alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE v. Eddie Lamar TAYLOR.

No. 719A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 12, 2006.

Anne M. Gomez, Daniel Shatz, Assistant Appellate Defenders, for Eddie Lamar Taylor.

William Hart, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Thomas H. Lock, District Attorney, for State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 8th day of December 2006 by Defendant for Extension of Time to serve proposed record on appeal:

"Motion Allowed. Defendant shall have up to and including the 2nd day of January 2007 to serve his/her proposed record upon the district attorney. The parties shall then proceed to settle and file the record on appeal pursuant to the provisions of Appellate Rules 11 and 12. By order of the Court In conference this the 12th day of December 2006."
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

VINCENT B. SPELLS, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-4594

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed June 22, 2018. 

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P.

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for 

Pinellas County; Nancy Moate Ley, Judge.

Vincent B. Spells, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

SILBERMAN, CRENSHAW, and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23


Consent of Independent Auditors


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-38285) pertaining to the Vision Twenty-One, Inc. 1996 Stock
Incentive Plan, the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-67315) pertaining
to the Vision Twenty-One, Inc. 1998 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, and the
Registration Statement (Post-Effective Amendment No. 2 on Form S-3 to Form S-1
No. 333-51437) of our report dated March 31 2001, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of Vision Twenty-One, Inc. and
Subsidiaries included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 31, 2000.



                                                 /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Tampa, Florida
April 16, 2001
BORDAS v. ARVIDA.

COA05-1438.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed November 7, 2006.

Certification Date November 27, 2006.

Appeal from the Jackson (03CVS592).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
STATE v. SHOE.

No. COA06-774.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 6, 2007.

Certification Date February 26, 2007.

Appeal from the Randolph (03CRS54434).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. Reversed and remanded.
STATE of North Carolina v. Troy Dion REESE.

No. 282P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 29, 2006.

Daniel Shatz, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Troy Dion Reese.

John J. Aldridge, III, Special Deputy Attorney General, Michael K. Lands, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendant on the 23rd day of May 2006 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the Attorney General, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 29th day of June 2006."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 23rd day of May 2006 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 29th day of June 2006."
ALEXANDRE v. TESORO CORP.

COA05-1667.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed November 7, 2006.

Certification Date November 27, 2006.

Appeal from the NC Industrial Commission (I.C. #322446).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
#### In the Matter of Jessica Cattell, Appellant, v Town of Brookhaven, Respondent.

[800 NYS2d 603]

*897In a proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Emerson, J.), dated September 8, 2004, which denied the application.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the petitioner’s application for leave to serve a late notice of claim 14 months after the accident. The petitioner failed to offer any excuse for the 14-month delay in bringing this proceeding *(see Shapiro v Town of Clarkstown,*238 AD2d 498 [1997]; *Matter of McAllister v County of Nassau,*202 AD2d 670 [1994]; *Matter of Dube v City of New York,*158 AD2d 457 [1990]).

The petitioner contends that the respondent received timely notice of her claim that the vehicle in which she was a passenger was caused to skid off the road and collide with a tree due to the defective design of the roadway and lack of stop signs because it had conducted a study of the roadway in 2000 and had received numerous complaints concerning speeding vehicles on that portion of the roadway. However, the petitioner failed to establish that the study recommended the installation of stop signs at the intersection of that portion of the roadway or that complaints from the community before the accident placed the respondent on notice of the potential danger to vehicles traveling on that portion of the road due to the alleged defective design of the roadway or inadequate traffic control devices *(see Matter of Gillum v County of Nassau,*284 AD2d 533 [2001]; *cf. Morano v County of Dutchess,*160 AD2d 690 [1990]; *Fahey v County of Nassau,*111 AD2d 214 [1985]).

Moreover, granting leave to serve a late notice of claim would result in prejudice to the respondent since it has been denied the opportunity to investigate whether the alleged dangerous condition was a cause of the accident due to the passage of time and the possible changed conditions of the accident site *(see Perre v Town of Poughkeepsie,*300 AD2d 379 [2002]; *Matter of Gillum v County of Nassau, supra; Matter of Resto v City of*
      *898
      *New York,*240 AD2d 499 [1997]). H. Miller, J.P., S. Miller, Goldstein, Mastro and Lifson, JJ., concur.
IN RE A.A.H.

No. COA05-1433.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed September 5, 2006.

Certification Date September 25, 2006.

Appeal from Yadkin (02J58, 02J59).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                 Jurisdiction of       Percentage Interest
   Name of Subsidiary             Organization         Owned by Registrant
----------------------           ---------------       -------------------
<S>                              <C>                      <C>

SUBSIDIARIES OF ATLANTIC
CENTRAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED
----------------------------

Vista Technologies Inc.           Nevada                      54.1%  (Note A)

First American AMO Inc.           Delaware                    80.02% (Note B)

ICON Vision Centers Inc.          Ontario                    100%    (Note B)


SUBSIDIARIES OF VISTA
TECHNOLOGIES INC.
----------------------------

Vista Vision S.p.A.               Italy                       74.73%

Vista Vision Scandinavia A.B.     Sweden                     100%

Vista Laser Centers of the
   Southwest, Inc.                Nevada                      94%

Vista Laser Centers of
   Michigan, Inc.                 Nevada                     100%  (Note B)

Vista Laser Centers of
   the Northwest, Inc.            Nevada                     100%  (Note B)

Vista Laser Centers, Inc.         Nevada                     100%  (Note B)

Refractive Services 800 Corp.     Nevada                     100%  (Note B)


</TABLE>

____________________________________________________

(A)     Based on 6,324,912 shares of Vista's common stock outstanding, of which
        3,423,800 shares are owned by Atlantic Central Enterprises Limited.

(B)     Not engaged in active business operations as of February 28, 1997.
EXHIBIT 31.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer

I, John D. Reedy, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Michael Foods, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

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

4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

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 registrant, 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) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant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

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants first
fiscal quarter of 2007 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of
registrant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 registrant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 registrants internal control
over financial reporting.

Date: May 14, 2007



/s/ John D. ReedyJohn D. ReedyExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
# L_2013179DE.01010501.xml

| 29.6.2013 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 179/105 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2013

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 179/105

---

Berichtigung der Durchführungsverordnung (EU) Nr. 601/2013 der Kommission vom 24. Juni 2013 zur Zulassung von Cobalt(II)acetat-Tetrahydrat, Cobalt(II)carbonat, Cobalt(II)carbonathydroxid(2:3)-Monohydrat, Cobalt(II)sulfat-Heptahydrat und gecoatetem Cobalt(II)carbonathydroxid(2:3)-Monohydrat-Granulat als Futtermittelzusatzstoffe

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 172 vom 25. Juni 2013
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 172 vom 25. Juni 2013

Seite 15, Artikel 2:

anstatt:

„Die im Anhang beschriebenen Stoffe, die gemäß der Richtlinie 70/524/EWG zugelassen wurden, und die diese Stoffe enthaltenden Futtermittel, die vor dem 15. Juni 2013 hergestellt und gekennzeichnet wurden, dürfen bis zur Erschöpfung der Bestände weiter in Verkehr gebracht und verwendet werden.“

muss es heißen:

„Die im Anhang beschriebenen Stoffe, die gemäß der Richtlinie 70/524/EWG zugelassen wurden, und die diese Stoffe enthaltenden Futtermittel, die vor dem 15. Januar 2014 in Übereinstimmung mit den vor dem 15. Juli 2013 geltenden Vorschriften hergestellt und gekennzeichnet worden sind, dürfen bis zur Erschöpfung der Bestände weiter in Verkehr gebracht und verwendet werden.“

---
Exhibit 31.2
 
 CONTROL CERTIFICATION
 
 I, Richard K Brock, certify that:
 
 1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Professional Lease Management Income Fund I, L.L.C.
 
 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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;
 
 4.  The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:
 
 a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant is made known to us by others, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is prepared;
 
 b)  evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the Evaluation Date); and
 
 c)  presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;
 
 5.  The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and board of Managers:
 
 a)  all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrants auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and
 
 b)  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls; and
 
 6.  The registrants other certifying officer and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.
 
 
 
 
 Date: May 14, 2004  By:  /s/ Richard K Brock
 Richard K Brock
 Chief Financial Officer
 (Principal Financial Officer)
BILL OF COSTS

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, FOURTEENTH DISTRICT, AT HOUSTON

No. 14-15-00241-CV

Lisa Priymak and Gareguin Step

v.

Kroger Co.

(No. 2014-19634 IN 333RD DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY)

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID/DUE STATUS PAID BY

CLK RECORD

FILING

STATEWIDE EFILING

$250.00

$175.00

$20.00

06/19/2015

04/14/2015

04/14/2015

PAID

PAID

PAID

ANT

ANT

ANT

The costs incurred on appeal to the Fourteenth Court of Appeals Houston, Texas 

are $445.00.

Court costs in this cause shall be paid as per the Judgment issued by this Court.

I, CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE, CLERK OF THE FOURTEENTH COURT OF 

APPEALS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing 

is a true and correct copy of the cost bill of THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 

FOURTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS, showing the charges and payments, in the 

above numbered and styled cause, as the same appears of record in this office.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness 

my hand and the Seal of the COURT 

OF APPEALS for the Fourteenth District 

of Texas, December 3, 2015.
##### 



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
    PARAGON REAL ESTATE EQUITY AND INVESTMENT TRUSTBy:
    
    /s/ James C. MastandreaDate: August 6, 2007
    
    
    
    James C. MastandreaChairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and PresidentPARAGON REAL ESTATE EQUITY AND INVESTMENT TRUSTBy:
    
    /s/ John J. DeeDate: August 6, 2007
    
    
    
    John J. DeeChief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President
Exhibit 32

Certification

Each of the undersigned officers of Allin Corporation (the Company), certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1. | the Companys report on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

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



|               |  |                        
|-------------- |  | -----------------------
|March 31, 2008 |  | /s/ Richard W. Talarico
|               |  | Chief Executive Officer
|               | 
|March 31, 2008 |  | /s/ Dean C. Praskach   
|               |  | Chief Financial 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.



127
**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**

|  | (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. |
|--|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|    |                                                                                                                              |    |
|--------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------|
|         | /s/                Tom Yu LiuTom                Yu LiuChief                Executive OfficerDated: August                14, 2007 |

----
In the Matter of C.N.R.

No. 368P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 6, 2006.

Terry F. Rose, Smithfield, for Margaret and Brandon J.

Susan J. Hall, for Father.

W.A. Holland, Smithfield, Jennifer S. O'Connor, for Johnston County DSS.

James Johnson, for Guardian ad Litem.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 12th day of July 2006 by Respondent (Mother) to Dismiss Petition for Discretionary Review:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference this the 16th day of November 2006."
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, Kenneth A. Shewer, Co-Chief Executive Officer of Preferred Investment Solutions Corp., the Managing
Owner of Kenmar Global Trust (Registrant), hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | Registrants Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Registrant.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                             
|-----------------------------
|/s/ Kenneth A. Shewer        
|Kenneth A. Shewer            
|Co-Chief Executive Officer   
|(Principal Executive Officer)
|March 30, 2007
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

FELIPE PEREZ-MENDEZ,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 11-50024

D.C. No. 3:10-cr-02512-JLS-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Janis L. Sammartino, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 19, 2011** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

Felipe Perez-Mendez appeals from a condition of supervised release

imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found in

the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We dismiss the appeal in

light of the valid appeal waiver.

FILED

JAN 04 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-50024

A defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal his sentence will not apply if,

among other exceptions not relevant here, the sentence violates the Constitution. 

See United States v. Bibler, 495 F.3d 621, 624 (9th Cir. 2007). Perez-Mendez

contends that the condition of his supervised release requiring him to submit to

DNA collection violates the Fourth Amendment. However, this contention is

foreclosed by United States v. Hugs, 384 F.3d 762, 769 (9th Cir. 2004) (“A

condition of supervised release requiring a qualified felon to provide a DNA

sample pursuant to the procedures set forth in the DNA Act, 42 U.S.C. § 14135a,

does not violate the Fourth Amendment.”). Perez-Mendez’s contention that the

appeal waiver is inapplicable under United States v. Montilla, 870 F.2d 549 (9th

Cir. 1989) is also unavailing. 

We therefore dismiss Perez-Mendez’s appeal.

DISMISSED.
COLLINS v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPT. OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES.

No. COA05-1487.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed September 19, 2006

Certification Date October 9, 2006.

Appeal from Wilson (04CVS2051)

Case reported without published opinion. Reversed.