alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Frieda S. BISHOP, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Bernie E. BISHOP, Defendant/Appellant.

Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Middle Section, at Nashville.

Sept. 25, 1996.

Permission to Appeal Denied by Supreme Court Feb. 3, 1997.

*110Terry B. Larkin, Dickson, for defendant/appellant.

W. Allen Barrett, Nashville, for plaintiff/appellee.

*OPINION*

CANTRELL, Judge.

In this divorce case, the husband appeals the trial judge’s award of $50,000 to the wife as a division of the marital property. The husband asserts that the award was based on an alleged increase in the value of his separate property but that the proof shows that the value of his separate property decreased during the marriage. Unfortunately, we are unable to reach this issue because the husband failed to file a transcript of the evidence. Therefore, we affirm the judgment below.

I.

The trial judge found as a fact that:

> “The separate property owned by the defendant prior to the parties’ marriage has increased in value, as evidenced by the balance sheets introduced by the defendant into evidence, and the increase in value constitutes marital property subject to an equitable division by the Court.”

Based on that finding the judge awarded a judgment against the husband for $50,000, which represented “an equitable division of the marital estate.”

II.

The husband asserts that the balance sheets and tax returns in the record refute the judge’s findings. Found in the record are certain documents, marked as exhibits, with the date and time for filing noted by the clerk and master. The date corresponds to the date of the trial, but the appellant did not file a transcript of the evidence and the documents are not authenticated by the trial judge. Since the appellant made no effort to comply with Rule 24, Tenn.RApp.Proc., the automatic authentication provided in Rule 24(f) does not apply. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the documents cannot be considered.

Without any evidentiary record there is no way to determine if the evidence preponderates against the chancellor’s findings of fact. *See*Rule 13(d), Tenn.RApp.Proc. Instead, we are required to presume that the evidence, if it had been preserved, would support the chancellor’s factual findings. *Sherrod v. Wix,*849 S.W.2d 780 (Tenn.App.1992).

Even if the documents in the record could be considered, we would still have to apply the same presumption. A partial evidentiary record would not exclude the possibility that other evidence tilted the balance in favor of the chancellor’s findings.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed and the cause is remanded to the Chancery Court of Dickson County for any further proceedings necessary. Tax the costs on appeal to the appellant.

TODD, P.J. (M.S.), and LEWIS, J., concur.
Case 4:18-cr-00167-CKJ-BGM Document 2 Filed 02/05/18 Page 1 of 2
Case 4:18-cr-00167-CKJ-BGM Document 2 Filed 02/05/18 Page 2 of 2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0415

IN THE MATTER OF: 

P.P.,

A Youth in Need of Care.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the Department’s Unopposed Motion to Supplement 

the Record on Appeal, and good cause appearing therefor, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is granted and the record on 

appeal shall be supplemented with State v. Proctor, First Judicial District Court 

Cause No. CDC 2022-30, that has already been filed with the Court in State v. 

Proctor, DA 23-0409. 

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 15 2023

12/15/2023
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 quarterly report of Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Graham K. Cooper, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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: August 8, 2008



/s/ Graham K. CooperGraham K. CooperChief Financial Officer and Treasurer


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not
being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
EXHIBIT 4.1

                            CORONADO INDUSTRIES, INC.
                      16929 E. Enterprise Drive, Suite 202
                            Fountain Hills, AZ 85268


                                November 22, 2000


Coronado Employees and Consultants,

     The  Company's  Board of  Directors  has decided to make  available  to all
employees and consultants,  shares of the Company's common stock at the price of
90% of the lowest  closing  bid price  during  the week prior to the  employee's
payday.

     To participate  in this program,  all you have to do is execute this letter
in the space below,  and indicate the amount of wages you wish to have allocated
to this Plan and the pay period from which your salary  will be  credited.  Your
free-trading shares will be delivered to you within a few days.

                               Coronado Industries, Inc.



                               By: /s/ Gary R. Smith
                                  ------------------------
                                  Gary R. Smith, President





          ---------------------            ---------------------
          Amount of Wages                  Employee Signature


          ---------------------            ---------------------
          Pay Period From                  Name of Employee
          Which To Be Paid                 (Please Print)
#### Dennis FRANKLIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 49445.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

March 7, 1995.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied May 2, 1995.

Application to Transfer Denied June 20, 1995.

Craig A. Johnston, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Philip M. Koppe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kansas City, for respondent.

Before KENNEDY, P.J., and LOWENSTEIN and HANNA, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Appeal from the dismissal of a Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief for untimely filing.

Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Bruce GILES, Appellant. Bruce GILES, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. 66839, 68680.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Seven.

July 16, 1996.

*228Deborah B. Wafer, Dist. Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Joanne E. Joiner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

KAROHL, Judge.

These appeals involve charges of assault first degree, assault second degree, two related charges of armed criminal action and denial of Rule 29.15 relief after an evidentia-ry hearing. The jury found Giles guilty on two counts of assault second degree, two counts armed criminal action and not guilty on two of the six felony charges.

The only issues briefed for decision involve claims of error on direct appeal. Accordingly, the Rule 29.15 appeal has been abandoned.

Giles argues error because the trial court faded to grant two motions to strike venirepersons for cause. Both venirepersons were peremptorily removed and did not serve on the jury. Giles acknowledges § 494.480.4 RSMo 1994 prohibits a new trial on this ground. He argues, however, the statute is unconstitutional because it “would violate his federal and state constitutional rights to equal protection and due process of the laws and his due process right to a fair and impartial jury.” We hold that the statute does prohibit relief and the constitutional challenge is not properly before this court. That challenge was not presented to the trial court either, at the time it overruled the motions to strike for cause, or in Giles’ motion for new trial. *State v. Roberds,*820 S.W.2d 621, 622 (Mo.App. W.D.1991).

Giles’ second and final point is that the court erred in submitting to the jury an instruction on assault second degree on Count I where the charged crime was assault first degree. The jury found Giles guilty of the lesser crime. Giles does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury verdict of guilty of assault second degree. There is no claim the trial court erred in denying a motion for judgment of acquittal on Count I. Giles argues the narrow issue that the submission of the lesser included offense was error because: (1) there was no evidence he acted recklessly; (2) assault in the second degree is not a lesser included offense of the version of assault first degree that was charged; and (3) the instruction was inconsistent with his self-defense instruction.

Giles acknowledges he offered the second degree instruction. He requests plain error review. Giles is not entitled to relief. Generally, a defendant may not obtain a new trial on the basis that the court submits an instruction offered by defendant. *State v. Parker,*886 S.W.2d 908, 928-929 (Mo. banc 1994); *cert. denied*— U.S. —, 115 S.Ct. 1827, 131 L.Ed.2d 748 (1995); *State v. Leisure,*796 S.W.2d 875, 879 (Mo. banc 1990).

We affirm.

RHODES RUSSELL, P.J., and SIMON, J., concur.
#### In Re the Marriage of Cheryl Lynn JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James Larry JOHNSON, Respondent-Respondent.

No. 56974.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Northern Division.

April 10, 1990.

Walter D. McQuie, Jr., Montgomery City, for petitioner-appellant.

Thomas B. Burkemper, Burkemper & Brighoff, Troy, for respondent-respondent.

*865ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Wife, Cheryl Lynn Johnson, appeals from a decree of dissolution of her marriage to husband, James Larry Johnson. On appeal, wife’s sole claim of error is that the trial court erred in dividing the marital property.

The decree of the trial court is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence; no error of law appears. A written opinion would have no precedential value.

The decree is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 110 (Thursday, June 6, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28910-28911]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14255]



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

POSTAL RATE COMMISSION

[Docket No. A96-17]


In the Matter of: Huntley, Nebraska 68951: (J. Donald Schluntz, 
Petitioner); Notice and Order Accepting Appeal and Establishing 
Procedural Schedule Under 39 U.S.C. 404(b)(5)

Issued June 3, 1996.
    Docket Number: A96-17.
    Name of Affected Post Office: Huntley, Nebraska 68951.
    Name(s) of Petitioner(s): J. Donald Schluntz.
    Type of Determination: Closing.
    Date of Filing of Appeal Papers: May 28, 1996.
    Categories of Issues Apparently Raised:
    1. Effect on postal services [39 U.S.C. 404(b)(2)(C)].
    2. Effect on the community [39 U.S.C. 404(b)(2)(A)].
    After the Postal Service files the administrative record and the 
Commission reviews it, the Commission may find that there are more 
legal issues than those set forth above. Or, the Commission may find 
that the Postal Service's determination disposes of one or more of 
those issues.
    The Postal Reorganization Act requires that the Commission issue 
its decision within 120 days from the date this appeal was filed (39 
U.S.C. 404 (b)(5)). In the interest of expedition, in light of the 120-
day decision schedule, the Commission may request the Postal Service to 
submit memoranda of law on any appropriate issue. If requested, such 
memoranda will be due 20 days from the issuance of the request and the 
Postal Service shall serve a copy of its memoranda on the petitioners. 
The Postal Service may incorporate by reference in its briefs or 
motions, any arguments presented in memoranda it previously filed in 
this docket. If necessary, the Commission also may ask petitioners or 
the Postal Service for more information.

The Commission Orders

    (a) The Postal Service shall file the record in this appeal by June 
12, 1996.
    (b) The Secretary of the Postal Rate Commission shall publish this 
Notice and Order and Procedural Schedule in the Federal Register.

    By the Commission.
Margaret P. Crenshaw,
Secretary.

Appendix

May 28, 1996--Filing of Appeal letter
June 3, 1996--Commission Notice and Order of Filing of Appeal

[[Page 28911]]

June 21, 1996--Last day of filing of petitions to intervene [see 39 
CFR 3001.111(b)]
July 2, 1996--Petitioner's Participant Statement or Initial Brief 
[see 39 CFR 3001.115(a) and (b)]
July 22, 1996--Postal Service's Answering Brief [see 39 CFR 
3001.115(c)]
August 6, 1996--Petitioner's Reply Brief should Petitioner choose to 
file one [see 39 CFR 3001.115(d)]
August 13, 1996--Deadline for motions by any party requesting oral 
argument. The Commission will schedule oral argument only when it is 
a necessary addition to the written filings [see 39 CFR 3001.116]
September 26, 1996--Expiration of the Commission's 120-day 
decisional schedule [see 39 U.S.C. Sec. 404(b)(5)]

[FR Doc. 96-14255 Filed 6-5-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices of meetings published under

the ‘‘Government in the Sunshine Act’’ (Pub.

L. 94-409) 5 U.S.C. 552b(e)(3).

Sunshine Act Meetings Federal Register

2334

Vol. 61, No. 17

Thursday, January 25, 1996

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

‘‘FEDERAL REGISTER’’ NUMBER: 96–595.

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED DATE AND TIME:

Thursday, January 25, 1996, 10:00 a.m.

Meeting Open to the Public.

THE FOLLOWING ITEM WAS ADDED TO THE

AGENDA: Final Audit Report—Jude for

Congress (Revised 1/5/96).

DATE AND TIME: Tuesday, January 30,

1996 at 10:00 a.m.

PLACE: 999 E Street, N.W., Washington,

D.C.

STATUS: This Meeting Will Be Closed to

the Public.

ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED:

Compliance matters pursuant to 2 U.S.C.

§ 437g.

Audits conducted pursuant to 2 U.S.C.

§ 437g, § 438(b), and Title 26, U.S.C.

Matters concerning participation in civil

actions or proceedings or arbitration

Internal personnel rules and procedures or

matters affecting a particular employee

DATE AND TIME: Thursday, February 1,

1996 at 10:00 a.m.

PLACE: 999 E Street, N.W., Washington,

D.C. (Ninth Floor.)

STATUS: This Meeting Will Be Open to

the Public.

ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED:

Correction and Approval of Minutes

Title 26 Certification Matters

Advisory Opinion 1995–96: Benjamin L.

Ginsberg on behalf of Friends of Senator

D’Amato

Administrative Matters

PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION:

Mr. Ron Harris, Press Officer,

Telephone: (202) 219–4155.

Delores Hardy,

Administrative Assistant.

[FR Doc. 96–1438 Filed 1–23–96; 2:48 pm]

BILLING CODE 6715–01–M

COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m., February 5,

1996.

PLACE: Room 104–A, Jamie Whitten

Building, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Washington, D.C.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

1. Special open meeting of October 11,

1994.

2. Memorandum re: Update of Commodity

Credit Corporation (CCC)-owned inventory.

3. Memorandum re: CCC’s financial

condition report.

4. Memorandum re: Availability of CCC

stocks for donation overseas under Section

416(b) of the Agricultural Act of 1949, as

amended, for Fiscal Year 1995 and

Amendments, and in Fiscal Year 1996.

5. Resolution re: Amendment of bylaws of

the CCC.

6. Resolution re: Amendment of Dockets

requiring only a change in nomenclature.

7. Resolution re: Termination of obsolete

CCC Board dockets.

8. Resolutions re: Ratification of

commodities available for Public Law 480

during Fiscal Years 1995 and 1996.

9. Docket CZ–161a, Revision 7, re: Policies

for collection, settlement, and adjustment of

certain claims by or against the CCC.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Greg Billings, Secretary, Commodity

Credit Corporation, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Room 3090 South Building,

P.O. Box 2415, Washington, D.C., 20013;

telephone (202) 690–4085.

Dated: January 19, 1996.

Greg Billings,

Secretary, Commodity Credit Corporation.

[FR Doc. 96–1291 Filed 1–23–96; 11:11 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–05–P
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Pike Electric Corporation;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 /s/ J. Eric PikeDate: February 13, 2006
    
    J. Eric Pike
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7246

DAMON EMANUEL ELLIOTT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JOHN VINCENT GEISE; RANGARATH MANTHRIPRAGADA;

PAMELA COCHRAN,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA02-1769-PJM)

Submitted: October 10, 2002 Decided: October 21, 2002

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Damon Emanuel Elliott, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Damon Emmanuel Elliott appeals the district court’s order

dismissing his civil complaint for failure to allege specific facts

supporting his claims as instructed by the court’s prior order.

Because Elliott may be able to proceed with this action by amending

his complaint to allege sufficient facts to state a claim, the

dismissal order is not final and thus is not subject to appellate

review. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392,

10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). We therefore dismiss 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
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.28

                      TRADEMARK LICENSE EXTENSION AGREEMENT


         This Extension Agreement dated as of November 30, 2002 is by and
between Hallmark Cards, Incorporated ("Hallmark") and Crown Media International,
LLC (formerly known as Crown Media International, Inc.) ("Crown").


         WHEREAS, Crown and Hallmark have previously entered into that certain
Amended and Restated Trademark License Agreement between the parties dated as of
December 1, 2000 (the "License Agreement"); and

         WHEREAS, the parties desire to extend the term of the License
Agreement;

         NOW, THEREFORE, Crown and Hallmark hereby agree as follows:

         1. The term of the License Agreement shall be extended for an
additional year period terminating on November 30, 2003, subject to any earlier
termination pursuant to the terms of the License Agreement.

         2. Paragraph 1 Grant shall be amended by adding at the end of the
introductory paragraph "and Crown shall be a wholly-owned subsidiary of Crown
Media Holdings, Inc.:"

         3. All other terms and conditions of the License Agreement will remain
unchanged and in full force and effect.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Extension
Agreement as of the date set forth above.



HALLMARK CARDS, INCORPORATED


By:      /s/ Judith Whittaker
   --------------------------------------------------

Title:   Executive Vice President
      -----------------------------------------------


CROWN MEDIA INTERNATIONAL, LLC

By:      /s/ C. Stanford
   --------------------------------------------------

Title:   Vice President
      -----------------------------------------------
#### Roman HEMPHILL, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent-Respondent.

No. 56047.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Nov. 21, 1989.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Jan. 11, 1990.

Application to Transfer Denied Feb. 13, 1990.

Beverly A. Beimdiek, St. Louis, for mov-ant-appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., John P. Pollard, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent-respondent.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion after an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only setting *717forth the reasons for our order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).