alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. J. W. PRIVETTE

No. 7320SC625

(Filed 12 September 1973)

Criminal Law § 91 — motion to continue unsupported by affidavits — denial of motion — no error

Defendant failed to show that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to continue or that he was prejudiced thereby where his motion was not supported by affidavits showing what efforts, if any, had been made to secure the presence of witnesses or showing why defendant had not conferred more with his attorney between the time of his appointment and the time of trial.

Appeal by defendant from' *McConnell, Judge,*30 April 1973 Session of Superior Court held in Union County.-

Defendant was charged in a bill of indictment, proper in form, with the armed robbery of fifty-five dollars ($55.00) from Mrs. Edna McCain, the operator of a small store.

*399Defendant - pleaded not-guilty and was found guilty as charged. From a judgment imposing a sentence of twenty to twenty-five years, defendant appealed.

*Attorney General Robert Morgan and Associate Attorney Emerson D. Wall for the State.*

*Clark, Huffman & Griffin by Bobby H. Griffin for defendant appellant.*

HEDRICK, Judge.

Defendant was arrested on 15 March 1973 and was afforded a preliminary hearing on 10 April 1973, at which time counsel was appointed to represent him. Probable cause was found and defendant was bound over for trial at the next Session of Superior Court. The case was called for trial on 30 April 1973. Prior to pleading, defendant made a motion to continue on the grounds that: (1) Three' of his witnesses were out of state and not available to testify and- if present these witnesses would testify that defendant was not present in North Carolina at the time the crime was allegedly committed; and (2) Defendant had only one occasion to discuss these matters with his court appointed counsel.

Defendant’s sole assignment of error is that the court erred in denying his motion to continue. A motion to continue- is directed to the sound discretion of the trial court, *State v. Stinson, 2*67 N.C. 661, 148 S.E. 2d 593 (1966); *State v. Stepney,*280 N.C. 306, 185 S.E. 2d 844 (1971); and such motion should not be granted unless the reasons therefor are fully established, *State v. Stepney, supra.*

Defendant’s motion to continue was not supported by affidavits' showing what efforts, if any, had been made to secure the presence of witnesses, nor does the record disclose why the defendant had not conferred with his attorney more during the interval between 10 April and 30 April 1973. In short, defendant has failed to show that the trial judge abused his discretion in denying the motion to continue or that he was prejudiced thereby.

Defendant had a fair trial free from prejudicial error.

No error.

Judges Britt and Vaughn concur.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATE OF

PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER 

AND

 PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

OF

NITRO PETROLEUM INCORPORATED

I, Larry Wise, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Nitro Petroleum Incorporated (the “Company”), hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the quarterly report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 31, 2008 (the “Report”):

|   | a. | complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | b. | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at July 31, 2008, and the results of the Company’s operations for the quarter ended July 31, 2008. |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|                      |   |   |   |                                     |
|---------------------------|--------|--------|--------|------------------------------------------|
| Date:  September 19, 2008 |   |   |   | /s/  Larry Wise                          |
|                      |   |   |   |                                     |
|                      |   |   |   | Larry Wise                               |
|                      |   |   |   | *President, Chief Executive Officer and* |
|                      |   |   |   | *Chief Financial Officer*                |
KYLE BUSCH MOTORSPORTS, INC., Plaintiff v. Justin BOSTON, Individually and Justin Boston Racing, LLC, Defendants

No. COA18-426

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 20, 2018

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 13.2





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 USC. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002






I, V. Balakrishnan, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Infosys Limited for the year ended March 31, 2012 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 20-F fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Infosys Limited.






/s/ V. BALAKRISHNANDate: May 3, 2012
V. Balakrishnan

Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>
                                  EXHIBIT 99.1

                    REPORT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


To the Members of Global Materials Services LLC
(formerly Mid-South Terminal Company):

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of GLOBAL MATERIALS
SERVICES LLC (a Tennessee limited liability company, the "Company") and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 1999 and the related consolidated statements of
income, partners' capital and comprehensive income and cash flows (not presented
separately herein) for the year then ended. These financial statements are the
responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an
opinion on these financial statements based on our audits. We did not audit the
financial statements of Arrow Terminals BV, Vlissingen (Arrow BV), which
statements reflect total assets and total revenues of 9 percent and 10 percent
in 1999, respectively, of the related consolidated totals. Those statements were
audited by other auditors whose report has been furnished to us, and our
opinion, insofar as it relates to the amounts included for those entities, is
based solely on the report of the other auditors.

We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted
in the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free
of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence
supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit
also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates
made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement
presentation. We believe that our audit and the report of other auditors provide
a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, based on our audit and the report of other auditors, the
financial statements referred to above (not presented separately herein) present
fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Global Materials
Services and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1999, and the results of its
operations and its cash flows for the year then ended in conformity with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States.

Arthur Anderson LLP
Memphis, Tennessee
March 28, 2000
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

JEREMY JOHN MARUSKA

,

Appellant

,

v. Case No. 5D 16

- 3317

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. ________________________________/

Opinion filed June 1, 2018

Appeal from the Circuit Court

for Vol usia County

, Leah R. Case , Judge.

Marie

- Louise Samuels Parmer, of Samuels

Parmer Law Firm PA, Tampa, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Carmen F. Corrente, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Jeremy John Maruska appeals his judgment and sentence for first

- degree

premeditated and felony murder and robbery with a deadly weapon. We agree that the

robbery conviction cannot be sustained under our standard of review and accordingly

reverse the judgment and concurrent life sentence on that charge. We affirm the

judgment and sentence on the first

- degree premeditated murder conviction.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part.

COHEN, C.J. , SAWAYA and LAMBERT , JJ., concur.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

FINISAR CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

NISTICA, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2017-1649

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of California in No. 5:13-cv-03345-BLF, 

Judge Beth Labson Freeman.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

DAVID C. RADULESCU, Radulescu LLP, New York, NY, 

argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by ROBIN 

M. DAVIS, DANIEL KESACK, ETAI LAHAV, TIGRAN 

VARDANIAN. 

 ROBERT KRAMER, Dentons US LLP, Palo Alto, CA, 

argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by 

JENNIFER D. BENNETT, RUSSELL TONKOVICH, San Francisco, CA; LORA A. BRZEZYNSKI, Washington, DC; RICHARD 

SALGADO, Dallas, TX.
 

______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (DYK, WALLACH, and CHEN, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

 April 5, 2018 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner 

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 2 A1 48 8 . SHAW N DAVERT LOCKHART, J R. v . THE STATE.

In 2 0 0 9

, Sh awn Lo ck h art

, J r., p l ed g u i l t y t o ar m e d r o b b ery , k i d n ap p i n g , an d

posse s sion of a f

ir e a r m duri ng t he co m

m i s s i o n o f a cri m e, an d t h e t ri al co u rt i m p o s ed

a 2 5-y ear t o t al s en t en ce. L o c k h a r t f i l e d a m o t i o n f

o r l e a v e t o f

i l e a n o u t

- o f

t i m e a p p e a l i n J a n u a r y 2 0 2 1

, a n d t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i s m i s s e d t h e m o t i o n

. L o c k h a r t t h e n f

i l e d t h i s a p p e a l

. A s t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t r e c e n t l y d e t e r m i n e d

, a t ri al co u rt l ack s au t h o ri t y to

g ran t an o u t -o f-t i m e ap p eal

. Co o k v. S t a t e , 3 1 3 Ga. 47 1

, 5 0 6 (5 ) (8 7 0 SE2 d 7 5 8 )
( 2 022)

. L oc kha

r t, t he r e f or e , “ ha d no r ight to f

i le a m o t i o n fo r an o u t -o f-t i m e ap p eal in

the tr ia l c our

t ; h i s r e m e dy

, if a ny , lie s in ha be a s co rp u s

. ” Ru t l ed

g e v. S t at e , 3 13 Ga. 4 6 0,

4 6 1 (8 7 0 SE2 d 7 2 0 ) (2 02 2 ). Th u s , t h e t ri al co u rt co rrect l y d et erm i n ed t h at it d i d n ot

h av e ju ri s d i ct i o n t o co n s id er L oc kha r t’ s m otion f

or out- o f -t i m e ap p eal

, an d t h e co urt ’ s

o rd er d is m i s s i n g the m ot i o n do es n o t p res en t a co g n i zab l e b as i s fo r an ap p eal

. See

Hen der s o n v. S t a t e , 3 0 3 Ga. 2 41

, 2 4 4 (2 ) (8 1 1 SE2 d 3 8 8) (2 0 1 8). Acco rd i n g l y , t h i s

ap p eal i s h ereb y

DISM ISSED.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e
, A t la n t a
,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t if y t h a t th e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

.
W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t
h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. June 29, 2022

06/29/2022
EXHIBIT
32




CERTIFICATION





Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 1350 as adopted by


Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002




Each of
the undersigned, David F. Carney, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of
Lincoln Educational Services Corporation (the “Company”), and Cesar Ribeiro,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, has executed this certification in
connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the
Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31,
2008 (the “Report”).






Each of
the undersigned hereby certifies that, to his respective 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.







Date:           May
8, 2008








/s/DavidF.CarneyDavid F. CarneyChairman
      & Chief Executive Officer/s/CesarRibeiroCesar RibeiroChief
      Financial Officer
### NUMBER 13 - 20 - 00 175 - CR 

## COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

RONALD SHANKLIN , A ppellant ,
v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, A ppellee
.

On a ppeal from the 319th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.


## MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justic es Benavides, Hinojosa , and Tijerina Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides Appellant was convicted of assault on a public servant and judgment was entered

on September 16, 2019

. Appellant filed a notice of appeal on March 28, 2020. This Court’s appellate jurisdiction in a criminal case is invoked by a timely filed notice of appeal. Olivo v. State , 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Absent a2

timely filed notice of appeal, a court of appeals does not have jurisdiction to address the merits of the appeal and can take no action other than to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Slaton v. State , 981 S.W.2d 208, 2 10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). The trial court imposed sentence in this matter on September 16 , 20 19

. Appellant filed his notice of appeal on March 28, 2020 . On April 2, 2020 , the Clerk of this Court notified appellant it appeared the appeal was not timely pe rfected, and the appeal would be dismissed if the defect was not corrected within ten days

. On April 6, 2020 , the c ourt received correspondence from appellant’s attorney indicating agreement that the appellant d id not timely file notice. Appellant’s notice of appeal, filed more than six months after his sentenc ing was imposed, was untimely, and accordingly, we lack jurisdiction over the appeal. See Slaton , 981 S.W.2d at 210. Appellant may be entitled to an out

- of

- time appeal by filing a post
- conviction writ of habeas corpus returnable to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals; however, the availability of that remedy is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court

. See TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN. art. 11.07, § 3(a); see also Ex parte Garcia , 988 S.W.2d 240 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) The appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.

GINA M. BENAVIDES Justice Do not publish. T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.2(b). D elivered and filed the 10th day of September, 2020

.
##### 



Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATIONS
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Robert Earl, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form
10-Q of BH/RE, L.L.C.;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 16, 2004
    /s/ ROBERT EARLRobert EarlManager
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

TERRY RAY FORD,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 19

- 10225

D.C. No.

1:17

- cr

- 00074

- LJO

- SKO

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 3, 2020 * *

Before: MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Terry Ray Ford appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his

guilty

- plea conviction and 48

- month sentence for conspiracy to distribute and to

possess with intent to distribute d ibutylone HCI and alpha

- PHP , in violation o f 21

U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. Pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

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

# FILED

MAR 6 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 10225

(1967), Ford ’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief,

along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Ford the

opport unity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or

answering brief has been filed.

Ford waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. Our

independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80

(1 988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver. See United

States v. Watson , 582 F.3d 974, 986

- 88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss

the appeal. See id. at 988.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED.
EXHIBIT 10.2





 


AMENDMENT TO BIOSCRIP, INC. 


2008 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN


 


This AMENDMENT TO
THE BIOSCRIP, INC. 2008 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN (the “Amendment”), is made on the date last
below written by BIOSCRIP, INC., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware (the “Company”).


 


WHEREAS, the
Company adopted the BioScrip, Inc. 2008 Equity Incentive Plan effective April 28, 2008, as amended on June 10, 2010 (the “Plan”);
and


 


WHEREAS, Section
15 of the Plan provides that the Company may amend the Plan from time to time; and


 


WHEREAS, the
Company wishes to amend the Plan to increase the number of shares of Common Stock in the aggregate that may be subject to Awards
granted to directors.


 


NOW, THEREFORE,
the Plan is amended as follows:


 


		1.	Section 3.1 of the Plan shall be amended and restated to read as follows:



 


3.1Number of
Shares (a) Subject to adjustment as provided in Section 15, a total of 6,855,000 shares of
Stock shall be authorized for issuance under the Plan (which number shall include the 6,855,000 shares of Stock previously authorized
for issuance under the Plan), all of which may be subject to ISOs, less one (1) share of Stock for every one (1) share of Stock
that was subject to an Option or Stock Appreciation Right granted after December 31, 2007 under the Prior Plan and one and one-half
(1.5) shares of Stock for every one (1) share of Stock that was subject to an Award other than an Option or Stock Appreciation
Right granted after December 31, 2007 under the Prior Plan. In no event may more than 1,000,000 shares of Stock in the aggregate
be subject to Awards granted to Directors. Any shares of Stock that are subject to Awards of Options or Stock Appreciation Rights
shall be counted against this limit as one (1) share of Stock for everyone one (1) share of Stock issued. Any shares of Stock that
are subject to Awards other than Options or Stock Appreciation Rights shall be counted against this limit as one and one-half (1.5)
shares of Stock for every one (1) share of Stock issued.


 


		2.	Except as provided in this Amendment, no other changes
or amendments shall be made to the Plan as previously stated (including all prior amendments) and the remainder thereof shall
remain in full force and effect.



 





 





	IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has executed this Amendment on this 7th day of May, 2013.
	 	 
	COMPANY:	BIOSCRIP, INC.
	 	 	 
		By	/s/ Kimberlee C. Seah
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 Syntony Group, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), We,
Michael Vardakis, President and Treasurer and Matthew C. Lords, Vice President
and Secretary 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; and

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


Date: 11/17/2004                         /s/Michael Vardakis
     -----------                         ---------------------
                                         Michael Vardakis
                                         President, Treasurer and director


Date: 11/17/2004                         /s/Matthew C. Lords
     -----------                         ---------------------
                                         Matthew C. Lords
                                         Vice President, Secretary and
                                         director