alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Fleetclean Systems Inc., (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the"Report"), I,
Kenneth A. Phillips, Chief Executive Officer and principal 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 my knowledge:

(1)  This  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.



Kenneth A. Phillips, Chief Executive Officer and principal financial officer
November 14, 2003


<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 Internet Infinity, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the “Report”), I, George P. Morris, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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)           Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:  August 17, 2011


/s/ George MorrisGeorge MorrisChief Executive Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Internet Infinity, Inc. and will be retained by Internet Infinity, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Margaret E. Meyer, Deceased. Frederick F. Fox, Appellant; John A. Fox, Jr., et al., as Executors of Margaret E. Meyer, Deceased, Respondents.

Order unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondents. No opinion. Present- — Peck, P. J., Dore, Callahan, Breitel and Bastow, JJ. [204 Misc. 265.]
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 437 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 437

  To authorize and request the President to award the Medal of Honor 
posthumously to Captain Emil Kapaun of the United States Army for acts 
                    of valor during the Korean War.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 25, 2011

Mr. Pompeo (for himself, Ms. Jenkins, and Mr. Huelskamp) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To authorize and request the President to award the Medal of Honor 
posthumously to Captain Emil Kapaun of the United States Army for acts 
                    of valor during the Korean War.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION AND REQUEST FOR AWARD OF MEDAL OF HONOR TO 
              EMIL KAPAUN FOR ACTS OF VALOR DURING THE KOREAN WAR.

    (a) Authorization.--Notwithstanding the time limitations specified 
in section 3744 of title 10, United States Code, or any other time 
limitation with respect to the awarding of certain medals to persons 
who served in the Armed Forces, the President is authorized and 
requested to award the Medal of Honor posthumously under section 3741 
of such title to Emil Kapaun for the acts of valor during the Korean 
War described in subsection (b).
    (b) Acts of Valor Described.--The acts of valor referred to in 
subsection (a) are the actions of then Captain Emil Kapaun as a member 
of the 8th Cavalry Regiment during the Battle of Unsan on November 1 
and 2, 1950, and while a prisoner of war until his death on May 23, 
1951, during the Korean War.
                                 <all>
```
### §4346a. Travel reimbursement by private organizations and Federal, State, and local governments

The Council may accept reimbursements from any private nonprofit organization or from any department, agency, or instrumentality of the Federal Government, any State, or local government, for the reasonable travel expenses incurred by an officer or employee of the Council in connection with his attendance at any conference, seminar, or similar meeting conducted for the benefit of the Council.

(Pub. L. 91–190, title II, §207, as added Pub. L. 94–52, §3, July 3, 1975, 89 Stat. 258.)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rossanio Russell, Appellant.

[716 NYS2d 328]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Marlow, J.), rendered May 16, 1995, convicting him of kidnapping in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, burglary in the first degree (two counts), criminal contempt in the second degree (two counts), and criminal use of a firearm in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his contention that the jury’s verdict of guilt was based on legally insufficient evidence *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

Although we agree with the defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in not holding a hearing to ascertain the voluntariness of his statements to a Florida police officer which were used by the People for impeachment purposes *(see, People v Harris, 25*NY2d 175, *affd*401 US 222; *People v Dansa,*172 AD2d 1011; *People v Quick,*160 AD2d 820), any error was harmless *(see, People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230, 236).

The defendant’s sentence was not excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mangano, P. J., Ritter, S. Miller and H. Miller, JJ., concur.
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

JAMES TALADA, III, and MELODY

LABELLA,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CITY OF MARTINEZ, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 08-02771 WHA

ORDER ON STIPULATED 

FINAL JUDGMENT

Judgment was entered in this matter on November 23, 2009, in favor of defendants and

against plaintiffs (Dkt. No. 274). Despite the entry of judgment in this action over six months

ago, the undersigned received on May 26, 2010, a stipulated final judgment between plaintiff

James Talada, III and individual defendant Gary Peterson (Dkt. No. 301). The only “new”

information of substance in the stipulated final judgment is the amount of costs taxed. The

parties, however, have not provided the Court with any reasons why the proposed stipulated final

judgment is necessary, since costs are generally taxed after final judgment has been entered. As

such, the undersigned will not grant approval of the stipulated final judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 27, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-02771-WHA Document 302 Filed 05/27/10 Page 1 of 2
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

2

Case 3:08-cv-02771-WHA Document 302 Filed 05/27/10 Page 2 of 2
#### § 504.12 Procedure when a decision is not made prior to the time a response is required.

If a response to a demand or request is required before the General Counsel can make the determination referred to in § 504.9, the General Counsel, when necessary, will provide the court or other competent authority with a copy of this part, inform the court or other competent authority that the request is being reviewed, provide an estimate as to when a decision will be made, and seek a stay of the demand or request pending a final determination.
### §3513. Working capital fund; establishment; amount; use; reimbursement

There is established a working capital fund, to be available without fiscal year limitation, for expenses necessary for the maintenance and operation of (1) a central reproduction service; (2) a central visual exhibit service; (3) a central supply service for supplies and equipment for which adequate stocks may be maintained to meet in whole or in part the requirements of the Department; (4) a central tabulating service; (5) telephone, mail, and messenger services; (6) a central accounting and payroll service; and (7) a central laborers' service: Provided, That any stocks of supplies and equipment on hand or on order shall be used to capitalize such fund: Provided further, That such fund shall be reimbursed in advance from funds available to bureaus, offices, and agencies for which such centralized services are performed at rates which will return in full all expenses of operation, including reserves for accrued annual leave and depreciation of equipment.

(July 5, 1952, ch. 575, title II, §201, 66 Stat. 369; 1953 Reorg. Plan No. 1, §§5, 8, eff. Apr. 11, 1953, 18 F.R. 2053, 67 Stat. 631; Pub. L. 86–703, title II, §201, Sept. 2, 1960, 74 Stat. 773.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of title II of act July 5, 1952, popularly known as the Federal Security Agency Appropriation Act, 1953.

Section was formerly classified to section 905 of this title.

#### Amendments

1960—Pub. L. 86–703 made fund available for maintenance and operation of a central visual exhibit service, telephone, mail and messenger services, a central accounting and payroll service, and a central laborers' service.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Change of Name

"Secretary of Health and Human Services" and "Department of Health and Human Services" substituted for "Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare" and "Department of Health, Education, and Welfare", respectively, pursuant to section 509(b) of Pub. L. 96–88, which is classified to section 3508(b) of Title 20, Education.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

Functions of Federal Security Administrator transferred to Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare and all agencies of Federal Security Agency transferred to Department of Health, Education, and Welfare by section 5 of Reorg. No. 1 of 1953, set out as a note under section 202 of this title. Federal Security Agency and office of Administrator abolished by section 8 of Reorg. Plan No. 1 of 1953.
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDUARDO DE LA TORRE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CASHCALL, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 08-cv-03174-MEJ 

ORDER RE: TRIAL SCHEDULE

The trial in this matter, currently scheduled for May 11, 12, and 19, 2015, shall instead 

take place May 11-13, 2015. All pretrial deadlines remain unchanged. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 23, 2015

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:08-cv-03174-TSH Document 263 Filed 01/23/15 Page 1 of 1
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PATRICK E. NOEL,

Petitioner,

v.

GREG LEWIS, Warden,

Respondent.

___________________________________/

No. C-08-3777 EMC (PR)

ORDER RE STATUS REPORT

This Court granted Petitioner conditional habeas relief on one of his state convictions (Cal.

Penal Code section 186.22(a)) and remanded the matter to the state court of conviction (the

Mendocino County Superior Court) for resentencing. In the remand order, which was dated June 8,

2015, the Court instructed Respondent to file a status report “when the state superior court

resentences petitioner, or within 180 days of this order, whichever is earlier.” More than 180 days

have passed. Respondent shall file a status report on or before March 1, 2016. Petitioner’s attorney

is encouraged, but not required, to file a status report also. 

The Clerk shall send a copy of this order to Petitioner, Petitioner’s counsel, and Respondent.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 20, 2016

_________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-03777-EMC Document 59 Filed 01/20/16 Page 1 of 1
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID SCOTT CONNOLLY,

Petitioner,

 v.

BEN CURRY, Warden, et al.,

Respondents. ______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 08-4517 MMC (PR)

ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO

FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFS

On September 26, 2008, petitioner, a California prisoner incarcerated at the

Correctional Training Facility, Soledad, and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled petition

for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging a 2006 decision by the

California Board of Prison Hearings (“Board”) to deny petitioner parole. Respondent has

filed an answer to the petition and petitioner has filed a traverse.

A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit addresses important issues relating to federal

review of parole decisions. See Hayward v Marshall, No. 06-55392, 2010 WL 1664977 (9th

Cir. April 22, 2010) (en banc). Consequently, the parties will be directed to file

supplemental briefs setting forth their respective views as to the effect, if any, of the

Hayward en banc decision on the Court’s determination of the instant petition.

Case 3:08-cv-04517-MMC Document 8 Filed 05/20/10 Page 1 of 2
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

2

Accordingly, the Court hereby sets the following briefing schedule:

1. No later than ten days from the date this order is filed, respondent shall send to

petitioner a copy of the Hayward en banc decision. 

2. No later than twenty days from the date this order is filed, respondent shall file

and serve on petitioner a supplemental brief addressing the impact of Hayward on the instant

action. 

3. No later than twenty days from the date respondent’s supplemental brief is

filed, petitioner shall file and serve on respondent either a supplemental brief addressing the

impact of Hayward on the instant action or a notice that he does not intend to file such a

brief.

4. The parties’ respective supplemental briefs shall not exceed fifteen pages in length.

5. The matter will be deemed submitted on the date petitioner’s supplemental brief is

due. No extensions of time will be granted to file the supplemental briefs absent a showing

of exceptional circumstances. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 20, 2010 _________________________ MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-04517-MMC Document 8 Filed 05/20/10 Page 2 of 2
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

HAROLD BLACK,

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

JOHN E. POTTER,

Defendant(s). /

NO: C-08-1344 RS (MEJ)

NOTICE AND ORDER RESCHEDULING 

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that this case has been rescheduled for a Settlement Conference

before Chief Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James. The Settlement Conference shall take place on

August 11, 2010, at 10:00 a.m. in Judge James’ CHAMBERS, located at the Federal Building,

450 Golden Gate Avenue, 15th Floor, San Francisco, California 94102. The parties shall

immediately notify the Court if this matter settles or is dismissed before the settlement

conference date. On the date of the settlement conference, counsel and parties shall use the call box

adjacent to chambers' security entrance to notify the Court of their arrival.

Settlement Conference statements shall be submitted in accordance with Magistrate Judge

James' STANDING ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE PROCEDURES, a copy of which

may be obtained from the Northern District of California's website at 

http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/. From the homepage, click on the "Judges" tab on the left margin,

then choose Magistrate Judge James.

When filing papers that require the Court to take any action (e.g. motions, calendaring issues,

administrative requests or a request to be excused from attendance), the parties shall, in addition to

filing papers electronically, lodge with chambers a printed copy of the papers by the close of the next

Case 3:08-cv-01344-RS Document 66 Filed 05/28/10 Page 1 of 2
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 2

court day following the day the papers are filed electronically. These printed copies shall be marked

“Chambers Copy” and shall be submitted to the Clerk’s Office, in an envelope clearly marked with

Judge James’ name, case number and “E-Filing Chambers Copy.” Parties shall not file a paper copy

of any document with the Clerk’s Office that has already been filed electronically. Any proposed

orders must also be emailed to: mejpo@cand.uscourts.gov

Please contact the Courtroom Deputy Clerk, Brenda Tolbert, at (415) 522-4708 with any

questions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 28, 2010 

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

Chief United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:08-cv-01344-RS Document 66 Filed 05/28/10 Page 2 of 2
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ZATREA EVANS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ALLIED BARTON SECURITY SERVICES,

LP, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C-08-4993 MMC

ORDER AWARDING FEES TO

DEFENDANTS ALLIEDBARTON

SECURITY SERVICES LP AND KELLY

MURCRAY

By Order filed April 21, 2010 the Court granted in part and deferred ruling in part on

defendants AlliedBarton Security Services LP and Kelly Murcray’s Rule 11 Motion for

Sanctions Against Plaintiff’s Counsel, filed March 10, 2010, by which motion defendants

sought, as against plaintiff’s counsel, Sangeeta Singal (“Singal”), an award of sanctions in

the form of attorneys fees in the amount of $5052.50. Specifically, by said Order, the Court

found defendants are entitled to reasonable fees incurred in having to oppose two postjudgment motions filed by Singal and for having to bring the above-referenced motion for

sanctions, but deferred ruling as to the amount of such sanctions and afforded Singal the

opportunity to contest the amount sought. Singal’s response with respect to such amount

was to be filed no later than May 5, 2010. No such response has been filed. 

The Court having reviewed defendants’ showing as to the specific amount of fees

Case 3:08-cv-04993-MMC Document 131 Filed 05/27/10 Page 1 of 2
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

2

sought, finds the number of hours expended and the hourly rate applied are, in each

instance, reasonable. 

Accordingly, defendants are hereby awarded as against Singal sanctions, in the

form of attorneys’ fees, in the amount of $5052.50. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 27, 2010 MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-04993-MMC Document 131 Filed 05/27/10 Page 2 of 2
### §3057e–1. Distribution of funds among tribal organizations

#### (a) Maintenance of 1991 amounts

Subject to the availability of appropriations to carry out this part, the amount of the grant (if any) made under this part to a tribal organization for fiscal year 1992 and for each subsequent fiscal year shall be not less than the amount of the grant made under this part to the tribal organization for fiscal year 1991.

#### (b) Use of additional amounts appropriated

If the funds appropriated to carry out this part in a fiscal year subsequent to fiscal year 1991 exceed the funds appropriated to carry out this part in fiscal year 1991, then the amount of the grant (if any) made under this part to a tribal organization for the subsequent fiscal year shall be—

(1) increased by such amount as the Assistant Secretary considers to be appropriate, in addition to the amount of any increase required by subsection (a), so that the grant equals or more closely approaches the amount of the grant made under this part to the tribal organization for fiscal year 1980; or

(2) an amount the Assistant Secretary considers to be sufficient if the tribal organization did not receive a grant under this part for either fiscal year 1980 or fiscal year 1991.

#### (c) Clarification

#### (1) Definition

In this subsection, the term "covered year" means fiscal year 2006 or a subsequent fiscal year.

#### (2) Consortia of tribal organizations

If a tribal organization received a grant under this part for fiscal year 1991 as part of a consortium, the Assistant Secretary shall consider the tribal organization to have received a grant under this part for fiscal year 1991 for purposes of subsections (a) and (b), and shall apply the provisions of subsections (a) and (b)(1) (under the conditions described in subsection (b)) to the tribal organization for each covered year for which the tribal organization submits an application under this part, even if the tribal organization submits—

(A) a separate application from the remaining members of the consortium; or

(B) an application as 1 of the remaining members of the consortium.

(Pub. L. 89–73, title VI, §614A, as added Pub. L. 102–375, title VI, §602, Sept. 30, 1992, 106 Stat. 1270; amended Pub. L. 103–171, §3(a)(13), Dec. 2, 1993, 107 Stat. 1990; Pub. L. 109–365, title VI, §601(a), Oct. 17, 2006, 120 Stat. 2590.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2006—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 109–365 added subsec. (c).

1993—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 103–171 substituted "Assistant Secretary" for "Commissioner" in pars. (1) and (2).

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 2006 Amendment

Pub. L. 109–365, title VI, §601(b), Oct. 17, 2006, 120 Stat. 2590, provided that: "The amendment made by subsection (a) [amending this section] shall apply to grants awarded under part A of title VI of the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3057b et seq.) during the grant period beginning April 1, 2008, and all subsequent grant periods."