alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Total Entertainment, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Mitchell H. Brown., Chief Operating 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/ MITCHELL H. BROWN
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Mitchell H. Brown

July 24, 2003
No. 64219.

protests 59/6918, etc. (New York).

#### D. H. Grant & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of waterproof cotton cloth similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *D. H. Grant & Co., Inc.*(47 C.C.P.A. 20, C.A.D. 723), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
#### THEODORE MIEHL, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. JERRY DARPINO, DEFENDANT, AND THE CITY OF HAMMONTON, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

See same case below: 99 *N. J. Super. 1.*

*Messrs. Miller, Brone, Valore & McAllister*for the petitioner.

*Messrs. Arhus & Cooper*for the respondent.

March 26, 1968.

Granted.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### July 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice


### 130501 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices



### v SC: 130501 COA: 263492 Macomb CC: 01-000959-FC ROBERT W. VANDERWIEL, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 23, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

s0724 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.

July 31, 2006

Clerk
#### John H. Faunce, New York, Inc., a/c Heifler & Jackson *v.*United States

No. 7307.

Invoice dated London, England, October 11, 1945.

Certified October 16, 1945.

Entered at New York, N. Y., December 7, 1945.

Entry No. 726455.

(Decided June 23, 1947)

*Sharretts & Hütís (Howard C. Carter of*counsel) for the plaintiff.

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

Mollison, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the 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 merchandise 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.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Edward Wade, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 92]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael Obús, J.), rendered April 28, 1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years and *21⁄2*to 5 years, respectively, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of vacating the conviction for criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and dismissing that count of the indictment, and otherwise affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that the prosecutor’s summation impermissibly referred to defendant’s decision not to testify by using the phrase "what is not at issue”, followed by a recitation of facts purportedly adduced at trial, is unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. The one objection defendant made was to a claimed misstatement of the testimony, which was sustained and followed up with curative instructions to which defendant made no further protest. In any event, if we were to review the challenged comments in the interest of justice, we would find, first, that they were fair response to defense counsel’s own "what is not in issue” phraseology, serving to focus attention on disputed issues of facts, and second, that if improper, they were harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt *{People v Allen,*127 AD2d 840). Since both weapon counts involve the same weapon, we dismiss in the interest of justice the count of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree *{see, People v Medina,*202 AD2d 256, 257, *Iv denied*83 NY2d 913). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman, Asch and Williams, JJ.
#### Darlene Kozak, Respondent, v Robert K. Hyjek, Appellant.

[635 NYS2d 560]

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, cross motion denied, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Defendant established a complete defense by submitting proof in admissible form that the collision was caused by plaintiffs presence in his lane of travel, and plaintiff failed in response to offer proof in admissible form that defendant could have done something to avoid the collision *(see, Moshier v Phoenix Cent. School Dist.,*199 AD2d 1019, *affd*83 NY2d 947; *Gouchie v Gill,*198 AD2d 862; *cf., Boyes v DeLellis,*210 AD2d 931). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Mintz, J.—Insurance Law.) Present—Pine, J. P., Law-ton, Wesley, Callahan and Doerr, JJ.
##### 



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ Anthony J. Orlando
    
    
    
    /s/ Craig D. AboltAnthony J. Orlando
    
    
    
    Craig D. AboltChief Executive Officer and President
    
    
    
    Senior Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerAugust 3, 2006
    
    
    
    August 3, 2006
 56
* 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.

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-20860 Summary Calendar

CARL WAYNE STEWART Plaintiff - Appellant v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Defendant - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:07-CV-36
Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Carl Stewart sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The district court granted the United Statesjudgment as a matter of law, and Stewart has appealed. We now affirm. We review the district court’s decision to grant the Government’s motion to dismiss (which it treated as a motion for summaryjudgment) by applying the United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D September 10, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-20860

1 Ashford v. United States, 511 F.3d 501, 504 (5th Cir. 2007).

2 See id.

3 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1); Richardsv. United States, 369 U.S. 1, 9, 82 S. Ct. 585, 590–91 (1962) (observing that in cases where the Government’s alleged negligence and the injury it allegedly caused occur in the same jurisdiction, that jurisdiction’s law applies).

4 See Barclay v. Campbell , 704 S.W.2d 8, 10–11 (Tex. 1986) (noting the scope of the required expert testimony in lack-of-informed-c onsent medical malpractice cases); s ee also Edwardsv. Garcia-Gregory, 866S.W.2d 780, 784 (Tex. App. 1993) (“Medical malpractice is an area of the law where the fact finder must be guided by medical expert testimony.”). 2 same standardsthedistrict court used. 1 That standard requires us to determine if the Government is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, meaning no reasonable trier of fact could find in Stewart’s favor. 2 Stewart’s claim is that a doctor treating him at a Veteran Affairs hospital committed medical malpractice during a throat examination. The source of the doctor’s alleged malpractice was his failure to ask Stewart to consent to the examination. To succeed on this claim, Stewart must meet the requirements of the Federal Tort Claims Act, which in turn requires him to establish all of the elements ofa cause ofaction for medical malpractice under Texas law, since the alleged malpractice occurred in Texas. 3 Under Texas law, the plaintiff in a medical malpracticeclaim alleging lack ofinformed consent must present expert testimony tosupport his position. 4 Stewart, however, neither timely designated an expert (i.e. told the district court the identity ofthe doctor who would testify on his behalf), nor requested additional time to do so. As a result, the district court determined that Stewart was not going to have an expert for trial and therefore correctly granted the United States summaryjudgment, determining it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. AFFIRMED.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-10-00714-CR

Patrick Orlando Brewington, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 426TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 65045, HONORABLE MARTHA J. TRUDO, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Patrick Orlando Brewington seeks to appeal a judgment of conviction for

aggravated sexual assault. The trial court has certified that (1) this is a plea bargain case and

Brewington has no right of appeal, and (2) Brewington has waived the right of appeal. The appeal

is dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d).

___________________________________________

Diane M. Henson, Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Patterson and Henson

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: December 2, 2010

Do Not Publish
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit

No. 95-60162 Summary Calendar

LUTHER WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

ABBEY MEDICAL, INC., doing business as Abbey Home Health Care,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of Mississippi

(3:93-CV-544WS)

February 8, 1996

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Luther Williams (Williams) sued his employer, Abbey Medical,

Inc., d/b/a Abbey Home Health Care (Abbey Medical), under Title VII

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e), et seq.,

alleging discrimination in employment p ractices on the basis of

race and religion. The case was tried for four days to a jury and

upon conclusion of the testimony, the jury returned a verdict for2

the defendant, Abbey Medical. Judgment on the jury verdict was

entered in favor of Abbey Medical and Williams appeals.

We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the record excerpts and

relevant portions of the record itself, and have co ncluded that

there is no reversible error in the record and that the judgment

for Abbey Medical should be AFFIRMED.
October 14, 2015 

Re: Support letter for Aircraft Technical Support Roswell 

To Whom It May Concern: 

Please accept this letter as the City of Roswell's support of Aircraft Technical Support (ATS) 

Roswell. ATS already has an established list of current and potential customers from around 

the country and globe that require the 145 repair station certification. The granting of such 

would positively impact Roswell and New Mexico, as a whole, to provide much needed 

employment as we strive to enhance the economic activity of our region. If approved, ATS 

will employee over 100 personnel operating in the Roswell area. 

As the City Manager of Roswell and on behalf of ATS, please know that ATS has our full 

support and we greatly appreciate your consideration of their request. 

Sincerely, 

~d~~ Steve Polasek, City Manager 

City of Roswell, New Mexico
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8344 

To require the Secretary of Agriculture to submit to Congress a report 

on available assistance to agricultural producers in the State of Texas 

that have suffered economic losses due to the failure of Mexico to 

deliver water. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 10, 2024 

Ms. DE LA CRUZ (for herself, Ms. CROCKETT, and Mr. TONY GONZALES of 

Texas) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of Agriculture to submit to Congress a report on available assistance to agricultural 

producers in the State of Texas that have suffered economic losses due to the failure of Mexico to deliver 

water. 

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 ‘‘Texas Agricultural 

5 Producers Assistance Act’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8344 IH

1 SEC. 2. REPORT ON AVAILABLE ASSISTANCE TO AGRICUL2 TURAL PRODUCERS IN THE STATE OF TEXAS 

3 THAT HAVE SUFFERED ECONOMIC LOSSES 

4 DUE TO THE FAILURE OF MEXICO TO DE5 LIVER WATER. 

6 Not later than 180 days after the date of the enact7 ment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall submit 

8 to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Rep9 resentatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, 

10 and Forestry of the Senate a report that lists all existing 

11 authorities of the Secretary and programs within the De12 partment of Agriculture that are or could be made avail13 able to provide assistance to agricultural producers in the 

14 State of Texas that have suffered economic losses due to 

15 the failure of Mexico to deliver water to the United States 

16 in accordance with the Treaty Relating to the Utilization 

17 of Waters of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the 

18 Rio Grande signed at Washington on February 3, 1944, 

19 and the Supplementary Protocol signed at Washington on 

20 November 14, 1944. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
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 Travel Hunt Holdings, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended October 31, 2004 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, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 and 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.

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


December 2, 2004               /s/ Nancy Reynolds
                               -----------------------------------
                               Nancy Reynolds
                               President, Chief Executive Officer and
                               Chief Financial Officer
CHARLES OWENS

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 3887

__________ ___________________/

Opinion filed January 6, 2015.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Bay County

. James B. Fensom , Judge

.

Charles Owens , pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

A FFIRMED.

BENTON, WETHERELL, and SWANSON

, J J

. , CONCUR.
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, Tony Philipp, the Chief Executive Officer and Paul Schmidt, the
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of UPSNAP, INC. (the "Company"), DO HEREBY
CERTIFY that:





1.           he
Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2008
(the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2.           nformation
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operation of the Company.





IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this statement this 14th
day of May 2008.






/s/ Tony
Philipp





Tony
Philipp


Chief
Executive Officer


(Principal
Executive Officer)





/s/ Paul
Schmidt





Paul
Schmidt


Chief
Financial Officer and Treasurer





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
UpSNAP, Inc. and will be retained by UpSNAP, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
No. 45026.

#### Protest 41897-K of New Amsterdam Import & Supply Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Peat Import Corp.*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 181, C. D. 319) the claim for free entry under paragraph 1685 was sustained.
Exhibit 10.3
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
 nd
    1.
    
    Definitions. Capitalized
terms used herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement unless otherwise indicated in this Amendment.2.
    
    Amendment. The parties agree
that Section 4.c. of the Agreement, titled Discretionary Bonus shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the
following:c. Discretionary Bonus. In addition to (and separate from) Base Salary,
Employee may receive an annual incentive payment in an amount determined
pursuant to the Employers performance-based incentive program, payable in
November of each year. The amount of the incentive payment is based on
achievement of financial goals and objectives, as determined and approved by the
Chief Executive Officer of Employer.3.
    
    Ratification. The Agreement, as amended by this Amendment is hereby ratified
by the parties.
  FACTS Management Co.
    
    
    
    Employee:/s/ David J. Byrnes

David J. Byrnes, CEO
    
    
    
    /s/ Timothy A. Tewes

Timothy A. Tewes
Before the Third Division,

May 2, 1946

No. 51080.

#### Petitions 6531-R, etc., of G. R. Kirk Co. (Ogdensburg and Buffalo).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

At the trial it was established that a disagreement arose between the petitioner and the appraisers as to the value of the merchandise, Test cases involving several importations were agreed upon and an investigation was instituted by the Government. The petitioner freely cooperated with the Government officials in showing its records and giving them any information desired. After the completion of the investigation, a compromise based on the customs agent’s findings' was agreed upon which resulted in higher values for some of the trees and lower values for others. It was held that the petitioner in making entry was without any intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or to misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petitions were therefore granted.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           34567
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   235239
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                269806
<PP&E>                                        14400841
<DEPRECIATION>                                   50236
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                14620411
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1525037
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          1013
<OTHER-SE>                                    13564367
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  14620411
<SALES>                                          46164
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 46164
<CGS>                                             1560
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   584286
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               66376
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (606058)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (606058)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.11)


</TABLE>