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

#### State *v.*John Marcum

Submitted October 30, 1923.

Decided November 6, 1923.

Criminal *Law*— Prejudiced *Party Must Move for New Trial, and Except to Refusal, to Avail in Appellate Court.*

To avail himself, in the appellate court, of errors made in the progress of a trial, the party prejudiced thereby must move for a new trial and except to the action of the court in. refusing it.

Error to Circuit Court, Wayne County.

John Marcum was convicted of unlawfully manufacturing, selling, and transporting intoxicating liquors, and he brings error.

*Writ dismissed.*

*W. T. Lovins,*for plaintiff in error. ‘

*E. T. England,*Attorney General, *R. A. Blessing,*Assistant Attorney General, and W. *G. Brown, Prohibition Commissioner,*for the State.

Litz, Judge:

The defendant obtained this writ of error to judgment of the circuit court of Wayne county rendered May 8th, 1922, upon the jury’s verdict of guilty under a warrant charging him with unlawfully manufacturing, selling, offering, exposing, keeping and storing for sale or barter, and of transporting from Kentucky into this State, intoxicating liquors; by *680which judgment defendant was fined $300.00 and sentenced to jail and at hard labor on the public roads of that county for ninety days.

The defendant, in his petition for writ of error and super-sedeas, assigns several grounds of error but has presented no argument to support them.

Upon inspection of the record we find that the case is not properly before this Court. It does not appear that the defendant either moved to set aside the verdict, or excepted to the action of the court entering judgment thereon. The writ of error, therefore, will have to be dismissed as improvidently awarded, no errors worthy of consideration being assigned except those committed in the progress of the trial. *Holt*v. *Otis Elevator Company,*78 W. Va. 785; 90 S. E. 333.

*Writ of error dismissed.*
Order filed March 26, 2019

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 19

- 00146

- CV

____________ IN THE ESTATE OF EST ANISLADA RODRIGUEZ, DECEASED

On Appeal from County Court at Law No

. 3

Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 12

- CPR

- 025070



### O R D E R
The notice of appeal in this case was filed February 19, 2019. To date, the filing fee of $20 5.00 has not been paid. No evidence that appellant is excused by statute or the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure from paying costs has been filed.
See Tex. R. App. P

. 5

. Therefore, the court issues the following order.
Appellant Terry Garcia is ordered to pay th e filing fee of $20 5.00 to the c lerk of this court on or before April 5, 2019. See Tex. R. App. P. 5. If appellant fails to timely pay the filing fee, the appeal will be dismissed.

PER CURIAM
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

Anna Ruiloba

,

Appellant

,

v.

The State of Texas,

State. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 7

- 00 12 3

- C R

Appeal from the

171 st District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20140D02097 )

O R D E R

The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure require the trial court to enter a certification of

the defendant ’ s right of appeal in every case in which it enters a judgment of guilt or other

appealable order. T EX

. R. A PP . P. 25.2(a)(2). The certification must include a notice that the

defendant has been informed of his rights concerning an appeal, as well as an y right to file a pro

se petition for discretionary review. T EX

. R. A PP . P. 25.2(d). The certification must be signed

by the defendant and a copy must be given to him. T EX

. R. A PP . P. 25.2(d).

The clerk ’ s record in this cause contains the trial cour t ’ s certification pursuant to

T EX .R.A PP .P. 25.2(a)(2), but the certification is defective because it has not been sig ned by the

trial court judge . Accordingly, we direct the trial court to remedy the defect in the certification

by preparing and filing a Trial Court ’ s Certification of Defendant ’ s Right of Appeal which

includes the defendant ’ s, counsel ’ s, and judge ’ s signatures. T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 25.2(d). All of the

provisions of 25.2(d) should be complied with including the requirement that the defendant b e

informed of his rights concerning an appeal, as well as any right to file a pro se petition for

discretionary review.

The trial court is further ordered to forward the certification to the District Clerk of El

Paso County, Texas and the same shall be included in a Supplemental Clerk ’ s Record and filed

with this Court on or before November 26, 2017

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 27 th day of October , 201 7

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure , C.J., R odriguez and Palafox , JJ.
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 Optigenex Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Anthony
Bonelli, 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 results of operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Optigenex Inc. and will be retained by Optigenex Inc. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


                       /s/ ANTHONY BONELLI
                       -----------------------
                       Anthony Bonelli
                       Chief Executive Officer
                       February 10, 2006
In the MATTER OF: M.C.M.

No. COA18-1197

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: September 3, 2019

AFFIRMED.
**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. § 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

**PART      XIII. **
**The      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and**

**PART      XIV. **
**The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,      the financial condition and result of operations of the      Company.**

|                                    |                                          |                                      |
|-----------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|
|                                    |                                          |
|                               |                                     |                                 |
| Date: June                21, 2006 | By:                                 | /s/ David              C. Levy  |
|                                    | Name:                David C. Levy            |
|                                    | Title:                Chief Executive Officer |

|                                    |                                                                                      |                                              |
|-----------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------|
|                                    |                                                                                      |
|                               |                                                                                 |                                         |
| Date: June                21, 2006 | By:                                                                             | /s/ John              W.              Poling |
|                                    | Name:                John W. Poling                                                       |
|                                    | Title:                Executive Vice President and Chief Financial                Officer |

----
Brian Antonio SMITH, Appellant v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee

No. CR-17-595

Court of Appeals of Arkansas, DIVISION IV.

Opinion Delivered: April 18, 2018

Dusti Standridge, for appellant.

Leslie Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Michael A. Hylden, Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee.

RITA W. GRUBER, Chief Judge

Appellant Brian Smith entered a negotiated plea of guilty to the offenses of robbery and failure to appear on April 17, 2017. The Faulkner County Circuit Court entered a sentencing order that same day (1) reflecting that appellant had entered a plea of guilty to robbery, a class B felony, and failure to appear, a class C felony, and (2) imposing sentences of 360 months' imprisonment and 240 months' imprisonment, respectively. On appeal, he argues that his sentence of 240 months' imprisonment for failure to appear is illegal because his attorney's questioning of him at the sentencing hearing referenced failure to appear as a class D felony rather than a class C felony. We dismiss the appeal.

Generally, a defendant has no right to appeal from a guilty plea. *Seibs v. State* , 357 Ark. 331, 334, 166 S.W.3d 16, 17 (2004). Exceptions to this rule include (1) conditional guilty pleas, (2) when the issue on appeal is one of evidentiary errors that happened during the sentencing phase of *555the trial, or (3) the denial of a postjudgment motion to amend an incorrect or illegal sentence. *Cummins v. State* , 2013 Ark. App. 657, at 2, 2013 WL 5964606 ; *see also**Green v. State* , 2017 Ark. 361, 533 S.W.3d 81 (reversing and remanding appeal from guilty plea after denial of postjudgment motion under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-90-111(a) (Repl. 2016) ). None of the exceptions apply in this case; accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.1

Dismissed.

Abramson and Gladwin, JJ., agree.

1

Although the State has failed to challenge the propriety of the appeal, this is an issue of jurisdiction that this court will raise sua sponte. *Wright v. State* , 2009 Ark. App. 428, 2009 WL 1478255.
**Exhibit 32.1****CERTIFICATE OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER****PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002****(18 U.S.C. 1350)**     The undersigned, Julian R. Geiger, Chairman of the Board andChief Executive Officer of Aeropostale, Inc. (the“Company”) has executed this certificated inconnection with the filing with the Securities and ExchangeCommission of the Company’s Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q for the quarterly period ended April 30,2005 (the “Report”).     The undersigned hereby certifies that to his knowledge:          1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of    Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act    of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”); and           2. The information contained the Report fairly presents, in    all material respects, the financial condition and results of    operations of the Company.     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed thiscertification as of the 1st day of June 2005.     /s/ Julian R. Geiger           Julian R. Geiger *Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer*This certification accompanies the Report pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shallnot, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes ofSection 18 of the Exchange Act. A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company andwill be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securitiesand Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

August 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

130648 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 130648 

 COA: 258195 

Wayne CC: 04-003384-01

LARRY JACKSON, JR.,

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 12, 2006 

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. 

l0821 

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. 

August 29, 2006 

 Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT
OF 1934 FOR THE ANNUAL PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         208,477
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 208,477
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (143,975)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   208,477
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,625
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (3,929)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,554
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             13,554
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,554
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>REGISTRANT HAS AN UNCLASSIFIED BALANCE SHEET.
</FN>


</TABLE>
1 ... T h i s pr oce edi n g a r i s es ou t of Cau s e N o. 2005- CR

- 5739, in th e 1 8 7 th J u d ic ia l D istric t C o u rt, B e x a r C o u n ty, T e x a s, the H o n o ra b le R a ym o n d A n g e lini p re sid ing

. i i i i i i



## MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No . 0 4- 10 -0 01 65 -C R IN RE Jose A. CORD OVA Orig inal Mandamus Proce eding 1 

### PER C URI AM Sitt ing: Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice

Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: March 3, 2010 PETI TI ON F OR WR I T OF MANDAMUS DEN I ED On F eb ru ar y

22, 2010, relator filed a pe tition for writ of mandamus. The court ha s considere d relator’s petition for writ of m andamus and is of t he opini on that relator is not entitled to the relief

soug ht. Accor dingly , the petition for wr it of mandamus is DENI ED. See T EX 

### . R. A PP 

### . P. 52.8(a). PER CU RI AM DO NO T PU B L I SH
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2 CERTIFICATION ACCOMPANYING PERIODIC REPORT
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(18 U.S.C. SEC.1350) I, Sherice P. Bench, Chief Financial Officer of American Achievement Corporation and AAC Group
Holding Corp. (the Companies), hereby certify that:  
 (1) The Quarterly Report
of the Companies on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended November 27, 2004 (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 Companies as of the dates and for the periods
expressed in the Report.  
 Date: August 5, 2005 
 /s/ SHERICE P. BENCHName:
    
    Sherice P. BenchTitle:
    
    Chief Financial Officer(principal financial officer)
 31
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Charles Stewart, Appellant.

[718 NYS2d 847]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura Visitacion-Lewis, J.), rendered November 4, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to three concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis upon which to disturb the jury’s determinations concerning credibility and identification.

We perceive no basis for reduction of sentence. Concur— Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Tom, Wallach and Friedman, JJ.
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 this quarterly report of Texas United Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the period ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, L. Don Stricklin, President and 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 operating results of the Company.
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                     
|---------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                     
|/s/ L. Don Stricklin                                                 
|L. Don Stricklin President and Chief Executive Officer August 7, 2006
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 5, 2022

No. 04-22-00407-CR

Michael HORNADAY,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 11, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 637583

Honorable Michael Keasler, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On August 1, 2022, the court reporter responsible for preparing the reporter’s record in 

this appeal filed a notification of late record, stating that the appellant has failed to pay or make 

arrangements to pay the fee for preparing the reporter’s record.

We, therefore, ORDER appellant to provide written proof to this court within ten days of 

the date of this order that either (1) the reporter’s fee has been paid or arrangements have been 

made to pay the reporter’s fee; or (2) appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the reporter’s 

fee. If appellant fails to respond within the time provided, appellant’s brief will be due within 

thirty days from the date of this order, and the court will only consider those issues or points 

raised in appellant’s brief that do not require a reporter’s record for a decision. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 37.3(c).

_________________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 5th day of August, 2022.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
Exhibit 10.56








Exhibit 10.56




FIRST AMENDMENT TO AQUA AMERICA, INC.

SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN

FOR NICHOLAS DEBENEDICTIS




(As Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2008)




WHEREAS, Aqua America, Inc. (the “Company”) maintains the Aqua America, Inc. Supplemental
Executive Retirement Plan for Nicholas DeBenedictis (the “Plan”); and



WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan to increase the benefit payable to a Surviving
Spouse;



NOW, THEREFORE, effective as of the date set forth below, Section 1.19 of the Plan is hereby
amended to read as follows:




1.19 “Surviving Spouse Benefit” means the survivor annuity payable to the
Surviving Spouse determined as if the Participant had retired on the later of the day prior
to his death or on the date of his earliest retirement age (having survived to such date),
with an immediate joint and 75% survivor annuity. A Surviving Spouse Benefit shall be
determined in the form of a single life annuity (based on such 75% survivor annuity) for the
life of the Surviving Spouse commencing on the later of the Participant’s date of death or
earliest retirement age. Earliest retirement age shall have the same meaning as under the
Retirement Plan.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Aqua America, Inc. has caused this Amendment to be duly executed, under
seal, this 10th day of December, 2009.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	AQUA AMERICA, INC.
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Maria Gordiany

	 	By:
	 	Roy H. Stahl
	 

	 	 	 	 
	Assistant Secretary

	 	 	 	Chief Administrative Officer,

General Counsel and Secretary






[Corporate Seal]