alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-30475

Summary Calendar

 

CARL BLAKE RILEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

EDDIE CAMESE; AUDREY AGUSTUS, incorrectly identified as “Audrie

Agustus”; ORBIN TINSON, incorrectly identified as “Orbin Tinsen,”

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 94-CV-3679

- - - - - - - - - -

March 28, 1997

Before JONES, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Carl Riley, Louisiana prisoner #262968, appeals from the

district court’s dismissal of his civil rights complaint brought

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Riley contends that the district

court erred by dismissing his complaint as frivolous. We have

reviewed the record and the district court’s order and affirm the

dismissal of Riley’s complaint for essentially the reasons

adopted by the district court. See Riley v. Camese, No. 94-3679 
No. 96-30475

- 2 -

(E.D. La. Apr. 8, 1996). Riley’s motion for the appointment of

counsel is DENIED.

AFFIRMED.
STATE of North Carolina v. Sherrod Lamarr SANDERLIN

No. COA17-1363

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 21, 2018

AFFIRMED.
#### OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner v. Richard S. GLASSMAN, Respondent.

No. 844 Disciplinary Docket No. 3.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

June 11, 2003.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 11th day of June, 2003, there having been filed with this Court by Richard S. Glassman his verified Statement of Resignation dated April 15, 2003, stating that he desires to resign from the Bar of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in accordance with the provisions of Rule 215, Pa.R.D.E., it is

ORDERED that the resignation of Richard S. Glassman be and it is hereby accepted and he is DISBARRED ON CONSENT from the Bar of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and it is further ORDERED that he shall comply with the provisions of Rule 217, Pa.R.D.E. Respondent shall pay costs, if any, to the Disciplinary Board pursuant to Rule 208(g), Pa.R.D.E.
Order filed February 14, 2019 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-18-00927-CV

____________

STEPHANIE LYNN CHATHAM, Appellant

V.

BLAKE DWAYNE DOOLAN, Appellee

On Appeal from the 328th District Court

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 17-DCV-241661

ORDER

On February 8, 2019, appellant filed a brief that is not in compliance with 

the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. The brief fails generally to comply with 

the rules by failing to (1) contain an index of authorities, and (2) contain a clear 

and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to 

authorities and to the record. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(c) and (i). 

Accordingly, we order appellant’s brief filed February 8, 2019, stricken.

Appellant is ordered to file a brief that complies with the Texas Rules of Appellate 
Procedure within fifteen (15) days of the date of this order. See Tex. R. App. P. 

38.1. 

If appellant files another brief that does not comply with Rule 38, the court 

may strike the brief, prohibit appellant from filing another, and proceed as if 

appellant had failed to file a brief. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.9(a). Pursuant to Texas 

Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a), where an appellant has failed to file a brief, 

we may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. If appellant fails to timely file 

a brief in accordance with Rule 38, the appeal will be dismissed for want of 

prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1). 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Zimmerer, and Spain.
STATE of North Carolina v. Ronnie Lee FORD

No. 162P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 14, 2018

Anne M. Gomez, Assistant Appellate Defender, Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender, Ronnie Lee Ford, for Ford, Ronnie Lee.

Jennifer T. Harrod, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

J. Douglas Henderson, District Attorney, for State.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 31st of May 2018 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:

> *385"Denied By Order of the Court in Conference, This the 14th of August 2018."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 31st of May 2018 by Defendant for En Banc Review:

> "Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of August 2018."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 9th of July 2018 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:

> "Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of August 2018."
Exhibit 13.01

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,
chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Tele Norte Leste Participações S.A. (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2007 of the Company, as amended by the Form 20-F/A to which this statement is filed as
an exhibit (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

Date: March 25, 2010



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Luiz Eduardo Falco Pires Corrêa  
|Name: Luiz Eduardo Falco Pires Corrêa
|Title: Chief Executive Officer       

Date: March 25, 2010



|                              
|------------------------------
|/s/ Alex Waldemar Zornig      
|Name: Alex Waldemar Zornig    
|Title: Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 32

                            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 Intermountain Community Bancorp (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we,
Curt Hecker, Chief Executive Officer, and Doug Wright, Chief Financial Officer,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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; and

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

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.

Date:  November 9,2006

/s/ Curt Hecker                               /s/ Doug Wright
____________________________________          _______________________________
Curt Hecker                                   Doug Wright
Chief Executive Officer                       Chief Financial Officer

                                       32
In the MATTER OF: M.L.

No. COA18-5

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: October 16, 2018

VACATED.
#### Ruth Y. SIMMERS, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. William E. SIMMERS, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

No. 2D02-3832.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 9, 2003.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 8, 2003.

Joseph R. Park and Michael J. Park of Park and Ossian, P.A., Clearwater, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

Wayne J. Boyer of Boyer and Schütz, P.A., Dunedin, for Appellee/Cross-Appel-lant.

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, we affirm that portion of the judgment that denied the wife’s challenge to the parties’ antenuptial agreement. We also affirm that portion of the judgment that denied the husband’s request for an award of attorney’s fees, finding that this issue is controlled by our recent decision in *Lashkajani v. Lashkajani,*28 Fla. L. Weekly D1400, — So.2d —, 2003 WL 21359585 (Fla. 2d DCA June 13, 2003). As we did in that case, we certify the following question as one of great public importance.

MAY THE PARTIES, BY AN EXPRESS PROVISION IN A PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT, CONTRACT AWAY A FUTURE OBLIGATION TO PAY ATTORNEY’S FEES AND *779COSTS DURING THE TERM OF THE MARRIAGE BY PROVIDING FOR PREVAILING PARTY ATTORNEY’S FEES IN ACTIONS SEEKING TO ENFORCE OR PREVENT THE BREACH OF THE PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT?

Affirmed; question certified.

FULMER and VILLANTI, JJ„ and THREADGILL, EDWARD F., Senior Judge, concur.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

DEVORIS NEWSON,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-24-00062-CR

Appeal from the

120th Judicial District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC#20190D02039)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes the appeal should be 

dismissed for want of jurisdiction. We therefore dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. We 

further order this decision be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2024.

LISA J. SOTO, Justice

Before Alley, C.J., Palafox and Soto, JJ.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, March 22, 2016.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, March 22, 2016

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A16D0283. RICHARD A. COSDEN v. THE STATE.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

1394929
EXHIBIT 32.2

                Certification of the Chief Financial Officer
                     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 Monadnock Community Bancorp, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Karl F. Betz, Senior Vice President and 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 and in
connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB that:

      1.    The Report fully complies with the requirements of sections
            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 company's financial condition and results
            of operations.


Date: May 12, 2006                     /s/ Karl F. Betz
                                       ----------------
                                       Karl F. Betz
                                       Senior Vice President and Chief
                                        Financial Officer


<PAGE>  24
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

CYRUS ANDREW SULLIVAN,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-30207

D.C. No. 3:13-cr-00064-HZ-1

ORDER*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Marco A. Hernandez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 12, 2014** 

Seattle, Washington

Before: McKEOWN, TALLMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

On April 15, 2013 and pursuant to a signed plea agreement, Cyrus Sullivan

knowingly and voluntarily pleaded guilty to making a threatening communication in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) through use of electronic communications, including

FILED

DEC 16 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * 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).
the Internet. We have examined the terms of Sullivan’s waiver of appeal and find that

its scope is unambiguous and precludes an appeal of the challenged terms of

supervised release:

Defendant knowingly and voluntarily waives the right to appeal from

any aspect of the conviction and sentence on any grounds, except for a

claim that the sentence imposed exceeds the statutory maximum penalty. 

Should defendant seek an appeal, despite this waiver, the USAO may

take any position on any issue on appeal. Defendant also waives the

right to file any collateral attack, including a motion under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255, challenging any aspect of the conviction or sentence on any

grounds, except on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel, and

except as provided in Fed. R. Crim. P. 33 and 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).

Plea Agreement ¶ 12 (emphasis added); see also United States v. Joyce, 357 F.3d 921,

923–25 (9th Cir. 2004) (plea agreement waiver of “any aspect of the sentence imposed

in this case” included waiver of right to appeal special conditions of supervised

release).

The only possible exception that may apply to Sullivan’s waiver of appeal is if

the sentence is illegal because it “exceeds the permissible statutory penalty for the

crime or violates the Constitution.” United States v. Bibler, 495 F.3d 621, 624 (9th

Cir. 2007). We have examined special conditions of supervised release 7 and 8 and

conclude that they are not illegal. See United States v. Goddard, 537 F.3d 1087,

1089–90 (9th Cir. 2008); United States v. Rearden, 349 F.3d 608, 620–21 (9th Cir.

2003). Because the use of a computer and the Internet was “essential to the

2
commission of” Sullivan’s crime, United States v. Antelope, 395 F.3d 1128, 1142 (9th

Cir. 2005), and because the conditions are “not absolute,” but permit access

subsequent to approval by Probation, the conditions “do[] not plainly involve a greater

deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary,” Rearden, 349 F.3d at 621. See

also 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d). 

DISMISSED.

3
Marjorie C. LOCKLEAR v. Matthew S. CUMMINGS, M.D., Southeastern Regional Medical Center, Duke University Health System, and Duke University Affiliated Physicians, Inc.

No. 202A17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Filed August 17, 2018

Law Offices of Walter L. Hart, IV, by Walter L. Hart, IV ; and Fulmer Law Firm, L.L.C., by H. Asby Fulmer, III, pro hac vice, for plaintiff-appellee.

Cranfill Sumner & Hartzog LLP, by Katherine Hilkey-Boyatt, David D. Ward, Raleigh, and Matthew R. Gambale, Wilmington, for defendant-appellants Matthew S. Cummings, M.D., Duke University Health System, and Duke University Affiliated Physicians, Inc.

PER CURIAM.

**354This matter is before the Court based upon a dissent at the Court of Appeals. *Locklear v. Cummings* , --- N.C. App. ----, 801 S.E.2d 346 (2017). The dissent concluded that plaintiff pled "a claim of medical malpractice by a healthcare provider in her complaint, not a claim of ordinary negligence as asserted by the majority." *Id.* at ----, 801 S.E.2d at 352 (Berger, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). We agree that the majority at the Court of Appeals erred when it converted plaintiff's claim of medical malpractice into a claim of ordinary negligence. *See**Viar v. N.C. Dep't of Transp.* , 359 N.C. 400, 402, 610 S.E.2d 360, 361 (2005) (per curiam) ("It is not the role of the appellate courts ... to create an appeal for an appellant."). We therefore reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals on that ground and remand this case to that court to address whether the trial court erred in dismissing plaintiff's complaint. *See**Vaughan v. Mashburn* , --- N.C. ----, ----, 817 S.E.2d 370, 379, 2018 WL 3957114 (Aug. 17, 2018) (42PA17) (concluding "that a plaintiff in a *572medical malpractice action may file an amended complaint under Rule 15(a)" by leave of **355court "to cure a defect in a Rule 9(j) certification when the expert review and certification occurred before the filing of the original complaint"); *Thigpen v. Ngo* , 355 N.C. 198, 204, 558 S.E.2d 162, 166 (2002) ("[P]ermitting amendment of a complaint to add the expert certification where the expert review occurred after the suit was filed would conflict directly with the clear intent of the legislature.").

REVERSED AND REMANDED.
EXHIBIT 31.1

            CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Arnold S. Lippa, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of DOV Pharmaceutical, 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 registrant as of, and for, the periods
presented in this report; 4. 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 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 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 registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, 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
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 that are reasonably
likely to adversely affect 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 registrant's internal control
over financial reporting.

Date: March 15, 2004


/s/ Arnold S. Lippa
-------------------
EXHIBIT 32.01



CERTIFICATIONS

(Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350)



The
undersigned hereby certifies that, to his knowledge (i) the foregoing Annual Report on Form 10-K filed by ECB Bancorp, Inc. (the Issuer) for the year ended December 31, 2005, fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in that Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer on the dates and
for the period presented therein.



|                    |  |  |  |                                                  
|------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 1, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/    ARTHUR H. KEENEY
III                      
|                    |  |  |  | Arthur H. Keeney III                             
|                    |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer            
|                    |  | 
|Date: March 1, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/    GARY M. ADAMS                             
|                    |  |  |  | Gary M. Adams                                    
|                    |  |  |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
ex10-18.htm


EXHIBIT 10.18


 


PROMISSORY NOTE EXTENSION AGREEMENT




 



	$50,000.00 	March 10, 2013





 


For value received, Guardian 8 Holdings, a Nevada corporation (the “Maker”) promised to pay to C. Stephen Cochennet, or its registered assigns or successors in interest (the “Holder”) the Principal Amount and Interest (both as defined below) in the manner and upon the terms and conditions as set forth in that Term Note (“Note”) in the sum of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000), dated December 10, 2012, which Note became due and payable on or about March 10, 2013.







By execution by the parties herein, this Promissory Note Extension Agreement extends the Maturity Date of the Note to and including May 9, 2013. All terms and conditions of the Note shall remain the same other than the Maturity Date.







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Maker and Holder have caused this Promissory Note Extension Agreement to be executed and delivered as of the day and year first above written.


 


 







“Maker”


Guardian 8 Holdings


a Nevada corporation

















By: /s/ Kathleen Hanrahan                                                                


                                                                                                Kathleen Hanrahan, Chief Financial Officer







“Holder”



















/s/ C. Stephen Cochennet                                                                


C. Stephen Cochennet
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-13-0004433

30-JUN-2015

08:48 AM