alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
State of North Carolina v. Robert Timothy Walston, Sr.

No. 392PA13-3

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 9, 2016

Mr. Mark Montgomery, Attorney at Law, For Walston, Robert T. (Sr.)

Ms. Sherri Lawrence, Assistant Attorney General, Mr. R. Andrew Womble, District Attorney, For State of North Carolina

**ORDER**

Upon consideration of the petition filed by State of NC on the 17th of December 2015 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of June 2016."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 5th of January 2016 by State of NC 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:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of June 2016."

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15(g)(2).

WITNESS my hand and the seal of the Supreme Court of North Carolina, this the 10th day of June 2016.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350

The following statement is provided by the undersigned to accompany the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2007 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed filed pursuant to any provision of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or any other securities
law.

Each of the undersigned certifies that the foregoing Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a), or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Sensus Metering
Systems (Bermuda 2) Ltd. and Sensus Metering Systems Inc.



|                      |  |                                                                           |  |          |  |                                                                          
|--------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | -------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ DANIEL W. HARNESS |  | /s/ PETER MAINZ                                                          
|Name:                 |  | Daniel W. Harness                                                         |  | Name:    |  | Peter Mainz                                                              
|Title:                |  | Chief Executive Officer & President                                       |  | Title:   |  | Executive Vice President, Operations & Chief Financial Officer           
|Company:              |  | Sensus Metering Systems (Bermuda 2) Ltd. and Sensus Metering Systems Inc. |  | Company: |  | Sensus Metering Systems (Bermuda 2) Ltd. and Sensus Metering Systems Inc.
|Date:                 |  | July 25, 2007                                                             |  | Date:    |  | July 25, 2007
State of North Carolina v. Markus Deonta Hammonds

No. COA16-199

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 1, 2016

NO ERROR.
# C_2011269EN.01004002.xml

| 10.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2011 — Arkema France v Commission

(Case T-189/06) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Imputability of the infringement - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Equal treatment - Principle of sound administration - Fines - Leniency Notice)

2011/C 269/87

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Arkema France SA (Colombes, France) (represented initially by A. Winckler, S. Sorinas Jimeno and P. Geffriaud, and subsequently by S. Sorinas Jimeno and E. Jégou, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by F. Arbault and O. Beynet, and subsequently by V. Bottka, P.J. Van Nuffel and B. Gencarelli, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 1766 final of 3 May 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen peroxide and perborate), in so far as that decision concerns the applicant and, in the alternative, for annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Arkema France SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Arkema France SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.

1

---
Caron Associates, Inc. v. Southside Manufacturing Corp. and Crown Financial, LLC

No. 296P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016

Ronald H. Garber, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Crown Financial, LLC.

Philip T. Gray, Attorney at Law, Cary, for Caron Associates, Inc.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 9th of August 2016 by Defendant (Crown Financial, LLC) 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 8th of December 2016."
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

B.R., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, MINE, SAFETY & 

HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, Denver, CO, 

Employer 

___________________________________________

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 13-2005 

Issued: May 5, 2014 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record 

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

ORDER REMANDING CASE 

Before: 

RICHARD J. DASCHBACH, Chief Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

MICHAEL E. GROOM, Alternate Judge 

On August 29, 2013 appellant filed an application for review of an Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs’ (OWCP) decision dated August 14, 2013, which denied her emotional 

condition claim.1

 

The Board has duly considered the matter and finds that the case is not in posture for a 

decision and must be remanded to OWCP. In the case of William A. Couch,

2

 the Board held that 

when adjudicating a claim, OWCP is obligated to consider all evidence properly submitted by a 

claimant and received by OWCP before the final decision is issued. 

 1

 Appellant requested an oral argument. The Clerk of the Board mailed a letter to her to confirm a continuing 

desire for an oral argument in Washington, DC. No written confirmation was received; thus the Board has decided 

the appeal on the record. 

2

 41 ECAB 548 (1990). 
2

The Board finds that OWCP, in its August 14, 2013 decision, did not review the April 9, 

2013 factual statement from appellant that was received by OWCP on April 16, 2013.3 The 

Board notes that OWCP listed all of the evidence submitted with the exception of appellant’s 

statement which set forth her allegations of unfair treatment at the employing establishment. 

OWCP did not otherwise indicate that it considered appellant’s statement. For this reason, the 

case will be remanded to OWCP to consider all the evidence submitted at the time of the 

August 14, 2013 decision. Following such further development as OWCP deems necessary, it 

shall issue an appropriate merit decision on the claim. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 14, 2013 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside. The case record is remanded to OWCP for 

further proceedings consistent with this order of the Board. 

Issued: May 5, 2014 

Washington, DC 

 

 Richard J. Daschbach, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Michael E. Groom, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 3

 On February 8, 2013 appellant, then a 56-year-old mine safety and health technician, filed an occupational 

disease claim alleging that she was harassed and discriminated against at work causing her to sustain stress and 

anxiety in the performance of duty. By decision dated August 14, 2013, OWCP denied the claim for compensation 

as the evidence was insufficient to establish that appellant sustained an injury as alleged. It found that appellant did 

not establish a factual or medical basis for her claim.
# C_2007020EN.01002102.xml

| 27.1.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 20/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.1.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 20/21

---

Action brought on 5 December 2006 — Dura Vermeer Infra v Commission

(Case T-352/06)

(2007/C 20/31)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Claimant: Dura Vermeer Infra BV (represented by: M.M. Slotboom, lawyer)

Claimant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | annul Articles 1(d) and 2(d) of the decision in so far as the liability of Dura Vermeer Infra is concerned; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Articles 1(d) and 2(d) of the decision in so far as the liability of Dura Vermeer Infra is concerned; and

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The claimant is challenging the Commission's decision of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case No COMP/38.456 — Bitumen — NL), by which a fine was imposed on the claimant for breach of Article 81 EC.

In support of its application, the claimant invokes the same pleas in law and arguments as does the claimant in Case T-351/06 Dura Vermeer Groep NV v Commission.

Dura Vermeer Groep NV

Commission

---
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

      In connection with the Annual Report of Viewpoint Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Patrick Vogt, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based on my knowledge:

|              | (1) |   | The Report to which this certification is attached as an exhibit, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|              | (2) |   | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.                         |

| Dated: March 20, 2006 | By: |   | /s/ PATRICK VOGT                                        Patrick VogtPresident and Chief Executive Officer |
|-----------------------|-----|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 183 (Thursday, September 22, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55638-55639]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19030]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities 
and Exchange Commission will hold the following meetings during the 
week of September 26, 2005:
    A closed meeting will be held on Thursday, September 29, 2005 at 3 
p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the 
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. 
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters may also be 
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has 
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth 
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), (9)(B), and (10) and 17 CFR 
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), (9)(ii) and (10) permit consideration of the 
scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
    Commissioner Atkins, as duty officer, voted to consider the items 
listed for the closed meeting in closed session.
    The subject matters of the closed meeting scheduled for Thursday, 
September 29, 2005 will be:


[[Page 55639]]


Institution and settlement of injunctive actions; and
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an 
enforcement nature.

    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have 
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

    Dated: September 19, 2005.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-19030 Filed 9-20-05; 11:21 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
NO. 07-08-0342-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL B

OCTOBER 1, 2008

______________________________

ANTOIN DESHON LIVINGSTON, APPELLANT

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 181 DISTRICT COURT OF RANDALL COUNTY; ST

NO. 18,943-B; HON. JOHN B. BOARD, PRESIDING

_______________________________

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

ON MOTION TO DISMISS

Pending before the Court is appellant’s motion to dismiss his appeal. Appellant and

his attorney have both signed the motion. Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a). No decision of this

Court having been delivered to date, we grant the motion. Accordingly, the appeal is

dismissed. No motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue

forthwith.

James T. Campbell

Do not publish. Justice
STATE of North Carolina v. Leander Vincent WATKINS, Jr.

No. COA16-434

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 6, 2016

AFFIRMED.
##### 



CERTIFICATION OF ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K
OF ADVOCAT INC.
FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2006
  (a)
    
    fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(b)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
  /s/William R. Council, IIIWilliam R. Council, IIIChief Executive Officer /s/L. Glynn Riddle, Jr.L. Glynn Riddle, Jr.Chief Financial Officer
1

... This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2008-CR-7316-B, styled The State of Texas v. Mark A. Martinez,

pending in the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Bert Richardson presiding.

2

... Relator’s petition is entitled “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Mandamus;” however, we construe it as

a mandamus petition because it seeks to compel the trial court to rule on the various motions. 

i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-08-00669-CR

IN RE Mark MARTINEZ

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Alma L. López, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 24, 2008

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

Relator Mark Martinez filed a petition for writ of mandamus, complaining of the trial court’s

failure to rule on various motions.2

 Relator has been appointed counsel to represent him in the trial

court. We conclude that relator’s appointed counsel in the trial court is also his counsel for an

original proceeding on the issue presented. 

To obtain mandamus relief in a criminal matter, the relator must establish: (1) the act sought

to be compelled is ministerial rather than discretionary in nature, and (2) there is no adequate

remedy at law. Deleon v. District Clerk, 187 S.W.3d 473, 474 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Respondent
04-08-00669-CR

-2-

has no ministerial duty to rule on relator’s pro se motion because relator is represented by appointed

counsel and is not entitled to hybrid representation. See Robinson v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 922

(Tex. Crim. App. 2007); Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995).

Consequently, the respondent did not violate a ministerial duty by declining to rule on relator’s

motion. Therefore, this court has determined that relator is not entitled to the relief sought.

Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). 

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
In the Matter of E.B.

No. COA15-1087.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

May 17, 2016.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reversed.
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 for the quarter ended March 31, 2022 (the “Report”) of Hercules Capital, Inc. (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Seth H. Meyer, the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:

1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

 

|                   |        |                                                        |
|-------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------|
| Date: May 5, 2022 | By:    | /S/ SETH H. MEYER

                               |
|              |   | Seth H. Meyer                                          |
|              |   | Chief Financial Officer, and

Chief Accounting Officer |

 

 

----
State of North Carolina v. Jonathan Daniel Poteat

No. COA16-535

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: January 17, 2017

Attorney General Roy A. Cooper, III, by Assistant Attorney General Martin T. McCracken, for the State.

Appellate Defender Glenn G. Gerding, by Assistant Appellate Defender Paul M. Green, for the Defendant.

DILLON, Judge.

On 16 September 2015, Jonathan Daniel Poteat ("Defendant") was convicted by a jury of selling heroin, possession with intent to sell or deliver heroin, maintaining a dwelling place for keeping or selling a controlled substance, conspiracy to sell or deliver heroin, possession of drug paraphernalia, and delivery of heroin. Defendant then pled guilty to having attained habitual felon status. The trial court arrested judgment on the charge of delivery of heroin. The trial court sentenced Defendant to consecutive terms of 114 to 149 and 99 to 131 months of imprisonment. Defendant appeals.

Counsel appointed to represent Defendant has been unable to identify any issue with sufficient merit to support a meaningful argument for relief on appeal and asks that this Court conduct its own review of the record for possible prejudicial error. Counsel has also shown to the satisfaction of this Court that he has complied with the requirements of *Anders v. California* , 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and *State v. Kinch* , 314 N.C. 99, 331 S.E.2d 665 (1985), by advising Defendant of his right to file written arguments with this Court and providing him with the documents necessary for him to do so.

Defendant has not filed any written arguments on his own behalf with this Court and a reasonable time in which he could have done so has passed. In accordance with *Anders* and *Kinch* , we have fully examined the record to determine whether there are any issues of arguable merit. We have been unable to find any possible prejudicial error and conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous.

NO ERROR.

Report per Rule 30(e).

Chief Judge McGEE and Judge CALABRIA concur.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

SEPT 25, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

 [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 05-14475

 

D. C. Docket No. 03-00493 CR-17-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ROBERTO MORENO-GONZALEZ,

a.k.a. Beto,

Defendant-Appellant.

_______________

No. 05-17251

_______________

D. C. Docket No. 03-00493 CR-3-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LEONARDO NUNEZ-VIRRAIZABAL,

Defendant-Appellant.
Honorable Harvey E. Schlesinger, United States District Judge for the Middle District of *

Florida, sitting by designation.

2

 

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

 

(September 25, 2008)

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE UNITED STATES

Before DUBINA and COX, Circuit Judges, and SCHLESINGER, District Judge. *

PER CURIAM:

This case returns to us on remand fromthe Supreme Court of the United States.

The Supreme Court vacated this court’s judgment in the Roberto Moreno-Gonzalez

and Leonardo Nunez-Virraizabal cases and remanded for further consideration in

light of Cuellar v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 1994 (2008). United States v. GarciaJaimes, 484 F.3d 1311 (11th Cir. 2007), vacated sub nom. Moreno-Gonzalez v.

United States, 128 S. Ct. 2901 (2008) and Nunez-Virraizabal v. United States, 128

S. Ct. 2901 (2008).

The parties have filed supplemental briefs following remand, and agree that

only the convictions on Count 26 are at issue. Accordingly, we now vacate Roberto’s

and Leonardo’s convictions on Count 26, and vacate Roberto’s and Leonardo’s
3

sentences, and remand their cases to the United States District Court for the Northern

District of Georgia for further consideration and further proceedings consistent with

the opinion of the Supreme Court in Cuellar. 

We reinstate the vacation of Roberto’s gun conviction and affirm all

convictions other than Roberto’s gun conviction and Roberto’s and Leonardo’s Count

26 convictions for reasons stated in our prior opinion.

AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED IN PART; VACATED AND

REMANDED IN PART.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136444 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 136444 

 COA: 275730 

Monroe CC: 06-035337-FC 

SONYA JOHN MOUSSAED,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 20, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t0828 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

September 9, 2008 

 Clerk