alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
William Terrance ANDERSON, Appellant v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee

No. CR-17-753

Court of Appeals of Arkansas, DIVISION IV.

Opinion Delivered: June 20, 2018

William R. Simpson, Jr., Public Defender, by: Clint Miller, Deputy Public Defender, for appellant.

One brief only.

ROBERT J. GLADWIN, Judge

After a lengthy history of guilty pleas to revocations of his probationary sentences and resulting re-impositions, on March 6, 2017, William Terrance Anderson pleaded guilty to having violated a condition of his probation by testing positive for cannabinoid, cocaine, and alcohol on June 23, June 27, and June 29, 2016. His plea statement was filed on March 7, 2017. The circuit court accepted Anderson's guilty plea and on June 1, 2017, sentenced Anderson to two years' imprisonment. A sentencing order was entered on June 7, 2017, and Anderson filed a timely notice of appeal on June 16, 2017.1

Anderson's counsel has now filed a motion to withdraw and a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(k) (2017). The clerk of this court furnished Anderson with a copy of his counsel's brief and notified him of his right to file pro se points; Anderson did not file any points.2

*780Anderson is not permitted to bring an appeal from his plea of guilty. Rule 1(a) of the Arkansas Rules of Appellate Procedure-Criminal (2017) provides, "Except as provided by A.R.Cr.P. 24.3(b) there shall be no appeal from a plea of guilty or nolo contendere." Anderson's plea was neither a conditional plea pursuant to Rule 24.3(b) of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure nor one of the two exceptions to Rule 1(a) that have been recognized by our supreme court-(1) when the issue on appeal concerns evidentiary errors arising after the guilty plea but during the sentencing phase of the trial, regardless of whether it was a jury trial or a bench trial, or (2) when the issue is the denial of a postjudgment motion to amend an incorrect or illegal sentence. *Cox v. State,*2014 Ark. App. 429, at 2 (citing *Houston v. State,*2014 Ark. App. 344 ; *Hubbard v. State,*2012 Ark. App. 443 ). Anderson's appeal is therefore dismissed.

Appeal dismissed; motion to withdraw granted.

Glover and Whiteaker, JJ., agree.

1

An amended sentencing report was filed on June 21, 2017, but it did not make material changes with respect to Anderson's sentence.

2

The packet was returned to the clerk's office marked "Return to Sender-Attempted-Not Known Unable to Forward" on February 20, 2018. Counsel was contacted via email on February 23, 2018, in an attempt to gain additional contact information. The Pulaski County Public Defender's Office responded, stating that the only other information available was from former case files and, that they had reached out to Anderson's probation officer in an attempt to gain additional contact information, but that and the calls had not been returned.
| (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: April 2, 2010 | By:    | /s/ Darrin M. Ocasio                                        |   |
|----------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                 |   | Darrin M. Ocasio                                            |   |
|                 |   | Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer |   |
|                 |   |                                                        |   |
Exhibit 10.2


 


FORM OF
SUPPLEMENTAL INCENTIVE STOCK NOTICE


 


Mr. Mark Schweitzer


[Address]


 


This Supplemental Option Notice (the “Notice”)
dated as of [Date], 2010 is being sent to you by Virgin Media Inc. (including
any successor company, the “Company”) in order to amend the terms of the
original Option Notice previously sent to you (the “Original Notice”) dated as
of [Date] (the “Grant Date”).


 


The Original Notice granted you the Option
(as such term is defined in the Original Notice) in recognition of your
services as an employee of the Company. 
The Company and you have agreed to amend the terms of the Original
Notice as follows:


 


Paragraph 3 of the Original Notice is hereby amended
in its entirety to read as follows:


 


“3.  Exercise
Period. The [Number] Options that are due to vest on October 1,
2010 shall remain in force after the termination of your employment on June 30,
2010 subject to the achievement of certain performance conditions. Your right
to exercise that portion of the Option and any Options that have vested as at
June 30, 2010 shall terminate on the earlier of the following dates: (a) one
year after the termination of your employment other than for Cause; (b) one
year after your termination resulting from your retirement, disability or
death; (c) the date on which your employment is terminated for Cause; or (d) [Date].  Save as described in this paragraph, all
other Options shall stop vesting immediately upon the termination of your
employment and shall be forfeited and cancelled.”


 


Except as expressly amended or supplemented hereby,
the Original Notice shall remain in full force and effect. This Notice is
supplemental to the Original Notice and the Original Notice and this Notice
shall be read and construed together.


 


 


	
   

  	
  VIRGIN MEDIA INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
  Bryan H Hall

  
	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
  Secretary and General Counsel
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION (FANNIE MAE), Respondent, v. Roland HILL, Jr., and Chontay Hill, Appellants.

No. ED 105407

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.

Filed: April 10, 2018 Rehearing Denied May 14, 2018

FOR APPELLANT: Edward S. Thompson, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, Missouri 63101.

FOR RESPONDENT: Shaun J. Mackelprang, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102.

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

***ORDER***

PER CURIAM.

*159Roland Hill, Jr., and Chontay Hill appeal the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Respondent Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) on Fannie Mae's petition for unlawful detainer. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and no error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The decision is affirmed. Mo. R. Civ. P. 84.16(b) (2018).
Sandra MERRITT, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. ED 105790

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FOUR.

FILED: April 24, 2018 Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied May 30, 2018. Application for Transfer to Supreme Court Denied August 21, 2018

FOR APPELLANT: Gwenda R. Robinson, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, Missouri 63101.

FOR RESPONDENT: Dora A. Fichter, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102.

Before Colleen Dolan, P.J., Mary K. Hoff, J., and Lisa S. Van Amburg, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM

Sandra Merritt appeals from the judgment of the circuit court denying her Rule 29.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Finding no error, 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 opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
**EXHIBIT 32****CERTIFICATION**Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned hereby certifiesin his capacity as an officer of Monarch Community Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) that the QuarterlyReport of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007 fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that theinformation contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition of the Company at the end of such period and results of operations of the Company forsuch period.     Date: August 14, 2007 By: /s/ Donald L. Denney          Donald L. Denney    President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer    (Principal Executive Officer)     Date: August 14, 2007 And: /s/ William C. Kurtz          William C. Kurtz    Senior Vice President,    Chief Financial Officer    (Principal Financial Officer)
24
#### Heywood Foy, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. The State of Florida, *Defendant in Error.*

Division B.

Opinion Filed February 14, 1928.

*J. L. Cottrell,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*Fred II. Davis,*Attorney General, and *Boy Campbell,*Assistant, for the State.

Per Curiam.

Upon an indictment charging murder in the first degree, the accused was convicted of manslaughter and took writ of error.

The indictment was presented and filed and the accused arraigned and pleaded not guilty on August 11, 1927. On August 16, 1927, a motion for continuance, on grounds of absent witnesses and lack of time to prepare a defense, was denied and the trial proceeded. There is nothing in the record to show that further time to prepare a defense should in fairness have been granted and no sufficient grounds for a continuance were presented.

There is ample evidence to sustain the verdict and no *265harmful errors in rulings on testimony or other proceedings are made to appear.

Affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.

Strum and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Clayton Remone DUNLAP, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

WD 80850

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Order filed: August 28, 2018

Laura G. Martin, Kansas City, for Appellant.

Shaun Mackelprang, for Respondent.

Before Division Two: Mark D. Pfeiffer, Presiding Judge, Lisa White Hardwick, Judge and Edward R. Ardini, Jr., Judge

***ORDER***

PER CURIAM:

*916Clayton R. Dunlap appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief, in which he asked the court to vacate his sentences for second-degree felony murder ( § 565.021, RSMo 2000 ) and other lesser crimes due to ineffective assistance of counsel. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have instead provided a memorandum of law to the parties. Finding no error, we affirm. Rule 84.16(b).
EXHIBIT 23.1








CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference and use of our report, dated
January 11, 2002, except for Note U as to which the date is January 15, 2002,
appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Redwood Empire Bancorp for the
year ended December 31, 2001, in Registration Statement No. 33-49372 on Form S-8
and Registration Statement No. 33-61750 on Form S-3 of Redwood Empire Bancorp.



                                     Crowe, Chizek and Company LLP
South Bend, Indiana
March 20, 2002
**EXHIBIT
        32.2**
 
 **CERTIFICATION
        OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**
 
 **Pursuant
        to**
 **18
        U.S.C. Section 1350,**
 **As
        Adopted pursuant to**
 **Section
        906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**
 
 I,
        Craig
        E. Peeples, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
        to
        Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of
        ClearOne Communications, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2004,
        fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
        Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report
        on
        Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
        and
        results of operations of ClearOne Communications, Inc.
 
  Date:
                  December 16, 2005
              /s/
                  Craig E. PeeplesCraig
                  E. PeeplesInterim
                  Chief Financial Officer(Principal
                  Financial and Accounting Officer)
 
 
 **A
        signed original of the written statement above required by Section 906 of
        the
        Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to ClearOne Communications,
        Inc.
        and will be retained by ClearOne Communications, Inc. and furnished to the
        Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
        request.**
Exhibit 32.2 - Chief Financial Officer Certification (Section 906)



                        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 World Information Technology, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report").
I, Steven D. Fellows, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

        (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.


/s/ Steven D. Fellows
------------------------------
    Steven D. Fellows
    Chief Financial Officer


Date  November 24, 2003
      -----------------

<PAGE>
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 22 , 2013

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 12

- 00467

- CR

MILLENA R. HEBERT , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 338th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1309261

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

A jury convicted appellant of abandoning or endangering a child and assessed punishment at two years’ confinement in the State Jail Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice , probated for four years . Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal

. On April 26, 2013, appellant’s counsel filed a written motion to withdraw the appeal, but the motion did not comply with the Rules of Appellate Procedure2

because appellant had not signed it. See T ex. R. App. P. 42.2(a). Appellant was notified of the defect, but did not correct it.

On August 1, 2013 , this court ordered a hearing to determine why appellant ’ s counsel had not filed a brief in this appeal and whether appellant wished to continue her appeal . On August 12, 2013 , the trial court conducted the hearing, and the record of the hearing was filed in this court on August 13, 2013

. At the hearing, appellant, together with h er co unsel, confirmed that s he had
discussed the issues with counsel and determined that she no longer wished to
continue h er appeal. B ased upon the testimony at the hearing that appellant does
not want to continue h er appeal, we conclude that good cause exist s to suspend the operation of Rule 42.2(a) in this case. See T ex. R. App

. P. 2.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Frost, Boyce, and Jamison

. Do Not Publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Brian Jay HOFFMANN, Appellant.

WD 79985

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

ORDER FILED: October 31, 2017 Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied December 4, 2017

Ellen Flottman, Columbia, MO, Counsel for Appellant.

Richard Starnes, Jefferson City, MO, Counsel for Respondent.

Before Division Two: Anthony Rex Gabbert, P.J., Thomas H. Newton, and Gary D. Witt, JJ.

**ORDER**

Per Curiam:

Mr. Brian Jay Hoffmann appeals his conviction by a Buchanan County jury for four counts of child molestation in the first degree. He was sentenced to forty-five years in prison.

For reasons stated in the memorandum provided to the parties, we affirm. Rule 30.25(b).
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 Oxford Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jacinta Sit, President 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.







|                                                              | 
|------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|/s/ Jacinta Sit                                               | 
|Jacinta Sit, President                                        | 
|(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer) | 



February 25, 2008















1
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6667
In Re: GARLAND EDWARD PITTMAN, Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-00-121) Submitted: August 8, 2002 Decided: September 19, 2002 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Garland Edward Pittman, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Garland Edward Pittman petitions this court for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to rule on his habeas corpus petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000), which Pittman filed in June 2000. The district court docket sheet reveals that on July 29, 2002, the district court entered a final order denying relief on Pittman’s § 2254 petition. Accordingly, Pittman has received the relief he seeks in his mandamus petition. Although we grant Pittman leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we dismiss the mandamus petition as moot. Pittman’s motions for leave to file exhibits, for stay of judgment and injunction, and for appointment of counsel are denied. 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.

PETITION DISMISSED
<Page>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

                                 CERTIFICATIONS
                 PURSUANT TO 18 UNITED STATES CODE Section 1350

     Each of the undersigned hereby certifies that to his knowledge the report
on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 of Allstate Life
Insurance Company of New York filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Allstate Life Insurance Company of New York.

March 15, 2005

                                    /s/ Casey J. Sylla
                                    ------------------
                                    Casey J. Sylla
                                    Chairman of the Board and President

                                    /s/ Steven E. Shebik
                                    --------------------
                                    Steven E. Shebik
                                    Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Richard Lee MCCAW, Defendant/Appellant.

No. ED 106016

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.

Filed: October 30, 2018

Robert J. Bartholomew, Jr., P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, For Plaintiff/Respondent.

Katharine P. Curry, 1000 West Nifong, Building 7, Suite 100, Columbia, MO 65203, For Defendant/Appellant.

Before Sherri B. Sullivan, P.J., Lawrence E. Mooney, J., and James M. Dowd, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Richard Lee McCaw (Appellant) appeals the judgment entered by the trial court after a jury trial convicting him of criminal nonsupport. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and we conclude Appellant's claims are without merit. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).
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, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 September 3, 2013

h0826

Order 

Clerk

September 3, 2013

146910

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 146910

COA: 306710

Oakland CC: 2010-232324-FH

TONY DEL GREEN,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 27, 2013 

order 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.
Memorandum

To: Docket EPA

‐ R09

‐ OAR

‐ 2013

‐ 0009, Proposed BART Rulemaking for Navajo Generating Station

From: Ann Lyons, EPA Region 9

Date: January 13, 2014

Fennemore Craig, P.C. submitted a comment letter on behalf of Peabody Energy Corporation, dated January 2,

2014, to EPA Region 9. On January 13, 2014, EPA staff viewed the comment letter and found that Figure 7

contained a “Confidential” stamp. On January 13, 2014, I contacted Mr. Philip Fargotstein of Fennemore Craig to

determine if the information in Figure 7 was considered confidential. Mr. Fargotstein indicated the information

was not confidential.