alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hovsep MIKAELIAN, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 97-50174, 97-50184, 97-50260 and 97-50295.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

June 24, 1999.

Before: FLETCHER, BOOCHEVER, and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

The slip opinion filed February 17, 1999 is amended as follows:

(1) At slip opinion page 1358, line 14, insert “after sentencing” after “cooperate.”

(2) At slip opinion page 1359, line 9, delete “it claims.”

With the foregoing changes to the opinion, the panel has voted unanimously to deny the petition for rehearing.
Case No. 8,107.

#### In re LATHROP.

[See Case No. 8,106.]
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER



I, Richard Davidson, Chief Financial Officer of Kintera, Inc. (the Registrant), do hereby certify in accordance
with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:



(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of the Registrant, to which this certification is attached as an exhibit (the Report), fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 Registrant.



Date: August 15, 2005



|                                                     
|-----------------------------------------------------
|                                                     
|/s/ Richard Davidson                                 
|Richard Davidson                                     
|Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial
Officer)
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 23

- 00106

- CR

__ ______ ___________________

On Appeal from the 415th D istri ct Cou rt Parker County, T exas Trial Court No. CR21

- 0847
Before Birdwell, Bassel, and Womack, JJ. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### J USTIN 

### A LAN 

### H OHSTADT 

### , Appellant

V



### . T HE 

### S TATE OF 

### T EXAS2 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Justin Alan Hohstadt attempts to appeal his conviction for evading arre st with a vehicle

. See Tex . Pen al Code Ann. § 38.04(b)(2 )(A) (evading

- arrest offense with a previous convict ion)

. Hohstadt did not file a motion for new t rial, making his notice of appeal due within 30 days of the September 14, 2022 judgment of conviction. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2( a)(1) . However, Hohstad t did not file his notice of appeal until May 15, 202 3.
We noti fied Hohsta dt of our concern that we migh t not have jurisdiction over his appeal and informed him that unless he filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appe al by May 25, 2023 , we would dismiss it

. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.3. We have received no respons e f rom Hohstadt

. Because Hohstadt ’ s not ice of appeal was not timely and because a timely notice of appeal is an essential component of our jurisdiction, we dismis s the appeal for want of ju risdiction

. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b), 26.2(a)(1 ) , 43.2(f) ; Slaton v. State , 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (T ex. Crim. App. 1998 ); see also Rodarte v. State , 860 S.W.2d 108, 110 (Tex. C rim. App. 1993) ( discussing the rule of appellate procedure that preceded R ul e 26.2 , which likewise required the filing of a notice of appeal within 30 days after the imposition of a sente nce, and dism issin g an untimely appeal f or want of j urisdiction ).
Per Curiam
Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
Delive red: June 8, 2023
EX-10.2



 





Exhibit 10.2




SCHEDULE IDENTIFYING MATERIAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN

AMENDED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENTS

BETWEEN NEOPROBE CORPORATION AND

THE INDIVIDUALS LISTED BELOW




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Commencement	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	Amount of Severance
	 	 	Date	 	Term	 	2008 Base Salary	 	Amount of Severance	 	upon change of control
	David C. Bupp

	 	1/1/2007
	 	36 months
	 	$	325,000	 	 	$	426,250	 	 	Greater of: (a) 30
months salary; or (b)
$802,500

	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Brent L. Larson

	 	1/1/2007
	 	24 months
	 	$	177,000	 	 	$	177,000	 	 	$	354,000	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Anthony K. Blair

	 	1/1/2007
	 	24 months
	 	$	150,000	 	 	$	150,000	 	 	$	300,000	 






	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	Continuation of Benefits	 	 
	 	 	Continuation of Benefits	 	Upon Termination	 	Continuation of Benefits
	 	 	Upon Disability	 	Without Cause	 	Upon Change of Control
	David C. Bupp

	 	Longer of 24 months or
the full unexpired Term
of the Agreement
	 	Longer of 36 months or
the full unexpired Term
of the Agreement
	 	Longer of 36 months or
the full unexpired Term
of the Agreement
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Brent L. Larson

	 	Longer of 12 months or
the full unexpired Term
of the Agreement
	 	12 months
	 	Longer of 12 months or
the full unexpired Term
of the Agreement
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Anthony K. Blair

	 	Longer of 12 months or
the full unexpired Term
of the Agreement
	 	Longer of 12 months or
the full unexpired Term
of the Agreement
	 	Longer of 12 months or
the full unexpired Term
of the Agreement
No. 96-1336.

#### McMullin *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### International Expediters, Inc., et al. *v.*United States

No. 6858.

Entry No. 4413, etc.

Invoices dated Walsall, England, January 17, 1946, etc.

Entered at Chicago, Ill., March 6, 1946, etc.

(Decided February 11, 1947)

*Wallace & Schwartz (Joseph Schwartz*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

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

Oliver, Presiding 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:

(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 importers on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration
 By Notice dated January 23, 2007, and published in the 
                    **Federal Register**
                     on January 30, 2007, (72 FR 4298), Mallinckrodt Inc., 3600 North Second Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63147, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed in schedule I and II: Drug
ScheduleCodeine-N-oxide (9053)
IDifenoxin (9168)
IDihydromorphine (9145)
IMorphine-N-oxide (9307)
INorlevorphanol (9634)
INormorphine (9313)
ITetrahydrocannabinols (7370)
INabilone (7379)
IIAlfentanil(9737)
IIAmphetamine (1100)
IIEcgonine (9180)
IICodeine (9050)
IIDextropropoxyphene, bulk(9273)
IIDihydrocodeine (9120)
IIDiphenoxylate (9170)
IIDiprenorphine (9058)
IIEtorphine HCL (9059)
IIFentanyl(9801)
IIHydrocodone (9193)
IIHydromorphone (9150)
IILevo-alphacetylmethadol (9648)
IILevorphanol(9220)
IIMeperidine (9230)
IIMethadone (9250)
IIMethadone intermediate (9254)
IIMethamphetamine (1105)
IIMethylphenidate (1724)
IIMetopon (9260)
IIMorphine (9300)
IIOpium extracts (9610)
IIOpium fluid extract (9620)
IIOpium tincture (9630)
IIOpium, granulated (9640)
IIOpium, powdered (9639)
IIOxycodone (9143)
IIOxymorphone (9652)
IINoroxymorphone (9668)
IIPhenazocine (9715)
IIAlfentanil(9737)
IIRemifentanil (9739)
IISufentanil(9740)
IIThebaine (9333)
II
 The firm plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances for internal use and for sale to other companies. No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Mallinckrodt Inc. to manufacture the listed basic class of controlled substance is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Mallinckrodt Inc. to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with State and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed. Dated: May 14, 2007. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration.


[FR Doc. E7-9619 Filed 5-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
KPMG LLP
                                  1000 Walnut
                                   Suite 1600
                             Kansas City, MD 64106

                                                          EXHIBIT 23


                        Independent Accountants' Consent


Board of Directors
First Kansas Financial Corporation:


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (No.
333-81667 and No. 333- 81699) on Form S-8 of First Kansas Financial  Corporation
and subsidiary of our report dated January 31, 2003 relating to the consolidated
balance  sheets of First  Kansas  Financial  Corporation  and  subsidiary  as of
December 31, 2002 and 2001 and the related consolidated  statements of earnings,
stockholders' equity and comprehensive income, and cash flows for the years then
ended, which report is incorporated by reference in the December 31, 2002 annual
report on Form 10-KSB of First Kansas Financial Corporation and subsidiary.


                                                 /s/ KPMG LLP
                                                 ---------------------
                                                 KPMG



Kansas City, Missouri
March 12, 2003
Exhibit 10.1


 


PROMISSORY NOTE


WITH RIGHTS OF CONVERSION


 





	
$200,000
 	
July 1, 2005
 





 


THE UNDERSIGNED, promises to pay to the order of Venture Resources, Inc., at such place as the holder (“Holder”) hereof may designate in writing, the sum of Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000), with interest thereon at the rate of ten percent (10%) apr, principal and interest due upon demand.


 


Prepayment of this note, with interest to the date of payment, may be made at any time without penalty.


 


This Note is convertible into shares of commons stock of the Undersigned at the conversion price of par value per share, provided, however, such conversion may be made in amounts that do not result in the issuance more than 4.9% of issued and outstanding common stock at any given time..


 


In the event of commencement of arbitration or suit to enforce payment of this note, the undersigned agrees to pay costs incurred and such additional sum as attorney’s fees as the court may adjudge reasonable.


 


Effective the 1st day of July, 2005.


Matrix Energy Services Corp.


By:/s/ James Anderson                                                                                                                        James Anderson, President
No. 40468.

#### Protests 940083-G/11196, etc., of Aganox Co. (New Orleans).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same as that covered by Abstract 39170. The claim as waste at 10 percent under paragraph 1555 was therefore sustained.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-2468

_____________________________

SHARMON TRAWICK,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

John L. Miller, Judge.

October 31, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

MAKAR, WINOKUR, and WINSOR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Lori A. Willner, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Julian E. Markham, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Exhibit 13.1


                            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 Annual Report of Fundtech Ltd. (the "Company") on Form
20-F for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Reuven Ben Menachem,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

Date:  June 29, 2004

                                    /s/ Reuven Ben Menachem
                                    ----------------------------
                                    Reuven Ben Menachem
                                    Chief Executive Officer
                                    (Principal Executive Officer)









A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Fundtech Ltd. and will be retained by Fundtech Ltd. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 2 2 - 0157 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. IOLA MAERRIEA JOHNSTON

Defendant and Appellant.

**O RDER**  Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including February 1 5 , 202 3, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 9 2023

01/09/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0157
Exhibit 99.1

     Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of DND
Technologies, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify that:

      To my knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: May 15, 2003

                                                     BY:  /s/ Douglas N. Dixon
                                                        ----------------------
                                                           DOUGLAS N. DIXON
                                                        CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Dated: May 15, 2003

                                                     BY:  /s/ Paul Gallo
                                                        ----------------------
                                                              PAUL GALLO
                                                        CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


                                       28
# C_2012243EN.01000802.xml

| 11.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 243/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 243/8

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons (Belgium) lodged on 1 June 2012 — Petroma Transports SA, Martens Energie SA, Martens Immo SA, Martens SA, Fabian Martens, Geoffroy Martens, Thibault Martens v État belge

(Case C-271/12)

2012/C 243/15

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Mons

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Petroma Transports SA, Martens Energie SA, Martens Immo SA, Martens SA, Fabian Martens, Geoffroy Martens, Thibault Martens

Applicants:

Defendant: État belge

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is a Member State entitled to refuse to allow a deduction in favour of taxable persons who are recipients of services and are in possession of invoices which are incomplete, but which have been supplemented by the provision of information seeking to prove the occurrence, the nature and the amount of the transactions invoiced (contracts, reconstitution of figures on the basis of declarations made to the national social security institution, information on the functioning of the group involved, ...)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is a Member State entitled to refuse to allow a deduction in favour of taxable persons who are recipients of services and are in possession of invoices which are incomplete, but which have been supplemented by the provision of information seeking to prove the occurrence, the nature and the amount of the transactions invoiced (contracts, reconstitution of figures on the basis of declarations made to the national social security institution, information on the functioning of the group involved, ...)?

| 2. | Must a Member State which refuses, on the basis of inaccuracies in invoices, to allow a deduction in favour of taxable persons who are recipients of services not find that the invoices are then also too inaccurate to allow payment of the VAT? Consequently, is a Member State not required, in order to safeguard the principle of neutrality of VAT, to repay the VAT which has been paid to it to the companies which supplied the services thus disputed? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must a Member State which refuses, on the basis of inaccuracies in invoices, to allow a deduction in favour of taxable persons who are recipients of services not find that the invoices are then also too inaccurate to allow payment of the VAT? Consequently, is a Member State not required, in order to safeguard the principle of neutrality of VAT, to repay the VAT which has been paid to it to the companies which supplied the services thus disputed?

---
<PAGE>


EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of MBT Financial Corp. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ronald D. LaBeau,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as enacted 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 results of operations of the
Company.

/s/ Ronald D. LaBeau
---------------------------
Ronald D. LaBeau
Chief Executive Officer
October 29, 2003
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1700
CHARLES WILLIAM LEVY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus REITA M. RICHMOND; UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (CA-05-615-1) Submitted: September 29, 2005 Decided: October 5, 2005 Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles William Levy, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Charles William Levy appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action as frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). Our review of the record and the district court’s opinion discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Levy v. Richmond , No. CA-05-615-1 (E.D. Va. filed June 17, 2005 & entered June 20, 2005). 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.

AFFIRMED
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1184 CA 11-00456**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, SCONIERS, GORSKI, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

DAVID M. GORDON, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

LIN TV CORPORATION AND AL VAUGHTERS, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS.

HARRIS BEACH PLLC, BUFFALO (RICHARD T. SULLIVAN OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT.

HISCOCK & BARCLAY, BUFFALO (JOSEPH M. FINNERTY OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS.

Appeal and cross appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Christopher J. Burns, J.), entered November 23, 2010 in a defamation action. The order granted the motion of defendants for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint.

It is hereby ORDERED that said cross appeal is unanimously dismissed and the order is affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff appeals and defendants cross-appeal from an order granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in this defamation action. We conclude at the outset that defendants are not aggrieved by the order dismissing the complaint and thus their cross appeal must be dismissed ( see Town of Massena v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. , 45 NY2d 482, 488). According to plaintiff, defendant Al Vaughters misidentified plaintiff as the president of a bankrupt investment fund during an evening news television broadcast on a station owned and operated by defendant Lin TV Corporation. We conclude that defendants met their burden of establishing their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law inasmuch as they did not act “in a grossly irresponsible manner without due consideration for the standards of information gathering and dissemination ordinarily followed by responsible parties” ( Chapadeau v Utica Observer-Dispatch , 38 NY2d 196, 199). As the Court of Appeals noted in Chapadeau , a limited number of errors in news reporting is inevitable ( see id. at 200), and the fact that defendants corrected the mistake within the same broadcast demonstrates that they strived for accuracy ( see Alicea v Ogden Newspapers , 115 AD2d 233, affd 67 NY2d 862). Because we conclude that defendants met their burden of demonstrating that they did not act in a grossly irresponsible manner, we do not address defendants’ alternative ground for affirmance, i.e., that plaintiff was a limited purpose public figure and thus that the**-2- 1184 CA 11-00456** 
court should have applied the higher standard of demonstrating actual malice ( see generally New York Times Co. v Sullivan , 376 US 254, 279- 280).

Entered: November 10, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan Clerk of the Court