alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Brandon A. Hayward, Appellant.

[860 NYS2d 344]

Appeal from an order of the Ontario County Court (Craig J. Doran, J.), entered May 25, 2006. The order determined that defendant is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is

unanimously modified on the law by determining that defendant is a level two risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act and as modified the order is affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order determining that he is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 *et seq.).*The Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders (Board) recommended an upward *1244departure from defendant’s presumptive classification as a level two risk based on the total risk factor score on the risk assessment instrument (RAI). We agree with defendant that County Court erred in agreeing with the Board’s recommendation inasmuch as the upward departure is not supported by the requisite clear and convincing evidence *(see People v Mount,*17 AD3d 714 [2005]). Although a court may in the exercise of its discretion depart from the presumptive risk level determined by the RAI based upon the facts in the record *(see People v Girup,*9 AD3d 913 [2004]), the “utilization of the [RAI] will generally ‘result in the proper classification in most cases so that departures will be the exception not the rule’ ” *(People v Guarnan,*8 AD3d 545 [2004], quoting Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 4 [Nov. 1997 ed]). “A[n upward] departure from the presumptive risk level is warranted where ‘there exists an aggravating . . . factor of a kind or to a degree *not otherwise taken into account by the (risk assessment] guidelines’ ” (People v Inghilleri,*21 AD3d 404, 406 [2005] [emphasis added], quoting Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 4; *see Mount,*17 AD3d 714 [2005]; *Girup,*9 AD3d at 913; *Guaman,*8 AD3d 545 [2004]) and, here, there was no evidence of such an aggravating factor *(see Mount,*17 AD3d 714 [2005]). We therefore modify the order accordingly. Present—Scudder, P.J., Lunn, Fahey, Pine and Gorski, JJ.
EXHIBIT 31.1

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Louis Pardo dit Pardau, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Poseidis, Inc.

2. Based on my  knowledge,  this  quarterly  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 quarterly
report.

3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information  included in this quarterly  report,  fairly present in all material
respects the financial  condition,  results of operations  and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report.

4.  The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and  I are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
exchange act rules 13a-14 and 15d- 14) for the registrant and have:

     (a)  designed  such  disclosure  controls  and  procedures  to ensure  that
material  information  relating to the  registrant,  including its  consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,  particularly
during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;
     (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures  as of a date  within  90  days  prior  to the  filing  date  of this
quarterly report (the "evaluation date"); and
     (c)  presented  in  this  quarterly   report  our  conclusions   about  the
effectiveness of the disclosure  controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the evaluation date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation,  to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's   board  of  directors  (or  persons   performing   the  equivalent
functions):

     (a) all  significant  deficiencies  in the design or  operation of internal
controls  which  could  adversely  affect  the  registrant's  ability to record,
process,  summarize  and  report  financial  data  and have  identified  for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and
     (b) any fraud,  whether or not material,  that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls.

6. The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and I have  indicated in this
quarterly  report  whether or not there  were  significant  changes in  internal
controls or in other factors that could  significantly  affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent  evaluation,  including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: October 15, 2003

By:    /s/ Louis Pardo dit Pardau
       ---------------------------------------------
       Louis Pardo dit Pardau
       Chief Executive Officer or equivalent thereof
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony J. Lawrence, Appellant.

[988 NYS2d 384]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (David D. Egan, J.), rendered June 4, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree, burglary in the first degree, criminal use of a firearm in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and endangering the welfare of a child (three counts).

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, attempted murder in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 125.25 [1]). Defendant contends that the factual allocution raised significant doubt with respect to his intent to kill and, therefore, his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered. Although that contention survives defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal, defendant failed to preserve his contention for our review by failing to move to withdraw his guilty plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction on that ground *(see People v McKeon,*78 AD3d 1617, 1618 [2010], *lv denied*16 NY3d 799 [2011]). “This is not one of those rare cases ‘where the defendant’s recitation of the facts underlying the crime [s] pleaded to clearly casts significant doubt upon the defendant’s guilt or otherwise calls into question the voluntariness of the plea[ ]’ to obviate the preservation requirement” *(People v Rodriguez,*17 AD3d 1127, 1129 [2005], *lv denied*5 NY3d 768 [2005], quoting *People v Lopez,*71 *1502NY2d 662, 666 [1988]). Here, although defendant’s initial statements cast doubt on his intent to kill, Supreme Court engaged in the requisite additional inquiry, which established defendant’s intent to kill *(see*Lopez, 71 NY2d at 666). In light of our decision, we do not address defendant’s remaining contention premised upon reversal of the conviction of attempted murder.

Present—Smith, J.P, Fahey, Peradotto, Sconiers and Valentino, JJ.
Exhibit 31.2



Certification



I, Thomas J. Flahie, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of eUniverse Inc.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The registrant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 registrant and have:



(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant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



(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most
recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors:



a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



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



|Date: October 30, 2003 |  | /s/ Thomas J. Flahie         
|---------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|                       |  | Thomas J. Flahie             
|                       |  | Chief Financial Officer      
|                       |  | (Principal Financial Officer)



26
Order entered November 19, 2015

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 15

- 00143

- CR

TORRY GOODSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F13

- 62599

- K



### O RDER

T he Court GRANTS appellant’s November 16, 2015 second motion for extension of

time to file appellant’s brief.

We ORDER appellant to file the brief within SEVEN (7) DAYS from the date of this

order.

/s/ ADA BROWN

JUSTICE
#### Jerry Michaels, Appellant, v Virginia Cooper, Respondent.

[666 NYS2d 92]

—Order and judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in awarding statutory costs to defendant in the absence of proof that it “would not be equitable, under all of the circumstances” (CPLR 8101; *see, Olmstead v Federated Dept. Stores,*208 AD2d 979, 982, *lv denied*85 NY2d 811; *cf., Govern & McDowell v McDowell & Walker,*75 AD2d 979, 980). Although neither party recovered from the other, defendant is considered the prevailing party and is entitled to costs *(see, Graybill v Van Dyne,*67 Misc 2d 228; 14 Weinstein-KornMiller, NY Civ Prac jj 8101.15, at 81-20). (Appeal from Order and Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Frazee, J.— Costs.) Present—Pine, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Balio and Fallon, JJ.
<PAGE>  1

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PETERSON SULLIVAN P.L.L.C.
601 Union Street  Suite 2300  Seattle WA  98101  (206) 382-7777 fax 382-7700
                                                Certified Public Accountants





                 Consent of Independent Auditors
                 -------------------------------



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statements (No. 333-15831 and 333-15829) on Forms S-8 of Ichor Corporation and
Subsidiaries of our report dated February 21, 1997, relating to the balance
sheet of Ichor Corporation and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 1996, and the
related statements of operations, shareholders' equity and cash flows for the
eleven months ending December 31, 1996, which report appears in the Annual
Report of Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1996 of Ichor Corporation
and Subsidiaries.


                                          /s/ Peterson Sullivan   P.L.L.C.


February 21, 1997
Seattle, Washington
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 13

- 00236

- CV

VARIAN MEDICAL SYSTE MS, INC.

, Appellant

v.

JANICE KENOYER AND E LEKTA, INC.

, Appellee s

From the 40th District Court

Ellis County, Texas

Trial Court No. 85321

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Varian Medical Systems, Inc., and appellees, Elekta, Inc. and Janice

Kenoyer, have filed a joint motion to dismiss this appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(2).

Dismissal of this appeal would not prevent a party from seeking relief to which it

would otherwise be entitled. The motion is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

Further, pursuant to their joint motion, the parties will bear their own costs.Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Kenoyer Page 2 AL SCOGGINS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis , and

Just ice Scoggins

Motion granted; appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed August 8, 2013

[CV06]
CERTIFICATIONS
      OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
      SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT





Exhibit
      32




**CERTIFICATIONS
      PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**


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




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of RG America, Inc., a Nevada corporation
      (the “Company”), on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2006, as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), Bruce A. Hall,
      Principal Executive Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to
§
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to 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/
                Bruce A. HallBruce
                A. HallPrincipal
                Executive Officer and Principal Financial OfficerNovember
                8, 2006
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 5, 2018

No. 04-18-00583-CR

Jose Hernandez PEREZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 289th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CR4049

Honorable Daphne Previti Austin, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant entered into a plea bargain with the State, and pled nolo contendere to the 

charged offense. The trial court imposed sentence in accordance with the agreement and signed a 

certificate stating this “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” See 

Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal. The clerk’s record, which 

includes the trial court’s rule 25.2(a)(2) certification and a written plea bargain agreement, has 

been filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d). This court must dismiss an appeal “if a certification that 

shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record.” Id. The clerk’s 

record establishes the punishment assessed by the court does not exceed the punishment 

recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). 

The record also appears to support the trial court’s certification that appellant does not have a 

right to appeal. See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (holding that court 

of appeals should review clerk’s record to determine whether trial court’s certification is 

accurate).

Appellant is hereby given notice that this appeal will be dismissed pursuant to rule 

25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure unless an amended certification showing that 

appellant has the right to appeal is made part of the appellate record by September 26, 2018. See 

Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d); Daniels v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, 

order), disp. on merits, No. 04-03-00176-CR, 2003 WL 21508347 (July 2, 2003, pet. ref’d) (not 

designated for publication). We ORDER all appellate deadlines are suspended until further order 

of the court.
_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 5th day of September, 2018.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle,

Clerk of Court
Exhibit 4.14


 


FBL FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.

(the “Company”)


OFFER TO EXCHANGE


$100,000,000 PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF ITS 5.875%
SENIOR NOTES DUE 2017

WHICH HAVE BEEN REGISTERED UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933,

FOR ANY AND ALL 5.875% SENIOR NOTES DUE 2017.


Instructions from
Beneficial Owner


The undersigned
acknowledge(s) receipt of your letter and the enclosed Prospectus and the
related Letter of Transmittal in connection with the offer by the Company to
exchange the Exchange Notes for Outstanding Notes.


This will instruct you to
tender the principal amount of Outstanding Notes indicated below held by you
for the account of the undersigned, upon the terms and subject to the
conditions set forth in the Prospectus and the related Letter of Transmittal.


The undersigned represents
that (i) the Exchange Notes acquired pursuant to the Exchange Offer are
being obtained in the ordinary course of the undersigned’s business, (ii) the
undersigned is not engaging, does not intend to engage, and has no arrangement
or understanding with any person to participate in the distribution of such
Exchange Notes, (iii) the undersigned is not an “affiliate,” as defined
under Rule 405 of the Securities Act, of the Company and (iv) the
undersigned is not acting on behalf of any person or entity that could not
truthfully make these statements. If the undersigned is a broker-dealer, it
acknowledges that it will deliver a copy of the Prospectus in connection with
any resale of the Exchange Notes.




	
  

  	
   

  	
  Sign Here

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Signature(s)

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Securities
  which are to be tendered:

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Tender
  all of the Outstanding Notes

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Aggregate
  Principal Amount*

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  o   Outstanding
  Notes

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Name(s) (Please Print)

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Address

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Zip Code

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Area Code and Telephone No.

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Dated:

  	
   

  	
     ,
  2007

  	
   

  	
   

  
						










*                    Unless
otherwise indicated, it will be assumed that all of the Outstanding Notes
listed are to be tendered.
| 1.   | The      Form 10-K of the Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2008 (the      "Form 10-K"), fully complies with requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));      and |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | The      information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition, and results of operations of the      Corporation. |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      March 12, 2009 |                                                        |
|---------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|
|                      |                                                        |
|                      | /s/ Carol K. Nelson                                         |
|                      | Carol      K. Nelson, President and Chief Executive Officer |
|                      |                                                        |
|                      |                                                        |
|                      | /s/ Lars H. Johnson                                         |
|                      | Lars      H. Johnson, Chief FinancialOfficer                |
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 6D23-2716

Lower Tribunal No. 2022-CA-002636-O

_____________________________

ROBERT ARNAZ RACKARD,

Appellant,

v.

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC d/b/a MR. COOPER and JOHNATHAN MEISELS,

Appellees.

_____________________________

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County.

Vincent Falcone, III, Judge.

May 3, 2024

PER CURIAM. 

Due to Appellant Robert Arnaz Rackard’s apparent abuse of the legal process 

by his repetitive and frivolous pro se filings contesting the foreclosure judgment 

entered against him in Orange County Circuit Court Case No. 2022-CA-002636-O,

this Court issued an order directing Appellant to show cause why he should not be 

prohibited from future pro se filings. See State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47, 48 (Fla. 

1999). Appellant filed a response, which we have reviewed. Finding Appellant has 

failed to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed, we conclude that 
2

Appellant is abusing the judicial process and should be barred from further pro se 

filings. 

To conserve judicial resources, Appellant is prohibited from filing with this 

Court any further pro se filings concerning Orange County Circuit Court Case No. 

2022-CA-002636-O. The Clerk of this Court is directed not to accept any further pro 

se filings concerning the referenced case. The Clerk will summarily reject any future 

filings regarding the referenced case unless filed by a member in good standing of 

The Florida Bar. 

FUTURE PRO SE FILINGS PROHIBITED.

TRAVER, C.J., and WOZNIAK and BROWNLEE, JJ., concur.

Robert Arnaz Rackard, Orlando, pro se. 

Dorrella L. Gallaway, of Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders, LLP, Atlanta, 

Georgia, for Appellee, Nationstar Mortgage, LLC d/b/a Mr. Cooper. 

No Appearance for Appellee, Johnathan Meisels.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING 

AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED