alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
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

I, Darren J. Cioffi, the Chief Financial Officer of BEVsystems International,
Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) the Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarterly period
ended December 27, 2003 (the "Report")  fully complies with the  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 Report fairly  presents,  in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

February 10, 2004


                                            /s/   Darren J. Cioffi
                                            ----------------------
                                            Name: Darren J. Cioffi
                                            Title: Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 243 (Monday, December 20, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76004-76005]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27710]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs


Indian Gaming

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Approved Tribal-State Class III Gaming Compact.

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

SUMMARY: This notice publishes the Approval of the Tribal-State Compact

[[Page 76005]]

between the Sovereign Indian Nation of the Sac and Fox Tribe of the 
Mississippi in Iowa and the Sovereign State of Iowa.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 20, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George T. Skibine, Director, Office of 
Indian Gaming Management, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary-
Policy and Economic Development, Washington, DC 20240, (202) 219-4066.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under section 11 of the Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA) Public Law 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2710, the 
Secretary of the Interior shall publish in the Federal Register notice 
of approved Tribal-State compacts for the purpose of engaging in Class 
III gaming activities on Indian lands. This Compact allows for the 
extension of the current Compact and clarifies the regulatory scheme.

    Dated: December 2, 2004.
Michael D. Olsen,
Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 04-27710 Filed 12-17-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-4N-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cecilio PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-30478

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 24, 2007.

Jon Michael Maestri, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

John H. Craft, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender, Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Cecilio Perez appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for illegal reentry following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He contends that the presumption of reasonableness this court accords sentences imposed within the advisory guideline range erroneously constrains the district court’s discretion. Specifically, Perez argues that the validity of this court’s sentencing framework after *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), is under consideration by the Supreme Court in *Rita v. United States,*— U.S. —, 127 S.Ct. 551, 166 L.Ed.2d 406 (2006) and *Claiborne v. United States,*— U.S.—, 127 S.Ct. 551, 166 L.Ed.2d 406 (2006). Thus, he argues that if the Supreme Court were to find this framework inconsistent with *Booker,*he would be entitled to resentencing.

Because an intervening Supreme Court case explicitly or implicitly overruling pri- or precedent is required to alter this court’s precedent, the grants of certiorari in *Rita*and *Claiborne*have no impact on this court’s precedent. *See United States v. Short,*181 F.3d 620, 624 (5th Cir.1999). In the instant case, the district court considered the Guidelines and determined that a sentence at the bottom of the guideline range was appropriate. Because the court exercised its discretion to impose a sentence within a properly calculated guideline range, this court may infer, in its *301reasonableness review, that the court considered all the factors for a fair sentence set forth in the Guidelines. *United States v. Mares,*402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir.2005). This court has examined the record and concludes that the sentence imposed by the district court is reasonable.

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: 

CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION

SECURITIES LITIGATION.

This Document Relates

To All Cases.

 /

No. C 08-01510 WHA

ORDER SETTING

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE

The Court would like to have a short telephone conference with counsel at 9:00 A.M. ON

MONDAY, APRIL 12, 2010. Plaintiff’s counsel are requested to set up the telephone call and then

contact the Court at 415-522-3684 when all parties are present. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 9, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-01510-WHA Document 600 Filed 04/09/10 Page 1 of 1
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-23-00784-CV

Alfredo Garza, Appellant

v.

James Toney and Linda Toney, Appellees

FROM THE 483RD DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY 

NO. 23-0861, THE HONORABLE JOE POOL, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The clerk’s record in this appeal was due for filing in this Court on

December 18, 2023. On January 9, 2024, we notified appellant that no clerk’s record had been 

filed due to his failure to pay or make arrangements to pay the trial clerk’s fee for preparing the 

clerk’s record. The notice requested that appellant make arrangements for the clerk’s record and 

submit a status report regarding this appeal by January 19, 2024. Further, the notice advised 

appellant that his failure to comply with this request could result in the dismissal of the appeal 

for want of prosecution. To date, appellant has not filed a status report or otherwise responded to 

this Court’s notice, and the clerk’s record has not been filed.

If a trial-court clerk fails to file the clerk’s record due to an appellant’s failure to 

pay or make arrangements to pay for the clerk’s fee for preparing the record, the appellate court 
2

may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless the appellant was entitled to proceed 

without payment of costs. Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b). In this case, appellant has not established 

that he is entitled to proceed without payment of costs. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 145. Because 

appellant has failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee for preparing the clerk’s 

record, this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.

__________________________________________

Edward Smith, Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Smith and Theofanis

Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

Filed: February 23, 2024
<PAGE>
                                                                    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 Quarterly Report of I-Sector Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 (the "Report"), as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, James H. Long,
Chief Executive Officer and 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:

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 Company.


/s/   James H. Long
----------------------
James H. Long
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer


October 5, 2004
§ 19.11-5 Commencement, termination and adjustment of annuities. ( a ) An annuity payable from the Fund to a surviving spouse or former spouse begins on the day after the participant or annuitant dies and stops on the last day of the month before the survivor's ( 1 ) marriage before age 60, or
( 2 ) death. If a survivor annuity is terminated because of remarriage, the annuity is restored at the same rate effective on the date such remarriage is terminated, provided any lump-sum paid upon termination of the annuity is returned to the Fund. The termination of a surviving spouse annuity due to remarriage does not apply to a survivor annuitant who is a surviving spouse of a participant who died in service or retired before October 1, 1976, unless elected following a marriage after retirement under circumstances described in § 19.10-3 or § 19.10-4.
( b ) A surviving spouse or former spouse shall not become entitled to a survivor annuity or to the restoration of a survivor annuity payable from the Fund unless the survivor elects to receive it instead of any other survivor annuity to which entitled under this or any other retirement system for Government employees. (For this purpose, neither the Social Security system nor the military retirement system is considered a retirement system for Government employees.) This restriction does not apply to a survivor annuitant who is a surviving spouse of a participant who died in service or retired before October 1, 1976, unless the survivor annuity was elected under circumstances described in § 19.10-3 or § 19.10-4.
( c ) A child's annuity begins on the day after the participant dies, or if a child is not then qualified, on the first day of the month in which the child becomes eligible. A child's annuity shall terminate on the last day of the month which precedes the month in which eligibility ceases.
( d ) Regular and supplemental survivor annuities to a spouse or former spouse of an annuitant described in §§ 19.11-2, 19.11-3 and 19.10-6(b) are increased from their effective date by the cumulative percentage of cost-of-living increases the annuitant was receiving under section 826 of the Act at death. All annuities payable to survivors on the date a cost-of-living adjustment becomes effective are increased by that percentage except ( 1 ) the first increase to a surviving spouse of a participant who dies in service shall be pro rated and
( 2 ) additional survivor annuities under § 19.10-5 when the spousal agreement authorizing the annuity makes no provision for cost-of-living increases.
( e ) The annuity of survivors becomes effective as specified in this section but is not paid until the survivor submits Form JF-38, Application for Death Benefits, supported by such proof as may be required, for example, death, marriage, and/or divorce certificates. In the event that such is not submitted during an otherwise eligible beneficiary's lifetime, no annuity is due or payable to the beneficiary's estate.
[46 FR 12958, Feb. 19, 1981. Redesignated and amended at 46 FR 18970, Mar. 27, 1981]
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE MIGUEL AVALOS,

Petitioner,

 v.

BEN CURRY, Warden, 

Defendant. /

No. C 08-0949 WHA (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This is a habeas case filed by a California prisoner proceeding pro se. On September 4,

2009, the clerk sent a copy of the order granting petitioner’s request for an extension of time to

petitioner at the prison address where petitioner indicated in his petition that he was located. 

The clerk had previously sent all communications from the court to petitioner at this same

address. On September 9, 2009, however, the order granting an extension of time was returned

as undeliverable with a notation that petitioner is not located there. Petitioner has not notified

the clerk of any change of address. As more than sixty days have passed since the mail was

returned, and petitioner has not notified the clerk of any change in address, this case is

DISMISSED without prejudice. See Local R. 3-11(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 22 , 2010. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\HC.08\AVALOS0949.DSM.311.wpd

Case 3:08-cv-00949-WHA Document 20 Filed 01/22/10 Page 1 of 1
### §296f. Technical assistance

Funds appropriated under this subchapter may be used by the Secretary to provide technical assistance in relation to any of the authorities under this subchapter.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title VIII, §808, formerly §807, as added Pub. L. 105–392, title I, §123(4), Nov. 13, 1998, 112 Stat. 3566; renumbered §808, Pub. L. 106–525, title IV, §401(b)(1), Nov. 22, 2000, 114 Stat. 2508.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 296f, act July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title VIII, §811, formerly §807, as added Aug. 16, 1968, Pub. L. 90–490, title II, §212, 82 Stat. 782; amended Nov. 18, 1971, Pub. L. 92–158, §4(c), 85 Stat. 475; renumbered §811 and amended July 29, 1975, Pub. L. 94–63, title IX, §941(f), 89 Stat. 365, related to filing dates, etc., for applications for grants, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 99–92, §§9(a)(1), 10(a), Aug. 16, 1985, 99 Stat. 400, 402, effective Oct. 1, 1985.

A prior section 808 of act July 1, 1944, was classified to section 296g of this title prior to repeal by Pub. L. 94–63, title IX, §922, July 29, 1975, 89 Stat. 359.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Environmental Protection Agency

          - 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 
          - [R03-OAR-2004-WV-0001; FRL-7850-6] 

# AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

# ACTION:

Withdrawal of direct final rule. 

# SUMMARY:

Due to an adverse comment, EPA is withdrawing the direct final rule to redesignate the City of Weirton PM10 nonattainment area to attainment and approval of the maintenance plan. In the direct final rule published on October 27, 2004 (69 FR 62591), we stated that if we received adverse comment by November 26, 2004, the rule would be withdrawn and not take effect. EPA subsequently received an adverse comment. EPA will address the comment received in a subsequent final action based upon the proposed action also published on October 27, 2004 (69 FR 62637). EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. 

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

The direct final rule is withdrawn as of December 20, 2004. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Linda Miller, (215) 814-2068, or by e-mail at                         *miller.linda@epa.gov.*

# List of Subjects 

### 40 CFR Part 52

        - Environmental protection
        - Air pollution control
        - Incorporation by reference
        - Particulate matter
        - Reporting and recordkeeping requirements

### 40 CFR Part 81

        - Air pollution control
        - National parks
        - Wilderness areas

Dated: December 13, 2004. 

Donald S. Welsh, 

Regional Administrator, Region III. 

                        Accordingly, the addition of § 52.2520 (c)(60) and the amendment in § 81.349 to the table for “West Virginia—PM10                        ” revising the entry for Hancock and Brooke Counties (part): The City of Weirton are withdrawn as of December 20, 2004.                     

[FR Doc. 04-27664 Filed 12-17-04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
#### Paul ROBERSON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Terry O’BRIEN, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 07-6233.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 26, 2007.

Decided: May 3, 2007.

Paul Roberson, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Linn Eckert, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Paul Roberson, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition and his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Roberson v. O’Brien,*No. 7:06-cv-00414-sgw (W.D.Va. Jan. 31, 2007; filed Feb. 5, 2007, entered Feb. 6, 2007). 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of

the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 1

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 6/27/96 TENTH CIRCUIT

JIMMY R. NEWSOM,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT,

Defendant-Appellee. Case No. 95-6365 (D.C. CIV-95-1415-T) (Western District of Oklahoma)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRORBY, EBEL, and HENRY, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiff-appellant Jimmy R. Newsom filed on September 7, 1995, a pro se complaint which, construed liberally, see Haines v. Kerner , 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972), appears to allege various injuries occurring in 1961, 1965, 1987, 1988, 1990 and 1995. The allegations are so irregular that it is impossible to identify precisely the cause of action under which the appellant seeks relief.1 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined that ora l

argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 2 The district court determined that all of the claims were barred by either the statute of limitations, the failure to exhaust administrative remedies, or the absence of legal or factual basis. The court dismissed the action on the grounds that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction and that the complaint was frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Appellant was granted in forma pauperis status and appealed. 1 We find no error in the decision of the district court and AFFIRM. The mandate shall issue forthwith. Entered for the Court, Robert Henry Circuit Judge
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Thomas Haynes, Appellant.

[820 NYS2d 299]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowling, J.), rendered May 6, 2003, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, he was not denied the effective assistance of counsel. Viewing the record as a whole, the defendant received meaningful representation *(see People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137 [1981]).

Further, the hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress certain physical evidence for the reasons stated on the codefendant’s appeal *(see People v Haynes,*16 AD3d 434 [2005]). Florio, J.P., Crane, Ritter and Fisher, JJ., concur.
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 Quarterly Report of Pacific Biometrics, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Ronald R. Helm, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         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 result of operations of the
Company.


Date: November 14, 2006

                                       /s/ Ronald R. Helm
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Ronald R. Helm,
                                       Chief Executive Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael McCarthy, Appellant.

[716 NYS2d 627]

—Judgment unanimously affirmed *(see, People v Lococo,*92 NY2d 825, 827). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Buscaglia, J. — Vehicular Manslaughter, 1st Degree.) Present— Pigott, Jr., P. J., Green, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Balio, JJ.
#### §§ 255.17-255.19 [Reserved]