alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31.1****Rule 13a-14(a) CERTIFICATION**I, Donald L. Denney, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Monarch Community Bancorp, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded 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 periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining 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 suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluations; and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.       Date:November 14, 2007 By:      /s/ Donald L. Denney             Donald L. Denney      President and Chief Executive Officer  
18
Maleek TERRELL, Appellant, v. DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, Respondent.

No. ED 106010

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.

Filed: May 22, 2018

FOR APPELLANT: Maleek Terrell, Acting Pro Se, 4533 Adelaide Ave., Apt. A, St. Louis, MO 63115.

FOR RESPONDENT: Larry R. Ruhmann, 421 East Dunklin Street, P.O. Box 59, P.O. Box 59.

Before Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., P.J., Robert M. Clayton III, J., and Angela T. Quigless, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Maleek Terrell ("Appellant") appeals the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission ("the Commission") dismissing his claim for unemployment benefits. The Commission affirmed the decision of the Division of Employment Security's Appeals Tribunal dismissing Appellant's appeal for failing to appear. We find the Commission did not err in affirming the Appeals Tribunal's decision.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The decision of the Commission is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).
Michael D. RICE, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. ED 105634

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.

Filed: March 27, 2018

Kevin B. Gau, Missouri Public Defender's Office, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.

Gregory L. Barnes, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.

Before Lisa P. Page, P.J., Roy L. Richter, J. and Philip M. Hess, J.

***ORDER***

PER CURIAM

Michael Rice appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing. Rice's sole point on appeal is that the motion court erred in denying relief because he proved his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise certain evidentiary challenges for plain error review. We hold that because appellate counsel was not required to raise unpreserved issues for plain error review, and because Rice was not prejudiced by appellate counsel's failure to raise such issues, Rice's sole point is denied. Accordingly, we affirm.

An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-7216

ROBERT KERRY PISTNER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

UNNAMED DEFENDANTS; DIRECTOR, NORTHERN VIRGINIA MENTAL HEALTH INSTITUTE IN 1981, Dr. Smart

as indicated on 3/6/00 motion to amend by

plaintiff; DOCTOR GLICK, Western State Hospital; DOCTOR WANGLER, Western State Hospital;

DOCTOR PEARCE, Western State Hospital; DOCTOR

SHANNON, Western State Hospital; DIRECTORS,

WESTERN STATE HOSPITAL, 1995-Present, L.

Harding and Dr. Barber as named by defendant

in 3-6-00 motion to amend; DOCTOR SMART,

Director of Northern Virginia Mental Health

Institute; L. F. HARDING, Directors of Western

State Hospital; DOCTOR BARBER, Directors of

Western State Hospital,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.

(CA-00-22-7)

Submitted: January 18, 2001 Decided: February 7, 2001
2

Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Kerry Pistner, Appellant Pro Se. Dana Martin Johnson,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

Robert Kerry Pistner appeals from the district court’s order

granting summary judgment to all but one of the defendants in this

42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) action. We dismiss the appeal

for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This

court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28

U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial

Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is

neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral

order.

We deny the motion for appointment of counsel and to expedite

consideration of the appeal and dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Roy Wayne SINDEN, Appellant.

WD 80248

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Order filed: March 27, 2018 Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied May 1, 2018 Application for Transfer to Supreme Court Denied August 21, 2018

Evan J. Buchheim, Jefferson City, for Respondent

Samuel E. Buffaloe, for Appellant

Before Division Three: Gary D. Witt, Presiding Judge, Lisa White Hardwick, Judge, and Edward R. Ardini, Jr., Judge

***ORDER***

PER CURIAM:

*666Roy Wayne Sinden ("Sinden") appeals his conviction for driving while intoxicated under 577.010, alleging in his sole point that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he "operated" a motor vehicle while intoxicated. The trial court's judgment is affirmed. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum of law has been provided to the parties. Missouri Supreme Court Rule 30.25(b)
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Jerry Ray WOLTER, Appellant.

No. ED 105330

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.

FILED: March 6, 2018 Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied April 10, 2018

FOR APPELLANT: Benjamin J. Gray, P.O. Box 717, Kirksville, MO 63501.

For Respondent: JOSHUA D. HAWLEY, Garrick Aplin, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102.

Before Lisa P. Page, P.J., Roy L. Richter, J., and Philip M. Hess, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM

Jerry Ray Wolter ("Appellant") appeals from the trial court's judgment, following a jury trial, convicting him of the class C felony of possession of a controlled substance and the class A misdemeanor of possession of marijuana. He was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment on the felony possession and 12 months' imprisonment on the misdemeanor, to be served concurrently.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).
EXHIBIT 23

<PAGE>

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS




          We  hereby   consent  to  the   incorporation   by  reference  in  the
          Registration  Statement  on  Form  S-8  (File  No.  33-24340)  of  FMS
          Financial  Corporation  of our report dated February 10, 2000 relating
          to the  financial  statements,  which  appears in the Annual Report to
          Shareholders,  which is  incorporated  in this  Annual  Report on Form
          10-K.



          /s/ Pricewaterhouse Coopers LLP
          -------------------------------


          2400 Eleven Penn Center
          Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

          March 23, 2000
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1997
<CASH>                                          47,006
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,219
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                77,234
<PP&E>                                         911,941
<DEPRECIATION>                                 104,894
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 914,797
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,021,344
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,904
<OTHER-SE>                                   (112,451)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   914,797
<SALES>                                          1,077
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,077
<CGS>                                            2,238
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,865,821
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (3,779)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,863,203)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,863,203)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,863,203)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.04)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32

                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT


     I, Thomas Glover,  President and Chief  Executive  Officer of  Vasomedical,
Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

     (1)  the Annual  Report on Form 10-K of the  Company  for the  fiscal  year
          ended  May  31,  2005,   (the   "Report")   fully  complies  with  the
          requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act
          of 1934 (15 U.S.C 78m or 78o(d)); 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: August 16, 2005

                                         /s/ Thomas Glover
                                         Thomas Glover
                                         President and Chief Executive Officer




     I,  Thomas W. Fry,  Chief  Financial  Officer  of  Vasomedical,  Inc.  (the
"Company"),  certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

     (1)  the Annual  Report on Form 10-K of the  Company  for the  fiscal  year
          ended  May  31,  2005,   (the   "Report")   fully  complies  with  the
          requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act
          of 1934 (15 U.S.C 78m or 78o(d)); 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: August 16, 2005

                                         /s/ Thomas W. Fry
                                         Thomas W. Fry
                                         Chief Financial Officer
J-S21007-17

*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

ATEF V. JELASSI,

Appellee

 v.

NANCY NINEL VULAKH,

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

 

 No. 688 WDA 2016

Appeal from the Order April 15, 2016

in the Court of Common Pleas of Cameron County,

Civil Division, at No(s): 2013-1889

BEFORE: LAZARUS, DUBOW, and STRASSBURGER, JJ.*

DISSENTING MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED: May 30, 2017

Because the trial court erred by failing to vacate the divorce decree, I 

respectfully dissent and offer the following analysis. 

I agree with the trial court and the Majority that the only way Vulakh 

can prevail on her petition to vacate the divorce decree is if she can 

demonstrate extrinsic fraud. One type of extrinsic fraud is found where one 

party has kept another “away from court by false promise of compromise.” 

Fenstermaker, v. Fenstermaker, 502 A.2d 185, 188 (Pa. Super. 1985) 

(quoting McEvoy v. Quaker City Cab Co., 110 A. 366, 368 (Pa. 1920)). 

In Fenstermaker, this Court held that the trial court did not err in 

concluding there was extrinsic fraud caused by the husband’s “continued 

representations to [the wife] evidencing his ‘intention’ to finalize their 

property settlement.” Id. at 190. The Court held that the trial court could 
J-S21007-17

- 2 -

exercise its “equitable power to effectuate economic justice” where the wife 

“did not have the opportunity to litigate these economic claims.” Id. 

Similarly, Vulakh testified that she “reviewed the postnuptial 

agreement, and [] discussed [with Attorney Grannan] that that was 

supposed to be incorporated together.” N.T., 1/6/2016, at 10. Vulakh 

testified that her soon-to-be ex-husband “verbally agreed to it, but he hasn’t 

done anything for it.” Id. at 11. Attorney Grannan testified that after Vulakh 

confronted him about the fact that the post-nuptial agreement was not 

included, he told her that he would “be happy to testify at any hearing that 

was conducted in this about the communications, about her intentions and 

about what actually happened.”1 Id. at 16.

Based on the foregoing, Jelassi’s assurances that he would sign a 

postnuptial agreement, coupled with the troubling nature of Attorney 

Grannan’s representation of the parties to this divorce,2I conclude that the 

trial court erred in denying Vulakh’s petition to vacate.

 

1

Jelassi did not appear or testify at the hearing because he is living out of 

the country with his new wife and baby.

2 See Majority Memorandum, at n.4.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002







I, David J. Gallagher, President and Chief Executive Officer of QSound Labs, Inc., do hereby certify that, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the information contained in the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2004 of QSound Labs, Inc. and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Act of 1934 and the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations on QSound Labs, Inc.







/s/ David J. Gallagher





David J. Gallagher

President, Chief Executive Officer and

Chief Financial Officer



March 21, 2005
Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except under the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 40024 Su m m ar y Cal endar

UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee

v. BR AD Y SH AR RO D H AR RI S D e fe nda nt
- Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e E aster n D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 6: 02- C R

- 35- 1

B ef ore K IN G , D E N N IS, an d O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * B rady Sh arrod H arri s, federal pri soner # 096 04-078, ap pea l s t h e di st ri ct court’ s den i alof

hi s “W ri tQ u o W arran t o. ” H e arg u ed i n t h e w ri tapp l i cat i on th a t th e F e d e r a l B u r e a u o f P r is o n s h a d a b u s e d its p o w e r in fa ilin g to g iv e h im
c r e di to n hi s se nt e nc e fo rpos s e s s i o n w i t h i nt e ntt o di s t r ibut e c o c ai ne b as e f o rt he t i m e t hathe s er ved on anot hers t at e s ent enc e b ec ause t he s ent enc i ng c our thad ordered that hi s f

ederalsentence run concurrentl y w i t h t h e st ate s en t en ce. United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rc h 19, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 40024

2 O n a ppe al , H ar r i s a r gue s o nl y t hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur te r r e d i n no tg ivi ng hi m cr ed i tf

ort he t i m e t hathe s er ved i n st at e c ust ody bec ause t he f ede r al j u dg m en tof conv i ct i on stat ed t h at h e w as “i n the cu st ody of t h e U n i t ed S t ates M a r s h a l[],” a n d th u s h e s h o u ld h a v e re m a in e d in fe d e r a l cu s to d y a fte rh is fe d e r a l co n v ic tio n , ra th e rt h a n b e in gr e tu r n e d t o s ta te c u s to d y . B e c a u s e H a r r is i s r ai si n g t h i s t h eory f or r el i ef f or t h e f i rstt i m e o n a p p e al , t h i s c ou rtneed not
c o n s id e rit. S ee L ever et t e v. L ou i svi l le La d d er Co. , 1 8 3 F
. 3d 339 , 342 ( 5th C i r. 199 9)

. Fu rt h erm ore, becau se H arri s no l on ger a rgues t h at he shou l d h ave been gi ven sen t en ci n g credi tforthe t i m e t h at he ser ved on h i s s t ate s en t en ce because t he di st r i c tc our tor der ed t hathi s st at e and fede r alsent enc es run co ncur r ent l y, h e h a s a b a n d o n e d t h e o n l y i s s u e o n a p p e a l b yfa ilin gto b r ie f it. SeeYohey v. Col l i ns , 9 8 5 F .2d 2 2 2 , 2 2 5 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 3 ). AF F I RMED.
TDCJ Offender Details tyM0h?^1 of 2

!• TDCJ Home iijmi.iAmjMJMJiAmiuHwmjia EH New Offender Search

Offender Information Details

Return to Search list

SID Number:

TDCJ Number:

Name:

Race:

Gender:

DOB:

Maximum Sentence Date:

Current Facility:

Projected Release Date:

Parole Eligibility Date:

Offender Visitation Eligible:

07374949

01431218

MORRIS.JOHN EDWARD

W

M

1962-08-24

2034-07-06

RAMSEY I

2034-07-06

2019-07-06

NO

The offender is temporarily ineligible for visitation. Please call the offender's unit for any

additional information.

The visitation information is updated once daily during weekdays and multiple times per day

on visitation days.

SPECIAL INFORMATION FOR SCHEDULED RELEASE:

Scheduled Release Date:

Scheduled Release Type:

Scheduled Release Location:

Parole Review Information

Offense History:

Offender is not scheduled for release at this time.

Will be determined when release date is scheduled.

Will be determined when release date is scheduled.

Offense

Date

~„ Sentence ~ . ~ Kl Sentence (YY-MM- Offense n . County Case No. __\

http://offender.tdcj.state.tx.us/OffenderSearch/offenderDetail.action?sid=07374949 3/4/2015
Subsidiaries of the Registrant(1)


                                                 State of          Percentage
                                              Incorporation        Ownership
                                              -------------        ---------

Farmers and Mechanics Bank                     United States          100%

FMS Financial Services, Inc.(2)(4)             New Jersey             100%

Land Financial Services, Inc.(2)               New Jersey             100%

First Plunge, Inc. (3)(4)                      New Jersey             100%

Fishpond, Inc. (3)(4)                          New Jersey             100%

Angell Ayes, Inc. (3)(4)                       New Jersey             100%

Peter's Passion, Inc. (3)(4)                   New Jersey             100%

Atlantic Adventures, Inc.(3)(4)                New Jersey             100%


----------------
(1)  The  operations  of the  subsidiaries  are  included  in  the  consolidated
     financial  statements  contained  in  the  Annual  Report  to  Stockholders
     attached as Exhibit 13 to the Form 10-K.
(2)  Subsidiary of Farmers and Mechanics Bank.
(3)  Subsidiary of Land Financial Services, Inc.
(4)  Currently an inactive subsidiary.
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Willie B. SCOTT, Appellant.

ED 105522

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.

Filed: May 15, 2018

Robert J. Bartholomew, Assistant Attorney General, P.O. Box 899 Jefferson City, MO 65102 for respondent.

Kevin L. Schriener, Special Public Defender, 141 N. Meramec Avenue, Suite 314 Clayton, MO 63105 for appellant.

Before Lisa P. Page, P.J., Roy L. Richter, J., and Philip M. Hess, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

*162Willie B. Scott appeals the trial court's judgment entered upon a jury verdict convicting him of three counts of statutory sodomy in the first degree, Section 566.062 RSMo (2016),1 three counts of child molestation in the first degree, Section 566.067, and two counts of statutory sodomy in the second degree, Section 566.064. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

1

All further statutory references are to RSMo (2016).