alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 6/20/96 TENTH CIRCUIT

N. LYNN PERLS,

Petitioner - Appellee, v. ROBERT L. DIMOND,

Respondent - Appellant. No. 96-2009 (D. Ct. No. CIV 95-584 SC) (D. N. Mex.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before TACHA, BALDOCK, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This appeal is from an order of the district court granting appellee’s motion to remand this action to the district court on the ground that the case presents no basis for federal jurisdiction and, further, from an order of the district court granting petitioner’s application for an award of expenses incurred as a result of the removal of this case from state court. We affirm.- 2 -

The underlying dispute in this case is clearly a fee dispute between petitioner Perls and her former client, respondent Dimond. Petitioner Perls represented Mr. Dimond in an employment dispute between him and his former employer, the United States Postal Service. The parties in this case are not diverse. There is no federal question alleged on the face of the complaint that would support federal jurisdiction. The record in this case is clear that, despite related claims brought in the EEOC and referred to in the state court complaint based on federal anti-discrimination statutes, this case is grounded entirely in state contract law that will be applied in the dispute between petitioner and respondent. We therefore agree with the district court that the federal courts have no jurisdiction and that the motion to remand was properly granted. Upon an application for the award of expenses filed by petitioner, the district court found that the reasons that respondent removed the case to federal court were groundless. The district court found that the removal was improper and that an award of costs was appropriate. We review the district court’s decision for an abuse of discretion. Under the circumstances of this case, where no meritorious grounds exist for removal of the case to federal court, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion. We have reviewed the record, the briefs, and the district court orders, and AFFIRMfor substantially the reasons given by the district court.- 3 -

The mandate shall issue forthwith. ENTERED FOR THE COURT,

Deanell Reece Tacha Circuit Judge
EXHIBIT 32.0


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


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Delanco Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2006, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I hereby
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as added by Section 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.    The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the consolidated financial condition and results of the Company
      as of and for the period covered by this Report.



                           By: /s/ Robert M. Notigan
                               -------------------------------------------------
                               Robert M. Notigan
                               President and Chief Executive Officer
                               March 26, 2007




                           By: /s/ Douglas R. Allen, Jr.
                               -------------------------------------------------
                               Douglas R. Allen, Jr.
                               Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
                               March 26, 2007
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2


        STATEMENT OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF INDUS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
                       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 Indus International, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Jeffrey A. Babka, Chief Financial Officer 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 the best of my knowledge:

         (3)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


/s/ Jeffrey A. Babka
------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey A. Babka
Executive Vice President Finance and Administration,
Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
March 31, 2003
#### Eugene COOPER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 65818.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Dec. 20, 1994.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Jan. 31, 1995.

Application to Transfer Denied March 21, 1995.

*735David C. Hemingway, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Millie Aulbur, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and CRAHAN, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Eugene Cooper, appeals from the St. Louis County Circuit Court’s denial of an evidentiary hearing on his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the judgment of the circuit court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. As we further find an extended opinion would have no precedential value, we affirm the circuit court’s denial of an evidentiary hearing on appellant’s Rule 24.035 motion pursuant to Rules 84.16(b) and 30.25(b).
#### Paul Michael MORGAN, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, STATE OF MISSOURI, Defendant/Appellant.

No. 68963.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

May 21, 1996.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., James A. Chenault, III, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Mo. Dept, of Revenue, Jefferson City, for appellant.

Philip T. Ayers, Hazelwood, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and KAROHL and GRIMM, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Paul Michael Morgan’s driver’s license was suspended by the Director of Revenue pursuant to § 302.500, RSMo 1994. Following an administrative hearing, he filed a petition for review in circuit court.

The circuit court administratively assigned the petition to a traffic commissioner “for hearing, findings and recommendations.” The traffic commissioner found that Morgan’s driving privileges should be reinstated. The Director appeals.

Director contends the holding in *State ex rel. Coyle v. O’Toole,*914 S.W.2d 871 (Mo.App.E.D.1996) is controlling. Morgan’s counsel agrees, writing that director “is clearly correct.”

We remand to the circuit court for an associate circuit court judge or a circuit court judge to conduct a hearing.
Exhibit 23.2

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC
ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation
by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-73008,
333-74336, 333-81704, 333-81696, 333-103766, 333-103767, 333-113676, 333-113678,
333-124499, 333-134137, 333-134141, 333-143137 and 333-143136) and Form S-3
(Nos. 333-124123, 333-137991 and 333-139998) of LogicVision, Inc. of our report
dated March 31, 2006, except for the effects of the 1-for-2.5 reverse stock split discussed in Note 1 as to which the date is March 21, 2008, relating to the financial statements and financial
statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K.

/s/PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERSLLP

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLPSan Jose,
CaliforniaMarch 21, 2008

---
---

Exhibit 32.2

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

In connection with the quarterly report of Fortified Holdings
  Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period quarter ended September
  30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
  (the Report), I, Kirk Hanson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906
  of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
  and                                   
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    |                                                                                                                                                                 
|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.

|Date: November 19, 2008 |     |                        
|----------------------- | --- | -----------------------
|                        | By: | /s/ Kirk Hanson        
|                        |     | Kirk Hanson            
|                        |     | Chief Financial Officer

---
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 696 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 696

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                    September 23, 2009.
Whereas Western Wyoming Community College was established in 1959 through the 
        efforts of a citizens committee and a general election that formed the 
        original district;
Whereas the College began classes in Rock Springs High School, moved to the 
        Reliance School, and then finally moved to its present College Drive 
        location in Rock Springs in 1969;
Whereas the College opened an extended campus in Green River in 1975;
Whereas these expansions were made possible in part by the Sweetwater County 
        voters, who approved 3 general obligation bond issues, leading to the 
        construction of Western's current award-winning structure;
Whereas the College's service area now encompasses all of Southwestern Wyoming, 
        including Sweetwater, Uinta, Carbon, Sublette, and Lincoln counties;
Whereas the College has grown from serving 40 students during the fall semester 
        of 1959 to currently serving over 4,000 credit and 2,000 community 
        education students each semester;
Whereas the College adheres to its Guiding Principles: ``Learning is our 
        Purpose'', ``Students are our Focus'', ``Employees are our Most 
        Important Resource'', ``The Community is our Partner'', ``Adapting to 
        Change Defines our Future'', and ``Ethical Standards Guide our 
        Actions'';
Whereas the College embodies these principles in its motto: ``A commitment to 
        quality and success'';
Whereas the College is a valued partner with industry, education, and local 
        business in its service area to provide transfer and technical 
        education, workforce training, cultural and athletic activities, and 
        community education courses;
Whereas the College is the fifth of 7 comprehensive community colleges in 
        Wyoming, and a vital part of Wyoming's higher education system;
Whereas the transfer agreement between Wyoming's community colleges and the 
        University of Wyoming creates a seamless transition for students wishing 
        to continue their education; and
Whereas the fall of 2009 marks the 50th anniversary of the establishment of 
        Western Wyoming Community College: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives acknowledges and congratulates 
Western Wyoming Community College in Southwest Wyoming on the occasion of its 
50th anniversary of service to the students and citizens of the State of 
Wyoming.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

v.

JERROD SCOTT TURVIN, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 17-0297 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR 2013-455163-001

The Honorable Jeffrey A. Rueter, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Adena J. Astrowsky

Counsel for Respondent

Jerrod Scott Turvin, Douglas

Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown, Judge Maria Elena Cruz, and Chief 

Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court.

FILED 1-23-2018
STATE v. TURVIN

Decision of the Court

2

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Petitioner Jerrod Scott Turvin seeks review of the superior 

court's order denying his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant 

to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is petitioner's first

petition.

¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will 

not disturb a superior court's ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief. 

State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012). It is petitioner's burden to 

show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petition 

for post-conviction relief. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, ¶ 1 (App. 2011) 

(petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of discretion on review).

¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior 

court's order denying the petition for post-conviction relief, and the petition 

for review. We find that petitioner has not established an abuse of 

discretion. 

¶4 For the foregoing reasons, we grant review and deny relief.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (A) THE
FINANCIALS STATEMENTS OF CONSUMER U.S. INCLUDED IN FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH (B) FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
1999.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           5,278
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   53,556
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,100
<INVENTORY>                                    106,977
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               190,985
<PP&E>                                         449,788
<DEPRECIATION>                                 129,787
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 601,716
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          159,559
<BONDS>                                        210,208
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           70,830
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           170
<OTHER-SE>                                      35,336
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   601,716
<SALES>                                        628,728
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               628,728
<CGS>                                          582,975
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  582,975
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   125
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              28,870
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (17,511)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (17,511)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (19,576)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
August 25, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

JESSICA ALLEN, Appellant

NO. 14-14-00426-CV V.

JOSHUA ALLEN, Appellee

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee, Joshua Allen, 

signed February 18, 2014, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have 

inspected the record and find no error in the judgment. We order the judgment of 

the court below AFFIRMED.

We order appellant, Jessica Allen, to pay all costs incurred in this appeal. 

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 607 

Celebrating the Fortieth Anniversary of the Apollo 11 Moon Landing. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 7, 2009 

Mr. HALL of Texas (for himself, Mr. GORDON of Tennessee, Ms. GIFFORDS, 

and Mr. OLSON) submitted the following resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on Science and Technology 

RESOLUTION 

Celebrating the Fortieth Anniversary of the Apollo 11 Moon 

Landing. 

Whereas President John F. Kennedy in his May 25, 1961, 

speech to Congress set forth the goal of landing a man 

on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth; 

Whereas the Apollo program was designed to achieve the goal 

established by President Kennedy by sending a crew of 

three astronauts to the Moon and returning them safely 

to the Earth; 

Whereas the Apollo program built on the knowledge and experience gained from the Mercury and Gemini human 

space flight programs, as well as from precursor robotic 

lunar exploration activities; 


jbell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 607 IH 

Whereas the crew of Apollo 11 consisted of Neil Armstrong, 

Mission Commander, Buzz Aldrin, Lunar Module Pilot, 

and Michael Collins, Command Module Pilot; 

Whereas the crew of Apollo 11 launched into space aboard 

a Saturn V rocket on July 16, 1969, on a 4-day trip to 

the Moon; 

Whereas, on July 20, 1969, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin 

successfully piloted the Eagle Lunar Module to the surface of the Moon; 

Whereas, on July 20, 1969, when Neil Armstrong took his 

first step on the Moon, he became the first person to 

walk on the surface of another celestial body; 

Whereas the Apollo 11 Moon landing was the culmination of 

the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists, engineers, 

and other dedicated individuals and organizations; 

Whereas the Apollo 11 Moon landing was experienced by millions of people all around the world by means of radio 

and television broadcasts; 

Whereas the Apollo 11 astronauts left a plaque on the lunar 

surface that stated: ‘‘We came in peace for all mankind’’; 

Whereas the successful Apollo 11 Moon landing was one of 

the most significant events of the 20th century and inspired a generation to strive towards great accomplishments in space and on Earth; and 

Whereas the Apollo 11 achievement continues to inspire 

Americans as we prepare for future human journeys back 

to the Moon and other destinations in the solar system: 

Now, therefore be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 


jbell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 607 IH 

1 (1) celebrates the 40th Anniversary of the Apol2 lo 11 lunar landing; 

3 (2) honors the brave crew of the Apollo 11 mis4 sion—Neil Armstrong, ‘‘Buzz’’ Aldrin, and Michael 

5 Collins; and 

6 (3) commends all those individuals and organi7 zations who contributed to such a historic achieve8 ment that continues to be an inspiration to the Na9 tion and the world. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
#### Rodney SHEPHERD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 10-94-077-CR.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Waco.

Sept. 28, 1994.

Olivia A. Bledsoe, Dallas, for appellant.

John Vance, Crim. Dist. Atty., Zahn F. Reuther & Wayne Lacy, Asst. Dist. Attys., Dallas, Robert Huttash, State Prosecuting Atty., Austin, for appellee.

Before THOMAS, C.J., and CUMMINGS and VANCE, JJ.

OPINION

VANCE, Justice.

Appellant pled guilty to the offense of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The court followed a plea bargain agreement and granted deferred adjudication, placing him on three years probation and assessing a fine of $100. Appellant filed a general notice of appeal. His only point of error is that the court erred in failing to admonish him properly about the range of possible punishment if his probation were revoked.

Panels of the Dallas Court of Appeals have, in the past, held that the voluntariness of a plea could be challenged under a general notice of appeal. *Soto v. State,*837 S.W.2d 401, 404 (Tex.App. — Dallas 1992, no pet.); *Walker v. State,*843 S.W.2d 716, 717 (Tex.App. — Dallas 1992, pet. ref'd); *see also, Miller v. State,*879 S.W.2d 336 (Tex.App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, no pet. h.). However, in an *en banc*decision earlier this year, the Dallas Court held that a “claim that a trial court did not give proper admonishments is a claim of trial error before entry of a plea” and that the Court does not have jurisdiction to consider a point of error of this nature. *Penny v. State,*880 S.W.2d 59, 61 (Tex.App. — Dallas 1994, no pet.).

Under the *Penny*decision, we have no jurisdiction in this case to consider Appellant’s claim that he was not properly admonished. *See id.*at 61. The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
**Exhibit 32**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

**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 on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 (the “Report”) of Parke Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, we, Vito S. Pantilione, President and Chief Executive Officer, and John F. Hawkins, Vice President and Interim Chief Financial Officer, 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) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

| /s/    | /s/ Vito S. Pantilione                |   | /s/    | John F. Hawkins                                    |
|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------|
|   | Vito S. Pantilione                    |   |   | John F. Hawkins                                    |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer |   |   | Vice President and Interim Chief Financial Officer |
|   | (Principal Executive Officer)         |   |   | (Principal Accounting Officer)                     |

 

 

November 13, 2009