alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

IN RE JAMES COX

______________________ 

2013-1483

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board, in Serial No. 

11/890,544.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

STEPHEN P. CATLIN, Robinson Intellectual Property 

Law Office, P.C., of Fairfax, Virginia, argued for appellant.

JEREMIAH S. HELM, Associate Solicitor, Office of the 

Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of 

Alexandria, Virginia, argued for appellee. With him on 

the brief were NATHAN K. KELLEY, Solicitor, and FRANCES

M. LYNCH, Associate Solicitor.

______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 
 

 PER CURIAM (DYK, PROST, and O’MALLEY, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

 February 11, 2014 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Date Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Clerk of Court
#### Curtis GOODE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. Q-250.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Feb. 27, 1973.

Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Andrew W. Lindsey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant vigorously contends by this appeal that extraction of blood samples without his expressed consent to an analysis to determine the alcoholic content contravenes the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States of America. Appellant states that the opinion of the Florida Supreme Court in State v. Mitchell, 245 So.2d 618 (Fla.1971) “is contrary to the position he now takes in relation to the constitutional principles involved.” Nevertheless he argues that the Florida Supreme Court in its *Mitchell*opinion, misconstrued the principles of Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966) and urges us to adopt what he views as the corrected interpretation of law as set forth in Mitchell v. State, 227 So.2d 728 (2 Fla.App.1969). It is not the role of this court to re-evaluate a recent decision of the Supreme Court of Florida. As stated in this court’s opinion of Dawson v. State, 266 So.2d 116 (1 Fla.App.1972) :

> “The facts surrounding the extraction of blood from Dawson fall squarely within those detailed in the Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Mitchell, 245 So.2d 618 (Fla.1971), and thus this contention is without merit.”

The facts surrounding extraction of blood from appellant, Curtis Goode, also fall squarely in those detailed in Supreme Court’s decision State v. Mitchell, supra, and thus the judgment of conviction must be affirmed.

SPECTOR, C. J., and RAWLS and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kevin Williams, Appellants.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Lange, J.), rendered January 22, 1988, convicting him of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The background of this case is detailed in the decision on the appeal of the codefendant Arthur Clark, with whom the defendant was joined for purposes of the pretrial suppression hearing and trial *(see, People v Clark,*172 AD2d 679 [decided herewith]), and it need not be repeated here.

*707Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620; *People v Clark, supra),*we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In particular, the evidence that the radio of the recently stolen vehicle was sitting on the front seat, the dashboard of the vehicle was damaged and a screwdriver was found on the floor of the vehicle on the front passenger’s side where the defendant was observed by police officers shortly before his arrest, clearly established the defendant’s guilt of criminal mischief in the fourth degree *(see,*Penal Law § 145.00). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant further contends that, in any event, the count of the indictment charging criminal mischief in the fourth degree should be dismissed due to the court’s failure to impose sentence thereon. Although the court erred by failing to pronounce sentence on each count upon which the defendant was convicted *(see, People v Calandro,*127 AD2d 675; *People v Mohammed,*126 AD2d 673; *People v Benoit,*115 AD2d 608), the remedy for such an error is generally remittitur to the sentencing court for imposition of a proper sentence. There is no need to remit for resentencing in this case because the defendant has already served the maximum term to which he could be sentenced for criminal mischief in the fourth degree *(see, People v Oliphant,*127 AD2d 802; *People v Desir,*124 AD2d 742). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.
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 this Quarterly Report of
Golden Global Corp. (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2016, as filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Erik Blum, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended September 30, 2016, 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-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2016, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |     |                                                                                              | 
|--------------------- | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|Date: October 3, 2018 | By: | /s/ Erik Blum                                                                                | 
|                      |     | Erik Blum                                                                                    | 
|                      |     | Principal Executive Officer,
        Principal Financial Officer
        Golden Global Corp. | 
|                      |     |                                                                                              | 

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not 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 written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the
electronic version 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 TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002   In connection with the Quarterly Report of Island Radio, Inc. (Company) on Form 10-Q for the interim period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (Report), I, Eric Boyer, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 operations of the Company.   Date: May 2, 2011 By: /s/ Eric Boyer Eric Boyer President, Chief Executive Officer, Principal Executive Officer and Director
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.44


                              SECOND AMENDMENT TO
                             EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


     SECOND AMENDMENT to the EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") effective 
March 21, 1996 by and between MARK A. ANGELSON ("Executive"), BIG FLOWER 
HOLDINGS, INC. (as successor in interest to Big Flower Press Holdings, Inc.), 
a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), and TREASURE CHEST ADVERTISING 
COMPANY, INC., a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of the 
Company ("Treasure Chest").

                               W I T N E S S T H
                               - - - - - - - - -

     WHEREAS, the Executive, the Company and Treasure Chest (the "Parties") 
entered into the Agreement effective March 21, 1996; and

     WHEREAS, the Parties wish to modify certain provisions of the Agreement; 
and

     WHEREAS, Paragraph 14. of the Agreement provides (in pertinent part) as 
follows:

          "14. WAIVER; MODIFICATION....  This agreement shall not be modified 
          in any respect except by a writing executed by each party hereto."

     NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereby amend the Agreement as follows:

          FIRST:    Paragraph 1. of the Agreement is amended by inserting after
          Executive Vice President "-OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN", by inserting 
          after (the "Board") "AND DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF XL VENTURES, INC." and 
          by inserting after affiliates "(INCLUDING R. THEODORE AMMON)."

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the Company and Treasure Chest has caused 
this Amendment to be executed by its duly authorized officer, and the 
Executive has hereunto signed this Agreement, on the date(s) written below.

                                             BIG FLOWER HOLDINGS, INC.


        29 March 99                           /s/ R. Theodore Ammon
-----------------------------                -----------------------------------
Date                                         By:  R. Theodore Ammon
                                             Its: Chairman


                                             TREASURE CHEST ADVERTISING
                                             COMPANY, INC.


          3/29/99                             /s/ William G. Schaefer
-----------------------------                -----------------------------------
Date                                         By:  William G. Schaefer
                                             Its: Senior Vice President


          3/29/99                             /s/ Mark A. Angelson
-----------------------------                -----------------------------------
Date                                              Mark A. Angelson
EXHIBIT
32.1

CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL

OFFICER
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 Report of Northam Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
June 30, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, William
Tay, 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 results of operations of the
    Company.
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:
/s/ William Tay

William
Tay, President, Secretary and

Principal
Financial Officer

Dated:
August 12, 2013
----

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

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

| Dated:  March      10, 2010  |   |                                                      |
|---------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------|
|                                        |   |                                                      |   |
|                                        |   | /s/      J. Vincent Mish                                  |   |
|                                        |   | J.      Vincent Mish                                      |   |
|                                        |   | Executive      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |
|                                        |   |                                                      |   |
P. 1 

# OAR Box 1830 Prepped byOllie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 46 ) IV-C-12 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 11/13/20087:20:53 AM Sheet 46 of 232E_L

UNITED STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTION AGENC Y WASHINGTON

, D. C 2046 0 

### DE C 2 4 198 7 OFFIC E O F AI RAN D RADIATIO N

Honorabl e Bil l Gradiso n U.S . Hous e o f Representative s Washington , D C 2051 5 Dea r Mr.Gradison : Than k yo u fo r passing alon g the comment s o f Mr . Joh n Nola n concerning EPA' s proposa l t o requir e onboar d refuelin g emissio n controls . B e assure d tha t thes e comment s wil l be considere d a s we prepar e our Fina l Rule . W e wil l als o be placing the mi n the publi c docke t fo r the Rul e (Docke t No . A-87-11) . Than k yo u agai n fo r you r concer n i n thi s matter .



### DONAL D E . ZINGE R Richard D . Wilso n Director , Offic e o f Mobil e Source s cc : Docke t A-87-1 1P. 3

ENVIRONMENTAL 1 " "

PROTECTIO N AGENC Y J/ WI / 198 8 CENT:'-;/V . DOCKE T
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3832

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow certain corporations

and certain trusts to be shareholders of subchapter S corporations.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 9, 1994

Mr. SENSENBRENNER (by request) introduced the following bill; which was

referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow certain corporations and certain trusts to be shareholders

of subchapter S corporations.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. CORPORATIONS ALLOWED TO BE SHAREHOLD4 ERS OF SUBCHAPTER S CORPORATIONS IN

5 CERTAIN CASES.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (c) of section 1361 of

7 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining S corpora8 tion) is amended by adding at the end thereof the follow9 ing new paragraph:
2

•HR 3832 IH

1 ‘‘(7) CORPORATIONS PERMITTED AS SHARE2 HOLDERS IN CERTAIN CASES.—

3 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Subsections (b)(1)(B)

4 and (b)(2)(A) shall not apply to a shareholder

5 which is a corporation if each shareholder of

6 such corporation is of a type permitted (without

7 regard to this paragraph) to be a shareholder of

8 an S corporation.

9 ‘‘(B) CORPORATION’S SHAREHOLDERS

10 COUNTED.—The shareholders of each corporate

11 shareholder of a corporation (and not such cor12 porate shareholder) shall be counted in deter13 mining whether such corporation meets the re14 quirement of subsection (b)(1)(A).’’

15 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

16 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after

17 the date of the enactment of this Act.

18 SEC. 2. ADDITIONAL TRUSTS ALLOWED TO BE SHAREHOLD19 ERS OF SUBCHAPTER S CORPORATIONS.

20 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (d) of section 1361 of

21 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to special

22 rule for qualified subchapter S trust) is amended by redes23 ignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5) and by inserting

24 after paragraph (3) the following new paragraph:
3

•HR 3832 IH

1 ‘‘(4) ADDITIONAL TRUSTS INCLUDED AS SUB2 CHAPTER S TRUSTS.—For purposes of this sub3 section, the term ‘qualified subchapter S trust’ also

4 means a trust—

5 ‘‘(A) all of the income beneficiaries of

6 which are individuals who are citizens or resi7 dents of the United States,

8 ‘‘(B) all of the income (within the meaning

9 of section 643(b)) of which is distributed (or re10 quired to be distributed) not less frequently

11 than annually to 1 or more of such individuals,

12 and

13 ‘‘(C) an election is in effect under para14 graph (2) for each of such individuals with re15 spect to each corporation the stock of which is

16 held by the trust.’’

17 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

18 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after

19 the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

SUBSIDIARIES OF CITATION CORPORATION                     STATE OF ORGANIZATION

Citation Automotive Sales Corp.                                 Michigan 
Mansfield Foundry Corporation                                   Ohio     
Iroquois Foundry Corporation                                    Wisconsin
Oberdorfer Industries Corp.                                     New York 
Berlin Foundry Corporation                                      Wisconsin
Castwell Products, Inc.                                         Illinois 
HTC Acquisition Corporation d/b/a HI-TECH Corporation           Indiana  
BAC Acquisition Corporation d/b/a Bohn Aluminum Corporation     Indiana  
Southern Aluminum Castings Company                              Alabama   
Citation Castings, Inc.                                         Alabama   
Texas Steel Corporation                                         Texas     
TSC Texas Corporation                                           Delaware  
Texas Foundries, Ltd.                                           Texas     
Mabry Foundry Company, Ltd.                                     Texas     
Interstate Forging Industries, Inc.                             Wisconsin 
ISW Texas Corporation (subsidiary of Interstate Forging                   
 Industries, Inc.)                                              Delaware  
Interstate Southwest, Ltd.                                      Texas     


                                      67
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**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 Quarterly Report of Island Radio, Inc. (“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the interim period ended June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (“Report”), I, Nina Edstrom, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 operations of the Company.

Date: August 11, 2011

By: 

/s/ Nina Edstrom                                                  

Nina Edstrom

Secretary, Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer,

Principal Accounting Officer and Director
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N
NO. 03-12-00483- CV
In re Richard Bradley

ORI GINAL P ROCEEDI NG F ROM TO M GREEN CO UNTY
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Relator Richard Br adley , an inmate in the Texas D ep a r tm e n t o f Cr im in a l Ju stice, filed a pro se petit ion for writ of mandamus alleg ing that he i s entitled to have his conviction s et aside. Br adley arg

ues t hat his orig inal judgme nt was void bec ause the trial court lac ked jurisdi ction, and
a subsequent nunc pro tunc judgme nt, based on the alleg edly void orig inal judgme nt, was also void.

Although sty led as a writ of mandamus, the relief Br adley seeks amounts to relief that is available through a writ of habeas corpus under a rticle 11.07 of the code of criminal proc edure
. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07, § 3 (West Supp. 2011); Ex parte Sanchez , 918 S.W .2d 527, 527 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (“H abea s corpus is r eser ved for those instances in which there is
a jurisdictional defe ct in the trial court which rende rs the judgme nt void
. . . .”). J urisdiction to g rant pos t -c o n v i ct i o n habea s relief in felony case s rests exclusively with the Texas Court of Criminal Appea ls. SeeTex. Code Crim. P roc. A nn. art. 11.07, §§ 3, 5; Board of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of

Appeals for the Eighth Dist. , 910 S.W .2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). We
are there fore without jurisdiction to consider Br adley ’s petition. See In re McAfe e , 53 S.W .3d 715, 718 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig
. proce eding ); see also In re Morris , No. 03-10-00559-CV, 2010 WL 3719269, at *1-2 (Tex. App.—Austin Sept. 23, 2010, o ri g. p ro cee ding)

(mem. op., not desig nated for publication) (d enying reque st for mandamus relief challeng ing alleg edly void sentence ). Acc ording ly , we de ny

the petition.

__________________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Pemberton a nd Rose Filed: August 15, 2012

2
----

COMMISSION OPINION

of 29 December 2004

concerning the modified plan for the disposal of radioactive waste from the Nogent-sur-Seine Nuclear Power Station in France, in accordance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty

(2005/C 30/04)

(Only the French text is authentic)

On 7 June 2004, the European Commission received from the French Government, in accordance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty, General Data relating to the modified plan for the disposal of radioactive waste from the Nogent-sur-Seine Nuclear Power Station.

On the basis of these data and additional information requested by the Commission on 19 July 2004 and provided by the Permanent Representation of France on 21 September 2004, and following consultation with the group of experts, the Commission has drawn up the following opinion:

In conclusion, the Commission is of the opinion that the implementation of the modified plan for the disposal of radioactive waste from the Nogent-sur-Seine Nuclear Power Station, located in France, both in normal operation and in the event of an accident of the type and magnitude considered in the General Data, is not liable to result in the radioactive contamination, significant from the point of view of health, of the water, soil or airspace of another Member State.

----