alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION




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


(18
U.S.C. 1350)




Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of (18 U.S.C. 1350), the undersigned
officer of Document Capture Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
"Company"), does hereby certify, to the best of such officer's knowledge and
belief, that:




(1) The
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 (the "Form
10-KSB") of the Company 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 Form 10-K fairly presents, in all materials
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.




Date:
      April 15,2009/s/David
      P. ClarkDavid P. ClarkChief
      Executive
      Officer(Principal Executive
      Officer)





A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Document Capture
Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Document Capture Technologies, Inc.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.




- 48 -
Vista International 10-K


Exhibit 32




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




The undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to, and as required by, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Vista International Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date: April 15, 2011
By:
/s/ Bradley A. RippsBradley A. RippsInterim Chief Executive Officer

and Principal Accounting Officer
**Return to top
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4999 

To amend the Aquifer Recharge Flexibility Act to clarify a provision relating 

to conveyances for aquifer recharge purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 10, 2024 

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

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Aquifer Recharge Flexibility Act to clarify 

a provision relating to conveyances for aquifer recharge 

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. CONVEYANCE FOR AQUIFER RECHARGE PUR4 POSES. 

5 Subsection (c)(3) of the Aquifer Recharge Flexibility 

6 Act (43 U.S.C. 390g–9) is amended by striking ‘‘may 

7 transport water for aquifer recharge purposes without re8 quiring additional authorization from the Secretary where 

9 the use does not expand or modify the operation’’ and in10 serting ‘‘may, acting for the holder or on behalf of a third 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 4999 IS

1 party, use the right-of-way, easement, permit, or other au2 thorization for the purpose of aquifer recharge without re3 quiring additional authorization from the Secretary, which 

4 use shall not be considered an expansion or modification’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

III F 111

jr1 " 11 11111101* 11

NO. 2023 KW 0848

STEVEN STAGGS NOVEMBER 6, 2023

In Re: Steven Staggs, applying for supervisory writs, 19th

Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, 

No. 10- 09- 0936. 

BEFORE: THERIOT, PENZATO, AND GREENE, JJ. 

WRIT DENIED. The records of the Clerk of Court of East

Baton Rouge Parish indicate that the district court is

proceeding toward disposition of relator' s application for

postconviction relief. 

MRT

ARP

HG
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-11-00091-CV

______________________________

IN RE: OLIVER WENDELL HART, III

 

 

Original Mandamus Proceeding

 

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Oliver Wendell Hart, III, files this petition for writ of mandamus complaining of 

deprivation of personal property from his inmate trust fund account. The respondent is identified 

as the “Bowie County District Clerk.” We dismiss Hart’s petition for lack of jurisdiction. 

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. State v. Walker, 679 S.W.2d 484, 485 (Tex. 

1984). In order to establish that he is entitled to mandamus relief, Hart must show that: (1) there 

is no adequate remedy at law to redress the alleged harm; and (2) only a ministerial act, not a 

discretionary or judicial decision, is being sought. State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist. 

Court of Appeals at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). Due to the nature 

of this remedy, it is Hart’s burden to properly request and show entitlement to the mandamus 

relief. Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. 

proceeding) (per curiam) (“Even a pro se applicant for a writ of mandamus must show himself 

entitled to the extraordinary relief he seeks.”). 

This Court has jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against a “judge of a district or 

county court in the court of appeals district.” TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(b) (West 2004). 

Because we do not have jurisdiction against a district clerk unless necessary to enforce our 

jurisdiction, and Hart has not demonstrated that mandamus relief is necessary for this purpose, we 

have no jurisdiction over this petition. 
3

We dismiss Hart’s petition for writ of mandamus for lack of jurisdiction. 

Jack Carter

Justice

Date Submitted: September 1, 2011

Date Decided: September 2, 2011
No. 42945.

#### Protest 850762-G of Bookstaver Burns Lumber Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Brown, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Laurence Phillips Lumber Co.*v. *United States*(T. D. 49624) and *United States*v. *Myers*(24 C. C. P. A. 156, T. D. 48640), the protest was sustained.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v RICHARD L. ATHERTON, Private, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

18 USCMA 215, 39 CMR 215

No. 21,721

March 21, 1969

*Lieutenant Norman A. Wulf,*JAGC, USNR, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Captain William 8. Foss,*USMCR, was on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM:

We granted review in this case to determine whether Article 38(b), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 838, had been complied with. The record reflects that, at the outset, a *pro forma*inquiry was made to determine whether the accused had been advised of his rights concerning counsel as set forth in Article 38(b) of the Code.

In United States v Donohew, 18 USCMA 149, 39 CMR 149, decided March 7, 1969, we held that this type of inquiry constituted *minimal*compliance with Article 38(b). However, as we stated in *Donohew:*

> “We believe the seriousness of the situation dictates that *the record should contain the accused’s personal response to direct questions incorporating each of the elements of Article 38(h), as well as his understanding of his entitlement thereunder.*

> *“Accordingly, the record in each special or general court-martial convened more than thirty days after the date of this*[Donohew] *opinion should reflect this requirement has been met.*United States v Rinehart, 8 USCMA 402, 24 CMR 212.” [Emphasis supplied in part.]

The decision of the board of review is affirmed.
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 45839

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

DAVID PAUL LEE,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Filed: February 12, 2019

Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, Gem

County. Hon. George A. Southworth, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of eight years with three years 

determinate for stalking in the first degree with a persistent violator 

enhancement, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before HUSKEY, Judge; LORELLO, Judge;

and BRAILSFORD, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

David Paul Lee was found guilty of stalking in the first degree, Idaho Code § 18-7905, 

with a persistent violator enhancement, I.C. § 19-2514. The district court imposed a unified 

sentence of eight years with three years determinate. Lee appeals, contending that his sentence is 

excessive.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-
2

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Lee’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED November 9, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-11400 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus PATRICK EUGENE NASH, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:04-CR-29-ALL-C

-------------------- Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Patrick Eugene Nash appeals following his guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute less than five grams of cocaine base. Nash argues that his sentence violates United States v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), and Blakely v. Washington , 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). The instant appeal is barred, however, by the plain language of Nash’s knowing and voluntary appeal waiver in the plea agreement. See United States v. Bond , 414 F.3d 542, 545-46 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. McKinney , 406 F.3d 744, 746-47 (5th Cir. 2005).No. 04-11400 -2-
APPEAL DISMISSED.
#### Agnes A. Barris v. John A. Thompson, Phoenix Tax Title Corporation, and Tax Securities Corporation, *et al.*

174 So. 908.

En Banc.

Decision Filed July 29, 1936.

On Rehearing March 22, 1937.

*Charles J. Van Fleet,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*Erie B. Askezv*and *Osmond R. Bie,*for Defendant in Error.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of record 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 said judgment; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said judgment of the Circuit Court be and the same is hereby affirmed.

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

*246On Rehearing.

Per Curiam.

In this case, this court some months ago affirmed the judgment of the trial court, by unanimous decision. Later a rehearing was granted. Upon reconsideration of the cause upon rehearing, we are of the opinion that our former decision should be adhered to.

Judgment of affirmance adhered to and confirmed on rehearing.

Ellis, C. J., and Whitfield; Terrell, Brown, Buford and Davis, J. J., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 51 (Friday, March 16, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 12604]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4805]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD06-9-000]


RTO Border Utility Issues; Supplemental Notice of Technical 
Conference on Seams Issues for RTOs and ISOs in the Eastern 
Interconnection

March 12, 2007.
    On January 25, 2007, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
issued a notice that on March 29, 2007, the Commission will convene a 
technical conference on RTO and ISO seams issues in the Eastern 
Interconnection. The technical conference will be held at the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426, in the Commission Meeting Room. It will begin at 9 a.m. and end 
at 4:45 p.m. Eastern time. Commissioners will attend and participate in 
the conference. Members of the public may attend and registration is 
not required.
    Transcripts of the conference will be available from Ace Reporting 
Company (202-347-3700 or 1-800-336-6646) for a fee. They will be 
available for the public on the Commission's eLibrary system seven 
calendar days after FERC receives the transcript.
    A free Webcast of this event will be available through http://www.ferc.gov. Anyone with Internet access who desires to view this 
event can do so by navigating to http://www.ferc.gov's Calendar of 
Events and locating this event in the Calendar. The event will contain 
a link to its Webcast. The Capitol Connection provides technical 
support for the free Webcasts. It also offers access to this event via 
television in the DC area and via Phone Bridge for a fee. If you have 
any questions, visit http://www.CapitolConnection.org or contact 
Danielle Perkowski or David Reininger at 703-993-3100.
    Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please 
send an e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#97f6f4f4f2e4e4fef5fefbfee3eed7f1f2e5f4b9f0f8e1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="48292b2b2d3b3b212a2124213c31082e2d3a2b662f273e">[email protected]</span></a>, or call toll free 1-866-208-
3372 (voice) or 202-208-1659 (TTY), or send a FAX to 202-208-2106 with 
the required accommodations.
    For more information about this conference, please contact: Udi 
Helman, Office of Energy Markets and Reliability, Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, 
202-502-8080, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a1f4c5c88fe9c4cdccc0cfe1c7c4d3c28fc6ced7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2f7a4b4601674a43424e416f494a5d4c01484059">[email protected]</span></a>.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-4805 Filed 3-15-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Peirce-Phelps, Inc. *v.*Julason et ux., Appellants.

Argued November 13, 1968.

Before Bell, C. J., Jones, Cohen, Eagen, . O’Brien and Roberts, JJ. .

*605
      *A. E. Hurshman,*for appellants.

*Raymond L. Shapiro,*with him *Wexler, Mulder & Weisman,*for appellee.

January 15, 1969:

Opinion

Pee Cueiam,

Decree affirmed at appellants’ cost.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED FE BRUARY 21, 2019

NO. 03

- 18

- 00562

- CR

Joshua Vardell, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 21ST DISTRICT COURT OF BASTROP COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, BA KER, AND TRIANA

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE BAKER

This is an appeal from the judgment adjudicating guilt entered by the trial court. Having

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error

in the trial court’s judgment adjudicating guilt . Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s

judgment adjudicating guilt

. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no

adjudication of costs is made.
#### The Village of Lansingburgh, *Appellant, v.*The Cohoes and Lansingburgh Bridge Company, *Respondent.*

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and printing disbursements. Opinion by Boardman, J.
[No. 18051.

Department Two.

May *24,*1892.]

#### In the Matter of the Estate of JAMES A. WOODS, Deceased.

Estates oe Decedents — Order Appointing Administrator — Appeal — Stay of Proceedings. — Upon an appeal from an order appointing an administrator, an undertaking on appeal in the sum three hundred dollars, as provided for in section 941 of the Code of Civil Procedure, stays all proceedings upon the order appealed from, and prevents the doing of any act by the appointee as administrator of the estate during the pendency of the appeal.

Id. — Appointment of Special Administrator Pending Appeal. — If there be any danger of loss to the estate from a stay of proceedings pending an appeal from an order appointing an administrator, such danger can be avoided by the appointment of a special administrator under section 1411 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

*567Application to the Supreme Court for an order staying proceedings. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

*Soil &*Dunn, for Appellant.

*Johnson, Johnson & Johnson,*for Respondent.

McFarland, J.

There was a contest in the court below between C. M. West and George Bronner, as public administrator, for letters of administration of this estate, which was decided in favor of the latter. West appealed from the order appointing Bronner administrator, giving an undertaking on appeal in the sum of three hundred dollars, as provided for in section 941 of the Code of Civil Procedure; but Bronner is proceeding to administer the estate, and the matter now before us is an application by West for an order staying all proceedings until the determination of the appeal.

The undertaking provided for by section 941 “ stays all further proceeding in the court below upon the judgment or order appealed from; or upon the matters embraced therein,” except in those cases specified in sections 942, 943, 944, and 945, and a few special matters mentioned in section 949 not material here. (See sections 946-949.) But appellant here is not within the said sections from 942 to 945, which “ apply to appellants who are required to perform the directions of the judgment or order appealed from.” (Estate *of Schedel,*69 Cal. 241.) The case at bar cannot be distinguished in principle from *Pennie*v. *Superior Court,*89 Cal. 31, in which we held that on an appeal by one claiming to be the heir from an order directing the administrator to pay family allowance to another person, a three-hundred-dollar undertaking stayed all proceedings on the order. And it is quite clear that every act which the respondent might undertake to do as administrator of this estate would be *“*upon the order appealed from, and upon the matters embraced therein.” If, as suggested by respondent, there be any danger of loss to the estate from a stay of pro*568ceedings, such danger can be avoided by the appointment of a special administrator under section 1411.

The motion for a stay of proceedings is granted, and the respondent Bronner is restrained from doing any act as administrator of said estate during the pendency of the appeal.

De Haven, J., and Sharpstein, J., concurred.
Exhibit 10.7


 


Lease Termination Agreement


The Parties:


 


Leaser: Shin Kong Life Insurance Co., Ltd.
(hereinafter referred to as Party A)


 


Lessee: NOWnews Network Co., Ltd. (hereinafter
referred to as Party B)


 


Whereas, both parties have signed Office
Lease Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the original lease agreement) on January 1, 2014 [Lease object: the house locates in
4F, No. 550, Ruiguang Road, Neihu District, Taipei City; total area: 490.64 Ping (including public area) and parking spaces on
basement -4F, No. 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, totally 8 parking spaces, detailed area subject to the ownership certificate.
Lease period: from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2016], regarding the current lease contract, both parties hereby agree as follows:


 


		1.	Both parties agree to early terminate the above lease agreement on March 15, 2015, and the rent
shall be calculated until the termination date thereof.



 


		2.	Both parties agree that, the performance security deposit paid by Party B pursuant to Article 4
of the original lease agreement, namely NTD (similarly hereinafter) 1,766,304 only, shall be used to offset the rent from January
1, 2015 to March 15, 2015, totally NTD 1,462,424 (business tax inclusive), after offsetting the preceding costs, for the remaining
performance security deposit NTD 303,880, Party B agree that it shall all be used to offset the charges of public water and electricity,
management fee and other due costs incurred from the use of the lease object owed to the management committee of the building,
if it is not sufficient, Party B shall otherwise pay to the management committee of the building.



 


		3.	Both parties agree to check and hand over the house according to the current condition, after the
check and handover accompanied by Party A, Party B shall move out from and return the lease object.



 


		4.	This lease termination agreement is made in duplicate; each party holds one copy respectively.



 


The Parties: 


 


	Party A:	Shin Kong Life Insurance Co., Ltd.
	Representative:	Tsai, Hsiung-Chi
	Unified No.:	03458902
	Address:	31~43F, No. 66, Section One, Zhongxiao West Road, Taipei City
	 	 
	Party B (Lessee):	NOWnews Network Co., Ltd.
	Representative:	Chuang, Shih-Te
	Unified No.:	28331543
	Address:	4F, No. 550, Ruiguang Road, Neihu District, Taipei City


 


March 15, 2015
No. 47428.

#### Protests 41397-K, etc., of Wm. *X.*Huber Co. et al. (Los Angeles, etc.).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the' court dismissed the protests.
EXHIBIT
23.2
  CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
 
 
 We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form
S-8 (Nos. 333-130505, 333-129754, 333-114866, 333-97769, 333-66746, and 333
37914) of Genius Products, Inc. and subsidiaries of our report dated April
13, 2006 relating to our audit of the consolidated financial statements and
financial statement schedule, which appear in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Genius Products, Inc. and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31,
2007.
 
  Los
      Angeles, California
                  March
      17, 2008
              /s/ SINGER LEWAK LLP
No. 38889.

#### Protests 851553-G, etc., of Associated Merchandising Corp. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Kinchelos, J.

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