alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
----

|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  Dated:  August 16, 2010 |  By: |  /s/ Thalia Gietzen   |   |
|-----------------------------------------|-----------|----------------------------|--------|
|                                    |      |   Thalia Gietzen |   |
|                                    |      |   VP of Finance  |   |
|                                    |      |                       |   |
|                                    |      |                       |   |

----
#### EUGENE V. GRACE v. BOBBY G. JOHNSON

No. 7415DC28

(Filed 1 May 1974)

Process § 5— process running from wrong county — amendment

Where the summons commanded the defendant to appear and answer in a county other than the one in which the action was pending, the summons could not be amended to show the proper county and defendant’s motion to quash the summons should have been allowed. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 4(i); G.S. 1A-1, Rule 12(b) (4).

Appeal by defendant from *Peele, District Court Judge,*11 June 1973 Session of District Court held in Chatham County.

The complaint was filed in the District Court Division of the General Court of Justice in Chatham County on 16 March 1973. The original summons and the copy thereof served on *433defendant ran from Durham County. Plaintiff discovered this error on 27 March 1973, some eight days after defendant had been served, and immediately mailed notification of the error to defendant and his attorney. On 17 April 1973, plaintiff moved to amend the summons to run from Chatham rather than Durham County. Defendant moved to quash the summons as insufficient and defective. Plaintiff’s motion to amend was granted, and defendant’s motion to quash summons was denied.

*Newsom, Graham, Strayhorn, Hedrick, Murray & Bryson by 0. William Faison, Jr., for plaintiff appellee.*

*White, Allen, Hooten & Hines, P.A., by Thomas J. White III, for defendant appellant.*

VAUGHN, Judge.

Rule 4(i) of the Rules of Civil Procedure empowers the court to allow amendment of the summons at any time in its discretion unless it clearly appears that material prejudice would result to substantial rights of the party against whom the process issued. A comment by the General Statutes Commission states that the rule “in terms, does not provide for any greater liberality of amendment than did former G.S. 1-163.” We agree. The question, therefore, is whether an amendment to the summons to correct the name of the court in which the action was commenced would have been allowable under former G.S. 1-163. This question was answered in *Brantley v. Sawyer,*5 N.C. App. 557, 169 S.E. 2d 55. In that case the trial court allowed plaintiff to amend the name of the court in which the action was pending. On appeal, this court held that the amendment should not have been allowed because of the fatal variance between the place where defendant was commanded to appear and the place where the suit was pending. In the case before us now, the action was pending in Chatham County. The original and copy of the summons directed defendant to appear and answer in Durham County. Defendant’s motion under Rule 12(b) (4) should have been allowed.

Reversed.

Judges Britt and Parker concur.
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 12

           INTERNATIONAL MULTIFOODS CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

             Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                                   (unaudited)

                                (in thousands)



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                      THREE MONTHS ENDED      NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                      ------------------     -------------------
                                      Nov. 25,   Nov. 30,    Nov. 25,    Nov. 30,
                                         2000       1999        2000        1999
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                   <C>        <C>         <C>         <C>
Earnings from continuing
   operations before income taxes     $13,714    $13,630     $34,833     $29,199
Plus: Fixed charges (1)                 6,797      5,920      19,712      18,987
Less: Capitalized interest                (97)      (234)       (439)       (563)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Earnings available to cover
   fixed charges                      $20,414    $19,316     $54,106     $47,623
================================================================================

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges       3.00       3.26        2.74        2.51
================================================================================
</TABLE>


(1) Fixed charges consisted of the following:


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                      THREE MONTHS ENDED      NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                      ------------------     --------------------
                                      Nov. 25,   Nov. 30,    Nov. 25,    Nov. 30,
                                         2000       1999        2000        1999
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                   <C>        <C>        <C>         <C>
Interest expense, gross                $4,552     $3,737     $13,227     $12,184
Rentals (Interest factor)               2,245      2,183       6,485       6,803
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Total fixed charges                  $6,797     $5,920     $19,712     $18,987
================================================================================
</TABLE>
ORIGINAL , _gLfj r^ft ^t/n. reR- re.- oo^^-- r.g». VfafiLs

-j-^SLOL^ FILED

UOUHT Ui- CRIMINAL APPEAlT

(El

&&aL-JAaJJL. OCT 2 9 2C;5 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Abe. Acosta, dark OCT262015

J^£tA_J*fc^^

Q^ UjC^dQJrJriA^-^ \nJ_U\f\A- (WxQ rKprV/T,

Olv^Ol/.

£--GL£j£££uCi^^

CC *, -fOle _JX_ojsAZOc_ik£l<,JTX.J^

Prsr. PoWft 4- C\r>r»^>\-0cwN, Jc^f^^f cx^r^^^j
j^Lfi.

nnxhi fS \o o. IA-pXId

\\c*-

XV n f^V ^J2Z^±1-

Pl„.-,^iH^S- - ^t-,^XW.

ftp^Wl TnT-^n-ir ^<<^ ^i.^VmX-

^nirif YV. • rft te-^^k

-?t\o\ F^ ^kA ^,

^^^)a. Par \c\ T&LCL S

^^b^- k<,q<\
:Trt.W cfr Cffi\V,prV^

i^ei^—^^

ia^^niLjG&^^ 2l

•j&i^jdc^ k

^i^LiD^usk,, .-^_____^ ._._„„._3_niA.

•^gia^QiU^c^-^-^r^ Ca,^ H

iJo^A;^ __^A

JQ^A^r -For Kol^fl- yt>- \>

j£j2J±&£L_C^ 6$ JkXiZLak—_ Ql

9m^ V o» Q-
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 45256

STATE OF IDAHO ,

Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

WALLACE ALEXANDER BUNDY ,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2018 Unpublished Opinion No. 385

Filed: March 7, 2018

Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Jason D. Scott , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and concurrent unified sentences of fifteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years, for two counts of lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen, affirmed

.
Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford

, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________ Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge; and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM Wallace Alexander Bundy pleaded guilty to two counts of lewd conduct with a minor

under sixteen , Idaho C ode § 18

- 1508

. For each count, t he district court imposed a unified

fifteen

- year sentence, with three years determinate, with the sentences to run concurrently

. Bundy appeals, contending t hat his sentence s are excessive.
Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the
factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and
need not be repeated here. Se e State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 114, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

-2 15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.
1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing

the l ength of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho
722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record
in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.
Therefore, Bundy ’s judgment of conviction and sentence s are affirmed.
**Exhibit 32**

 

**Certification of Chief Executive Officer**

**and Chief Accounting Officer Pursuant to**

**18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant to**

### **Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

### ** **

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Mrs. Fields Famous Brands, LLC (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the 13 weeks ended April 1, 2006 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Stephen Russo, asChief Executive Officer of the Company, and Mark C. McBride, as Chief AccountingOfficer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

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

 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/  Stephen Russo        |   |
|---------------------------|--------|
| Stephen  Russo            |
| Chief  Executive Officer  |
| May  12, 2006             |
|                      |
|                      |
| /s/  Mark C. McBride      |   |
| Mark  C. McBride          |
| Chief  Accounting Officer |
| May  12, 2006             |

 

Thiscertification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes ofSection 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

 

Asigned original of this statement required by Section 906 has been provided toMrs. Fields Famous Brands, LLC and will be retained by Mrs. Fields FamousBrands, LLC and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 

----
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 report of China Architectural Engineering, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each
of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below,
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his
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.





/s/  Wing Lun(Alan)LeungWing
      Lun (Alan) LeungChief
      Executive OfficerNovember
      22, 2010/s/  Qin LuQin
      (Andy) LuChief
      Financial OfficerNovember
      22, 2010





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to China Architectural Engineering, Inc. and will be retained by China
Architectural Engineering, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
#### JOSEPH E. WAGNER, Appellant *v.*ROGER M. HEFLING, Respondent.

No. 3459

November 14, 1946.

174 P. 2d 615.

*Virgil H. Wedge,*of Reno, for Appellant.

*R. S. Flanary,*of Sparks, for Respondent.

OPINION

By the Court,

Eather, J.:

This case and that of Anderson v. Wagner, 63 Nev. 453, 174 P.2d 612, grew out of the same alleged assault.

The facts of the above-mentioned case being identical with those of the case of M. 0. Anderson, plaintiff and respondent, except for slight variations, and the specifications of points and errors upon which the appellant intends to rely, the statement of facts, and points and authorities thereof being the same with the instant case, the two cases, upon stipulation in this court, were consolidated for argument on the appeals.

For the reasons given in the Anderson case, the order appealed from is reversed, with directions to the district court to set aside the default and judgment and permit defendant to answer upon such terms as may be just and reasonable.
**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 SK Realty Ventures, Inc., (the
      "Registrant") on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007
      as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
      "Report"), I, Frederick
                Schulman, President and Acting Chief Financial
      Officer of the Registrant, certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C.
      Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:




(1)
            The
                Report, to which this certification is attached as Exhibit 32, fully
                complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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
                Registrant




Date:
                November 21, 2007
            
            /s/
                Frederick SchulmanFrederick
                SchulmanPresident
                and Acting Principal Accounting
                Officer




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Registrant and will be
      retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
      Commission or its staff upon request.





This
      certification accompanies the Form 10-QSB to which it relates, is not
      deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be
      incorporated by reference into any filing of the Registrant under the Securities
      Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or
      after
      the date of the Form 10-QSB), irrespective of any general incorporation
      language contained in such filing.
SCWC

- 22

- 0000 499

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ʻ I

STATE OF HAWAI ʻ I, Petitioner /Plaintiff

- Appellee,

vs.

ALEXANDER AQUINO

, Respondent /Defendant

- Appellant

.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP

- 22

- 0000 499 ; CASE NO. 3CPC

- 21

- 0000757 )

ORDER ACCEPTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna, Eddins

, and Devens, JJ. , and

Circuit Judge Somerville , in place of Ginoza, J., recused )

Petitioner/ Plaintiff

- Appell ee State of Hawai ʻ i ’s application

for writ of certiorari filed on December 22, 2023 , is accepted

.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that no oral argument will be heard

in this case. Any party may, within ten days and pursuant

to Rule 34(c) of the Hawai ʻ i Rules of Appellate Procedure, move

for retention of oral argument.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ʻ i, Febru ary 7 , 2024.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Todd W. Eddins

/s/ Vladimir P. Devens

/s/ Rowena A. Somerville Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-22-0000499

07-FEB-2024

10:03 AM

Dkt. 9 OGAC
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ROBERT DERWIN SCOTT,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 48 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Unpublished Memorandum and 

Order of the Superior Court at No. 

139 EDA 2015 entered on December 

28, 2017, remanding the Order of the 

Philadelphia County Court of Common 

Pleas at No. CP-51-CR-0011581-

2014 entered on December 29, 2014

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 17th day of May, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

GRANTED, the Superior Court’s order is VACATED, and this matter is REMANDED for 

proceedings consistent with this Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Perfetto, ___ A.3d 

___, 2019 WL 1866653 (Pa. Apr. 26, 2019).
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-13-00602-CR

BRENDAN SEAN MCMAHON APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT NO. 5 OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

----------

We have considered appellant’s “Motion To Dismiss Appeal.” The motion 

complies with rule 42.2(a) of the rules of appellate procedure. Tex. R. App. P.

42.2(a). No decision of this court having been delivered before we received this 

motion, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P.

42.2(a), 43.2(f).

 1

See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GABRIEL, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and DAUPHINOT, J.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: January 23, 2014
#### JACK D. LAWRY, Appellant, v. DONNA Y. LAWRY, Respondent

No. 7691

May 14, 1975

535 P.2d 158

*Daniel R. Walsh*and *Patrick V. Fagan,*of Carson City, for Appellant.

*William J. Crowell*and *Robert L. Crowell,*of Carson City, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

A divorced father appeals from an order of the district court granting “full and complete custody, care and control” of his minor son to the mother, his former wife. The order also relieved the father from further support payments for his son.

The father construes the order to deny him reasonable visitation and appeals on that basis. He does not challenge the award of custody.

The order is silent with regard to visitation, and we are not willing to imply a denial of visitation nor assume that so drastic a penalty was intended by the court below. Moreover, with regard to that part of the order relieving the father of further *290child support, required findings as to the effect of total suspension of child support upon the present comfort and future well-being of the child were not made. Noble v. Noble, 86 Nev. 459, 470 P.2d 430 (1970).

Accordingly, we remand this case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANTTO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of Cubic Energy, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB/A for the period ending June 30, 2007as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, as C.F.O., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Date: August 5, 2008

 
| Signature:  | /s/ Scott D. Guffey     |   |
|------------------|-------------------------|--------|
|             | Scott D. Guffey, C.F.O. |

 

----
<Page>


                                                                     EXHIBIT 8.1

SIGNIFICANT SUBSIDIARIES

      The following table shows the significant subsidiaries owned, directly or
indirectly, by DaimlerChrysler AG as of December 31, 2001, as defined in
Regulation S-X, Section 210.1-02(w):

<Table>
<Caption>

NAME OF COMPANY                                                                                                   PERCENTAGE
                                                                                                                     OWNED

<S>                                                                                                                  <C>
Chrysler do Brasil Ltda., Sao Paolo, Brazil                                                                          100.0
Chrysler International Corporation, Auburn Hills, MI, a Delaware corporation                                         100.0
DaimlerChrysler Argentina S.A., Buenos Aires, Argentina                                                              100.0
DaimlerChrysler Canada Inc., Windsor, Canada                                                                         100.0
DaimlerChrysler Corporation, Auburn Hills, MI, a Delaware corporation                                                100.0
DaimlerChrysler de Mexico S.A. de C.V., Santa Fe, Mexico                                                             100.0
DaimlerChrysler Motors Corporation, Auburn Hills, MI, a Delaware corporation                                         100.0
DaimlerChrysler North America Holding Corporation, Auburn Hills, MI, a Delaware corporation                          100.0
DaimlerChrysler Services North America LLC, Southfield, MI, a Michigan limited liability company                     100.0
Freightliner LLC, Portland, OR, a Delaware limited liability company                                                 100.0
Mercedes-Benz Leasing Argentina S.A., Buenos Aires, Argentina                                                        100.0
Micro Compact Car smart GmbH, registered in Renningen, Germany                                                       100.0
</Table>