alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
584 A.2d 806

#### IN THE MATTER OF RICHARD M. FOLEY, JR., AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

January 30, 1991.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having recommended to the Court that RICHARD M. FOLEY, JR. of MARLTON, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1974, be disciplined for his handling of a claim in which he failed to keep his client reasonably informed of the status of the matter over a number of years, including the facts that suit had been filed and subsequently dismissed for lack of prosecution, all in violation of *DR*7-101(A)(2) and *RPC*1.4, and which constituted gross *247negligence and lack of due diligence in violation of *DR*1-101(A)(1) and (2) and *RPC*1.1(a) and *RPC*1.3;

And the Disciplinary Review Board’s recommendation of discipline further having been based on respondent’s conduct in a separate matter in which he refused to communicate with his client, contrary to *DR*7-101(A)(2) and failed to act diligently or promptly in pursuing the interests of his client, contrary to *DR*7-101(A)(l);

And the Court having ordered on March 20, 1990 (D-83-89) that respondent show cause why he should not be disbarred or otherwise disciplined for said violations;

And the Disciplinary Review Board having, prior to the return date of said Order to Show Cause, reported to the Court in respect of additional conduct of respondent, recommending that respondent be disciplined for having been grossly negligent over a period of three years in failing to keep a client advised of the status of a matter and for having misrepresented his inaction to the client and to a third party, in violation of *RPC*1.1(a), *RPC*1.3, *RPC*1.4(a), *DR*6-101, *RPC*1.1(b), and *RPC*8.1(b);

And the Disciplinary Review Board having further recommended that any private practice of law by respondent be conducted for a one-year period under the supervision of a proctor;

And the Court having entered a superseding Order to Show Cause on October 19,1990, and the Court having considered the arguments presented;

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that the reports of the Disciplinary Review Board are adopted and RICHARD M. FOLEY, JR. is hereby publicly reprimanded; and it is further

ORDERED that any private practice of law by respondent shall be under the supervision of a proctorship for one year, pursuant to Administrative Guideline No. 28; and it is further

*248ORDERED that should respondent practice law in the public sector, said practice shall be under the supervision of an attorney who shall perform the same function as a proctor and comply with Administrative Guideline No. 28; and it is further

ORDERED that the Decision and Recommendation of the Disciplinary Review Board, together with this order and the full record of the matter, be added as a permanent part of the file of said RICHARD M. FOLEY, JR. as an attorney at law of the State of New Jersey; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Ethics Financial Committee for appropriate administrative costs incurred.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eddie VERGARA-SOSA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-50151.

D.C. No. CR-99-00864-CM.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted, Dec. 8, 2000.*

Decided Jan. 9, 2001.

Before D.W. NELSON, BRUNETTI, and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Eddie Vergara-Sosa appeals his conviction by guilty plea of illegal reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The district court did not err in failing to establish a factual basis before accepting Vergara-Sosa’s guilty plea because a trial judge is only required to establish the factual basis for an offense before entering judgment against the defendant. *See*Fed. R.Crim.P. 11(f). The district court found a sufficient factual basis before entering judgment based on the colloquy during the change of plea hearing and the presen-tence report. Therefore, we affirm.

Rule 11(f) states: “Notwithstanding the acceptance of a plea of guilty, the court should not enter a judgment upon such a plea without making such inquiry as shall satisfy it that there is a factual basis for the plea.” The Advisory Committee notes to the 1974 amendments to this rule explain that the factual basis inquiry “might be made of the defendant, of the attorneys for the government and the defense, of the presentence report when one is available, or by whatever means is appropriate in a specific case.” The plain *682language of the rule and the Advisory Committee notes, therefore, clearly contemplate the scenario where a judge establishes the factual basis after accepting the defendant’s guilty plea.

A district court judge may look to the presentence report when establishing the factual basis for a conviction. *See Burton v. United States*483 F.2d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.1973) (reh’g granted). The district court found a sufficient factual basis before entering judgment based on the colloquy during the change of plea hearing and the presentence report. VergaraSosa argues that *Burton*should not control because *Burton*ignored the heightened procedural protections for plea agreements created by *McCarthy v. United States,*394 U.S. 459, 89 S.Ct. 1166, 22 L.Ed.2d 418 (1969) and no longer represents the law of this circuit. We reject this argument insofar as it fails to recognize a crucial distinction between case law interpreting Rule 11(c) and cases dealing with 11(f). *McCarthy*concerned Rule 11(c) which explicitly requires the judge to inform a defendant of his constitutional rights before accepting his guilty plea. *Id.*at 465, 89 S.Ct. 1166. *Burton*remains good law because it is limited to the 11(f) context.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
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 Usurf America, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Douglas
O. McKinnon, Chief Executive 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 Report fully complies with the requirements of section 3(a) or
15(d) of the Securities and 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/ Douglas O. McKinnon
                                    --------------------------
                                    Name: Douglas O. McKinnon
                                    Chief Executive Officer
                                    March 31, 2005
540 A.2d 1021

#### Elizabeth Forward School District and Ida Belle Carnathan, Appellants *v.*Geoffrey Townsend, a minor, by his parent and natural guardian, Debora Poorman, and Debora Poorman, as parent and natural guardian of Geoffrey Townsend, a minor, in her own right, Appellees.

Argued March 24, 1988,

before Judges MacPhail, Colins and McGinley, sitting as a panel of three.

*65*Steven B. Larchuk,*with him, *Nancy R. Winschel, Dickie, McCamey*& *Chilcote, P.C.,*for appellants.

*Irving M. Portnoy, Evans, Rosen, Portnoy, Quinn*& *Donahue,*for appellees.

May 10, 1988:

Opinion by

Judge Colins,

This case has come before the Court on appeal by permission from an interlocutory order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, entered July 9, 1987, in Civil Action No. A-00618 of 1986, by the Honorable Livingstone M. Johnson.

We affirm on the able and authoritative opinion of Judge Johnson published at Pa. D. & C. 3d (198 ).

Order

And Now, this 10th day of May, 1988, the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County in the above-captioned matter is affirmed.
Exhibit 13.2



CERTIFICATION



The certification set forth below is being
submitted in connection with Affimed N.V.’s Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015 (the “Report”)
for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange
Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.



Florian Fischer, Chief Financial Officer
of Affimed N.V., certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | 1. | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of Affimed N.V.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: March 30, 2016



|/s/ Florian Fischer    
|-----------------------
|Name: Florian Fischer  
|Chief Financial Officer
584 A.2d 202

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ROBERT OROS.

May 1, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

Ridge Natural Resources, LLC, Calvin

Smajstrla, Christopher Hawa and Wilson

Hawa

,

Appellant s

,

v.

Double Eagle Royalty, LP

,

Appellee

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 7

- 00 227

- CV

Appeal from the

1 09 th District Court

of Winkler C ounty, Texas

(TC# DC17

- 17111 )

O R D E R

Pending before the Court is Appellants’ motion to enforce the stay order entered by the

Court on December 18, 2017. The motion is GRANTED in part. The trial court is directed to stay

all proceedings in cause number DC17

- 17111, styled Ridge Natural Resources, LLC, Calvin

Smajstrla, Christopher Hawa and Wilson Hawa v. Double Eagle Royalty, LP, pending resolution

of this appeal or further order of this Cour t. This stay order includes the hearing scheduled by the

trial court for April 18, 2018. Any party seeking to take any action in the trial court related to this

case is required to first obtain leave of this Court to do so. Appellants’ request for sanct ions is

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 16 th day of April , 20 1 8

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure , C.J., R odriguez and Palafox , JJ.
585 A.2d 389

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. C.M.

October 10, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
#### STATE ex rel. Kevin STEWART v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2009-KH-2473.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 29, 2010.

In re Stewart, Kevin P.; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 06-5195; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 09-KH-763.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; *State ex rel. Melinie v. State,*93-1380 (La.1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172.
#### Lazaro GALINDO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D10-2969.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 29, 2010.

Lazaro Galindo, in proper person.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before WELLS, LAGOA, and SALTER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal of an order summarily denying a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). On appeal from a summary denial, this Court must reverse unless the postconviction record, *see*Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(A), shows conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief. *See*Fla. RApp. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D).

Because the record now before us fails to make the required showing, we reverse the order and remand for further proceedings. If the trial court again enters an order summarily denying the postconviction motion, the court shall attach record excerpts conclusively showing that the appellant is not entitled to any relief.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Exhibit
        32.2
 
 
 HERITAGE
        OAKS BANCORP
  Quarterly
        Report on Form 10Q
 for
        the
        Quarter ended June 30, 2005
  
 CERTIFICATION
  Pursuant
        to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 
 
 The
        undersigned, who is the Chief Financial Officer of Heritage Oaks Bancorp
        (the
“Company”), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350, that, to my
        knowledge, (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10Q for the quarter ended March
        31,
        2005, as filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission
        (the
“Quarterly Report”), to which this Certification is an Exhibit, fully complies
        with the applicable requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Exchange
        Act;
        and (ii) the information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents,
        in
        all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
        of the
        Company.
 
 Date: August
                5 , 2005
              By:
              /s/ Margaret
                A. TorresMargaret
                A. TorresExecutive
                Vice President and Chief Financial
                Officer
  A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
        authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
        in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
        by Section 906, has been provided to Heritage Oaks Bancorp, and will be retained
        by Heritage Oaks Bancorp and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
        or its staff upon request.
584 A.2d 200

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. FRANCIS D. CASEY, JR.

May 1, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
CARL BLACKMON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-5461

_____________________________/

Opinion filed February 10, 2015.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

Terry D. Terrell, Judge.

Carl Blackmon, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Lauren L. Brudnicki, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, CLARK, and ROWE, JJ., CONCUR.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains financial information extracted from the Consolidated
Balance Sheet as of June 30, 2000 and the Consolidated Statement of
Operations for the six month period ended June 30, 2000 and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         225,259
<SECURITIES>                                    44,355
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               272,676
<PP&E>                                           9,023
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (6,386)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 282,227
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,370
<BONDS>                                        196,250
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       177,307
<OTHER-SE>                                   (107,983)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   282,227
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,157
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,605
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (14,466)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (14,466)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (14,466)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.79)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.79)


</TABLE>
#### William M. NOBLES, d/b/a Stebrita Music, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CARLIN AMERICA, INCORPORATED; Trio Music Company, Incorporated, Defendants-Appellees, and Lieber & Stoller, Defendants.

No. 00-1984.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 20, 2000.

Decided Jan. 8, 2001.

Robert L. White, Greenville, NC, for appellant. Robert C. Osterberg, Abelman, Frayne & Schwab, New York, NY, for appellees.

Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

William M. Nobles appeals the district court’s order applying the doctrine of lach-es to his claim and entering summary judgment in favor of the Defendants. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reason*137ing of the district court. *Nobles*v. *Carlin America, Inc.,*No. CA-99-98-4 H (E.D.N.C. June 20, 2000). 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
862 A.2d 538

#### RAYMOND ARTHUR ABBOTT, A MINOR, BY HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, FRANCES ABBOTT; ARLENE FIGUEROA, FRANCES FIGUEROA, HECTOR FIGUEROA, ORLANDO FIGUEROA AND VIVIAN FIGUEROA, MINORS, BY THEIR GUARDIAN AD LITEM, BLANCA FIGUEROA; MICHAEL HADLEY, A MINOR, BY HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, LOLA MOORE; HENRY STEVENS, JR., A MINOR, BY HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, HENRY STEVENS, SR.; CAROLINE JAMES AND JERMAINE JAMES, MINORS, BY THEIR GUARDIAN AD LITEM, MATTIE JAMES; DORIAN WAITERS AND KHUDAYJA WAITERS, MINORS, BY THEIR GUARDIAN AD LITEM, LYNN WAITERS; CHRISTINA KNOWLES, DANIEL KNOWLES, AND GUY KNOWLES, JR., MINORS, BY THEIR GUARDIAN AD LITEM, GUY KNOWLES, SR.; LIANA DIAZ, A MINOR, BY HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM, LUCILA DIAZ; AISHA HARGROVE AND ZAKIA HARGROVE, MINORS, BY THEIR GUARDIAN AD LITEM, PATRICIA WATSON; AND LAMAR STEPHENS AND LESLIE STEPHENS, MINORS, BY THEIR GUARDIAN AD LITEM, EDDIE STEPHENS, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. FRED G. BURKE, COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION; EDWARD G. HOFGESANG, NEW JERSEY DIRECTOR OF BUDGET AND ACCOUNTING; CLIFFORD A. GOLDMAN, NEW JERSEY STATE TREASURER; AND NEW JERSEY STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, DEFENDANTS-MOVANTS.

November 1, 2004.

ORDER

This matter having come before the Court on the application of the Department of Education for certain specified modifications to the Court’s Order in *Abbott v. Burke,*177 *N.J.*578, 832 A.2d 891 (2003) *(Abbott*X), which approved and implemented an agreement reached by the parties through mediation conducted by the Hon. Philip S. Carchman, J.A.D.,

And the Court having considered the responses to the motion by the Education Law Center (ELC), including ELC’s requests for discovery and further mediation;

And good cause appearing;

*154It is ORDERED that the parties shall participate in mediation as follows:

> a) Superior Court, Appellate Division, Judge Richard J. Williams (retired on recall), is appointed to serve as a Special Master to mediate the issues arising out of defendants’ motion;

> b) After conferring with Senior Deputy Attorney General Michelle L. Miller for defendants and David G. Sciarra, Esquire for plaintiffs, Judge Williams shall determine who is to be included in the mediation process as representatives of the parties;

> c) Mediation shall be completed by November 30, 2004;

> d) Judge Williams shall report to the Court specifically on all areas of agreement and on any areas on which agreement could not be reached; and

> e) During and after completion of the mediation process, no further submissions to the Court shall be made unless requested by the Court.

Jurisdiction on M-317-04 is otherwise retained.

Chief Justice PORITZ and Associate Justices LONG, LaVECCHIA, ALBIN, WALLACE, and RIVERA-SOTO join in the Court’s Order. Justice ZAZZALI did not participate.
585 A.2d 356

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ABRAHAM REYES.

July 17, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
#### BCM, L.L.C. and Nawlins Kajun Foods, L.L.C. v. Roy C. CHEATWOOD, et al.

No. 2010-CC-1901.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 29, 2010.

In re BCM L.L.C. et ah; Nawlins Kajun Foods L.L.C; —Plaintiff(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 2009-2807; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 10-00493.

Not considered, not timely filed. See Supreme Court Rule X, Section 5.
#### Edgardo COLORADO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 5D09-576.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Aug. 20, 2010.

*343James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Anne Moorman Reeves, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Ann M. Phillips, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm Appellant’s conviction. *Salonka v. State,*42 So.3d 801 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). Based upon the State’s proper concession, we remand the judgment with instructions that the trial judge correct the judgment to conform to his oral pronouncement to impose costs and fines by civil judgment and not as a special condition of probation.

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED.

ORFINGER, TORPY and LAWSON, JJ., concur.