alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Robin ENGRAM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 5D02-3740.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Sept. 12, 2003.

James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Noel A. Pelella, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rebecca Rock McGuigan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PLEUS, J.

Engrain appeals his judgment and sentence for felony battery. He argues that the trial court erred by denying his motions for mistrial after the jury heard two references to collateral crimes and one comment on his right to remain silent. He also argues that the trial court erred by increasing his sentence after he had begun *1124serving it. We affirm the judgment without discussion but vacate the sentence and remand with directions to impose the original sentence.

At the sentencing hearing on November 12, 2002, the state requested that Engram be sentenced both as a habitual offender (HO) and a prison releasee reoffender (PRR), but the trial judge did not think both classifications were proper for a single offense. Consequently, the judge designated Engram a PRR and sentenced him to five years in prison.

Three days later, on November 15, 2002, Engram was brought back to court, where the trial judge stated that both designations should have been imposed. He also noted that under the current ease law, it was necessary to make the habitual offender sentence longer than the PRR sentence. Thus, he vacated the original sentence, imposed a new sentence of five years and one month and designated Engram a PRR and an HO.

Engram correctly argues that imposition of a harsher sentence after a defendant has already begun serving his original sentence violates double jeopardy principles. *Ashley v. State,*850 So.2d 1265 (Fla.2003); *Grant v. State,*770 So.2d 655 (Fla.2000). The state concedes this point. The trial judge was under the mistaken impression that he was required to impose the HO sentence when, in fact, it was discretionary. *See State v. Cotton,*769 So.2d 345 (Fla.2000). Accordingly, we vacate the sentence and remand for imposition of the original sentence.

SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED.

SAWAYA, C.J., and ORFINGER, J., concur.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 14, 2018

NO. 03-19-00263-CR

Aaron Richard Davison, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 368TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, BAKER, AND KELLY

MODIFIED AND, AS MODIFIED, AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgment revoking community supervision entered by the trial court. 

Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no error in 

the court’s judgment revoking community supervision requiring reversal. However, there was 

error in the judgment revoking community supervision that requires correction. Therefore, the 

Court modifies the trial court’s judgment revoking community supervision to reflect that the

“Offense for which Defendant Convicted” is “Failure to Stop and Render Aid” and that 

appellant’s “Plea to Motion to Adjudicate” was “True.” The judgment revoking community 

supervision, as modified, is affirmed. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no 

adjudication of costs is made.
In the MATTER OF: B.A.S. and K.H.S.

No. COA18-511

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 18, 2018

AFFIRMED.
Slip Op. 04-98
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
BEFORE: SENIOR JUDGE NICHOLAS TSOUCALAS

________________________________________ : TIMKEN U.S. CORPORATION, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : : UNITED STATES, : : Defendant, : : and : : NSK LTD., NSK-RHP EUROPE LTD., : Court No. RHP BEARINGS LTD., NSK BEARINGS : 00-08-00385 EUROPE LTD. and NSK CORPORATION; : NTN BEARING CORPORATION OF AMERICA, : NTN BOWER CORPORATION, NTN-BCA : CORPORATION and NTN CORPORATION; : SKF USA INC. and SKF GmbH; FAG : KUGELFISCHER GEORG SCHÄFER AG, THE : BARDEN CORPORATION (U.K.) LIMITED, : THE BARDEN CORPORATION, FAG ITALIA : S.p.A. and FAG BEARINGS CORPORATION; : KOYO SEIKO CO., LTD. and KOYO : CORPORATION OF U.S.A., : : Defendant-Intervenors. : ________________________________________:
JUDGMENT
This Court, having received and reviewed the United States International Trade Commission’s (“Commission”) Views of the Commission (“ Remand Determination ”) in Timken U.S. Corporation v. Unite dStat es , 28 CIT ___, ___, 310 F. Supp. 2d 1327 (2004), comments of Timken U.S. Corporation, res ponse s of defendantintervenors, NTN Bearing Corporation of America et al. and NSK Ltd. et al., the Commission’s rebuttal comments, and after hearingoral arguments from counsel on August 5, 2004, holds that the Commission duly complied with the Court’s remand order, and it is hereby
ORDERED that the Remand Determination filed by the Commission

on April, 26, 2004, is affirmed in its entirety; and it is furtherCourt No. 00-08-00385 Page 2

ORDERED that since all other issues have been decided, t hi s case is dismissed.

/s/ Nicholas Tsoucalas NICHOLAS TSOUCALAS SENIOR JUDGE

Dated: August 9, 2004

New York, New York
STATE v. Shakita Necole WALTON

311P18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 20, 2018

Hannah H. Love, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Walton, Shakita Necole.

Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender, for State.

Heather Haney, Kimberly N. Callahan, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

R. Andrew Womble, District Attorney, for State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 20th of September 2018 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of September 2018."
##### 



CERTIFICATE OF
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
OF
AMERICAN CELLULAR CORPORATION
  a.
    
    complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and thatb.
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of
the Company at December 31, 2006, and the results of the Companys operations for the year ended December 31,
2006.
 February 28, 2007
    /s/ BRUCE R. KNOOIHUIZENBruce R. KnooihuizenExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(principal financial officer)
STATE v. Edward M. ALONZO

288PA18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 4, 2019

Daniel K. Shatz, Assistant Appellate Defender, Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender, for Alonzo, Edward M.

*835Ellen A. Newby, Assistant Attorney General, Anne M. Middleton, Special Deputy Attorney General, William R. West, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 2nd of January 2019 by Defendant:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 4th of January 2019."

Defendant shall have up to and including the 6th day of February 2019 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


                       ANNUAL STATEMENT AS TO COMPLIANCE


The undersigned certifies that she is an Assistant Vice President of GreenPoint
Credit, LLC (the "Servicer") and that, as such, she is duly authorized to
execute and deliver this certificate on behalf of the Servicer pursuant to
Section 4.20 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the "Agreement"), dated as
of February 1, 1999 between GreenPoint Credit Corp., as Seller, GreenPoint
Credit Corp, as Servicer, and The First National Bank of Chicago, as Trustee,
(all capitalized terms used herein without definition having the respective
meanings specified in the Agreement) and further certifies that:

1.   I have reviewed the activities for the one year period ending December 31,
     1999 and performance under this agreement has been made under such
     officer's supervision under Section 4.20 of the Agreement; and

2.   To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has
     fulfilled all its obligations under this Agreement throughout such period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have affixed hereunto my signature this 29th day of
February, 2000.



                                        GREENPOINT CREDIT, LLC

                                        By /s/ Mary Churley
                                           ----------------
                                           Mary Churley
                                           Assistant Vice President and Manager
                                           Investor Servicing
#### Kathy MILLER, Respondent, v. Norman MILLER, Appellant.

No. ED 80397.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Southern Division.

June 30, 2003.

Michael L. Maynard, Holly Joyce, co-counsel, Park Hills, MO, for appellant.

Daniel P. Fall, Fredericktown, MO, for respondent.

Before GEORGE W. DRAPER, III, P.J., BOOKER T. SHAW, JR., and GLENN A. NORTON, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Norman Miller (“Husband”) appeals the trial court’s judgment awarding Kathy Miller (“Wife”) an undivided one-half interest in both parties’ pensions, ordering Husband to not take any action to reduce his retirement benefit and adopting Wife’s appraisal of the couple’s home.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. The judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment under Rule 84.16(b).
<PAGE>
                                                                EXHIBIT 31.1

                CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Michael C. Tsao, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Kahiki Foods, 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 the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) 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 the 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 the 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 the registrant's internal
      control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
      most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the
      case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably
      likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over
      financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the 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 which are
      reasonably likely to adversely affect the 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 the registrant's internal control
      over financial reporting.

Date: August 13, 2004

/s/ Michael C. Tsao
--------------------------
Michael C. Tsao, President & CEO
(Principal Executive Officer)



                                       17
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Glenard T. JULES.

No. 2003-KH-2196.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 5, 2003.

In re Jules, Glenard;—Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. C, No. 409/923.

Granted for the sole purpose of transferring the application to the district court for its consideration.
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-18-0000110 12-JUN-2018 08:13 AM
---

EXHIBIT 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of The Stallion Group
(the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended November 30, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Periodic
Report), I, Gerald W. Williams, 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:

|3. | the Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements
      of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                     
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   |                                                                                                                                                                          
|4. | the information contained in the Periodic Report fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.

Date: January 13, 2006

/s/ Gerald W. Williams

Gerald W. Williams Chief Financial Officer

---
**Exhibit 32**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

**(18U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**

 

Pursuant to therequirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Section 1350 of Chapter63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. § 1350), John P.Longenecker, Chief Executive Officer of Favrille, Inc. (the “Company”),and Tamara A. Seymour, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each herebycertifies that, to the best of his or her knowledge:

 

**1.            **The Company’sQuarterly Report  on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31,2008 to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32 (the “QuarterlyReport”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) orSection15(d) of the Exchange Act, and

 

**2.**             The information containedin the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

**InWitness Whereof**, the undersigned have set their hands hereto asof the 12th day of May, 2008.

 
|   | /s/ John P. Longenecker     |   | /s/ Tamara A. Seymour   |
|--------|-----------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|   | John P. Longenecker,  Ph.D. |   | Tamara A. Seymour       |
|   | Chief Executive Officer     |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

This certificationaccompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated byreference into any filing of Favrille, Inc. under the Securities Act of1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whethermade before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of anygeneral incorporation language contained in such filing.

 

----
#### MARIE D. BAILEY, MINOR, BY HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM, HASSELL H. BAILEY v. KENNETH REID HAYES, DECEASED, BY GERALD W. HAYES, JR., ADMINISTRATOR

No. 713SC612

(Filed 29 December 1971)

1. Trial § 33 — recapitulation of plaintiff’s evidence

The trial court did not err in its recapitulation of plaintiff’s evidence.

2. Damages § 16 — instructions

The trial court did not err in its instructions upon the rules for the assessment of damages for personal injuries.

Appeal by defendant from *May, Judge,*24 May 1971 Session of Superior Court held in Pitt County.

Plaintiff instituted this action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by her on 22 November 1968. Her evidence tended to show that she was a passenger in defendant’s vehicle at the time it collided with another vehicle at the intersection of Fourteenth Street and Highway 264 in Greenville, North Carolina. Her evidence further tended to show that she was thrown from defendant’s vehicle and suffered numerous second and third degree abrasions; that she was hospitalized for a period of ten days; that she was thereafter treated as an out patient; that she had some plastic surgery performed on her lip; and that she has permanent scarring on her knee and feet.

Defendant stipulated that the negligence issue should be answered for the plaintiff and against the defendant. The jury answered the damage issue in the sum of $18,000.00 and judgment was entered that plaintiff recover from defendant the sum of $18,000.00 and the costs of the action. Defendant appealed.

*James, Hite & Cavendish, by M. E. Cavendish, for plaintiff.*

*Gaylord & Singleton, by L. W. Gaylord, Jr., and E. Burt Aycock, Jr., for defendant.*

BROCK, Judge.

[1] Defendant’s first seven assignments of error are directed to seven different portions of the judge’s charge to the jury *345wherein he was recapitulating plaintiff’s evidence. The evidence was not objected to and was1 properly admitted. The judge’s recapitulations are accurate. These assignments of error are feckless.

[2] Defendant’s assignments of error numbers 8, 9, and 10 are directed to the judge’s charge wherein he was explaining the rules respecting the assessment of damages for personal injury. The explanations given by the judge are correct. These assignments of error are without merit.

We have considered defendant’s remaining assignments of error and contentions and find them to be without merit. No prejudcial error has been shown.

No error.

Judges Britt and Vaughn concur.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 197 (Thursday, October 13, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59728-59729]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20499]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Defense Logistics Agency


Membership of the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) Senior Executive 
Service (SES) Performance Review Board (PRB)

AGENCY: Defense Logistics Agency, Department of Defense.

ACTION: Notice of membership--2005 DLA PRB.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the appointment of members to the 
Defense Logistics Agency Senior Executive Service (SES) Performance 
Review Board (PRB). The publication of PRB composition is required by 5 
U.S.C. 4314(c)(4). The PRB provides fair and impartial review of Senior 
Executive Service performance appraisals and makes recommendations to 
the Director, Defense Logistics Agency with respect to pay level 
adjustments and performance awards and other actions related to 
management of the SES cadre.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 26, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Defense Logistics Agency, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, Suite 
2533, Fort Belvoir, Virginia 22060-6221.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Shonna Eagleton, SES Program 
Manager, Human Resources (J-1), Defense Logistics Agency, Department of 
Defense, (703) 767-3122.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4), the 
following are the names and titles of DLA career executives appointed 
to serve as members of the SES PRB. Members will serve a 12-month term 
which begins on September 26, 2005.
    PRB Chair: Major General Loren M. Reno, USAF, Vice Director.
    Members: Mr. Larry Glasco, Director, Customer Operations and 
Readiness; Mr. Jeffrey Neal, Director, Human

[[Page 59729]]

Resources; and Ms. Mae DeVincentis, Director, Information Operations.

Keith W. Lippert,
Director, Defense Logistics Agency.
[FR Doc. 05-20499 Filed 10-13-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3620-01-M
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 98-2404EM

_____________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Eastern

v. * District of Missouri.

*

Gerald Miner, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

_____________

 Submitted: January 18, 1999

Filed: January 28, 1999

_____________

Before FAGG, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

Gerald Miner appeals the district court's denial of Miner's motion for a new trial

based on newly discovered evidence. Having considered the record and the parties'

briefs, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Miner's

motion without conducting an evidentiary hearing. See United States v. Turk, 21 F.3d

309, 312 (8th Cir. 1994); United States v. LaFuente, 991 F.2d 1406, 1409 (8th Cir.

1993). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
-2-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.