alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Paul C. WHITE, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. ED 105575

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.

Filed: February 27, 2018

Kevin B. Gau, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, Saint Louis, MO. 63101, for appellant.

Shaun J. Mackelprang, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO. 65102, for respondent.

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

***ORDER***

PER CURIAM.

Paul C. White ("Movant") appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 post-conviction relief motion following an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, Movant argues the motion court erred in denying his post-conviction relief motion because trial counsel was ineffective for (1) failing to object on grounds of hearsay and confrontation to the admission of Movant's police interview in which the interviewing detective recounted the statements of Movant's co-defendant about where Movant had hidden the murder weapon, and (2) failing to object when the State cross-examined Movant about his prior robbery conviction. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we find the motion court did not clearly err. An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential purpose. 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 MO. R. CIV. P. 84.16(b) (2015).
Durrand M. JONES, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

ED 106099

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FIVE.

Filed: December 18, 2018 Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied January 23, 2019

Kristina Starke Olson, District Defender, 1010 Market St., Suite 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101, for appellant.

Dora A. Fichter, Assistant Attorney General, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, for respondent.

Before Lisa P. Page, C.J., Roy L. Richter, J., and Kelly C. Broniec, Sp.J.

*738*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Durrand M. Jones ("Movant") appeals the motion court's judgment denying his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 24.035 following an evidentiary hearing. 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 84.16(b).
**Exhibit 32.2****WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER****Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350**     Solely for the purpose of complying with 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of North PointeHoldings Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months ended March 31, 2006 (the “Report”) fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 andthat the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.              /s/ John H. Berry   John H. Berry   Chief Financial Officer   Dated: May 12, 2006
36
Based on manufacturer specifications, supplier’s specifications and manufacturer-hosted forum information, February 2015.



### REDLINE Supporting Documents: Fleet , 2015, Q1 - Q2 REDLine Aerospace LLC Henderson, NV 89044

DJI T600 Inspire 1 SteadiDrone “Mavrik" Freefly Cinestar X8

2.1 S ystem T600 User Manual Link Mavrik User Manual Link CineStar 8

2.2 Primary Method of Aircraft Control Futaba-style Line of Sight Hand-Held Radio Control with GPS Futaba-style Line of Sight Hand-Held Radio Control with GPS Futaba-style Line of Sight Hand-Held Radio Control with GPS

2.3 Registration Number(s) T600 Manufacturer Specifcations - Link Mavrik Manufacturer Specifications - Link CineStar Seller Specifications - Link

2.4 Propulsion 4 Brushless Electric Motors 4/8 MT4008 KV600 Brushless Electric Motors 8 MN4012KV480 Brushless Electric Motors

2.5 Power Supply (approx. 18-35 minute flight) TB48 5700 mAh 22.8V LiPo 6S 670g 8000 mAh Lipo 4S 16.8V (4.2V per cell) 10,000 mAh Lipo 6S

2.6 Nominal Weight 2,935 g / 6.47 lb 2,200 g / 4.85 lb 3050 g / 6.72 lb

2.6 .1 Maximum Take Off Weight (MTOW) 3200 g / 7.06 lb (based on DJI Forum, not MFR spec) 2,800 g / 6.17 lb 5445 g / 12 lb

2.7 Width/ Length /Height 438 x 451 x 301 mm 777 x 500 x 205 mm 1,000 x 900 x 350 mm

2.8 Maximum speed 22 m/s ATTI no wind 15 m/s assumed 12 m/s assumed

2.9 Navigation capability RF, GPS and Vision Positioning System (VPS) RF, GPS by 3DR Systems “ Pixhawk ” w/ Advanced GPS features RF, GPS by MikroKopter

2.10 Command & Control Telemetry (basic description ) Radio Controller 5.728~5.850 GHz 2.400~2.483 GHz to 2km 16 Channel Radio Controller 2.400~2.483 GHz 9 Channel Radio Controller 2.400~2.483 GHz

2.11 Camera and Gimbal X3 FC350 on ZenMuse X3 9W / 11W in motion 

### a7S on AlexMos gimbal by Basecam Electronics Sony a7S on M5 gimbal by Movi

2.11.1 Camera Weight included in T/O weight 489 g / 1.1 lb (no lens) 489 g / 1.1 lb (no lens)

2.11.2 Gimbal Weight included in T/O weight included in T/O weight 2,200 g + 125 g / 5.13 lb

2.11.3 Communication Wi-Fi / RF to Ground Wi-Fi / RF to Ground Wi-Fi / RF to Ground

2.11.4 Integration X3 is the DJI-supplied

cameraw T600 purchase Camera size based on Manufacturer Suggestion FreeFly systems make CineStar 8 and Movi M5

2.12Safety Features No fly zone feature hardprogrammed in w GPS LiPo Alarm Checker Flight Simulation Software

2.13 Maintenance /Repair As per Manufacturer As per Manufacturer As per Manufacturer

2.13.1 Software or Hardware Updates and Upgrades REDLine will upgrade based on DJI updates and T600 User Manual Link REDLine will maintain and upgrade based on manufacturer updates and User Manual updates REDLine will maintain and upgrade based on manufacturer updates

2.13.2 RF Additional Information 10dBm@900m, 13dBm@5.8G, 20dBm@2.4G n/a n/a



### of 1 1
James D. MCCURRY and Christina E. McCurry, Respondents, v. Randolph A. KUHLMAN, Appellant.

WD 81980

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Order filed: April 16, 2019

Robert E. Cowherd, Chillicothe, for Respondents.

Trentis E. Miller, Chillicothe, Co-counsel for Respondents.

Anthony W. Bonuchi, for Appellant.

Before Special Division: Edward R. Ardini, Jr., Presiding Judge, Anthony Rex Gabbert, Judge and Kelly Broniec, Special Judge

***ORDER***

PER CURIAM:

Randolph Kuhlman appeals the trial court's judgment finding he failed to establish ownership of a parcel of real property by adverse possession, and quieting title of the property in favor of James and Christina McCurry. Finding no error, we affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum of law has been provided to the parties. Rule 84.16(b).
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



The undersigned hereby certifies that the Form 10-Q
Quarterly Report of Circus and Eldorado Joint Venture and Silver Legacy Capital Corp. (collectively, the Company) for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2005 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report)
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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.



|       |  |                 |  |  |  |     |  |                                                                                                            
|------ |  | --------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: |  | August 12, 2005 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Bruce C. Sexton                                                                                        
|       |  |                 |  |  |  |     |  | Bruce C. Sexton, Chief Financial Officerof Circus and Eldorado Joint Ventureand Silver Legacy Capital Corp.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





The undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of Classic Rules Judo Championship, Inc. (the “Company”), for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:





(1)   The Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2016 (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: May 5, 2017





/s/Craig BurtonCraig BurtonChief Financial Officer(principal financial officer and accounting officer





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.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

Nov. 13, 2009

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 09-10266

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 07-00039-CV-RLV-1

MELISSA TURNER, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant-

 Cross-Appellee,

versus

ATLANTIC SOUTHEAST AIRLINES, INC., 

 Defendant-Appellee-

 Cross-Appellant,

CRAIG R. CUMBIE, 

 Defendant-Appellee.

________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

_________________________

(November 13, 2009)

Before BLACK, WILSON and COX, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
Appellant, Melissa Turner, a former flight attendant for Appellee Atlantic

Southeast Airlines, Inc. (ASA), claimed she was raped by ASA pilot Appellee

Craig R. Cumbie, during an overnight layover. Appellant brought multiple state

and federal law claims against ASA and state law claims against Cumbie. The

district court granted summary judgment in favor of ASA on all counts. 

Thereafter, the district court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the state law

claims against Cumbie and dismissed them without prejudice. ASA moved for

sanctions against Appellant and her attorney, which the court denied in the same

order granting ASA summary judgment. Turner appealed the summary judgment

in favor of ASA on her Title VII, FMLA interference, intentional infliction of

emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims, as well as

the dismissal of her claims against Cumbie. ASA cross-appealed the denial of its

motion for sanctions against Appellant and her attorney. 

Upon reviewing the record and the parties’ briefs and enjoying the benefit

of oral argument, we conclude the district court did not err.

AFFIRMED.

2
DISMISS and Opinion Filed August 25, 2022 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-00463-CV 

AUNDREA LOVE, LARRY LOVE AND LOVE GLOBAL ENTERPRISES, 

LLC, Appellants 

V. 

CREDITSUPPLIERS XCHANGE LLC FKA PANTHEON SUPPLY, 

Appellee 

On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-17-11099 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Molberg, and Justice Goldstein 

Opinion by Chief Justice Burns 

The clerk’s record in this case is overdue. By letter dated August 4, 2022, we 

informed appellants the clerk’s record had not been filed because appellants had not 

paid for the clerk’s record. We directed appellants to provide, within ten days, 

verification they had either paid for or made arrangements to pay for the record or 

were entitled to proceed without payment of costs. We cautioned appellants that 

failure to do so would result in the dismissal of this appeal without further notice. 

To date, appellants have not provided the required documentation, or otherwise 

corresponded with the Court regarding the status of this appeal. 
 –2– 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX.R. APP. P. 37.3(b); 42.3(b), (c). 

220463F.P05 

 

/Robert D. Burns, III/

ROBERT D. BURNS, III 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

AUNDREA LOVE, LARRY LOVE 

AND LOVE GLOBAL 

ENTERPRISES, LLC, Appellants 

No. 05-22-00463-CV V. 

CREDITSUPPLIERS XCHANGE 

LLC FKA PANTHEON SUPPLY, 

Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-17-11099. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice 

Burns. Justices Molberg and 

Goldstein participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is 

DISMISSED. 

Judgment entered August 25, 2022
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

October 17, 2006

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

 [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 06-13022

Non-Argument Calendar

 

BIA No. A72-418-714

YODIT AMDE ZELLEKE,

Petitioner,

versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

 

Petition for Review of a Decision of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals

 

(October 17, 2006)

Before TJOFLAT, BLACK and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
2

 The sole issue before us on this petition to review the Board of

Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) December 17, 2004 decision affirming the May 6,

2003 decision of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) is whether substantial evidence

supports the BIA’s and the IJ’s determination that Petitioner failed to establish

eligibility for protection under the U.N. Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 

We conclude that such determination is supported by substantial evidence and

therefore deny the petition.

Petitioner is an Ethiopian citizen born and raised in Eritrea. Her mother is

of Eritrean ethnicity; her father, now deceased, was Ethiopian. In 1998, a border

war broke out between Eritrea and Ethiopia. During the war, great numbers of

Eritreans and Ethiopians of Eritrean ethnicity were deported from Ethiopia to

Eritrea. The hostilities formally ended in 2000, when the two countries signed a

peace accord. Thereafter, such deportations generally ceased.

Petitioner failed to present any evidence that she would be tortured if

removed to Ethiopia. Moreover, she presented no evidence that earlier, while in

Ethiopia, she, her mother or her brothers had been tortured. In short, nothing in

the record supports her position that currently similarly situated Eritreans or

Ethiopians of Eritrean ethnicity are being tortured on account of their ethnicity. 

Because Petitioner failed to establish that it is more likely than not that she
3

will be detained arbitrarily by the Ethiopian government and tortured if returned to

Ethiopia, the IJ and BIA properly denied her CAT relief.

PETITION DENIED.
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Raymond ORDOUKHANIAN, Appellant.

No. ED 106056

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.

Filed: December 26, 2018

FOR APPELLANTS: Casey Allen Taylor, 1000 West Nifong, Bldg 7 Suite 100, Columbia, Missouri 65203.

FOR RESPONDENTS: Richard A. Starnes, Joshua Hawley, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102.

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

*422*ORDER*

PER CURIAM

Raymond Ordoukhanian appeals the judgment entered upon his conviction following a jury trial of one count of statutory rape in the first degree, for which he was sentenced to a term of life in prison. Ordoukhanian claims that the trial court committed plain error by denying his motion for a continuance made the morning of trial. He also asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion for mistrial after the State mentioned child pornography during its closing argument. We affirm.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 30.25.
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)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of DCT Industrial Trust Inc., a Maryland corporation (the Company), does hereby certify with respect to the Quarterly
Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) that, to his knowledge:



| | (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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |                       |  |                         |  | 
| |  | --------------------- |  | ----------------------- |  | 
| |  | Date: August 14, 2007 |  | /s/ Philip L. Hawkins   |  | 
| |  |                       |  | Philip L Hawkins        |  | 
| |  |                       |  | Chief Executive Officer |  |
Dismiss and Opinion Filed May 9, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-22-00180-CR

WILLIAM SEDRIC AUTREY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 296th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 429-81194-2010

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Myers, Carlyle, and Goldstein

Opinion by Justice Myers

On March 4, 2022, William Sedric Autrey filed a notice of appeal, “seeking 

to appeal any denial of his Nunc Pro Tunc Motion by the Trial Court, if that should 

happen.” He attached a copy of his nunc pro tunc motion that he previously sent to 

the trial court asking for the court to “correct the sentencing judgment and make it 

reflect that all sentences will run concurrent to each other.” The Collin County 

District Clerk forwarded the notice of appeal to this Court along with a document 

entitled “APPEAL SCHEDULE.” On the schedule, the clerk noted: “Defendant is 

filing an Appeal on a Denial of Nunc Pro Tunc, which doesn’t exist.” We contacted 

the Collin County District Clerk’s office to determine whether an order disposing of 
–2–

appellant’s motion had been signed. The district clerk confirmed that no order has 

been signed.

Appellant has the right to appeal when a trial court enters a “judgment of guilt 

or other appealable order.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2), 26.2(a). The trial court 

“enters” an appealable order by signing a written order. See State v. Sanavongxay, 

407 S.W.3d 252, 259 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (court of appeals has no jurisdiction 

over State’s appeal until there is signed written order); State ex rel. Sutton v. Bage, 

822 S.W.2d 55, 57 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (orig. proceeding) (determining that trial 

court has not entered order justifying appeal until written order is signed); see also 

Rodarte v. State, 860 S.W.2d 108, 110 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (defendant’s 

timetable for filing notice of appeal from adverse habeas decision begins when 

appealable order signed).

Although appellant filed a motion for a judgment nunc pro tunc, the trial court 

did not sign and enter an appealable order. Therefore, appellant’s notice of appeal 

does not confer jurisdiction upon this Court. See Sanavongxay, 407 S.W.3d at 259.

Under these circumstances, we must dismiss this appeal.

220180f.u05

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)

/Lana Myers//

LANA MYERS

JUSTICE
–3–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

WILLIAM SEDRIC AUTREY, 

Appellant

No. 05-22-00180-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 296th Judicial 

District Court, Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 429-81194-

2010.

Opinion delivered by Justice Myers. 

Justices Carlyle and Goldstein 

participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS this appeal. 

Judgment entered this 9

th day of May, 2022.
EXHIBIT 32



JOINT CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL

FINANCIAL OFFICER REQUIRED BY EXCHANGE ACT RULE 13A-14(B)



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Protocall Technologies Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarters ended March 31, 2007 and 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Bruce Newman, Chief Executive Officer, and Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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.



May 21, 2007





/s/      Bruce Newman

-----------------------------------------------

Bruce Newman

Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 32





OCTAGON 88 RESOURCES, INC.


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 Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of Octagon 88 Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jacqueline Danforth, as Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, hereby 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date: March 23 2011
By:
/s/Jacqueline DanforthName:
Jacqueline DanforthTitle:
Principal Financial Officer & Principal Accounting Officer




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code 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.





The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Report pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code and, accordingly, is not being filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as part of the Report and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date of the Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.)