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 Annual Report of Sitestar Corporation, (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Frank Erhartic,
Jr., Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, and Daniel Judd,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, certify to our knowledge
and in our capacity as officers of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
adopted pursuant to §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 as of the dates
and for the periods expressed in the Report.








/s/
      Frank Erhartic, Jr.
            /s/
      Daniel JuddFrank
      Erhartic, Jr.
            Daniel
      JuddChief
      Executive Officer and President
            Chief
      Financial OfficerMay
      17, 2010
            May
      17, 2010
# Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas

July 29, 2021

No. 04

- 21

- 00098

- CR

Isaac CARDENAS

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 227th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CR10269 Honorable Kevin M. O'Connell , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On June 28, 2021, this court issued an order informing appellant that his pro se brief was due on August 12, 2021. O n July 29, 2021, appellant filed a pro se motion for an extension of time based on his belie f that his brief was due July 25, 2021

.

A lthough appellant’s pro se brief is not yet due, in the interest of justice, hi s motion is GRANTED

. Appellant’s pro se brie f is due no later than September 13, 202 1

.

_________________________________ Lori I. Valenzuela , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 29th day of July, 2021

.

___________________________________ M ichael A. C ruz , Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                          5
<LEGEND>

This schedule contains summary financial  information extracted from the audited
consolidated  balance  sheet as of June 30,  1999 and the  audited  consolidated
statement of operations for the year ended June 30, 1999 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>


<S>                                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                     JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                       JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                                          922,247
<SECURITIES>                                                    881,622
<RECEIVABLES>                                                23,848,900
<ALLOWANCES>                                                     440,000
<INVENTORY>                                                  33,224,719
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                             60,425,125
<PP&E>                                                       11,392,369
<DEPRECIATION>                                                4,408,608
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                               72,930,663
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                        18,427,133
<BONDS>                                                      19,635,664
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                                           0
<COMMON>                                                        406,572
<OTHER-SE>                                                   34,461,294
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                               72,930,663
<SALES>                                                     140,710,825
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                            140,710,825
<CGS>                                                       113,334,627
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                               113,334,627
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                             27,642,724
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                            1,308,624
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                              (1,575,150)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                   (418,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                          (1,157,150)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                       0
<CHANGES>                                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                                 (1,157,150)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                     (0.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                     (0.31)




</TABLE>
No. 47877.

#### Protests 54755-K, etc., of M. Otani Co., Ltd., et al. (Honolulu).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Pacific Trading Co.*v. *United States*(8 Cust. Ct. 221, C. D. 610) the claim at 10- percent under paragraph 1558 was sustained.
Case No. 14,452.

#### UNITED STATES v. ANDERSON.

[4 Cranch, C. C. 476.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Witness — Trial for Forgery — Interest.

Upon an indictment for forgery, a person interested in setting aside the instrument forged, is not a competent witness to prove the forgery.

JiOTE, See TJ. S. v. Porter [Case No. 16,-072], in this court, in 1812, where Jenkins, the person cheated, was examined as a witness for the prosecution. 2 Hawk. P. C. 610; Rex v. Whiting, 1 Ld. Raym. 396; McNally. Ev. 105, 124; U. S. v. Maxwell [Case No. 15,749], in this court. Peake, Ev. 94; Abrahams v. Bunn, 4 Burrows. 2255; Smith v. Ptager, 7 Term R. 60; Bent v. Baker. 3 Term R. 27; Respublicn v. Ross, 2 Dali. [2 U. S.] 239. See Hardr. 331; 1 Salk. 283, 286; 2 Strange. 728, 1043; 1 Yent. 49: 2 Hawk. P. C. c. 46. §§ 24. 25 : 2 Strange, 1229; McNally. Ev. 121; Peake, Ev. 96. 116: 4 Starkie, 770, 771; and the following cases in this court: U. S. v. Suter, Nov., 1807 [Case mi-reported]; Bayne’s Case, Dec.. 1830 [Case No. 1,146]: Ú. S. v. Brown, Dec., 1827 [Case .No. 14,658]: U. S. v. Bates, April. 1823. and June, 1810 [Cases Nos. 14,542 and 14,543]; U. S. v. Moxley, Dec., 1812 [Id. 15,830].

UNITED STATES v. ANDERSON. See Case No. 14,672.

Indictment [against John Anderson] for forging an order in the name of Mr. Dorsey, who was called as a witness for the United States.

Mr. Brent, for defendant,

objects, and contends that no person, interested in setting aside the instrument, is competent as a witness, to prove the forgery. 2 Russ. 374; 4 Starkie, 573, 582, 5S3. In those states where a contrary doctrine prevails, it is by statute; and in England there is a late statute (9 Geo. IV. c. 32) permitting such testimony; which statute would have been unnecessary if it could be permitted by the common law. Ross’s Case, 2 Dali. [2 U. S.] 239; Keating’s Case, 1 Dali. [1 U. S.] 110; 10 Petersd. Abr. 70.

THE COURT (hesitans) rejected the witness.

Mr. Key, for the United States,

offered again to examine Mr. Dorsey, upon a collateral question, and contended that he was competent to prove any fact except that the signature is not his. Rex v. Boston, 4 East, 5S2.

THE COURT

(nem. con.) still rejected the testimony of Mr. Dorsey, because he was offered to prove a fact tending to prove the forgery.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

September 20, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

130654 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. CONNIE E. HADDAD, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellant, Justices

v SC: 130654 COA: 265639 Ingham CC: 04-001502-AA ADECCO USA, INC. , and DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EC ONOMIC GROWTH, Defendants-Appellees.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 26, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

t0913 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 20, 2006

Clerk
No. 59568.

protests 187313-K and 193843-K (Baltimore).

#### The Crosse & Blackwell Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the

merchandise consists of beef stew the same in all material respects as that the subject of *United States*v. *The Crosse & Blackwell Co.*(42 C. C. P. A. 99, C. A. D. 579), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit








EXHIBIT 10.2




MARKIT LTD.
AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED 
KEY EMPLOYEE INCENTIVE PROGRAM




Amendment dated as of March 19, 2016 (this “Amendment”) to the Amended and Restated Markit Key Employee Incentive Program (the “KEIP”).


W I T N E S S E T H


WHEREAS, Markit Ltd. (the “Company”) has entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of March 20, 2016 (the “Merger Agreement”), with Marvel Merger Sub, Inc., and  IHS, Inc.; and


WHEREAS, in connection with the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement (the “Merger”), the Company desires to amend certain terms and conditions related to equity awards granted pursuant to the KEIP.


NOW THEREFORE, the KEIP is hereby amended as follows:


1.AMENDMENT


APPENDIX A of the KEIP is hereby amended to add a paragraph 5 as follows:
 
“5.  Notwithstanding any other provision of the Plan or any Option (subject to any provisions applicable to a Participant under an Option or individual agreement that contain vesting terms that are more favorable to the Participant than those set forth in this paragraph 5), if (i) a Participant’s Employment is terminated by the Company without Cause or (ii) for Participants who are members of the executive committee of the Company, the Participant resigns for “good reason” (as defined in an employment agreement applicable to such Participant), within 12 months after the Closing Date (as defined in the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of March 20, 2016, among the Company, Marvel Merger Sub, Inc., and IHS, Inc.), all unvested Options held by such Participant shall vest in full immediately on the date of such termination of Employment and shall remain exercisable until the earlier of (i) 12 months following the date such termination of Employment or (ii) the expiration of the original Option Period of such Option.”


		
	2.
	EFFECTIVENESS OF AMENDMENT




This Amendment will become effective on the Closing Date (as defined in the Merger Agreement).  In the event that the Merger does not occur, this Amendment will be null and void and will have no further force or effect.  Except as amended by the terms of this Amendment, the KEIP will remain in full force and effect in accordance with its terms.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 0 A1 66 5 . REGI N ALD EUGENE GRI MES, J R. v . THE STATE.

Aft er a ju ry t ri al

, Reg i n al d Eu g en e Gri m es , J r., was co n vi ct ed o f arm ed ro b b ery

an d k i d n ap p i n g

. On ap p eal

, Gri m es ch al l en g ed o n l y h i s k id n ap p i n g co nv i ct i o n , an d

we rev ers ed t h at co n v i ct i o n d ue t o i n s u ffi ci en t ev i d en ce. See G r i m es v. St a t e , 2 9 7 Ga.

Ap p

. 7 2 0 (6 7 8 SE2 d 1 6 7 ) (2 0 0 9 ). Gri m es s u b seq u en t l y fi l ed s ev eral m o t i o n s to

v acat e h i s arm ed ro b b ery co n v i ct i o n

. Th e t ri al co u rt d en i ed t h e m o ti o n s, an d Gri m es

fi led th i s ap p eal . W e, h o wev er, l ack ju ri s d i ct io n

. A p o s t -co nv i ct i o n m o t io n s eek i n g t o v acat e an al l eg ed l y v o i d co n vi ct io n i s n ot

a v al i d p ro ced u re i n a cri m i n al cas e, an d an y ap p eal fro m

t h e d en i al o r d i sm i s s al o f

s u ch a m o t i o n m

u st b e d i s m i s s ed

. See W

il l i a m s v. St a t e , 2 8 7 Ga. 19 2

, 1 9 2

, 19 4 (6 9 5

SE2 d 24 4 ) (2 0 1 0 ); Ro b er t s v. S t a t e , 2 8 6 Ga. 5 3 2

, 5 3 2 (6 9 0 SE2 d 1 5 0 ) (2 0 1 0 ). A

d i rect ap peal m ay l i e fro m t h e d en i al o f a m o t i o n t o co rrect a vo i d s en t en ce i f t h e

d efen d an t rai s es a co lo rab le cl ai m t h at t he s en ten ce i s v o i d

. See Bu r g v. St a t e , 2 9 7 Ga.

Ap p

. 1 1 8

, 1 1 9 (6 7 6 SE2 d 46 5 ) (2 0 0 9 ). “ M o t i o ns t o v acat e a v o id s en t en ce g en eral l y

are l im i t ed t o cl ai m s t h at

– ev en as s u m i n g t h e ex i s t en ce an d v al i d i t y o f t h e co n v i ct i o n

fo r wh ich t h e sen t en ce was i m p o s ed

– t h e l aw d o es n o t au t h o ri ze t h at s en t en ce, m o s t

t y p i cal l y b ecau s e i t ex ceed s t h e m o s t s ev ere p u n i s hm e n t fo r wh i ch t he ap p l i cab l e

p en al s t at u t e p ro v i d es .” vo n Th o ma s v. St a t e , 2 9 3 Ga. 5 6 9 , 5 72 (2 ) (7 4 8 SE2 d 4 4 6 )

(2 0 1 3).

Here, Gri m es ’ s m o t i o n s d o n o t al l eg e t h at h i s s en t en ce ex ceed s t h e m ax i m u m

al l o wed b y l aw. In s t ead

, Gri m es al l eg es t h at he is act u al l y i n n o cen t an d t h at t h e ju ry

was p res en ted wi t h p erju red t es t i m o ny

. Th es e are n ot val i d v o i d -s en t en ce arg u m en t s

. Acco rd in g ly , Gri m es ’ s ap p eal i s h ereb y DISM ISSED.

June 03, 2020C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a tr u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 06/03/2020
(Reap. Dec. 9484)

#### Finwood Industries, Inc., by: Frank P. Dow Co., Inc., of L.A. *v.*United States

Entry No. 14511, etc.

*474(Decided July 31, 1959)

*Siegel, MandeU & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doul),*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the attached schedule of reappraisements, which relate to plywood exported from Finland in the years 1955 and 1956, have been submitted for decision upon stipulation of counsel limited to the items where the merchandise was advanced in value and appraised on the basis of home market value.

On the agreed facts, as to such merchandise, I find that foreign value, as defined in section 402(c), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, is the proper basis for the determination of the value thereof, and that such value, in each instance, was the appraised unit value, less 4 per centum, packed.

The said appeals for reappraisement, having been abandoned with respect to those items of merchandise where appraisement was made on the basis of the entered invoice unit values, are to that extent dismissed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4660 

To clarify that the baseline is based on current laws and the assumption 

of continuation of current levels of discretionary appropriations, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 10, 2024 

Mr. BRAUN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on the Budget 

A BILL 

To clarify that the baseline is based on current laws and 

the assumption of continuation of current levels of discretionary appropriations, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘No Bias in the Base5 line Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF BASELINE CALCULATION. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 257 of the Balanced 

8 Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 

9 U.S.C. 907) is amended— 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4660 IS

1 (1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the 

2 following: 

3 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—For any budget year, the base4 line refers to a projection, based on current laws and the 

5 assumption of continuation of current levels of discre6 tionary appropriations, of current-year levels of new budg7 et authority, outlays, revenues, and the surplus or deficit 

8 into the budget year and the outyears based on laws en9 acted through the applicable date.’’; 

10 (2) in subsection (b)— 

11 (A) by striking paragraph (1) and insert12 ing the following: 

13 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Laws providing or creating 

14 direct spending and receipts are assumed to operate 

15 in the manner specified in those laws for each such 

16 year.’’; 

17 (B) by striking paragraph (2); and 

18 (C) by redesignating paragraph (3) as 

19 paragraph (2); and 

20 (3) in subsection (c)— 

21 (A) in paragraph (1), in the second sen22 tence, by striking ‘‘current year’’ and all that 

23 follows through the period at the end and in24 serting ‘‘excluding resources designated as an 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4660 IS

1 emergency requirement and any resources pro2 vided in supplemental appropriation laws.’’; 

3 (B) by striking paragraphs (2), (3), (4), 

4 and (5); 

5 (C) by redesignating paragraph (6) as 

6 paragraph (2); and 

7 (D) by adding at the end the following: 

8 ‘‘(3) NO ADJUSTMENT FOR INFLATION.—No 

9 adjustment shall be made for inflation or for any 

10 other factor.’’. 

11 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

12 (1) Section 202(e)(1) of the Congressional 

13 Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 602(e)(1)) is amend14 ed— 

15 (A) by inserting ‘‘and’’ before ‘‘(B) the lev16 els’’; and 

17 (B) by striking ‘‘, and (C)’’ and all that 

18 follows through ‘‘1985’’. 

19 (2) Section 403(a)(3) of the Social Security Act 

20 (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(3)) is amended— 

21 (A) by striking subparagraph (G); and 

22 (B) by redesignating subparagraph (H) as 

23 subparagraph (G). 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
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

Order

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

TUTUILA TUVALU,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEANNE WOODFORD, et al. ,

Defendants.

2:04-cv-1724 DFL KJM P

ORDER

Defendants have requested a 30-day extension of time to August 2, 2006, to file

responses to plaintiff’s first sets of interrogatories to defendants Gomez, Woodford, and Runnels

and first request for admissions to defendants Wilson, Gomez, Terhune, Woodford, Runnels, and

Roe. The court finds good cause to grant the request, while also adjusting slightly the discovery

cutoff previously set for August 4, 2006, to allow a reasonable period of time for the filing of any

motions to compel.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants shall serve their responses to the discovery requests identified above on

or before August 2, 2006.

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01724-JAM -KJM Document 80 Filed 07/07/06 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

Order

2

2. The discovery cutoff, by which motions to compel discovery must be filed, is reset

to August 18, 2006. All other dates previously scheduled shall remain as set. 

DATED: July 6, 2006. 

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01724-JAM -KJM Document 80 Filed 07/07/06 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32

                            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 Annual Report of Case Financial, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we,
Michael Schaffer, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Lawrence Schaffer,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively 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 result of operations of the Company


                                                     /s/ Michael Schaffer
                                                     --------------------
                                                     Michael Schaffer
                                                     Chief Executive Officer
                                                     January 23, 2006


                                                     /s/ Lawrence Schaffer
                                                     ---------------------
                                                     Lawrence Schaffer
                                                     Chief Financial Officer
                                                     January 23, 2006