alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
S06A0607.

#### HEARD v. THE STATE.

(627 SE2d 12)

BENHAM, Justice.

Appellant Otis Heard pled guilty to a charge of malice murder in 1998. In August 2005, he filed a motion for out-of-time appeal and for the appointment of appellate counsel, contending his guilty plea was involuntary because the trial court which accepted his guilty plea failed to explain “malice aforethought” or “intent,” and asserting trial counsel had rendered ineffective assistance of counsel. Appellant contended trial counsel had failed to file a timely notice of appeal from the guilty plea or a timely motion to withdraw the guilty plea, and had failed to inform appellant of his appellate rights. The trial court denied the motion for out-of-time appeal on September 1, 2005, noting that appellant would have to pursue these issues by means of a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Appellant filed a motion for reconsideration as well as a timely notice of appeal.

1. An out-of-time appeal is available to a defendant who has a judgment of conviction entered against him based on a guilty plea *349only if the issue on appeal can be resolved by facts appearing in the record of the guilty plea. *Johnson v. State,*275 Ga. 390 (1) (565 SE2d 805) (2002). Appellant seeks an out-of-time appeal alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, an issue which cannot be decided on the record of the guilty plea. Rather, as the trial court noted, it can be developed only in the context of a post-plea hearing. Since appellant’s assertions of error cannot be resolved in a direct appeal from a judgment entered on a guilty plea, the trial court properly denied appellant’s motion for out-of-time appeal. *Coleman v. State,*278 Ga. 493, 494 (604 SE2d 157) (2004); *Johnson v. State,*supra, 275 Ga. 390.

Decided February 27, 2006

Reconsideration denied March 27, 2006.

Otis Heard, *pro se.*

*Charles M. Ferguson, District Attorney, Keith W. Day, Assistant District Attorney,*for appellee.

2. The trial court did not err when it did not rule on appellant’s motion for reconsideration. The trial court lost jurisdiction of the case when the notice of appeal was filed. *Cherokee County v. Hause,*229 Ga. App. 578 (494 SE2d 234) (1997); *State v. Ganong,*221 Ga. App. 250, 251 (470 SE2d 794) (1996).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
Exhibit 13.2





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 filing of the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the period ended December 31, 2010 (the “Report”) by ClickSoftware Technologies Ltd. (the "Company"), the undersigned, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:





(1)           the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 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/ Shmuel ArvatzShmuel ArvatzChief Financial OfficerMarch 29, 2011
**Exhibit 23.1**

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

We hereby consentto the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-36562, 333-59988, 333-76250, 333-98303, 333-99035, 333-104239, 333-115524, 333-124814, 333-134361, 333-145312, 333-151174) of Otix Global, Inc. of our reportdated March 15, 2010 relating to the financial statements, financial statement schedule and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K**.**

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

Salt Lake City,UT 

March 15, 2010
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 10445 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
ANNA ROCHELLE WOODS , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:13

- CR

- 30

- 22

Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Anna Rochelle Woods pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 100 grams or more of a mixture and substance containing heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) and 846. She was sentenced to the statutory minimum of five years of imprisonment, and she timely appealed.

* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 27, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-10445 Document: 00512916720 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/27/2015No. 14

- 10445

In her sole issue on appeal, Woods argues that mandatory minimum sentences violate an individual’s right to due process of la w because they take away a sentencing judge’s discretion to sentence each convicted defendant as
an individual. She contends that mandatory minimum sentences place the power to try a defendant in the hands of Congress and the power to sentence a
defendant in the hands of the prosecutor.
T he United States Supreme Court and this court have rejected the argument that mandatory minimum sentences violate the Fifth Amendment. See Chapman v. United States , 500 U.S. 453, 467 (1991) (“ Congress has the power to de fine criminal punishments without giving the courts any sentencing discretion. ” ); United States v. Rojas

- Martinez , 968 F.2d 415, 420 (5th Cir. 1992) (“ Imposition of mandatory minimum sentences for offenses involving large quantities of illegal drugs bears a rational relationship to the legitimate purpose of enforcing federal drug laws and is not arbitrary.” ). Accordingly, the application of the statutory mandatory minimum sentence in § 841(b)(1)( B)(i) does not violate Woods’s Fifth Amendment right to subst antive due process. Although we conclude that the judgment should be affirmed without further briefing, summary affirmance is not appropriate. See United States v. Holy Land Found. for Relief & Dev. , 445 F.3d 771, 781 (5th Cir. 2006). Thus, we affirm th e judgment of the district court and deny the Government’s motion for summary affirmance and its alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief. AFFIRMED; MOTIONS DENIED.

2 Case: 14-10445 Document: 00512916720 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/27/2015
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 133 (Tuesday, July 14, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 34039]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16606]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-64,628]


Kelsey-Hayes Company, a Subsidiary of TRW Automotive Holdings 
Corporation, Including On-Site Leased Workers From Volt Technical 
Resources, Livonia, MI; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To 
Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment 
Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
2273), and Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as 
amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility 
to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade 
Adjustment Assistance on February 4, 2009, applicable to workers of 
Kelsey-Hayes Company, a subsidiary of TRW Automotive Holding 
Corporation, Livonia, Michigan. The notice was published in the Federal 
Register on March 3, 2009 (74 FR 9282).
    At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged 
in administrative functions and product engineering support for 
automotive components.
    New information shows that workers leased from Volt Technical 
Resources were employed on-site at the Kelsey-Hayes Company, a 
subsidiary or TRW Automotive Holdings Corporation, Livonia, Michigan. 
The Department has determined that these workers were sufficiently 
under the control of the subject firm to be considered leased workers.
    Based on these findings, the Department is amending this 
certification to include workers leased from Volt Technical Resources 
employed on-site at the Kelsey-Hayes Company, a subsidiary or TRW 
Automotive Holdings Corporation, Livonia, Michigan.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-64,628 is hereby issued as 
follows:
    All workers of Kelsey-Hayes Company, a subsidiary or TRW 
Automotive Holdings Corporation, including on-site leased workers 
from Volt Technical Resources, Livonia, Michigan, who became totally 
or partially separated from employment on or after December 8, 2007, 
through February 4, 2011, are eligible to apply for adjustment 
assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are also 
eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under 
Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 30th day of June 2009.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-16606 Filed 7-13-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
Exhibit 21.1



Subsidiaries of the Registrant



The following table lists, as of December 31, 2003, our subsidiaries, all of which are wholly owned, and indicates the jurisdiction of organization of each subsidiary.



|                                    |  |                   
|----------------------------------- |  | ------------------
|Subsidiary Name                     |  | Where Incorporated
|Sonic Innovations Pty Ltd.          |  | Australia         
|Hearing Aid Specialists Pty Limited |  | Australia         
|Sonic Innovations Canada Ltd.       |  | Canada            
|Sonic Innovations A/S               |  | Denmark           
|Omni ApS                            |  | Denmark           
|Omni Otoplast ApS                   |  | Denmark           
|Sonic Innovations GmbH              |  | Austria           
|Sonic Innovations AG                |  | Switzerland       
|Audifon U.K. Ltd.                   |  | England           
|StarMedical Europe B.V.             |  | Netherlands       
|Hoorcomfort Nederland B.V.          |  | Netherlands       
|Hoortoestelcentrum Sneek B.V.       |  | Netherlands       
|Sanomed Handelsgesellschaft mbH     |  | Germany           
|Sonic Innovations GmbH              |  | Germany
#### Manhattan Medical Diagnostic & Rehabilitation, P.C., Appellant, v Wachovia National Bank, N.A., Respondent. Wachovia Bank, National Association, Third-Party Plaintiff, v Bruce Paswell, M.D. Third-Party Defendant-Respondent, et al., Third-Party Defendant.

[857 NYS2d 54]

Plaintiff alleges that Wachovia failed to act in a commercially reasonable manner in allowing third-party defendant Paswall to open a checking account in plaintiffs name, resulting in the conversion of checks payable to plaintiff.

The record establishes that Wachovia acted in a commercially reasonable manner in opening the subject account. Wachovia’s vice-president identified the documents relied upon in opening the account, including a certificate of incorporation, a corporate resolution and a copy of Paswall’s driver’s license, and set forth that the bank’s conduct was reasonable under the circumstances *(see Sybedon Corp. v Bank Leumi Trust Co. of N.Y.,*224 AD2d 320 [1996]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Friedman, J.P., Gonzalez, McGuire and Moskowitz, JJ. *[See*13 Misc 3d 1228(A), 2006 NY Slip Op 52048(U).]
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 on Form 10-Q of ZZLL Information Technology Inc. (the Company) for the period ended September 30, 2019, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned 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 knowledge and belief:



(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 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.



Date: November 19,  2019

By :/s/Yanfei Tang

Yanfei Tang

Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Stanley Sadler, Appellant.

[853 NYS2d 374]

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Gray,*86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]). Although the defendant did raise a similar argument in his motion pursuant to CPL article 330 to set aside the verdict, raising such an argument for the first time in such a motion is not sufficient to preserve a claim for appellate review *(see People v Padro,*75 NY2d 820, 821 [1990]; *People v Donnigan,*31 AD3d 576 [2006]; *People v LaGuerre,*29 AD3d 820, 821 [2006]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and affording it the benefit of every favorable inference to be drawn therefrom (see *Jackson v Virginia,*443 US 307, 319 [1979]; *People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see *People v Plaisted,*2 AD3d 906, 907 [2003]; *People v Stephens,*2 AD3d 888, 889 [2003]; *People v Smith,*302 AD2d 677, 679 [2003]; *671
      *People v Williams,*259 AD2d 509 [1999]). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Romero,*7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the sentence imposed by the County Court improperly penalized him for exercising his right to a jury trial, as he did not raise this issue on the record at the time of sentencing *(see People v Robinson,*287 AD2d 582 [2001]). In any event, the defendant’s contention is without merit *(see People v Martinez,*289 AD2d 259, 259-260 [2001]; *People v Robinson,*287 AD2d at 582-583). Further, the sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Skelos, J.P., Lifson, Santucci and Balkin, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-61940 and 333-66982 on
Form S-3 and Registration Statement Nos. 333-43334, 333-53970, 333-54932, 333-105215, 333-124777 and
333-150022 on Form S-8 of our reports dated February 25, 2009, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Sonus Networks, Inc. (which report
expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the adoption of Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Interpretation No. 48, Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes, an
interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109, effective January 1, 2007), and the effectiveness
of Sonus Networks, Inc.'s internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Sonus Networks, Inc. for the year ended
December 31, 2008.

/s/
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Boston,
Massachusetts
February 25, 2009

---



QuickLinks
#### CLARK DOOR CO., Inc., v. YEAGER.

No. 570.

District Court, M. D. Pennsylvania.

June 24, 1941.

*771Paul S. Lehman, of Lewistown, Pa., for plaintiff.

Harry L. Siegel, of Lewistown, Pa., for defendant.

JOHNSON, District Judge.

This is a civil action brought to recover money paid by mistake, and damages for defendant’s unlawful use of plaintiff’s dies. Defendant has moved for a more definite complaint.

Concerning the claim for money paid by mistake, defendant objects because there is no detailed statement of dates, amounts and character of goods for which the money was paid. This claim is substantially in- the form recommended in the official forms for District Courts of the United States. See Form 7, appendix to F.R.C.P., 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c. Furthermore, at the argument upon this motion it was shown by the plaintiff that the information is solely within the control and records of defendant.

Concerning the claim for unlawful use of dies, defendant objects because the complaint does not specify the method used in calculating the damages and because it does not specify the dates and amounts of defendant’s use of the dies. Again plaintiff points out that this information is within defendant’s records and control.

All information sought by defendant can be secured under the broad provisions of the Federal Rules for discovery and depositions. F.R.C.P. 26-37, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c. These rules when properly used place the pleader’s information almost entirely within the control of the opposing party, and make surprise at trial almost impossible. Bills of particulars are no longer necessary to limit and define the issues. Pearson v. Hershey Creamery Co., D.C., 30 F.Supp. 82, 83.

The complaint in this case is sufficiently definite for framing an answer and for preparation for trial. Therefore, the motion for a more definite statement must be denied. Pearson v. Hershey Creamery Co., D.C., 30 F.Supp. 82; Brinley v. Lewis, D.C., 27 F.Supp. 313.

For the above reasons, defendant’s motion for a more definite statement is hereby denied, and defendant is ordered to answer the complaint within 20 days from receipt of a copy of this order.
<PAGE>   1




                               POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that each person whose signature appears below
constitutes and appoints Gerhard J. Von der Ruhr and Richard J. Osowski, and
each of them, as his true and lawful attorneys-in-fact and agents, with full
power of substitution and resubstitution, for him and in his name, place and
stead, in any and all capacities, to sign any and all amendments to this Report
on Form 10-K and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto and other
documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
granting unto said attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each of them full power
and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and
necessary to be done in connection therewith, as fully to all intents and
purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all
that said attorneys-in-fact and agents, or any of them, or their or his
substitute or substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue
hereof.

     Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this
report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the
registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Signature                                        Title                          Date
--------------------------------  -----------------------------------   ----------------------
<S>                               <C>                                   <C>
/s/ Gerhard J. Von der Ruhr       Chairman of the Board, President and  September 29, 1997
---------------------------       Director
Gerhard J. Von der Ruhr                       

                                  Vice Chairman of the Board,           September 29, 1997
---------------------------       Vice President and Director
N.C. Joseph Lai 

/s/ Richard J. Osowski            Senior Vice President-Finance         September 29, 1997
---------------------------       (Principal Financial and Accounting
Richard J. Osowski                Officer)
Attorney-in-fact

/s/ Karsten Houm                  Director                              September 29, 1997
---------------------------
Karsten Houm            

/s/ Milton Datsopoulos            Director                              September 29, 1997
---------------------------
Milton Datsopoulos                  

</TABLE>



                                       20
Case 2:11-cv-01176-SRC-MAS Document 25 Filed 07/19/11 Page 1 of 8 PageID: 87
Case 2:11-cv-01176-SRC-MAS Document 25 Filed 07/19/11 Page 2 of 8 PageID: 88
Case 2:11-cv-01176-SRC-MAS Document 25 Filed 07/19/11 Page 3 of 8 PageID: 89
Case 2:11-cv-01176-SRC-MAS Document 25 Filed 07/19/11 Page 4 of 8 PageID: 90
Case 2:11-cv-01176-SRC-MAS Document 25 Filed 07/19/11 Page 5 of 8 PageID: 91
Case 2:11-cv-01176-SRC-MAS Document 25 Filed 07/19/11 Page 6 of 8 PageID: 92
Case 2:11-cv-01176-SRC-MAS Document 25 Filed 07/19/11 Page 7 of 8 PageID: 93
Case 2:11-cv-01176-SRC-MAS Document 25 Filed 07/19/11 Page 8 of 8 PageID: 94
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 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 that Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date: November 14, 2007
    /s/ RONALD W. KAISERRonald W. KaiserChief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

Appellate case name: Samuel Espinoza Rodriguez v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-13-00448-CR

Trial court case number: 1356099

Trial court: 182nd District Court of Harris County

It is ordered that Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing is denied.

Justice’s signature: /s/ Rebeca Huddle

 Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Justices Keyes, Huddle, and Lloyd

Date: June 23, 2016
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 28, 2009 

s0921 

Order 

 

September 28, 2009 

139048 

EDDIE ALLEN, 

Plaintiff, 

v SC: 139048 

 AGC: 3284/07 

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION, 

Defendant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the complaint for superintending control is considered, and 

relief is DENIED, because the Court is not persuaded that it should grant the requested 

relief.