alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CARL L. RUFFIN

No. 686SC380

(Filed 18 December 1968)

Criminal Law § 161— effect of appeal

An appeal is itself an exception to the judgment and to any matter appearing on the face of the record proper.

Appeal by defendant from *Mintz, J.,*June 1968 Criminal Session of Halifax Superior Court.

Defendant was indicted by bill of indictment, proper in form, for the crime of escape from the State Prison System while serving a sentence for larceny, which is a felony. Defendant, through his court-appointed counsel, pleaded guilty. After examining the defendant, the trial court determined and adjudged that the plea of guilty had been freely, understandingly and voluntarily made and without any undue influence, compulsion or duress, and without promise of leniency or reward. Judgment was thereupon entered, sentencing defendant to prison for six months, this sentence to run consecutively with the sentence which had previously been imposed upon defendant for larceny. Defendant appealed.

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

*W. Lunsford Crew for defendant appellant.*

Parker, J.

There is no assignment of error in the record, appellant’s court-appointed counsel frankly submitting that he is of the opinion that *308no prejudicial error was committed in this case but requesting this Court to review the same. An appeal is itself an exception to the judgment and to any matter appearing on the face of the record proper. 1 Strong, N. C. Index 2d, Appeal and Error, § 26, p. 152. We have carefully reviewed the record proper, and find the bill of indictment proper in form, the plea of guilty freely and voluntarily entered, and the sentence imposed to be within statutory limits. G.S. 148-45.

We find

No error.

BROCK and Britt, JJ., 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 Quarterly Report of
Hill International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2012 (the Report), I, Irvin E. Richter, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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/ Irvin E. RichterIrvin E. RichterChairman and Chief Executive Officer


Dated: August 9, 2012
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED August 11, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-41874 c/w No. 06-40003 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus EFRAIN YBARRA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:02-CR-181-2 USDC No. 2:03-CR-409-ALL

-------------------- Before GARZA, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Efrain Ybarra appeals the sentences imposed after the district court revoked the terms of supervised release that Ybarra was serving in connection with his conviction of misprision of possession with intent to distribute marijuana (USDC No. 2:02-CR-181-2) and his conviction of escape from the federal prison where he was confined for the misprision conviction (USDC No. 2:03-CR-409-ALL). Ybarra argues that theNo. 05-41874 c/w No. 06-40003 -2- district court’s written judgments of revocation conflict with the district court’s oral pronouncement of sentence. After revoking Ybarra’s terms of supervised release in both cases, the district court imposed a 12-month imprisonment term in both cases. At the sentencing hearing the district court specifically stated that the imprisonment terms were to run concurrently. However, the written judgment in the escape case states that the term is to run consecutively to the imprisonment term in the misprision case. The written judgment in the misprision case is silent regarding whether the term is concurrent or consecutive. Thus, the district court’s oral pronouncement of concurrent sentences conflicts with the written judgments, which, when read together, require the imprisonment terms to run consecutively. Therefore, because the language of the district court’s oral pronouncement of sentence conflicts with its written judgments with regard to the concurrent nature of the sentences, the cases are remanded for the district court to amend the written judgments to conform to the district court’s oral pronouncement of sentence. See United States v. Martinez , 250 F.3d 941, 942 (5th Cir. 2001).
REMANDED.
EX-4.3



 Exhibit 4.3 
 COOPER-STANDARD HOLDINGS INC. 
 OFFICER’S CERTIFICATE 

May 20, 2013 

Reference is made to the Indenture, dated as of April 3, 2013, between Cooper-Standard Holdings Inc. (the
“Company”) and U.S. Bank National Association, a national banking association, as trustee (the “Trustee”) (the “Indenture”). On the date hereof, the Company intends to issue additional Senior PIK
Toggle Notes due 2018 as Additional Securities pursuant to Sections 2.13 and 13.04 of the Indenture (the “Additional Securities”). This Officers’ Certificate is being executed and delivered pursuant to Sections 2.13 of the
Indenture. This Officer’s Certificate is being delivered to you in your capacity as Trustee under the Indenture. 
 The
undersigned, the duly elected or appointed Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, hereby certifies for himself that: 
  

	1.	the aggregate principal amount of Additional Securities to be authenticated and delivered pursuant to the Indenture is $25,000,000; 


 

	2.	the Company is relying on Sections 2.13 and 4.03(a) of the Indenture to issue the Additional Securities; 


 

	3.	the Additional Securities will be issued on May 20, 2013 at an issue price of 101% plus accrued and unpaid interest from April 3, 2013 under the following
CUSIP numbers: (i) 144A CUSIP 21687W AA3 ($25,000,000 aggregate principal amount) and (ii) Reg S CUSIP U2060R AB6 ($0 aggregate principal amount); 


 

	4.	he has read the covenants and conditions contained in the Indenture, and the definitions in the Indenture relating thereto, relating to the issuance, authentication and
delivery of the Additional Securities, as requested in the Company’s Authentication Order made as the date hereof (the “Authentication Order”), and in respect of compliance with which this certificate is made;


  

	5.	the statements contained in this certificate are based upon his review of the Indenture and upon discussions by the undersigned with officers and employees of, and
advisers to, the Company familiar with the matters set forth herein; 

  

	6.	in his opinion, he has made such examination or investigation as is necessary to enable him to express an informed opinion as to whether or not such covenants or
conditions have been complied with or satisfied; and 

  

	7.	in his opinion, such conditions and covenants relating to the authentication and delivery of the Additional Securities as requested in the Authentication Order have
been complied with and satisfied. 








 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned hereby executes this Officer’s Certificate as of
the date first set forth above. 
  

			
		
	By: 	 	/s/ Allen J. Campbell
		 	 Name: Allen J. Campbell

Title:   Executive Vice President and

            Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 32.2


                            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 Pulitzer Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the period ended December 28, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Alan G.
Silverglat, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

         (i) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
         15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (ii) the information
         contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
         financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



                                   /s/ ALAN G. SILVERGLAT
                                   ------------------------
                                   Alan G. Silverglat
                                   Chief Financial Officer
                                   March 4, 2004


                                       2
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

A.S., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, BAKERSFIELD POST 

OFFICE, Bakersfield, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0255

Issued: December 28, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On December 1, 2021 appellant filed an appeal from a January 8, 2021 nonmerit decision

of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards

assigned Docket No. 22-0255.

The Board has duly considered the matter and notes that it has jurisdiction to review final 

adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act.1 For final 

adverse decisions of OWCP issued on or after November 19, 2008, the Board’s review authority 

is limited to appeals which are filed within 180 days from the date of issuance of OWCP’s 

decision.2

The 180th day following the January 8, 2021 decision was July 7, 2021. As appellant did 

not file an appeal with the Board until December 1, 2021, more than 180 days after the January 8, 

2021 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 22-0255 is untimely filed. 

The Board is without jurisdiction to review the appeal. Appellant has not offered a reason to 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8149; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a) (2009).

2

Id. at § 501.3(e).
2

explain the failure to timely file an appeal with supporting documentation sufficient to establish 

compelling circumstances.

The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date 

of their issuance.”

3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 22-0255 is dismissed.

Issued: December 28, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

3

Id. at § 501.6(d).
#### Jennie Guttman and Another, Plaintiffs, *v.*F. W. Woolworth Co., Defendant.

Municipal Court of New York, Borough of Manhattan, First District,

May 28, 1936.

*Murray E. Gottesman,*for the plaintiff.

*E. C. Sherwood,*for the defendant.

Boylan, J.

The plaintiff Jennie Guttman, desiring to purchase a vase, entered one of defendant’s stores. At the time the sales girl of the defendant was arranging articles on top of the counter upon which was displayed the vase in question. The articles were so arranged and so displayed as to permit the inspection and handling by the public. The vase was broken and in picking it up the plaintiff sustained injury. The defendant rested at the close of the plaintiff’s case and the court reserved decision on the motion to dismiss.

The question is whether or not the plaintiff should allege and prove actual or constructive notice to the defendant of the defect. My attention has not been called to any case where facts and the question of law involved were analogous. The article not being within the exclusive possession, control and oversight of the defendant, the rule of *res ipsa loquitur*does not apply. *(Slater*v. *Barnes,*241 N. Y. 284.) Because of the manner in which the articles were displayed, the plaintiff had a right to handle and inspect the merchandise. *(Gilbert*v. *Nagle,*118 Mass. 278.) Every other customer had a similar right. It is not unreasonable to *822assume that the defect complained of could have been caused by the handling of the article by another customer. If liability is to attach in this case, then there is a duty upon the defendant to constantly inspect merchandise similarly displayed. This would constitute an unreasonable burden. The plaintiff contends that the case of *Garvey*v. *Namm*(136 App. Div. 815) is authority for permitting recovery herein. In that case the plaintiff purchased a garment and while washing the same sustained injuries because of a needle imbedded in one of the seams. After she purchased the dress it was delivered to her in a tied-up package. The plaintiff obtained a verdict in her favor in the trial court and it was affirmed by the Appellate Division, the court holding that there was a duty upon the defendant to make a reasonable inspection of the dress before it was delivered to the plaintiff and that if it had, the presence of the needle should have been discovered. That case differs from the one at bar in that the defendant had exclusive control of the dress after it was selected and purchased by the plaintiff, and further, it is not reasonable to assume that another customer could have created the condition.

There was a burden upon the plaintiff to prove actual or constructive notice of the defect in the vase and not having done so, the complaint must be dismissed.
#### CHEROKEE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, INC., Appellant, v. Florida DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Appellee.

No. 1D03-3326.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Sept. 10, 2003.

Brant Hargrove, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Marianne A. Trussell, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the appellant’s response to the Court’s order of August 8, 2003, the Court has determined that the order on appeal is not final and that the appeal was commenced prematurely. *See Johnson v. First City Bank of Gainesville,*491 So.2d 1217 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Ac-*1114eordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

WEBSTER, DAVIS and BROWNING, JJ., Concur.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

   Schedule of Year-To-Date Principal and Interest Distributions
                           to
                  Certificateholders

                                                                    Ending
Class            Interest             Principal    Losses           Balance
<S>               <C>                  <C>            <C>           <C>
A1               6919116.39       6651263.15                0       214348736.85
A2               18471641.4                0                0          564882000
B                   1760265                0                0           53100000
C                 1617691.5                0                0           47790000
D                1856342.01                0                0           53100000
E                  765900.8                0                0           21240000
F                    673308                0                0           21240000
G                 757503.18                0                0           23896000
H                    336654                0                0           10620000
J                  252490.5                0                0            7965000
K                  252490.5                0                0            7965000
L                    504981                0                0           15930000
M                    168327                0                0            5310000
N                  252493.5                0             0.24            7965094
R1                        0                0                0                  0
R2                        0                0                0                  0
R3                        0                0                0                  0
X                3978263.04                0                0                  0


</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

Rule 13a-14(a) or Rule 15d-14(a) of
Chief Executive Officer

I, Patrick W. Smith, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K as amended by Amendment No. 1 of TASER International, Inc.;
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|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;
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |     |  |                        
|----------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Date: November 15, 2012 |  | By: |  | /s/ Patrick W. Smith   
|                        |  |     |  | Patrick W. Smith       
|                        |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer
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 Chief Executive Officer of Norcraft Holdings, L.P. and Norcraft Companies, L.P. (together, the Company), does hereby certify that to the
undersigneds knowledge:

1) the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                      |  |                                      
|--------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: August 14, 2008 |  | /s/ Mark Buller                      
|                      |  | Mark Buller  Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement, required by Section 906, has been provided to Norcraft Holdings,
L.P. and Norcraft Companies, L.P. and will be retained by Norcraft Holdings, L.P. and Norcraft Companies, L.P. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

562 

KA 14-00525 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, DEJOSEPH, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

LEROY SAVAGE SMITH, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (PHILIP ROTHSCHILD OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (JAMES P. MAXWELL

OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (Anthony F.

Aloi, J.), rendered May 20, 2013. The judgment convicted defendant,

upon a jury verdict, of assault in the first degree and criminal

possession of a weapon in the fourth degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him,

upon a jury verdict, of assault in the first degree (Penal Law 

§ 120.10 [1]) and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree

(§ 265.01 [2]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, we conclude that

County Court did not abuse its discretion in denying his request for

substitution of counsel inasmuch as “defendant failed to proffer

specific allegations of a ‘seemingly serious request’ that would

require the court to engage in a minimal inquiry” (People v Porto, 16

NY3d 93, 100; see People v Wilson, 112 AD3d 1317, 1318, lv denied 23

NY3d 1069; People v Woods, 110 AD3d 748, 748, lv denied 23 NY3d 969). 

The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

Entered: June 10, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
Exhibit
32








SECTION
1350 CERTIFICATION








Each of
the undersigned, Yongke Xue, President and Chief Executive Officer of SkyPeople
Fruit Juice, Inc, a Florida corporation (the “Company”), and Spring Liu, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to the best of his knowledge (1) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of
the Company for the year ended December 31, 2008, 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) the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company


.


By:  /s/ Yongke
      Xue
                Name: Yongke Xue
                Title:   President and Chief Executive Officer
                Date:  
      March 31, 2009By:  /s/ Spring
      Liu
                Name:
      Spring Liu
                Title:   Chief Financial Officer
                Date:   March
      31, 2009




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written 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.