alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA

460A12

FILED 13 JUNE 2013

JOHN CONNER CONSTRUCTION, INC., R&G CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, 

and EGGERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.

v.

GRANDFATHER HOLDING COMPANY, LLC and MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY 

BANK, a Branch of CARTER COUNTY BANK

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel 

of the Court of Appeals, ___ N.C. App. ___, 732 S.E.2d 367 (2012), affirming an 

order entered on 15 February 2011 by Judge Marvin P. Pope, Jr. in Superior Court, 

Avery County. On 12 December 2012, the Supreme Court allowed a petition by 

plaintiffs for discretionary review of additional issues. Heard in the Supreme Court 

on 15 April 2013.

Tricia Wilson Law Firm, PLLC, by Patricia L. Wilson; and J. Thomas Dunn, 

Jr., for plaintiff-appellants.

Roberson Haworth & Reese, P.L.L.C., by Alan B. Powell, Christopher C. 

Finan, and Matthew A. L. Anderson, for defendant-appellee Mountain 

Community Bank.

PER CURIAM.

Justice BEASLEY took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. 

The remaining members of the Court are equally divided, with three members 

voting to affirm and three members voting to reverse the decision of the Court of 
JOHN CONNER CONSTR., INC. V. GRANDFATHER HOLDING CO.

Opinion of the Court

-2-

Appeals. Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Appeals stands without 

precedential value. See, e.g., Amward Homes, Inc. v. Town of Cary, 365 N.C. 305, 

716 S.E.2d 849 (2011); Goldston v. State, 364 N.C. 416, 700 S.E.2d 223 (2010). As to 

the issue allowed in plaintiffs’ petition for discretionary review, we hold that 

discretionary review was improvidently allowed. 

AFFIRMED; DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IMPROVIDENTLY ALLOWED.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order
Lansing, Michigan
August 12, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
Michael F. Cavanagh 136950 (3) Elizabeth A. Weave r Marilyn Kell y Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. CARL W. BROOKS, Stephen J. Markman, J ustices
Plaintiff,

v SC: 136950 AGC: 0161/08 ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION,

Defendant.

___________________ ________________

On order of the Chief Ju stice, the motion to waive fees is considered and it is DENIED because MCL 600.2 963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be liable for filing fees. Within 21 days of the certification of this order, plaintiff shall pay to the Clerk of the Court the initial partial filing fee of $18.00, shall submit a copy of this order with the payment, and shall refile the copy of the pleadings which is being returned with this order. Failure to comply with this order shall result in the appeal not being filed in this Court. If plaintiff timely files the partia l fee and refiles the pleadings, monthly payments shall be made to the Department of Corrections in an amount of 50 percent of the deposits made to plain tiff’s account until the payments equal the balance due of $357.00. This amount shall then be remitted to this Court. Pursuant to MCL 600.2963(8) plaintiff shall not file furth er appeals in this Court until the entry fee in this case is paid in full. The Clerk of the Court sh all furnish two copies of th is order to plaintiff and return plaintiff’s pleadings with this order.

jm 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.
August 12, 2008
Clerk
Exhibit 32.1



COMPUTER ACCESS TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION



CERTIFICATION



In connection with the annual report of Computer Access Technology Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31,
2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Dan Wilnai, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18,
Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States of America Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version 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.



This Certification has not been, and shall not
be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



|      |  |               |  |  |  |     |  |                                                                          
|----- |  | ------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: |  | March 2, 2004 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/    DAN WILNAI                                                        
|      |  |               |  |  |  |     |  | Dan Wilnai Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors
Exhibit 12.1

Certification pursuant to Section 302 Sarbanes Oxley Act by the Chief Financial Officer of Telecom Italia Media S.p.A.

I, Enrico Parazzini, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 20-F/A (the Report) for the period ending December 31, 2005, of Telecom Italia Media S.p.A

2. Based on my knowledge, this Amendment No. 1 to 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.

|                         |     |                      |                  
|------------------------ | --- | -------------------- | -----------------
|                         |     |                      |                  
|                         | By: | /s/ Enrico Parazzini
|                         |     |                     
|                         |     | Name:                | Enrico Parazzini 
|                         |     | Title:               | Managing Director
|Date: September 28, 2006 |     |                      |                  

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Gonzalez, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (D’Amaro, J.), rendered September 8, 1986, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We find that the defendant’s request for a hearing to determine whether his arrest was supported by probable cause was properly denied since his supporting papers were conclusory and failed to state sufficient facts to warrant such a hearing *(see, People v Gomez,*67 NY2d 843; *People v Allweiss,*48 NY2d 40; *People v Stevens,*129 AD2d 749; *People v Colon,*127 AD2d 678, *affd*71 NY2d 410).

The defendant additionally contends that the admission of the nontestifying codefendant’s confession, at their joint trial, violated the principles enunciated in *Cruz v New York*(481 US 186, *on remand*70 NY2d 733) and that he is, therefore, entitled to a new trial.

In assessing whether a violation of the Confrontation Clause may be deemed harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant’s own confession may be considered on appeal *(see, Cruz v New York, supra).*Although this court concluded that the codefendant was entitled to a new trial by virtue of the *Cruz*violation *(see, People v Scalerico,*140 AD2d 386), we find that the defendant’s own confession, which was admitted against him, was so detailed and expansive as to render the *Cruz*violation harmless beyond a reasonable doubt *(see, People v Alvarado,*141 AD2d 738; *People v Williams,*136 AD2d 581; *People v Baptiste,*135 AD2d 546).

Specifically, the defendant indicated, in his confession, how the crime was conceived, how he and the codefendant arrived at the scene, what type of weapon was used, how they escaped, the amount of proceeds obtained as a result of the robbery, *590and how he utilized the proceeds, along with various other incriminating details. The defendant’s confession, which was corroborated by other evidence, provided overwhelming proof of his guilt and there is no reasonable possibility that the jury would have acquitted the defendant had he and the codefendant been tried separately.

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.2
                           CLICKABLE ENTERPRISES, 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 the Quarterly Report of Clickable Enterprises, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Guy
Pipolo, Chief Financial 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) 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.

This Certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed "filed" by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.




Date:  August 23, 2005

/s/ Guy Pipolo
----------------------
Guy Pipolo
Chief Financial Officer (Principal 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.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

E R R A T A

March 10, 2008 

Appeal No. 2007-1168, Erico Intl v. Vutec Corp 

Precedential Opinion 

Decided: February 19, 2008 

In the dissenting opinion at, page 5, line 20, in the paragraph beginning “As used by my 

colleagues,” the second sentence of that paragraph should read: 

 

 “Raising a “substantial question” concerning validity is not the same as . . .” 

That is, after “validity” delete the comma and the word “it.”
- How To Appeal 
    - Court Forms  and Fees        - Court Forms
      - Fee Schedule
      - Filing Fee 
    - Court Rules and Procedures        - Rules of Practice  and Procedure
      - Procedural Requirements for Staff Conferences
      - Internal Operating Procedures
      - Rules of Admission  and Practice
      - Rules Governing Complaints of Judicial Misconduct and Disability
      - E-Filing Rules
      - Court Process
      - Court Efforts to Ensure Compliance with Court Rules 
    - Information About Practitioners        - Search List of Practitioners
      - Disciplinary Action
      - Key Points in Finding a Representative
      - Compendium of Disciplinary Grievances 
    - Orders and Opinions        - Miscellaneous Orders
      - Ceremonial Orders
      - Opinions and Full Court Orders
      - Search Decisions and Opinions
      - Recent Decisions / Opinions
      - Case Archives 
    - Active Panel Cases 
    - Stayed Cases 
    - Class Action Cases 
    - Electronic Filing 
    - Docket Search 
    - Oral Arguments        - Schedule
      - Oral Arguments via YouTube Live
      - Audio/Video
      - Oral Argument Educational Outreach 

|  |
|--|
Back

USCAVC 16thJudicial ConferenceSeptember 19-20, 2024

Watch CAVC Oral Arguments on YouTube

Changes to Court Rules Governing Complaints of Judicial Misconduct and Disability - EffectiveJanuary 10, 2024

In the News: Articles

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alvin Christopher BRYANT, a.k.a. Itchy, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-14602

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

June 8, 2011.

Lennard B. Register, III, Robert G. Davies, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Pensacola, FL, Stephen M. Kunz, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Michael Thomas Simpson, Thomas F. Kirwin, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tallahassee, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Randolph P. Murrell, Gwendolyn L. Spivey, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Tallahassee, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before WILSON, MARTIN and BLACK, Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM:

Randolph P. Murrell and Gwendolyn Spivey, appointed counsel for Alvin Christopher Bryant in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Bryant’s convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6387 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

337 West Clark Street in Eureka, California, as the ‘‘Sam Sacco Post 

Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 29, 2010 

Mr. THOMPSON of California (for himself, Mr. BACA, Mr. BECERRA, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. BILBRAY, Mrs. BONO MACK, Mr. CALVERT, Mr. CAMPBELL, 

Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. CARDOZA, Ms. CHU, Mr. COSTA, Mrs. DAVIS of California, Mr. DREIER, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. FARR, Mr. FILNER, Mr. 

GALLEGLY, Mr. GARAMENDI, Ms. HARMAN, Mr. HERGER, Mr. HONDA, 

Mr. HUNTER, Mr. ISSA, Ms. LEE of California, Mr. LEWIS of California, 

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California, Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California, 

Mr. MCKEON, Ms. MATSUI, Mr. MCCARTHY of California, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, Mr. MCNERNEY, Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California, Mr. GEORGE

MILLER of California, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Mr. RADANOVICH, Ms. RICHARDSON, Mr. ROHRABACHER, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Mr. ROYCE, Ms. 

LINDA T. SA ́NCHEZ of California, Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California, 

Mr. SCHIFF, Mr. SHERMAN, Ms. SPEIER, Mr. STARK, Ms. WATERS, Ms. 

WATSON, Mr. WAXMAN, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. NUNES, and Ms. PELOSI) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 337 West Clark Street in Eureka, California, 

as the ‘‘Sam Sacco Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6387 IH

1 SECTION 1. SAM SACCO POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 337 West Clark Street in Eure4 ka, California, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Sam 

5 Sacco Post Office Building’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Sam Sacco Post Office 

10 Building’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
NUMBER 13-19-00519-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

ANTOINE BENSON, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 274th District Court 

of Hays County, Texas.

ORDER FOR PRO SE ACCESS TO RECORD

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Longoria

Order Per Curiam

Before the Court is a letter regarding appellant's inability to access the appellate 

record. Appellant's counsel filed an Anders brief herein. Furthermore, appellant has been 

unable to examine the record in order to prepare a pro se brief, if he so chooses. 
2

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the trial court ensure appellant’s 

opportunity to fully examine the appellate record on or before the expiration of fourteen 

(14) days from the date of this Order, and it is FURTHER ORDERED that the trial court 

notify this Court as to the date upon which the appellate record was made available to 

appellant. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). It is FURTHER 

ORDERED appellant shall have thirty (30) days from the day the appellate record was 

first made available to him to file his pro se brief with this Court. The State shall have 

twenty days thereafter to file its response, if any.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

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

Delivered and filed the

14th day of August, 2020.
(8 Misc. Rep. 490.)

#### ABRAM FRENCH CO. v. MARX.

(City Court of New York, General Term.

May 18, 1894.)

•Judgment—Motion to Vacate.

An application to vacate a judgment will not be granted where it was founded, not on a meritorious defense, but on a technical objection to plaintiff’s capacity to sue, and such objection did not appear on the face of the complaint.

Appeal from special term.

Action by Abram French Company against Philip Marx. From an order setting aside a judgment, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Argued before EHRLICH, C. J., and VAN WYCK, J.

Hayes & Greenbaum, for appellant.

Samuel Mullen, for respondent.

EHRLICH, C. J.

The application made by the defendant was for an order vacating and setting aside the judgment herein, and not. to open the default as á matter of favor. The application was not founded on any defense meritorious in its character, but upon a technical objection as to the plaintiff’s capacity to sue. The ob*750jection did not appear on the face of the complaint, and was one that could not be urged by way of demurrer, but, in the nature of things, would have to be taken advantage of by special plea in the answer, calling upon the plaintiff to make proof that it had the necessary legal authority to transact business in this state. We think the application made below should have been denied, if it was granted as matter of right. Such decision would be erroneous, and, if granted as a matter of favor, the discretion was not wisely exercised. In either case, the order appealed from would have to be reversed, with costs.
Exhibit 32.2



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 on Form 10-Q of Active Power, Inc. (the Company) for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John K. Penver, Chief Financial 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, to my knowledge:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13a or 15d, as applicable, 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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ John K. PenverJohn K. PenverVice President of Finance and Chief Financial OfficerApril 27, 2005
IIB 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6469 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 2, 2010 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, 

and Forestry 

AN ACT 

To amend section 17 of the Richard B. Russell National 

School Lunch Act to include a condition of receipt of 

funds under the child and adult care food program. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 6469 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. CONDITION OF RECEIPT OF FUNDS UNDER THE 

2 CHILD AND ADULT CARE FOOD PROGRAM. 

3 Section 17 of the Richard B. Russell National School 

4 Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1766) is amended by adding at the 

5 end the following: 

6 ‘‘(u) INELIGIBILITY OF INSTITUTIONS.—An institu7 tion shall be ineligible for funds under this section if such 

8 institution employs a child care staff member who— 

9 ‘‘(1) refuses to consent to a criminal back10 ground check that includes— 

11 ‘‘(A) a search of the State criminal reg12 istry or repository in the State where the child 

13 care staff member resides and each State where 

14 such staff member previously resided; 

15 ‘‘(B) a search of State-based child abuse 

16 and neglect registries and databases in the 

17 State where the child care staff member resides 

18 and each State where such staff member pre19 viously resided; 

20 ‘‘(C) a search of the National Crime Infor21 mation Center; 

22 ‘‘(D) a Federal Bureau of Investigation 

23 fingerprint check using the Integrated Auto24 mated Fingerprint Identification System; and 

25 ‘‘(E) a search of the National Sex Of26 fender Registry established under the Adam 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 6469 RFS 

1 Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 

2 (42 U.S.C. 16901 et seq.); 

3 ‘‘(2) makes a false statement in connection with 

4 such criminal background check; 

5 ‘‘(3) is registered or is required to be registered 

6 on a State sex offender registry or the National Sex 

7 Offender Registry established under the Adam 

8 Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (42 

9 U.S.C. 16901 et seq.); or 

10 ‘‘(4) has been convicted of a felony consisting 

11 of— 

12 ‘‘(A) homicide; 

13 ‘‘(B) child abuse or neglect; 

14 ‘‘(C) a crime against children, including 

15 child pornography; 

16 ‘‘(D) spousal abuse; 

17 ‘‘(E) a crime involving rape or sexual as18 sault; 

19 ‘‘(F) kidnapping; 

20 ‘‘(G) arson; or 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
4 

HR 6469 RFS 

1 ‘‘(H) physical assault, battery, or a drug2 related offense, committed within the past 5 

3 years.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 2, 

2010. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
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





The undersigned, Hai Sheng Chen, the Chief Executive Officer of CHINA PRECISION STEEL, INC. (the “Company”), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:





1.      The Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2.      Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this statement this 16th day of May, 2011.




/s/ Hai Sheng ChenHai Sheng ChenChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to China Precision Steel, Inc. and will be retained by China Precision Steel, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





The forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.  It is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.