alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE v. JERRY OSCAR PERRYMAN

No. 6922SC196

(Filed 28 May 1969)

1. Burglary and Unlawful Breakings § 8— felonious breaking and entering — punishment

The maximum punishment for the felony of breaking and entering is ten years’ imprisonment G-.S. 14-54.

2. Constitutional Law § 86— cruel and unusual punishment

Punishment within the statutory maximum is not cruel and unusual in the constitutional sense.

Appeal by defendant from *Seay, J.,*December 1968 Session, Ike-bell County Superior Court.

Jerry Oscar Perryman (defendant) was charged in a proper bill of indictment with- the felony of breaking and entering a building occupied by Niemand Industries, a corporation in Iredell County, a violation of G.S. 14-54.

Defendant, an indigent, was represented by court-appointed counsel. After the defendant was questioned extensively by the trial judge as to his understanding of the nature of the offense, his opportunity to confer with counsel and his knowledge of the offense charged and the punishment therefor under the statute, the defendant’s plea of guilty as charged was entered in open court. After making this inquiry of the defendant in open court, the trial judge found as a fact that the defendant’s plea was freely, understanding^ and voluntarily *685made, and that the plea was made without undue influence, compulsion or duress and without promise of leniency.

From the imposition of a prison sentence of not less than five years nor more than eight years, the defendant appealed to this Court. Counsel was appointed by the trial court to represent the defendant on the appeal. The county was ordered to defray all of the expenses incurred in connection with the appeal.

*Attorney General Robert Morgan and Deputy Attorney General Harry W. McGalliard for the State.*

*W. H. McMillan for defendant appellant.*

Campbell, J.

Counsel for the defendant concedes that he has found no error in the proceedings in the trial court. He nevertheless desires this Court to review the record and the sentence.

[1] We have carefully examined the record and find no prejudicial error therein. The maximum punishment for the felony of breaking and entering is ten years’ imprisonment. G.S. 14-54. The sentence imposed in this case does not exceed the statutory maximum.

[2] It has been held time after time that “(w)hen punishment does not exceed the limits fixed by the statute, it cannot be considered cruel and unusual punishment in a constitutional sense.” *State v. Davis,*267 N.C. 126, 147 S.E. 2d 570. *State v. Reed,*4 N.C. App. 109, 165 S.E. 2d 674.

In the trial, we find

No error.

Mallabd, C.J., and Moeeis, J., concur.
##### 



Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

The undersigned, Alan J. Lacy, Chairman of the Board of Directors,
President and Chief Executive Officer of Sears, Roebuck and Co. (the
Company), has executed this certification in connection with the filing with
the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Companys Annual Report on Form
10-K for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2003 (the Report).

The undersigned hereby certifies 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 the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of
the 12th day of March, 2003.

/s/  Alan J. Lacy
Alan J. Lacy
Chairman of the Board of Directors,
President and Chief Executive Officer
#### WILKES HOME IMPROVEMENT COMPANY, INC. v. COLIN RUNDLE and wife, MARY ANN RUNDLE

No. 7323DC8

(Filed 28 February 1973)

Appeal by plaintiff from *Osborne, District Judge,*May 1972 Session of District Court held in WILKES County.

This action is to recover the balance due on a contract for remodeling done to defendants’ residence.

Plaintiff’s evidence tended to show that plaintiff and defendants entered into an agreement for certain modifications and improvements to be made to defendants’ home; that the contract price was $8,466.92; that plaintiff performed approximately seventy-five percent of the work but was prevented by defendants from completing the job; that defendants paid $4,000.00, but have refused to pay the balance of $4,466.92.

Defendants’ evidence tended to show that plaintiff agreed to complete the work in six to eight weeks; that the workmen would not stay on the job; that much of the work was inferior and had to be reworked; that defendants paid plaintiff *465$4,000.00, but when four months passed and the work was not completed they stopped plaintiff from performing further; that the work was about fifty percent completed when defendants stopped plaintiff; that defendants completed the work at a cost of about $3,000.00 plus defendants’ labor.

One issue was submitted to and answered by the jury as follows: “What amount, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover of the defendants? Answer: None.” Plaintiff appealed.

*Whicker, Vannoy & Moore, by J. Gary Vannoy, for plaintiff.*

*Joe O. Brewer for defendants.*

BROCK, Judge.

Plaintiff has brought forward and argued four assignments of error to the trial judge’s charge to the jury. While we recognize defects in the charge, plaintiff has failed to show in what way the defects were prejudicial to it. “The burden is on appellant not only to show error, but that the alleged error was prejudicial and amounted to the denial of some substantial right.” 1 Strong, N. C. Index 2d, Appeal and Error, § 46, p. 190.

In our opinion the jury was given ample opportunity to consider evidence of both parties. It has weighed that evidence and rendered a verdict favorable to defendant. We perceive no miscarriage of justice. There were no complicated legal principles involved in this case, and we feel the jury clearly understood the controversy.

No error.

Judges Campbell and Graham concur.
No. 21,292.

#### Frank Battese, as Administrator, etc., *Appellant,*v. The Union Pacific Railroad Company, *Appellee.*

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.

Jurisdiction— *Wrongful Death in Foreign State*— Power *of Kansas Administrator to Maintain Action for Damages.*An administrator appointed for the estate of a resident of Kansas by a Kansas probate court has no power to maintain an action in a Kansas court to enforce a liability created by the laws of another state for the wrongful death of the intestate, which occurred in such other state, following *McCarthy, Adm’r, v. Railroad Co.,*18 Kan. 46.

Appeal from Jackson district court; Oscar Raines, judge.

Opinion filed February 9, 1918.

Affirmed.

*469
      *Gúy L. Hursh,*and *E. B. Sloan,*both of Holton, for the appellant.

*R. W. Blair, T. M. Lillard,*and *A. M. Hambleton,*all of 'Topeka, for the appellee.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Dawson, J.:

This was an action in a Kansas court to recover under a Nebraska statute for the wrongful death of Alex Thompson, which occurred in Nebraska.

Defendant’s demurrer to plaintiff’s petition was sustained by the trial court—

> “On the ground that an administrator appointed for the estate of a resident of Kansas by a probate court of Kansas, has no power to maintain an action in the courts of Kansas to enforce a liability created by the laws of Nebraska for the death of the intestate.”

Was this ruling correct? The trial court followed the early case of *McCarthy, Adm’r, v. Railroad Co.,*18 Kan. 46, where an action by an administrator was sought to be maintained in this state for the wrongful death of Michael McCarthy, which occurred in' the state of Missouri. This court held that even if the presumption were indulged that the law of Missouri allowing a recovery for death by wrongful act was the same as in Kansas, yet the action could not be maintained in Kansas by an administrator appointed by a Kansas probate court. That decision was made over forty years ago, and the legislature, which has had many opportunities to change the law as declared in the McCarthy case, has been content to let it stand. Only some extraordinary reason would warrant this court in unsettling this rule after all these years, even although the court might hesitate to adopt it now if the question were new. None of the cases cited by appellant, *Matheson v. Railroad Co.,*61 Kan. 667, 60 Pac. 747; *Railroad Co. v. Johnson,*74 Kan. 83, 86 Pac. 156; *Cunningham v. Patterson,*89 Kan. 684, 132 Pac. 198; nor *Robinson v. Railway Co.,*90 Kan. 426, 133 Pac. 537, touches the main point which controlled the McCarthy case, and which controls the one now before us. That in some other jurisdictions a different view has been adopted does not justify the abrogation of a rule of Kansas law which has stood unqualified for forty years.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### WILLIAM RICHARD BURKETT, Appellant, *v.*THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 5054

October 18, 1966

418 P.2d 991

*Babcock & Sutton,*of Las Vegas, for Appellant.

*Harvey Dickerson,*Attorney General, of Carson City, and *Edward G. Marshall,*District Attorney, Clark County, and *R. Ian Ross,*Deputy District Attorney, of Las Vegas, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

Appellant Burkett was charged with burglary in the second degree and found guilty by jury. His appeal is based on an alleged failure of proof, in that the state failed to show that he had entered the premises burglarized. Our examination of the record shows substantial circumstantial evidence of an entry by the appellant. It was, therefore, permissible for the jury to find him guilty. No useful purpose is served by reciting the circumstantial evidence. The court has considered a subordinate assignment of error and finds it to be without merit.

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5307 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5307

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 24, 2010

     Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend the Tariff Act of 1930 to include ultralight vehicles under 
   the definition of aircraft for purposes of the aviation smuggling 
                       provisions under that Act.

    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 cited as the ``Ultralight Smuggling Prevention Act of 
2010''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF AIRCRAFT UNDER AVIATION SMUGGLING PROVISIONS OF 
              THE TARIFF ACT OF 1930.

    (a) In General.--Section 590 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 
1590) is amended--
            (1) by redesignating subsection (g) as subsection (h); and
            (2) by inserting after subsection (f) the following:
    ``(g) Definition of Aircraft.--As used in this section, the term 
`aircraft' includes an ultralight vehicle, as defined by the 
Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) apply 
with respect to violations of any provision of section 590 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930 on or after the 30th day after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.

SEC. 3. PAYGO COMPLIANCE.

    The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of complying 
with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall be determined by 
reference to the latest statement titled ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO 
Legislation'' for this Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional 
Record by the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, provided that 
such statement has been submitted prior to the vote on passage.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 23, 2010.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Exhibit 23



Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm



To the Board of Directors and Shareholders

of
IRIS International, Inc.

Chatsworth, California



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Forms S-8 (File Nos. 33-10631, 33-56772, 33-82560, 333-19265,
333-31391, 333-45348, 333-31393, 333-63304, 333-65547, 333-103462, and 333-122501) and Forms S-3 (File Nos. 333-27189, 333-37946, 333-86617, 333-48097, 333-110826, 333-115393 and 333-118577) of IRIS International, Inc. of our reports dated
February 25, 2005, relating to the consolidated financial statements and the effectiveness of IRIS International, Inc.s internal control over financial reporting, which appear in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ BDO Seidman, LLP   
|                       
|Los Angeles, California
|March 15, 2005
##### 



Exhibit 32.01 Pharma Services Intermediate Holding Corp. and Subsidiaries
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 Pharma Services Intermediate Holding Corp. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dennis B. Gillings, 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, to my knowledge, that:  (1)
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(2)
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company. /s/ Dennis B. GillingsDennis B. GillingsChairman and Chief Executive OfficerMay 13, 2005Date
 This Certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed
filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, whether
made before or after the date of this Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language
contained in such filing. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other documents
authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within
the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5014 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 17, 2010 

Received 

AN ACT 

To clarify the health care provided by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs that constitutes minimum essential coverage. 

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


PWALKER on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 5014 RDS

1 SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF HEALTH CARE PROVIDED 

2 BY THE SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

3 THAT CONSTITUTES MINIMUM ESSENTIAL 

4 COVERAGE. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Clause (v) of section 

6 5000A(f)(1)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as 

7 added by section 1501(b) of the Patient Protection and 

8 Affordable Care Act, is amended to read as follows: 

9 ‘‘(v) a health care program under 

10 chapter 17 or 18 of title 38, United States 

11 Code, as determined by the Secretary of 

12 Veterans Affairs, in coordination with the 

13 Secretary of Health and Human Services 

14 and the Secretary,’’. 

15 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

16 subsection (a) shall take effect as if included in section 

17 1501(b) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care 

18 Act. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 12, 2010. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


PWALKER on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Cubic Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending June 30, 2011 as 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 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.

 
| Date: September 28, 2011 |                     |
|-------------------------------|--------------------------|
|                          |                     |
| Signature:                    | /s/   Larry G. Badgley   |   |
|                          | Larry G. Badgley, C.F.O. |   |

 

----
**Exhibit 31.1**

**Hill International, Inc.**

**Certification of Chief Executive Officer**

I, Irvin E. Richter, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly Reporton Form 10-Q of Hill International, Inc.; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to statea 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: May 8, 2008
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 Annual Report of IRIS International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date thereof (the Report), I, Cesar M. Garcia, 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) 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: March 24, 2004                  
|                                       
|/s/ Cesar M. Garcia                    
|                                       
|Cesar M. Garcia Chief Executive Officer



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