alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered February 1 3 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 13
- 0152 8
- CR THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant

V.
CASEY BENSON , Appellee On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F13
- 1001 7
- Q



### O RDER
The Court ORDERS the Dallas County District Clerk to file the clerk’s record in this appeal within FIFTEEN DAYS of the date of this order.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to Gary
F itzsimmons, Dallas County District Clerk; the Dallas County District Clerk’s Office, Criminal Records Division; and to counsel for all parties.
/s/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE
AO 245D (Rev. 12/03) Judgment in a Criminal Case for Revocations (8607)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA JUDGMENT IN A CRIMINAL CASE

V. (For Revocation of Probation or Supervised Release)

KEVIN JAVON MOORE CASE NUMBER: 2:06-CR-00176-008

aka K-Mo, aka Boo-Baby USM NUMBER: 09551-003

THE DEFENDANT: Peter J. Madden, Esquire

Defendant's Attorney

admitted guilt to violation of supervision condition: mandatory condition as set forth in the 

petition dated 11/25/2009.

was found in violation of supervision condition: 

Violation Number Nature of Violation

Date violation

Occurred

Mandatory New Offense 10/20/2009

The defendant is sentenced as provided in pages 2 through 2 of this judgment. The sentence is 

imposed pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984.

The defendant has not violated condition(s) and is discharged as to such violation(s) 

condition.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant shall notify the United States Attorney for this 

district within 30 days of any change of name, residence, or mailing address until all fines, restitution, 

costs, and special assessments imposed by this judgment are fully paid.

Defendant's Social Security No. 9848

Defendant's Date of Birth: 1981

Defendant's Residence Address:

Selma, AL

__________________________

Defendant's Mailing Address:

___________________________

___________________________

November 12, 2014

Date of Imposition of Judgment

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

November 21, 2014

Date

X

Case 2:06-cr-00176-CG-N Document 950 Filed 11/21/14 Page 1 of 2
Judgment 2

AO 245D (Rev. 12/03) Judgment in a Criminal Case for Revocations: Sheet 2 - Imprisonment

Defendant: KEVIN JAVON MORE, a/k/a K-Mo, a/k/a Boo-Baby

Case Number: 2:06-CR-00176-008

IMPRISONMENT

The defendant is hereby committed to the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons to be 

imprisoned for a total term of TWENTY-FOUR (24) MONTHS. 

The court makes the following recommendations to the Bureau of Prisons: 

The defendant is remanded to the custody of the United States Marshal.

The defendant shall surrender to the United States Marshal for this district:

at .m. on .

as notified by the United States Marshal.

The defendant shall surrender for service of sentence at the institution designated by the Bureau 

of Prisons:

before 2 p.m. on .

as notified by the United States Marshal.

as notified by the Probation or Pretrial Services Office.

RETURN

I have executed this judgment as follows:

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

Defendant delivered on to at __________________

with a certified copy of this judgment.

 UNITED STATES MARSHAL 

By _________________________________

 Deputy U.S. Marshal

X

Case 2:06-cr-00176-CG-N Document 950 Filed 11/21/14 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1

** **

** **

**Certification of CEO andCFO**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350,**

**AsAdopted Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

 

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Real Estate Associates Limited III (the"Partnership"), for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2010 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), StevenD. Cordes, as the equivalent of the chief executive officer of the Partnership,and Stephen B. Waters, as the equivalent of the chief financial officer of thePartnership, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to thebest of his knowledge:

 

(1)   The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)   Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.

 

 

 

 

This certification isfurnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of Section 18of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended.
|   | · | The                Covered Report 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 the Covered Report fairly presents, in all                material respects, the financial condition and results of operations                of                the Company. |

| Date:  August                3, 2006 | /s/ John                F.                Sipics                                    |
|------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                           | John                F. SipicsPresident                PPL                Electric Utilities Corporation                                                                                                                                                                 |
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Stephen G. Olmstead, Appellant.

[975 NYS2d 360]

Peters, P.J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County (Richards, J.), rendered August 15, 2012, which revoked defendant’s probation and imposed a sentence of incarceration.

In 2011, defendant pleaded guilty to misdemeanor driving while intoxicated and was sentenced to 30 days in jail and three years of probation. He was also ordered to pay a $1,000 fine as well as fees and surcharges. After defendant admitted to violating conditions of his probation, his probationary sentence was vacated and he was sentenced to one year in jail, with the unpaid fine, surcharges and fees remaining as part of his sentence. Defendant appeals.

Because defendant has completed serving his one-year jail term, his sole claim on this appeal — that the jail time imposed was harsh and excessive — is moot *(see People v Fusco,*91 AD3d 984, 985 [2012]; *People v Nieves,*89 AD3d 1285, 1287 [2011]). However, given our finding in a companion appeal that County Court may have misapprehended its ability to exercise discretion when it imposed a fine as part of defendant’s original sentence on the driving while intoxicated conviction *(People v Olmstead,*111 AD3d 1063 [2013] [decided herewith]), and inasmuch as that fine remained part of defendant’s sentence upon his violation of probation, we must vacate that portion of the sentence herein that continued the fine and remit the matter for further proceedings on this issue.

Stein, McCarthy and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating that portion of the sentence that continued the fine; matter remitted to the County Court of St. Lawrence County for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court’s decision; and, as so modified, affirmed.
#### State v. Royster

Case below: 182 N.C. App. 176

No. 168P07

Def’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA06-473)

Denied 06/27/07
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-50160 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus FRANKLIN ROLLIN JOHNSTON, also known as Johnny Johnston, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-95-CR-154-2-JN

-------------------- October 19, 1999 Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Franklin Rollin Johnston appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment on jurisdictional grounds pursuant to F ED . R. C RIM . P. 12(b)(2) after a timely notice of appeal from his convictions had been filed. Johnston’s timely notice of appeal divested the district court of its jurisdiction to address the motion. United States v. 4,970 Acres of Land , 130 F.3d 712, 714 (5th Cir. 1997). This appeal isNo. 99-50160 -2- without arguable merit and is thus frivolous. It is DISMISSED. 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
#### American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company, Respondent, v PERRY A. LERNER et al., Appellants.

[870 NYS2d 785]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered September 10, 2007, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Summary judgment was properly granted to plaintiff after it demonstrated that the allegations of the underlying complaint fell within an exclusion. The policy clearly and unambiguously provides that it “shall not apply to any Claim based upon or arising out of, in whole or in part . . . the Insured’s capacity or status as . . . [a] director.” The claims in the underlying lawsuit arise, in part, out of the individual defendant’s status as a director of the plaintiff in the underlying action. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Friedman, Buckley, Acosta and Freedman, JJ.
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

David Long, Appellant

No. 06-23-00147-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 102nd District Court of 

Bowie County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 

22F0168-102). Panel consists of Chief 

Justice Stevens and Justices van Cleef and 

Rambin. Memorandum Opinion delivered 

by Justice Rambin. 

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, David Long, has adequately indicated his inability to pay 

costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED FEBRUARY 15, 2024

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

SCOTT E. STEVENS

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
EXHIBIT
32.1











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





I,
Robert Kremer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of
Michael Lambert, Inc. on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended November 30, 2008
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-K fairly
presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of Michael Lambert, Inc.





Date:  February
27, 2009





By:
      /s/ Robert
      KremerRobert
      Kremer,Chief
      Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the annual report of Brookfield Homes Corporation (the Company) on Form
10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the Report), each of Ian G. Cockwell, Chief Executive Officer of the Company
and Paul G. Kerrigan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of
their knowledge:  1.
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Date:
    
    March 15, 2005By:
    
    /s/ IAN G. COCKWELLIan G. Cockwell
President and Chief Executive OfficerBy:
    
    /s/ PAUL G. KERRIGANPaul G. Kerrigan
Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
EXHIBIT 32.1




Certification of Principal Executive Officer


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350


(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)




I, Adam Anthony, Principal Executive Officer, and Principal Financial Officer, of Aftermarket Enterprises, Inc. (the "Registrant") do hereby certify, 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 our knowledge, based upon a review of the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2010 of the Registrant, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"):





(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and


(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.





Dated:    March 28, 2011
By:
/s/ Adam AnthonyAdam AnthonyChiOfficer andef ExecutiveChief Financial Officer





* A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Aftermarket Enterprises, Inc. and will be retained by Aftermarket Enterprises, Inc. and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
*665*A.2d 1104

#### NATHAN CONKLIN, ET AL. v. HANNOCH WEISMAN, P.C. AND CARLETON R. KEMPH.

September 8, 1995.

ORDER

Leave to appeal (M-6) is granted.
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 23.1



            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements
No. 333-109177, 333-133555 and 333-141954 on Form S-8 of our report dated April
10, 2008, relating to the consolidated financial statements of MicroIslet, Inc.
(which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory
paragraph relating to the substantial doubt about the Company's ability to
continue as a going concern) appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of
MicroIslet, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2007.



/s/ KMJ Corbin & Company LLP

Irvine, California
April 10, 2008
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Doug BROWN, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 05-10695.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 14, 2006.*

Decided June 16, 2006.

Paul L. Pugliese, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Reno, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

*636Michael D. Powell, Esq., Federal Public Defender’s Office, Reno, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: RYMER and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges, and KING,** District Judge.

*

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

**

 The Honorable Samuel P. King, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Hawaii, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Doug Brown appeals his conviction on one count of violating of 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(1)(A) and three counts of violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(3). We affirm.

We review Brown’s challenged jury instructions for plain error, because he did not object to them at trial, *United, States v. Sanders,*421 F.3d 1044, 1050 (9th Cir. 2005), and for harmless error under the standard of *Boyde v. California,*494 U.S. 370, 380, 110 S.Ct. 1190, 108 L.Ed.2d 316 (1990). Given that Brown submitted no evidence that he was selling from his personal collection — aside from indirect testimony that he had a large collection and that in the past he and his wife had sold their own guns at garage sales — and given that Brown made no argument to the jury that he was selling from his own collection, he has not shown plain error and any error would be harmless. We also reject Brown’s argument that 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(22) requires the government to prove actual profit for anyone who is not an arms dealer for criminals or terrorists, for that construction would defy both logic and the structure of the provision, which is a definition for “principal objective of livelihood and profit.”

We review Brown’s claim of statutory construction *de novo. United States v. Ventre,*338 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir.2003). Contrary to Brown’s argument, application of 18 U.S.C. § 923(b) does not make him an “unlicensed collector” when he is dealing in arms other than curios in relics. *See United States v. Ogles,*440 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir.2006) (en banc) (adopting *United States v. Ogles,*406 F.3d 586, 599 (9th Cir.2005) (Rymer, J., dissenting)). Section 922(b)(3) forbids “any ... licensed collector to sell ... any firearm.” The plain language does not limit the statute’s application only when a licensed collector sells curios and relics.

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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Arthur FOSTER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Richard E. BAZZLE, Warden; Henry McMaster, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents-Appel-lees.

No. 06-6449.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Sept. 20, 2006.

Decided: Oct. 17, 2006.

Arthur Foster, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Ap-pellees.

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

*438Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Arthur Foster seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition and finding that equitable tolling was not warranted. This 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 ap-pealability 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 the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Foster 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.*
EXHIBIT 32

                                  CERTIFICATION
                           Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Lucky Strike Explorations
Inc. (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Michael
Noble, as Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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.


Date: March 11, 2010                By: /s/ Michael Noble
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Michael Noble
                                        Chief Executive Officer
                                        Chief Financial Officer

This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to ss. 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 ss.18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

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.
#### In the Matter of Joanne Baker, Petitioner, v Barbara G. Zambelli, Respondent.

[973 NYS2d 568]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus, inter alia, to compel the respondent, Barbara G. Zambelli, a Judge of the County Court, Westchester County, to modify the terms of the petitioner’s probation pursuant to CPL 410.20 in an underlying criminal action entitled People v Baker, commenced in the County Court, Westchester County, under indictment No. 09-00670.

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

The extraordinary remedy of mandamus will lie only to compel the performance of a ministerial act, and only where there exists a clear legal right to the relief sought *(see Matter of Legal Aid Socy. of Sullivan County v Scheinman,*53 NY2d 12, 16 [1981]). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Angiolillo, J.P., Hall, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

 

**SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

**(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofBancTec, Inc, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for thequarter ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission (the “Report”), I, Jeffrey D Cushman, Senior Vice President andChief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to my knowledge:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

(2) The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
| / s /    Jeffrey D.  Cushman   |   |
|----------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Jeffrey D. Cushman                                 |
| Senior Vice President and Chief Financial  Officer |

 

May 20, 2005

 

A signed original of this written statementrequired by 18 USC Section 1350 has been provided to the Company and will beretained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

 

----