alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Gerald JOHNSON, Appellant.

No. ED 81130.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

June 17, 2003.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Aug. 13, 2003.

Gwenda R. Robinson, District Defender, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.

*438Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Evan J. Buchheim, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.

Before WILLIAM H. CRANDALL, JR., P.J., SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J. and GLENN A. NORTON, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Gerald Johnson appeals his conviction for possession of heroin. He claims that certain testimony at trial should have been excluded as hearsay. Alternatively, he argues that the testimony should have been excluded because of its prejudicial nature, even if it was not hearsay.

We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. The parties have, however, been provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision in accordance with our local Rule 405. The judgment is affirmed under Rule 30.25(b).
<PAGE>

  EXHIBIT 11.1

                               BROADVISION, INC AND SUBSIDIARIES
                        STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE LOSS
                             (In thousands, except per share data)

                                                            1996         1995
                                                         ---------    --------
Statement of operations data:
 Net Loss                                                $ (10,145)   $ (4,318)
 Weighted average number of common and dilutive
  equivalent shares used in computations:
 Common stock                                               18,815       6,376
 Preferred stock (as if converted)                               -       5,600
 Stock options and other common stock equivalents                *           *
                                                         ---------    --------
   Subtotal                                                 18,815      11,976

Pursuant to Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 83:
 Preferred stock converted on as-if basis at exercise
  prices less than the anticipated initial public
  offering price                                                 -       3,915
 Stock options                                                   -       2,652
                                                         ---------    --------

Shares used in computing net loss per share                 18,815      18,543
                                                         ---------    --------

Net loss per share                                       $   (0.54)   $  (0.23)
                                                         ---------    --------
                                                         ---------    --------



* not included as effects are anti-dilutive.
FIRST CLOVER LEAF FINANCIAL CORP.

                                                                      Exhibit 32

      Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Dennis M. Terry, Chief Executive Officer,  and Darlene F. McDonald,  Senior Vice
President and Chief  Financial  Officer,  of First Clover Leaf  Financial  Corp.
(Company)  each certify in their capacity as an officer of the Company that they
have reviewed the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-QSB for the quarter
ended March 31, 2007 (Report) and that to the best of their knowledge:

      1.    the Report fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) of
            the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

The purpose of this  statement  is solely to comply  with Title 18,  Chapter 63,
Section  1350 of the United  States  Code,  as  amended  by  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

                         By: /s/ Dennis M. Terry
                             -------------------------------------------
                              Dennis M. Terry
                              President and Chief Executive Officer

                         By: /s/ Darlene F. McDonald
                             -------------------------------------------
                              Darlene F. McDonald
                              Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

Date: May 14, 2007

                                       27
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Phillip Wayne DEWOODY.

No. 2002-KP-2867.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 19, 2003.

In re DeWoody, Phillip Wayne; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari *631and/or Review, Parish of Lincoln, 3rd Judicial District Court Div. B, Nos. 37,926, 37,927, 37,636; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No(s). 36977-KW, 36978-KW, 36979-KW.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., recused.

TRAYLOR, J., recused.
#### John TEMERSON v. AUBREY-HANSEN, INC., et al.

No. 2003-CC-1386.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 19, 2003.

In re Temerson, John; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. P, No. 520-332; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 03-C-251.

Denied.

KIMBALL, J., recused.
STATE v. Quintel Martinez AUGUSTINE

130A03-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 17, 2018

Ms. Gretchen Engel, Durham, Attorney at Law, for Augustine, Quintel Martinez

Mr. James E. Ferguson, II, Charlotte, Attorney at Law, for Augustine, Quintel Martinez

Ms. Danielle Marquis Elder, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of N.C.

Mr. Jonathan P. Babb, Raleigh, Special Counsel to Attorney General, for State of N.C.

Mr. Grady Jessup, Attorney at Law, for N.C. Association of Black Lawyers

Ms. Lisa A. Bakale-Wise, Attorney at Law, for N.C. State Conference of the NAACP

Mr. Irving Joyner, Durham, Attorney at Law, for N.C. State Conference of the NAACP

Mr. Edward Joseph Blocher, Jr., Attorney at Law, for Social Scientists

Ms. Janet Moore, Attorney at Law, for National Association for Public Defense

Mr. Robert P. Mosteller, Attorney at Law, for Professors John Charles Boger & Robert P. Mosteller

Mr. Carlos E. Mahoney, Durham, Attorney at Law, for NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Defense Fund, Inc.

Ms. Jin Hee Lee, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, for NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Defense Fund, Inc.

Mr. W. Kerrel Murray, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, for NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Defense Fund, Inc.

Ms. Cynthia F. Adcock, Attorney at Law, for N.C. Council of Churches

Mr. Burton Craige, Raleigh, Attorney at Law, for N.C. Advocates for Justice

Mr. Jeremy M. Falcone, Raleigh, Attorney at Law, for Former State and Federal Prosecutors

Mr. William R. West, District Attorney, for State *371The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 16th of July 2018 by North Carolina Advocates for Justice for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of July 2018."

Unless already submitted, the Amicus Brief shall be submitted to the court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i).
#### Janet Peffers, Appellant, v Hilton Hotels Corporation, Respondent.

[720 NYS2d 27]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louise Gruner Cans, J.), entered January 3, 2000, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained when plaintiff fell on a stairway in defendant’s hotel allegedly because the carpet on the stairway slipped, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court arid Justice, entered July 12, 2000, which deemed plaintiff’s motion for “reconsideration, renewal and/or re-argument” as one for reargument, and, so considered, denied the motion, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable order.

The deposition of defendant’s employees who frequently used the stairway in question that they never noticed any loose carpeting on the stairs either before or after plaintiff fell, and the absence of any entries concerning the stairway carpeting in the logbook kept by defendant to record complaints and incidents, established prima facie that defendant lacked notice of the allegedly defective carpet. In opposition, plaintiff came forward not with any evidence of how long the defect existed, how visible and apparent it was, or other evidence of notice (see, *Gordon v American Museum of Natural History,*67 NY2d 836, 837), but with the affidavit of an engineer that carpeting installed without rods must have been attached to the stairs with some type of adhesive material which over time could have lost its holding strength, causing the carpet to move when people descend the stairs. However, such opinion is unavailing since a showing of defective installation would not permit a further inference that the looseness of the carpet actually existed and was visible and apparent for a sufficient length of time to permit defendant to discover and remedy it *(see, id.).*We have considered plaintiffs other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Williams, J. P., Andrias, Lerner, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### National Park Service

Notice is hereby given in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770, 5 U.S.C. App 1, Section 10), that a meeting of the Cape Cod National Seashore Advisory Commission will be held on December 5, 2005.

The Commission was reestablished pursuant to Public Law 87-126 as amended by Public Law 105-280. The purpose of the Commission is to consult with the Secretary of the Interior, or her designee, with respect to matters relating to the development of Cape Cod National Seashore, and with respect to carrying out the provisions of sections 4 and 5 of the Act establishing the Seashore.

The Commission members will meet at 1 p.m. in the meeting room at Headquarters, Marconi Station, Wellfleet, Massachusetts for the regular business meeting to discuss the following:

1. Adoption of Agenda

2. Approval of Minutes of Previous Meeting (September 26, 2005)

3. Reports of Officers

4. Reports of Subcommittees

5. Superintendent's Report

Salt Pond Visitor Center Update

Highlands Center Update

Update on Dune Shack Report

ORV's

Herring River Restoration Project

Wilderness Areas

Wind Turbines/Cell Towers

News from Washington

6. Old Business

7. New Business

8. Date and agenda for next meeting

9. Public comment and

10. Adjournment

The meeting is open to the public. It is expected that 15 persons will be able to attend the meeting in addition to Commission members.

Interested persons may make oral/written presentations to the Commission during the business meeting or file written statements. Such requests should be made to the park superintendent at least seven days prior to the meeting. Further information concerning the meeting may be obtained from the Superintendent, Cape Cod National Seashore, 99 Marconi Site Road, Wellfleet, MA 02667.

Dated: September 27, 2005.

George E. Price, Jr.,

Superintendent.

[FR Doc. 05-19961 Filed 10-4-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4312-52-P
---

---

EXHIBIT 13.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Annual Report of Nexus Telocation Systems Ltd. (the
Company) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ronen
Stein, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section
1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
knowledge:

| | 1. | the
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|June 28, 2005 |  | /S/ RONEN STEIN
Ronen SteinChief 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.



---

---
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection
with the Quarterly Report of Mewbourne Energy Partners 04-A, L.P. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the six months ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the
undersigned hereby certifies, in the capacity as indicated below and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



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

Date: August 14, 2009



/s/ J. Roe BuckleyJ. Roe BuckleyExecutive Vice PresidentChief Financial OfficerMewbourne Development Corporation,Managing General Partner of the Registrant
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 3.5 

                               CERTIFICATE FOR 
                      RESTORATION, RENEWAL, AND REVIVAL 
                     OF THE CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION 

   Interiors Holdings, Inc., formerly Interiors, Inc., a corporation 
organized under the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the 
"Corporation"), the certificate of incorporation of which (the "Certificate 
of Incorporation") has become inoperative and void by law for nonpayment of 
taxes, desires to procure a restoration, renewal, and revival of the 
Certificate of Incorporation, and accordingly, pursuant to Section 312 of the 
General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, hereby certifies as 
follows: 

   1. The name of the Corporation is Interiors Holdings, Inc., formerly 
Interiors, Inc. The date of filing of the Corporation's original certificate 
of incorporation with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware was 
February 18, 1994. 

   2. The address of the Corporation's registered office in the State of 
Delaware is 1013 Centre Road, Wilmington, New Castle County, Delaware 19805. 
The name of the Corporation's registered agent at such address is The 
Prentice-Hall Corporation System, Inc. 

   3. The restoration, renewal, and revival of the Certificate of 
Incorporation procured by the execution, acknowledgment, filing, and 
recording hereof in accordance with Section 103 of the General Corporation 
Law of the State of Delaware is to be perpetual. 

   4. The Corporation was organized under the laws of the State of Delaware. 

   5. On March 1, 1997, pursuant to Chapter Five of Title Eight of the 
Delaware Code, a Del. C. Section 501 et seq., the Certificate of Incorporation 
became void and inoperative as a result of the Corporation's failure for 
one (1) year to pay the State of Delaware franchise tax or taxes that were 
assessed against the Corporation or that were required to be paid by the 
Corporation under said Chapter. 

   6. This Certificate for Restoration, Renewal, and Revival of the 
Certificate of Incorporation is filed by authority of those persons who were 
directors of the Corporation at the time the Certificate of Incorporation 
became void and inoperative.
STATE v. Quintel Martinez AUGUSTINE

130A03-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 17, 2018

Ms. Gretchen Engel, Durham, Attorney at Law, for Augustine, Quintel Martinez

Mr. James E. Ferguson, II, Charlotte, Attorney at Law, for Augustine, Quintel Martinez

Ms. Danielle Marquis Elder, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of N.C.

Mr. Jonathan P. Babb, Raleigh, Special Counsel to Attorney General, for State of N.C.

Mr. Grady Jessup, Attorney at Law, for N.C. Association of Black Lawyers

Ms. Lisa A. Bakale-Wise, Attorney at Law, for N.C. State Conference of the NAACP

Mr. Irving Joyner, Durham, Attorney at Law, for N.C. State Conference of the NAACP

Mr. Edward Joseph Blocher, Jr., Attorney at Law, for Social Scientists

Ms. Janet Moore, Attorney at Law, for National Association for Public Defense

Mr. Robert P. Mosteller, Attorney at Law, for Professors John Charles Boger & Robert P. Mosteller

Mr. Carlos E. Mahoney, Durham, Attorney at Law, for NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Defense Fund, Inc.

Ms. Jin Hee Lee, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, for NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Defense Fund, Inc.

Mr. W. Kerrel Murray, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, for NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Defense Fund, Inc.

Ms. Cynthia F. Adcock, Attorney at Law, for N.C. Council of Churches

Mr. Burton Craige, Raleigh, Attorney at Law, for N.C. Advocates for Justice

Mr. Jeremy M. Falcone, Raleigh, Attorney at Law, for Former State and Federal Prosecutors

Mr. William R. West, District Attorney, for State *367The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 16th of July 2018 by NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of July 2018."

Unless already submitted, the Amicus Brief shall be submitted to the court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i).
PENDER COUNTY, et al. v. SULLIVAN

14P18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 5, 2018

Donald Sullivan, Marion P. Sullivan, for Sullivan, Donald, et al.

Robert H. Corbett, Attorney at Law, Burgaw, for Pender County, et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 5th of March 2018 by Defendant to Withdraw Appeal:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of April 2018."
#### In the Matter of a Trust Created by Hildegard von Gontard. Bank of New York, Appellant; Paul T. von Gontard et al., Respondents.

[720 NYS2d 111]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stanley Sklar, J.), entered June 6, 2000, which, *inter alia,*denied the application of trustee Bank of New York, in settling its final account, to reform the grantor retained income trust (GRIT) indenture, created in a prior guardianship proceeding to manage the securities of grantor Hildegard von Gontard, an incapacitated person under Mental Hygiene Law §81.02 (b), unanimously *affirmed,*with costs.

The trustee of the subject GRIT has applied to reform the trust indenture upon its purportedly recent discovery that the six-year-old indenture does not accurately reflect the dispositional intent of the incapacitated grantor as reflected in her will and revocable trust. However, the trustee’s showing in support of its application provides no basis upon which to conclude that there is any conflict between the GRIT and the previously executed dispositional instruments. The prior instruments upon which the trustee relies are not included in the record, but, to the extent that it would be proper to rely on their description by counsel for the trustee, they merely indicate that the grantor did not wish those nieces and nephews of her late husband adopted or born out of wedlock to benefit from her estate. There is no indication that this purported direction had any practical significance since, to the extent ascertainable from the record, none of the nieces and nephews of the grantor’s late husband had, in fact, been adopted or born out of wedlock, and while some of the *issue*of the nieces and nephews in question were either adopted or born out of wedlock, the record affords no reason to suppose *439that the purported limitation upon the class of niece and nephew beneficiaries was meant to apply as well to the *issue*of that class, either as beneficiaries under the GRIT or as members of the class whose number, pursuant to the GRIT, is to be used to determine the size of the distributive shares thereunder. Indeed, although it is unnecessary given the strong and manifestly unrebutted presumption as to the validity of the clearly and deliberately composed GRIT indenture as truly reflective .of the grantor’s dispositional intentions *(see, Chimart Assocs. v Paul,*66 NY2d 570, 574, citing *Backer Mgt. Corp. v Acme Quilting Co.,*46 NY2d 211, 219), the record provides strong indication that the grantor had no wish to exclude anyone by reason of their adoption or birth out of wedlock from the class of issue of her late husband’s nieces and nephews as set forth in the GRIT indenture. We note that none of the trust beneficiaries, not even those who would stand to gain if the trustee’s application were granted, have joined in the application. Concur — Williams, J. P., Lerner, Rubin and Buckley, JJ.