alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 4:17-cv-00526-JAS-BPV Document 14 Filed 06/04/18 Page 1 of 8
Case 4:17-cv-00526-JAS-BPV Document 14 Filed 06/04/18 Page 2 of 8
Case 4:17-cv-00526-JAS-BPV Document 14 Filed 06/04/18 Page 3 of 8
Case 4:17-cv-00526-JAS-BPV Document 14 Filed 06/04/18 Page 4 of 8
Case 4:17-cv-00526-JAS-BPV Document 14 Filed 06/04/18 Page 5 of 8
Case 4:17-cv-00526-JAS-BPV Document 14 Filed 06/04/18 Page 6 of 8
Case 4:17-cv-00526-JAS-BPV Document 14 Filed 06/04/18 Page 7 of 8
Case 4:17-cv-00526-JAS-BPV Document 14 Filed 06/04/18 Page 8 of 8
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATION BY ACTING CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**I, Randy L. Elkins, certify that:1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of BPI Energy Holdings,Inc. (the “registrant”); 2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, includingits consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end ofthe period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably 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 orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.     Date: December 15, 2006         /s/ Randy L. Elkins   By:  Randy L. Elkins   Title: Controller and Acting Chief Financial Officer
|   |         |   |   |   |   |                                                 |
|--------|--------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------|
| Dated: | May 10, 2011 | By:    | /s/    |   |   | ROBERT E. SWANSON                                    |
|   |         |   | Name:  |   |   | Robert E. Swanson                                    |
|   |         |   | Title: |   |   | Chief Executive Officer                              |
|   |         |   |   |   |   | (Principal Executive Officer)                        |
|   |         |   |   |   |   |                                                 |
|   |         |   |   |   |   |                                                 |
| Dated: | May 10, 2011 | By:    | /s/    |   |   | KATHLEEN P. MCSHERRY                                 |
|   |         |   | Name:  |   |   | Kathleen P. McSherry                                 |
|   |         |   | Title: |   |   | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|   |         |   |   |   |   | (Principal Financial Officer)                        |
|   |         |   |   |   |   |                                                 |
|   |         |   |   |   |   |                                                 |

----
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1



                          CERTIFICATION OF 10-K REPORT
                                       OF
                           CROWN MEDIA HOLDINGS, INC.

                      FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2002



1.       The undersigned are the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial
         Officer of Crown Media Holdings, Inc. ("Crown Media Holdings"). This
         Certification is made pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
         of 2002. This Certification accompanies the 10-K Report of Crown Media
         Holdings for the year ended December 31, 2002.

2.       We certify that such 10-K Report fully complies with the requirements
         of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
         that the information contained in such 10-K Report fairly presents, in
         all material respects, the financial condition and results of
         operations of Crown Media Holdings.


This Certification is executed as of March 28, 2003.



                            /s/  DAVID J. EVANS
                            ----------------------------------------------------
                            David J. Evans, President and
                            Chief Executive Officer


                            /s/  WILLIAM J. ALIBER
                            ----------------------------------------------------
                            William J. Aliber, Executive Vice President
                            and Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Crown Media Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by Crown Media
Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
#### FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF BEEVILLE, Jack Chesnut and Bevans Welder, Petitioners, v. Felix FOJTIK and Cecelia Fojtik, Individually and d/b/a Fojtik Auction & Equipment Company, Fojtik Farms, Fojtik Ranch Company, Respondents.

No. C-7833.

Supreme Court of Texas.

June 28, 1989.

On Rehearing Sept. 13, 1989.

*633Tamara Tejml Cuthrell, Frank E. Weathered, Corpus Christi, Marion E. Williams, Jr., Beeville, Ronald B. Brin, Corpus Christi, for petitioners.

James H. Robichaux, Corpus Christi, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

Felix and Cecelia Fojtik brought suit against First National Bank of Beeville and two of its directors, Bevans Welder and Jack Chesnut, for breach of contract, conversion, tortious interference, fraud, conspiracy and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices — Consumer Protection Act (DTPA), Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. §§ 17.41 — .63 (Vernon 1987). The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Fojtiks against First National Bank for breach of contract, violations of the DTPA and fraud, but not for tortious interference or conversion. The jury, however, answered all damage issues with findings of zero damages. We agree with the court of appeals that this cause should be reversed and remanded for a new trial. 752 S.W.2d 669 (1988).

In the trial court, Fojtik filed a motion for judgment which stated:

> While Plaintiffs disagree with the findings of the jury and feel there is a fatal defect which will support a new trial, in the event the Court is not inclined to grant a new trial prior to the entry of judgment, Plaintiffs pray the Court enter the following judgment. Plaintiffs agree only as to the form of the judgment but disagree and should not be construed as concurring with the content and result.

In the court of appeals, Fojtik asserted that the jury’s findings of zero damages were against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence and fatally conflicted with the findings on liability and causation. We do not agree with the portion of the opinion of that court which states that Fojtik may not complain that the evidence fails to support the jury’s findings on damages. There must be a method by which a party who desires to initiate the appellate process may move the trial court to render judgment without being bound by its terms. Fojtik’s reservation of the right to complain in the instant case was an appropriate exercise of such a right and is distinguishable from the attempted reservation in *Litton Industrial Products, Inc. v. Gammage,*668 S.W.2d 319, 322 (Tex.1984). The application for writ of error is denied.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 November 1, 2017

a1025

Order 

Clerk

November 1, 2017

154128

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 154128

COA: 311625

Wayne CC: 99-005393-FC

JUSTLY ERNEST JOHNSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 31, 2016 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall 

address: (1) whether the trial court abused its discretion by declining to grant a new trial 

on grounds of newly discovered evidence, in light of the testimony of Charmous Skinner, 

Jr., at the post-conviction evidentiary hearing; (2) whether, even if the defendant’s 

previous claims of new evidence are barred under MCR 6.508(D)(2), the evidence on 

which those claims were based must still be considered in determining if the new 

evidence from Charmous Skinner, Jr., makes a different result probable on retrial, see 

People v Cress, 468 Mich 678, 692 (2003); and (3) whether trial counsel rendered 

constitutionally ineffective assistance by failing to interview Charmous Skinner, Jr., or 

call him as a witness at trial. 

We further ORDER that this case be argued and submitted to the Court together 

with the case of People v Scott (Docket No. 154130), at such future session of the Court 

as both cases are ready for submission. The time allowed for oral argument shall be 20 

minutes for each side. MCR 7.314(B)(1). 

MCCORMACK, J., not participating because of her prior involvement in this case as 

counsel for a party.

WILDER, J., not participating because he was on the Court of Appeals panel that 

decided the defendant’s motion for peremptory reversal.
#### David BANDELIER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, DEPT. OF SOCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT, Respondent.

No. WD 50646.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Feb. 20, 1996.

David Bandelier, Kansas City, pro se.

Todd D. Barr, Mo. Dept, of Social Services, Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before FENNER, C.J., P.J., and LOWENSTEIN and SHANGLER, JJ.

ORDER

A father appeals from a decision declaring the child in his custody emancipated under § 452.340.5, RSMo. (1994), and relieving the *418mother of further support. Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

JASON O'SHEA YOUNG, 

Appellant, 

v. Case No. 5D22-2241

LT Case No. 2016-CF-255-A

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee. 

________________________________/ 

Decision filed December 27, 2022

3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court

for Marion County, 

Robert W. Hodges, Judge.

Jason O'Shea Young, Mayo, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

EVANDER, WALLIS and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic 

and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of 

any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go 

to press. 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 24-BG-0353

IN RE JOSHUA N. DEBOLD, 

DDN: 2024-D032

A Member of the Bar of the 

District of Columbia Court of Appeals 

Bar Registration No. 989159

BEFORE: Beckwith and Easterly, Associate Judges, and Washington, Senior Judge. 

O R D E R

(FILED— June 20, 2024)

On consideration of the certified order from the Commonwealth of Virginia

revoking respondent’s license to practice law; this court’s May 3, 2024, order 

suspending respondent pending final disposition of this proceeding and directing 

him to show cause why disbarment should not be imposed as reciprocal discipline; 

and the statement of Disciplinary Counsel; and it appearing that respondent has not 

filed a response or his D.C. Bar R. XI § 14(g) affidavit, it is

ORDERED that Joshua N. Debold is hereby disbarred from the practice of 

law in the District of Columbia. See In re Sibley, 990 A.2d 483, 487-88 (D.C. 2010) 

(explaining that there is a rebuttable presumption in favor of imposition of identical 

discipline and exceptions to this presumption should be rare); In re Fuller, 930 A.2d 

194, 198 (D.C. 2007) (stating that the rebuttable presumption of identical reciprocal 

discipline applies to all cases in which the respondent does not participate); see also

In re Laibstain, 841 A.2d 1259, 1263 (D.C. 2004) (explaining that the equivalent 

sanction for revocation in the District is disbarment). It is
No. 24-BG-0354

FURTHER ORDERED that, for purposes of reinstatement, respondent’s 

disbarment will not begin to run until such time as he files an affidavit that fully 

complies with the requirements of D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g).

PER CURIAM
#### David PERO, Appellant, v. Ann Marie CLARK & St. Louis Board of Police Comm., Respondents.

No. 68961.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

Oct. 8, 1996.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Oct. 28, 1996.

James M. Martin, Martin & Malee, St. Louis, for appellant.

Harold L. Whitfield, Whitfield & Montgomery, L.L.C., St. Louis, for respondents.

Before RUSSELL, P.J., and SIMON and KAROHL, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

David A. Pero (Pero) appeals his termination as a police officer by the St. Louis Metropolitan Board of Police Commissioners (Board) which was affirmed by the circuit court.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. A memorandum, solely for the use of the parties involved, has been provided explaining the reason for our holding.
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: April 30, 2015 519383 

________________________________

In the Matter of LARRY GROSS, 

Petitioner, 

v

ALBERT PRACK, as Director of MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

Special Housing and Inmate 

Disciplinary Programs, 

Respondent.

________________________________

Calendar Date: February 24, 2015

Before: Peters, P.J., Lahtinen, Garry and Egan Jr., JJ.

__________

Larry Gross, Marcy, petitioner pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H.

Schiff of counsel), for respondent.

__________

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this

Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to

review a determination of the Commissioner of Corrections and

Community Supervision which found petitioner guilty of violating

certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with lewd

behavior, stalking and refusing a direct order stemming from an

incident involving a librarian at the correctional facility. 

Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found

guilty of lewd behavior and refusing a direct order. Upon

administrative review, the determination was modified to the

extent that the penalty was reduced. This CPLR article 78

proceeding ensued.
-2- 519383 

We agree with petitioner that his conditional right to call

witnesses was violated at the hearing. Although petitioner

requested that his employee assistant interview three inmate

witnesses who worked in the library, the record reflects no

effort by the employee assistant to interview the potential

witnesses or to report the results of those efforts to

petitioner. When this issue was raised at the hearing and

petitioner inquired about those witnesses, the Hearing Officer

adjourned the hearing in order for the employee assistant to

ascertain the witnesses' willingness to testify. Thereafter, the

Hearing Officer denied the requested witnesses based upon the

employee assistant's report that all three witnesses refused to

testify. No inquiry was made by the Hearing Officer as to the

reasons for those witnesses' refusal, no witness refusal forms

were provided, and petitioner's employee assistant was not called

to testify regarding the circumstances as to why the witnesses

refused to testify. Accordingly, the Hearing Officer deprived

petitioner of his right to call witnesses and the matter must be

expunged (see Matter of Samuels v Fischer, 98 AD3d 776, 777

[2012]; Matter of Crosby v Selsky, 24 AD3d 990, 991 [2005]; see

also Matter of Canty v Fischer, 107 AD3d 1194, 1195 [2013]). In

light of the foregoing, petitioner's remaining contentions need

not be addressed.

Peters, P.J., Lahtinen, Garry and Egan Jr., JJ., concur.

ADJUDGED that the determination is annulled, without costs,

petition granted and the Commissioner of Corrections and

Community Supervision is directed to expunge all references to

this matter from petitioner's institutional record and restore

any loss of good time. 

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Timothy Chappelle, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward McLaughlin, J.), rendered April 20, 1988, which convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of violation of probation under indictment No. 1201/87 and sentenced him to a prison term of *3 Vs*to 10 years; and judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Brenda Soloff, J.), rendered June 30, 1988, which convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted assault in the second degree and assault in the third degree and sentenced him to a prison term of *IV2*to 3 years and a conditional discharge, respectively, both unanimously affirmed.

We are unpersuaded that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh or severe. Taking into account, "among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction”, we perceive no abuse of discretion warranting a reduction in sentence. *(People v Farrar,*52 NY2d 302, 305.)

Further, defendant was sentenced in accordance with his plea bargain and within statutory guidelines. "Having received the benefit of his bargain, defendant should be bound by its terms.” *(People v Felman,*141 AD2d 889, 890, *Iv denied*72 NY2d. 918.) Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Milonas and Ellerin, JJ.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

October 7, 2019

No. 04

- 19

- 00232

- CR

Abrosia LERMA Jr.

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 198th Judicial Distri ct Court, Kerr County, Texas

Trial Court No. B17137

Honorable Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appellant’s court

- appointed attorney has filed brief s pursuant to Anders v. California

, 368 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal.

Counsel has informed the appellant of h is right to file h is own brief s and provided appellant with

a form motion for requesting the appellate record. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 319

- 20

(Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Nichols v. State , 954 S.W.2d 83, 85 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1997, no

pet.); Bruns v. State , 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1996, no pet.). The

State has filed letter s

, asserting that it takes no position on whether the appeal s are frivolous.

If the appellant desires to file pro se brief s in these appeals , he must do so within twenty

days from the date of this order. See Bruns , 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1. If the appellant files pro se

brief s , the State may file responsive brief s no later than twenty days after the date appellant’s pro

se brief s are filed in this court. We ORDER the motion s to withdraw, filed by appellant’s

counsel in these appeals , to be HELD IN ABEYANCE pending further order of the court.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Ma rtinez, JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 7th day of October, 2019

.

___________________________________ Luz Estrada

, Chief Deputy Clerk
|   | (i) | the      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June      30, 2010 (the “Quarterly Report”) fully complies with the requirements of      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, (15 U.S.C.      78m or 78o(d)); and |
|--------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| Date:      July 20, 2010 | By:    | /s/ Ronny Yakov                                   |
|--------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------|
|                | Name:  | Ronny      Yakov                                  |
|                     | Title: | President      and Interim Chief FinancialOfficer |

----
**CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION**

 

**OF**

 

**CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION**

 

**OF**

 

**ART WORLD INDUSTRIES, INC.**

 

 

Pursuant to Section 103 (f) of Title 8 of the 

 

Delaware Code of 1953, as Amended

 

The undersigned, being the sole incorporator of ART WORLD INDUSTRIES, INC. a corporation organized and existing under and by			virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware,

 

DOES HEREBY CERTIFY:

 

First:  That Article Fourth of the Certificate of  incorporation was set forth incorrectly.  In order to correct Article Fourth it should read in its entirety  as follows:  

 

Fourth:  the total number of shares which the corporation is authorized to issue is Fifty Million (50,000,000) Common shares, each of which are to be $.001 par value.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our respective Seals this 15th day of  May, 1986.

 

 

|   | /s/ Jody V. Crowley                           |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Sole                                                                                                                                                                            |  
 

Jody V. Crowley, Incorporator

  |