alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BARRY CANDLER and MIKE MASON

No. 744SC1092

(Filed 2 April 1975)

1. Animals § 7; Property § 4— wanton damage of realty — needlessly killing animals

The State’s evidence was sufficient for the jury in a prosecution of defendants for wantonly damaging real property in violation of G.S. 14-127 and of needlessly killing animals in violation of G.S. 14-360.

2. Criminal Law § 112— circumstantial evidence — necessity for request for instructions

The court is not required to instruct the jury as to how it should view circumstantial evidence absent a request for special instructions.

Appeal by defendants from *Lanier, Judge.*Judgments entered 22 August 1974 in Superior Court, Duplin County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 11 March 1975.

Defendants were each convicted of willfully and wantonly damaging real property in violation of G.S. 14-127, and of needlessly killing animals in violation of G.S. 14-360. From judgments imposing prison sentences, they appealed.

*Attorney General Edmisten by Associate Attorney General Jesse G. Brake for the State.*

*William E. Craft for defendant appellants.*

PARKER, Judge.

Defendants assign as errors, first, the denial of their motions for directed verdicts of not guilty, and, second, the failure of the court “to properly instruct the jury as to the value of circumstantial evidence.” We find no error in either assignment.

[1] The evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the State, was amply sufficient to require submission of the cases to the jury, and defendants’ motions, which we treat as motions for nonsuit, *State v. Holton,*284 N.C. 391, 200 S.E. 2d 612 (1973), were properly denied.

[2] The court correctly instructed the jury as-to the burden and quantum of proof required for conviction, and absent a request for special instructions the court was not required to *319instruct the jury as to how it should view circumstantial evidence. *State v. Warren,*228 N.C. 22, 44 S.E. 2d 207 (1947) ; *State v. Murray,*21 N.C. App. 573, 205 S.E. 2d 587 (1974) ; 3 Strong; N. C. Index 2d, Criminal Law, § 112, p. 8.

We have carefully reviewed the entire record and find

No error.

Judges Hedrick and Clark concur.
Honorable C.C. Broughtor Assist& Comty Af%xWney Childrass,

Texas Deer Sir2 ODinion No. O-5576 Be: Setiae men illegally possess 3.2 her without Taxaa TW paid on it, whmpoisessed mff Pest **E&huge,** in

. dry ‘z-e..
Your letterdated August 23, 1943, requesting WB opinion,ofthis departmlrt concerning

the abovematter reads in part, to-wit: "All of Childross

County is a dry area. The Childress Army Air School is looatedtwo miles west of Childress md 3.2 bear is sold at the Post Exohlnge

to Servias

Men. The Servioe

Yea have besa bringingsuch beer from the post into the city of Childress for their OWB consumption. "It is the opinionof the Trial,Ju@ge Advooateat the post thct such beer is not subjeotto State Tu, so long as the Service Mm have it im thsir prsssssion

off of the post for thbir own consumption. "Aftera study of the Texas Liquer Cmtrol Act, it is my opinion that suoh liquor is not subjeot to seizure

while in the possltision of the Army Off%. trials on the, post, but when it,is taken off of the post by am individual, mm thoughhe is a servioe man, such bebr is subjeot te the Texas State Tax, and such individual is violating

the Texas Liquor,Control Act in possessing

the sme without the Texas Tax havingbeen paid."
w **assum** that the Post Erohange at the Childress

Ar!o$ Air Sohoo;was established under proper

militaryauthority. It is the opi~iomof this department wheln 3.2 beer, withoutthe Texas Tax paid 01 it, is possessed off af and without the jurisdictionof 'the

area on which srid U. S. Nilitrry Post has beea sst*blished, fbt such possession

is illegalregardless whatherpossessed

by service

man or citizens.
we are enclosing

OpinionNo. O-5400rddrossed,to Ho& R. 0. Oswalt,County Attorney,

Wilbarger

County,

Texas, ia which we field that it was illegal for a citizen

to import,transport and possessia I dry area mstmped beer for his own personal

use0Hon. C. C. Broughton, Page 2

Yoursvery truly

ATTOENEYGENERALOFTEXAS s/ Jesse Owess

JO:Fo:LW By Jesse o-ems Assistant APPFcOVED

Sept. 11, 1943 s/Gerald Mann AlTORNEYGENEFtALOFTEXM APPROVEDOPINIONCOMXITTEE
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 205 (Tuesday, October 25, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 61626]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21243]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Health Resources and Services Administration


National Advisory Council on Nurse Education and Practice; Notice 
of Meeting

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting:

    Name: National Advisory Council on Nurse Education and Practice 
(NACNEP).
    Dates and Times: November 2, 2005, 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m., November 3, 
2005, 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m., November 4, 2005, 8:30 a.m.-3 p.m.
    Place: DoubleTree Hotel and Executive Center, 1750 Rockville 
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    Status: The meeting will be open to the public.
    Agenda: Agency and Bureau administrative updates will be 
provided. The purpose of the meeting will be to address issues 
related to the status of the nursing workforce. Two leading 
educators/researchers will present on their findings related to 
nursing workforce data, trends and issues. In addition, 
representatives from four nursing organizations representing nursing 
education, practice and licensing will present their data, trends, 
and workforce issues. During this meeting and the subsequent April 
2006 meeting, Council workgroups will deliberate on content 
presented and formulate recommendations to the Secretary of Health 
and Human Services and the Congress on nursing workforce issues 
based on the latest data and trends. This meeting will form the 
basis for NACNEP's mandated Sixth Annual Report.
    For Further Information Contact: Anyone interested in obtaining 
a roster of members, minutes of the meeting, or other relevant 
information should write or contact Ms. Donna English, M.P.H., R.N., 
Executive Secretary, National Advisory Council on Nurse Education 
and Practice, Parklawn Building, Room 9-35, 5600 Fishers Lane, 
Rockville, Maryland 20857, telephone (301) 443-5688.

    Dated: October 19, 2005.
Tina M. Cheatham,
Director, Division of Policy Review and Coordination.
[FR Doc. 05-21243 Filed 10-24-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 10.4.1


September 6, 2001



Anthony P. Johns, President & CEO
CTI Group (Holdings) Inc.
333 N. Alabama Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204

Dear Tony:

We hereby acknowledge and accept with regret your 90-day notice of resignation
as President & CEO of CTIG as of today's date to pursue other entrepreneurial
challenges.

We have agreed with you today that you will continue with your duties as
heretofore until January 31, 2002 to assist in the recruitment of a suitable
replacement and orderly transition of your responsibilities. You will receive
all compensation entitlement per the terms of your employment contract up to
this date of January 31, 2002. In the event that your services are required
beyond that date, we have agreed that we shall enter into a mutually acceptable
consultancy agreement with you at that time, assuming your personal
circumstances permit.

In recognition of your accommodation of the Company's requirements, we confirm
that your full severance entitlement of $500,000 will be paid to you within 90
days following the expiration of the official 90-day notice period, expiring on
December 6, 2001. Also, the Company will reimburse you for net out of pocket
expenses in connection with the early termination of your present lease in
Indianapolis of $1,170 per month, which expires on April 30, 2002.

In addition, the Company will reimburse you for your relocation expenses from
Indianapolis to your next location of residence up to a maximum of $5,000,
provided such relocation takes place before April 30, 2002.

                                                  For and On Behalf of the
                                                  Board of Directors of CTI
                                                  GROUP (HOLDINGS) INC.


                                                  By /s/ Harold D. Garrison
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                    Harold D. Garrison, Chairman

                                                  And

                                                   /s/ Michael Leeds
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                    Michael Leeds, Vice Chairman
Exhibit 10.21

 

SEPARATION AGREEMENT

 

SEPARATION AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”), dated as of November 30, 2012 between WCI Communities Management, LLC, on behalf of itself and WCI Communities, Inc and WCI Communities, LLC (collectively, the “Company”), and David Fry (“Executive”).

 

NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereby agree as follows:

 

1.                                      Executive hereby resigns as a director and officer of the Company and each of its subsidiaries as of November 30, 2012. Executive shall execute all documents necessary to effect such resignations, including the resignation letter attached hereto.

 

2.                                      Solely for the purposes of the Employment Agreement between Executive and the Company, dated July, 2012 (the “Employment Agreement”), Executive shall receive all amounts he is entitled to receive upon a termination without Cause (as defined in the Employment Agreement), at the time and in the manner provided for in the Employment Agreement, subject to Executive delivering and not revoking the form of general release attached to the Employment Agreement.

 

3.                                      To the best of Executive’s knowledge no actions have occurred and no circumstances exist that could constitute Cause (as defined in the Employment Agreement).

 

6.                                      This Agreement may not be amended or modified other than by a written instrument signed by an authorized representative of the Company and Executive.  This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument.  Facsimile and .pdf signatures will suffice as original signatures.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the first date set forth below.

 

 

	
WCI Communities Management, LLC
    	
 
    	
DAVID FRY
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
/s/   Vivien Hastings
    	
 
    	
/s/   David Fry
    
	
By:
    	
Vivien   Hastings
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Its:
    	
Sr.   Vice President
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Date:
    	
12/5/12
    	
 
    	
Date:
    	
12/5/12
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

NOTICE REGARDING CONSENT OF ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Section 11(a) of the Securities Act provides that if part of a registration
statement at the time it becomes effective contains an untrue statement of a
material fact, or omits a material fact required to be stated therein or
necessary to make the statements therein not misleading, any person acquiring a
security pursuant to such registration statement (unless it is proved that at
the time of such acquisition such person knew of such untruth or omission) may
assert a claim against, among others, an accountant who has consented to be
named as having certified any part of the registration statement or as having
prepared any report for use in connection with the registration statement.

On April 16, 2002, Fox Entertainment Group, Inc. (the "Company") dismissed
Arthur Andersen LLP as its independent auditors. On April 16, 2002, the Company
appointed Ernst & Young LLP to replace Arthur Andersen LLP as the independent
auditor of the Company. Prior to the date of this Form 10-K (which is
incorporated by reference into the Company's filing on Form S-3 (SEC file no.
333-85978) (the "Registration Statement"), the Arthur Andersen partner
responsible for the audit of the most recent audited financial statements of the
Company as of June 30, 2001 and for the year then ended resigned from Arthur
Andersen. As a result, after reasonable efforts, the Company has been unable to
obtain Arthur Andersen's written consent to the incorporation by reference into
the Registration Statement of its audit reports with respect to the Company's
financial statements as of June 30, 2001 and for the year then ended. Under
these circumstances, Rule 437a under the Securities Act permits the Company to
file this Form 10-K without a written consent from Arthur Andersen. However, as
a result, Arthur Andersen will not have any liability under Section 11(a) of the
Securities Act for any untrue statements of a material fact contained in the
financial statements audited by Andersen LLP or any omissions of a material fact
required to be stated therein. Accordingly, you would be unable to assert a
claim against Arthur Andersen under Section 11(a) of the Securities Act because
it has not consented to the incorporation by reference of its previously issued
report into the Registration Statement.
EXHIBIT 99.1

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

This certification is intended to accompany the Annual Report of Cross Media
Marketing Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December
31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), and is given solely for the purpose of satisfying the
requirements of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. The undersigned, in my capacity as set forth
below, hereby certifies 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.


                                        /s/ Ronald Altbach
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Ronald Altbach
                                        Chief Executive Officer

April 2, 2003
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63
OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to
Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as principal executive officer of Xerium Technologies, Inc. (the Company), does
hereby certify that, to his knowledge:

1) the Companys Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009, 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 Companys
Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/ Stephen R. LightStephen R. LightPresident, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman(Principal Executive Officer)


November 6, 2009
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHNNY RAY LUSTER

No. 7421SC117

(Filed 6 February 1974)

Criminal Law § 113— alibi instruction proper

Trial court’s instruction on alibi which placed no burden of proof on defendant to prove an alibi but did require the State to satisfy the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was present and participated in the crime was proper.

Appeal by defendant from *McConnell, Judge,*20 August 1973 Session of Superior Court held in Forsyth County.

*647Defendant was charged in a bill of indictment, proper in form, with distributing marijuana to Robert Edwards on 5 April 1973 at 800 Lockland Avenue, Winston-Salem. He was tried before a jury upon a plea of not guilty.

The State’s evidence tended to show that the principal of Dalton Junior High School saw Robert Edwards, a student, passing an object, later determined to be a marijuana cigarette, to another student. Edwards testified that he had purchased the cigarette from defendant while visiting him at his home on the afternoon of 5 April 1978.

Defendant denied the sale of the marijuana and presented evidence tending to show that he was away from home at the time of the alleged sale seeking employment.

The jury returned a verdict of guilty. From sentence imposed by the court, defendant appealed.

*Attorney General Morgan, by Associate Attorney John R. Morgan, for the State.*

*B. R. Browder for defendant appellant.*

BALEY, Judge.

Defendant contends that the trial court erred in its charge to the jury on the issue of alibi. This contention is without merit.

In *State v. Hunt,*283 N.C. 617, 619, 197 S.E. 2d 513, 515, the North Carolina Supreme Court approved the following charge on alibi:

> “An accused, who relies on an alibi, does not have the burden of proving it. It is incumbent upon the State to satisfy the jury beyond a reasonable doubt on the whole evidence that such accused is guilty. If the evidence of alibi, in connection with all the other testimony in the case, leaves the jury with a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, the State fails to carry the burden of proof imposed upon it by law, and the accused is entitled to an aquittal.”

The charge approved in the *Hvnt*case and the one given by Judge McConnell differ in their wording, but in substance they are identical. No burden of proof was placed on the defend*648ant to prove an alibi, but the State was required to satisfy the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was present and participated in the crime. In part the court stated:

> “Therefore, as to the alibi, I charge you that, if upon considering all the evidence, including the evidence about the alibi, you have a reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s presence or participation in the crime, you would have a reasonable doubt and would find him not guilty.”

There was no error in the charge, and it is approved.

Upon conflicting evidence the jury accepted the State’s version of the facts. Defendant has received a fair trial free from prejudicial error.

No error.

Judges Campbell and Hedrick concur.
##### 



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 annual report of Park-Ohio Industries,
Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period
ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
each of the undersigned officers of the Company certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant
to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to
such officers 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 as of the dates and for the periods
    expressed in the Report.

Dated: March 21, 2005

| |    |                       
| | -- | ----------------------
| | By | /s/ EDWARD F. CRAWFORD

| |                                            
| | -------------------------------------------
| |                                            
| | Name: Edward F. Crawford                   
| | Title: Chairman and Chief Executive Officer



| |    |                       
| | -- | ----------------------
| | By | /s/ RICHARD P. ELLIOTT

| |                                                  
| | -------------------------------------------------
| |                                                  
| | Name: Richard P. Elliott                         
| | Title: Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as
part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ex rel., UTILITIES COMMISSION and CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY, APPLICANT v. RUFUS L. EDMISTEN, ATTORNEY GENERAL

No. 7610UC230

(Filed 18 August 1976)

Appeal by the Attorney General of North Carolina, on behalf of the Using and Consuming Public and State Agencies, from orders of the North Carolina Utilities Commission entered 27 August 1975 and 4 December 1975. Heard in the Court of Appeals 15 June 1976.

*476*Attorney General Edmisten, by Special Deputy Attorney General Robert P. Gruber, for appellant.*

*Commission Attorney Edward B. Hipp, Assistant Commission Attorney John R. Molm, and Assistant Commission Attorney Wilson B. Partin, Jr., for North Carolina Utilities Commission, appellee.*

*Joyner & Howison, by Robert C. Howison, Jr., and William E. Graham, Jr., for Carolina Power & Light Company, appellee.*

HEDRICK, Judge.

While the dates of certain previous orders are different, and the rates per KWH and total amounts of money involved are not the same, the questions of law presented by this appeal are substantially the same as those presented in *State of North Carolina ex rel. Utilities Commission and Duke Power Company, Applicant v. Rufus L. Edmisten, Attorney General,*No. 7610UC209, opinion filed this day. For the reasons stated in that opinion, the orders appealed from in this cause are

Affirmed.

Judge Britt concurs.

Judge Martin dissents.

Judge Martin

dissenting.

For the reasons stated in my dissent filed this day in *State of North Carolina ex rel., Utilities Commission and Duke Power Company, Applicant v. Rufus L. Edmisten, Attorney General,*No. 7610UC209, I vote to reverse that portion of the Commission’s orders authorizing Carolina Power and Light Company to apply a surcharge for the recovery of approximately $15,500,000 for fuel expenses incurred prior to 1 September 1975.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-78707) pertaining to the 1998 Stock Option Plan and the Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-31422) pertaining to the 1999 Stock Bonus Plan of
U.S. Laboratories Inc. and Subsidiaries of our report dated March 5, 2001, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements of U.S. Laboratories Inc. and
Subsidiaries included in the Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2000.

                                             Ernst & Young LLP

San Diego, California
March 30, 2001