alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE of North Carolina v. Justin Delane KRAFT

No. COA18-330

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 4, 2018

REVERSED.
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-17-0000624

05-JAN-2018

11:33 AM
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 Environmental Control Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Albert E. Hickman, Chief Executive 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 Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








Dated:  November 13, 2009








By:       /s/ Albert E. Hickman


Albert E. Hickman


President, Chief Executive Officer
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JUNIOR CLEVELAND CAMPBELL

No. 6822SC307

(Filed 18 September 1968)

Appeal by defendant from *McLaughlin, J.,*February 1968 Special Criminal Session of Iredell Superior Court.

By bill of indictment proper in form, defendant was charged with breaking and entering a store building and larceny. He was represented at his trial by court-appointed attorney. The jury returned a verdict of guilty as charged, and on the breaking and entering count, a prison sentence of ten years was imposed; on the larceny count a prison sentence of eight years was imposed, this sentence to begin at the expiration of the ten years sentence. Defendant appealed.

*Attorney General T. Wade Bruton by Deputy Attorney General James F. Bullock for the State.*

*L. Hugh West, Jr., for defendant appellant.*

Britt, J.

Following his conviction in Superior Court, defendant requested that an attorney other than his trial attorney be assigned to represent him on appeal to this Court. Attorney L. Hugh West, Jr., was appointed and proceeded to perfect the appeal; however, said attorney states in the record that he has carefully read the record and the law with respect thereto and can find nothing in the record which he can in good faith assign as error. At the same time, he requests that this Court carefully review-the record and grant the defendant a new trial if reversible error is discovered.

Accordingly we- have carefully reviewed the entire record in this case and find that the defendant was given a fair trial, free from prejudicial error, and that the sentences imposed were within statu*407tory limits. *State v. Hopper,*271 N.C. 464, 156 S.E. 2d 857; *State v. Elliott,*269 N.C. 683, 153 S.E. 2d 330.

The judgment of the Superior Court is Affirmed.

BrocK and Parker, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001066850
<NAME>                        Innovative Holdings and Technologies, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                                    1
<CURRENCY>                                             US Dollars

<S>                             <C>                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS                 12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-1999            Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                  Jan-01-1999            Jan-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    Dec-31-1999            Dec-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                           1                      1
<CASH>                                2,011                  4,303
<SECURITIES>                              0              1,000,000
<RECEIVABLES>                             0                      0
<ALLOWANCES>                              0                      0
<INVENTORY>                               0                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     15,942                  4,303
<PP&E>                                3,681                      0
<DEPRECIATION>                            0                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       43,826              1,004,303
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               257,827                253,098
<BONDS>                              25,000                 25,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0                      0
<PREFERRED>                               0                      0
<COMMON>                              3,313                  2,126
<OTHER-SE>                        3,080,619              3,074,780
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         43,326              1,004,303
<SALES>                                   0                      0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          0                      0
<CGS>                                     0                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             0                      0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    612,732                465,545
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        0                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    (612,732)              (465,545)
<INCOME-TAX>                              0                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       0                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                            0                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0                      0
<CHANGES>                                 0                      0
<NET-INCOME>                       (612,732)              (465,545)
<EPS-BASIC>                          (0.033)                (0.024)
<EPS-DILUTED>                        (0.028)                (0.022)



</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32


                           CERTIFICATIONS 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 report of Ridgewood Energy K Fund, LLC (the "Fund") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005 as furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned
hereby certifies, 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 Fund.



Date: November 17, 2005   By:  /s/ Robert E. Swanson
                               ---------------------------------------
                               Robert E. Swanson
                               President and Chief Executive Officer
                               (principal executive officer)


Date: November 17, 2005   By:  /s/ Kathleen P. McSherry
                               ---------------------------------------
                               Kathleen P. McSherry
                               Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
                               (principal financial and accounting officer)


A signed original of this written statement or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to
Ridgewood Energy K Fund, LLC and will be retained by Ridgewood Energy K Fund,
LLC and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request. The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of this report or as a
separate disclosure document.
EXHIBIT
23.1





CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
  We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form
S-8 (Form S-8 No. 333-150988) pertaining to the Amended and Restated Employee
Stock Purchase Plan and the CompuCredit Corporation 2008 Equity Incentive Plan,
in the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-115188) pertaining to
common stock, preferred stock and debt securities, in the Registration Statement
(Form S-3 No. 333-127418) pertaining to CompuCredit Corporation 3.625%
Convertible Senior Notes due 2025, in the Registration Statement (Form S-3
No. 333-132339) pertaining to CompuCredit Corporation 5.875% Convertible
Senior Notes due 2035, and in the Registration Statement (Form S-3
No. 333-135102) pertaining to common stock issued upon exercise of warrants
of our reports dated February 25, 2009, relating to the consolidated
financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial
reporting of CompuCredit Corporation and subsidiaries included in the Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2008.
  
 /s/ BDO SEIDMAN,
LLP
 Atlanta,
Georgia
 February 25,
2009
STATE of North Carolina v. Reginald Antwan LITTLE, Defendant.

No. COA18-199

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 20, 2018

AFFIRMED.
EX-10.5



 Exhibit 10.5 
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO 
 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 

THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (“Amendment”) is made this 21st day of May, 2013, by and between PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT,
INC., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Geno M. Iafrate, an individual (“Executive”), with respect to the following facts and circumstances: 

RECITALS 

The Company and Executive entered into an Employment Agreement dated April 24, 2012, effective April 10, 2012 (the
“Agreement”), with Executive having a base salary of Four Hundred Sixteen Thousand Dollars ($416,000) per year. 
 On
May 20, 2013, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company increased Executive’s base salary to Five Hundred Twenty Five Thousand Dollars ($525,000) per year, effective May 21, 2013. 

The Company and Executive desire to amend the Agreement to reflect Executive’s new salary. 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, covenants and agreements set forth herein, the parties hereto agree as follows:

 AMENDMENT 
 1. Article 3, Section 3.1 of the Agreement (Compensation) is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following new Article 3, Section 3.1: 

“3.1 Base Salary. In consideration for Executive’s services hereunder, the Company shall pay Executive an annual base
salary at the rate of Five Hundred Twenty Five Thousand Dollars ($525,000.00) per year during each of the years of the Term; payable in accordance with the Company’s regular payroll schedule from time to time (less any deductions required for
Social Security, state, federal and local withholding taxes, and any other authorized or mandated similar withholdings).” 

2. Except as modified herein, all other terms of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. In the event of a conflict between
the terms of the Agreement and this Amendment, the terms of this Amendment shall apply. No modification may be made to the Agreement or this Amendment except in writing and signed by both the Company and Executive. 

  
 - 1 -









 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
duly executed this 21st day of May, 2013. 

 

									
	EXECUTIVE	 		 	PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT, INC.
				
	 /s/ Geno M. Iafrate
	 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Anthony M. Sanfilippo

	Geno M. Iafrate	 		 		 	Anthony M. Sanfilippo,
		 		 		 		 	Chief Executive Officer


  
 - 2 -
nlef_ex102.htm


Exhibit 10.2


 




  





1











  






 


 




  





2











  






 


 




  





3











  






 


 




  





4











  






 


 




  





5











  






 


 




  





6











  






 


 




  





7











  






 


 




  





8











  






 


 


9
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 DSA Financial Corporation (the
"Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date of this Certification (the
"Report"), I, Edward L. Fischer, President and Chief Executive 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) 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 DSA Financial Corporation and will be retained by DSA Financial
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.



                                           /s/Edward L. Fischer
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Edward L. Fischer
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer

Date:  February 10, 2005
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**27 KA 10-01592**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V ORDER
DANIEL J. HYERS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

ERICKSON WEBB SCOLTON & HAJDU, LAKEWOOD (LYLE T. HAJDU OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
DAVID W. FOLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, MAYVILLE (LAURIE M. BECKERINK OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Chautauqua County Court (John T. Ward, J.), rendered March 29, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of manslaughter in the first degree.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Entered: February 10, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
REQUIRED BY RULE 13a-14(b) or RULE 15d-14(b)
AND SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
  (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 result of operations of the Company.
 /s/ JOHN A. BUTLERJohn A. ButlerChief Financial Officer
Clearwire Corporation
August 8, 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
  Form 10-K
  (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 as of the dates and for the periods
    expressed in the Report.    By:
    /s/  Edward
    F. Crawford   Title:
    Chairman and Chief Executive Officer  By:
    /s/  Richard
    P. Elliott   Title:
    Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-30158

Summary Calendar

RODNEY C. CURRY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

WARDEN MUNGONA, St. Tammany Parish Jail, ET AL., Defendants,

WARDEN MUNGOVAN, incorrectly named as Warden Mungona in pleading; SAMUEL RAINEY, Lieutenant; MIKE BURNS, Deputy, Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 94-CV-3120-I

August 28, 1997

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Rodney C. Curry, Louisiana inmate #180222, appeals the

judgmen t for the defendants in his suit under 28 U.S.C. § 1983.

According to Curry, the defendants were deliberately indifferent to

his medical needs after he broke his nose in a fight with an inmate

while awaiting trial.2

After a hearing, a magistrate judge recommended dismissing the

complaint, and the district court adopted this recommendation. We

cannot find clear error in the lower courts’ holding that the

defendant prison officials did not show su b jective deliberate

indifference to Curry’s medical needs. S ee Hare v. City of

Corinth , 74 F.3d 633 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-40871

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RODRIGO CELESTINO-GARCIA,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. M-97-CR-75-1

- - - - - - - - - -

February 11, 1998

Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Rodrigo Celestino-Garcia appeals his sentence for unlawfully

entering the United States after having been previously deported. 

Celestino-Garcia argues that his sentence was improperly enhanced

pursuant to Title 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) based upon his prior

commission of an aggravated felony, because the charging

indictment did not mention the aggravated felony. His argument

is foreclosed by United States v. Vasquez-Olvera, 999 F.2d 943

(5th Cir. 1993).

AFFIRMED.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 25, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-50743

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ALBERTO GUZMAN-OLIVER,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:03-CR-247-5

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

Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Counsel appointed to represent Alberto Guzman-Oliver

(Guzman) has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 

Guzman has not filed a response. Our independent review of

counsel’s brief and the record discloses no unwaived and

nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for

leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH

CIR. R. 42.2.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 14

- 0421 Filed February 11, 2015

MARY VIRGINIA MCMAHON , Plaintiff

- Appell ant/Cross

- Appellee ,
vs. DAVID ROUSSELOW, PAMELA S. ROUSSELOW a/k/a PAMELA S. ROUSSELOW, et al. , Defendant s - Appell ees/Cross

- Appellants

.

________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Poweshiek County, Myron L. Gookin , Judge.

Mary McMahon appeals the denial of her petition to establish a boundary by acquiescence. AFFIRMED.

Andrew B. Howie of Hudson, Mallaney, Shindler & Anderson, P.C. , West Des Moines , for appellant. John W. Harris of Law Offices of C. Kevin McCrindle , Wat erloo , for appellee s

.

Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and Potterfield, JJ.2

POTTERFIELD, J. Mary McMahon appeals the denial of her petition to establish a boundary by acquiescence between adjoining properties . Adjoining property owners, Dav id and Pamela R ousselow contend the trial court was correct in denying McMahon’s petition and in granting their counterclaim to quiet title in the disputed land. “[T] he party seeking to establish a boundary line other than the boundary line in accordance with a survey must prove acquiescence by clear evidence. ”
T ewes v. Pine Lane Farms, Inc. , 522 N.W.2d 801, 806 (Iowa 1994) . “[A] boundary line may be established by a showing that the two adjoining landowners or their predecessors in title have recognized and acquiesced in a boundary line for a period of ten years .” Id. (emphasis added). “ Each of the adjoining landowners or their grantors must have knowledge of and consented to the asserted property line as the boundary line. ” Id. (emphasis a dded); Sille v. Shaffer, 297 N.W.2d 379, 381 (Iowa 1980). Upon our de novo review, 1 we find no reason to disturb the trial court’s rulings. We agree with the trial court’s finding that “[n]either party knew where the actual boundary line was located

. ” N or was there a consistent, recognized property line. As the trial court stated, “Because there was never any mutually

1 A claim for boundary by acquiescence is ordinarily brought “as an action by ordinary proceedings.” See Iowa Code § 650.15 (2013). Thus, our review would normally be for correction of errors of law. Iowa R. App. P. 6.907. However, t he parties tried this matter as one in equity , and therefore, our review is de novo. See Sille v. Shaffer , 297 N.W.2d 379, 381 (Iowa 1980) (“Since this matter was tried by the court in equity it will be so considered by us and reviewed de novo.” ). “ In equity cases, especially when considering the credibility of witnesses, the court gives weight to the fact findings of the district court, but is not bound by them. ” Iowa R. App. P. 6.904(3)(g)

.3

recognized boundary between the parties, the issue of whether such boundary was mutually recognized for a period of ten years is irreleva nt.” We affirm.
AFFIRMED.
Steven GEE, Plaintiff, v. Paul DENZER, Defendant.

No. COA18-146

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 18, 2018

AFFIRMED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT R.L.C., Respondent

v. J.M.C., Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 818 MAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 8th day of December, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.