alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Maurice CUNNINGHAM, Appellant.

No. WD 50256.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Jan. 9, 1996.

Rosemary E. Percival, Asst. Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

*149Philip M. Koppe, Asst. Attorney General, Kansas City, for Respondent.

Before FENNER, C.J., P.J., and SPINDEN and SMITH, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from conviction, after jury trial, of one count of possession of controlled substance, § 195.202, RSMo 1994.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 80.25(b).
#### KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION, Complainant, v. F. Dennis ALERDING, Respondent.

No. 95-SC-1049-KB.

Supreme Court of Kentucky.

Sept. 26, 1996.

As Corrected Sept. 27, 1996.

*191
      *ORDER*

This cause came before the Court for review wherein the Board of Governors of the Kentucky Bar Association adjudged the Respondent, F. Dennis Alerding, guilty of professional misconduct or dishonesty/misrepresentation by affixing a false notary certificate to a document, being in violation of SCR 3.130-8.3(e). As punishment, a majority of the Board of Governors voted for a public reprimand.

Respondent represented Robert Skinner in criminal proceedings before the Campbell District Court. Mr. Skinner was released from custody on April 29,1993 after his wife, Dana Skinner, acting as his surety, posted a cash bond in the amount of $2,000.00. Respondent asserts that he agreed to accept an assignment of the bond as a fee, or a portion of his fee.

The notary’s certificate affixed to the bond assignment document recites that the surety, Dana Skinner, subscribed and swore to the assignment in Respondent’s presence on May 13, 1993. The expiration date of the notary’s certificate indicates that the commission had expired in 1987.

Respondent admits that he did not observe Dana Skinner or anyone else sign the document, however Respondent states Robert Skinner presented him the bond assignment representing it had been signed by Dana Skinner. Dana Skinner denies that the signature is hers. Respondent also admits that his notary commission had expired and that he was not a duly commissioned Notary Public at the time he executed the false notary’s certificate.

Upon review of the charge and answer, the Chair of the Inquiry Tribunal deemed the charge admitted, and determined that no evi-dentiary hearing before a Trial Commissioner was needed. Pursuant to SCR 3.210, this matter was presented to the Board of Governors accompanied by a brief filed by the Kentucky Bar Association. No brief was filed on behalf of Respondent although earlier he had responded by letter. The Board determined that Respondent had engaged in professional misconduct involving fraud, deceit and misrepresentation and recommended that he be publicly reprimanded.

Having reviewed the Board’s decision and considered the entire record, it is, therefore, the decision of this Court to adopt the Board’s recommendation, pursuant to SCR 3.380. The respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded and ordered to pay the costs of this action in the amount of $135.32, pursuant to SCR 3.450.

STEPHENS, C.J., BAKER, GRAVES, LAMBERT, and STUMBO, JJ., concur.

KING, J., would impose a 30-day suspension.

WINTERSHEIMER, J., not sitting.

ENTERED: September 26,1996.

/s/ Robert F. Stephens CHIEF JUSTICE
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Robert MOSES, Appellant. Robert MOSES, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. 63714, 66280.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

March 14, 1995.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Fernando Bermudez, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Gary E. Brotherton, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Before SMITH, P.J., and PUDLOWSKI and WHITE, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals the judgment entered on his convictions by a jury of first degree assault, second degree assault, first degree trespass and two counts of armed criminal action. Defendant was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment of twenty-nine years for the first degree assault and armed criminal action convictions, seven years for the second degree assault conviction and six months for the trespass conviction. Defendant also appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 *263motion after an evidentiary hearing. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. The judgments are affirmed in accordance with Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-K
FOR YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           1,104
<SECURITIES>                                     5,843
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,120
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                12,031
<PP&E>                                           2,906
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  18,367
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,800
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             9
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,433
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    18,367
<SALES>                                          9,834
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                23,222
<CGS>                                            4,883
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,688
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                19,718
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,837
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 156
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (10,115)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (1,055)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (9,060)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (9,060)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (1.81)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.81)


</TABLE>
#### WEST COUNTY BUTCHER SHOP, INC., Appellant, v. Helen M. DEUTSCHMAN, Respondent.

No. 69099.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.

May 21, 1996.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied June 26, 1996.

Application to Transfer Denied Aug. 20, 1996.

James J. Sauter, Deeba, Sauter, Herd, St. Louis, for appellant.

Paul F. Streiff, Coburn & Croft, Chesterfield, for respondent.

Before GERARLD M. SMITH, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and RHODES RUSSELL, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, West County Butcher Shop, Inc., appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of the County of St. Louis dismissing its petition against respondent, Helen M. *117Deutschman, on its claims of promissory es-toppel and fraudulent misrepresentation. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and legal file and find the judgment is supported by the evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence, and no error of law appears. As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the circuit court’s judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). A memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision is provided solely for the use of the parties involved.
Exhibit
32.1




CERTIFICATION




OF




CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER




AND




CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER




PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




I,
Richard Man Fai LEE, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q/A of China Premium Lifestyle Enterprise, Inc. for the quarter ended
September 30, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of China Premium Lifestyle
Enterprise, Inc.




I, Joseph
Tik Tung WONG, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q/A of China Premium Lifestyle Enterprise, Inc. for the quarter ended
September 30, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of China Premium Lifestyle
Enterprise, Inc.




May
      28, 2010
                                    By:
                                    /s/ Richard Man Fai LEERichard
      Man Fai LEEChief
      Executive OfficerMay
      28, 2010
                                    By:
                                    /s/ Joseph Tik Tung WONGJoseph
      Tik Tung WONGChief
      Financial Officer, Treasurer and
  Secretary




This
certification accompanies the Form 10-Q/A 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 China Premium Lifestyle Enterprise,
Inc. 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 the
Form 10-Q/A), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained
in such filing.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,500
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                22,500
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,222,500
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,500
<BONDS>                                      1,200,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,222,500
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             135,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
NOTE: 

### This orderis nonprecedential. 

# Wniteb**~tate~** 

# ([ourtof**~peaI~** 

# fortbejfeberaI([ircuit

GREEN EDGE ENTERPRISES, LLC, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Appellant, 

### v. RUBBER MULCH ETC., LLC, GROUNDSCAPE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, AND 

### RUBBER RESOURCES, LTD., LLP, Defendants/ Counterclaimants, 

### v. INTERNATIONAL MULCH COMPANY AND 

### MICHAEL MILLER,

Counterclaim DefendantsAppellees, 

### v. JUDY SMITH, Counterclaim Defendant, AND 

### LEE GREENBERG, Counterclaim Defendant. 2012-1539 Case: 12-1539 Document: 21 Page: 1 Filed: 01/10/2013GREENEDGE ENTERPRISES V. RUBBERMULCH ETC. 2 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri in case no. 02-CV-0566, Magistrate Judge Terry 1. Adelman. 

### ORDER On September 14, 2012, the court ordered Green Edge Enterprises, LLC (Green Edge) to find substitute counselto enter an appearance within 60 days. Counsel for Green Edge timely entered an appearance but then withdrew its representation due to a conflict ofinterest. Green Edge has failed to comply with this order. Federal Circuit Rule 47.3(a) allows an individual to represent himself or herself, but prohibits a corporation, partnership, organization, or other legal entity from doing so. 

### See also Int'l Inst. for Fundamental Studies, Inc. v. United States, 222 Ct. Cl. 626, 630-31 (1980). Upon consideration thereof, IT Is ORDERED THAT: (1) The appeal is dismissed. (2) All pending motions are denied as moot. (3) Each side shall bear its own costs. FOR THE COURT /s/Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk Case: 12-1539 Document: 21 Page: 2 Filed: 01/10/20133 GREENEDGE ENTERPRISES V. RUBBERMULCH ETC. s26 IssuedAs A Mandate:

__ 

### J_A_N_1_8_2_0_13

_ Case: 12-1539 Document: 21 Page: 3 Filed: 01/10/2013
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 62 (Friday, March 31, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 16664]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7924]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION


Notice of Intent To Engage in Compensated Intercorporate Hauling 
Operations

    This is to provide notice as required by 49 U.S.C. 10524(b)(1) that 
the named corporations intend to provide or use compensated 
intercorporate hauling operations as authorized in 49 U.S.C. 10524(b).
    A. 1. Parent corporation and address of principal office: 
Fieldcrest Cannon, Inc., 326 East Stadium Drive, Eden, North Carolina 
27288.
    2. Wholly-owned subsidiaries which will participate in the 
operations, and State of incorporation: Fieldcrest Cannon 
Transportation, Inc., A Delaware Corporation.
    B. 1. Parent corporation and address of principal office: Titan 
Wheel International, Inc., 2701 Spruce Street, Quincy, IL 62301.
    2. Wholly owned subsidiaries which will participate in the 
operations, and State(s) of incorporation:

Titan Wheel International, (State of Incorporation: Illinois).
Titan Tire Corporation, (State of Incorporation: Iowa).
Titan Wheel Walcott, (State of Incorporation: Iowa).
Titan Wheel Greenwood, (State of Incorporation: South Carolina).
Dico, Inc., (State of Incorporation: Iowa)
Dico, Inc., (State of Incorporation: Wisconsin)
Dico, Inc., (State of Incorporation: Georgia)
Dico, Inc., (State of Incorporation: Georgia)
Dico, Inc., (State of Incorporation: California)
Dico, Inc., (State of Incorporation: Texas)
Dico, Inc., (State of Incorporation: Florida)
Dico Tire, (State of Incorporation: Tennessee)
Nieman's, Ltd., (State of Incorporation: Iowa)
Nieman's of Elkhart, (State of Incorporation: Indiana)
Nieman's of Idaho, (State of Incorporation: Idaho)
TD Wheel Company, (State of Incorporation: Virginia)
Desert Wheel Corporation, (State of Incorporation: Nevada)
Tractech, (State of Incorporation: Michigan)
Automation International, (State of Incorporation: Illinois)
Automotive Wheels, (State of Incorporation: California)
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-7924 Filed 3-30-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7035-01-M
Exhibit 13.1

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 on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended November 30, 2006 of Acergy S.A. (the Company) as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the Commission) on the date
hereof (the Report) and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Tom Ehret, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, 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.



|                     |  |                        
|-------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: April 18, 2007 |  | /s/ TOM EHRET          
|                     |  | Tom Ehret              
|                     |  | Chief Executive Officer
#### Julie A. FRANKLIN, Appellant, v. William BLAKE, Respondent.

No. 68437.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

April 30, 1996.

David L. Campbell, St. Louis, for appellant.

Theodore D. Agniel, Clayton, for respondent.

Before CRAHAN, P.J., and CRANDALL and DOWD, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff Julie A Franklin appeals from the order of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County entering summary judgment in favor of defendant William Blake on plaintiffs action against defendant for personal injuries arising out of a motor vehicle accident. The trial court concluded that plaintiff had previously signed a valid release which acted as a complete bar to this action. We agree.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find no error of law. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

The foregoing certifications are being furnished solely to accompany the Report
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and are not being filed for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and are not to be
incorporated by reference Into any filing of the Company, whether made before or
after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such
filing.

     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officers of Peerless Systems
Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify, to each
such officer's knowledge, that:

(i)   the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the quarter
      and year ended January 31, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(ii)  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.

Dated: April 30, 2004                /S/ HOWARD J. NELLOR
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     Howard J. Nellor
                                     President and Chief Executive Officer
                                     (Principal Executive Officer)

Dated:  April 30, 2004               /S/ WILLIAM R. NEIL
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     William R. Neil
                                     Chief Financial Officer
                                     (Principal Financial Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Peerless Systems Corporation and will be retained by Peerless
Systems Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
Exhibit
32





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I,
Gregory Lykiardopoulos, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report of Triton Distribution Systems, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter
ended September 30, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained
in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects
the financial condition and results of operations of Triton Distribution
Systems, Inc.









Date:
      November 14, 2008
            By:/s/ Gregory
      LykiardopoulosGregory
      LykiardopoulosChief Executive
      Officer








I,
Michael W. Overby, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report of Triton Distribution Systems, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter
ended September 30, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained
in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects
the financial condition and results of operations of Triton Distribution
Systems, Inc.








Date:
      November 14, 2008
            By:/s/ Michael W.
      OverbyMichael
      W. OverbyChief Financial
      Officer
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 9 (Friday, January 13, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3206-3207]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-863]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP95-120-000]


NorAm Gas Transmission Co.; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

January 9, 1995.
    Take notice that on January 3, 1995, NorAm Gas Transmission Company 
(NGT) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, fourth 
Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff sheets with an 
effective date of February 1, 1995:

1st Revised Original Sheet No. 230 [[Page 3207]] 
Original Sheet No. 230A
1st Revised Original Sheet No. 231
Original Sheet No. 231A
1st Rev Original Sheet No. 232
Original Sheet No. 232A

    NGT states that these revised tariff sheets modify the curtailment 
provisions (Section 10.8 of the General Terms and Conditions) to comply 
with the provisions of the settlement in NGT's Docket No. RP93-3-000 
proceeding which required NGT to make a limited Section 4 filing to 
implement tariff provisions providing for compensation to those persons 
that experienced a gas supply curtailment.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426, in accordance with Rules 214 and 211 of the Commission's Rules 
of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 and 385.211). All such 
motions or protests should be filed on or before January 17, 1995. 
Protest will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-863 Filed 1-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01