alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with this Quarterly Report of Travel Hunt Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending January 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Nancy Reynolds, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.     Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending January 31, 2006, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending January 31, 2006, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Travel Hunt Holdings, Inc.

 
| Dated: March 15, 2006 |
|-----------------------|

 

**TRAVEL HUNT HOLDINGS, INC.**

 
| By: | */s/ Nancy Reynolds* |
|-----|----------------------|

Nancy Reynolds

Chief Executive Officer and

Chief Financial Office
NUMBER 13-07-00496-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

______________________________________________________________

ALFREDO SANCHEZ, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

_____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 214th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.

______________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Yañez, Garza, and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Alfredo Sanchez, attempted to perfect an appeal from a conviction for

sexual assault. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

This Court's appellate jurisdiction in a criminal case is invoked by a timely filed

notice of appeal. Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Absent a

timely filed notice of appeal, a court of appeals does not have jurisdiction to address the
merits of the appeal and can take no action other than to dismiss the appeal for want of

jurisdiction. Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). 

The trial court imposed sentence in this matter on May 15, 2007. The notice of

appeal was due on June 14, 2007. The record contains a pro se notice of appeal dated

May 30, 2007, marked “received” by persons unknown on June 1, 2007, and file-marked

by the district clerk on July 2, 2007. 

This Court abated and remanded this matter to the trial court for a determination

regarding the timeliness of appellant’s notice of appeal. After remand, the trial court

allowed appellant’s former appointed counsel to withdraw and appointed new counsel for

appellant for purposes of this appeal. This Court has now received a response filed by

appellant’s new counsel regarding the timeliness of appellant’s notice of appeal. Counsel

has stated that the appeal was not timely filed and that this defect cannot be cured.

Appellant’s notice of appeal was untimely, and accordingly, we lack jurisdiction over

the appeal. See Slaton, 981 S.W.2d at 210. Appellant may be entitled to an out-of-time

appeal by filing a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus returnable to the Texas Court of

Criminal Appeals; however, the availability of that remedy is beyond the jurisdiction of this

Court. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07, § 3(a) (Vernon 2005); see also Ex

parte Garcia, 988 S.W.2d 240 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).

The appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. 

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Memorandum Opinion delivered and 

filed this the 10th day of April, 2008.
## 

AGREEMENT AND PLAN OF MERGER

THIS AGREEMENT AND PLAN OF MERGER("Merger Agreement") is made
as of this 9th day of February, 2000, by and between Fargo Electronics, Inc., a corporation organized and governed under the laws of Delaware
("Fargo-Delaware"), and Fargo Electronics, Inc., a corporation organized and governed under the laws of Minnesota
("Fargo-Minnesota"). Fargo-Delaware and Fargo-Minnesota are sometimes referred to hereinafter as the "Constituent
Corporations."

WHEREAS,
the directors of the Constituent Corporations deem it advisable and to the advantage of such corporations that Fargo-Minnesota merge with and into Fargo-Delaware upon the
terms and conditions herein provided; and

WHEREAS,
the parties intend that the merger contemplated hereby shall be a tax-free reorganization under Section 368(a)(1)(F) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended;

NOW,
THEREFORE, the parties hereby adopt the plan of merger encompassed by this Merger Agreement and, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are
hereby acknowledged, do hereby agree that Fargo-Minnesota shall merge with and into Fargo-Delaware on the following terms and conditions:

ARTICLE 1. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE MERGER



ARTICLE 2. CHARTER DOCUMENTS, DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS

ARTICLE 3. MISCELLANEOUS



IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Merger Agreement, having first been duly approved by the Boards of Directors of Fargo-Minnesota and Fargo-Delaware, is hereby executed on behalf of each of
such corporations and attested by their respective officers thereunto duly authorized.

|ATTEST:                                                 |  | FARGO ELECTRONICS, INC.,
a Minnesota corporation
|------------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------
|By: /s/KENT O. LILLEMOEKent O. Lillemoe                 |  | By: /s/GARY R. HOLLANDGary R. Holland           
|Its: Vice PresidentFinance and Chief Financial Officer |  | Its: Chief Executive Officer                    
|ATTEST:                                                 |  | FARGO ELECTRONICS, INC.,
a Delaware corporation 
|By: /s/KENT O. LILLEMOEKent O. Lillemoe                 |  | By: /s/GARY R. HOLLANDGary R. Holland           
|Its: Vice PresidentFinance and Chief Financial Officer |  | Its: Chief Executive Officer                    

## QuickLinks
#### Copeland *&*Thompson, Inc. *v.*United States

No. 6308.

Entry No. 7238291⁄2, etc.

Invoices dated Stoke on Trent, England, September 26, 1941, etc.

Certified October 1, 1941, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., November 10, 1941, etc.

(Decided July 29, 1946)

*Benjamin A. Levett*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Keeee, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> It is hereby stipulated and agreed, subject to the approval of the court, that the merchandise consisting of earthenware and chinaware and the issues in the appeals for reappraisement listed in the attached schedule are the same in all material respects as the merchandise and issues decided in *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*Suit No. 4513, C. A. D. 334, and that the record in said case may be incorporated herein.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that the appraised value of the merchandise consisting of earthenware and chinaware involved in each of the cases enumerated in the attached schedule, less the additions made by the importer on *273entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases, is equal to the price, at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise is freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, and that the foreign value of such or similar merchandise is no higher.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that these cases may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

On tbe agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the earthenware and chinaware here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases. Insofar as the appeals relate to all other merchandise they are hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
#### Mary E. Hughes, Resp’t *v.*The Metropolitan Elevated R. R. Co. *et al.,*Appl’ts.

*(New York Superior Court, General Term,*

*Filed January 6, 1890.)*

Railroads—Injunction—Mortgage.

Where there is a mortgage upon plaintiff’s premises, a provision in the injunction order that upon payment of the value of the easement taken, plaintiff, besides conveying her estate, should furnish a release from the mortgage, is proper.

Appeal from judgment entered upon findings at special term.

*Davies & Sapallo,*for app’lts; *Edwin M. Felt,*for resp’t.

Sedgwick, Ch. J.

With a single exception the merits of this case are the same as those of *Watson*v. *Same*Defendants, decided this term. The difference alluded to is, that in the present case it was proved that there was upon plaintiff’s premises a mortgage in the sum of $7,000. In my opinion there was no objection to directing that upon the defendants paying the sum estimated to be the value of the easement in fee, that the plaintiff, beside conveying her estate, should furnish to the defendants a release of the property from the mortgage. Although the mortgagee had no interest in the rental, the mortgage was an incumbrance upon that part of the plaintiff’s easement which defendant had appropriated. The judgment should be modified so as to provide that upon payment of the value of the easement taken, the plaintiff should deliver to the defendants a release from the mortgage. I do not think that this should affect the disposition of the costs upon the affirmance of the judgment.

The judgment is modified in the respect mentioned, and as modified affirmed, with costs.

Freedman, J., concurs.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 11

- 00110

- CV

STEVEN ADAMS APPELLANT

V.

SANDFORD OIL COMPANY , INC. APPELLEE

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

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW OF WISE COUNTY

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



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 

### AND JUDGMENT

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

We have considered appellant 's “ Defendant's Motion For Withdrawal Of

Appeal And Cancellation Of June 17, 2011 Hearing .” It is the court = s opinion that

the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R.

App. P. 42.1 (a)(1), 43.2(f).

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

Costs of the appeal shall be paid by appellant, for which let execution

issue. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

DELIVERED: June 23 , 2011
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, William D. Eglin, Chief Financial Officer of MD
Technologies Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of MD Technologies Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 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 Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of MD
Technologies Inc.



|                   |  |                        
|------------------ |  | -----------------------
|Date: May 10, 2005 |  | /s/ William D. Eglin   
|                   |  | William D. Eglin       
|                   |  | Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7471

ANTHONY R. SAVAGE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

THOMAS CORCORAN; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE

OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Harvey II, Senior District Judge.

(CA-97-1874-H)

Submitted: July 28, 1998 Decided: August 24, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN, ERVIN, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roland Walker, WALKER, VAN BAVEL, AMARAL & MEAD, P.A., Baltimore,

Maryland; Kreg Paul Greer, GREER & KENNEDY, L.L.C., Towson, Maryland, for Appellant. Annabelle Louise Lisic, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Anthony R. Savage seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1998), as untimely. We have reviewed the record and the

district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Savage’s

conviction became final prior to the effective date of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, so his habeas

corpus petition, filed after April 23, 1997, was untimely. See

Brown v. Angelone, ___ F.3d ___ (No. 96-7173) (4th Cir. July 14,

1998). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See

Savage v. Corcoran, No. CA-97-1874-H (D. Md. Sept. 19, 1997). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, John A. Scarlett, M.D., certify, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that the Quarterly Report of Tercica, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Tercica, Inc.



Date: November 4, 2005



By:

/s/ John A. Scarlett, M.D.John A. Scarlett, M.D.Chief Executive Officer




This certification accompanies
the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Tercica, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
Exhibit 32.4

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 on Form 10-Q of The First Marblehead Corporation (the Company) for
the quarter ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kenneth Klipper, Managing Director and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

(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.



|                    |  |                                                              
|------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: May 16, 2011 |  | /S/ KENNETH KLIPPER                                          
|                    |  | Kenneth Klipper Managing
Director and Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to The First Marblehead Corporation and will be retained by The First Marblehead Corporation and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>


                                                                      Exhibit 23

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

         We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Form 10-K
of Virginia Commerce Bancorp, Inc. and in the Registration Statements on Form
S-8 (Nos. 333-68576, 333-68578, 333-68580 333-108210 and 333-109079) of our
report, dated February 23, 2005, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
Virginia Commerce Bancorp, Inc. as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the
related consolidated statements of income, changes in stockholders' equity and
cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002.


/s/ Yount, Hyde & Barbour, PC


Winchester, Virginia
March 11, 2005
(Reap. Dec. 9560)

#### Barer Engineering & Machinery Co., Ltd. *v.*United States

Entry No. 861181, etc.

(Decided December 16, 1959)

*John D. Bode*for the plaintiff.

*George Goehr am, Douh,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the schedule, attached to and forming part of the decision herein, present for the court’s determination the proper value for dutiable purposes of certain lathes and parts thereof exported from West Germany.

By stipulation of the parties hereto, it has been agreed that the merchandise involved in these appeals consists of lathes and parts thereof exported from West Germany; that on and about the dates of exportation of said merchandise, such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country of exportation, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for home consumption therein or for export to the United States; that such or similar merchandise was not at the aforesaid time freely offered for sale in the United States for domestic consumption therein; that cost of production, as defined in section 402(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930 is as set forth opposite each customs entry on the attached schedule A.

Upon the agreed facts of record, I find and hold that cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402(f), *supra*(19 U.S.C. *576§ 1402 (f)), is the proper basis of value for the lathes and parts thereof in issue and that said value is as indicated in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof.

As to all other merchandise, the appeals are dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Exhibit 3.12



CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT TO

ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION

FOR NEVADA PROFIT CORPORATION

(Pursuant to NRS 78.385 and 78.390 - After Issuance
of Stock)





1. Name of corporation: InCapta, Inc.



2. The articles have been amended as follows
(provide article numbers, if available):



“Article 3: The total number
of shares of authorized capital stock of the corporation currently consists of five billion and one hundred and ten million (5,110,000,000)
Shares of common stock at $.001 par value, This Corporation stock shall be amended to reflect 1 billion (1,000,000,000) shares
of stock at $.001 par value.”



3. The vote by which the stockholders holding shares in the corporation
entitling them to exercise at least a majority of the voting power, or such greater proportion of the voting power as may be required
in the case of a vote by classes or series, or as may be required by the provisions of the articles of incorporation have voted
in favor of the amendment is: _______.



|4.  Effective date of filing (optional): |                                                                
|---------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------
|                                         | (must not be later than 90 days after the certificate is filed)



|5.  Officer Signature (required): | /s/  John Fleming | 
|--------------------------------- | ----------------- | 
|                                  | John Fleming, CEO | 



December 21, 2015.
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 131 (Tuesday, July 9, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 41046]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16414]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Advanced Scientific Computing Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Department of Energy, Office of Science.

ACTION: Notice of Renewal.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 14(a)(2)(A) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), and in accordance with Title 41 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations, Section 102.3.65(a), and following 
consultation with the Committee Management Secretariat, General 
Services Administration, notice is hereby given that the Advanced 
Scientific Computing Advisory Committee will be renewed for a two-year 
period beginning on July 1, 2013.
    The Committee will provide advice to the Director, Office of 
Science (DOE), on the Advanced Scientific Computing Research Program 
managed by the Office of Advanced Scientific Computing Research.
    Additionally, the renewal of the Advanced Scientific Computing 
Advisory Committee has been determined to be essential to the conduct 
of the Department of Energy business and to be in the public interest 
in connection with the performance of duties imposed upon the 
Department of Energy, by law and agreement. The Committee will operate 
in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, adhering to the rules and regulations in implementation of that 
Act.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs. Christine Chalk at (301) 903-
7486.

    Dated: Issued in Washington, DC, on July 1, 2013.
Carol A. Matthews,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2013-16414 Filed 7-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```
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 Total  Luxury  Group,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Sandy J.  Masselli,  Jr.,  Chief  Executive  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; 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/ SANDY J. MASSELLI, JR.
                                       ------------------------------------
                                       Sandy J. Masselli, Jr.

September 1, 2005
AU Press 50th anniversary logo: blue and gold background with chrome styled AUPress logo top the number 50 center and the word �Years� at bottom
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0424

SHAWN FOWLER,

 Plaintiff/Appellee,

 v.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

MONTANA HOGHWAY PATROL,

 Defendant/Appellant. 

GRANT OF APPELLEE’S EXTENSION OF TIME

Pursuant to the authority granted under Rule 26, M.R.App.P., Appellee’s 

Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time is granted. Appellee may file and serve 

its Response Brief in this matter on or before June 18, 2023. 

ELECTRONICALLY SIGNED AND DATED BELOW

cc: Karl Knuchel/Webster Crist

 Michael Kauffman

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

May 15 2023

05/15/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0424