alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NO. 07-08-0488-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL B

	JANUARY 6, 2009

	______________________________

	In the Interest of K.D.J., a Child

	_______________________________

	FROM THE 320TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

	NO. 74,123-D; HON. DON R. EMERSON, PRESIDING

	_______________________________

	Memorandum Opinion

	_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

	Appellant, Raymond Jaramillo, filed a notice of appeal on December 8, 2008. However, appellant did not pay the $175 filing fee required from appellants under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 5.  Nor did it file an affidavit of indigence per Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 20.1.  By letter from this Court dated December 15, 2008, we informed appellant that “the filing fee in the amount of $175.00 has not been paid . . . .  Failure to pay the filing fee within ten (10) days from the date of this notice may result in a dismissal.”  Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c); see Holt v. F. F. Enterprises, 990 S.W.2d 756 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 1998, pet. ref’d).  The deadline lapsed, and the fee was not received. 

	Because appellant has failed to pay the requisite filing fee as directed by the court, we dismiss the appeal pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(c). 

							Per Curiam
EXHIBIT 32.01 

 

The following certification shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934 or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that section, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, whether made before or after the date hereof andirrespective of any general incorporation language in any filings. 

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND 

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

 

Inconnection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of SigmaTel, Inc., a Delaware corporation, for the period ended September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, each of the undersigned officers of SigmaTel, Inc. certifiespursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his respective knowledge: 

 

(1) the quarterly 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 quarterly report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of SigmaTel, Inc. for the periods presented therein. 

 

Date: October 29, 2003 

 

/s/ Ronald P. Edgerton

Ronald P. Edgerton 

Chief Executive Officer 

 

Date: October 29, 2003 

 

/s/ Ross A. Goolsby

Ross A. Goolsby 

Chief Financial Officer 

 

A signed original of theabove certification has been provided to SigmaTel, Inc. and will be retained by SigmaTel, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Pyramid Breweries Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John
Lennon, President and Chief Executive Officer 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) and 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/ JOHN LENNON

John Lennon
President and Chief Executive Officer
August 15, 2005
Unassociated Document


    EXHIBIT
10.6

     

    ADDITIONAL
AGREEMENT

    To
Acquisition Agreement dated as of January 24, 2008

    


    


    THIS
ADDITIONAL AGREEMENT (the "Additional Agreement") is made and entered into as of
March 5.2010 (the "Effective Date") by and between EMERGING MEDIA HOLDINGS INC.
(EMH Company of USA, a Nevada corporation (the "Company") AND MEDIA TOP PRIM
Ltd. (MEDIA TOP PRIM), Rep. of Moldova Corporation represented by Radu GUTU,
acting on the base of Power of Attorney.

    


    NOW
THEREFORE in consideration of the mutual promises and the covenants and promises
hereinafter contained, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt
and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto, intending
to be legally bound hereby, agree as follows:

    


    SECTION
1. EXCHANGE OF SHARES

    


    1.1
Exchange. The Shareholder will sell, convey, transfer and assign to the Company,
and the Company will purchase and accept from the Shareholder all right, title
and interest in and to the issued and outstanding shares of MEDIA TOP PRIM owned
by Shareholder in exchange for 1,000,000 of Common Stock of the
Company.

    1/1/09

    


    SECTION
2. PURCHASE PRICE

    


    2.1
Purchase Price. Within 5 business days from the request for conversion, the
Company shall convey. transfer. assign 1,000.000 of Common Stock of the Company
in exchange for all of the issued and outstanding shares MEDIA TOP PRIM held by
Shareholders.

    


    SECTION
3. MISCELLANEOUS

    


    3.1 This
Additional Agreement supersedes the prior Additional Agreement (dated as of May
2nd ,
2008) between the Parties hereto with respect to the subject matter
hereof.

     

     

    SECTION
4. SIGNATURES

     

     

    
      
        	EMERGING
      MEDIA HOLDINGS, INC.	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	
                 

              	By
      /s/ Iurie Bordian	 
	 	         
        Iurie Bordian CEO	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	MEDIA
      TOP PRIM Ltd.	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	By
      /s/ Radu Gutu	 
	 	Radu
      Gutu, Attorney in fact
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Henry Harrell, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Di Tucci, J.), rendered December 2, 1985, convicting him of burglary in the third degree, possession of burglar’s tools, and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The evidence establishes that at approximately 7:00 a.m., on October 26, 1984, the defendant was found, crouched in the corner of the kitchen of 109-31 153rd Street, Jamaica, Queens, with a chisel in his hand, removing a sink from the wall. The owner of the premises testified that the defendant did not have his permission to enter the building.

The evidence also establishes that, when an investigating police officer asked the defendant to explain his presence, the defendant told him that a person known only as "Joe” told him (the defendant) that he could renovate the subject building and remove the sink. The owner of the building testified, however, that on October 26, 1984, no renovation work was being done on the premises.

On appeal, the defendant contends that the court erred *707when it refused his request to charge the jury as to various degrees of criminal trespass as lesser included offenses with respect to burglary in the third degree *(see,*CPL 300.50 [1], [2]). We do not agree with this argument.

In the present case, the defendant was guilty of burglary in the third degree or nothing at all *(see, People v Blim,*63 NY2d 718). If the jury chose to discredit the defendant’s prearrest statement, then no possible inference would remain other than that the defendant intended to commit larceny by taking the sink. No rational explanation for the defendant’s conduct in removing the sink from the wall exists other than that he intended to take it. If, on the other hand, the jury believed the defendant’s statement, then it would have been necessary to conclude not only that the taking of the sink was not larcenous, but also that the defendant honestly believed that he had the right to enter the premises. Such a belief would negate an element of criminal trespass *(see, People v Basch,*36 NY2d 154, 159). In other words, there is no "reasonable view of the evidence which would support a finding that the defendant committed [the crime of criminal trespass] but did not commit [the crime of burglary in the third degree]” (CPL 300.50 [1]). Accordingly, the court did not err in refusing to charge lesser included offenses.

Any error committed by the trial court as alleged in the defendant’s remaining contention on appeal was harmless *(see, People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230). Thompson, J. P., Weinstein, Rubin and Harwood, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Alexandria Phillips, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Advanced Engine
Technologies, Inc.;

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

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

4. The small business issuer'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 small business issuer and
have:

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

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;

(c) Disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or
is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of
the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.





Date: February 17, 2004                     /s/    ALEXANDRIA PHILLIPS
                                              Alexandria Phillips, Treasurer
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Harry E. Gruber, M.D., President and Chief Executive
Officer of Kintera, Inc. (the Registrant), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:



| | (1) | the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Registrant, to which this certification is attached as an exhibit (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) 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 Registrant.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: March 15, 2006

|                                                                                         
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                         
|/s/ HARRY E. GRUBER, M.D.                                                                
|Harry E. Gruber, M.D. President and Chief
Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
Document

AMENDMENT
of the
CARNIVAL CORPORATION 2020 STOCK PLAN
Section 5(b)(i) of the Carnival Corporation 2020 Stock Plan (the “Plan”) is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:
(i) subject to Section 12 of the Plan, no more than 25,000,000 Shares (the “Absolute Share Limit”) shall be available for Awards under the Plan; 




































#32907415v2 – Amendment of the Carnival Corporation 2020 Stock Plan
Exhibit
10.6






INTERCREDITOR
AGREEMENT JOINDER






Dated as
of May 5, 2008






The
undersigned, S E Investment LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, hereby
agrees to become party as a Grantor under the Intercreditor Agreement, dated as
of February 28, 2008 (as
amended, restated, renewed, extended, supplemented or otherwise modified from
time to time, the “Intercreditor Agreement”;
capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein having the meanings
assigned to them in Section 1 of the Intercreditor Agreement), by and among
SOLUTIA INC., a Delaware corporation, each of the Company’s Subsidiaries party
thereto from time to time and CITIBANK, N.A. (“Citi”), in its capacity as
administrative agent for the holders of the Term Loan Obligations, and as
collateral agent for the holders of the Term Loan Obligations, Citi, in its
capacity as administrative agent for the holders of the Revolving Credit
Obligations, and as collateral agent for the holders of the Revolving Credit
Obligations, for all purposes thereof on the terms set forth therein, and to be
bound by the terms of the Intercreditor Agreement as fully as if the undersigned
had executed and delivered the Intercreditor Agreement as of the date
thereof.






The
provisions of Section 8 of the Intercreditor Agreement will apply with like
effect to this Intercreditor Agreement Joinder.






[Remainder
of page intentionally left blank; signature page follows.]












IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this Intercreditor Joinder Agreement
to be duly executed by its authorized officers or representatives as of the date
first written above.




S
E INVESTMENT LLC







By:           /s/ Timothy J.
Spihlman


Name:     
Timothy J. Spihlman


Title:        President





Address
for notices:


575
Maryville Centre Drive


P.O. Box
66760


St.
Louis, Missouri  63166-6760


(courier
delivers to: 575 Maryville Centre Drive, St. Louis,
Missouri  63141)


Attention
of:  James Tichenor and Rosemary Klein


Telecopier
No.:  314-674-2721
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       8,335,097
<SECURITIES>                                    10,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,290,787
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  4,783,857
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            17,703,476
<PP&E>                                       1,900,290
<DEPRECIATION>                                 557,423
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              21,168,627
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,694,315
<BONDS>                                        514,735
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,763
<OTHER-SE>                                  18,474,312
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                21,168,627
<SALES>                                      2,559,501
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,559,501
<CGS>                                        1,469,465
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,469,465
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,677,488
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (14,582)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (572,870)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (572,870)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (572,870)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.10)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE

I, Walter Thomas Price III, certify that (i) the Annual Report of Rogers International Raw Materials Fund, L.P. (the Partnership) on Form 10-K/A for the period ending
December 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in such Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.



/s/ Walter Thomas Price IIIWalter Thomas Price IIIManaging Member (Chief Executive Officer)Beeland Management Company, L.L.C.General Partner, Rogers International Raw Materials Fund, L.P.July 20, 2011
_______________________________________ __ 

# Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

February 27, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
131800 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF MICHIGAN and COMMAND OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiffs-Appellants, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 131800 COA: 267100 Macomb CC: 2005-002326-CL CITY OF MT. CLEMEN TS, MACOMB COUNTY SHERIFF, and MACOMB COUNTY, Defendants-Appellees.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 27, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

p0220 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

February 27, 2007

Clerk
#### August Casale et al., Appellants, v Rudolfo Colonelli et al., Respondents.

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, on the ground of inadequacy, from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Walsh, J.), dated April 30, 1985, which upon a jury verdict, awarded the plaintiff August Casale the principal sum of $35,000 and his wife Valerie Casale the principal sum of $2,500.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

While the jury found that the plaintiff August Casale, who was 64 years old at the time of the trial, suffered a myocardial infarction as a result of an automobile accident in which he was involved, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that the quality of his life was not altered to any great extent. The record reveals that he continued to take the same medication in the same dosages as he had been taking for a prior angina condition, with the addition of one drug. He continued to work full time in his construction business and travel abroad for extended periods. In view of the circumstances of this case, we decline to disturb the jury’s assessment of damages *(see, e.g., Trocchia v Long Is. Coll. Hosp.,*121 AD2d 626; *O’Connor v Roth,*104 AD2d 933; *appeal dismissed*64 NY2d 934). Mangano, J. P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.
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.

 November 20, 2013

s1113

Order 

Clerk

November 20, 2013

147059

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 147059

COA: 308852

Oakland CC: 2002-184901-FH

BILLY JOE ENGLISH,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 8, 2013 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of 

granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals. The 

defendant’s delayed application was not untimely under MCR 7.205(F)(4) because, under 

the unique circumstances presented, it was reasonable for appointed appellate counsel to 

calculate the due date for the delayed application from the date he received official and 

final notice that the outstanding transcript did not exist. On remand, the Court of Appeals 

shall decide whether to grant, deny, or order other relief, in accordance with MCR 

7.205(D)(2).

We do not retain jurisdiction.