325 

# Order

April 1, 2013

146372

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 146372

COA: 305542

Washtenaw CC: 09

- 001585

- FC

JEROME POWELL, JR.,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 25, 2012

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Lorna E. Nagler, ChiefExecutive Officer of Christopher & Banks Corporation (the “Company”)certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.  The quarterly report of the Company on Form 10-Qfor the period ended November 28, 2009 as filed with the United StatesSecurities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended;  and

 

2.  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date: January 7,  2010 |     |                                                   |
|-----------------------------|----------|--------------------------------------------------------|
|                        |     |                                                   |
|                        | By:      | /s/ Lorna E. Nagler                                    |
|                        | * * | Lorna E. Nagler*President and Chief Executive Officer* |

 

----
Exhibit 99.1
                                                                    ------------

                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  annual  report  on  Form  10-K  of  Switchboard
Incorporated  (the  "Company")  for the period ended  December 31, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
the undersigned,  Douglas J. Greenlaw,  Chief Executive  Officer of the Company,
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.


Dated:  March 28, 2003                      /s/Douglas J. Greenlaw
                                            ----------------------
                                            Douglas J. Greenlaw
                                            Chief Executive Officer
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT EDGAR REYNEL PAZ, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-3901 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed April 4, 2018. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Manatee County; Susan B. Maulucci, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See § 775.082(3)(a)(3), Fla. Stat. (2000); Moore v. State, 882 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 2004); Robinson v. State, 37 So. 3d 921 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); Bizzell v. State, 912 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Carpenter v. State, 884 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Lane v. State, 981 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); Williams v. State, 907 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).

MORRIS, SLEET, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.