alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE of North Carolina v. Brandon Christopher CARLTON

No. COA16-880

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: March 7, 2017

Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General Kristin J. Uicker, for the State.

Appellate Defender Glenn Gerding, by Assistant Appellate Defender Katherine Jane Allen, for defendant-appellant.

CALABRIA, Judge.

Brandon Christopher Carlton ("defendant") appeals from a judgment entered pursuant to an *Alford* plea. We affirm.

On 9 March 2016, defendant entered an *Alford* plea to misdemeanor assault on a government official, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-33(c)(4) (2015).1*See**North**Carolina v. Alford* , 400 U.S. 25, 27 L.Ed. 2d 162 (1970). The trial court sentenced defendant, as a prior conviction level II, to a suspended term of 75 days in county jail plus 24 months of supervised probation. Defendant filed timely notice of appeal.

Counsel appointed to represent defendant is 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 shows to the satisfaction of this Court that she has complied with the requirements of *Anders v. California* , 386 U.S. 738, 18 L.Ed. 2d 493 (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 to do so. Defendant has not filed any written arguments on his own behalf with this Court, and a reasonable time for him to do so has expired.

In accordance with *Anders* , we have fully examined the record to determine whether any issues of arguable merit appear. We have been unable to find any possible prejudicial error and conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Therefore, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

AFFIRMED.

Report per Rule 30(e).

Chief Judge McGEE and Judge DILLON concur.

1

Defendant also entered an *Alford* plea to felonious possession of marijuana in file number 16 CRS 31. However, he did not perfect an appeal from the judgment entered therein.
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed August 7, 2024

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D23

- 1476 Lower Tribunal No. 17

- 7669

________________ 

### Viktoria Benkovitch , Appellant,

vs. 

### U.S. Bank National Association, etc. , Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami

- Dade County, Barbara Areces , Judge. Viktoria Benkovitch , in proper person

. Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP, and Dorrella L. Gallaway (Atlanta, GA) , for appellee.

Before EMAS, LINDSEY and GORDO , JJ. PER CURIAM.2 Appellant, Viktoria Benkovitch, appeals the trial court ’s order , which denied her (1) motion seeking to vacate and set aside the consent final judgment of foreclosure; (2) objection to foreclosure sale ; ( 3 ) motion to vacate and set aside the foreclosure sale and certificate of sale; ( 4 ) motion for involuntary dismissal of the foreclosure complaint for failure to join an indispensable party; and ( 5 ) request fo r an evidentiary hearing.
F ollowing our review of the briefs and the record on appeal, we find no abuse of discretion or error by the trial court and affirm. See S

. Palm Beach Inv. v. Ragatta Trading, Ltd. , 789 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (holding former owners of property not proper parties to foreclosure suit where they had transferred their rights and interest in the property to a third party and plaintiff was seeking only to foreclose the mortgage, n ot a deficiency judgment); Mitchell v. Fed. Nat’l Mort g. Ass’n , 763 So. 2d 3 58 , 359 (Fla. 4th DCA 358) (reiterating that mortgagor who has conveyed his interest in property to another prior to foreclosure filing is “neither necessary nor proper part[y] to a suit to foreclose unless a deficiency decree is sought.”) (citation omitted). See also Venezia v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. , 306 So. 3d 1096, 1097 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (“ [T] he law is well

- established that an objection to a foreclosure sale must be directed toward conduct that occurred at, or was directly related to, the foreclosure s ale.”)
STATE v. Terance Germaine MALACHI

142P17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 4, 2017

Aaron Thomas Johnson, Assistant Appellate Defender, Constance E. Widenhouse, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Malachi, Terance Germaine.

John R. Green, Jr., Special Deputy Attorney General, R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 4th of May 2017 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 4th of May 2017."
STATE of North Carolina v. William Burnett LINDSEY.

No. COA15-1251.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

June 21, 2016.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Vacated and Remanded.
# C_2009267EN.01001201.xml

| 7.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 267/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 267/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-457/07) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Articles 28 EC and 30 EC - Construction products - National approval procedure - Failure to take account of approval certificates drawn up in other Member States - Judgment of the Court establishing the failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Non-implementation - Article 228 EC - Subject-matter of the dispute - Determination during the pre-litigation procedure - Subsequent extension - Not permissible)

2009/C 267/20

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and P. Andrade, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inês Fernandes, acting as Agent, N. Ruiz and C. Farinhas, advogados)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 228 EC — Failure to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of 10 November 2005 in Case C-432/02 — Application for a penalty payment to be imposed

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 297, 8.12.2007.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-1710

METASEBYA KASSA MEKONEN,

Petitioner,

v.

MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A77-894-838)

Submitted: March 13, 2008 Decided: March 24, 2008

Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Fitsum A. Alemu, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Michael B.

Mukasey, United States Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright,

Assistant Director, Yamileth G. HandUber, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION

LITIGATION, Civil Division, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Metasebya Kassa Mekonen, a native and citizen of

Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of

Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her second motion to reopen as

untimely and numerically barred, and denying her motion to

reconsider as untimely. We have reviewed the record and Mekonen’s

arguments and find no abuse of discretion in the Board’s decision.

See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2(c)(2), (3) (2007); INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S.

314, 323-24 (1992).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.

PETITION DENIED
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. 1

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-08-364-CV

 

IN RE OLSHAN FOUNDATION REPAIR RELATORS

COMPANY, LLC AND OLSHAN FOUNDATION

REPAIR COMPANY OF DALLAS, LTD.

------------

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

------------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

------------

The court has considered relators’ petition for writ of mandamus and

motion for emergency relief and is of the opinion that relief should be denied.

Accordingly, relators’ petition for writ of mandamus and motion for emergency

relief are denied.

Relators shall pay all costs of this original proceeding, for which let

execution issue.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GARDNER, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and DAUPHINOT, J.

DELIVERED: October 2, 2008
----

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 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each ofthe undersigned officers of Yukon Gold Corporation, Inc. (the "Company"), doeshereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that: 

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended January 31, 2010 (the "Form 10-Q") of the Company fullycomplies with the requirement of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company. 

Dated: March 19, 2010 

/s/ Douglas Oliver                            Douglas Oliver       Chief Executive Officer       Yukon Gold Corporation, Inc. 

Dated: March 19, 2010 

/s/ Rakesh Malhotra                        Rakesh Malhotra, C.A.,       Chief Financial Officer       Yukon Gold Corporation, Inc. 

A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to Yukon Gold Corporation, Inc. and will beretained by Yukon Gold Corporation, Inc. and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request. 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7743

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 versus

JOSEPH LEWIS PULLEN, SR.,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 03-7783

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 versus

JOSEPH LEWIS PULLEN, SR.,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 03-7784

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,
- 2 -

 versus

JOSEPH LEWIS PULLEN, SR.,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior

District Judge. (CR-01-133)

Submitted: February 12, 2004 Decided: February 23, 2004

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph Lewis Pullen, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Gurney Wingate Grant,

II, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Joseph Lewis Pullen, Sr.,

appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion for

electronic monitoring/home incarceration, denying his motion for

personal recognizance bond pending appeal, and denying his motion

for reconsideration for electronic monitoring/home confinement. We

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See

United States v. Pullen, No. CR-01-133 (E.D. Va. Sept. 15, 2003;

Sept. 26, 2003; Nov. 3, 2003). 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. 

AFFIRMED
State of North Carolina v. Jerome L. Patton

No. COA16-462

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 20, 2016

NO ERROR.
Exhibit
32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION
 
 Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Pehong Chen, the Chief
Executive Officer of BroadVision, Inc. (the "Company"), and Shin-Yuan Tzou, the
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to
the best of his knowledge:
  1. The
Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007, and
to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the "Annual Report"),
fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section 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 the Company.
 
 IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has set his hands hereto as of the 21stday of February, 2008.
  /s/  Pehong
      ChenPehong
      Chen
                Chief
      Executive Officer
 
  /s/  Shin-Yuan
      TzouShin-Yuan
      Tzou
                Chief
      Financial Officer
 
 This
certification accompanies the Form 10-K to which it relates, is not deemed filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by
reference into any filing of BroadVision, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made
before or after the date of the Form 10-K), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4184 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4184

 To amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify the manner in which 
   an advance payment of initial educational assistance paid by the 
 Secretary of Veterans Affairs is charged against the entitlement of a 
                      veteran to such assistance.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 6, 2014

Ms. Titus (for herself, Mr. Cook, Ms. Jackson Lee, Mr. Johnson of Ohio, 
 Mr. Honda, Mr. O'Rourke, Ms. Brownley of California, Mr. Meeks, Mrs. 
Kirkpatrick, Mr. Bentivolio, and Mr. McNerney) introduced the following 
     bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify the manner in which 
   an advance payment of initial educational assistance paid by the 
 Secretary of Veterans Affairs is charged against the entitlement of a 
                      veteran to such assistance.

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

SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF ADVANCE PAYMENT OF INITIAL EDUCATIONAL 
              ASSISTANCE OR SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE.

    (a) Clarification.--Section 3680(d)(2) of title 38, United States 
Code, is amended by inserting after the third sentence the following 
new sentence: ``For purposes of the entitlement to educational 
assistance of the veteran or person receiving an advance payment under 
this subsection, the advance payment shall be charged against the final 
month of the entitlement of the person or veteran and, if necessary, 
the penultimate such month. In no event may any veteran or person 
receive more than one advance payment under this subsection during any 
academic year.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to an advance payment of educational assistance made 
after the date that is 90 days after the date of the enactment of this 
Act.
                                 <all>
```
STATE v. Reginald Underwood FULLARD

309P15-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 8, 2017

Kathryn L. VandenBerg, Assistant Appellant Defender, Reginald Fullard, for Fullard, Reginald Underwood.

Karen A. Blum, Special Deputy Attorney General, James R. O'Neill, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 17th of April 2017 by Defendant for Petition for Direct Review:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of June 2017."
1502.

#### Coleman *v.*The State.

Accusation, of unlawful sale of liquor, from cityr court of Swainsboro — Judge Mitchell. October 1, 1908.'

Argued December 8,

Decided December 22, 1908.

*Saffold & Larsen,*for plaintiff in error.

*Henry R. Daniel, solicitor, Williams & Bradley,*contra.

Hill, C. J.

1. Where an attorney of this court, in good standing, who represented the plaintiff in error in suing out his bill of exceptions, states to this court that he still represents the plaintiff in error, and that he desires that the writ of error be heard and determined, this court will not dismiss the writ of error, on a motion made by the attorney of the defendant in error, based upon an affidavit of the plaintiff in error that he desires that his writ of error be dismissed.

2. The assignments of error, as to the judgment overruling the challenge to the array, and as to the charge of the court on the subject of reasonable doubt, are fully controlled by the decision of this court (this day rendered) in the ease of *Governor*v. *State,*ante, 357 (63 S. E. 241).

3. The verdict is fully supported by the evidence.

*Judgment affirmed.*
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

LESLEE SILVERMAN TABAS AND RICHARD S. TABAS,

Petitioners

v.

MAIN LINE HEALTH, INC., LANKENAU

HOSPITAL A/K/A LANKENAU MEDICAL CENTER, JOHN J. LYNCH, III, DANIEL C. LAZOWICK, D.O., JEROME SANTORO, M.D., THOMAS P. SOLLECITO, D.M.D., PHILLIP D. ROBINSON, FACHE W. RANDALL RUSSELL, M.D., MAIN LINE HEALTH HOME CARE AND HOSPICE,

MOUNTAIN LAUREL RISK RETENTION GROUP, INC.,

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 468 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 3rd day of January, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Quarterly Report of Innocap, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 30, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paul Tidwell, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:  1. The Report fully complies with 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 result of operations of the Company.   Date: June 5, 2013  /s/ Paul Tidwell Paul Tidwell Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
**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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                  |                                                                                                                                                                                           |                                |
|---------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|
| Date:                December 4, 2007 | By:                                                                                                                                                                                  | */s/*Jonathan              Leinwand |
|                                  | Jonathan                Leinwand                                                                                                                                                               |
|                                  | Chief                Executive Officer (Principal                Executive Officer, Principal                Financial Officer and                Principal Accounting                Officer) |

----
STATE of North Carolina v. Almedeo Eugene STEWART

No. 98P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 3, 2017

Francisco Benzoni, Assistant Attorney General, J. Douglas Henderson, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Paul E. Smith, Attorney at Law, Chapel Hill, for Stewart, Almedeo Eugene.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 28th of March 2017 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 3rd of May 2017."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000931755
<NAME> AEI INCOME & GROWTH FUND XXI LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         852,942
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,334
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               856,276
<PP&E>                                      18,375,376
<DEPRECIATION>                               (692,517)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              18,539,135
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          528,582
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  18,010,553
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                18,539,135
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,388,083
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  606,311
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,017,149
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,017,149
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,017,149
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    42.26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    42.26
        

</TABLE>