alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE v. McCLURE.

No. COA05-619.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed January 3, 2006.

Certification Date January 23, 2006.

Appeal from Mecklenburg (03CRS29306, 03CRS29307, 03CRS29308).

Case without published opinion. No error.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ROFIN-SINAR TECHNOLOGIES
INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001019361
<NAME> ROFIN-SINAR TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          34,874
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   34,722
<ALLOWANCES>                                      1093
<INVENTORY>                                     38,372
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               111,814
<PP&E>                                          41,689
<DEPRECIATION>                                  17,691
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 143,742
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           44,695
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        75,976
<OTHER-SE>                                      14,789
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   143,742
<SALES>                                        117,583
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               117,583
<CGS>                                           74,476
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   74,476
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   148
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,799
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,118
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,681
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,681
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.58
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.58
        

</TABLE>
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 268

_____________________________
J ONATHAN W RIGHT , Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Linda F. Mc C allum , Judge

. May 2, 2019

P ER C URIAM

. Jonathan Wright appeals an order denying his motion for postconviction relief. While we find no error in most of the trial court’s disposition, we agree with Mr. Wright that the court’s record attachments do not refute his claim of entitlement to additional jail credit.

In 1985
, Jonathan Wright was sentenced for two counts of attempted second

- degree murder, four counts of armed robbery, and three counts of attempted armed robbery . In 2007, he was re

sentenced following this court’s decision in Wright v. State , 941 So. 538 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006).

In the instant motion
, Mr. Wright contended that while awaiting re

- sentencing he was held in Duval County Jail from May2 29, 2007 until November 22, 2007. He claimed that he was entitled to jail credit for this time. The trial court denied relief, finding that the motion was legally insufficient, and that Mr. Wright was not entitled to the credit on the merits.
We disagree with the court’s conclusion that the motion was legally insufficient. Criminal defendants are entitled to credit for time spent in count y jail awaiting re

- sentencing. Middleton v. State , 213 So. 3d 963 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) . And Mr. Wright’s motion alleged everything that was required pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801. T he record attachments do not conclusively refute his jail credit claim. See McIntosh v. State , 146 So. 3d 1291 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (“ Rule 3.801(e ) . . . requires the circuit court to attach to its order denying a motion seeking additional jail credit records that conclusively refute the motion. ”).

On remand , the court should grant relief, unless the jail and /or prison records show that Mr. Wright received the credit due for the time he spent in jail from May 29, 2007 until November 22, 2007

. I f the court denies relief, it must include record attachments show ing that the defendant is not entitled to relief for this period of time

. Accordingly, we A FFIRM in part, R EVERSE in part
, and R EMAND for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

B.L. T HOMAS , C.J.
, and R OBERTS and O STERHAUS , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Jonathan Wright, Appellant, pro se

. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Amanda D. Stokes
, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
STATE v. TUTTLE

No. COA04-1706.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed October 18, 2005.

Certification Date November 7, 2005.

Appeal from Forsyth (03CRS59629).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Robert L. Russell,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB ofIdaho General Mines, Inc. for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report onForm 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial conditionand results of operations of Idaho General Mines, Inc.

Dated: November20, 2006
|        | By:    | /s/   Robert L. Russell |   |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Name:  | Robert L. Russell                      |
|   | Title: | Chief Executive Officer                |
|   |   | (Principal Executive Officer)          |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7116
CONRAD VOLCY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MARTIN MCDADE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-01-502-H) Submitted: December 19, 2002 Decided: December 31, 2002 Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Conrad Volcy, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Conrad Volcy seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken to this court from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a state court unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court on the merits absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). As to claims dismissed by a district court solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’” Rose v. Lee , 252 F. 3d 676, 684 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)), cert. denied , 122 S.Ct. 318 (2001). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Volcy has not satisfied either standard. SeeVolcy v. McDade , No. CA-01-502-H (E.D.N.C. June 26, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appe alability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Volcy’s motion for appointment of3 counsel. 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
JOINT REDEVELOPMENT COM'N OF COUNTY OF PASQUOTANK v. JACKSON-HEARD.

No. COA05-1146.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed April 18, 2006.

Certification Date May 8, 2006.

Appeal from the Pasquotank (00CVS641).

Case reported without published opinion. Dismissed.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-10689

Summary Calendar 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee 

v. 

ASHTON ADELE HUGHES, 

Defendant-Appellant 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas 

USDC No. 3:14-CR-418-1 

Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Ashton Adele Hughes appeals the district court’s revocation of her 

supervised release, arguing that the evidence failed to establish that she 

violated the conditions of her supervised release by constructively possessing 

methamphetamine and heroin and by associating with a person convicted of a 

felony. A district court may revoke a term of supervised release upon a finding, 

by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant violated a condition of 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 29, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-10689 Document: 00513930574 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/29/2017
No. 16-10689

2 

supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3); United States v. Hinson, 429 

F.3d 114, 118-19 (5th Cir. 2005). The district court’s decision to revoke 

supervised release is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. United States v. 

Grandlund, 71 F.3d 507, 509 (5th Cir. 1995), opinion clarified, 77 F.3d 811 (5th 

Cir. 1996). When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged on appeal, this 

court must “view the evidence and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn 

from the evidence in a light most favorable to the government.” United States 

v. Alaniz-Alaniz, 38 F.3d 788, 792 (5th Cir. 1994) (internal quotation marks 

and citation omitted). The district court can “choose among reasonable 

constructions of the evidence,” and the evidence is sufficient if a reasonable 

trier of fact could have reached the district court’s conclusion. Id. (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, 

Hughes’s assertion that there was insufficient evidence to revoke her 

supervised release is unavailing. A reasonable trier of fact could determine 

that Hughes violated the conditions of her supervised release by possessing 

methamphetamine and heroin and by associating with a convicted felon while 

he was involved in known illegal activity. See Grandlund, 71 F.3d at 509; 

Alaniz-Alaniz, 38 F.3d at 792. Therefore, the district court’s judgment is 

affirmed. 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 16-10689 Document: 00513930574 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/29/2017
# L_2012069EN.01000101.xml

| 8.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 69/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 69/1

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 185/2012

of 7 March 2012

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Armagh Bramley Apples (PGI)]

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the United Kingdom’s application to register the name ‘Armagh Bramley Apples’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the United Kingdom’s application to register the name ‘Armagh Bramley Apples’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 7 March 2012.

For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

Dacian CIOLOȘ

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 185, 25.6.2011, p. 18.

2

---

ANNEX

Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

Class 1.6.   Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed

UNITED KINGDOM

Armagh Bramley Apples (PGI)

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6158
ASTON EARL MCCRAE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ROBERT J. BECK, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-93-941-AM) Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: June 5, 1996 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Aston Earl McCrae, Appellant Pro Se. Katherine P. Baldwin, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. 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 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversibleerror. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. McCrae v. Beck , No. CA-93-941-AM (E.D. Va. Nov. 29, 1995). We dispense withoral 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
LANDFILL DISPOSAL AGREEMENT
                              NON-HAZARDOUS WASTES

COMPANY:

    Milton Grove Construction & Demolition Landfill
    2487 Cloverleaf Road                               Contract Number:99-0081
    Elizabethtown PA 17022
    Tel:(717) 653-4686 Fax: (717) 653-6176

      CUSTOMER:

      Company
      Name: JS TRANSPORTATION
      Address:                       Tax I.D. No.
      City:                          State.            Zip:      County:
      Contact:Todd Sage              Telephone.                  P.0- #

1 . Solid Waste Disposal.  Subject to the terms and conditions contained herein,
the Company agrees to accept at its landfill (the  'Landfill')  Acceptable Waste
as defined in Paragraph 2 hereof (collectively, "Waste") delivered by Customer.

2- Acceptable  Waste.  The following  types of waste are the only types of waste
which the Company will accept at the Landfill, and Customer agrees that it shall
not dispose of any waste not specifically listed below.

      (a)  Construction & Demolition                         (c)

      (b)                                                    (d)

Acceptable Waste specifically excludes hazardous,  explosive,  highly flammable,
infectious,  pathological,  radioactive,  residual,  toxic or illegal waste,  as
defined under any applicable law or regulation.  No waste other than those types
specifically  provided  for  herein,  will be  acceptable  for  disposal  at the
Landfill.  In addition,  all Waste  de1ivered  to the Company for disposal  must
conform to all applicable federal, state and local laws, regulations,  rules and
orders relating at any time to the transportation and disposal of Waste.

3. Rates for Disposal
    Type of Waste      Volume          Rate
       C & D           ------         $24.00

           County and state of
           Origin of Waste:                    Disposal Quantity (per week)

4.  Term  of  Agreement.  This  Agreement  is  effective  for  __________months,
commencing  ________________  and shall  automatically  be renewed for a similar
term  thereafter  unless either party shall give written  Notice (via  certified
mail) of  termination  to the other party at least thirty (30) days prior to the
termination of the initial term or any renewal term thereof.  The disposal rates
herein may be  adjusted  by the  Company  upon  thirty  (30) days prior  written
notice.

COMPANY  AND  CUSTOMER  IN  CONSIDERATION  OF THE MUTUAL  OBLIGATIONS  CONTAINED
HEREIN,  AGREE THIS IS A LEGALLY BINDING AGREEMENT WHICH IS SUBJECT TO THE TERMS
AND CONDITIONS ON THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS DOCUMENT.

Customer                                 Company
SIGNATURE (AUTHORIZED REPRESENTIVE)      SIGNATURE (AUTHORIZED REPRESENTIVE)
NAME (PLEASE PRINT)                      NAME (PLEASE PRINT)
TITLE                                    TITLE
DATE                                     DATE

999-1542 (Rev. 7/98) LANDFILL - WHITE    CUSTOMER - PINK    YELLOW     GREEN


<PAGE>
Exhibit 5.1 CERTIFICATION  I, André Gaumond, certify that:  1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 40-F of Virginia Mines Inc. (the issuer);  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 issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4.  The 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))for the 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 issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; (b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this 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; and  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the issuers internal control over financial reporting; and  5.  The issuers other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the issuers auditors and the audit committee of the 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 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 issuers internal control over financial reporting.  Date:  May19, 2011  /s/ André Gaumond André Gaumond President and Chief Executive Officer
**EXHIBIT32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Gregory A. Wells, Chief Financial Officer of NTS Realty Capital,Inc., Managing Partner of NTS Realty Holdings Limited Partnership (the “Partnership”),certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, that:

 

1.                                       The quarterly report on Form10-Q of the Partnership for the period ended September 30, 2004 (the “Report”)fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

2.                                       The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Partnership.

 
| Dated:  December 20, 2004 |
|--------------------------------|
|                           |
| /s/  Gregory A. Wells          |   |
| Chief  Financial Officer       |
| NTS  Realty Capital, Inc.,     |
| Managing  Partner              |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906has been provided to the Partnership and will be retained by the Partnershipand furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

 

----