alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent, <br><br>against<br><br>Donovan Groves, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Shari Ruth Michels, J.), rendered May 18, 2015, after a nonjury trial, convicting him of sexual misconduct and endangering the welfare of a child, and imposing sentence.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Judgment of conviction (Shari Ruth Michels, J.), rendered May 18, 2015, affirmed.</p><p>The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (<i>see People v Danielson</i>, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]). The credibility issues raised by defendant were properly placed before the trier of fact and we find no reason on the record before us to disturb the court's determination to credit the complaining witness's testimony that defendant engaged in sexual intercourse with her in July 2007, when she was 14 years old.</p><p>Defendant was not prejudiced by the People's mid-trial renewal of their <i>Molineux</i> application (<i>see People v Torres</i>, 300 AD2d 46, 46—47 [2002], <i>lv denied </i>99 NY2d 633 [2003]), which was ultimately denied. A "party can always move to renew [a <i>Molineux</i>] application" during a trial (<a href="../2017/2017_08215.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Strauss</i>, 155 AD3d 1317</a>, 1321 [2017]<i>, lv denied</i> 31 NY3d 1122 [2018]). Defendant's contention that the People's unsuccessful application caused prejudicial evidence to be in the mind of the judge is without merit. The trial court is presumed, by virtue of learning and experience, to have considered only the competent evidence adduced in reaching its determination (<a href="../2003/2003_18872.htm" target="_blank"><i>see People v Torres</i>, 1 AD3d 621</a> [2003], <i>lv denied </i>1 NY3d 602 [2004]), and there is nothing in the record to suggest that this presumption is inapplicable here.</p><p>Contrary to defendant's contentions, he was not deprived of meaningful representation by defense counsel's failure to object to the People's reference, during summation, to properly admitted evidence, consisting of admissions. Nor did defense counsel's two passing references, during summation, to a conversation between the victim and her mother in May 2012, the contents of which the court had precluded from being entered into evidence, demonstrate that defendant was "deprived of a fair trial by less than meaningful representation" (<i>People v <font color="FF0000">[*2]</font>Benevento</i>, 91 NY2d 708, 713 [1998]), since the court stated it was "not going to consider" those remarks in reaching a verdict.</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur<br>Decision Date: April 22, 2019<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
#### BOARD OF COM’RS FOR ATCHAFALAYA BASIN LEVEE DIST. et al. v. SMYTH et al.

No. 13221.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Feb. 7, 1951.

Rehearing Denied April 19, 1951.

Ashton L. Stewart, Baton Rouge, La., Bolivar E. Kemp, Jr., Atty. Gen. of La., Carroll Buck, First Asst. Atty. Gen. of La., Charles H. Dameron, Baton Rouge, La., Ferdinand C. Claiborne, New Roads, La., for appellant.

Roberts C. Milling, New Orleans, La., for appellee.

Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, and McCORD and RUSSELL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appealing from an order denying defendants’, and granting plaintiffs’, motion for summary judgment, and conceding that the district judge was right in rejecting the primary contention they made below, appellants seek now to put forward as a ground for reversal an entirely different theory and view from any of those they relied on below.

Appellees, while insisting that the theory which appellants seek now to put forward *12is as untenable as the one on which they lost below, urge upon us that having tried and lost the case below upon one theory, they should not be permitted now to retry the case in this court upon a wholly different one.

We agree with appellees that the issues submitted to the district judge for decision were correctly determined and disposed of. We agree with them, too, that the case, having been tried and determined adversely to appellants on the theories they elected to try it on, may not be retried here on the wholly different one they now propose to try out,1 and that the judgment should be affirmed.

Affirmed.

1

. Bates v. Coe, 98 U.S. 31, 25 L.Ed. 68; Hatcher v. Northwestern National Ins. Co., 8 Cir., 184 F. 23; American Dirigold Corp. v. Dirigold Metals Corp., 6 Cir., 125 F.2d 446.
exv10w84



 




Exhibit 10.84




AMENDMENT NO. 5




STARTEK, INC.




STOCK OPTION PLAN




This Amendment No. 5 is effective as of January 5, 2007 with respect to the Stock Option Plan
(the “Plan”) of StarTek, Inc. (the “Company”).



The Board of Directors of the Company approved an amendment to Section 5(a) and Section 6(a)
of the Plan to permit the Committee to grant Options under the Plan with expiration terms that
differ from those set forth in the Plan.



All defined terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Plan.



The Plan is hereby amended as follows:



1. The first line of Section 5(a) of the Plan is amended to read in its entirety as follows:



“(a) OPTION PERIOD. Except as otherwise established by the Committee at the time when an ISO
is granted, each ISO will expire as of the earliest of:”



2. The first line of Section 6(a) of the Plan is amended to read in its entirety as follows:



“(a) OPTION PERIOD. Except as otherwise established by the Committee at the time when a NSO
is granted, each NSO will expire as of the earliest of:”



Except as amended hereby, the Plan is unchanged and remains in full force and effect.
**Read more of the October Dispatch**
    - The Sylva Police Department: In the Pink for Breast Cancer Awareness and Community Relations 
    - Brick Township Police TEAM Mentors Area Youth 
    - Submit Your Nominations for the Sixth Annual Attorney General’s Award for Distinguished Service in Policing 
    - Nationwide Instructor-Training Initiative on Community Policing 
    - Community Defined Disorder: A New Training for Collaborative Public Safety
    - New Crime Reduction Resources for Small, Rural, and Tribal Agencies
    - The New Mexico Association of Counties Adds Sheriffs’ Accreditation Program 
    - The 2023 Community Policing in Action Photo Contest Is Now Open and Accepting Submissions!
    - University of Cincinnati Police Division Wins the 2022 Herman Goldstein Award
#### Isidore White, alias George White, *Plaintiff in Error*vs. The State of Florida, *Defendant in Error.*

143 So. 299.

Division B.

Decision filed August 3, 1932.

*Aronvitz & Goldstein,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*Gary D. Lcmdis,*Attorney General, for the State.

*363Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the reco'rd of the judgment herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for ■the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said judgment; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and decreed by the Court that the said judgment of the Criminal Court of Record be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Buford, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell and- Davis, J.J., concur.

Brown, J., dissents.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Yarek Bartosz, certify that:

1. 	I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Parallax Entertainment, 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 we 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 function):

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; and

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.

Dated this 23rd day of October, 2003.



| | /s/ Yarek Bartosz
Yarek Bartosz
Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------







---
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 7760** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. BRIAN C. JENKINS , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Wheeling
. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Senior District Judge. ( 5:11

- cr - 00006

- FP S

- JES

- 1; 5:13

- cv 00099

- FPS

- JES )

Submitted : March 28, 2014 Decided: April 4, 2014

Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Brian C. Jenkins , Appellant Pro Se. David J. Perri, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Brian C. Jenkins seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (2012)
. A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner sati sfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 ( 2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U .S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jenkins has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and lega l3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Case 16-22457 Doc 11 Filed 07/18/16 Entered 07/19/16 09:41:06 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 1
Case 16-25207 Doc 64 Filed 04/02/18 Entered 04/03/18 15:22:51 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 1
#### § 1.4 Director.

*Director* means the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the authorized representative of such official.

[48 FR 44833, Sept. 30, 1983]
**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**

The undersigned is the Chief Financial Officer of China Water Group, Inc.  This Certification is made pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.  This Certification accompanies the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of China Water Group, Inc. for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

The undersigned certifies that such 10-Q Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such 10-Q Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of China Water Group, Inc. as of June 30, 2012.

This Certification is executed as of September 1, 2015.

/s/ Ding Rencai

     Ding Rencai

     Chief Financial Officer
§ 80.97 Radiotelegraph operating procedures. This section applies to ships and coast stations authorized to transmit in the band 405-525 kHz. ( a ) Except for the transmission of distress or urgency signals, all transmissions must cease within the band 485-515 kHz during each 500 kHz silence period.
( b ) Stations transmitting telegraphy must use the service abbreviations (“Q” code) listed in Appendix 14 to the Radio Regulations.
( c ) The call consists of: ( 1 ) The call sign of the station called, not more than twice; the word “DE” and the call sign of the calling station, not more than twice; if useful, the frequency on which the called station should reply; and the letter “K”.
( 2 ) If the call is transmitted twice at an interval of not less than one minute, it must not be repeated until after an interval of three minutes.
( d ) The reply to calls consists of: The call sign of the calling station, not more than twice; the word “DE”; and the call sign of the station called, once only.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5123 Engrossed Amendment Senate (EAS)]

103d CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 5123

_______________________________________________________________________

                               AMENDMENT
                  In the Senate of the United States,

                       October 6 (legislative day, September 12), 1994.
      Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 
5123) entitled ``An Act to make a technical correction to an Act 
preempting State economic regulation of motor carriers'', do pass with 
the following

                               AMENDMENT:

            Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

SECTION 1. TECHNICAL CORRECTION OF 1994 FFA AUTHORIZATION ACT.

    (a) In General.--Section 11501(h)(2) of title 49, United States 
Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking out ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (A);
            (2) by striking out the period at the end of subparagraph 
        (B) and insert in lieu thereof a semicolon; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(C) does not apply to the transportation of garbage and 
        refuse;
            ``(D) does not apply to the transportation for collection 
        of recyclable materials that are a part of a residential 
        curbside recycling program; and
            ``(E) does not restrict the regulatory authority of a 
        State, political subdivision of a State, or political authority 
        of 2 or more States before January 1, 1997, insofar as such 
        authority relates to tow trucks or wreckers providing for-hire 
        service.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect on January 1, 1995.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
```
Exhibit 32.1





Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer


Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





I, Agustin Gomez de Segura, President and Chief Executive Officer of Cigma Metals Corporation (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





1.
The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended September 30, 2009 which this certification accompanies 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.








Date:  March 9, 2010
BY:
/s/ Agustin Gomez de SeguraAgustin Gomez de SeguraPresident, Chief Executive Officer andChief Financial Officer











This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit
32.2




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Apollo Medical Holdings, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter   ended October 31, 2009
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, A. Noel DeWinter, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 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.





The foregoing certification is being
furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
section  1350 and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by
reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date
hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such
filing.








Dated:  December
14,
2009




By:A. Noel DeWinter


Chief
Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer


and
Principal Accounting Officer
""""""Content:Pipeline Pagemasters

Pagemaster:Pipeline Pagemasters

""""
	  
	  
    
    Office of Administration and Budget
      Budget and Finance Divisions"About the Budget Division   |   Budget Division Contacts
      About the Finance Division   |   Finance Division Contacts
	  
	  Fiscal Year 2006 :PDF iconAnnual Financial Report FY2006Fiscal Year 2005 :PDF iconAnnual Financial Report FY2005Fiscal Year 2004 :PDF iconAnnual Financial Report FY2004Fiscal Year 2003 :PDF iconAnnual Financial Report FY2003Fiscal Year 2002 :PDF iconAnnual Financial Report FY2002Back to A&B home pageDownload free Adobe Reader (for PDF files)
  Home | Search | Topic Index| About MMS | What's New|Director's Page | Strategic Planning | Minerals Revenue | Offshore Program | Newsroom |Congressional Affairs | Advisory Committees | Library | Information Quality Guidelines | FOIA |Kids' Page | Privacy Act/Disclaimers | Links | Products & Services | Job Opportunities |Navigation Tips | Contact Us |Deepwater Environment | Industry Awards | Royalty-In-Kind | Oil Valuation |EEO Data - No FEAR Act
        Last Updated:
                03/26/2007
                ,
                10:43 AM
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5052

To extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act applicable to the

construction of three hydroelectric projects in the State of Arkansas.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 19, 1994

Mr. LAMBERT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Energy and Commerce

A BILL

To extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act applicable to the construction of three hydroelectric projects

in the State of Arkansas.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF DEADLINES.

4 Notwithstanding the time limitations of section 13 of

5 the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) the Federal En6 ergy Regulatory Commission, upon the request of the li7 censee for FERC Project No. 4204, 4660, and 4659 (and

8 after reasonable notice), is authorized, in accordance with

9 the good faith, due diligence, and public interest require10 ments of such section 13 and the Commission’s procedures
2

•HR 5052 IH

1 under such section, to extend the time required for com2 mencement of construction for the project for up to a max3 imum of 3 consecutive 2-year periods. This section shall

4 take effect for the project upon the expiration of the exten5 sion (issued by the Commission under such section 13)

6 of the period required for commencement of construction

7 of such project.

Æ
**** **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 Interactive Intelligence, Inc. (the
        "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed
        with
        the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
        I, Dr.
        Donald E. Brown, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer
        of
        the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant
        to ss.
        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/
        Donald E. Brown, M.D
 Donald
        E.
        Brown, M.D.
 President
        and Chief Executive Officer
 November
        14, 2005