alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LUKE McCROWE.

(Filed 12 January, 1968.)

Criminal Law § 138—

Where there is a verdict or plea of guilty to more than one count in a warrant or bill of indictment and the court imposes a single judgment thereon, a consolidation of the counts for the purpose of judgment will be presumed, and the punishment may not exceed that permitted on the count carrying the greater punishment.

Appeal by defendant, Luke McCrowe, from *Hobgood, J.,*May Criminal Session, 1967, RobesoN Superior Court.

On April 2, 1966 the defendant was charged in the Recorder’s Court, St. Pauls, North Carolina, with having committed these criminal offenses:

(Unlawfully operating the above described vehicle (1960 Chevrolet, License No. DP 6657) on U. S. Highway 301:

1. Speeding 85 miles per hour in a 55 miles per hour zone.

7. Driving left of center not in overtaking and passing.

8. Illegal possession of beer, to wit, 6 gallons, contrary to the statutes made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State.

On April 6, 1966 the Recorder, after hearing, adjudged the defendant guilty on all counts as charged. The Recorder imposed a prison sentence of 90 days, suspended upon the payment of a fine of $75 and costs of $17.25, and “. . . defendant not to have in his possession or on his premises any intoxicants, including wine, whiskey or beer, for a period of 2 years . . .”

On October 21, 1966 defendant was apprehended for a traffic violation and having in his possession 40 pints of beer. Notice was *524served on the defendant, and a bill of particulars was filed before the Recorder. After hearing, the Recorder found the defendant had violated the conditions upon which the prison sentence of 90 days was suspended, and activated the sentence. The defendant excepted and appealed to the Superior Court of Robeson County.

At the May Criminal Session, Judge Hobgood, after hearing and after full findings of fact with respect to the entry of the original sentence, the breach of the conditions of the suspension, affirmed the judgment of the Recorder.

The defendant appealed.

*T. W. Bruton, Attorney General; William, W. Melvin, Assistant Attorney General; T. Buie Costen, Staff Attorney, for the State.*

*F. D. Hackett for defendant appellant.*

Pee Cueiam.

The defendant contends: (1) the record does not disclose he was represented by counsel at his trial before the Recorder, and (2) that sentences on two of the counts does not permit a prison sentence of 90 days. However, the verdict of guilty on the count charging operating the Chevrolet at 85 m.p.h. in a 55 m.p.h. zone on U. S. Highway 301 will sustain the judgment.

In cases in which there is a verdict or plea of guilty to more than one count in a warrant or bill of indictment, and the Court imposes a single judgment (sentence, or fine, or both) a consolidation for the purpose of judgment will be presumed. The punishment may not exceed that permitted on the major count. Appointment of counsel was not required in this case.

No error.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

---------------------------------- -x 

IN RE: Fosamax Troducta Liability : YIlT.1 No. 1789 

Lit igat icn 

1 : 06-md-1789 (JFK) ---.--- - --------------- ---x Order 

I'hjs Document R~lates tu: All Actlons : 

---------------- - S 

JOHN F. KEENAN, United States District Judge: 

gefendant MFY-~k has requested that I hear the rrcltrion to 

cornrjel w'rllch PLaintiffs flled sr. April 18, 2CG8 tefore Magistrate 

Ju,~~P Francis. The mct lcjn 2pprars q,rl L ai~~ :ji ECL'\,-YT~; i 95~~3 t]-.ily 

may nave a broad inpact on this MDL and, therefore, T would 

prefer t3 resolve the motion. Per the parties' stipulated 

briefing sched~le, Mtrck' s response is due on May ;2, 2G08 and 

Plaintiff's reply is due an May 19, 2033 

SO ORDERED. 

Dated: New York, New York 

April 24, 2008 

,/ JOHN F. KEENAN 

United States District Judge 

Case 1:07-cv-03464-JFK Document 27 Filed 04/25/2008 Page 1 of 1
***EXHIBIT32***

** **

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEFFINANCIAL OFFICER

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

** **

In connection with the reporton Form 10-K of Asia8, Inc. for the annual period ended December 31, 2010 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Eric Montandon,do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

 

(1)   This report fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)   The information contained in this report fairlyrepresents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the registrantat the end of the period covered by this report and results of operations ofthe registrant for the period covered by this report.

 

 

Date: April 14, 2011

 

 

/s/ Eric Montandon

Eric Montandon

Chief Executive Officer andChief Financial Officer

 

 

This certificationaccompanies this report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 andshall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, bedeemed filed by the registrant for the purposes of §18 of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended. This certification shall not be incorporatedby reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, orthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or afterthe date of this report), irrespective of any general incorporation languagecontained in such filing.

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by §906 has been provided to the registrant and willbe retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

 

 

 

----
Exhibit 32.2



                                CERTIFICATION OF
                      TREASURER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec.1350, the undersigned, Samir N. Masri, who is
the Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of Lincoln International Corporation
(the "Company"), hereby certifies that the Company's Quarterly Report on Form
10-QSB for the quarter ended October 31, 2005, (the "Report") fully complies
with the requirements of Sec.13(a) or Sec.15(d) as applicable, of the Securities
Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

                                       /s/ Samir N. Masri
                                           -------------------------------------
                                    Name:  Samir N. Masri
                                   Title:  Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
                                    Date:  December 9, 2005
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

WARREN AIKEN,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 4:10cv89-MP/WCS

JOSEPH DEREIGO, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This cause is before me upon referral from the Clerk. In an order filed March 16,

2010, Plaintiff was directed to clarify his intentions or file an amended complaint by April

19, 2010. Plaintiff was specifically warned that a recommendation would be made that

this case be dismissed if there was a failure to comply with that order. Doc. 4. To date,

no response has been received from the Plaintiff. 

A trial court has inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to

prosecute. Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962). 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) authorizes a district court to dismiss an action for failure to obey a

court order. Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 838 and cases cited (11th Cir.), cert.
Page 2 of 2

denied, 493 U.S. 863 (1989). Since Plaintiff has failed to comply with an order or to

prosecute this case, this complaint should now be dismissed without prejudice. 

Plaintiff shall have a 14 day period after service of this report and

recommendation in which to file objections. This will also afford Plaintiff a final

opportunity to show good cause for this failure to respond. Plaintiff may do so by filing a

motion for reconsideration which will be referred to me by the Clerk.

It is therefore, respectfully RECOMMENDED that this case be DISMISSED

without prejudice.

IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on May 11, 2010.

s/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and

recommendations within 14 days after being served with a copy of this report and

recommendation. A party may respond to another party's objections within 14 days

after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific objections limits the

scope of review of proposed factual findings and recommendations.

Case No. 4:10cv89-MP/WCS
#### John D. Collins, plaintiff in error, *vs.*E. M. Richardson *et al.,*defendants in error.

1. It is unnecessary to file the affidavit of taxes paid, as required by the Act of October 15, 1870, in an action for false representations of the solvency of one whom the plaintiff was thereby induced to credit, and in consequence of which it was alleged the plaintiff had lost this debt.

2. If a case be called and dismissed for want of prosecution, and before the next case is called, counsel for plaintiff in error appear and ask that the case be heard, and the order of dismissal be not taken, the case will be heard. (R. See end of Report.)

Relief Act of 1870. Tax. Practice. Supreme Court. Before Judge Harvey. Polk Superior Court. August Term, 1871.

Collins averred that in February, 1865, he was engaged as a teacher in Woodland Female College, at Cedartown, Georgia, and hearing some complaint about the pecuniary condition of the college, called on Richardson *et al.,*trustees of the college for an exhibit of the financial condition of the college, which they refused to make, but wrote him not to fear, that the assets of the college were ample to meet its liabilities, and he, relying upon this, taught one year, and could not get pay because the college was insolvent. Averring that their representations were fraudulently made, he prayed a judgment against them for his said services. Because he filed no affidavit as to the payment of taxes, the Court dismissed the cáse. That is assigned as error.

(When the case was called, it was dismissed for want of prosecution, but before the order was taken or another case was called, counsel for plaintiff in error came in and asked that the case be heard, and it was allowed.)

E. N. Broyles, for plaintiff in error.

J. F. Thompson, by J. W. H. Underwood, for defendants.

*292McCay, Judge.

As against this defendant, this cause of action was not taxable property. It was a *tort.*It had no fixed value. It was not a contract. The very point of it is the *wrong,*the deceit. The debt as against the corporation is not in suit in this action. The plaintiff may or may not have given in and paid the taxes on that. *This*cause of action is the deceit, the fraud practiced, as is alleged, on the plaintiff. We do not think any man ever has thought such causes of action not based, even on contract, but standing as much on *tort,*as slander, are taxable.

Judgment reversed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
LESCARDEN INC'S NOVEMBER 30, 1999 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL LEGENDS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1999
<CASH>                                          23,541
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,500
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    217,079
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               251,120
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 251,120
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          302,486
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        21,875
<OTHER-SE>                                    (73,241)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   251,120
<SALES>                                        116,528
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               116,528
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  299,151
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (182,623)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (182,623)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (182,623)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)


</TABLE>
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.2 (PRICE WATER HOUSE COOPERS LOGO) PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Southwark Towers
32 London Bridge Street
London SE1 9SY
Telephone +44 (0) 20 7583 5000
Facsimile +44 (0) 20 7833 4652 The Directors
Barclays Bank PLC
1234 Pavilion Drive
Northampton
NN4 7SG The Directors
Gracechurch Card Funding (No. 5) PLC
54 Lombard Street
London
EC3P 3AH The Directors
Barclaycard Funding PLC
54 Lombard Street
London
EC3P 3AH The Directors
Gracechurch Receivables Trustee Limited
26 New Street
St. Helier
Jersey
JE2 3RA February 28, 2005 Dear Sirs Report of Independent Accountants We have examined managements assertions that Barclays Bank PLC (the Servicer), a wholly owned
subsidiary of Barclays PLC, has complied with its obligations, in its capacity as Servicer, in
respect of the minimum servicing requirements for the credit card receivables
arising on designated accounts as set forth in the clauses 2.1.d, 2.1.e, 2.1.f, 2.1.j, 2.2.a, 2.5.a
and 2.5.b, using definitions set forth in the Master Definitions schedule between Gracechurch
Receivables Trustee Limited, Barclays Bank PLC and Barclaycard Funding PLC dated 24 October 2002 of
the Beneficiaries Servicing Agreement between Barclaycard Funding PLC and Barclays Bank PLC dated
23 November 1999 (BSA) during the year ended 31 December 2004 . Management is responsible for
the assertion. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the assertion based on our
examination. Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis,
evidence supporting managements assertion about the Servicers compliance with those requirements
and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe
that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide
a legal determination on the Servicers compliance with specified servicing requirements. In our opinion,managements assertion that the Servicer complied with the aforementioned
requirements during the year ended 31 December 2004 is fairly stated, in all material respects. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 28 February 2005 Yours faithfully, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP End of Filing
# C_2011328EN.01001101.xml

| 11.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/11

---

Corrigendum to State aid — The United Kingdom — State aid SA.18859 — 11/C (ex NN 65/10) — Relief from aggregates levy in Northern Ireland (ex N 2/04) — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 108(2) of the TFEU

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 245 of 24 August 2011
  )

Official Journal of the European Union C 245 of 24 August 2011

2011/C 328/08

On page 10:

for:

‘Interested parties may submit their comments on the measure within one month of the date of publication of this summary and the following letter, to:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| State aid Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |
| Fax +32 22951242’, |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

State aid Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Fax +32 22951242’,

read:

‘Interested parties may submit their comments on the measure within one month of the date of publication of this summary and the following letter, to:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| State aid Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |
| Fax +32 22961242’. |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

State aid Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Fax +32 22961242’.

---
Order on Motion for Sentence Reduction Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) Page 1 of 1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of Florida

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. Case No.: 3:10cr6-003/MCR

USM No.: 07359-017

RONALD L. PHARES

/

Date of Original Judgment: September 3, 2010

Date of Previous Amended Judgment: N/A

(Use Date of Last Amended Judgment if Any)

Order on Motion for Sentence Reduction

The Defendant has moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a reduction in the term of

imprisonment previously imposed based on a guideline sentencing range that has subsequently

been lowered and made retroactive by the United States Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 994(u). 

Having considered such motion, and taking into account Amendment 782, USSG

§1B1.10, and the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), to the extent they are

applicable, the Court orders that the motion is GRANTED and the Defendant’s previously

imposed sentence of imprisonment (as reflected in the last judgment issued) of 200 months is reduced to

168 months.

(Complete Part I or II Attachment, as applicable)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Order Date: June 9, 2015 s/ M. Casey Rodgers

Signature of Judge

 M. Casey Rodgers

Effective Date: November 1, 2015 Chief United States District Judge

 (if different from order date) Printed Name and Title of Judge

Case 3:10-cr-00006-MCR-CJK Document 364 Filed 06/09/15 Page 1 of 1
#### STATE v. HARRIS

No. 107 PC.

Case below: 34 N.C. App. 491.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 21 December 1977.
#### STATE v. GODWIN

No. 79 PC.

Case below: 13 N.C. App. 700.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 2 May 1972.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

RAJA IMRAN KHAN,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No: 5:09cv405/RS/EMT

BALBOA LIFE AND CASUALTY, LLC,

Defendant.

__________________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This cause is before the court upon referral from the clerk. Plaintiff commenced this action

by filing a pro se civil complaint (Doc. 1). On February 12, 2010, this court entered an order giving

Plaintiff thirty (30) days in which to file an amended complaint (Doc. 5). Plaintiff failed to respond

to the order; therefore, on March 26, 2010, the court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to show

cause, within twenty (20) days, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with

an order of the court (Doc. 7). The time for compliance with the show cause order has now elapsed

with no response from Plaintiff.

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

That this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with an

order of the court.

At Pensacola, Florida, this 23rd day of April 2010.

/s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy 

ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Page 2 of 2

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Any objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within

fourteen (14) days after being served a copy thereof. Any different deadline that may appear

on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use only. A copy of objections shall be

served upon all other parties. Failure to object may limit the scope of appellate review of

factual findings. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; United States v. Roberts, 858 F.2d 698, 701 (11th Cir.

1988).

Case No: 5:09cv405/RS/EMT
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 Advanced Medical Institute Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K/A for the period ending June 30, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dilip
Shrestha, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1350, as adopted pursuant to 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; and
 
 (2)           The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
 
 /s/
Dilip Shrestha


Chief
Financial Officer
 Date:
March 25, 2010
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Advanced Medical Institute Inc. and will be retained by Advanced Medical
Institute Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

JULIE SAM

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 20

- 1975

[ November 4, 2021 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,

Broward County ; Elizabeth Anne Scherer , Judge; L.T. Case No. 18

- 004577CF10A

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Benjamin Eisenberg, Assistant

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kimberly T. Acuńa,

Assistan t Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

C ONNER

, C.J., M AY and D AMOORGIAN

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.