alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROGER THOMPSON

No. 6815SC456

(Filed 11 December 1968)

1. Criminal Law § 161— review of exceptions to judgment

An assignment of error to the signing of the judgment presents the face of the record proper for review.

2. Burglary and Unlawful Breakings § 8; Larceny § 10— sentences

Sentence of two1 years imprisonment imposed upon plea of guilty to non-felonious breaking and entering, and sentence of one year’s imprisonment imposed upon plea of guilty to non-felonious larceny, are within statutory limits. G.S. 14-3.

Appeal by defendant from *Hall, J.,*August 1968 Criminal Session AlamaNCE Superior Court.

Defendant was charged on two counts in a single bill of indictment, proper in form, first, with felonious breaking and entering, and second, with larceny. At the trial he tendered, and the State accepted, pleas of guilty to non-felonious breaking and entering and to non-felonious larceny. Judgment was entered imposing an active sentence of two years upon the first count and a sentence of' one year on the second count to begin at the expiration of the two year sentence imposed on the first count. From this judgment, defendant appealed.

*Attorney General T. W. Bruton and Assistant Attorney General Millard R. Rich, Jr., for the State.*

*Harold T. Dodge for defendant appellant.*

PARKER, J.

Appellant’s sole assignment of error is to the signing of the judgment. This presents the face of the record proper for review. 1 Strong, N. C. Index 2d, Appeal and Error, § 26, p. 162. Appellant’s brief admits that his pleas of guilty were freely and voluntarily entered. The sentences imposed were within statutory limits. G.S. 14-3. Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has frankly stated in his brief that he is unable to suggest any error in connection with the proceedings in this case. After careful review of the record, we agree, and find

No error.

Broce and Britt, JJ., concur.
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10
- 11
- 00316
- CR
IN RE ERIC G. ANDIKA
Original Proceeding

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Eric G. Andika filed a pe tit i on for writ of mandamus asking this Court to award him “Jail Time Credit” for time he spent in jail in t he State of Georgia before being
extradited back to the State of Texas. The petition states that Andika was arrested in Decatur, Georgia on May 2, 2003. The following day, he was arraigned “on a charge of being an escapee/fugitive from justice from Navar ro County, Texas and a detainer was subsequently placed on [him] without bail.” Andika further states in the petition that on May 4, 2004, he was “transferred back to the custody of the Sheriff of Navarro County, Texas to stand t rial on the charge of esca pe.” Andika alleges that he filed a judgment nunc pro tunc seeking jail time credit for the time served in Georgia and that the trial court denied the motion. The trial court isIn re Andika Page 2

required to grant the Applicant pre

- sentence jail time cred it when sentence i s pronounced. T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC . art. 42.03 § 2(a) (West Pamph. 2010); Ex parte
Ybarra , 149 S.W.3d 147, 148 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004)

. In the event the court fails to award such credit at the time the sentence is imposed, the trial court has the authorit y to correct the judgment to reflect the appropriate time credit by nunc pro tunc order and
should do so. T EX
. R. A PP
. P . Rule 23.2.; Ex parte Ybarra , 149 S.W.3d at 148. Neither the judgment nunc pro tunc nor the order denying the motion are
included in A ndika’s petition for writ of mandamus. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 52 (k). It is not clear whether Andika was convicted and sentenced on a charge of escape for which he is seeking pre

- sentence jail time credit or whether he was serving time for another
convictio n, escaped from custody, and is se eking credit for that sentence. Therefore, we
cannot find that the trial court failed to award pre - sentence jail time credit at the time sentence was imposed. Andika’s petition contains procedural defects. The petition d oes not identify the parties or contain proper proof of service

. To exped ite this matt er, we implement T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 2 and suspend compliance with the pertinent procedural rules for this petition for mandamus

. Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

AL SCOGGINS JusticeIn re Andika Page 3

Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis , and Justice Scoggins Petition denied Opi nion delivered and filed September 21 , 2011 [OT06]
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 6316** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. T.B. MOSS, JR., a/k/a T.M. Moss, Jr. , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Cour t for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte
. Frank D. Whitney , District Judge. ( 3:02

- cr - 00136

- FDW

- 1 )

Submitted : June 17, 2010 Decided: June 28, 2010

Before MOTZ and KING , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affir med by un published per curiam opinion

. T.B. Moss, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
T.B. M oss, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006) motion based on Amendment 709 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court ’s order , n oting that Amendment 709 has not been made retroactively applicable and therefore was not available for relief. Amendment 709 did not become effective until November 1, 2007, and does not apply retroactively. See USSG § 1B1.10(c) (Amendment 709 is not li sted); see also United States v. Dunphy , 551 F.3d 247, 249 n.2 (4th Cir.) (noting that an amendment to the Guidelines may be applied retroactively only when the amendment is expressly listed in USSG § 1B1.10(c)), cert. denied , 129 S. Ct. 2401 (2009). We d ispense 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.
AFFIRMED
CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
 CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER
 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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of MV Fund II,
LLC, for the quarter ended March 31, 2005, I certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, to my knowledge, that:
 
 (1)
    the
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of MV Fund II, LLC for the quarter ended
      March 31, 2005 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the
      quarter ended March 31, 2005, fairly presents in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of MV Fund II,
      LLC
 
 By:
    /s/ Sam
      MedleyName:
    Sam
      MedleyTitle:
    Chief Executive Officer of MV Funding Group, Inc., sole Manager of MV Fund
      II, LLCDate:
    May 16, 2005By:
    /s/ Rowe
      NelsonName:
    Rowe
      NelsonTitle:
    Chief Financial Officer of MV Funding Group, Inc., sole Manager of MV Fund
      II, LLCDate:
    May
      16, 2005
 
 * Sam
Medley and Rowe Nelson function, respectively, as the equivalent of the Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant for purposes of
18 U.S.C. Section 1350.
<Page>
                                                              ARTHUR ANDERSEN



                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
                    -----------------------------------------



As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the use of our reports
(and to all references to our Firm) included in or made a part of this
Registration Statement File No. 333-69429 for Hartford Life and Annuity
Insurance Company Separate Account Ten on Form N-4.


Hartford, Connecticut                           /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP
April 8, 2002
**Exhibit 32.3**

 

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 New Century Financial Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Edward F. Gotschall, Vice Chairman - Finance of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

 

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

 

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. 

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished with the Company’s Form 10-Q for theperiod ending September 30, 2005 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350. It is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and it is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of theCompany, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES EDWARD McRAE

No. 7321SC575

(Filed 10 October 1973)

Criminal Law § 158 — matter omitted from record on appeal — question not considered on appeal

The Court of Appeals does not reach the question of denial of defendant’s right to counsel in District Court where the record on appeal does not disclose anything about the trial in District Court except the warrant, judgment, and notice of appeal.

Appeal by defendant from *Collier, Judge,*16 April 1973 Session of Superior Court held in Forsyth County.

Defendant was charged with an assault upon Mae Frances McRae with a deadly weapon. He was tried in the District Court and found guilty. Upon his appeal he was tried de novo in the Superior Court and found guilty.

*Attorney General Morgan, by Assistant Attorney General leenhour, for the State.*

*Jenkins, Lucas and Babb, by Judson D. DeRamus, Jr., for the defendant.*

BROCK, Chief Judge.

At defendant’s insistence counsel has presented defendant’s contention that each of the following constitutes an error which entitles him to relief: (1) the fact that he is not guilty; (2) *580there was no corroboration of the State’s only witness; (3) jurors summoned to serve in civil cases were sworn and empaneled to sit in his criminal ease; (4) one juror works at Western Electric, where the State’s only witness works for the food service; (5) defendant was placed in double jeopardy because the solicitor brought up his past record on cross-examination of defendant; and (6) the sentence imposed after conviction in Superior Court was greater than that imposed in District Court. We have considered each of these contentions and find them to be without merit.

Defendant further seeks to argue that he was denied his right to counsel during the trial in District Court. We do not reach this question. The record on appeal does not disclose anything about the trial in District Court except the warrant, judgment, and notice of appeal. We decline to decide an issue submitted upon a theoretical or assumed set of facts. Counsel has been diligent in his efforts, but the record before us does not present the question he seeks to argue.

No error.

Judges Moréis and Parker concur.
#### Robert KIRCHGESSNER and Janette Kirchgessner, Appellant, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES, Appellee.

No. 5D03-775.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

July 8, 2003.

Robert W. and Janette L. Kirchgessner, Orlando, Pro Se.

Wesley R. Parsons and Jack R. Reiter of Adorno & Yoss, P.A., Miami, for Appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

Robert and Janette Kirchgessner appeal a final order issued by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, advising them that their citrus trees would be destroyed because the trees were either infected with citrus canker or were located within 1,900 feet of a canker-infested tree. We affirm the Department’s order based on *Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services v. Haire,*836 So.2d 1040 (Fla. 4th DCA), *review granted,*842 So.2d 844 (Fla.2003). This affirmance is without prejudice to seek just compensation for the destruction of the trees having value, or such other relief as may be appropriate. *Id.*at 1050. The stay entered by the court is lifted.

AFFIRMED.

THOMPSON, PLEUS and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.
IIB 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 509 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 29, 2009 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

AN ACT 

To reauthorize the Marine Turtle Conservation Act of 2004, 

and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS

2 

HR 509 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Marine Turtle Con3 servation Reauthorization Act of 2009’’. 

4 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO PROVISIONS PREVENTING FUND5 ING OF PROJECTS IN THE UNITED STATES. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Marine Turtle Conservation 

7 Act of 2004 is amended— 

8 (1) in section 2(b) (16 U.S.C. 6601(b)), by 

9 striking ‘‘in foreign countries’’; 

10 (2) in section 3(2) (16 U.S.C. 6602(2))— 

11 (A) in the matter preceding subparagraph 

12 (A), by striking ‘‘in foreign countries’’; and 

13 (B) in subparagraph (D), by striking ‘‘of 

14 foreign countries’’; and 

15 (3) in section 4 (16 U.S.C. 6603)— 

16 (A) in subsection (b)(1)(A), by inserting 

17 ‘‘State or’’ before ‘‘foreign country’’; and 

18 (B) in subsection (d), by striking ‘‘in for19 eign countries’’. 

20 (b) STATE DEFINED.—Section 3 of such Act (16 

21 U.S.C. 6602) is amended by adding at the end the fol22 lowing new paragraph: 

23 ‘‘(7) STATE.—The term ‘State’ means each of 

24 the several States of the United States, the District 

25 of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the 

26 Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS

3 

HR 509 RFS 

1 monwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, any 

2 other territory or possession of the United States, 

3 and any Indian tribe.’’. 

4 SEC. 3. LIMITATIONS ON EXPENDITURES. 

5 Section 5(b) of the Marine Turtle Conservation Act 

6 of 2004 (16 U.S.C. 6604(b)) is amended— 

7 (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘$80,000’’ 

8 and inserting ‘‘$150,000’’; and 

9 (2) by adding at the end the following new 

10 paragraph: 

11 ‘‘(3) LIMITATION ON PROJECTS IN THE UNITED

12 STATES.—Not more than 20 percent of the amounts 

13 made available from the Fund for any fiscal year 

14 may be used for projects relating to the conservation 

15 of marine turtles in the United States.’’. 

16 SEC. 4. REAUTHORIZATION OF THE MARINE TURTLE CON17 SERVATION ACT OF 2004. 

18 Section 7 of the Marine Turtle Conservation Act of 

19 2004 (16 U. S. C. 6606) is amended by striking ‘‘each 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS

4 

HR 509 RFS 

1 of fiscal years 2005 through 2009’’ and inserting ‘‘each 

2 of fiscal years 2009 through 2014’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 28, 2009. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CECIL THOMAS OWENS

No. 7030SC503

(Filed 18 November 1970)

Criminal Law § 143— activation of suspended sentence — subsequent offenses

No error appears on the face of the record in this appeal from an order activating defendant’s suspended sentence for driving while his license was revoked on the basis of defendant’s convictions of the subsequent offenses of driving while his license was revoked and public drunkenness.

Appeal by defendant from *Thornburg, Special Swperior Court Judge,*3 March 1970 Session of Superior Court held in. Swain County.

*Attorney General Robert Morgan and Assistant Attorney General Harris for the State.*

*George P. Davis, Jr., for defendant appellant.*

MALLARD, Chief Judge.

On 16 May 1968 the defendant, after pleading guilty to driving after his license was revoked, was sentenced to a prison *728term of eighteen to twenty-four months. The execution of the prison sentence was suspended, and the defendant was placed on probation for a period of five years. One of the terms upon which the sentence was suspended was that the defendant “ (v) iolate no penal law of any state or the Federal Government and be of general good behavior.”

The evidence for the State tended to show, the court found as a fact, and the defendant testified and did not deny that the defendant had willfully violated the terms and conditions of the probation judgment, in that: On 6 October 1968 the defendant committed the offense of driving while license revoked (fourth offense) and' on 16 December 1968 was found guilty as charged; and that on 20 October 1969, in Highlands, North Carolina, the defendant committed the offense of public drunkenness, entered a plea of guilty, and was ordered to pay the costs. Based upon such findings, the court ordered that commitment issue and defendant be required to serve the sentence imposed.

The only assignment of error presented by this appeal is to the entry of the judgment. No prejudicial error is made to appear on the face of this record. The judgment of the superior court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Judges Parker and Hedrick concur.
WEINBERG & COMPANY, PA
                        Town Executive Center
                     6100 Glades Road, Suite 314
                      Boca Raton, Florida 33434


          CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT


We hereby consent to the use in the Form 10-KSB of Sunderland Acquisition
Corporation of our report for the period from June 2, 1998 (inception)
to December 31, 1998 dated February 16, 1999 relating to the financial
statements of Sunderland Acquisition Corporation which appear in such 
Form 10-KSB.


                              WEINBERG & COMPANY PA
                              Certified Public Accountants


Boca Raton, Florida 
March 8, 1999
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Veterans Affairs

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under Public Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that a meeting of the Clinical Science Research and Development Service Cooperative Studies Scientific Merit Review Board will be held on November 2-3, 2005, at the Sheraton National Hotel—Arlington, 900 South Orme Street, Arlington, VA 22204. The sessions are scheduled to begin at 8 a.m. and end at 3 p.m.

The Board advises the Chief Research and Development Officer through the Director of the Clinical Science Research and Development Service on the relevance and feasibility of proposed studies, the adequacy of the protocols, and the scientific validity and propriety of technical details, including protection of human subjects.

The sessions each day will open to the public from 8 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. for the discussion of administrative matters and the general status of the program. The sessions will be closed from 8:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. for the Board's review of research and development applications. 

During the closed sessions of the meeting, discussions and recommendations will deal with qualifications of personnel conducting the studies, staff and consultant critiques of research proposals and similar documents, and the medical records of patients who are study subjects, he disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarrantwed invasion of personal privacy. As provided by section 10(d) of Public Law 92-463, as amended, closing portions of this meeting is in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6) and (c)(9)(B).

Those who plan to attend should contact Dr. Grant Huang, Assistant Director, Cooperative Studies Program (125), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420, at (202) 254-0183.

Dated: October 13, 2005.

By direction of the Secretary.

E. Philip Riggin,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 05-21015 Filed 10-19-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8320-01-M
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

     As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation
of our report dated March 5, 2002, included in this Form 10-K, into
Pennzoil-Quaker State Company's previously filed Registration Statements on Form
S-8 Nos. 333-69833, 333-69835, 333-69839, 333-69837, 333-72835, 333-96385,
333-36036, 333-60662 and 333-74434, Form S-4 No. 333-61541 and on Form S-3 No.
333-65909.

                                             ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Houston, Texas
March 5, 2002
Ex. 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 GLOBAL-E INVESTMENTS, INC., (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jamie Kerr, acting in the capacity as the Chief Executive Officer and I, John Shaffer, acting in the capacity of Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the best of our knowledge, 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.





/s/ Jamie Kerr

Jamie Kerr

Chief Executive Officer

June 25, 2004





/s/ John Shaffer

John Shaffer

Chief Financial Officer

June 25, 2004