alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CLARENCE EDWARD WIGGINS

No. 7414SC226

(Filed 1 May 1974)

1. Constitutional Law § 34; Robbery § 1— conspiracy to rob — accessory before fact of robbery — double jeopardy

Defendant was not placed in double jeopardy when he was convicted of conspiracy to commit robbery and of being an accessory before the fact to the same robbery.

2. Indictment and Warrant § 18; Robbery § 2— robbery indictment — trial as accessory before the fact on same indictment

Insufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction for robbery did not entitle defendant to his discharge, and the State properly tried defendant on the same indictment as an accessory before the fact to the robbery.

*442On *certiorari*to review trial before *Webb, Special Judge,*19 March 1973 Session of Superior Court held in Durham County.

■ Defendant was convicted of being an accessory before the fact of armed robbery. We allowed certiorari to perfect a late appeal.

In a prior trial of this case defendant was convicted of conspiracy to commit armed robbery and armed robbery. Upon appeal, this court affirmed the conspiracy conviction but directed a new trial on the indictment for armed robbery. *See State v. Wiggins,*16 N.C. App. 527, 192 S.E. 2d 680, where this court held that the evidence was insufficient to go to the jury on armed robbery but would support a conviction of accessory before the fact to armed robbery.

As set out in the record of the earlier appeal, the evidence tended to show that although defendant was neither actually nor constructively present during the commission of the robbery, he instigated the robbery, helped plan it, supplied the gun used by the active participants, arranged for their transportation and shared in the proceeds of the crime.

*Attorney General Robert Morgan by Roy A. Giles, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for the State.*

*Paul, Keenan & Rowan by Jerry Paul for defendant appellant.*

VAUGHN, Judge.

[1] Defendant contends that “[a] careful consideration as to the elements of conspiracy and accessory before the fact will lead to the inevitable conclusion that defendant . . . was twice placed in jeopardy.” We disagree. A defendant may be convicted for both conspiracy to commit robbery and the commission of that same robbery. To support the plea of double jeopardy, it is of no consequence that the earlier prosecution grew out of the same transaction. It must have been the same offense both in fact and in law.

[2] Upon an indictment for the principal offense a defendant may be convicted of a lesser degree of the same crime. The crime of accessory before the fact to robbery -is included in the indictment for robbery. As we held on the earlier appeal, the insuffi*443ciency of the evidence to support a conviction for robbery did not entitle defendant to his discharge, and the State properly tried defendant on the same indictment as an accessory before the fact to the robbery.

Defendant’s remaining assignments of error are also without merit.

No error.

Judges Britt and Parker concur.
#### SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY v. PETTY COMMUNICATIONS, INC. and BILLY R. TUCKER

No. 7518DC620

(Filed 3 December 1975)

Appeal and Error § 42— evidence omitted from record — presumption

When the evidence is not included in the record, it will be presumed that the evidence was sufficient to support the findings of fact.

Appeal by defendant from *Kuykendall, Judge.*Judgment entered 22 April 1975 in District Court, Guilford County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 12 November 1975.

*674Plaintiff instituted this action to recover $1,234.80 balance allegedly due on a telephone bill. In its complaint, plaintiff alleges that the telephone service was rendered to the corporate defendant and that payment for the service was guaranteed in writing by defendant Tucker.

The corporate defendant did not answer and default judgment was rendered against it in the amount prayed. Defendant Tucker filed answer in which he denied liability for the indebtedness.

Jury trial was not requested and, following a trial without a jury, the court entered judgment in which it made findings of fact and conclusions of law consistent with plaintiff’s contentions and adjudged that plaintiff recover of defendant Tucker the sum of $1,234.80, plus interest and costs. Defendant Tucker appealed.

*Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, by W. Erwin Fuller, Jr., for plaintiff appellee.*

*Defendant Billy R. Tucker, in propria persona.*

BRITT, Judge.

All of appellant’s exceptions relate to the findings of fact set forth in the judgment but the record on appeal does not contain the evidence presented at trial. It is well settled that when the evidence is not included in the record, it will be presumed that the evidence was sufficient to support the findings of fact. *Mt. Olive v. Price,*20 N.C. App. 302, 306, 201 S.E. 2d 362, 364 (1973) ; *Cobb v. Cobb,*10 N.C. App. 739, 741, 179 S.E. 2d 870, 871 (1971) ; 1 Strong, N. C. Index 2d, Appeal and Error, § 42 at p. 185.

The findings of fact support the trial court’s conclusions of law and adjudication that plaintiff is entitled to recover from appellants the amounts provided in the judgment.

Affirmed.

Judges Vaughn and Arnold concur.
#### Richard Rothstein, Trustee *v.*Joseph P. Trantino et al.

The defendant Joseph P. Trantino’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, (AC 11795), is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Where a defendant appeals from a judgment of strict foreclosure and the trial court terminates the automatic stay pending appeal, may the Appellate Court lawfully dismiss the appeal as moot if the law day set by the trial court passes prior to the Appellate Court’s deciding the appeal?

*907The Supreme Court docket number is SC 14790.

*Jeremiah Donovan,*in support of the petition.

*Lloyd L. Langhammer,*in opposition.

Decided May 26, 1993

“2. Are due process of law and the statutory right to appeal violated by a trial court’s ordering of a strict foreclosure, terminating the automatic stay pending appeal, and setting a law day prior to the time that the Appellate Court can decide the appeal, thus denying the defendant any opportunity for appellate review of the trial court’s judgment of strict foreclosure?”
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 September 30, 2007 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 September 30, 2007 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                        |  |  |  |                                      
|----------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: November 14, 2007 |  |  |  | /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**

 

**Certificationof Chief Executive Officer**

**and ChiefFinancial Officer 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 Mrs. Fields FamousBrands, LLC (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the 13 weeks ended July 2,2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), Stephen Russo, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, andMark C. McBride, as Interim Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, eachhereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

 
| /s/ Stephen Russo       |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Stephen Russo           |
| Chief Executive Officer |
| August 16, 2005    |

 

 
| /s/ Mark C. McBride              |   |
|----------------------------------|--------|
| Mark C. McBride                  |
| Interim Chief Accounting Officer |
| August 16, 2005             |

 

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent requiredby the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposesof Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

 

A signed original of this statement required by Section 906 hasbeen provided to Mrs. Fields Famous Brands, LLC and will be retained by Mrs. FieldsFamous Brands, LLC and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission orits staff upon request.

 

----
<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. 33-60702 for Hartford Life and Annuity
Insurance Company Separate Account Ten on Form N-4.

Hartford, Connecticut                                   /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP
April 8, 2002
EXHIBIT 32.2

                              CERTIFICATE 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 Current Report of Mobile Reach International, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Brian R. Balbirnie, Chief
Financial 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) 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 result of operations of the
Company.

     A signed original 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.

                                            /s/  Brian R Balbirnie
                                            ------------------------------------
                                                 Brian R Balbirnie
                                                 Chief Financial Officer
                                                 November 14, 2005
Exhibit 10.5

                       SECOND EXTENSION OF PROMISSORY NOTE
                         DATED ON OR ABOUT APRIL 1, 2000


     This  Second  Extension of Promissory Note Dated On or About April 1, 2002,
is  made as of 25th day of March, 2002, by and between Kelvin John Claney, Robin
Jan  Marney  and  William  Ainslie  Reece,  in their capacity as trustees of the
Better  Blocks  Trust  created  by  Deed  dated  1 January  1994 ("Lender"), and
International  Commercial  Television  Inc.  (formerly  known  as  Moran  Dome
Exploration  Inc.)  ("Borrower").

     WHEREAS,  Borrower executed a Promissory Note on or about April 1, 2000, in
the  principal  amount  of $590,723.27 ("Promissory Note").  The Promissory Note
was  originally  due  two  years  from  the  date  of  execution;  and

WHEREAS,  on  April  23,  2001,  Borrower  and  Lender  executed an Extension of
Promissory  Note  Dated  On  or  About  April 1, 2000, extending the term of the
Promissory  Note  to  November  1,  2002;  and

     WHEREAS,  Borrower has requested an additional extension of the term of the
Promissory  Note,  and  Lender  has  agreed  to  that extension on the terms and
conditions  set  forth  on  this Second Extension of Promissory Note Dated On or
About  April  1,  2000.

     NOW,  THEREFORE,  in  consideration  of  the premises and mutual agreements
contained  herein, the parties hereby agree that the term of the Promissory Note
shall  be  extended  to  November  1,  2004.

     EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY SET FORTH HEREIN, ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE
PROMISSORY  NOTE DATED ON OR ABOUT APRIL 1, 2000, SHALL REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND
EFFECT.

LENDER:                                       BORROWER:

Each undersigned in their capacity as a       INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL
Trustee of THE BETTER BLOCKS TRUST            TELEVISION INC.
Created by Deed 1 January 1994.


     /s/ Kelvin Claney                             /s/ Thomas Woolsey
-------------------------------------         ------------------------------
Kelvin Claney, Trustee                        Thomas Woolsey, President


     /s/ Robin Jan Marney
-------------------------------------
Robin Jan Marney, Trustee



-------------------------------------
William Ainslie Reece



<PAGE>
#### ARTHUR R. FORCE, Appellant, *v.*WILLIAM PECCOLE, L. L. OUSLEY, FRANK S. DITTMAN AND MARGARET A. DITTMAN, Husband and Wife, JOHN DOES I to V, JANE DOES I to V, JOHN DOE CORPORATION, a Corporation, JOHN DOE and RICHARD ROE, A Copartnership, Respondents.

No. 4029

March 11, 1958

322 P.2d 307

*William P. Compton,*of Las Vegas, for Appellant.

*George E. Franklin, Jr.,*of Las Vegas, for Respondents.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

This is an appeal from summary judgment rendered by the trial court against the appellant as plaintiff in the action below. The action is brought to establish an interest in a joint venture claimed by the plaintiff through an assignment from one J. J. Sheppard whose interest, in turn, is allegedly established or evidenced by *65a written contract to which the defendants are parties. Sheppard himself was not a party to the contract.

The ground upon which the trial court based judgment does not appear from the record. In support of judgment respondents contend that appellant has failed to establish himself as a third party beneficiary of the contract or as grantee of an interest in the joint venture. Without further clarification and briefing we are reluctant to attempt specification of the issues thus raised and to dispose of them upon the merits. However, even assuming merit in respondents’ position, the propositions they assert, as we understand them, either go to the sufficiency of the complaint to state a claim or anticipate matters of pleading or proof. They do not demonstrate as a matter of law that no cause of action actually,exists and that respondents are now entitled to judgment. A distinction must be recognized between the question: Has a claim been stated? and the question: Has it been demonstrated that no claim can be stated since no claim exists? Ramsouer v. Midland Valley R. Co., 44 F.Supp. 523.

This being so, the issue of appellant’s right, to an interest in the joint venture remains for determination, although issues relating to the sufficiency of pleadings may preliminarily be involved also. Summary judgment, then, was error.

Reversed and remanded with instructions that summary judgment be set aside and for further proceedings.
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

RAYMOND E. STAUFFER
, Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

BROOKS BROTHERS, INC., AND RETAIL BRAND ALLIANCE, INC., Defendants

- Appellees

,

AND

UNITED STATES, Intervenor

- Appellee.

______________________

2013

- 1180

______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in No. 08

- CV

- 10369, Judge Sidney H. Stein.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________ O R D E R Case: 13-1180 Document: 43 Page: 1 Filed: 09/11/2013STAUFFER v. BROOKS BROTHERS , INC

. 2
Upon further review of the motions filed July 18, 2013, July 22, 2013, and August 8, 2013, the court’s September 5, 2013 order is revised as follows:

I T I S O RDERED T HAT : 1) Mr. Stauffer’s untimely brief is accepted for filing

. The appellees should calculate their brief due date from the date of this order

. 2) All other motions are denied.

F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk

s25 Case: 13-1180 Document: 43 Page: 2 Filed: 09/11/2013
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5155 

To direct the Secretary of Commerce to conduct an aerial assessment of 

sea turtle populations in United States waters, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 27, 2010 

Mr. JONES (for himself and Mr. ORTIZ) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Commerce to conduct an aerial 

assessment of sea turtle populations in United States 

waters, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. AERIAL ASSESSMENT OF SEA TURTLE POPU4 LATIONS IN UNITED STATES WATERS. 

5 (a) STUDY.—The Secretary of Commerce shall con6 duct an aerial assessment of and report to Congress on 

7 the population abundance and spatial and temporal dis8 tribution of Green, Loggerhead, Leatherback, Kemp’s 

9 Ridley, and Hawksbill sea turtles in State and Federal wa10 ters of the United States. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5155 IH

1 (b) LIMITATION ON RULEMAKING AUTHORITY.— 

2 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may not issue 

3 any rule regarding incidental fisheries bycatch of 

4 any of the species referred to in subsection (a) under 

5 the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 

6 1531 et seq.) or the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Con7 servation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et 

8 seq.) before the date the Secretary submits a report 

9 to Congress on the findings of the study required 

10 under subsection (a). 

11 (2) EXCEPTION.—Paragraph (1) shall not 

12 apply to any rule to alter or restrict use of a specific 

13 gear type in a specific fishery, if the Secretary cer14 tifies to Congress in writing that the rule is an 

15 emergency rule determined by the Secretary, based 

16 on independently peer-reviewed science, to be nec17 essary— 

18 (A) to protect a species referred to in sub19 section (a) from being imminently determined 

20 by the Secretary under the Endangered Species 

21 Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) to be an 

22 endangered species primarily as a result of inci23 dental take of such species by that gear type in 

24 that fishery; or 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 5155 IH

1 (B) to protect a species referred to in sub2 section (a) that is listed under that Act as an 

3 endangered species from imminent extinction 

4 primarily as a result of incidental take of such 

5 species by that gear type in that fishery. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
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, Pub. L. 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold the following meeting during the week of February 7, 2005: 

A Closed Meeting will be held on Wednesday, February 9, 2005 at 10 a.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)(3), (5), (7), (9)(B), and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (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. 

The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Wednesday, February 9, 2005, will be: 

Formal orders of investigations; 

Institution and settlement of injunctive actions; and 

Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an enforcement nature; 

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) 942-7070. 

Dated: February 1, 2005. 

Margaret H. McFarland, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 05-2155 Filed 2-1-05; 11:20 am] 

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P