alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Filed 06/29/20 by Clerk of Supreme Court



### IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOT A

2020 ND 133

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v. Francisco Eugenio Bethancorth, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20200020

Appeal from the District Court of Dickey County, Southeast Judicial District, the Honorable Daniel D. Narum , Judge.

AFFIRMED

.
Per Curiam.

Mary E. Depuydt, Special Assistant State’s Attorney, Wishek, ND

, for plaintiff and appellee.

Benjamin C. Pulkrabek, Ma ndan, ND

, for defendant and appellant.1 State v. Bethancorth No. 20200020

Per Curiam.

[¶1] Francisco Eugenio Bethancorth appeals from a criminal judgment
entered after a jury found him guilty of criminal trespass. He argues his degree
of intoxication prevented him from knowing that he was not licensed or privileged to enter or remain in a dwelling or highly secured premises, and the
district court erred by den y i ng his motion for acquitta l. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).

[¶2] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Daniel J. Crothers Jerod E. Tufte Lisa Fair McEvers Gerald W. VandeWalle
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. RONALD GRAVES.

March 10, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Aris Morfopoulos, certify that:

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of GeneMax Corp.;

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;

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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

The small business issuer'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)) for the small business issuer and have:

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 small business issuer, 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;

evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer'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

disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

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 small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

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

Date:  April 27, 2006
By: "*Aris Morfopoulos*"
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





Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



This 30th day of March, 2007.







/s/ Randolph C. Kohn

Randolph C. Kohn

Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)









/s/ James L. Pate III

James L. Pate, III

Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
#### George Smith’s Exr. et al. *v.*Mary E. Smith et al.

Distribution of Decedent’s Estate — Bond of Distributee.

The court will require the distributee or legatee, before receiving his distributive share or legacy, to execute a bond with good security to pay back the amount received by him,.if any debts appear against the estate within five years.

APPEAL FROM MERGER CIRCUIT COURT.

October 8, 1866.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Peters :

The argument presented by the counsel to sustain the claim of appellants for the offset of the notes on George S. Smith against the claim of appellees to the legacy, though ingenious, is specious, and the difference attempted to be shown between this case and the case of Carson, etc. *v.*Carson’s Exr., etc., 1 Metc. 300, has not been successful. Indeed that case was a stronger one for the executors than this, because there the son who was named as the devisee in his father’s will owed the testator; here the indebtedness was to the executor. Eegarding the case as analogous, and the construction of the statutes on the subject in the case referred *303to as consistent with their letter and spirit and as altogether correct, we conclude that appellees are entitled to the legacy unincumbered by the claim for an offset attempted to be enforced against them by appellants.

But the second objection taken to the judgment is more serious. By section 471, Civil Code, it is provided that the court *shall*require the distributee or legatee, before receiving his distributive share or legacy, to execute bond, with good security, to the Commonwealth, conditioned to pay his proportion, not exceeding the amount received by him, of any debt which may appear against the estate of the decedent within five years after the grant of administration on the estate, etc. No such bond seems to have been executed or tendered in this case, and the judgment was prematurely rendered. Montjoy’s Admr. *v.*Pearce, etc., 4 Metc. 97. Wherefore, because the requisite bond or bonds were not executed, the judgment is reversed, and the causes remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. MICHAEL JOHN DEMPSEY.

July 18, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JOEL SUSSMAN.

May *2,*1978.

Petition for certification denied.
### To the 14th Courtof Appeals, Frank Hudson p o box 2373 Athens Tx. 75751 903-275-2421

I am writing in regards to an address change due to change and unfortunate situation of attorney William Maxwell..(see letter) I Frank Hudson, the planiffin this case am requesting that any and all descions made on case # 14-14-00073 be sent to address above.. if you have any question please don't hesitate to call me at number above.

Thank you

Frank Hudson

• •• \.

# William Maxwell, P.L.L.C. 15821FM 529, Box 298 Houston, Ttexas 77095 Ifetepfcone (713) 739-0663 Fax (713) 904-2474 E-Maii Address: iitfttffiwffliammaiwritoltom August 22,2014

Frank Hudson P.O. Box 2373 ' Athens, TX 

### RE: CaseNo. 14-14-00073; FrankHudson vLutherForest; Inthe 14th Court of Appeals Dear Frank, Dueto sudden andpersonal reasons beyond his control, Mr. Maxwell has beenforced to closed his law practice." He will not be able to continue to represent you in the above 

### matter. You will need to find a new attorney. Please letme know ifyou object. We will 

### be filing a Motion to Withdraw as soon as we hear from you. Enclosed are your files. Please letmeknow ifthere is anything else we candoforyou. Regards, 

# -fetnaij Vivian Huntsman Executive Assistant ~
#### McCarty’s Admr. *v.*Winn.

Liability for Taking Property Under Military Order.

An order for confiscation of property must be produced as a defense, if sought to be available as justification.

APPEAL EROM PENDLETON CIRCUIT COURT.

June 14, 1866.

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Robertson :

The appellant, as administrator of William H. McCarty, deceased, sued the appellee, Thomas Winn, for forcibly taking from the intestate and converting to his own use a bay horse.

The answer, admitting that the appellee took the horse to Covington, alleged, as a justification, that a squad of Federal soldiers had taken it from the owner and ordered him, then a resident citizen of Pendleton county, Kentucky, to carry it to Covington, Ky., and deliver it to Col. Hays, of the Federal army, which, in obedience to that order, he did. On that issue, without any proof of the alleged order, but on proof that the intestate loaned the horse for scouting one night, the Circuit Court instructed the jury to find for the defendant; and accordingly verdict and judgment were rendered in bar of the action.

Had the order been proved there would have been great difficulty in sustaining the defense, and especially without other proof. But the failure to prove any order or rightful- authority *178left the appellee without any pretense of justification for the admitted conversion, and, therefore, the instruction was erroneous.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 209 (Friday, October 29, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 66788]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27355]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[LLNV912000.L16400000.PH0000.006F 241A; 11-08807; TAS: 14X1109]


Notice of Cancellation of Public Meeting: Resource Advisory 
Councils, Nevada

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Cancellation of Public Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management 
(BLM) Nevada has cancelled a joint meeting of its three Resource 
Advisory Councils (RACs) previously scheduled to be held on November 4 
and 5, 2010 in Sparks, Nevada. The meeting will be rescheduled in early 
2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rochelle Francisco, telephone: (775) 
861-6588, e-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#186a777b707d74747d477e6a79767b716b7b77587a7475367f776e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bdcfd2ded5d8d1d1d8e2dbcfdcd3ded4ceded2fddfd1d093dad2cb">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Nevada RACs advise the Secretary of the 
Interior, through the BLM Nevada State Director, on a variety of 
planning and management issues associated with public land management 
in Nevada.

    Dated: October 21, 2010.
Doran Sanchez,
Chief, Office of Communications, BLM Nevada.
[FR Doc. 2010-27355 Filed 10-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-HC-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2104 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2104

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 2 West Main Street in Batavia, New York, as the ``Barber Conable 
                        Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 24, 2004

  Mr. Schumer introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
           referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 2 West Main Street in Batavia, New York, as the ``Barber Conable 
                        Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. BARBER CONABLE POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 2 West Main Street in Batavia, New York, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Barber Conable Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the Barber 
Conable Post Office Building.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT
      32.0**




CERTIFICATION
      OF PRESIDENT, CEO (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 on Form 10-QSB of Sandston Corporation
      (the
      "Company") for the quarter ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Daniel J. Dorman, as
      President, CEO and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certifies,
      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 his knowledge:




(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.





/s/
                Daniel J. Dorman




Name:
            Daniel
                J. DormanTitle:
            President,
                CEO (Principal Executive Officer) and Principal Financial
                OfficerDate:
            August
                8, 2008





This
      certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
      Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_______________________________

JONATHAN LEE RICHES, a/k/a Bernard 

Madoff, a/k/a Howard Stern, d/b/a Irving 

Picard, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JONATHAN LEE RICHES; JAMES 

WENNEKER VON BRUNN; ERIC 

HOLDER; ROGER FEDER; BARACK 

OBAMA; CLIFFORD HARRIS, a/k/a T.I.; 

NEWT GINGRICH; RUSTY HUMPHRY; 

RUSH LIMBAUGH; GEORGE W. BUSH; 

BLACKWATER USA; AMERICAN 

IDOL; BUREAU OF PRISONS, 

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 10-1277

(D.C. No. 1:09-CV-01552-ZLW)

(D. Colo.)

_______________________________

ORDER

_______________________________

The captioned appeal is dismissed for lack of prosecution pursuant to 10th Cir. R. 

42.1.

A copy of this order shall stand as and for the mandate of this court.

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

July 21, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 10-1277 Document: 01018461499 Date Filed: 07/21/2010 Page: 1
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 September 12, 2018

d0905

Order 

Clerk

September 12, 2018

156397(19)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 156397

COA: 337073

Wayne CC: 96-006397-FC

SHADRACH RICHEY, Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s May 29, 2018 

order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIA FERIA,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

DEVRY UNIVERSITY, INC.,

Erroneously Sued As DeVry Inc,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 14-56166

D.C. No. 2:13-cv-02111-R-VBK

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 9, 2016** 

Pasadena, California

Before: GOULD and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI,*** Judge.

Maria Feria (“Feria”) appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment

in favor of DeVry University, Inc. (“DeVry”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28

FILED

JUN 13 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

 *** The Honorable Jane A. Restani, Judge for the United States Court of

International Trade, sitting by designation.
U.S.C. § 1291. We review the grant of summary judgment de novo, construing the

facts and drawing reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Earl v.

Nielsen Media Res., Inc., 658 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2011). 

1. The district court properly entered summary judgment on the wrongful

termination in violation of public policy claim. Feria failed to allege sufficient

facts that she was actually or constructively discharged. See Turner v. AnheuserBusch, Inc., 876 P.2d 1022, 1025, 1027, 1030 (Cal. 1994).

2. The district court properly entered summary judgment on the California

Labor Code §§ 1102.5(b) and (c) claims. Feria was not subjected to an actionable

adverse employment action, primarily because she was not actually or

constructively discharged. See Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., 116 P.3d 1123,

1142–43 (Cal. 2005) (defining adverse employment action); see also Edgerly v.

City of Oakland, 150 Cal. Rptr. 3d 425, 430–31 (Ct. App. 2012); Mokler v. Cty. of

Orange, 68 Cal. Rptr. 3d 568, 580 (Ct. App. 2007). Feria has also not met the

statutory requirements because she made only an internal complaint, rather than

filing a report with “a government or law enforcement agency.” Cal. Lab. Code

§ 1102.5(b) (2003). Thus, there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the

district court properly granted summary judgment.

AFFIRMED.

2
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Manuel J. GUTIERREZ, III, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-41656.

Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Sept. 2, 2003.

James Lee Turner, Assistant US Attorney, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Timothy Andrew Hootman, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before DUHÉ, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.1

Manuel J. Gutierrez, III, appeals from the denial of a motion to suppress following his conviction for conspiracy to possess and possession with intent to distribute more than 100 kilograms but less than 1000 kilograms of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B), and 846. Gutierrez argues that the Border Patrol Agents lacked reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle that he was driving.

A border patrol agent conducting a roving patrol may make a temporary investigative stop of a vehicle if the agent is aware of specific articulable facts, together with rational inferences from those facts, that reasonably warrant suspicion that the vehicle’s occupant is engaged in criminal activity. *United States v. Brignoni-Ponce,*422 U.S. 873, 884, 95 S.Ct. 2574, 45 L.Ed.2d 607 (1975). In determining whether a reasonable suspicion exists, the courts must look to the totality of the circumstances surrounding the stop. *United States v. Espinosa-Alvarado,*302 F.3d 304, 306 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*537 U.S. 1094, 123 S.Ct. 706, 154 L.Ed.2d 643 (2002). Consideration of the relevant factors, viewed in the totality of the circumstances and in the light most favorable to the Government, indicates that the district court committed no error in concluding that there was reasonable suspicion for the stop. *United States v. Jacquinot,*258 *402F.3d 423, 427-28 (5th Cir.2001), *cert. denied,*534 U.S. 1116, 122 S.Ct. 925, 151 L.Ed.2d 889 (2002).

AFFIRMED.

1

. Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

www.nasa.gov

Coloring Pages

 NP-2020-04-029-LaRC
## F I F T H 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5D 23

- 3 084 LT Case No. 20 03

- CF

- 032520

- B

_____________________________
L EIGH V ALORIE F ORD , Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County

. Aaron Peacock , Judge

. Leigh Valorie Ford
, Ocala
, pro se

. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Whitney Brow n Hartless , Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach , for Appellee.

January 9, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.315(a).

W ALLIS , B OATWRIGHT , and K ILBANE , JJ., concur

.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Redhook Ale Brewery, Incorporated
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period September 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Paul S.
Shipman, President and 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 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.

A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon
request.

Date: November 10, 2006

                                              BY: /s/  Paul S. Shipman
                                                  ----------------------------
                                                  Paul S. Shipman
                                                  Chief Executive Officer
                                                  and Chairman of the Board