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

VERSUS

EUGENE DARRYL MCKNIGHT

NO. 2023 KW 0376

JULY 5, 2023

In Re: State of Louisiana, applying for supervisory writs, 

22nd Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Tammany, 

No. 3445- F- 2020. 

BEFORE: LANIER, HESTER, AND MILLER, JJ. 

WRIT DENIED. 

WIL

CHH

SMM

URT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

PUTY CLERK OF COURT

FOR THE COURT
**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 Annual Report of Ring Energy, Inc. (the "company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert “Steve” Owens , Chief Executive Officer of the company, 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) I further certify to the best of my knowledge that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the company.

 

 

| Date: December 24, 2009 | By /s/ Robert “Steve” Owens |
|-------------------------|-----------------------------------------|

|   | Robert “Steve” Owens |
|--------|----------------------------------|

|   | Chief Executive Officer |
|--------|-------------------------|
#### ALLEN H. GILLETT and WARREN TRUESDELL, Respondents, *v.*OREN G. STAPLES, COPLEY A. NOTT, CHARLES F. STAPLES and The THOUSAND ISLAND HOTEL COMPANY, Appellants.

*Creditor’s bill*— judgment *on*— *When, the existence of a remedy by sale under execution does not prevent the filing of a creditor’s bill.*

Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, entered on the report of a referee.

The action was in the nature of a creditor’s bill, brought by the • *588plaintiffs as judgment-creditors of the defendants, Nott and Oren G. Staples, against said Nott *&*Staples, The Thousand Island Hotel Company and Charles F. Staples, after the return of an execution unsatisfied, to reach certain real and personal property, most of which was held in the name of Charles F. Staples, and was claimed by him. A few articles of the personal property were in the possession of Oren G. Staples, and were claimed by him to belong to his wife. The appellant objected that the decision of the referee did not specify the items of property which the debtors were directed to assign to the receiver.

The court at General Term said: “ It is not needed that it should. If any adjudication on that subject shall be necessary, in order to carry out the judgment, it can be provided for by a reference for that purpose. The court has inherent power to provide for such a contingency *(Dickerson*v. *Van Tine,*1 Sandf. K.., 724), and ample authority is given by statute (Code of Civil Procedure, § 1015); upon the reference all questions as to what particular articles belong to the judgment-debtor or were paid for out of the proceeds of the hotel business can be investigated and decided. * ** **“As to some'of the property, the referee found, at the request of the defendants, that the plaintiff had a remedy by sale on execution, and it is argued by the defendants' counsel that as to such property a creditor’s bill cannot be maintained ; but the defendant claimed before suit that all the property in which he was found to have an interest belonged to others than himself, and most of it was actually claimed by Charles F. Staples. That being the case, the creditor's were not obliged to resort to their remedy by a sale on execution, but were entitled to ;a creditor’s bill. (2 R. S., 174, ,§ 39; *Ghaulauqua Gountj Bank*v. White, 2 Seld., 236, 252; *Toddy. Grooke,*4 Sandf., 694.)”

*O'Brien & Emerson,*for the appellants.

*McGartin& Williams,*for the respondents.

Opinion'by

Smith, J.;

Talcott, P. J., and IIÁediN, J., concurred.

Appeal of defendants Nott, Charles F. Staples and The Hotel Company dismissed and the judgment affirmed, with costs.
Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2343    Filed: 06/03/19    Entered: 06/03/19 14:20:02    Page 1 of10

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2343    Filed: 06/03/19    Entered: 06/03/19 14:20:02    Page 2 of10

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2343    Filed: 06/03/19    Entered: 06/03/19 14:20:02    Page 3 of10

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2343    Filed: 06/03/19    Entered: 06/03/19 14:20:02    Page 4 of10

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2343    Filed: 06/03/19    Entered: 06/03/19 14:20:02    Page 5 of10

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2343    Filed: 06/03/19    Entered: 06/03/19 14:20:02    Page 6 of10

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2343    Filed: 06/03/19    Entered: 06/03/19 14:20:02    Page 7 of10

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2343    Filed: 06/03/19    Entered: 06/03/19 14:20:02    Page 8 of10

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2343    Filed: 06/03/19    Entered: 06/03/19 14:20:02    Page 9 of10

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2343    Filed: 06/03/19    Entered: 06/03/19 14:20:02    Page 10of 10
Exhibit 10.2 (b)





  THIS AMENDING AGREEMENT made as of the 16th day of December, 2014.


BETWEEN:


NHC EDIBLES LLC,

a Colorado limited liability company (the "NHC")


AND


PALO VERDE LLC,

a Colorado limited liability company (the "PALO VERDE")


WHEREAS Palo Verde has entered into a lease agreement with NHC to lease agreement ("Lease Agreement") dated July 23, 2014 to lease from NHC two buildings located at 78 Silicon Drive, Pueblo West, Colorado 81007 ("Pueblo Location"): (1) one building consisting of approximately 5,000 rentable square feet ("Building A") and (2) one building consisting of approximately 10,000 rentable square feet ("Building B") at the Pueblo Location.


AND WHEREAS the term of the Lease Agreement has commenced on October 1, 2014 ("Commencement Date"), when Palo Verde had received an Optional Premises Cultivation license from the Colorado Marijuana Enforcement Division for a Retail Marijuana Cultivation Facility.


AND WHEREAS pursuant to the Lease Agreement rent begins accruing three months after the Commencement Date, being January 1, 2015 ("Rent Commencement Date").


AND WHEREAS the vendor of the Pueblo Location ("Vendor") currently occupies Building A and is expected to vacate Building A at the end of August 2015, at which time, pursuant to the purchase and sale agreement between the vendor and NHC.


NOW THEREFORE in consideration of the continued relationship between the NHC and Palo Verde, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged by the parties hereto, the parties hereto agree as follows:



	1.	Rent Commencement Date for Building A will begin on January 1, 2015, pursuant to the terms (including the deferral provision set out in Section 5 of the Lease Agreement), as originally contemplated by the Lease Agreement.






	2.	Rent Commencement Date for Building B will begin on September 1, 2015, pursuant to the terms (including the deferral provision set out in Section 5 of the Lease Agreement). Rent payable by Palo Verde for leasing Building B shall be deferred until March 1, 2016 ("Deferred Rent"). Palo Verde shall have until September 1, 2016 to pay the Deferred Rent. Deferred Rent shall accrue interest in the amount of twelve percent (12%) annually.






	3.	Prior to September 1, 2015 the Vendor will continue to occupy Building B provided that Palo Verde shall have full access to the premises for the purposes of planning of the build-out of its grow facility and fulfilling any other obligations it has to the MED for its license.






	4.	All other terms in the Lease Agreement shall remain the same.


























IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first above written.







	 	 	
NHC EDIBLES LLC




	
Per:

	
/"Signed"/


	 	
Name: David Posner

 Title:   CEO


	
I have authority to bind the Corporation










	 	 	
PALO VERDE LLC.




	
Per:

	
/"Signed"/


	 	
Name: David Johnson

Title:  David S. Johnson, Manager of CBiz LLC, which is the sole member and manager of Palo Verde, LLC                


	
I have authority to bind the Corporation
Case: 19-30088    Doc# 242    Filed: 02/01/19    Entered: 02/01/19 13:50:13    Page 1 of 2

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 242    Filed: 02/01/19    Entered: 02/01/19 13:50:13    Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6780

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus YVONNE BORDERS BENNETT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CR-01-10-V; CA-03-52-5) Submitted: September 16, 2004 Decided: September 22, 2004 Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Yvonne Borders Bennett, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Richard Ascik, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Yvonne Borders Bennett, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on her motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bennett has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and di smiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CertificationPursuant To Section 906 Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002(Chapter 63, Title 18 U.S.C. Section  1350(A) And (B))**

Pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Chapter 63, Title 18U.S.C. Section 1350(a) and (b)), the undersigned hereby certifies inhis capacity as an officer of Metaldyne Corporation (the “Company”) that theQuarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 2,2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in suchreport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company at the end of and for the periods coveredby such Report.

| Date: November 16, 2005 | /s/ JEFFREY M. STAFEIL                                  |
|------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------|
|                         | Jeffrey M.  Stafeil                                     |
|                         | *Executive  Vice President and Chief Financial Officer* |
|                         | *(Chief  Accounting Officer and Authorized Signatory)*  |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7254

ABRON INGRAM, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia

Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.

(CA-97-237)

Submitted: July 22, 1998 Decided: July 31, 1998

Before ERVIN, MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Abron Ingram, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Kimberley Ann Whittle, John

Kenneth Byrum, Jr., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA,

Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court’s order denying relief on

his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.

1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning of the

district court. Ingram v. Angelone, No. CA-97-237 (E.D. Va. Aug. 7,

1997). In addition, we decline to address claims raised for the

first time on appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
Order entered January 3 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** No. 05 - 13 - 00958 - CV LAKEITH AMIR - SHARIF, Appellant V. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY & PROTECTIVE SERVICES, Appellee On Appeal from the 255th Judicial District Cour t Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF - 09 - 7655 

### O RDER We DENY appellant’s January 2, 2014 motion requesting the Court to take judicial notice. Pursuant to this Court ’s order dated December 13, 2013, a ppellant shall file his brief on or before J ANUARY 31, 2014 . We caution appellant that if he fails to file a brief on or before JANUARY 31, 2014 , the appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution without further notice

. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 38.8(a)(1).

/s/ DAVID LEWIS JUSTICE
#### STATE v. AARON SHARPE and BERRY RICHARDSON.

(Filed 10 September, 1930.)

MotioN by State to docket and dismiss appeal.

*Attorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the State.*

Pee Cueiam.

This is a companion case to *State v. Bynum et al., ante,*376, and what is said in that case applies equally to the instant one, the facts being substantially the same.

Appeal dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           1,306
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   30,793
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     45,845
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                80,576
<PP&E>                                          25,093
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 123,826
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           43,713
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           105
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   123,826
<SALES>                                        113,754
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                           64,369
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                44,070
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,671
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,315
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,648
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,667
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,667
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-60630

Summary Calendar

DAVID AZURDIA-PINEDA,

Petitioner

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A029 947 931

Before WIENER, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

David Azurdia-Pineda (Azurdia), a native and citizen of Guatemala, has

filed a petition for review of a June 13, 2012, denial by the Board of Immigration

Appeals (BIA) of his motion to reopen deportation proceedings. Azurdia, who is

subject to an August 1991 deportation order that was issued after an in absentia

removal hearing, argues that the record establishes that he did not receive

proper notice of his removal hearing. He further argues that the BIA applied the

incorrect legal standard by requiring that he show exceptional circumstances

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 17, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 12-60630 Document: 00512276563 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/17/2013
No. 12-60630

that justified his absence from the hearing, as the law at the time of the removal

hearing merely required that he show reasonable cause for failure to attend.

The issues that Azurdia presents to this court were adjudicated by the BIA

in two orders that were issued in 2008 in connection with a prior motion to

reopen filed by Azurdia. The issues were not re-examined by the BIA in the

June 13, 2012, decision. Azurdia did not file a petition for review of the BIA’s

2008 decisions, and the instant petition for review is not timely filed with respect

to those decisions. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1). This court therefore lacks

jurisdiction over those decisions. See Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405-06 (1995).

Although Azurdia’s petition for review is timely with respect to the BIA’s June

13, 2012, decision, he does not address the BIA’s rationale for denying relief and

therefore he has abandoned any such challenge. See United States v. Scroggins,

599 F.3d 433, 446-47 (5th Cir. 2010); Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th

Cir. 2003).

The petition for review is DENIED.

2

 Case: 12-60630 Document: 00512276563 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/17/2013
Order entered June 12, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 12
- 01583
- CV EDWARD C. NEWBERRY, Appellant
V. CLAUDIA J. NEWBERRY, Appellee On Appeal from the 397th Judicial District Court Grayson County, Texas Trial Co urt Cause No. 06
- 0752 

### O RDER By letter dated December 28, 2012, we directed appellant to file a letter brief addressing our jurisdiction over the appeal as the notice of appeal appeared untimely. In response, appellant informed the Court that the parties had settled their differences and moved to abate the appeal to allow the trial court to effectuate the settlement agreement. We granted the motion and, by order entered January 10, 2013, abated th e appeal

. We stated in our order that the appeal would be reinstated in forty

- five days or when the Court received a motion to dismiss confirming the trial court had effectuated the parties’ agreement, whichever occurred first. The forty

- five days have lapsed and no motion to dismiss has been filed. Accordingl y, we REINSTATE the appeal.
Because o ur abatement order suspended the time for appellant to file his jurisdictional letter brief , we reset the deadline and ORDER appellant to file the letter brief within ten days of thedate of this order. A ny response b y a ppellee shall be file d within fifteen days of the date of this order. A ppellant is cautioned that failure to comply may result in dismissal of the appeal without further notice.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE
**Exhibit 15.1**

**[KPMG Letterhead]**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

To the Board of Directors 

3SBio Inc.: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No: 333-149816) on Form S-8 of 3SBio Inc. of our report dated June 27, 2008,with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of 3SBio Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2006 and 2007, and the related consolidated statements of income and comprehensive income, shareholders’ equity and cash flows for each ofthe years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2007, which report appears in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of 3SBio Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2007. 

/S/ KPMG 

KPMG 

Hong Kong,China 

June 27, 2008
#### John McAvoy v. The County of Kings and the County of Queens.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Dykman, J.:

The counsel for the respective parties to this action have stipulated that the issues involved in the appeal in this action are identical with the issues involved in the case of *Ahern*v. *The Counties of Kings & Queens*(ante, page 148) and requested the General Term to dispose of the appeal in this action in the same way as it may dispose of the appeal in the case of Ahern. As the judgment in the action of Ahern has been affirmed at this term, so the judgment in this action of McAvoy must he affirmed according to the stipulation, with costs.

Brown, P. J., and Pratt, J., concurred.
EXHIBIT 23.2

CONSENT OF WLR CONSULTING, INC.

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of any reserves and other analyses performed by us in our capacity as an independent consultant to Apex Silver
Mines Limited (the "Company"), which are set forth in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007, in the Company's Registration Statements
on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-53185, 333-88562 and 333-117202), Form S-3 (Nos. 333-116469,
333-117205, 333-122037, 333-122285, 333-134912 and 333-138707) and Form S-4 (333-122286) any prospectuses or
amendments or supplements thereto, and in any amendment to any of the foregoing.

|                        |  | WLR CONSULTING, INC.                                    
|----------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------
|Date: February 28, 2008 |  | /s/WILLIAM L. ROSEName: William L. Rose
Title: President

---



QuickLinks