alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 21.9670 Work-study allowance.

An eligible individual pursuing a program of education under 38 U.S.C. chapter 33 at a rate of pursuit of at least 75 percent may receive a work-study allowance in accordance with the provisions of § 21.4145.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3034(a), 3323(a), 3485)
---

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 this Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report
of Silverado Gold Mines Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly
period ending May 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Garry L. Anselmo, Principal Executive
Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, 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 and 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.

*/s/ Garry L.
Anselmo*Garry L. Anselmo, Principal Financial Officer

January 21, 2009

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000730626
<NAME>                        AFFINITY ENTERTAINMENT, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
<CURRENCY>                                     US-Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         338
<SECURITIES>                                   8284
<RECEIVABLES>                                  924
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               3791
<PP&E>                                         16
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1113
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 4680
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          3433
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    487
<COMMON>                                       83
<OTHER-SE>                                     (6617)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   4680
<SALES>                                        191
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               191
<CGS>                                          66
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  66
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1048
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               (0)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0     
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (923)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (923)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0      
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (923)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
§ 388.3 Compulsory license fees for coin-operated phonorecord players. ( a ) Commencing January 1, 1982, the annual compulsory license fee for a coin-operated phonorecord player shall be $25.
( b ) Commencing January 1, 1984, the annual compulsory license fee for a coin-operated phonorecord player shall be $50.
( c ) Commencing January 1, 1987, the annual compulsory license fee for a coin-operated phonorecord player shall be $63.
( d ) If performances are made available on a particular coin-operated phonorecord player for the first time after July 1 of any year, the compulsory license fee for the remainder of that year shall be one half of the annual rate of paragraph (a), (b), or (c) of this section, whichever is applicable.
( e ) Commencing January 1, 1990, the annual compulsory license fee for a coin-operated phonorecord player is suspended through December 31, 1999, or until such earlier or later time as the March 1990 license agreement between AMOA and ASCAP/BMI/SESAC is terminated.
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 Sentex Sensing Technology, Inc., (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending August 31, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Robert S. Kendall, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U. S. C. (S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (S) 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:

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

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

/s/ Robert S. Kendall
---------------------
Robert S. Kendall
Chief Executive Officer
October 23, 2006
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE, )

 )

v. ) I.D. No. 1112000553

 )

OMAR MITCHELL, )

 )

Defendant. )

Date Submitted: March 2, 2023

Date Decided: May 9, 2023

ORDER

Upon consideration of Defendant’s pro se Motion for Postconviction Relief1

(“Motion”), Superior Court Criminal Rule 61, statutory and decisional law, and the 

record in this case, IT APPEARS THAT:

(1) On August 14, 2014, Defendant pled guilty to Murder Second Degree, 

three counts of Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony 

(“PFDCF”), two counts of Robbery First Degree, and Possession of a 

Firearm/Ammunition by a Person Prohibited (“PFBPP/PABPP”).

2

 

(2) By Order dated January 23, 2015, effective December 1, 2011, 

Defendant was sentenced to a total of 47 years of unsuspended Level V time.

3

 

1 D.I. 120.

2 D.I. 109.

3 D.I. 113. Defendant’s sentence is as follows: for Murder Second Degree, 28 years at Level V, 

suspended after 26 years at Level V for 2 years at Level IV DOC Discretion, followed by 

decreasing levels of supervision; for each count of PFDCF, 3 years at Level V, for each count of 

Robbery First Degree, 3 years at Level V, and for PFBPP/PABPP, 6 years at Level V. The Court 
2

(3) On March 2, 2023, Defendant filed the instant motion for 

postconviction relief.

4

 In his Motion, Defendant asserts a claim of ineffective 

assistance of counsel, arguing that his trial attorneys violated the Delaware Rules of 

Professional Conduct by allowing him to enter a plea that was neither knowingly nor 

intelligently made.5 

(4) Before addressing the merits of any claim for postconviction relief, the 

Court must first determine whether any of the procedural bars under Rule 61 are 

applicable.6 A motion under this Rule may be subject to summary dismissal if it is 

untimely, repetitive, previously adjudicated, or procedurally defaulted.7 The issue 

here is timeliness. Under Rule 61(i)(1), a motion must be filed no more than “one 

year after the judgment of conviction is final . . .”8 “A judgment of conviction is 

final . . . 30 days after the Superior Court imposes sentence.”9 

(5) Here, the Court imposed its sentence on January 23, 2015,

10 and it 

became final thirty days later, on February 23, 2015. Defendant filed the instant 

motion on March 2, 2023, more than five years later; accordingly, Defendant’s 

Motion is procedurally barred as untimely. 

also ordered Defendant to pay $5965.00 in restitution. 

4 D.I. 120.

5

Id.

6 Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 554 (Del. 1990). 

7 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(1)-(4).

8 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(1). 

9 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(m).

10 D.I. 112.
3

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s 

Motion for Postconviction Relief is SUMMARILY DISMISSED. 

/s/ Jan R. Jurden

Jan R. Jurden, President Judge

cc: Original to Prothonotary

Abigail E. Rodgers, DAG

Omar Mitchell (SBI# 00521134)
#### HOWELL V. THE STATE.

(Decided April 4, 1912.)

Appeal from Clarice County Court.

Heard before Hon. Thomas W. Davis.

T. J. Bisdsole, for appellant. R. C. Briokell, Attorney General, and W. L. Martin, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Per curiam.

Dismissed on motion of appellant.
§ 23.300 Admission. ( a ) *General.* No person shall, on the basis of sex, be denied admission, or be subjected to discrimination in admission, by any recipient to which §§ 23.300 through §§ 23.310 apply, except as provided in §§ 23.225 and §§ 23.230.
( b ) *Specific prohibitions.* ( 1 ) In determining whether a person satisfies any policy or criterion for admission, or in making any offer of admission, a recipient to which §§ 23.300 through 23.310 apply shall not: ( i ) Give preference to one person over another on the basis of sex, by ranking applicants separately on such basis, or otherwise;
( ii ) Apply numerical limitations upon the number or proportion of persons of either sex who may be admitted; or
( iii ) Otherwise treat one individual differently from another on the basis of sex.
( 2 ) A recipient shall not administer or operate any test or other criterion for admission that has a disproportionately adverse effect on persons on the basis of sex unless the use of such test or criterion is shown to predict validly success in the education program or activity in question and alternative tests or criteria that do not have such a disproportionately adverse effect are shown to be unavailable.
( c ) *Prohibitions relating to marital or parental status.* In determining whether a person satisfies any policy or criterion for admission, or in making any offer of admission, a recipient to which §§ 23.300 through 23.310 apply: ( 1 ) Shall not apply any rule concerning the actual or potential parental, family, or marital status of a student or applicant that treats persons differently on the basis of sex;
( 2 ) Shall not discriminate against or exclude any person on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, termination of pregnancy, or recovery therefrom, or establish or follow any rule or practice that so discriminates or excludes;
( 3 ) Subject to § 23.235(d), shall treat disabilities related to pregnancy, childbirth, termination of pregnancy, or recovery therefrom in the same manner and under the same policies as any other temporary disability or physical condition; and
( 4 ) Shall not make pre-admission inquiry as to the marital status of an applicant for admission, including whether such applicant is “Miss” or “Mrs.” A recipient may make pre-admission inquiry as to the sex of an applicant for admission, but only if such inquiry is made equally of such applicants of both sexes and if the results of such inquiry are not used in connection with discrimination prohibited by these Title IX regulations.
EXHIBIT 99.2


                            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 of Bel Fuse Inc (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "Report"), I, Colin Dunn, Vice President of Finance 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) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates
presented and consolidated result of operations of the Company for the period
presented.

Dated: May 12, 2003

                                      By: /s/ Colin Dunn
                                          -------------------------------------
                                          Colin Dunn, Vice President of
                                          Finance



This certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. A signed original of this written statement required
by Section 906 has been provided to Bel Fuse Inc. and will be retained by Bel
Fuse Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
#### State *of*Connecticut *v.*William C. Williamson

Maltbie, C. J., Brown, Jennings, Ells and Dickenson, Js.

Argued November 12

decided December 3, 1947

*David Cramer,*with whom was *Clayton L. Blick,*for the appellant (defendant).

*H. Roger Jones,*state’s attorney, for the appellee (state).

Per Curiam.

In this appeal by the defendant from his conviction of certain crimes in a trial to the jury, the only error presented is that the trial court should have granted a motion for a mistrial which was based upon the claim that the judge in the course of the trial invited the complaining witness and her mother into his chambers and there discussed with the former matters pertaining to the case and reassured her as regards her testimony as a witness. The denial of the motion, made, as it was, in the course of the trial, was an interlocutory ruling *204which could only be presented by a finding; *State*v. *Esposito,*122 Conn. 604, 607, 191 A. 341; Conn. App. Proc., p. 98; and without such a finding the record does not present any question for our consideration. Counsel for the defendant have, however, argued the case upon the basis of the transcript of evidence printed in the record. If we turn to it, we find a discussion of the motion in the absence of the jury; and from the statement made by the court at that time all that appears is that the trial judge did call the complaining witness and her mother into his chambers to find out if the former, who in the course of her examination as a witness had shown a low mentality and considerable hesitance, could go on with the trial. This was done without the knowledge of the jury. It would have been much better practice for the judge to have invited the counsel for the defendant to be present at the interview or at least secured his consent to have it carried on in his absence. The granting of a motion for a mistrial rests largely in the trial court’s discretion. *Bluett*v. *Eli Skating Club,*133 Conn. 99, 104, 48 A. 2d 557. In the absence of any finding which would indicate that the trial judge went further than he stated, there is no basis upon which we could find that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion or that the conduct of the judge was prejudicial in any degree to the defendant; and it is only prejudicial error which justifies the direction of a new trial. *Brodie*v. *Connecticut Co.,*87 Conn. 363, 368, 87 A. 798; Conn. App. Proc. § 12.

There is no error.
# Official Journal C 38I/2021

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 038I |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 643 February 2021 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 038I

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 643 February 2021

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | Council |
| 2021/C 38 I/01 | Notice of cancellation | 1 |

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

Council

2021/C 38 I/01

Notice of cancellation

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN

---

V Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

Council

| 3.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CI 38/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CI 38/1

---

NOTICE OF CANCELLATION

(2021/C 38 I/01)

The publication in the Official Journal of the European Union (1) of vacancy notice CONS/AD/167/21 is cancelled.

---

(1)  OJ C 29 A, 26.1.2021, p. 1.

---
|                          |              |                                        |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|--------------------------|--------------|----------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|
|                          |              |                                        |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|                          |              |                                        |  |
| Company Name             |    | Jurisdiction of Organization |  |
|                          |              |                                        |
| SLIC Financing SPV LLC   |              | Delaware                               |  |
| SLIC Equity Holdings LLC |              | Delaware                               |  |
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-79,674-01

EX P ARTE JAMES PA T WHEAT , Appli cant
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. CCC-13- 20003A IN THE 52ND DISTRICT COURT

F ROM CORYELL COUNTY
Per curiam . O P I N I O N Pursuant to the provisi o n s o f Ar t icle 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of ag gravated sexual assault of a

child and sente nced to se venty-five year s’ imprisonment. Applicant contends that h i s trial counsel rende red ineffe ctive assistance beca use counsel failed to timely file a notice of appea l. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the trial court has deter mined that counsel fai l ed t o timely file a notice of appea l and recommends that a late appea l be grante d.

-1--2-

This Court agree s that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of

-time appe al of the judgme nt of conviction in Cause No. FI SC-09-20003 from the 52nd District Court of Coryell County
. Applicant is or dere d returne d to that time at which he may g ive a written notice of appea l so that he may

then, with the aid of c ounsel, obtain a mea ningf ul appea l. Within ten day s of the issuance of this opinion, the trial court shall deter mine whether Applicant is indige nt. I f Applicant is indige nt and wishes to be repr esente d by counsel, the trial court shall immediately appoint an attorney to repr esent Applicant on direc t appeal. All time limit s shall b e calc ulated as if the s entenc e had been imposed on the date on which the mandate of this Co u rt issues. This Court holds that, sho uld Applicant desire to prosec ute an appea l, he must take aff irmative steps to file a written notice of appea l in the trial court within 30 day s afte r the mandate of this Court issues. Copies of this op in io n shall be sent to the Texas Depa rtment of Criminal J ustice-Corr ectional Institut ions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Deliver ed: Dec ember

18, 2013 Do not publish
§ 88.13 Disenrollment. ( a ) The disenrollment of a WTC Health Program member may be initiated by the WTC Health Program in the following circumstances: ( 1 ) The WTC Health Program mistakenly enrolled an individual under § 88.4 (WTC responders) or § 88.8 (screening-eligible survivors) who did not provide sufficient proof of eligibility consistent with the required eligibility criteria; or
( 2 ) The WTC Health Program member's enrollment was based on incorrect or fraudulent information.
( b ) The disenrollment of a WTC Health Program member may be initiated by the enrollee for any reason.
( c ) A disenrolled WTC Health Program member will be notified in writing by the WTC Health Program of a disenrollment decision, provided an explanation, as appropriate, for the decision, and provided information on how to appeal the decision. A disenrolled WTC Health Program member disenrolled pursuant to paragraph (a) may appeal the disenrollment decision in accordance with § 88.14.
( d ) A disenrolled WTC Health Program member who has been disenrolled in accordance with paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section may seek to re-enroll in the WTC Health Program using the application and enrollment procedures, provided that the application is supported by new information.
§ 1.524 Persons authorized to represent claimants. A duly authorized representative will be: ( a ) Any person authorized in writing by the claimant to act for him or her,
( b ) An attorney who has filed the declaration required by § 14.629(b)(1) of this chapter, or
( c ) His or her legally constituted fiduciary, if the claimant is incompetent. Where for proper reasons no legally constituted fiduciary has been or will be appointed, his or her spouse, his or her children, or, if the claimant is unmarried, either of his or her parents shall be recognized as the fiduciary of the claimant.
[33 FR 6536, Apr. 30, 1968]
Exhibit 10(ax)


                                 FIFTH AMENDMENT
                             OF CONSULTING AGREEMENT
                            DATED SEPTEMBER 30, 2002
                                     BETWEEN
                                 NCT GROUP, INC.
                                       AND
                              ACME ASSOCIATES, INC.


                                                Dated November 3, 2003

     WHEREAS,  a Consulting  Agreement was entered into between NCT Group,  Inc.
(hereinafter   referred  to  as  the  "Company")  and  Acme   Associates,   Inc.
(hereinafter  referred to as "Consultant") which commenced on September 30, 2002
(the "Agreement"); and

     WHEREAS,  it is the  desire of the  parties  hereto to amend the  Agreement
because  of  substantial  additional  consulting  services  to  be  provided  by
Consultant.

     NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, it
is agreed as follows:

1.   Paragraph 2, Duties of  Consultant,  shall be amended to add the following:
     "In  addition to the above  consulting  services,  Consultant  will provide
     consulting services in the nature of tax advice."

2.   Paragraph 5, Equity for Services, shall be amended to add the following:
     "The Company hereby grants the Consultant an additional five year (5) stock
     option in the Company's  common stock for 2,000,000 shares of the Company's
     common stock at the price per share of $.045,  which was the closing  price
     as of November 3, 2003.  The foregoing  options will vest  immediately  and
     will be part of the Stock  Option  Agreement  to be created by the Company.
     The shares  underlying  this option will be  registered by the Company with
     the next registration  statement filed by the Company. This option has

                                       1
<PAGE>


     been  approved by the Board of Directors.  All previous  options as amended
     shall continue to be in full force and effect."

3.   All other terms and conditions of the Agreement, except as modified herein,
     are hereby ratified, confirmed and are in full force and effect between the
     parties.


                               AGREED & ACCEPTED:


     NCT GROUP, INC.                                 ACME ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                     Consultant



     /s/  Michael J. Parrella                        /s/  Morton Salkind
     ---------------------------------               --------------------------
     By:  Michael J. Parrella                        By:  Morton Salkind
          Chairman & C.E.O.                               President

                                       2