alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES HUBERT WYATT

No. 7123SC57

(Filed 24 February 1971)

Criminal Law § 51— expert testimony — failure to qualify handwriting expert — harmless effect

Although the State’s witness had not been formally tendered and accepted as an expert in handwriting analysis, his opinion testimony that the defendant had forged the signature on a check was not prejudicial to the defendant, where there was sufficient evidence establishing the witness’ qualification as an expert in handwriting analysis.

Appeal by defendant from *Seay,*/., August 1970 Regular Mixed Session of Wilkes Superior Court.

The defendant James Hubert Wyatt, an indigent, was charged in a two-count bill of indictment, proper in form, with forgery and uttering a forged instrument. The defendant pleaded not guilty. At the close of the State’s evidence the court allowed the defendant’s motion for judgment as of nonsuit on the count charging uttering a forged instrument. The jury found the defendant guilty of forgery as charged in the first' count of *539the bill of indictment. From a judgment of imprisonment of five to seven years, the defendant appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.

*Attorney General Robert Morgan and Assistant Attorney General R. S. Weathers for the State.*

*Jerry D. Moore for defendant appellant.*

HEDRICK, Judge.

Defendant brings forth two assignments of error which may be considered together as presenting one question: Did the court commit prejudicial error in allowing the solicitor to refer to the witness, James R. Durham, as an expert, and by allowing him to give his opinion as an expert that the alleged forged signature was written by the defendant when he had not been formally tendered and found by the court to be an expert in the field of handwriting analysis?

Defendant, in his brief, candidly admits that our Supreme Court has held that the decision of the trial court to allow a witness to testify as an expert after the witness has been tendered by the State as such is tantamount to the trial court finding that the witness is an expert in the field of his testimony. *State v. Moore,*245 N.C. 158, 95 S.E. 2d 548 (1956) ; *Teague v. Power Co.,*258 N.C. 759, 129 S.E. 2d 507 (1963).

The defendant contends, however, that these cases are inapplicable to the instant case because there was no formal tender by the State of the witness as an expert. This contention is without merit. The record on appeal is replete with testimony establishing the witness’ qualifications as an expert in the field of handwriting analysis. While the better practice would have been for the State to have tendered the witness as an expert, and for the court to have ruled on the tender, we do not feel that a failure to do so under the facts of this case prejudiced the defendant in any way. *State v. Perry,*275 N.C. 565, 169 S.E. 2d 839 (1969).

We hold that there was no prejudicial error committed in the defendant’s trial.

No error.

Judges Campbell and Britt concur.
#### Yvonne Michelle MOORE, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Richard Moccia, Office Manager of Stuyvesant TSPS, Elizabeth Jane Brennan, Acting Office Manager of Stuyvesant TSPS, Marian Anderson, Service Assistant of Stuyvesant TSPS, Telephone Traffic Union Local 222 of the Telecommunications International Union, May E. Kliesch, Executive President, Thelma Currie, Manhattan Area President, Eleanor Heines, Secretary/Treasurer, Defendants.

No. 85 Civ. 4028 (RPP).

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

Jan. 31, 1991.

Yvonne M. Moore, Jamaica, N.Y., pro se.

Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Gerald-son, New York City by Jane B. Stewart, for defendants AT & T Communications, Inc., Richard Moccia, Elizabeth Jane Brennan and Marion Anderson.

Calamari & Calamari, New York City by Andrew M. Calamari, for Telephone Traffic *112Union Local 222, May E. Kliesch, Thelma Currie and Eleanor Heines.

OPINION AND ORDER

ROBERT P. PATTERSON, Jr., District Judge.

In an opinion and order filed December 27, 1990, the Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss, consolidated plaintiffs two pending actions into this action and deemed the complaint in action with Docket No. 85-4995 to be a second amended complaint in this action.1 On January 10, 1991, plaintiff who is proceeding pro se in the § 1983 action submitted a motion, not yet filed, seeking leave to file a third amended complaint “so ... that plaintiff’s complaint may reflect the evidence of plaintiff’s civil action.” No return date was set and defendants have not yet filed opposition papers.

Plaintiff’s motion is denied. Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

> A party may amend the party’s pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served.... Otherwise a party may amend the party’s pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.

Since plaintiff has asserted numerous causes of action in the second amended complaint which are at least facially valid and since responsive pleadings have been filed, justice does not require amendment to the pleadings at this time.

Plaintiff’s request for equitable modification in her letter dated January 30, 1991 is denied. Equitable modification of a statutory prerequisite to suit is appropriate only when defendants have challenged plaintiff's compliance with procedural requirements by motion. *See, e.g., Hladki v. Jeffrey’s Consol., Ltd.,*652 F.Supp. 388 (E.D.N.Y.1987) (Title VII action). No such motion by defendants is pending at this time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

1

. The complaint in action with Docket No. 86-4995 was originally filed June 24, 1986. The AT & T defendants and the Union defendants filed answers thereafter. The Court hereby treats those pleadings are defendants' answers to the complaint that has been deemed the second amended complaint in this action.
<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. 333-91921 for Hartford Life and Annuity
Insurance Company Separate Account Seven on Form N-4.

Hartford, Connecticut                                    /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP
April 8, 2002
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/A for the period ending
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 Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending March 31, 2005 fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                         |  |                                     
|------------------------ |  | ------------------------------------
|Date: September 20, 2005 |  | /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.
# EXHIBIT 32-1

# Certification Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Earbanes-Oxly
Act of 2002

I, Edwin L. Adler, Chief Executive
Officer of Clarkston Financial Corporation, 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 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2005 which this
          statement accompanies 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 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended
          December 31, 2005 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
          condition and results of operations of Clarkston Financial Corporation.

Dated: March __, 2006

| |  | /s/ Edwin L. Adler

Edwin L. AdlerChief Executive Officer
| |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

S.B., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, WAGE & HOUR 

DIVISION, Phoenix, AR, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-1663

Issued: January 28, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On September 3, 2020 appellant filed a timely appeal from an August 25, 2020 decision of

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

assigned Docket No. 20-1663.

In a letter received December 8, 2020, appellant requested that the appeal be dismissed.

The Board has duly considered the matter and concludes that appellant’s request for the 

dismissal of the appeal should be granted. Accordingly, 
2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT appellant’s request for the dismissal of the appeal is 

granted. The appeal docketed as No. 20-1663 is dismissed.

Issued: January 28, 2021

Washington, DC

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.26

             AMENDMENT TO THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT of JAMES ENRIGHT

The following amendments, dated as of January 1,2001, are made to the EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT ("Agreement") between Worldwide Flight Services Inc., a Delaware
corporation. together with its subsidiaries (the "Company") and James Enright
("Executive"), having a mailing address at 1134 Michael Sean Dr. Bedford, Texas,
76021.

WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend selected terms of the Executive's employment
agreement, dated January 15, 1999, while adopting and incorporating all of the
terms of the original agreement not specifically changed by this amendment.

     Amended terms:

Employment Term. Subject to the terms and conditions hereof, the Company agrees
to extend the employment of the Executive for a period of ONE YEAR beyond the
initial term in the original employment contract.

SALARY AND BENEFITS.

Base Salary .As compensation for all services rendered pursuant to this
Agreement, the Company will pay to the executive effective January 1, 2001 an
annual salary of ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND ($150,000.00), subject to an upward
adjustment at the sole discretion of the Company, and payable in accordance with
the payroll practices of the Company.

Stock Options Over a period of time of not less than FIVE (5) years and provided
the Executive remains employed by the Company, the Executive shall be granted
options under the WFS Holdings, Inc. 1999 Stock Option Plan (the "Stock Option
Plan") for the purchase of FIVE Thousand (5,000) shares of non-voting common
stock of WFS Holdings, Inc. ("Holdings"), All Terms and conditions applicable to
such stock options shall be governed by the provision of the Stock Option Plan
and any stock option agreements there under, as approved by the Compensation
Committee of the Board of Directors of Holdings.

Car Allowance The Executive shall be entitled to a monthly car allowance equal
to FOUR HUNDRED Dollars ($400).

Worldwide Flight Services

By: /s/    Peter Pappas                        /s/ James Enright
    -------------------------------    ------------------------------------
Peter Pappas                                       James Enright
Chairman & CEO                                     Sr. VP Human Resources
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

H.C., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, MAIN POST OFFICE, 

Carmel, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-0925

Issued: May 27, 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

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On March 24, 2020 appellant filed an appeal from a September 19, 2019 merit decision of 

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

assigned Docket No. 20-0925.

The Board, having duly considered this matter, notes that the Board has jurisdiction to 

review final adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act 

(FECA).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 September 19, 2019 decision was Tuesday, March 17, 2020.

As appellant did not file an appeal with the Board until Tuesday, March 24, 2020,

3 more than 180

days after the September 19, 2019 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as 

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a) (2009).

2

Id. at § 501.3(e).

3 The Board notes that the postmark on the envelope for appellant’s appeal was Wednesday, March 18, 2020. As 

this was also more than 180 days after the September 19, 2019 OWCP decision, using the date of the postmark would 

not render appellant’s appeal timely filed. See 20 C.F.R. 501.3(f)(1).
2

No. 20-0925 is untimely filed. The Board is without jurisdiction to review the appeal. Appellant

has not offered a reason to explain the failure to timely file an appeal with supporting 

documentation sufficient to establish compelling circumstances.4

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

of their issuance.”

5

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 20-0925 is dismissed.

Issued: May 27, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

4 5 U.S.C. § 501.6(d).

5

Id. at § 501.6(d).
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Douglas L. Schmick, Chief Executive Officer, in connection with the
Report on Form 10-Q of McCormick & Schmicks Seafood Restaurants, Inc. for the quarterly period ended September 27, 2008 (the Report), hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of McCormick & Schmicks Seafood Restaurants, Inc.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ DOUGLAS L. SCHMICK 
|Douglas L. Schmick     
|Chief Executive Officer

Dated: November 6, 2008
EXHIBIT 24
 POWER OF ATTORNEY
  Signature
    
    Title
    
    Date/s/ D. Scott Mercer

D. Scott Mercer
    
    Chairman of the Board
and ChiefExecutive
Officer (Principal
Executive Officer)
    
    December 17, 2008/s/ Christian Scherp

Christian Scherp
    
    President
    
    December 17, 2008/s/ Karen Roscher

Karen Roscher
    
    Senior Vice President
and ChiefFinancial
Officer (Principal
Financial and
Accounting Officer)
    
    December 17, 2008/s/ William E. Bendush

William E. Bendush
    
    Director
    
    December 17, 2008




---



##### 



Signature
    
    Title
    
    Date/s/ Steven J. Bilodeau

Steven J. Bilodeau
    
    Director
    
    December 17, 2008Dwight W. Decker
    
    Director
    
    December 17, 2008/s/ F. Craig Farrill

F. Craig Farrill
    
    Director
    
    December 17, 2008/s/ Balakrishnan S. Iyer

Balakrishnan S. Iyer
    
    Director
    
    December 17, 2008/s/ Matthew E. Massengill

Matthew E. Massengill
    
    Director
    
    December 17, 2008/s/ Jerre L. Stead

Jerre L. Stead
    
    Director
    
    December 17, 2008
 2
Exhibit 23.1



Board of Directors

Universal Ice Blast, Inc.

Kirkland, WA



CONSENT OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement No. 333-98269 of Universal Ice Blast, Inc. on Form S-8 of our report dated February 28, 2003, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Universal Ice Blast, Inc. as of December 31, 2002, which report appears in the December 31, 2002 annual report on Form 10-KSB of Universal Ice Blast, Inc.







/s/ Williams & Webster, P.S.

Certified Public Accountants

Spokane, Washington



March 24, 2002
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

KAREN L. WORLEY,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 618 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 21st day of February, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
**Exhibit 31.2**

**Hill International, Inc.**

**Certification of Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer**

I, John Fanelli III, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed thisquarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Hill International, Inc.; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor 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; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)), for the registrant and have: 

a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures; and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s boardof directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlover reporting. 

 

Dated: August 7, 2008
ex10-b



 



Exhibit 10(b)



 



	 	 	 
	CADBURY SCHWEPPES	 	
CADBURY SCHWEPPES

PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY
	 
	 
	 	 	
REGISTERED IN ENGLAND NO. 52457
	






	 	 	 
	 	 	
REGISTERED OFFICE:
	 	 	
25 BERKELEY SQUARE

LONDON W1J 6HB



3 April 2002


Securities and Exchange Commission

450 5th Street, N.W.

Washington DC 20549



	Re:	 	Exhibit 10b to Annual
Report on Form 20-F:

Representations Received from Arthur Andersen LLP



Ladies and Gentlemen:


Cadbury Schweppes public limited company (“CS”) has received a representation
letter from Arthur Andersen LLP (“Andersen”), CS’s independent public
accountants, in connection with the issuance of Andersen’s audit report
incorporated by reference in CS’s Annual Report on this Form 20-F. In its
letter, Andersen has represented to CS that its audit of the consolidated
financial statements of CS referenced in its audit report was subject to
Andersen’s quality control system for the U.S. accounting and auditing practice
to provide reasonable assurance that the engagement was conducted in compliance
with professional standards, and that there was appropriate continuity of
Andersen personnel working on the audit, availability of the U.S. national
office consultation, and availability of personnel at foreign affiliates of
Andersen to conduct relevant portions of the audit.


Very truly yours


 

 

/s/ D J Kappler





D J Kappler

Chief Financial Officer
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN MAXWELL HAROLD, JR.

No. 759SC548

(Filed 19 November 1975)

Appeal and Error § 14 — failure to appeal within 10 days after judgment

The Court of Appeals did not obtain jurisdiction where the appeal was not taken within 10 days after rendition of the judgment appealed from as required by G.S. 1-279, and the appeal must be dismissed.

Appeal by petitioner from *Clark (Giles R.), Judge.*Order entered 28 April 1975 in the Superior Court, Franklin County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 15 October 1975.

*Attorney General Edmisten by Associate Attorney William H. Guy for the State.*

*Purser & Barrett by George R. Barrett for Petitioner Appellant.*

HEDRICK, Judge.

This purports to be an appeal from an order entered by Judge Clark on 28 April 1975 denying the petition of W. A. Glenn, one of the sureties on the appearance bond of the defendant Harold, for relief under G.S. 15-116 from a judgment absolute entered 10 February 1975 in the Superior Court of Franklin County forfeiting his recognizance. It appears from the record before us that the petitioner did not give notice of appeal in this matter from the 28 April 1975 order entered by Judge Clark until 21 May 1975. Petitioner failed to comply with G.S. 1-279, which requires that appeal must be taken within 10 days after rendition of judgment. Under these circumstances the Court of Appeals has not obtained jurisdiction, and the *589appeal must be dismissed. *Oliver v. Williams,*266 N.C. 601, 146 S.E. 2d 648 (1966).

Dismissed.

Chief Judge Brock and Judge Clark concur.