alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
227 So.2d 122

#### Lee Roy WALDON v. STATE of Alabama.

6 Div. 724.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Oct. 2, 1969.

Jas. M. Hamrick, Bessemer, for appellant.

MacDonald Gallion, Atty. Gen., and Walter S. Turner, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

LIVINGSTON, Chief Justice.

This appeal is from the denial by the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, Bessemer Division, of a petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis.

Petitioner was convicted of murder in the first degree on June 20, 1966, and sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for life.

The records of this Court show that on September 12, 1966, petitioner filed a petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis. Said petition was denied on June 1, 1967. On appeal, after reviewing the record in the case, this Court affirmed the opinion of the lower court. See Waldon v. State, 281 Ala. 710, 208 So.2d 90.

*609The petitioner then filed a petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the Federal Court, having exhausted his State remedies. Relief was denied, as was an application for a Certificate of Probable Cause filed subsequently.

The present petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis was filed on February 3, 1969, in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama. The State’s motion to dismiss was granted, said motion being based upon the contention that the grounds set forth in the instant petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis were the same as those set forth in the earlier petition. Upon hearing, the lower court granted the State’s motion to dismiss; hence, this appeal.

The grounds set forth in the instant petition are the same as those set forth in the earlier petition, with one exception, to wit:

> “(5) Petitioner alleges that he was not given a fair and impartial hearing on his coram nobis which was previously filed in this cause, Giles v. State (Ala.) 384 U.S. 383 [384 F.2d 383].”

Where the allegations in a petition for writ of error coram nobis have been fully adjudicated and the petitioner makes no showing for the renewed consideration of the same matters by the court, it is not error to grant the State’s motion to dismiss the second petition. Allison v. State, 277 Ala. 423, 171 So.2d 239.

Ground (S), set out above, was within the purview of this Court’s review on appeal of the lower court’s denial of the earlier petition, and merits no further consideration here.

Even where other grounds are alleged in the second petition, this Court has held that in the absence of a petition containing cogent and compelling reasons why all the grounds relied upon were not included in the first petition for writ of error coram nobis, which has been heard and determined, this Court will not order the lower court to entertain or hear a second 'coram nobis petition relating to the same conviction.

In light of the earlier petition and the hearing and adverse determination thereon by the lower court, which was affirmed by this Court, the lower court is not to be put in error in granting the motion of the State to dismiss the second petition.

The judgment of the lower court is due to be, and is, affirmed.

Affirmed.

LAWSON, MERRILL and HAR-WOOD, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996             DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996             DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                           1,526                   1,618
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   72,393                  57,925
<ALLOWANCES>                                       164                     342
<INVENTORY>                                     72,922                  77,175
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               160,266                 144,004
<PP&E>                                         296,688                 248,911
<DEPRECIATION>                                 123,468                 102,388
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 411,180                 348,955
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           82,578                  63,909
<BONDS>                                        110,000                 110,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                     260
<COMMON>                                           103                      90
<OTHER-SE>                                      77,960                  77,880
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   411,180                 348,955
<SALES>                                        588,544                 525,730
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               588,544                 525,730
<CGS>                                          496,062                 440,746
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  560,913                 485,882
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                   (376)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                12,623                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,636                  15,060
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,959                  34,403
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (6,139)                   9,963
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             14,098                  24,440
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,098                  24,440
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.54                    3.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.47                    2.36


</TABLE>
Exhibit 13.2







CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002







In connection with the Annual Report of Migenix Inc. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the year ended April 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Arthur J. Ayres, Sr. Vice President Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to 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 financial condition and results of operations of the Company.









Arthur J. Ayres

Arthur J. Ayres

Sr. Vice President Finance and Chief Financial Officer

January 15, 2007



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 153 (Thursday, August 7, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46041-46042]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18162]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-63,632]


Luxmovera, dba Uplinkearth, Somerset, NJ; Notice of Termination 
of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on July 1, 2008, in response to a worker 
petition filed on behalf of workers at Luxmovera, dba Uplinkearth, 
Somerset, New Jersey.

[[Page 46042]]

    The petitioners have requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC this 1st day of August 2008.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8-18162 Filed 8-6-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
Exhibit 32




CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL


FINANCIAL OFFICER


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 Green Planet Bioengineering Co. Limited (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Mr. Min Zhao, CEO and CFO of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 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: May 17, 2010
By:
/s/ Min ZhaoMin Zhao

Chief Executive Officer and Chief

Financial Officer

(Principal Executive Officer and Principal

Financial Officer)
Exhibit 10.4


 


January 6, 2020


 


Long Deng


c/o iFresh, Inc.


2-39 54th Avenue


Long Island City, NY 11101


 


Dear Mr. Deng:


 


Reference is made to the Conversion Agreement dated December
11, 2019 (the “Agreement”), by and between you (the “Purchaser”) and iFresh, Inc. (the “Company”).
Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the same meaning as such capitalized terms have in the Agreement.


 


Upon execution of this letter agreement, Section 2 of the Agreement
is hereby amended by deleting the phrase “December 31, 2019” and replacing it with “January 15, 2020”.


 


This letter agreement sets forth the entire agreement and understanding
between us as to the subject matter hereof and merges and supersedes all prior discussions, agreements and understandings of any
and every nature among us. Except as set forth in this letter agreement, provisions of the Agreement which are not inconsistent
with this letter agreement shall remain in full force and effect. This letter agreement may be executed in counterparts.


 


	Very truly yours,	 
	iFRESH, INC.	 
	 	 
	By:	 	 
	Name:  	 
	Title:  	 
	 	 
	Accepted and Agreed:	 
	 	 
	 	 
	Name: Long Deng
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 Annual Report of NMS Communications Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31,
2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William B. Gerraughty, Jr. 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, to the best of my knowledge:

(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.

|/s/WILLIAM B. GERRAUGHTY, JR.William B. Gerraughty, Jr.
Chief Financial Officer
March 1, 2004 | 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 

This Certification shall not be deemed part of the Report or incorporated by reference into any of the Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission by
implication or by any reference in any such filings to the Report.

---

QuickLinks
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CertificationPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**

** **

Pursuant to U.S.C. Section 1350 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of StoneTan China Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to suchofficer’s knowledge, that:

 

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterended March 31, 2009 of the Company fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

 
| May 7, 2009 |  /s/ Richard Tan |
|------------------|----------------------------|
|             |                       | Name: Richard Tan |
|             |                       | Title:  Chief Executive Officer, President and  Director (Principal Executive and  Principal Financial Officer) |

 

1

----
1

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that “[e]very judgment and

amended judgment must be set forth on a separate document.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

58(a)(1). This order constitutes such a separate document, and no other “judgment” will

be filed.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

BLAINE V. GRAY, II,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 09-cv-13404

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL RIGHTS,

Defendant.

______________________________________/

ORDER CLOSING CASE IN LIEU OF JUDGMENT

The complaint having been dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), 

IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court close this case.1

 S/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: September 9, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

on this date, September 9, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Lisa G. Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522.

S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C1 ORDERS\09-13404.GRAY.OrderClosingCaseInLieuofJudgment.npk.wpd

2:09-cv-13404-RHC-DAS Doc # 4 Filed 09/09/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 24
2:09-cv-13404-RHC-DAS Doc # 4 Filed 09/09/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 25
#### Mary Foley, Appellant, v. The City of New York, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion.
EXHIBIT 32.2

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


      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  the  undersigned  President  and  Chief  Executive
Officer of the Company certifies that, to his knowledge:

1.    The  Company's  Form  10-QSB  for the  quarter  ended  June 30,  2004 (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.



                                             /s/ Dennis L. Bergquist
                                             -----------------------
                                             Dennis L. Bergquist
                                             Chief Financial Officer
                                             Dated:  August 16, 2004
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. American Manufacturing Company, Respondent, v. James L. Wells and Others, as Commissioners of Taxes and Assessments of the City of New York, Appellants. (Taxes of 1903.)

Motion denied, without costs. Present—Hirschherg, P. J., Woodward, Jenks, Gaynor and Miller, JJ.
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 606

To amend the Dayton Aviation Heritage Preservation Act of 1992, and

for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 20, 1995

Mr. HALL of Ohio (for himself, Mr. HOBSON, and Mr. REGULA) introduced

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Resources

A BILL

To amend the Dayton Aviation Heritage Preservation Act

of 1992, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That section 201(b) of the Dayton Aviation Heritage

4 Preservation Act of 1992 (Public Law 102–419, approved

5 October 16, 1992), is amended as follows:

6 (1) In paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘from rec7 ommendations’’ and inserting ‘‘after consideration of

8 recommendations’’.
2

HR 606 IH

1 (2) In paragraph (4), by striking ‘‘from rec2 ommendations’’ and inserting ‘‘after consideration of

3 recommendations’’.

4 (3) In paragraph (5), by striking ‘‘from rec5 ommendations’’ and inserting ‘‘after consideration of

6 recommendations’’.

7 (4) In paragraph (6), by striking ‘‘from rec8 ommendations’’ and inserting ‘‘after consideration of

9 recommendations’’.

10 (5) In paragraph (7), by striking ‘‘from rec11 ommendations’’ and inserting ‘‘after consideration of

12 recommendations’’.

Æ
18626.

#### Williams *v.*Northern States Envelope Company, Inc., *et al.*

Wyatt, Presiding Justice.

Northern States Envelope Company and E. S. Sanford filed their suit in equity against W. C. Williams, alleging in substance that Williams, a former employee, had taken possession of certain books and papers, the property of the plaintiffs, and that he had collected money belonging to the plaintiffs and appropriated same to his own use. Williams answered contending that he was a partner of E. S. Sanford in the business transactions in question, and by wajr of cross-bill sought to recover a money judgment against the plaintiffs. The prayers included a prayer for injunction, a receiver, an accounting, and the appointment of an auditor. An auditor was appointed and his findings in substance were that no partnership existed; that Williams had appropriated to his own use $12,734.19, and, as a matter of law, Northern States Envelope Company was entitled to a judgment against W. C. Williams for $12,734.19. There were other incidental findings of law and fact. Williams filed exceptions to these findings by the auditor. The trial judge overruled the exceptions filed by Williams and rendered final judgment against him and in favor of Northern States Envelope Company for $12,734.19. The exception here is to that judgment. *Held:*

1. “In an equity case, exceptions of fact to an auditor’s report are to be submitted to a jury only when approved by the trial judge; and an order overruling such exceptions will not be reversed by this court if the findings of the auditor are supported by any evidence, even though the evidence may be conflicting. In this case the evidence supported the auditor’s findings of fact, and there was no abuse of discretion in overruling the exceptions.” *Mitchell*v. *Turner,*190 *Ga.*485 (9 S. E. 2d 621). The instant case is an equity case, and the evidence is conflicting. It follows, there was no error in overruling the exceptions of fact.

2. There is no merit in the exceptions to the findings of law by the auditor, since the findings of law are sustained by the findings of fact.

3. The plaintiff in error in his brief in this court attempts to question the legality of the appointment of the auditor. No such question was raised in the trial court. This court has so many times pointed out that this court is a court of review, and that questions not raised in the trial court can not be considered by this court, until we deem it unnecessary to cite again authority for this well-settled proposition.

*788Argued June 15, 1954

Decided July 13, 1954

Rehearing denied July 27, 1954.

*J. Sidney Lanier,*for plaintiff in error.

*Matthews & Hendrix, Don V. Hinrichs,*contra.

4. It follows from what has been said above, the judgment of the trial court must be

*Affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6466

DARRON JERMAINE JONES,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

KEITH WHITENER,

Respondent – Appellee,

and

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, 

District Judge. (5:11-hc-02099-FL)

Submitted: June 14, 2012 Decided: June 19, 2012

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darron Jermaine Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, 

III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Darron Jermaine Jones seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Jones has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 23.1
         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
         
        PHC, Inc.
        Peabody, MA.
         
        We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-2246, 333-41494, 333-76137, 333-117146 and 222-141431) and Form S-8 (Nos. 333-102402,333-123842 and 333-149579) of PHC, Inc. and subsidiaries of our report dated September 29, 2008, relating to the consolidated financial
        statements which appear in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.



/s/ BDO Seidman, LLP
        Boston, MA

September 29, 2008
EXHIBIT 32.1

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


In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three-month period
ending May 31, 2008 of Caddystats, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"),
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Quarterly Report"), I, Gordon Dawson, Chairman, President and 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:

     1.   The Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
          13(a) or15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
          and

     2.   The information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in
          all material respects, the financial condition and results of
          operation of the Company.


/s/ Gordon Dawson
________________________________________
Gordon Dawson
President, Secretary Treasurer,
Principal Executive Officer,
Principal Financial Officer and Director


Date: June 30, 2008