alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT (B) 99.1

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1


     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 United Bancshares,  Inc. (the "Company")
on the Form 10-K for the  period  ending  December  31,  2002 as filed  with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Evelyn
F. Smalls, 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
to the best of my knowledge and belief:

     (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 operation of
          the Company.




/s/ Evelyn F. Smalls
-----------------------
Evelyn F. Smalls
Chief Executive Officer
March 31, 2003
#### Arthur Lee LOGUE, Petitioner, v. Leon HINOTE, Sheriff of Santa Rosa County, Florida, Respondent.

No. M-334.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

Nov. 26, 1969.

*415H. Clay Mitchell, Jr., Pensacola, for petitioner.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Horace A. Knowlton, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner has filed a habeas corpus action in this court by which he alleges that he is being unlawfully detained while he awaits his trial on charges of possession of stolen property. The alleged illegality of his detention rests on his contention that the bail which has been set in his case in the amount of $25,000 is so unreasonable or excessive as to amount to a violation of Article I, Section 14, Florida Constitution of 1968, F.S.A.

We agree.

The constitutional provision upon which petitioner relies is as follows:

> “SECTION 14. *Bail.*— Until adjudged guilty, every person charged with a crime or violation of municipal or county ordinance shall be entitled to release on reasonable bail with sufficient surety unless charged with a capital offense or an offense punishable by life imprisonment and the proof of guilt is evident or the presumption is great.”

We have considered the return filed in behalf of the respondent, but we are not persuaded thereby that the amount of bail in this case is not excessive. On the contrary, $25,000 seems to us to be within the range of bail amounts which have been held to be excessive by other appellate courts of this state as well as our own in similar cases.

Indeed, in a case that also involved a petitioner charged with like crimes as that ascribed to petitioner Logue, we held that the sum of $30,000 bail was excessive and ordered the same to be reduced. State ex rel. Crabb v. Carson et al., 189 So.2d 376 (Fla.App.1966). The circumstances here relating to the standards to be considered in determining the proper amount of bail do not seem to be more dire than those present in the Crabb case, supra.

Accordingly, on the authority of Crabb, supra, it is ordered that the writ issue and the amount of bond set by the Circuit Court in and for Santa Rosa County, Florida, for petitioner in the pending case against him, No. 69-C-446, for possession of stolen property be reduced to $10,000.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
No. 00-922.

#### Barrow *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JUAN DAVILA-BAJANA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) Civil Action No. 04-253 Erie

v. )

)

TIM HOLOHAN, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

This civil rights action was received by the Clerk of Court on September 7, 2004,

and was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter for report

and recommendation in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1),

and Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrates. 

The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 121], filed on

June 17, 2010, recommended that Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint

or, in the alternative, for summary judgment [Doc. No. 117] be granted. The parties

were allowed fourteen (14) days from the date of service to file objections. Service was

made on Plaintiff by certified mail and on Defendants. No objections were filed. After

de novo review of the motion and documents in the case, together with the Report and

Recommendation, the following order is entered:

AND NOW, this 12 day of July, 2010; th

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s

complaint or, in the alternative, for summary judgment [Doc. No. 117] is GRANTED. 

JUDGMENT is hereby entered in favor of Defendants, Tim Holohan, Marty Sapko,

Debora Forsyth, Dave English, Robert Klark, Houseler and the United States of

America, and against Plaintiff, Juan Davila-Bajana. 

The Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 121] of Magistrate Judge Baxter,

filed on June 17, 2010, is adopted as the opinion of the Court.

The Clerk of Courts is directed to close this case. 

 s/ Sean J. McLaughlin

Case 1:04-cv-00253-SJM-SPB Document 122 Filed 07/12/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Judge

cm: All parties of record

Susan Paradise Baxter, U.S. Magistrate Judge

2

Case 1:04-cv-00253-SJM-SPB Document 122 Filed 07/12/10 Page 2 of 2
#### Wendall B. PARRISH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. James Olin THOMAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. M-347, M-348.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 9, 1970.

A. K. Black, Lake City, for appellants.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., John A. Zebedee, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellants were convicted of breaking and entering with intent to commit petit larceny and for the separate crime of petit larceny. The criminal acts involved occurred on or about August 28, 1968, at Thrift’s Hardware Store in Macclenny, Florida.

Upon consideration of the record on appeal, briefs and argument of counsel herein, *16the court concludes that appellant has failed to demonstrate reversible error in the judgments appealed herein. Burton v. State, 128 So.2d 765 (Fla.App.1961). See also Burroughs v. State, 221 So.2d 159 (Fla.App.1969); State v. Young, 217 So.2d 567 (Fla.1968); and Shaw v. State, 209 So. 2d 477 (Fla.App.1968), cert. dismissed 218 So.2d 168 (Fla.). Accordingly, the judgments reviewed herein are

Affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00197-CR

Janelle Vanei Loggins

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From Criminal District Court No. 1

of Tarrant County (1266511W)

March 7, 2013

Per Curiam

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

PER CURIAM
2

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00197-CR

NO. 02-12-00198-CR

JANELLE VANEI LOGGINS APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

Appellant Janelle Vanei Loggins appeals her convictions for attempted 

evading arrest or detention and for endangering a child – criminal negligence

after the trial court revoked her deferred adjudication community supervision, 

adjudicated her guilty, and sentenced her to six months’ confinement in each 

case, to be served concurrently. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 22.041(c), 38.04

(West 2011 & Supp. 2012). 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
3

Loggins’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw 

as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. Counsel’s brief and motion meet 

the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967), by 

presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are 

no arguable grounds for relief. This court afforded Loggins the opportunity to file 

a pro se brief on her own behalf, but she did not do so. The State did not file a 

brief.

As the reviewing court, we must conduct an independent evaluation of the 

record to determine whether counsel is correct in determining that the appeals

are frivolous. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1991); Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 923 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, no 

pet.). Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Penson v. 

Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988). 

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. We agree with 

counsel that these appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit; we find nothing 

in the record that arguably might support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 

S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s 

motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgments.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: WALKER, GARDNER, and MCCOY, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
4

DELIVERED: March 7, 2013
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 181 (Thursday, September 18, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 49021]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-24756]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel (SEP) meeting:

    Name of SEP: Molecular Epidemiology of Hepatocellular Carcinoma.
    Date: October 22-24, 1997.
    Time: October 22--8:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m., October 23--8:00 a.m. 
to 8:00 p.m., October 24--7:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.
    Place: Radisson Hotel--Philadelphia--Northeast, 2400 Old Lincoln 
Highway, Philadelphia, PA 19107.
    Contact Person: David Irwin, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Administrator, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Executive Plaza 
North, Room 635E, 6130 Executive Boulevard, MSC 7408, Bethesda, MD 
20892-7408, Telephone: 301/402-0371.
    Purpose/Agenda: To evaluate and review grant applications.
    The meeting will be closed in accordance with the provisions set 
forth in secs. 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5, U.S.C. 
Applications and the discussions could reveal confidential trade 
secrets or commercial property such as patentable material and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly 
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Numbers: 93.393, 
Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 93.394, Cancer Detection and 
Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer Treatment Research; 93.396, 
Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support; 93.398, 
Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer Control)

    Dated: September 12, 1997.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 97-24756 Filed 9-17-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          20,703
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,703
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  20,703
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,840
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,170
<OTHER-SE>                                      16,693
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    20,703
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,742
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,742)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.004)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.004)


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
32.2
  CERTIFICATION
 
 Certification
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and
(b) of
 Section
1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)
  Pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of Innocom Technology Holdings, Inc., a Nevada corporation
(the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge,
that:
  The
Annual Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 (the "Form 10-Q")
of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-Q
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.
  A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Innocom Technology Holdings, Inc. andwill be retained by Innocom Technology Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
 
 Date:
      May 18, 2010
                
                
                /s/
      Cheung Wai Hung, EddieCheung
      Wai Hung, Eddie, Chief Financial
Officer
#### Simon E. RUBIN et al., Appellants, v. Leonard SANFORD, Appellee. Simon E. RUBIN et al., Appellants, v. Julius SHAPIRO, Appellee.

Nos. 68-238 to 68-241.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 11, 1970.

Joseph A. Wanick, City Atty., for appellants.

Cypen & Nevins and Stephen H. Cypen, Miami Beach, for appellees.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, BARK-DULL and SWANN, JJ.

ORDER ON MANDATE

PER CURIAM.

Whereas, the judgment of this court was filed on January 21, 1969 (218 So.2d 177) reversing the orders of the Circuit Court for Dade County, Florida, in the above styled cause; and

Whereas, on review of this court’s judgment filed July 1, 1970 and mandate dated July 29, 1970, 237 So.2d 134, the Supreme Court of Florida quashed this court’s judgment of reversal and remanded the cause with directions;

Now, therefore, it is ordered that the mandate of this court heretofore issued in this cause on February 20, 1969 is withdrawn, the opinion and judgment of this court filed January 21, 1969 is vacated, the said opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is herewith made the opinion and judgment of this court and the orders of the circuit court appealed from are reinstated and affirmed. Costs allowed shall be taxed in the circuit court (Rule 3.16(b) Florida Appellate Rules, 32 F.S.A.).
#### Larry Jansen et al., Plaintiffs, *v.*Hilo Packing Co., Inc., et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

November 14, 1952.

*Leonard 8. Leventhal*for Harry Horowitz and others, doing business as Model Airplane Co., defendants.

*Simon Klein*for Hit Parade, Inc., defendant.

*Jonas J. Shapiro*for plaintiffs.

Gavagan, J.

This action was instituted pursuant to the provisions of section 51 of the Civil Rights Law. The charge is that the pictures of plaintiffs, widely known professional baseball players of sufficient skill to be members of a major league baseball team, are being used in violation of their rights of privacy for advertising and trade purposes, in contravention of said statute. A dismissal of the complaint is sought by separate motions brought on by different defendants on the grounds that the complaint is legally insufficient. The so-called amended and supplemental complaint has been considered.

Defendants’ theory is that plaintiffs by their prominence in the world of sports have become public figures who have waived the right to be “ let alone ”. The right to be left alone can only mean plaintiff’s right of privacy as contemplated by the statute. *901As recently as July of this year the Court of Appeals in *Gautier*v. *Pro-Football*(304 N. Y. 354, 359) held that: “ While one who is a public figure or is presently newsworthy may be the proper subject of news or informative presentation, the privilege does not extend to commercialization of his personality through a form of treatment distinct from dissemination of news or information ”.

Further on in that opinion it was held that one who is a public personage or who participates in a public event enjoys a limited right of privacy and, in the concurring opinion, Judge Desmond reasoned that an unauthorized telecast of an exhibition of plaintiff’s trained animal show was not an invasion of the trainer’s right of privacy. There, however, the telecast which was used in that Judge’s opinion for trade purpose (the majority opinion held otherwise) took place in the intermission period at a professional football game. At bar, plaintiffs’ pictures are inserted in containers of popcorn and chewing gum. The situation at bar seems closely akin to that in *Lane*v. *Woolworth Co.*(171 Misc. 66, affd. 256 App. Div. 1065), where photographs of an actress were used to illustrate the purpose for which lockets were sold. It is held, therefore, that the doctrine of limited privilege is confined to situations similar to that involved in the case of *Gautier*v. *Pro-Football (supra)*where the publication of the public personage takes place in connection with, incidental to and at the time of his professional entertainment performance.

The motions to dismiss are accordingly denied.
PUBLIC LAW 104–30—SEPT. 30, 1995 109 STAT. 277

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 2404:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 141 (1995):

Sept. 28, considered and passed House.

Sept. 29, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 104–30

104th Congress

An Act

To extend authorities under the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act of 1994 until

November 1, 1995, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITIES.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 583(a) of the Foreign Relations

Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 (Public Law 103–

236), as amended by Public Law 104–22, is amended by striking

‘‘October 1, 1995,’’ and inserting ‘‘November 1, 1995,’’.

(b) CONSULTATION.—For purposes of any exercise of the authority provided in section 583(a) of the Foreign Relations Authorization

Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 (Public Law 103–236) prior to

October 5, 1995, the written policy justification dated June 1, 1995,

and submitted to the Congress in accordance with section 583(b)(1)

of such Act, and the consultations associated with such policy

justification, shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements of section

583(b)(1) of such Act.

Approved September 30, 1995.

108 Stat. 488.

Sept. 30, 1995

[H.R. 2404]
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 194 (Tuesday, October 7, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 52370]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26515]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


North Florida District Office; Name

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice of name change for two District Offices.

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

SUMMMARY: The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) has changed the 
names of its two District Offices in Florida.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Old name                             New name          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jacksonville District Office, 7825          North Florida District      
 Baymeadows Way, Suite 100-B,                Office, 7825 Baymeadows    
 Jacksonville, FL 32256-7504.                Way, Suite 100-B,          
                                             Jacksonville, FL 32256-7504
Miami District Office, 1320 South Dixie     South Florida District      
 Highway, Coral Gables, FL 33146-2911.       Office, 1320 South Dixie   
                                             Highway, Coral Gables, FL  
                                             33146-2911                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 19, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bradley Douglas, 202-205-6808.

    Dated: September 10, 1997.
Bradley Douglas,
Associate Administrator for The Office of Field Operations.
[FR Doc. 97-26515 Filed 10-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
EXHIBIT 23




                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


The Board of Directors
Disc Graphics, Inc.:


We consent to incorporation in the Registration  Statement No. 333-28013 on Form
S-8 of Disc Graphics, Inc. of our report dated January 28, 1999, relating to the
consolidated  balance  sheets of Disc  Graphics,  Inc.  and  subsidiaries  as of
December 31, 1998 and 1997, and the related  consolidated  statements of income,
stockholders'  equity  and cash  flows for each of the  years in the  three-year
period ended December 31, 1998 and related schedule, which report appears in the
December 31, 1998 annual report on Form 10-K of Disc Graphics, Inc.




                                        /s/ KPMG LLP
                                        KPMG LLP

Melville, New York 
March 9, 1999