alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.1



STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF

HOMEBANC CORP.

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with HomeBanc Corp.s (the Company) Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 (the Report), I, Patrick
S. Flood, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, 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; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                      |  |     |  |                                     
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | ------------------------------------
|Date: August 26, 2004 |  | By: |  | /s/ Patrick S. Flood                
|                      |  |     |  | Patrick S. Flood                    
|                      |  |     |  | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer



---

STATEMENT OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF

HOMEBANC CORP.

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with HomeBanc Corp.s (the Company) Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 (the
Report), I, Steven R. McClellan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, 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; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                      |  |     |  |                        
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Date: August 26, 2004 |  | By: |  | /s/ Steven R. McClellan
|                      |  |     |  | Steven R. McClellan    
|                      |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer



2
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

December 28, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

134771 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

SANDRA LAHTINEN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 134771 

 COA: 266907 

Gogebic CC: 04-000080-CK 

MICHIGAN EDUCATION SUPPORT 

PERSONNEL – WUPEA/MEA-NEA, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 19, 2007 

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. 

p1217 

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. 

December 28, 2007 

 Clerk
In the MATTER OF Francis M. DESLAURIERS, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2017-002562 Opinion No. 27788

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Submitted March 7, 2018 Filed April 4, 2018

John S. Nichols, Disciplinary Counsel, of Columbia, for Office of Disciplinary Counsel.

Francis M. Deslauriers, of Memphis, Tennessee, pro se

PER CURIAM:

**428By order of the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee *738dated April 20, 2017, respondent was censured for violating the Rules of Professional Conduct.1 The order was forwarded to this Court by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) on December 19, 2017. Thereafter, pursuant to Rule 29(b) of the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement, Rule 413, SCACR, ODC and respondent were notified by letter of the Clerk of this Court that they had thirty days to inform the Court of any claim that imposition of the identical discipline in South Carolina is not warranted and the reasons for any such claim.2 Respondent did not respond to the Clerk's letter. **429We find a public reprimand is the appropriate sanction to impose as reciprocal discipline, as none of the reasons set forth in Rule 29(d) of the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement for the imposition of different discipline exists in this matter.

**PUBLIC REPRIMAND.**

BEATTY, C.J., KITTREDGE, HEARN, FEW and JAMES, JJ., concur.

1

The order states that in August 2012, respondent was retained to represent a client in a lawsuit against an insurance company for a property damage claim, but filed nothing in the case and did not communicate with his client despite the client's numerous requests for updates. Eventually, respondent filed a complaint in January 2015; however, in March 2016, after another year of taking no action and failing to communicate with his client, respondent informed his client that he had failed to serve the defendants or take their depositions, resulting in his client's case being dismissed. The order concluded respondent violated Rules 1.1 (competence), 1.3 (diligence), 1.4 (communication), 3.2 (expediting litigation), and 8.4 (misconduct) of the Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct. Respondent was publicly censured for the violations.

2

This letter was mailed to the most recent address respondent provided in the Attorney Information System (AIS).
#### Ernest A. GREENE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D03-1132.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Sept. 10, 2003.

Appellant, pro se.

Charlie Crist, Attorney General, and Elizabeth Fletcher Duffy, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges the trial court’s order summarily denying his postconviction motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Because the appellant’s written sentence does not conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement, we reverse.

The appellant pled guilty to several offenses, including burglary while armed, and was sentenced as a habitual violent felony offender to eighteen years of imprisonment, followed by ten years of probation, on the burglary count. Pursuant to *Heggs v. State,*759 So.2d 620 (Fla.2000), the appellant was resentenced to eighty months of imprisonment. However, the written sentence provided for a habitual violent felony offender sentence of eighty months, followed by ten years of probation. The appellant challenges the imposition of probation.

Resentencing pursuant to *Heggs*entitled the appellant to a de novo sentencing hearing with the full array of due process considerations. *Trotter v. State,*825 So.2d 362, 368 (Fla.2002); *Gonzalez v. State,*838 So.2d 1242 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). Therefore, the trial court should have pronounced each and every term of sentencing to ensure that the written sentence would be given effect. *See Williams v. State,*801 So.2d 284 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).

In denying the appellant’s motion, the trial court disregarded the general rule that the court’s oral pronouncement prevails over the written sentence. *See Ashley v. State,*850 So.2d 1265 (Fla.2003). When the trial court imposes sentencing terms that were not orally pronounced, the court violates the constitutional protection against double jeopardy. *Id.*Accordingly, the trial court’s order is reversed and the cause is remanded to the' trial court to strike the ten-year term of probation from the written sentence.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

WOLF, C.J., LEWIS and POLSTON, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF BDO SEIDMAN, LLP, INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

eGain Communications Corporation 

Mountain View, California 

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No.’s 333-76692, 333-76690, 333-76688, 333-41394, and333-32854) and Form S-3 (No. 333-48314) of eGain Communications Corporation of our report dated August 8, 2005, relating to the consolidated financial statements and schedule which appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. 

 

/s/    BDO Seidman, LLP 

San Francisco, California 

 

September 28, 2005
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED DECEMBER 11, 2014

NO. 03-14-00474-CV

Texas Star Disposals, LLC, Appellant

v.

Texas Railroad Commission and David H. Arrington Oil & Gas, Inc.,

n/k/a Fayetteville-Floyd Oil & Gas, Inc., Appellees

APPEAL FROM 201ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES ROSE AND GOODWIN

DISMISSED ON APPELLANT’S MOTION -- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE JONES

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on May 1, 2014. Appellant has 

filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, and having considered the motion, the Court agrees that the 

motion should be granted. Therefore, the Court grants the motion and dismisses the appeal. The 

appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 192 (Wednesday, October 5, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58193-58196]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19897]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Transmittal No. 05-44]


36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text 
of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to 
fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 
July 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. J. Hurd, DSCA/DBO/ADM, (703) 604-
6575.
    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives, Transmittal 05-44 with attached transmittal and policy 
justification.

    Dated: September 29, 2005.
L.M. Bynum,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer Department of Defense.
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M

[[Page 58194]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05OC05.032


[[Page 58195]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05OC05.033


[[Page 58196]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05OC05.034

[FR Doc. 05-19897 Filed 10-4-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
================================================================================

                                                                    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 Mondial Ventures, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Periodic Report"),
I, Marc Juliar, Chief Executive Officer 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, that:

1.    the Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Company.


Dated: August 11, 2010


/s/ "Marc Juiar"
----------------
Marc Juliar
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATE v. Tilmon Charles GOLPHIN

441A98-4

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 18, 2018

Jay H. Ferguson, Attorney at Law, Kenneth J. Rose, Attorney at Law, Durham, for Golphin, Tilmon Charles.

Danielle Marquis Elder, Special Deputy Attorney General, Jonathan P. Babb, Special Counsel to Attorney General, for State of N.C.

James E. Williams, Jr., Attorney at Law, Carrboro, Burton Craige, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for N.C. Advocates for Justice.

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

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

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

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

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

Carlos E. Mahoney, Attorney at Law, Durham, Jin Hee Lee, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, W. Kerrel Murray, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, for NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

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

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

*389The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 16th of July 2018 by NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. to admit W. Kerrel Murray Pro Hac Vice:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of July 2018."

Beasley, J. recused
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

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

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALEJANDRA MALDONADO,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-73389

Agency No. A098-840-453

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 13, 2010** 

Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Alejandra Maldonado, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying her application for cancellation of removal. 

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence

FILED

SEP 27 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-73389

the agency’s continuous physical presence determination, Lopez-Alvarado v.

Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 847, 850-51 (9th Cir. 2004), and we deny the petition for

review.

The record does not compel the conclusion that Maldonado met her 

burden to establish continuous physical presence where she testified on more than

one occasion that she entered the United States in January 1996. See Singh-Kaur v.

INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir. 1999) (a contrary result is not compelled where

there is “[t]he possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the

evidence”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Maldonado’s due process contention regarding a continuance is unavailing.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Barrett C. BAXLEY v. Jasmine BAXLEY

No. 16P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 5, 2018

Mr. Ryan McKaig, Raleigh, Attorney at Law, for Baxley, Barrett C.

Mr. Jody Stuart Foyles, Southern Pines, Attorney at Law, for Baxley, Jasmine *588***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 11th of January 2018 by Plaintiff 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 5th of April 2018."
#### In re Robert W. SHARP, Jr.

No. 2003-OB-1660.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 25, 2003.

ON APPLICATION FOR REINSTATEMENT

I,PER CURIAM.

Petitioner, Robert Sharp, Jr., was suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year and one day stemming from his assistance to a client in the initial stages of a scheme to induce the victim in an underlying criminal proceeding to drop charges against the client in exchange for the payment of money. *In re: Sharp,*01-1117 (La.12/7/01), 802 So.2d 588. Following the completion of the suspension, petitioner filed an application for reinstatement with the disciplinary board, alleging that he has complied with the reinstatement criteria set forth in Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 24(E). The ODC concurred in petitioner’s application for readmission.

By agreement of the parties, the matter was submitted to the disciplinary .board on documentary evidence, which included items showing petitioner’s compliance with the reinstatement requisites. Following its consideration of the evidence, the disciplinary board concluded petitioner satisfied his burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that he satisfied the reinstatement criteria set forth in Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 24(E).1 Based on its findings, the board recommended that petitioner be reinstated to the practice of law.

| ^Following our review of the record, we conclude petitioner has satisfied the requirements for reinstatement to the practice of law. Accordingly, we will grant the petition for reinstatement.2

DECREE

Upon review of the findings and recommendation of the disciplinary board, and *978considering the record, it is ordered that Robert W. Sharp, Jr., Louisiana Bar Roll number 11973, be immediately reinstated to the practice of law in Louisiana.

1

. The board noted that petitioner had technically not complied with Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 24(E)(7), which requires that the attorney satisfy his mandatory continuing legal education requirements "for the year of reinstatement or readmission,” because he had not completed his requirements for 2003. However, the board observed that because the petition was filed in early January, 2003 and because petitioner had completed his 2002 requirements, his failure to complete his 2003 requirement "should not serve as an impediment to his reinstatement.”

2

. As noted earlier, the record does not indicate that petitioner has completed his 2003 mandatory continuing legal education requirements. The board suggested we require petitioner to complete these requirements as a condition of his reinstatement. We decline to impose a formal condition, as petitioner is already mandated to comply with these requirements under Supreme Court Rule § 30.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

Nos. 09-1297 & 09-1298

_____________

THE ABI JAOUDI AND AZAR TRADING CORPORATION

v.

CIGNA WORLDWIDE INSURANCE COMPANY;

SAMUEL M. LOHMAN, ESQ.

THE HONORABLE JOSIE SENESIE, COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE FOR THE 

REPUBLIC OF LIBERIA AND COURT APPOINTED RECEIVER FOR THE 

LIBERIAN BRANCH OF CIGNA WORLDWIDE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Appellant (09-1297)

(Pursuant to Rule 12(a), FRAP)

Samuel M. Lohman, Esq.

 Appellant (09-1298)

_____________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil Action No. 2-91-cv-06785)

District Judge: Honorable John P. Fullam

_____________

Argued March 9, 2010

_____________

Before: AMBRO, SMITH and MICHEL,* Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: August 20, 2010)

_____________

 

* Honorable Paul R. Michel, Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal 

Circuit, sitting by designation. Chief Judge Michel has since retired, and this opinion has 

been approved by a quorum of the panel. See 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).
IT IS NOW ORDERED, at the direction of the Court, that the opinion shall 

be amended as follows:

Henry F. Reichner, Esquire

Reed Smith LLP

1650 Market Street

2500 One Liberty Place

Philadelphia, PA 19103-7301

Paul E. Breene, Esquire

Reed Smith LLP

599 Lexington Avenue

New York, NY 10022

James C. Martin, Esquire (Argued)

Reed Smith LLP

225 Fifth Avenue

Pittsburgh, PA 15222

Counsel for Appellant

Josie Senesie

Michael Conley, Esquire

Anderson, Kill & Olick

1600 Market Street

Suite 2500

Philadelphia, PA 19103-0000

Mark Gottlieb, Esquire (Argued)

William H. Pillsbury, Esquire

Offit Kurman

1601 Cherry Street

Three Parkway, Suite 1300

Philadelphia, PA 19102

Counsel for Appellant/Cross Appellee

Samuel M. Lohman, Esq.

Richard J. Bortnick, Esquire

Cozen & O’Connor

200 Four Falls Corporate Center

P.O. Box 800, Suite 400

West Conshohocken, PA 19428-0800
Stephen A. Cozen, Esquire

Cozen & O’Connor

1900 Market Street, 3rd Floor

Philadelphia, PA 19103-0000

Donald F. Donovan, Esquire (Argued)

Robert D. Goodman, Equire

Matthew S. Hackell, Esquire

Donald W. Hawthorne, Esquire

William H. Taft, V, Esquire

Debevoise & Plimpton

919 Third Avenue, 41st Floor

New York, NY 10022-0000

Louis B. Kimmelman, Esquire

O’Melveny & Myers

153 East 53rd Street

New York, NY 10022

Counsel for Appellee

CIGNA Worldwide Insurance

For the Court,

Marcia M. Waldron, Clerk

Date: November 16, 2010
Raymond Alan GRIFFIN v. Deborah SHANDLES, Assistant District Attorney of Wake County and Paul C. Ridgeway, Senior Resident Superior Court Judge v. John and Jane Doe and Raymond Alan Griffin v. Deborah Shandles, Assistant District Attorney of Wake County and Donald W. Stephens, Senior Resident Superior Court Judge v. John and Jane Doe

No. 322P15-6

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 9, 2018

Mr. Raymond Alan Griffin, For Griffin, Raymond Alan.

Mr. Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, For State of N.C.

***ORDER***

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 28th of December 2017 by Petitioner for Notice of Appeal:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of January 2018."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Petitioner on the 28th of December 2017 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Wake County:

*444"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of January 2018."
Consent of Independent Auditors



We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in Registration  Statements,  (i)
Form  S-3 No.  333-36805,  (ii)  Form  S-3 No.  333-48551,  (iii)  Form  S-8 No.
333-53653,  and (iv) Form S-8 No. 333-53655 of our report dated February 5, 1999
with  respect to the  consolidated  financial  statements  and schedule of Grove
Property  Trust  included  in its Annual  Report  (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 31, 1998.


                                        /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


New York, New York
March 29, 1999