alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
663 A.2d 639

#### IN THE MATTER OF GERARD F. LONG, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

September 13, 1995.

ORDER

GERARD F. LONG of LIVINGSTON, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1973, having been ordered to show cause *430on September 11, 1995, why this Court’s Order of temporary suspension should not be continued pending the disposition of ethics proceedings against him, and respondent having failed to appear on the return date of the Order to Show Cause, and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that the suspension of GERARD F. LONG continue pending further Order of this Court; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent continue to be restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of his suspension and that he continue to comply with *Rule*1:20-20 dealing with suspended attorneys; and it is further

ORDERED that the Office of Attorney Ethics may transfer to the Clerk of the Superior Court for deposit in the Superior Court Trust Fund the attorney account funds held in any financial institution by GERARD F. LONG, which funds were restrained from disbursement by this Court’s Order of July 24, 1995.
Exhibit 31(ii)
                                 --------------


                                 CERTIFICATIONS
                                 --------------

I, Steve Bailey, 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 Alternative Loan Trust
                  2007-J1 (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

         2.       Based on 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 such statements 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.       I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
                  servicer(s) and based on my knowledge and the compliance
                  review(s) conducted in preparing the servicer compliance
                  statement(s) required in this report under Item 1123 of
                  Regulation AB, 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 related
                  attestation 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 Rules 13a-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
                  in such 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: The
         Bank of New York, as Trustee, Chevy Chase Bank, FSB, SunTrust Mortgage
         Incorporated, Provident Funding Associates LP and Washington Mutual
         Bank, FA.

    Date: March 27, 2008

         /s/ Steve Bailey
         -------------------------
         Steve Bailey
         Senior Managing Director, Chief Executive Officer Loan Administration
         (Senior officer in charge of the servicing function of
         Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP)
```

                                                                   EXHIBIT 3(ii)

                          WRITTEN CONSENT OF DIRECTORS
                                       OF
                        SPARTA COMMERCIAL SERVICES, INC.

     The undersigned, being all of the directors of Sparta Commercial Services,
Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), hereby adopt the following
resolutions in writing in lieu of a meeting:

     RESOLVED, that effective immediately, in accordance with the provisions of
Article VI of the Company's By-laws, Section 1 of Article III thereof is hereby
deleted in its entirety and the following new Section 1 is substituted
therefore:

     SECTION 1. NUMBER AND TERM. - The number of directors shall be between two
(2) and ten (10). The number of directors shall be set by the then current
members of the Board of Directors. The directors shall be elected at the annual
meeting of the stockholders and each director shall be elected to serve until
his successor shall be elected and shall qualify. A director need not be a
stockholder. In the case of a vacancy as a result in an increase in the number
of directors, the Board of Directors shall fill such vacancy at a special
meeting thereof.

     RESOLVED, that the officers of the Company are hereby authorized and
directed to execute and deliver all such documents and to take all such other
actions as they shall deem necessary or in the best interests of the Company to
effectuate the intent of the foregoing resolutions and the transactions
contemplated thereby.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Written Consent as
of the 13th day of December, 2004.

/s/ Anthony L. Havens                     /s/ Sandra L. Ahman
-------------------------                 -------------------------
Anthony L. Havens                         Sandra L. Ahman
```
#### IN THE MATTER OF A.P., a minor child

No. 534A06

(Filed 4 May 2007)

Child Abuse and Neglect— neglected child — custody—closing of case — termination of district court’s jurisdiction

The decision of the Court of Appeals remanding this case for an evidentiary hearing determining who is best suited to care for a dependent child who had been placed in the custody of the DSS and placed by DSS with her natural father is reversed for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion that the district court’s closing of the case terminated its jurisdiction and returned the child’s parents to their pre-petition legal status. The parents now have the option to pursue a custody determination in a Chapter 50 proceeding.

Appeal, pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 179 N.C. App. 425, 634 S.E.2d 561 (2006), reversing an order entered 18 October 2004 by Judge Denise S. Hartsfield in District Court, Forsyth County, and remanding the case for an evidentiary hearing. Heard in the Supreme Court 10 April 2007.

*Theresa A. Boucher, Assistant County Attorney, for petitioner-appellant Forsyth County Department of Social Services.*

*Katharine Chester and Richard E. Jester for respondentappellee mother.*

*Robert T. Newman, Sr. for respondent-appellee Roy R Gary C. Rhodes for respondent-appellant William David H.*

PER CURIAM.

For the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion, the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Charles W. Frysinger, Appellant.

[974 NYS2d 860]

Appeal from a judgment of the Steuben County Court (Peter C. Bradstreet, J.), rendered October 19, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of unlawfully dealing with a child in the first degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law, the plea and the waiver of indictment are vacated, and the matter is remitted to Steuben County Court for further proceedings.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of unlawfully dealing with a child in the first degree (Penal Law § 260.20 [2]). We note at the outset *1398that defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal is invalid. Despite the existence of a written appeal waiver form signed by defendant and his attorney, no questions were asked of defendant about the appeal waiver and his understanding thereof. In addition, the appeal waiver was not mentioned until after defendant pleaded guilty. Thus, the record is “insufficient to establish that [County Court] £engage[d] the defendant in an adequate colloquy to ensure that the waiver of the right to appeal was a knowing and voluntary choice’ ” *(People v Brown,*296 AD2d 860, 860 [2002], *lv denied*98 NY2d 767 [2002]; *see People v Hamilton,*49 AD3d 1163, 1164 [2008]).

We agree with defendant that the court erred in denying his motion to vacate his guilty plea, which, inter alia, challenged the factual sufficiency of his plea allocution *(see People v Lopez,*71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]). Defendant was expressly charged with the act of providing alcoholic beverages to persons under 21 years of age, but during the brief factual colloquy at the plea proceeding he never admitted that he provided alcohol. Here, defendant “preserve[d his] challenge to the factual sufficiency of [the] plea allocution . . . [by making] a motion to withdraw the plea under CPL 220.60 (3)” *(id.),*and we conclude that the court erred in denying that motion. Present — Centra, J.E, Fahey, Garni, Sconiers and Valentino, JJ.
EXHIBIT 13.2

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

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of MATERIALISE NV (the Company) on Form 20-F/A for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2017, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Johan Albrecht, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the
U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



|(i) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

Date: June 26, 2018



|    |  |                        
|--- |  | -----------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Johan Albrecht     
|    |  | Johan Albrecht         
|    |  | Alfinco BVBA           
|    |  | Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David H. Williams, Appellant.

[974 NYS2d 883]

— Appeal from a judgment of the Ontario County Court (Thomas M. Van Strydonck, J.), rendered July 27, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree (two counts) and unlawful possession of marihuana.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed. Present — Scudder, EJ., Peradotto, Garni, Sconiers and Whalen, JJ.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 5 D0 07 0

. K IM B E R

L Y T

. S P E N C E v. G E O R G IA F A R M B U R EAU MUTUAL

I NSURANCE, et a l

..

K i m berl y Sp en ce fi l ed s u i t i n m ag i s t rat e co urt ag ai n s t s ev eral d efen d an t s

, i n cl u d i n g Geo rg i a Farm Bu reau M u t u al In s u ran ce. Th e m at t er was t ran s f e r r e d to

s t at e co u rt

, wh i ch g ra n t e d t h e d efen d an t s ’ m o t i o n fo r s u m m ary ju d g m en t

. Sp en ce

t h en fi led t h i s ap p l i cat i o n fo r d i s cret i o nary ap p eal

.

Th e gran t o f s u m

m ary ju dg m en t m ay b e d i rect l y ap p eal ed

. See O CGA § 9 -1 1

-

5 6 (h ). Un d er OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (a) (1 1 ), an ap p li cat i o n fo r d i s cret i o n a r y ap p eal i s

req u i red wh ere l i ti g at i o n b eg i n s i n m ag is t rat e c o u rt an d reach es th e s tat e co u rt by

m ean s o f a d e n o v o ap peal

. See OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (a) (1 1 ). Bu t t h is pro v i si o n ap p l i es

, b y it s term s

, o n l y w h e r e t h e s t at e co urt ex erci s es d e n o v o rev i ew o f t h e m ag i s t rat e

co u rt ’ s d eci s i o n

. Here, t he t ri al co u rt ’ s o rd er i n d i cat es t h at cas e w as t ran s ferred fro m

m ag i s t rat e co u rt . Th us , OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (a) (1 1 ) d o es n ot ap p l y

.

W e wi l l g ran t an o th erwi s e t i m el y ap pl i cat i o n fo r di s cret i o n ary ap p eal i f t h e

l o wer co u rt ’ s o rd er i s s u b

ject t o d i rect ap p eal

. See OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (j). Acco rd i n g l y

,

t h i s ap p l icat io n i s h ereb y GRANTED, an d Sp en ce s h al l h av e t en day s fro m t h e d at e

o f t h i s o rd er t o fi l e a n o t i ce o f ap p eal wi t h t he t ri al co u rt

. If s h e h as al read y fi l ed a

n o t i ce o f ap p eal i n th e t ri al co u rt

, s he n eed no t fi le a s eco n d n o t i ce. Th e cl erk o f t h e

t ri al co u rt i s DIRECTED t o i n cl u d e a co p y o f t h i s ord er i n t h e reco rd t ran s m i t t ed to

t h e Co u rt o f Ap p eal s

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e is a tr u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

.

W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 10/09/2014 October 09, 2014
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6599
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus SEAN BURNETT THOMAS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (7:05-cr-00526-HMH; 7:06-cv-70010-HMH) Submitted: August 30, 2007 Decided: September 7, 2007 Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sean Burnett Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Sean Burnett Thomas seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of the denial of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) relief. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683- 84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Thomas has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Raheen M. Gayden, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[974 NYS2d 853]

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Elma A. Bellini, J.), rendered February 15, 2008. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of murder in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal is unanimously dismissed.

Same memorandum as in *People v Gayden*([appeal No. 2] 111 AD3d 1388 [2013]). Present — Fahey, J.E, Peradotto, Lindley, Sconiers and Whalen, JJ.
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CHAUMON MARTE WEBB

No. 450P05

ORDER

The Attorney General’s Petition for Discretionary Review is allowed, pursuant to our general supervisory authority under Article IV, Section 12 of the Constitution of North Carolina, for the limited purpose of (1) vacating that portion of the Court of Appeals opinion ordering remand to the trial court for resentencing and (2) remanding to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of *State v. Timothy Earl*Blackwell, 361 N.C. 41, - S.E.2d- (2006). The Court of Appeals opinion remains undisturbed in all other respects.

By Order of the Court in Conference, this 19th day of December, 2006.

s/Timmons-Goodson. J. For the Court
**Exhibit 32**

**Certification   Persuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act  of  2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)**

Persuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18  U.S.C. 1350) the undersigned General Partners of TASA Products  Limited, a Washington limited partnership (the "Company"), do  hereby certify, to the best of such General Partner's knowledgeand belief, that:

 1. The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended  September 30, 2010 (the "Form 10-Q) of the Company 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in  all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

| /s/ MICHEL E. MAES Michel E. MaesCo-General Partner                       Date: 10-27-10 | /s/JAMES R. STEFFEYJames R. SteffeyCo-General PartnerDate: 10-27-10 |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

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

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         173,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,691,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   371,000
<INVENTORY>                                  2,971,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,314,000
<PP&E>                                       5,789,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,636,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,304,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,043,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  6,900,000
<COMMON>                                    15,021,000
<OTHER-SE>                                (17,883,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,304,000
<SALES>                                      5,927,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,927,000
<CGS>                                      (4,584,000)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              (6,795,000)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                60,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              83,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (951,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (951,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (951,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.17)


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Celso CHAVEZ-BALTAZAR, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 06-40186, 06-40196.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Oct. 25, 2006.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Timothy William Crooks, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendanb-Appel-lant.

Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed for Celso Chavez-Baltazar has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Chavez-Baltazar has not filed a response to counsel’s motion. Our independent review of counsel’s brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.