alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RILEY LEE ELLISOR

No. 6914SC179

(Filed 30 April 1969)

Criminal Law §§ 155.5, 157— failure to aptly docket record on appeal and to include charge in record

Appeal is dismissed for failure to docket the record on appeal within the time prescribed by Rule 5 and for failure to include the charge in the record on appeal when exception is taken thereto as required by Rule 19(a). Court of Appeals Rule No. 48.

Appeal by defendant from *Clark, J.,*28 October 1968 Criminal Session of the Superior Court of Durham.

The defendant was charged in two separate bills of indictment with forgery and uttering a forged document. The charges were consolidated for trial, and the defendant entered a plea of not guilty. The jury found the defendant not guilty on the charges of forgery and guilty of the two charges of uttering a forged instrument. From judgment entered on the jury verdict, defendant appeals.

*515
      *Attorney General Robert Morgan by Deputy Attorney General Harrison Lewis and Trial Attorney I. B. Hudson, Jr., for the State.*

*Bryant, Lipton, Bryant*<fc *Battle by James B. Maxwell for defendant appellant.*

Morris, J.

Judgment in this action was signed and entered on 1 November 1968. The record on appeal was not docketed in this Court until 10 February 1969. “Rule 5, Rules of Practice in the Court of Appeals of North Carolina, requires that the record on appeal be docketed within ninety days after the date of the judgment unless an extension of time shall have been granted by the trial tribunal. The record before us does not contain an order extending the time within which to docket.” *Osborne v. Hendrix,*4 N.C. App. 114, 165 S.E. 2d 674.

Rule 19(a), Rules of Practice in the Court of Appeals of North Carolina, requires that the record on appeal shall contain “The pleadings on which the case was tried, the issues, and the order, judgment, decree, or determination appealed from shall be included in the record on appeal in all cases, and the charge of the Court where there is exception thereto.” Although defendant has excepted to portions of the charge and has argued these exceptions in his brief, the charge is not included in the record before us.

We have, nevertheless, carefully examined the questions raised by the defendant in his brief, most of which are evidentiary, and find no prejudicial error.

For failure to comply with the rules of this Court, the appeal is dismissed. Rule 48, Rules of Practice in the Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Mallard, C.J., and Campbell, J., concur.
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.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold the following meeting during the week of October 24, 2005: 

A Closed Meeting will be held on Thursday, October 27, 2005 at 2 p.m. 

Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters may also be present. 

The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(5), (7), (9)(B), and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(5), (7), 9(ii) and (10) permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting. 

Commissioner Atkins, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the closed meeting in closed session and that no earlier notice thereof was possible. 

The subject matters of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday, October 27, 2005 will be:

Formal orders of private investigations; 

Institution and settlement of injunctive actions; 

Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an enforcement nature; and 

Opinions.

At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items. 

For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact: 

The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

Dated: October 20, 2005.

Jonathan G. Katz,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 05-21355 Filed 10-21-05; 11:26 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4773 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4773

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 14, 2010

   Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to lease certain lands 
     within Fort Pulaski National Monument, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Fort Pulaski National Monument Lease 
Authorization Act''.

SEC. 2. LEASE AUTHORIZATION.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior (referred to in this 
section as the ``Secretary'') may lease to the Savannah Bar Pilots 
Association, or a successor organization, no more than 30,000 square 
feet of land and improvements within Fort Pulaski National Monument 
(referred to in this section as the ``Monument'') at the location on 
Cockspur Island that has been used continuously by the Savannah Bar 
Pilots Association since 1940.
    (b) Rental Fee and Proceeds.--
            (1) Rental fee.--For the lease authorized by this Act, the 
        Secretary shall require a rental fee based on fair market value 
        adjusted, as the Secretary deems appropriate, for amounts to be 
        expended by the lessee for property preservation, maintenance, 
        or repair and related expenses.
            (2) Proceeds.--Disposition of the proceeds from the rental 
        fee required pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be made in 
        accordance with section 3(k)(5) of Public Law 91-383 (16 U.S.C. 
        1a-2(k)(5)).
    (c) Terms and Conditions.--A lease entered into under this 
section--
            (1) shall be for a term of no more than 10 years and, at 
        the Secretary's discretion, for successive terms of no more 
        than 10 years at a time; and
            (2) shall include any terms and conditions the Secretary 
        determines to be necessary to protect the resources of the 
        Monument and the public interest.
    (d) Exemption From Applicable Law.--Except as provided in section 
2(b)(2) of this Act, the lease authorized by this Act shall not be 
subject to section 3(k) of Public Law 91-383 (16 U.S.C. 1a-2(k)) or 
section 321 of Act of June 30, 1932 (40 U.S.C. 1302).

            Passed the House of Representatives July 13, 2010.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Order entered March 20 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 12
- 01260
- CR
DONOVAN WADE, Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Ca use No. F11
- 58212
- T 

### O RDER
The Court REINSTATE S the appeal. On January 24, 2013, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why appellant’s brief has not been filed. We ADOPT the findings that: (1) appellant desires to pursue the appeal; (2 ) appellant is indigent and represented by court

- appointed counsel Jeffery Buchwald; (3) Mr. Buchwald has not abandoned the appeal; (4) Mr. Buchwald’s explanation for the delay in filing appellant’s brief is his workload and a recent illness; and (4) Mr. B uchwald requested thirty more days to file appellant’s brief.
We ORDER appellant to file his brief within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order. Because the brief is already more than three months overdue, no further extensions will be granted. If appel lant’s brief is not filed within the time specified, the Court will remove JefferyBuchwald as appellant’s attorney and order the trial court to appoint new counsel to represent appellant.
We DIRECT t he Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic tr ansmission, to the Honorable Rick Magnis, Presiding Judge, 283rd Judicial District Court, and to counsel for all parties.
/s/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         110,171
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   44,380
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,722
<INVENTORY>                                      2,587
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               167,980
<PP&E>                                         156,337
<DEPRECIATION>                                  72,186
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 546,393
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           43,305
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                           342
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     572,988
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   546,393
<SALES>                                        372,924
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               372,924
<CGS>                                          150,266
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  150,266
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,054
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 47,071
<INCOME-TAX>                                    20,055
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             27,016
<DISCONTINUED>                                  49,268
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    76,284
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.35
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32

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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Syntony Group, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Quarterly
Report"), We, Michael Vardakis, President and Treasurer and Matthew C. Lords,
Vice President and Secretary of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

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


Date: 5/16/2005                          /s/Michael Vardakis
     ----------                          ---------------------
                                         Michael Vardakis
                                         President, Treasurer and director


Date: 5/16/2005                          /s/Matthew C. Lords
     ----------                          ---------------------
                                         Matthew C. Lords
                                         Vice President, Secretary and
                                         director
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

DONALD C. PETRA,

Petitioner

v.

PENNSYLVANIA NATIONAL MUTUAL 

CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 696 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 24th day of March, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF  ETS PAYPHONES, INC.  PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF  THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, GUY A. LONGOBARDO, am the Chief Executive Officer of ETS Payphones, Inc. (the "Company").

This
certification is being furnished pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in connection with the filing of the
Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 (the "Report").

I
hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge:



Dated:
August 5, 2004

| |  | /s/GUY A. LONGOBARDOGuy A. Longobardo
Chief Executive Officer
| |  | -------------------------------------------------------------



A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to ETS Payphones, Inc. and will be retained by ETS Payphones, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ELMER JAMES MOORE

No. 7018SC288

(Filed 24 June 1970)

Appeal by defendant from *Crissman, J.,*16 February 1970. Criminal Session, Superior Court of Guilford County.

Defendant was indicted for breaking and entering, larceny, and receiving. He was represented by court-appointed counsel and entered a plea of not guilty to all counts. The jury was selected and impaneled and the testimony of one witness for the State was taken. At that point, defendant entered a plea of guilty to receiving. The court examined the defendant with respect to the voluntariness of his plea. A transcript of his plea was taken and sworn to by defendant before the Deputy Clerk of Superior Court. The transcript and the court’s adjudication appear in the record. His plea was accepted and, prior to sentencing, the court heard the testimony of five other witnesses for the State and one witness for defendant. From judgment entered, defendant appealed. The court appointed his trial counsel to perfect the case on appeal.

*Attorney General Robert Morgan by Assistant Attorney General Sidney S. Eagles, Jr., and Staff Attorney Russell G. Walker, Jr., for the State.*

*Norman B. Smith for defendant' appellant.*

MoeRIS, J.

The record contains no assignments of error. Defendant’s counsel states in his brief that since he knows of no error committed by the court, no assignments of error were made. He further states in his brief that defendant has been asked if he wished to supplement the brief with arguments of his own, but the defendant has declined to do so. However, defendant has filed in this Court several documents, including a copy of the record on appeal filed by his counsel, which he refers to as “entirety of all records and contentions enclosed herein.” By his letter to the Clerk, he asks that they be filed and directed for full review. This we have assumed is defendant’s own supplemental brief. We have ordered that it be added to the record filed without printing.

We have carefully examined the record and the documents sub*604mitted by defendant and are in accord with counsel’s conclusion that in the trial of this matter- there was

No error.

MallaRD, C.J., and Gbaham, J., 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 March 31, 2009 (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: May 7, 2009
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM FRANK TYLER

No. 695SC268

(Filed 28 May 1969)

Criminal Law § 154— appeals irom consolidated trial — one record on appeal

Where two or .'more cases are consolidated and' tried, together as one case and there are two or more appeals, arising from the action, ordinarily *683only one copy of the record and the proceedings in the trial tribunal should be filed in the Court of Appeals. Court of Appeals Rule No. 19(b).

Appeal by defendant from *Bundy, J.,*12 December 1968 Session, New Hanover Superior Court.

The defendant appellant, William Franklin Tyler, and one Robie C. Allen were tried jointly upon identical bills of indictment, except for the name of the defendant, charging felonious breaking and entering, larceny, and receiving, and also except as to the receiving charge in the *Tyler*case where the defendant Tyler’s name erroneously appears as the owner of the property.

The State offered evidence which tended to show that William Franklin Tyler and Robie C. Allen on 19 October 1968 broke into and entered the Southside Lunch at the corner of Front and Castle Streets in Wilmington, North Carolina. The evidence is fully set out in *State v. Allen*(filed 28 May 1969).

Neither defendant took the stand or offered any evidence. The court allowed defendants’ motions for nonsuit as to the counts in the bills of indictment charging larceny and receiving, and submitted the case to the jury solely on the count of felonious breaking and entering. The jury returned verdicts of guilty as charged of felonious breaking and entering. From judgment sentencing each to prison for a term of ten years, both defendants appealed.

*Robert Morgan, Attorney General, by Ralph Moody, Deputy Attorney General, and Carlos W. Murray, Jr., Staff Attorney, for the State.*

*Yow •& Yow, by Lionel L. Yoio for defendant appellant.*

MallaRD, C.J.

In spite of the fact this case and the case of *State v. Robie C. Allen*were tried together and treated as one case in the trial court, two separate records were filed in this Court and each case was docketed as a separate appeal. Where two or more cases are consolidated and tried together as one case and there are two or more appeals arising from the action, ordinarily only one copy of the record and the proceedings of the trial in the trial tribunal should be filed in this Court. Rule 19(b), Rules of Practice in the Court of Appeals of North Carolina; see *State v. Hamilton,*1 N.C. App. 99, 160 S.E. 2d 79; *Hoke v. Greyhound Corp.,*227 N.C. 412, 42 S.E. 2d 593.

-We deem it expedient to point out that we feel it was not neces*684sary that counsel for defendant appellant docket a separate record on appeal for each defendant. Each defendant makes the same assignment of error, and each defendant is represented in this Court by the same attorney. For the reasons stated in *State v. Allen, supra,*opinion by Parker, J., filed this date, we hold that the judgment appealed from was supported by the verdict, and, in the entire trial we find no prejudicial error.

Affirmed.

Campbell and MoeRis, JJ., concur.
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROGER DALE CHAPMAN.

(Filed 10 July 1968.)

1. Constitutional Law § 36—

A sentence within the statutory limits is not excessive, nor is it cruel and unusual punishment in the constitutional sense.

S. Criminal Law § 146; Constitutional Law § 4—

Before the Court of Appeals passes upon constitutional questions, they should first be raised and passed upon by the trial court.

Appeal by defendant from *Snepp, J.,*25 March 1968 Session of GastoN Superior Court.

By a bill of indictment, proper in form, defendant was charged with feloniously breaking and entering the Carr Elementary School Building in the town of Dallas, N. C., on 6 December 1967, with the intent to commit the felony of larceny therein. By warrant issued from the Municipal Court of the city of Gastonia, he was charged with escape from the custody of a police officer on 12 December 1967.

Defendant, with his attorney, appeared before Judge Snepp and, with the consent of the solicitor, pled guilty to non-felonious breaking and entering and escape. On the breaking and entering charge, defendant was given an active prison sentence of two years; on the escape charge, he was given an active prison sentence of two years, this sentence to commence at the expiration of the sentence imposed in the breaking and entering charge.

From the judgments imposing said sentences, defendant appealed.

*T. Wade Bruton, Attorney General, by Ralph Moody, Deputy Attorney General, for the State.*

*Robert H. Forbes, Attorney for defendant appellant.*

*623Britt, J.

Defendant’s sole assignment of error is that the court erred in imposing an active sentence of two years in the breaking and entering case and an additional two years active sentence in the escape case. He contends that said sentences amount to cruel, unusual, and excessive punishment.

The assignment of error is without merit and is overruled. For many years, it has been held in this jurisdiction that a sentence within the statutory limits is not excessive nor is it cruel and unusual punishment. *State v. Parrish,*273 N.C. 477, 160 S.E. 2d 153; *State v. Bethea,*272 N.C. 521, 158 S.E. 2d 591; *State v. Faison,*272 N.C. 146, 157 S.E. 2d 664. See also *State v. Bruce,*268 N.C. 174, 150 S.E. 2d 216.

The record fails to show that defendant at any time in the trial court raised any constitutional question, either state or federal, relative to the sentences imposed. Before this Court passes on constitutional questions, they should be raised and passed upon first by the trial court. *State v.*Jelly, *et al.,*251 N.C. 177, 111 S.E. 2d 1.

The sentences imposed by Judge Snepp were within the statutory limits and did not violate any provision of the Federal or State Constitutions.

The judgments of the Superior Court are

Affirmed.

Campbell and Morris, JJ., concur.