alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### RITA ROCHE, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF JOSEPH J. ROCHE, DECEASED, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. FLORAL RENTAL CORP., *ET AL.,*DEFENDANTS AND THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. U. S. REFRIGERATION CORP., A CORPORATION THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT, AND J. C. TRUCK EQUIPMENT, INC., A CORPORATION, THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Argued December 19,1967

Decided January 4,1968.

*Mr. Joseph V. Cullum*for defendant-appellant.

*Mr. Joseph Goult*for defendants-respondents *(Mr. Philip M. Lusibader, Messrs. Schneider & Morgan, Messrs. Shenier & Gilady,*attorneys).

*Mr. Arthur G. Gundersdorf*for the plaintiff-respondent *(Messrs. Nochimson, Irwin and Larsen,*attorneys).

Pee Cubiam.

The judgment is affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Judge Gaulkin in the Appellate Division, 95 *N. J. Super.*555.

*For affirmance*— Chief Justice Weintbaub and Justices Jacobs, Feancis, Peoctoe, Goldmann, Sohettino and Haneman—7.

*For*reversal—None.
EXHIBIT 32 - CEO AND CFO CERTIFICATION


Exhibit 32.1

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

         The undersigned are the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer of OBN Holdings, Inc. (the "Company").  This Certificate is made
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.  This Certification
accompanies the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter
ended March 31, 2006 (the "10-QSB Report").

The undersigned certifies that the 10-QSB Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and that the information contained in the 10-QSB Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company on the dates and for the periods presented therein.

Date: May 14, 2006                     /s/ ROGER N. SMITH
                                       --------------------------------
                                           Roger N. Smith
                                           Chief Executive Officer

Date: May 14, 2006                    /s/ LARRY TAYLOR
                                      ---------------------------------
                                           Larry Taylor
                                           Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1

                           CERTIFICATIONS 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 AMP Productions, Ltd. on Form 10-QSB
for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas E. Mills, Chief
Executive Officer, President, and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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


Date: November 8, 2007     By  Thomas Mills
                           Thomas E. Mills
                           President & Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Donald R. Fike, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 660]

—Spain, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Mathews, J.), rendered September 9, 1994, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of grand larceny in the third degree.

On July 12, 1993, defendant was arrested in Texas while driving a motor vehicle that had been reported stolen from a repair shop in the Village of Endicott, Broome County. Defen*733dant waived extradition proceedings and was returned to this State on July 27, 1993. A felony complaint was filed against defendant on November 5,1993, charging him with grand larceny in the third degree. Defendant was indicted and arraigned before Broome County Court on February 16, 1994. In June 1994, following a hearing, County Court dismissed defendant’s claim that his right to due process had been violated by the 219 days of incarceration between the time of his arrest and the date of his indictment and arraignment. Defendant’s subsequent trial resulted in a guilty verdict and a sentence as a second felony offender to a term of 31⁄2 to 7 years’ imprisonment.

Our review of the record discloses that defendant’s claimed denial of his due process rights was properly rejected. The five factors to be considered when determining whether a defendant’s due process right to prompt prosecution has been violated are: "(1) the extent of the delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) the nature of the underlying charge; (4) whether or not there has been an extended period of pretrial incarceration; and (5) whether or not there is any indication that the defense has been impaired by reason of the delay” *(People v Taranovich,*37 NY2d 442, 445).

Applying the factors set forth in *People v Taranovich (supra)*to this matter, we conclude that defendant’s due process rights have not been violated. The delay of 219 days between his arrest and his indictment was not egregiously long *(see, People v Allende,*206 AD2d 640, 642, *appeal dismissed*84 NY2d 921 [eight-month delay found not to violate right to due process]) and the delay was caused in part by good-faith deliberations on the part of the People as to whether to prosecute defendant, given the expense of producing out-of-State witnesses at trial. The crime of which defendant was accused was a felony and his incarceration was occasioned as much by the separate pending charges of parole violation as by the charge of third-degree grand larceny *(see, supra).*Finally, defendant has failed to make a persuasive showing that his defense was impaired by the delay. We conclude that the delay at issue here did not result in a violation of defendant’s due process rights *(see, People v Mobley,*206 AD2d 681, *Iv denied*84 NY2d 870).

We have examined defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
No. 63146.

#### Columbia International Corporation *v.*United States,

protest 58/17010 (New York).

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

Since the protest was filed more than 60 days after liquidation, it was dismissed as untimely, by virtue of section 514, Tariff Act of 1930.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8240 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8240

To require a GAO audit of the information technology infrastructure of 
the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commission's handling of 
                                 data.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 2, 2024

Mrs. Wagner (for herself, Mr. Garbarino, Mr. Meuser, Mr. Huizenga, and 
  Mr. Emmer) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require a GAO audit of the information technology infrastructure of 
the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commission's handling of 
                                 data.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``SEC Cybersecurity Act of 2024''.

SEC. 2. GAO AUDIT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INFRASTRUCTURE AND HANDLING 
              OF DATA.

    The Comptroller General of the United States shall, not later than 
1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act--
            (1) perform an independent audit of the information 
        technology (IT) infrastructure of the Securities and Exchange 
        Commission and the Commission's handling of data, including--
                    (A) a comparison of the Commission's IT spending to 
                other Federal financial regulators, including--
                            (i) the total amount spent on IT equipment 
                        and services; and
                            (ii) the amount of IT spending in 
                        proportion to each regulator's total spending;
                    (B) examining the quality and effectiveness of the 
                Commission's IT contracting;
                    (C) determining if the Commission's data and 
                cybersecurity systems and procedures are sufficient; 
                and
                    (D) examining any recent Commission IT or data 
                events, such as breaches or hacks, that may have 
                compromised the Commission's IT infrastructure or 
                exposed a vulnerability; and
            (2) provide to the Commission, the Committee on Financial 
        Services of the House of Representatives, and the Committee on 
        Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate a report 
        containing--
                    (A) all findings and determinations made in 
                conducting the audit; and
                    (B) recommendations for steps that can be taken to 
                improve the Commission's IT infrastructure.
                                 <all>
```
No. 64209.

protest 59/16385(A) (New York).

#### Osan Supply Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of fish similar in all material respects to the fish blocks the subject of *The Lee Herrmann Co., a/c The Coldwater Seafood Corp.*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 49, C.D. 2101), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, Ian T. Bothwell, Chief Executive Officer, certify that:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Rio Vista Energy Partners L.P;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) for the registrantand have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors:a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: May 21, 2007       /s/ Ian T. Bothwell Ian T. Bothwell
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, August 11, 2020. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, August 11, 2020 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A20D0432. IN THE INTEREST OF B. D. M. et al., CHILDREN (MOTHER).
Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 2000004 2000006
EXHIBIT 99
                                                                      ----------

  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                        OF FIRST MUTUAL BANCSHARES, INC.
        PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


The undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 and in connection with this Annual Report on Form 10-K, that:

 - the report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) and 15(d)
   of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

 - the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material
   respects, the Bank's financial condition and results of operations.


March 31, 2003                          /s/ John R. Valaas
                                        --------------------------
                                        John R. Valaas
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer


March 31, 2003                          /s/ Roger A. Mandery
                                        --------------------------
                                        Roger A. Mandery
                                        Executive Vice President and
                                        Principle Financial Officer
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-15-00003-CR

NO. 02-15-00004-CR

NO. 02-15-00005-CR

DIJON LEFAYE NOBLES APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 396TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NOS. 1380625D, 1380626D, 1380627D

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

On October 3, 2014, pursuant to a plea bargain, Appellant Dijon LeFaye 

Nobles pled guilty to three separately charged counts of debit card abuse, and 

the trial court sentenced her to fourteen months’ confinement in a state jail facility 

in each case, with the sentences to run concurrently. Appellant did not file a 

 1

See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

motion for new trial in any of her cases. Her notice of appeal in each case was 

therefore due November 3, 2014, but it was not filed until December 19, 2014.2

Because of our concern that we have no jurisdiction over these appeals 

based on the untimely filed notices of appeal, and also because the trial court’s

certification states that these cases are plea-bargained and that Appellant 

therefore has no right of appeal, we informed Appellant by letter on January 12, 

2014, that the appeals could be dismissed absent a response showing grounds 

for continuing them. We received no response.

A notice of appeal that complies with the requirements of rule 26 is 

essential to vest this court with jurisdiction.3 The Texas Court of Criminal 

Appeals has expressly held that without a timely filed notice of appeal or motion 

for extension of time, this court cannot exercise jurisdiction over an appeal.4

Accordingly, we dismiss these appeals for want of jurisdiction.

 2

See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1).

3

See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b), 26.2(a)(1); Castillo v. State, 369 S.W.3d 196, 

198 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012).

4

Castillo, 369 S.W.3d at 198; Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1996).
3

PER CURIAM

PANEL: DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: March 5, 2015
No. 48565.

#### Protests 68834-K, etc., of K. Taniguchi et al. (Honolulu, etc.).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Transition Report of MEDIANET GROUP TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the transition period from January 1, 2009 to
September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Alfred Fernandez, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge
and belief:

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

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

/s/ Alfred Fernandez
Alfred Fernandez
Chief Financial Officer

January 12, 2010
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN R. SCHRUBB, SR.,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2704 GEB CMK P

vs.

CALIFORNIA DIRECTOR OF

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On November 3, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections

to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiff has filed

objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

proper analysis.

Case 2:04-cv-02704-GEB-CMK Document 11 Filed 01/26/06 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

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed November 3, 2005, are adopted in

full; and 

2. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief

can be granted. 

Dated: January 26, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02704-GEB-CMK Document 11 Filed 01/26/06 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 10.8


 


 






    	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



    	 



    

 


 






    	29



    	 



    

 


 






    	30



    	 



    

 


 






    	31



    	 



    

 


 






    	32



    	 



    

 


 






    	33



    	 



    

 


 






    	34



    	 



    

 


 






    	35



    	 



    

 


 






    	36



    	 



    

 


 






    	37



    	 



    

 


 






    	38



    	 



    

 


 






    	39



    	 



    

 


 






    	40



    	 



    

 


 






    	41



    	 



    

 


 






    	42



    	 



    

 


 






    	43



    	 



    

 


 






    	44



    	 



    

 


 






    	45



    	 



    

 


 






    	46



    	 



    

 


 






    	47



    	 



    

 


 






    	48



    	 



    

 


 






    	49



    	 



    

 


 






    	50



    	 



    

 


 






    	51



    	 



    

 


 






    	52



    	 



    

 


 






    	53



    	 



    

 


 






    	54



    	 



    

 


 






    	55