alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FILED

COUR l' OF APPEAL.S

DIVIS10 -M 11

2013 SEP -4 AM 10: 23

STATE OF WASHItAIG ° ION

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OgWAS GTON

i EP TY

DIVISION II

STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 44298 -1 -II

Respondent,

v

LARRY A. ROBERTS, UNPUBLISHED OPINION

QuiNN- BRINTNALL, J. — Larry Roberts'appeals, arguing that the superior court erred

when it failed to enter written findings of fact and conclusions of law following his bench trial.

The State agrees that the court did not enter the required findings and conclusions. We vacate

the judgment and sentence and remand.'

FACTS

The State charged Roberts with possession of a controlled substance and driving while

E .

his license was suspended (DWLS). Roberts waived his right to a jury trial. After a bench trial,

the superior court issued a written verdict finding Roberts not guilty on the controlled substance

charge and guilty of DWLS. The verdict provides detailed support for the acquittal but does not

analyze the DWLS conviction. At sentencing, the superior court announced the outcome on each

count and sentenced Roberts on the DWLS conviction. Roberts appeals.

A commissioner of this court initially considered this appeal as a motion on the merits under

RAP 18.14 and then referred it to a panel ofjudges.
No. 44298 -1 -II

ANALYSIS

Roberts argues, and the State concedes, that the superior court did not comply with CrR

6. d), 1(which provides, "In a case tried without a jury, the court shall enter findings of fact and

conclusions of law." The proper remedy is to vacate the judgment and sentence and remand to

the trial court for entry of the required findings of fact and conclusions of law .2 State v. Head,

136 Wn.2d 619, 624, 964 P.2d 1187 (1998); State v. Denison, 78 Wn. App. 566, 572, 897 P.2d

437, review denied, 128 Wn.2d 1006 (1995).

Because the State concedes and the parties agree on the remedy, we vacate the judgment

and sentence and remand this case for entry of written findings of fact and conclusions of law.

CrR 6.d). 1(The superior court shall then enter judgment based on the written findings and

conclusions "from which either party may appeal as in the usual course of things." Head, 136

Wn.2d at 626.

A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the

Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW

2. 040, 06.it is so ordered.

QUINN-BRINTNALL, J.

We concur:

MJNT, Y.

a

J HANSON, A. J. C 1

2 But see State v. Denison, 78 Wn. App. 566, 571 -72, 897 P.2d 437, review denied, 128 Wn.2d

1006 (1995) (suggesting that the preferred procedure would be for the "prosecutor to seek in this

court an order requiring the trial judge" to comply with CrR 6.d)). 1(

2
Exhibit (10)(a)

    

    

    

    

    

    

    Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

    

    

    

    

    We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in
      Post-Effective Amendment No. 69 to the 1933 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-61592) and Amendment No. 611 to the 1940 Act Registration
      Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-05721), and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) March 9, 2021, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company and (b) April 15, 2021, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln National Variable Annuity
      Account H for the registration of interests in a separate account under individual flexible payment deferred variable annuity contracts.

    

    

    

    

    

    

    

    

    /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

    December 10, 2021
584 A.2d 217

#### INTERCOASTAL MANAGEMENT CO., LTD. v. ANNA MARIE INGEMI, ETC., ET AL.

May 15, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
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 DrugMax, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2004 (the Report), I, Ronald J. Patrick, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with 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 result of operations of the Company.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Ronald J. PatrickRonald J. PatrickChief Financial Officer,Principal Financial and Accounting OfficerFebruary 17, 2004
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03-08-00775- CV Jessica Ve lte and Paul Velt e , Appellan ts

v . Texas Depart m ent of Fam ily and P rote ctive Service s , Appellee F ROM THE DIST RICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY, 22ND JU DICIAL DISTRICT NO . 0 8-1 97 3, HO NO RAB LE J. F. CL AWS ON , J R. , J UDGE PRES ID IN G

ME MO R

A ND UMO P I N I O N Ap pe lla nts Jess ic a

and Pa ul V e lte have inf

or me d th e Court

that th e y no lon g e r w ish to pursue their a

ppeal be cause the appe al is moot, and they have f iled a motion to dism iss. We gr ant the motion and dismiss the appe al. Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a).

__________________________________________ J an P. Patterson, J ustice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pember ton and Waldrop Dismissed on Appellants’ Motion Filed: F ebrua

ry 12, 2009
585 A.2d 388

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, IN THE INTEREST OF J.O.

October 10, 1990.

Petition for certification denied. (See 242 *N.J.Super.*248, 576 *A.2d*342)
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 19
- 00339
- CR

Wesley Eugene Perkins, Appellant

v. The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COUR T AT LAW NO. 2 OF TR AVIS COUNTY NO. C
- 1
- CR
- 13
- 200882 , THE HONORABLE JOHN LIPSCOMBE, JUDGE P RESIDING

O R D E R A N D M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N PER CURIAM Wesley Eugene Perkins , acting pro se, appeals the district court’s order revoking his community supervision (probation)

. However, trial court has not entered the necessary certifi cation that Perkins has the right to appeal in this cause

. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2) (requiring trial court to enter certification of defendant’s right of appeal “ each time it enters a judgment of guilt or other appealab l e order ” ) , (d) (requiring record to include trial court’s certification of defendant’s right of appeal)

. Accordingly, we abate this appeal and remand the cause to the trial court for entry of a certification as to Perkins’s right of appeal. See id . R

. 2 5.2 (a)(2) ; Rodriguez v. State , Nos. 03

- 17

- 00062

- CR, 03

- 17

- 00063

- CR, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 1206, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Austin Feb. 14, 2017 , no pet. ) (mem. op. , not designated for publication ) (following similar procedure for trial court’s entry of certification of defendant’s right of appeal ). A supplemental2 clerk’s record containing the trial court’s certification shall be filed with this Court on or before September 2 6 , 201 9

. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 34.5(c)(2)

. It is so ordered August 27, 2019

.

Befor e Chief Justice Rose, Justices Triana and Smith Abated and Remanded Filed: August 27, 2019 Do Not Publish
EXHIBIT 32.1
  CERTIFICATION
    Accompanying
    Form 10-Q
    Report
    of First Industrial Realty Trust, Inc.
    Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
    2002
    (Chapter 63, Title 18 U.S.C. §1350(a) and
    (b))
  Form 10-Q
  Bruce
    W. Duncan
  Bruce W. Duncan
 President and Chief
    Executive Officer
 (Principal Executive
    Officer)
    Scott
    A. Musil
  Scott A. Musil
 Chief Financial Officer
 (Principal Financial
    Officer)
    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. The information
    contained in this written statement shall not be deemed
    filed for purposes of Section 18 of the
    Securities Exchange Act of 1934, nor shall it be deemed
    incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act
    of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except as shall
    be expressly set forth by specific reference to such filing.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-23-00217-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 141st District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 141-335859-22

Before Walker, J.; Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr, J.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

OMAR APOLO JACOBO, Appellant

V.

MONICA RENEE JORDAN, Appellee
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

On October 20, 2023, we notified appellant that his brief had not been filed as 

the appellate rules require. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.6(a). We stated that we could 

dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless, within ten days, appellant filed with 

the court an appellant’s brief and an accompanying motion reasonably explaining the 

brief’s untimely filing and why an extension was needed. See Tex. R. App. P. 10.5(b), 

38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b). We have received no response.

Because appellant has failed to file a brief even after we afforded an 

opportunity to explain the initial failure, we dismiss the appeal for want of 

prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), 43.2(f).

Per Curiam

Delivered: November 22, 2023
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 23

- 00091

- CV

G ABRIELA N. A NDERSON

, Appellant

V

.

H ILEY C ARS H URST

, LP , Appellee §

§

§

§ On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 2

of T a rrant County ( 2019

- 004035

- 2 )

June 27, 2024

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of th e trial

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _ /s/ Elizabeth Kerr

__________________ Justice Elizabeth Kerr
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 25 (Monday, February 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 6205]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-2616]


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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

Time and Date: February 10, 2010--10 a.m.

Place: 800 North Capitol Street, NW., First Floor Hearing Room, 
Washington, DC.

Status: The meeting will be in Open Session.

Matters to be Considered: 

Open Session

    1. Docket No. 06-01: Worldwide Relocations, Inc.; et al.,--Possible 
Violations of Sections 8, 10, and 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 and 
the Commission's Regulations at 46 CFR 515.3, 515.21, and 520.3--
Request for Extension of Time.
    2. Docket No. 08-04: Tienshan, Inc. v. Tianjin Hua Feng Transport 
Agency Co., Ltd--Request for Extension of Time.
    3. FY 2010 Budget Status Update.
    4. Petition P1-08--Petition of the National Customs Brokers and 
Forwarders Association of America, Inc. for Exemption from Mandatory 
Rate Tariff Publication.

Contact Person for More Information: Karen V. Gregory, Secretary, (202) 
523-5725.

Karen V. Gregory,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-2616 Filed 2-4-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE P
**
**Exhibit 31**

CERTIFICATION 

Re:    **Morgan Stanley Bank of America Merrill Lynch Trust 2014-C17,Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2014-C17**(the “Transaction”), issued pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of August 1, 2014 (the“Pooling and Servicing Agreement”), executed in connection with the Transaction (capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the meanings set forth in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement). 

 

 

I, George Kok, certify that: 

1.    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Morgan Stanley Bank of America Merrill Lynch Trust2014-C17 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”); 

2.    Basedon my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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 suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3.    Based on my knowledge,all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports; 

4.    Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required in this report under Item 1123 of RegulationAB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer(s) have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement(s) in all material respects; and 

5.    All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their relatedattestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described insuch reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above,I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: 

 
 • 
Citibank, N.A., as Trustee 

 
 • 
Citibank, N.A. , as Certificate Administrator 

 
 • 
Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Custodian 

 
 • 
Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer 

 
 • 
Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as Special Servicer 

 
 • 
Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as Operating Advisor 

 
 • 
CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc., as Servicing Function Participant 

 
 • 
National Tax Search, LLC, as Servicing Function Participant 
**

Date: March 29, 2019 

 
By: /s/ George Kok Name: George Kok Title: President
 
SOX Certification –MSBAM 2014-C17
Order entered July 3, 2014 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00841-CV 

IN RE CHELSEA DAVIS, Relator 

Original Proceeding from the 254th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DF-13-19281 

ORDER 

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS relator’s petition for writ of 

mandamus. We ORDER relator to bear the costs of this original proceeding. 

/s/ ROBERT M. FILLMORE 

 JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       4,795,726
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               41,496,708
<ALLOWANCES>                               (1,842,888)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,069,889
<PP&E>                                       3,562,635
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,314,864)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              51,767,206
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       28,226,579
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        35,472
<OTHER-SE>                                  23,505,155
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                51,767,206
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,835,972
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,111,893
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             (300,000)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             505,042
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                918,037
<INCOME-TAX>                                   367,156
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   550,881
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.16
        

</TABLE>
585 A.2d 338

#### TRUMP CASTLE HOTEL AND CASINO v. BOARD OF REVIEW AND CHARLES MATTIS.

July 10, 1990.

Petition for certification granted.
##### 



Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Patrick L. Beach, the President of GP3 Asset Acquisition, LLC, the
manager of Captec Franchise Capital Partners L.P. III (the
Partnership), certify that:

(1) The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Partnership for the
period ended September 30, 2003 which this certification accompanies
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 Partnership.

/s/ Patrick L. Beach
Patrick L. Beach
President
GP3 Asset Acquisition, LLC
November 14, 2003
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. TIMOTHY ALLEN HINES.

November 2, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
#### HOWARD ROSS v. ISLAND CITY REALTY.

October 20, 1987.

Cross-petition for certification denied.
SCPW-20-0000522

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

GREGORY WILLIAMSON, Petitioner,

vs.

THE HONORABLE JAMES H. ASHFORD,

Judge of the Circuit Court of the First Circuit,

State of Hawai#i, Respondent Judge,

and

ALLIANCE PERSONNEL, INC., Respondent.

 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

(CIV. NO. 13-1-1840)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, and Wilson, JJ., and

Circuit Judge Johnson, assigned by reason of vacancy)

Upon consideration of petitioner Gregory Williamson’s

petition for writ of mandamus, filed on August 24, 2020, the

documents attached thereto and submitted in support thereof, and

the record, it appears that petitioner is not entitled to the

requested extraordinary relief from this court. See Kema v.

Gaddis, 91 Hawai#i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (a writ of

mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless

the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPW-20-0000522

04-SEP-2020

10:08 AM
relief and a lack of alternative means to redress adequately the

alleged wrong or obtain the requested action; a writ of mandamus

is not intended to supersede the legal discretionary authority of

the trial courts, cure a mere legal error, or serve as a legal

remedy in lieu of normal appellate procedures). Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of

mandamus is denied. 

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of the

appellate court shall process the petition for writ of mandamus

without payment of the filing fees.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, September 4, 2020.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ Ronald G. Johnson

2
CERTIFICATIONS



I, Jaisun Garcha, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Snipp Interactive Inc.;



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 Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.

The Companys other certifying officer 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the Company 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 Company, 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)

Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principals;



c)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company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; and



d)

Disclosed in this report any change in the Companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Companys internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

The Companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Companys auditors and the audit committee of the Company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 Companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



b)

any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Companys internal control over financial reporting.





Date:   May 16, 2016





/s/  Jaisun Garcha

Jaisun Garcha,

Chief Financial Officer
585 A.2d 392

#### CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD OF NEW JERSEY, INC. v. CONNELL RICE & SUGAR CO., INC.

October 10, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.