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



Exhibit 10.21
 
 Amendment Number Seven NC Mortgage NC Capital NC Financial Citigroup Agreement
 RECITALS




---



##### 



Maximum Credit
 Fees and Expenses
 Defined Terms
 Representations
 Limited Effect
 GOVERNING LAW
 Counterparts




---



##### 



CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS REALTY CORP.By:
    
    /s/ Bobbie TheivakumaranName: Bobbie TheivakumaranTitle:   Authorized AgentNC CAPITAL CORPORATIONBy:
    
    /s/ Kevin CloydName: Kevin CloydTitle:   PresidentNEW CENTURY MORTGAGE CORPORATIONBy:
    
    /s/ Kevin CloydName: Kevin CloydTitle:   Executive Vice PresidentNEW CENTURY FINANCIAL CORPORATIONBy:
    
    /s/ Kevin CloydName: Kevin CloydTitle:   Executive Vice PresidentBy:
    
    /s/ Brad A. MorriceName: Brad A. MorriceTitle:   President and CEO
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BILLY KEITH FOWLER

No. 6818SC447

(Filed 11 December 1968)

Appeal by defendant from *Bowman, S.J.,*29 January 1968, Regular Criminal Session, Guilfobd Superior Court, Greensboro Division.

The defendant was charged with the felony of armed robbery in a proper bill of indictment, which was returned at the 14 August 1967 Criminal Session of Superior Court of Guilford County. The defendant filed an affidavit of indigency on 30 October 1967 and an order was entered appointing counsel for the defendant.

The case was called for trial on 6 February 1968. During the second day of the trial, the defendant through his counsel withdrew his plea of not guilty and entered a plea of guilty. After informing the defendant of the nature of the charge and the possible consequences of his plea and after due inquiry, including a formal examination of the defendant, the trial court adjudicated that this plea of guilty was freely, understanding^, intentionally, and voluntarily made. The plea was, therefore, accepted and entered into the record. Sentence was imposed and the defendant was committed to the State Department of Correction on 9 February 1968.

On 13 February 1968 the defendant wrote to the clerk of court in Guilford County giving notice of his appeal.

A new attorney was appointed to perfect the appeal and to represent the defendant on the appeal.

*T. W. Bruton, Attorney General, and Harry W. McGalliard, Deputy Attorney General, for the State.*

*Jerry S. Weston, Attorney for defendant appellant.*

Campbell, J.

This is a typical case where the system breaks down. The defendant, without expense to himself, called upon the taxpayers to furnish him with an attorney to advise him at the time of his trial. With the advice of this attorney, the defendant then, freely and voluntarily, entered a plea of guilty to the felony with which he was charged. Thereafter, he requested the Court of Appeals to review the trial and the sentence. The defendant again, without expense to himself, called upon the taxpayers to furnish him with an attorney to *233present the matter to the Court of Appeals. This attorney has reviewed the proceedings and, after such review, has filed a brief in which it is frankly stated that he finds no errors. The Attorney General has reviewed the record on appeal and agrees with defense counsel that no prejudicial error has been made to appear.

We, likewise, have reviewed the record on appeal and we conclude that no error has been made to appear.

Affirmed.

Mallabd, C.J., and MoRRis, J., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1

              SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Jon C. Nicolaysen,  Chief Executive  Officer and Acting Financial  Officer of
Rancher Energy Corp.  (the Company),  certify,  that pursuant to Section 1350 of
Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code:

         (1) The  Company's  Quarterly  Report  on Form  10-Q for the  quarterly
period ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the Report) fully complies with the  requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

         (2)  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.

/s/ Jon C. Nicolaysen
---------------------------
Jon C. Nicolaysen
Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Executive and Acting Accounting Officer)
August 16, 2010
EXHIBIT 21.1
  Subsidiaries
    of the Company
  State of Other

Other Name, if Any,Jurisdiction of

the Subsidiary DoesName

Incorporation

Business UnderBowSteel Corporation

Delaware

RTI ConnecticutExtrusion Technology Corporation of America

Ohio

RTI FabricationNati Gas Company

OhioNew Century Metals, Inc.

OhioNew Century Metals Southeast, Inc.

Delaware

RTI LAPierce-Spafford Metals Company, Inc.

California

RTI Pierce SpaffordRTI  Reamet, S.A.S.

FranceRMI Delaware, Inc.

DelawareRMI Titanium Company

Ohio

RTI Niles; RTI AlloysRTI Capital, LLC

DelawareRTI Claro Inc.

QuebecRTI Finance Corp.

OhioRTI Hamilton, Inc.

OhioRTI Hermitage, Inc.

OhioRTI Energy Systems, Inc.

OhioRTI Europe Ltd.

United KingdomRTI Fabrication and Distribution, Inc.

OhioRTI International Metals Ltd.

United KingdomRTI Martinsville, Inc.

OhioRTI St. Louis, Inc.

MissouriTradco, Inc.

Missouri

RTI Tradco
Christian G. PLASMAN, in his individual capacity and derivatively for the benefit of, on behalf of and right of nominal party Bolier & Company, LLC v. DECCA FURNITURE (USA), INC., Decca Contract Furniture, LLC, Richard Herbst, Wai Theng Tin, Tsang G. Hung, Decca Furniture, Ltd., Decca Hospitality Furnishings, LLC, Dongguan Decca Furniture Co. Ltd., Darren Hudgins, Decca Home, LLC, and Elan by Decca, LLC and Bolier & Company, LLC, Nominal Defendant v. Christian J. Plasman a/k/a Barrett Plasman, Third-Party Defendant

No. 1P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 14, 2018

Matthew K. Rogers, Attorney at Law, Hickory, David S. Pokela, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, for Plasman, Christian G.

Robert A. Muckenfuss, Attorney at Law, Andrew D. Atkins, Attorney at Law, Jodie H. Lawson, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Decca Furniture (USA), Inc., et al.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 28th of December 2017 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 14th of August 2018."

*389Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiff on the 28th of December 2017 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, 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 14th of August 2018."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 28th of December 2017 by Plaintiff to Certify for Discretionary Review and Consolidate for Consideration COA16-777, COA16-1156, and COA17-358:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of August 2018."
#### Allan W. Poxon, Appellant, v Maureen A. Poxon, Respondent.

[718 NYS2d 885]

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by a judgment entered January 12, 1999, the plaintiff former husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Lifson, J.), dated June 23, 1999, as denied that branch of his motion which was, in effect, for a downward modification of his child support obligation.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, the court correctly denied that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was, in effect, for a downward modification of his child support obligation *(see,*Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [9] [b]; *Matter of Murphy v Rutowicz,*271 AD2d 691; *Petzold v Petzold,*259 AD2d 474). Friedmann, J. P., Goldstein, H. Miller and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7549

HENRY PERSINGER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus THOMAS MCBRIDE, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. David A. Faber, District Judge. (CA-03-618-5) Submitted: April 20, 2006 Decided: April 24, 2006 Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henry Persinger, Appellant Pro Se. Dawn Ellen Warfield, Jon Rufus Blevins, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Henry Persinger seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of a magistrate judge and denying his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Persinger has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We further deny Persinger’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, December 31, 2021. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, December 31, 2021 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A22D0164. IN THE INTEREST OF N. E. K., A CHILD (MOTHER) .
Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Juvenile Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 21JV21
NUMBER 13-16-00287-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE NAVISTAR, INC.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

ORDER

Before Justices Benavides, Perkes, and Longoria

Per Curiam Order

Relator, Navistar, Inc. (“Navistar”), filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the 

above cause on May 26, 2016. Through this original proceeding, relator seeks to set 

aside discovery orders which “compel Navistar to produce documents from a Securities 

Exchange Commission investigation into the financial disclosures made by Navistar’s 

parent company and its former CEO to stockholders about proposed engines Navistar 

never manufactured for sale and which are different from the engine model” that powers 

trucks purchased by the real party in interest, Americorp Xpress Carriers, LLC. 
2

The Court requests that the real party in interest, Americorp Xpress Carriers, LLC,

or any others whose interest would be directly affected by the relief sought, including but 

not limited to Santex Truck Centers Ltd., file a response to the petition for writ of 

mandamus on or before the expiration of ten days from the date of this order. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 52.2, 52.4, 52.8. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

27th day of May, 2016.
Exhibit 32



                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
            REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of Gift Liquidators, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending September 30, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report), I
George Maxwell Colclasure, 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; and

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

November 11, 2004

                                             /s/ George Maxwell Colclasure
                                             -----------------------------------
                                                 George Maxwell Colclasure,
                                                 Chief Executive Officer






                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
            REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of Gift Liquidators, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending September 30, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report), I
Ronald G. Hurt, 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 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.

November 11, 2004

                                               /s/ Ronald G. Hurt
                                               ---------------------------------
                                                   Ronald G. Hurt,
                                                   Chief Financial Officer




A signed original of this written statement has been provided to Gift
Liquidators, Inc. and will be retained by Gift Liquidators, Inc. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WALTER JUNIOR JOHNSON

No. 7210SC806

(Filed 20 December 1972)

1. Homicide § 12— murder indictment — plea to manslaughter

An indictment for murder will support a plea of *nolo contendere*to voluntary manslaughter.

2. Constitutional Law § 36— cruel and unusual punishment — sentence for voluntary manslaughter

A sentence of twelve to fifteen years imposed upon defendant’s plea of *nolo contendere*to voluntary manslaughter does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

Appeal by defendant from *Brewer, Judge,*31 July 1972 Session of Superior Court held in Wake County.

*159Defendant was indicted for murder. He was allowed to enter a plea of *nolo contendere*to voluntary manslaughter. Judgment imposing a prison sentence of not less than twelve nor more than fifteen years was entered. Defendant subsequently wrote his court appointed counsel and asked that notice of appeal be entered.

*Attorney General Robert Morgan by Russell G. Walker, Jr., and Roy A. Giles, Jr., Assistant Attorneys General for the State.*

*James R. Fullwood for defendant appellant.*

VAUGHN, Judge.

[1, 2] The record discloses that defendant's plea was accepted only after the court made due inquiry of the defendant and adjudged that the plea was freely, understanding^ and voluntarily entered. On appeal, defendant does not contend that his plea was not freely, understanding^ and voluntarily entered. Defendant argues that a bill of indictment for murder will not support a plea of manslaughter. He further argues that the sentence imposed constitutes cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the United States Constitution. These are the only assignments of error brought forward and they are without merit.

No error.

Judges Britt and Parker concur.
S it t in g b y a s s ig n m e n tfo r t h e Ho n o ra b le A b e L o p e z. 1 NO. 07-07 -049 8-CR

IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL A JAN UA RY

3, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ CARL W AYNE HORN E, APP ELL ANT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 10 8 T H DI ST RI CT COU RT OF P OT T ER COU NT Y; NO . 54, 538- E; H ON ORABLE RI CH AR D DA MB OLD , J UD GE 1

_________

_________

_________

____ Bef ore CAMPBE LL a nd HANCOCK an d PIRT LE, JJ.
A BA TEMENT A ND R EMA ND
Follow ing a plea of

not guilty , App ellant , Carl W ayne Horne, was convi cted bya jury of tw o cou nts of

engaging in organiz ed c ri m in a l a c tiv ity and sente nced to tw ent y y ears confine ment. Appel lan t fil ed a pr o s e not ic e of appeal ch all eng ing hi s c onv ic ti on. The2

appel lat e r ecord has not been filed

. By let ter dated Dec ember 20, 2 007, thi s C our t adv is ed Appel la n t t h a t h e h a d t e n d a y s i n w h i c h t o fi l e a d o c k e t i n g s t a t e me n t

. H e r e s p o n d e d by let ter fil ed D ecember

27, 2007, inq uir ing w hether he i s t he App ell ant a nd, i f so, h ow to pr oceed i n fil ing a do ck eti ng st atement. H e al so ind ic ated that he had re q uest ed c ourtappoi nted couns el in the t ri al cour t buthad y et t o be noti fied by any one. In the i nter estof jud ic ial economy , w e abate this appeal and remand the cause to the tri al cour t for further proce edin gs. Upo n re mand, the tr ial cour t shal l uti li z e w hatev er

means nec ess ar

y to deter mine
w het her Ap pellan t is indigent a n d entitle d to ap poin ted coun sel to represe nt him in this appeal

. Shoul d the tr ial courtdetermi ne that Appell ant is indi g ent and desires to prosec ute this ap pea l, then it shall appo int cou nsel. If co u n sel is appo inted , the nam e, ad dress, tel ephone number , and sta te bar number of s aid couns el shal l be inc lud ed in th e ord er a p p o in t in g c o u n s e l. F in a ll y, t h e t ri a l co u rt s h a ll e xe c u t e f in d in gs o f fa c t , co n c lu s io n s o f

la w, and any o r d e r s i t ma y e n t e r r e g a r d i n g t h e a fo r e me n t i o n e d i s s u e s a n d c a u s e t h e m to be inc lud ed i n a suppl emental cl er k’ s re cord. The suppl emental cl er k’ s record s hal l be fil ed
w it h the C ler k o f this C our t on or before Janua ry

25, 2008.
It is so order ed.
Per C ur iam
Do not p ubl is h.
STATE of North Carolina v. Shenondoah PERRY and Earl Lamont Powell

No. 265P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 5, 2018

Emily H. Davis, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Perry, Shenondoah.

James R. Glover, Ann B. Petersen, Attorneys at Law, for Powell, Earl Lamont.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Daniel Snipes Johnson, Special Deputy Attorney Generals, Jeremy D. Lindsley, Attorney at Law, Valerie Mitchell Asbell, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 22nd of August 2018 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Dissolved by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of December 2018."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by State of NC on the 22nd of August 2018 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, 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 December 2018."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 11th of September 2018 by State of NC 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 December 2018."
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 3579

_____________________________ A LVATINA F LUCKER ,
Petitioner
,

v.

F LORIDA C OMMISSION ON O FFENDER R EVIEW , Respondent

.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Certiorari

— Original Jurisdiction.

June 28, 2018

P ER C URIAM

. The petition for writ of certiorari is denied on the merits.

W ETHERELL , R OWE , and W INOKUR , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and

a uthorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Alvatina Flucker, pro se
, Petitioner

. Rana Wallace, General Counsel, and Mark Hiers, Assistant General Counsel, Florida Commission on Offender Review, Tallahassee
, for Respondent

.
**Exhibit32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONBY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OFPAYPHONE WIND DOWN CORPORATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, GUY A. LONGOBARDO, amthe Chief Executive Officer of Payphone Wind Down Corporation (the “Company”).

 

This certification isbeing furnished pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in connection with the filing of the Company’sQuarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 (the “Report”).

 

I hereby certify that tothe best of my knowledge:

 

(a)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(b)                                 Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of thedates and for the periods covered by the Report.

 
| Dated: November 14, 2007 |                    |
|--------------------------|-------------------------|
|                     |                    |
|                     | /s/ GUY A. LONGOBARDO   |   |
|                     | Guy A. Longobardo       |
|                     | Chief Executive Officer |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Payphone WindDown Corporation and will be retained by Payphone Wind Down Corporation andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----