alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NO. 07-05-0349-CR IN THE COUR

T OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVEN TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL B AUGUST 31, 2006

______________________________ JESSE VASQUEZ, APPELLA NT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, A PPELLEE

_________________________________ FROM THE CO UNTY COURT AT LAW NO. ONE OF L UBBOCK CO UNTY; NO. 2004-490125; H ONORABLE RU STY B. LADD, JUDGE

_______________________________ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. MEMORA NDUM OPIN ION Appellant

Jesse M. Vas quez, foll ow ing h is trial by jury , appeals his convicti on for resisting arrest and hi s jury- imposed sentence of sev en days in t he Lubbock County Jail and a fine of $2,0 00.00. W e will affirm the judgment and grant cou nsel’s motio n t o withdraw in the case. Appellant’s counsel has fil ed a brief statin g that he hascarefully reviewed the record in this case and concludes there is no reversible error and that the appeal is frivolous. See2

And ers v. Calif

ornia , 386 U.S. 738, 744 -45 (1967). Counsel has al so filed a motion to withdraw in the case and, by letter, informe d appella nt of his rig ht tofilea pr o se bri ef. Johnson v. State , 885 S.W.2d 641, 646 (Tex.App.–Waco 1994, pet. ref’d) . By letter dated April 4, 2006, this court also notified appel lantof his opportunit y to submit a response to the Anders brief and motion to withdraw filed by hi s counsel, g ranting hi m until May 4, 2006 to do so. This cou rt’s l etter also r eminded appellant to contact his counsel if he needed to review

any part of the appellate recor d t o p repare a resp onse. Appellant filed a response on May

3, 2006. We have independent ly exa mined the entire reco rd in the cas e to determine whether there are any

non-frivol ous grounds w hich might s upport the appeal. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (19 88); Stafford v. State , 813 S.W .2d 503, 511 (Tex.Crim.App . 1991). We have found no suc h gr ound s. A

fter rev iew ing the r

ecor d befo re u s, c ouns el’ s br ief, and appellant’s response, we agree w ith counsel th at the appeal is fr ivolous. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W .3d 824 (Tex.Crim.App. 200 5). Acco rdin gly, counsel’s moti on to withdr aw is g ranted and the judgment is affirmed.

James T. Campbell Justice Do not publish
.
EXHIBIT 32.2







CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002







In connection with the Quarterly Report of nFinanSe Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 2, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Raymond P. Springer, in my capacity as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




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




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







/s/ Raymond P. SpringerDate:  May 16, 2011
Raymond P. Springer

Secretary and Chief Financial Officer
No. 96-7897.

#### Burdex *v.*United States.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
(Reap. Dec. 9625)

#### Kussi & Feigl, Inc. Globe Shipping Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 983632, etc.

(Decided March 4, 1960)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiffs.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for the parties hereto that the appeals for reappraisement listed in Schedule “A”, attached hereto and made a part hereof, are limited to the following items and are abandoned in all other respects:

> 3981 Necklets

> 3981 E Necklets

> 3981 EB Bracelets

> 3981 B Bracelets

> *598IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that as so limited the issues are the same in all material respects as the issues involved in *Bert Friedberg & Company*v. *United States,*Reappt. Dec. 8590 and that the record in said case may be incorporated herein.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED that the prices at the time of exportation of the instant merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale for home consumption to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States were the appraised unit values less 15.35% plus 1.01%.

In the cited case, the court held foreign value, as defined in section 402(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise there under consideration, and that such statutory value did not include the so-called “French sole or unique tax.”

On the agreed facts and following the cited decision on the law, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question, as hereinabove identified, is statutory foreign value, and hold that such value for the items in question is the appraised unit values, less 15.35 per centum, plus 1.01 per centum.

The appeals for reappraisement are dismissed as to all other merchandise.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6943

CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL WATKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus B. G. COMPTON, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-04-251-7) Submitted: January 10, 2005 Decided: April 25, 2005 Before TRAXLER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher Michael Watkins, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Christopher Michael Watkins, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Watkins v. Compton , No. CA-04-251-7 (W.D. Va., filed May 14, 2004; entered May 17, 2004); see alsoPelissero v. Thompson , 170 F.3d 442, 445 (4th Cir. 1999); Moscato v. Federal Bureau of Prisons , 98 F.3d 757, 760 (3d Cir. 1996). 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
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification of CEO and CFO pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended January 29, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission by Electronics Boutique Holdings Corp. (the “Company”) on the date hereof (the “Report”), Jeffrey W. Griffiths, as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and James A. Smith, as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his 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 result of operations of the Company.

 

 
| By:  /s/  Jeffrey W. Griffiths |                                               |
|------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|
| Name:                                    | Jeffrey W. Griffiths                               |
| Title:                                   | President and Chief Executive  Officer             |
| Date:                                    | May 20, 2005                                  |
|                                     |
|                                     |
| By:  /s/  James A. Smith       |                                               |
| Name:                                    | James A. Smith                                     |
| Title:                                   | Senior Vice President  and Chief Financial Officer |
| Date:                                    | May 20, 2005                                  |
|                                          |                                                    |  |

 

 

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

 

A signed original of this certification required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

1

----
Exhibit 32.2

                  Certification of Principal Financial Officer
                           Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of WealthCraft Systems Inc.
("WealthCraft") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Xiao Zhen Li, Chief
Financial Officer of WealthCraft, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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


/s/ Xiao Zhen Li
-----------------------
Name: Xiao Zhen Li
Chief Financial Officer

Date: August 14, 2007
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

The undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of DCI USA, Inc. (the "Company")
does hereby certify under the standards set forth and solely for the purposes of
18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company
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 information
contained in that Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Dated: May 17, 2005                               /s/ Michael Gibbs
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Michael Gibbs
                                                  Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.1

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. Section 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of **FirstBingo.com** (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended **March 31, 2005** as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Richard L. Wachter, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

Dated this 24th day of August, 2005.

 
/s/ Richard L. Wachter 
Richard L. Wachter 
Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 12(a)**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Mexicana deCananea, S.A. de C.V. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the period endingDecember 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, Xavier García de Quevedo Topete, President andGeneral Director 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 Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)          Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date:  July  15, 2003 |   | /s/ Xavier García de Quevedo Topete |
|----------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------|
|                       |   | President and General Director           |

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 hasbeen provided to Mexicana de Cananea, S.A. de C.V. and will be retained byMexicana de Cananea, S.A. de C.V. and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

 

 

----
No. 5920.

#### KENILWORTH SUGAR CO. vs. ARTHUR J. NOBLES.

Syllabus.

No fraud or eollusiou being charged, an ordinary judgment creditor, claiming no privilege nor other preferential right of payment, and not alleging the insolvency of his debtor, is without right to complain that certain property of his debt- or is being seized and taken in satisfaction of the debt of a third person. Under such circumstances the debtor alone can object.-

Appeal from the Civil District Court, P'arish of Orleans, Division “B,” No. 101,102. Hon. P. D. King, Judge.

*67Opinion and decree Jan. 12, 1914.

Poster, Milling, Brian & Saal, for plaintiff and appellee.

Zengel, Thomas & Sutton and Loomis, Carroll, Henderson & Carroll and McCall, for defendant and appellant.

S. Wolf and Dupre & Dupre, attorneys.

His Honor EMILE GODCHAUX,

rendered the opinion and decree of the 'Court, as follows:

Plaintiff who sued defendant and seized by garnishment a certain fund declared by the. garnishee to belong to the defendant, seeks to, have it applied to the payment of the judgment it obtained.

Carroll, the ordinary judgment creditor of a third party, the Corbin Motor Oar Company, intervened, claiming that the fund seized belongs to the latter, his debtor, and took a rule upon plaintiff to show cause why the Sheriff should not be ordered to retain the fund until the question of its ownership should be established. The rule was dismissed, and Carroll appeals.

Neither fraud nor collusion on the part of plaintiff, defendant and the Corbin Motor Car Company or any of them is charged; and consequently, Carroll, an ordinary judgment creditor, claiming no privilege nor -other right of preferential payment, -and not alleging the insolvency of his debtor, is without right to complain that the latter’s property, if such it be, is being seized and taken to satisfy the debt of defendant or of any other third person. Under such circumstances the debtor, the Cor-bin Motor Car Co., alone can object. .

It is accordingly ordered that the judgment be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.
EX-4.2 Form of Non-Qualified Stock Option Agreemen



 





Exhibit 4.2




FORM OF NON-QUALIFIED STOCK OPTION AWARD

APPLIED DIGITAL SOLUTIONS, INC.




Name of Option Recipient:                                                                  




     On                                                                  , the Company awarded you a
stock option. You were granted an option to buy
                                            shares of the
Common Stock at the price of $                                            per Share on or after                                            , and on or before
                                            .



     IMPORTANT: By signing below, you agree to be bound by, and acknowledge receipt of, the
attached Terms and Conditions of this Non-Qualified Stock Option Award. Furthermore, although this
option is not being awarded to you pursuant to the Applied Digital Solutions, Inc., 2003 Flexible
Stock Plan (the “Plan”), the rules and terms of the Plan shall be incorporated herein and apply to
your option as if it were being granted under the Plan (except to the extent the Plan conflicts
with this letter, in which case, this letter shall govern).



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	APPLIED DIGITAL SOLUTIONS, INC.

 	 
	 	

 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 



Read and agreed to this

                      day of
CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the accompanying quarterly report on form 10-QSB of Futomic Industries, Inc. for the quarter ending March 31, 2005, I, Francisco Schipperheijn, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Futomic Industries, Inc. hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:



1. Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2005, 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 ended March 31, 2005, fairly represents in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Futomic Industries, Inc.



Dated: May 19, 2005

FUTOMIC INDUSTRIES, INC.



By:
/s/ Francisco SchipperheijnChief Executive Officer and

Chief Financial Officer
Before the Third Division,

October 14, 1943

No. 48871.

#### Protests 35643-K, etc., of Armour & Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and cited cases, the following allowances were made by the court to compensate for foreign substances on the outside of certain cheese: (1) *21⁄2*percent for cheese similar to that the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706) and Abstracts 42146 and 48269, and (2) an allowance was also made for the weight of the paper or foil, or both, in which certain cheese was wrapped, following *Kraft Phenix Cheese Corp.*v. *United States*(T. D. 47955). Protests sustained to this extent.
#### Regina M. NAUDITT v. Jeffrey L. NAUDITT.

2980304

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

May 14, 1999.

*1237David B. Cauthen of Cauthen *&*Cau-then, Decatur, for appellant.

Michael L. Weathers, Florence, for ap-pellee.

MONROE, Judge.

In November 1997, the wife filed a complaint for divorce. On May 13, 1998, the trial court issued its final judgment of divorce. On June 10, 1998, the wife filed a motion to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment, or in the alternative, a motion for a new trial. On October 23, 1998, the trial court issued an order purporting to deny the wife’s motion. On November 30, 1998, the wife filed a notice of appeal.

Our initial inquiry is whether the wife’s notice of appeal was timely filed.

In *Payne v. City of Athens,*607 So.2d 292, 293 (Ala.Civ.App.1992), this court stated:

> “This court obtains jurisdiction over an appeal only after a timely notice of appeal has been properly filed with the clerk of the trial court. Rule 4(a)(1), Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure .... The 42-day period for filing an appeal begins to run from the date on which the trial court entered its final order. Rule 4(a)(1), [Ala. RApp. PJ The time for appeal may be suspended by the filing of a Rule 59(e), Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, motion. No suspension occurs if the motion is not filed within 30 days of the entry of final judgment. Rule 59(e). If the motion is timely filed, the time for taking an appeal begins to run from the date of entry of an order granting or denying the motion. Rule 4(a)(3), [Ala. R.App. PJ If a Rule 59(e) motion is not ruled on within 90 days, it is deemed denied by operation of law on the 90th day and appeal must be taken within the next 42 days. Rule 59.1, [Ala.] R. Civ. P.; Rule 4(a)(1), [Ala. R.App. PJ”

The trial court issued its final judgment of divorce on May 13, 1998. On June 10, 1998, the wife filed a timely post-judgment motion, pursuant to Rule 59, Ala. R. Civ. P. The 90-day period for ruling on that motion expired on September 8, 1998, and the wife’s post-judgment motion was deemed denied by operation of law on that date. *See*Rule 59.1, Ala. R. Civ. P. The time for an appeal expired 42 days later— on October 20, 1998. The wife did not file her notice of appeal until November 30, 1998. Thus, we must dismiss the appeal as untimely. *Payne,*607 So.2d 292.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

ROBERTSON, P.J., and YATES, CRAWLEY, and THOMPSON, JJ„ concur.
xedar8kx104_1232008.htm


     

    
      

      

    

     

    Exhibit 10.4

     

     

    

     

    
      
         

      

      
        Exhibit
          10.4 Page 1 of 4

        
          

        

      

      
         

      

    

     

     

     

    

     

     

    
      
         

      

      
        Exhibit
          10.4 Page 2 of 4

        
          

        

      

      
         

      

       

      

       

      
        
           

        

        
          Exhibit
            10.4 Page 3 of 4

          
            

          

        

        
           

        

         

        

         

         

        Exhibit 10.4 Page 4
          of
          4
Before the First Division,

January 23, 1939

No. 40492.

#### Protest 929534-G of M. Pressner & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Sullivan, J.

There was testimony that the article is blown up and has confetti inside. They are used in burlesque houses and night clubs. The testimony indicating that these articles are chiefly used for the amusement of adults, they were held not to come within the definition of toys in the tariff act. Being wholly or in chief value of paper they were held dutiable at 35 percent under paragraph 1413 as claimed.
MEMO

FROM : Susan Sharkey, OPPT/CCD

TO : Wendy Hoffman, OPPT/EETD

R E : Estimated number of joint submissions for IUR 2011

DATE : September 8, 2009

As per our phone conversation of today, Sept. 8, 2009, EPA is expecting to receive

approximately 10 to 2 0 joint IUR submissions for the 2011 IUR collection. This estimate

is based on past IUR reporting.