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

#### State, to use of Smith *et al. v.*Keadle, Sheriff, *et al.*

Submitted January 20, 1898 —

Decided April 2, 1898.

*Sheriff*— Official *Bond*— Notice—County *Orders.*

Error to Circuit Court, Mingo County.

Action by the State for the use and benefit of Smith and Wilson, against N. J. Keadle, sheriff of Mingo county, and others. From an order sustaining a motion to quash, plaintiff brings error.

*Reversed.*

Simms & Enslow and Prichard & Jones, for plaintiff in error.

Campbell, Holt *&*Campbell, Samuel Miller, and Sheppard & Goodykoontz, for defendant in error!

English, Judge:

This case is identical in its facts with the case of *State*v. *Keadle*(above decided) 29 S. E. 976, with the exception that the notice in this case was given to N. J. Keadle and his sureties on a bond given by him as sheriff of said county, on the 12th day of May, 1897, the cause of action being the same in both cases. The same points were relied upon by counsel in both cases, and bur conclusion is the same as it was in the above case, and we adopt the syllabus of that case as the syllabus in this. The judgment is reversed, with costs.

*Reversed.*
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 27, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 131090 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, JOHN FODERA and SABRINA FODERA, Justices 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v SC: 131090 

 COA: 259097 

Genesee CC: 03-076302-NI 

KEENAN VAN LOBBS and KYLEE 

LYNN LOBBS, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 31, 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. 

CAVANAGH and KELLY, JJ., would grant leave to appeal. 

d0920 

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. 

September 27, 2006 

 Clerk
Dennis McGlynn 659 Dorothy Way Auburn, CA 95603 Hearing Docket Clerk Federal Aviation Administration Attn. Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 800 Independence Avenue, SW. Wilber Wright Building, Suite 2W 1000 Washington, DC 20591
Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk July 101 h 2013

My name is Dennis McGlynn. My case number is 2012WP270033. I am requesting a hearing in this matter ofproposed civil penalty.



# ::-h!.· ·.. /m'·· ·

# ~**JdJ.r--.--~~** jV .JC.y--.-/ I 

### I Dennis McGlynn



# RECEIVED JUL 152013 HEARING DOCKETDennis McGlynn 659 Dorothy Way Auburn, CA 95603 Hearing Docket Clerk Federal Aviation Administration Attn. Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 800 Independence Avenue, SW. Wilber Wright Building, Suite 2W 1000 Washington, DC 20591
Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk July lOth 2013

Myname is Dennis McGlynn. My case number is 2012WP270033. I am requesting a hearing in this matter ofproposed civil penalty.



# RECEIVED JUL 1 52013 

## HEARING DOCKET
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 97-41175 Summary Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus
KENNY BOBBITT, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 9:96-CR-31-2
June 26, 1998 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and DEMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Kenny Bobbitt appeals his conviction for aiding and abetting in removing a vehicle identification number in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 & 511. He argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Our review of the record and the arguments and authorities convinces us that no reversible error was committed. Because2

Bobbitt failed to move for a judgment of acquittal at any point in the proceedings, this court’s review is limited to determining whether there was any manifest miscarriage of justice. See U.S. v. Johnson , 87 F.3d 133, 136 (5th Cir. 1996), cert. denied , 117 S.Ct. 1482 (1997). “A manifest miscarriage of justice is present if the record is devoid of evidence pointing to guilt.” Id
. (citations omitted). As with any jury verdict, this court reviews the evidence and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence in the light most favorable to the government. Id
. Here, Bobbitt admitted dismantling a stolen 1993 Peterbilt truck traced to the property of Bobbitt’s co-defendant, Charles Craven, over the course of two days. Regardless of whether he actually removed the vehicle identification numbers himself, he actively participated with Craven in dismantling and stripping the stolen vehicle so that parts could be reused without detection. “This court must affirm a conviction for aiding and abetting when sufficient evidence is tendered that the defendant affirmatively acted with the intent to make the transaction succeed.” U.S. v. Jaramillo , 42 F.3d 920, 924 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 514 U.S. 1134 (1995). We find that the evidence on record pointing to guilt is not so deficient as to constitute a manifest miscarriage of justice. See Johnson , 87 F.3d at 136. Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
Alonzo D. RUFF, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

WD 80062

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Filed: July 17, 2018 Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied August 28, 2018 Application for Transfer Denied December 4, 2018

Natalie H. Hoge, Kansas City for appellant

Daniel N. McPherson, Jefferson City for respondent

Before Division Two: Karen King Mitchell, P.J., and Alok Ahuja and Edward R. Ardini, Jr., JJ.

*3**ORDER**

PER CURIAM:

Alonzo Ruff pleaded guilty in the Circuit Court of Jackson County to one count of murder in the second degree, three counts of assault in the first degree, one count of robbery in the first degree, and five counts of armed criminal action. Ruff filed a motion for post-conviction relief under Supreme Court Rule 24.035, which the circuit court denied following an evidentiary hearing. Ruff appeals. He asserts that his counsel was ineffective because counsel failed to present mitigating evidence at the sentencing hearing concerning Ruff's adolescence, and the state of his brain development given his age. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have provided the parties an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order. Rule 84.16(b).
----

----

I Tiedonantoja

Komissio

----

Euron kurssi (1)

12. toukokuuta 2005

(2005/C 113/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Lähde: Euroopan keskuspankin ilmoittama viitekurssi.

----

----

Ennakkoilmoitus yrityskeskittymästä

(Asia COMP/M.3807 — Siemens/Hyundai/JV)

Asiaan sovelletaan mahdollisesti yksinkertaistettua menettelyä

(2005/C 113/02)

(ETA:n kannalta merkityksellinen teksti)

----

(1)EUVL L 24, 29.1.2004, s. 1.

(2)EUVL C 56, 5.3.2005, s. 32.

----

----

Ennakkoilmoitus yrityskeskittymästä

(Asia COMP/M.3783 — TPG/British Vita)

(2005/C 113/03)

(ETA:n kannalta merkityksellinen teksti)

----

(1)EUVL L 24, 29.1.2004, s. 1.

----
EXHIBIT 31.1
 Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to
Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of TNP Strategic Retail Trust, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included 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
periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit
committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):
    /s/
Anthony W. ThompsonAnthony W. ThompsonChairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
[No. 30417-1-II.

Division Two.

May 11, 2004.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Shannon Michelle Dampier, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Cowlitz County, No. 03-1-00146-2, James E. Warme, J., entered May 21, 2003. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Morgan, J., concurred in by Quinn-Brintnall, C.J., and Hunt, J.
Filed by Bowne Pure Compliance



 




Exhibit 10.37




CONSENT TO ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF

MARKETING AGREEMENT




The undersigned and Commodity Specialists Company, a Delaware corporation (“CSC”), are parties
to that certain Distiller’s Grain Marketing Agreement dated as of December 13, 2006 (the “Marketing
Agreement”).



On August 8, 2007, CSC and CHS Inc., a Minnesota cooperative corporation (“CHS”), entered into
an Assignment and Assumption Agreement (the “Assignment and Assumption Agreement”), under which CSC
assigned to CHS all of its right, title and interest in and to the Marketing Agreement, subject to
receiving consent to such assignment from the undersigned.



For good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged:



1. The undersigned hereby consents and agrees to:




(a) the assignment by CSC to CHS of all of CSC’s right, title and interest in and to
the Marketing Agreement, as described in the Assignment and Assumption Agreement;




(b) the assumption by CHS of the duties, obligations and liabilities of CSC under the
Marketing Agreement which arise on or after the date hereof, subject to the terms and
conditions set forth in the Assignment and Assumption Agreement; and




(c) deliver all notices required to be delivered to CHS under the Marketing Agreement
on or following the date hereof, to the following address:



CHS Inc.

P.O. Box 64089

St. Paul, Minnesota 55164-0089

Attn: Dave Chistofore

Facsimile: 651-355-6857



2. In conjunction with this consent, the undersigned hereby acknowledges:




(a) the Marketing Agreement is in full force and effect and has not been modified or
amended, except as stated herein; and




(b) each party to the Marketing Agreement has preformed all obligations required under
it as of the date hereof and there if not default under the Marketing Agreement or facts or
circumstances which with the passing of time or giving of notice would constitute a default
thereunder.



	 	 	 	 	 
	Date: August 28, 2007	 	Cardinal Ethanol, LLC
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ Jeffrey L. Painter
	 

	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Its: General Manager
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Juan J. Roman, Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer of
Triple-S Management Corporation (the Corporation), certify, pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

1.    The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Corporation for the period ended
      September 30, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m)
      and;

2.    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Corporation.

Date:       November 10, 2005               By:   /s/ Juan J. Roman
            -------------------------             ------------------------------
                                                  Juan J. Roman
                                                  Vice President of Finance
                                                  and Chief Financial Officer
Support Block 

Basic Issue: Sep 26/2013 A601-0627

Page 1 of 1

APPENDIX 2 

The following data is required to manufacture the Support Block tool if necessary, 

for bushing removals.
Exhibit 32.2



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



Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Goldland Holdings, Co., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to the best of his knowledge, that:



1.     The Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the period ending December 31, 2011 (the "Report") of the Company complies in all material respects with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



2.     The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/ Thomas Ridenour



Thomas Ridenour,

Chief Financial Officer

(Principal financial and accounting officer)



Date:  May 2, 2012
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Montez R. WAYNE, Appellant.

No. ED 106556

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.

Filed: June 28, 2019

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: Stephen P. Ranz, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101.

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT: Eric Schmitt, Attorney General, Justin A. Moody Asst. Attorney General, P. O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102-0899.

Before Philip M. Hess, P.J. and Robert G. Dowd, Jr. and Mary K. Hoff, JJ.

**ORDER**

PER CURIAM.

Montez Wayne appeals from the judgment entered on his convictions after a jury trial for three counts of first-degree robbery, one count of attempted first-degree robbery and four counts of armed criminal action. Finding no plain error, 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 30.25(b).
**Exhibit 99.1**

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         I, Steven Dinetz, as Chief Executive Officer of NextMedia Operating, Inc. (the “**Company**”) certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

         (1)      the accompanying Form 10-Q report for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the U.S.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, as amended; and

         (2)      the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

Dated: November 14, 2002

|  |   |   |                                                                                                      |
|--|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  |   |   | /s/ STEVEN DINETZ   **Steven Dinetz****Chief Executive Officer of the Company**  |
Exhibit 31.1
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, James E. Hogue, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Wiltex A, Inc.
2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterlyreport.
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financialinformation included in the quarterly report fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in the quarterly report.
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant, and we have:
     a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, if any, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is beingprepared;
     b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of thisquarterly report (the “Evaluation Date”), and
     c. Presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluationas of the Evaluation Date;
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the AuditCommittee of the registrant’s Board of Directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):
     a. All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internalcontrols which could adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for theregistrant’s auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and
     b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls;and
6. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have indicated in thisquarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internalcontrols or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controlssubsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any correctiveactions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.    By: /s/ JAMES E. HOGUE  James E. Hogue Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
  Date: August 16, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM STATEMENT OF
NET ASSETS IN LIQUIDATION OF DAMSON BIRTCHER REALTY INCOME FUND I AND IS 
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         729,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  124,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               963,000
<PP&E>                                      35,579,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              36,542,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,628,000
<BONDS>                                      2,833,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  32,081,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                36,542,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0<F1>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0<F1>
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0<F1>
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Statement of Operation is not presented in 
liquidation liquidation basis of accounting.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
[No. 51112-2-I.

Division One.

April 26, 2004.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Alonzo L. Bradley, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 02-1-00297-4, Jay V. White, J., entered September 13, 2002. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Devin J. WHITFIELD, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-1340

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 23, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7747

ANDRE BROWN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

THOMAS R. CORCORAN, Warden; J. JOSEPH CURRAN,

JR.; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF

MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-96-

3357-AMD)

Submitted: September 10, 1998 Decided: September 22, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andre Brown, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney

General, Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court. Brown v. Corcoran, No. CA-96-3357-AMD (D.

Md. Nov. 10, 1997). 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