alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
The Honorable George Howard, Jr., United States District Judge f or the Eastern 1 District of Arkansas adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Jerry W. Cavaneau, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 98-1572

___________ Roger D. Mosby, * * Appellant, * * v. * * Appeal from the United States T. Williams, CO-I, Maximum Security * District Court for the Unit; Randall Morgan, Warden, * Eastern District of Arkansas Maximum Security Unit; G. David * Guntharp, Deputy Director, Arkansas * [UNPUBLISHED] Department of Correction, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: June 5, 1998 Filed: June 25, 1998

___________ Before McMILLIAN, LOKEN and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Inmate Roger D. Mosby appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action with 1-2-

prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim. After carefu l review of the record and Mosby ’s brief, we conclude the district court’s judgment was correct. See Williams v. Delo , 49 F.3d 442, 445 (8th Cir. 1995) (prisoner’s conditions of confinement violate Eighth Amendment only where alleged deprivation results i n denial of “minimal civilized measure of life ’s necessities”); cf. Divers v. Department of Co rrections , 921 F.2d 191, 193 (8th Cir. 1990) (per curiam) (to succeed on equa l protection claim not involving constitutional right, inmat e must show treatment received is “ # invidiously dissimilar to that received by other inmates’”) (quoted case omitted). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

<PAGE>




                                  Exhibit 32.1

                     CERTIFICATION OF DISCLOSURE 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 Amended Quarterly Report of Navidec  Financial  Services,
Inc. (the  "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ending  September 30, 2006
as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the
"Report") I, John R. McKowen, Chief Executive Officer,  Chairman and Director of
the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 USC section 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 results of operations of the
Company.


Dated: March 9, 2007



/s/John R. McKowen
------------------------------------------------------------------
John R. McKowen, Chief Executive Officer, Chairman
and Director


This  certification  accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  be deemed  filed by the  Company  for  purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 31.2

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Bruce Merati, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of VirtGame Corp.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
company as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
company and I have:

         (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the company, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

         (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the company's disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this reported my conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the period
covered by this annual report based on such evaluation; and

         (c) disclosed in this report any change in the company's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the company's most recent
fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the company's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the company's auditors and the audit committee of
company's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

         (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the company's ability to record, process, summarize
and report financial information; and

         (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the company's internal control
over financial reporting.


March 30, 2004                             /s/  Bruce Merati
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Bruce Merati, Chief Financial Officer
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-86,169-01

EX P ARTE KENNETH LOUIS HUTTO, Ap plicant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 1277 IN THE 31 DISTRICT COURT ST F ROM LIP SCOMB COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R Pursuant to the provisi o n s o f Ar t icle 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of ag gravated assault and sente nced to e ight year s’ imprisonment. He did not appea l his conviction. Applicant contends, among other things, that his trial counsel rende red ineffe ctive assistance beca use he did not honor Applicant’s wishes to g o to trial and g ave inco rr ec t ad v i ce about the applicablepunishment rang e. Applicant has alleg ed fac ts that, if true, might entitle him to relief

. Strickland v. W

ashington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984); Ex parte Patterson , 993 S.W .2d 114, 115 (Tex

. C rim. App. 1999). In these2

circ umstances, additional fac ts are neede d. As we held in Ex parte Rodriguez , 334 S.W .2d 294, 294 (Tex. Crim. App. 1960), the trial court is the appropriate forum for finding s of fac t. The trial court shall order trial counsel to respond to Applicant’s claims of inef fec tive assistance of counsel. The trial court may

use any means set out in T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07, § 3(d)

. I f the trial court elec ts to hold a hearing, it shall deter mine whether Applicant is indige nt. I f Applicant is indige nt and wishes t o b e re p re sented by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an attorney to repre sent Applicant at the hearing. T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 26.04. The trial court shall make finding s of fac t and conclusion s o f l aw as to whether the perf ormanc e of Applicant’s trial counsel was defic ient. Should the trial court find that counsel g ave defic ient advice , the court shall make further finding s addre ssing wh e th e r , b u t f o r c o u n sel’s improper advice , Applicant would have insisted on a trial. The trial court shall also make a ny other finding s of fac t and conclusions of law that it deems rele vant and appropriate to the dispositi on of Applicant’s claim for ha

beas c orpus re lief. This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fac t issues. The issues shall be resolved within 90 day s of this order

. A supplement al transcript containing all aff idavits and int errog atories or the transc ription of the court repor ter’s notes from any hearing or deposition, alongwith the trial court’ s supplemental finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law, shall be forwa rded to this Court within 120 day s of the date of this order

. Any extensions of time must be reque sted by

the trial cour

t and shall be obtaine d from this Court. Filed: March 8, 2017 Do not publish
A99A2191.

#### STOREY v. THE STATE.

(524 SE2d 304)

Blackburn, Presiding Judge.

Kendall Storey appeals, following a jury trial, on the grounds that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions of battery and criminal trespass. Because we find ample evidence to support the convictions, we affirm.

*607Decided November 1, 1999.

*Jerry W. Moncus,*for appellant.

*Kermit N. McManus, District Attorney, Forest L. Miles, Assistant District Attorney,*for appellee.

> On appeal the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to support the verdict, and [Storey] no longer enjoys a presumption of innocence; moreover, an appellate court determines evidence sufficiency and does not weigh the evidence or determine witness credibility. The verdict must be upheld if any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

(Punctuation omitted.) *Barber v. State,*235 Ga. App. 170 (509 SE2d 93) (1998). See *Jackson v. Virginia,*443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).

So viewing the evidence, the record shows that, although Johnny’s Garage closed at 6:00 p.m., Storey and two other men went into the shop’s parking lot at midnight on May 2, 1998. Storey climbed into the front seat of a classic 1968 Cougar automobile which was owned by the proprietor, Johnny Mills, who lived next door.

Mills was alerted to Storey’s presence when his guard dog began barking. Mills went on his front porch and yelled at Storey to get out of his car and leave. When Storey did not leave, Mills walked over to his car, yelling for Storey to get out of the car. Storey then got out of the car, knocked Mills to the ground, choked him and held him down with his foot. Storey and the two other men left when Mills’ mechanic and a relative approached the car. The altercation left Mills bruised and bleeding from a cut on his head. Storey’s shoe left a print on Mills’ face which was still visible the next day.

*“A*person commits the offense of battery when he or she intentionally causes substantial physical harm or visible bodily harm to another.” OCGA § 16-5-23.1 (a). “A person commits the offense of criminal trespass when he or she knowingly and without authority . . . [r]emains . . . within the vehicle ... of another person after receiving notice from the owner ... to depart.” OCGA § 16-7-21 (b) (3). Here, the evidence is sufficient to authorize the jury’s finding that Storey was guilty of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. See *Jackson,*supra.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Eldridge and Barnes, JJ, concur.*
Exhibit 13.1

Certification

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)

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 ING Groep N.V., a public limited company incorporated under the laws of the Netherlands (the Company), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2012 (the Report) of the Company fully complies with
the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: March 18, 2013



/s/ J. HommenName:

Jan HommenTitle:

Chairman of the Executive Board(Principal Executive Officer)


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely 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) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to ING Groep N.V. and will be retained by ING
Groep N.V. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissions or its staff upon request.
The Honorable George Howard, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern 1

District of Arkansas adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Jerry

W. Cavaneau, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-1572

___________

Roger D. Mosby, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. *

* Appeal from the United States

T. Williams, CO-I, Maximum Security * District Court for the 

Unit; Randall Morgan, Warden, * Eastern District of Arkansas

Maximum Security Unit; G. David *

Guntharp, Deputy Director, Arkansas * [UNPUBLISHED]

Department of Correction, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: June 5, 1998

 Filed: June 25, 1998 

___________

Before McMILLIAN, LOKEN and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Inmate Roger D. Mosby appeals from the final judgment entered in the District

Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action with 1
-2-

prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim. After careful

review of the record and Mosby’s brief, we conclude the district court’s judgment was

correct. See Williams v. Delo, 49 F.3d 442, 445 (8th Cir. 1995) (prisoner’s conditions

of confinement violate Eighth Amendment only where alleged deprivation results in

denial of “minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities”); cf. Divers v. Department of

Corrections, 921 F.2d 191, 193 (8th Cir. 1990) (per curiam) (to succeed on equal

protection claim not involving constitutional right, inmate must show treatment received

is “#invidiously dissimilar to that received by other inmates’”) (quoted case omitted).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Albert L. HALL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D19-106

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 2, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
Rubin Herrerra JIRO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D19-734

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 9, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 23.1

# Consent of Independent
Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors
Champps Entertainment, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the registration statements Nos. 333-106792, 333-90287, 333-32501, and 333-32503
 on Forms S-8, and
registration statement No. 333-102261 on Form S-3, of Champps Entertainment, Inc. of our
report dated August 18, 2004, except as to note 2, which is as of February 11, 2005,
with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Champps
Entertainment, Inc. and subsidiaries as of June 27, 2004 and June 29, 2003, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, changes in shareholders equity and comprehensive income, and
cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended June 27, 2004, which report appears in the June
27, 2004 annual report on Form 10-K/A of Champps Entertainment, Inc.

As discussed in note 2 of the consolidated
statements, the consolidated financial statements for all periods
presented have been restated.

/s/ KPMG LLP

Denver, Colorado
May 2, 2005
Anthony AVERY v. ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

2170121

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

December 28, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-2710
PATSY DARNELL, as next friend and Guardian of Cecil Curtis Hammonds, Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus DARRELL MCMURRAY, Sheriff Scott County Sheriff's Department; ED JOHNSON, Virginia State Police; M. A. SPIVEY, Virginia State Police; JERRY BROADWATER, Sheriff of Scott County in his official capacity only, Defendants - Appellees, and
JAMES P. BLEDSOE; UNKNOWN MEMBERS VIRGINIA STATE POLICE; UNKNOWN MEMBERS SCOTT COUNTY SHERIFF, Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. Glen M. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-91-61-B) Argued: May 6, 1996 Decided: June 13, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.2 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ARGUED: Thomas Lee Rasnic, RASNIC & RASNIC, Jonesville, Virginia, for Appellant. Peter Robert Messitt, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Ric hmond, Virginia, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General of Virginia, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Richmond, Virginia; Beth Osborne Skinner, WOODWARD, MILES& FLANNAGAN, P.C., Bristol, Virginia; Henry Keuling-Stout, KEULINGSTOUT & BRADSHAW, Big Stone Gap, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* A psychiatrist who examined Hammonds immediately following his detention testified that he believed Hammonds suffered from either acute schizophrenia or a manic-depressive disorder.
3 PER CURIAM: In November 1989, Virginia law enforcement officials were notified that Cecil Curtis Hammonds, who was known to suffer from some type of mental impairment, * had threatened a family member's life with a shotgun. After obtaining a Civil Mental Temporary Detention Order from a Virginia Special Justice, the officials went to Hammonds's residence in order to detain him. When the officialsarrived, Hammonds appeared on his porch, shotgun in hand, then disappeared into his home and refused repeated requests to surrender. Several hours later, after Hammonds had continued to refuse to emerge from his home, the officers began to use tear gas in an effort to force Hammonds to exit. Hammonds responded by firing his shotgun at the officers. Only after an officer had suffered a gunshot wound in his neck and shoulder and after a fire had erupted in Hammonds's home as a result of the use of flammable tear gas, did Hammonds surrender. Appellant Patsy Darnell, acting as Hammonds's next friend and guardian, filed a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia against several of the officials, contending that Hammonds's rights under the Fourth Amendment and Virginia law had been violated. A motion for summary judgment followed and was granted in the defendants' favor.4 We have thoroughly reviewed the opinion of the district court and are satisfied that the grant of summary judgment was proper. Accordingly, the judgment is

AFFIRMED .
Case 3:05-cv-02460-B-BD Document 81 Filed 05/27/08 Page 1 of 4 PageID 1109
Case 3:05-cv-02460-B-BD Document 81 Filed 05/27/08 Page 2 of 4 PageID 1110
Case 3:05-cv-02460-B-BD Document 81 Filed 05/27/08 Page 3 of 4 PageID 1111
Case 3:05-cv-02460-B-BD Document 81 Filed 05/27/08 Page 4 of 4 PageID 1112
Michael HANEY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-4535

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 24, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Appeal is dismissed.
Case 3:05-cv-00637-B Document 322 Filed 04/04/07 Page 1 of 1 PageID 3002
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 1 3

- 00 387

- CV

JOHN MARGETIS

, Appellant

v.

NANCY PETTERSON

AND RUPERT KEEPING

, Appellee s

From the County Court at Law

Ellis County, Texas

Trial Court No. 78461

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The Clerk of this Court notif ied the parties in a June 5, 2014 letter that the

appellant’s brief was overdue in this cause and that the appeal may be dismissed if a

response showing grounds for continuing the appeal was not filed within twenty

- one

days. No response has been file d. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of

prosecution. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b).

REX D. DAVIS

JusticeMargetis v. Petterson Page 2

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Dismissed

Opini on delivered and filed July 17 , 2014

[CV06]
EXHIBIT 32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO FURNISHED PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C. § 1350,
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 § 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Valley Commerce Bancorp (the “Company”) for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of Allan W. Stone, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Roy O. Estridge, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, that:
 
 (1) 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 and result of operations of the Company.
  Date: November 15, 2010
/s/ Allan W. StoneAllan W. StonePresident and Chief Executive OfficerDate: November 15, 2010
/s/ Roy O. EstridgeRoy O. EstridgeChief Financial Officer
  This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or otherwise required, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of § 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.