alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Gary Wayne MILLIGAN, Petitioner, v. The Honorable Neal BEEKMAN, District Judge for the Eighth Judicial District, Kay County, Oklahoma, Respondent.

No. H-91-253.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

April 12, 1991.

*694ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS OR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

The Petitioner has filed a petition requesting that this Court issue a writ of habeas corpus or, in the alternative a writ of mandamus to the Honorable Neal Beek-man, District Judge, ordering that the Petitioner be reinstated to bail pending sentencing in Kay County District Court Case No. CRF-88-300.

In said case, Petitioner pleaded guilty to two counts of Arson in the First Degree. After accepting the Petitioner’s guilty pleas, Judge Beekman revoked the Petitioner’s bail and ordered him committed to the custody of the Sheriff pending preparation of a pre-sentence report and formal sentencing. Judge Beekman denied Petitioner’s request to reinstate bail finding that a plea of guilty triggers the provisions of 22 O.S.Supp.1988, § 1077, just as a verdict of guilt triggers said provisions, *see Zaritz v. State,*785 P.2d 1043 (Okl.Cr.1990), and, therefore, Petitioner was not entitled to bail on appeal pursuant to the terms of section 1077.

Petitioner contends that the provisions of 22 O.S.Supp.1988, § 1077, are not applicable until a “judgment on conviction” is entered and that *Zaritz*can be distinguished because no verdict of guilt was rendered against Petitioner. We find that the provisions of section 1077 are applicable upon a plea of guilty and that Petitioner is not entitled to bail on appeal. Accordingly, the petition for writ of habeas corpus or writ of mandamus is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ James F. Lane

JAMES F. LANE, Presiding Judge

/s/ Gary L. Lumpkin

GARY L. LUMPKIN, Vice Presiding Judge

/s/ Tom Brett

TOM BRETT, Judge

/s/ Ed Parks

ED PARKS, Judge

/s/ Charles A. Johnson

CHARLES A. JOHNSON, Judge
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 581 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 581

 To amend section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, to require 
that annual budget submissions of the President to Congress provide an 
    estimate of the cost per taxpayer of the deficit, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 14, 2013

Mr. Coats (for himself and Mr. Donnelly) introduced the following bill; 
    which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Budget

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, to require 
that annual budget submissions of the President to Congress provide an 
    estimate of the cost per taxpayer of the deficit, 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. REQUIREMENT IN BUDGET SUBMISSION WITH RESPECT TO THE COST 
              PER TAXPAYER OF THE DEFICIT.

    Section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by redesignating paragraph (37) (relating to the list 
        of outdated or duplicative plans and reports) as paragraph 
        (39); and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(40) in the case of a fiscal year in which the budget is 
        projected to result in a deficit, an estimate of the pro rata 
        cost of such deficit for taxpayers who will file individual 
        income tax returns for taxable years ending during such fiscal 
        year.''.
                                 <all>
```
Update Fields I 

Estimated Costs: 

Action Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, propeller, appliance) (e.g., Inspection, Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost replacement) (include cost (labor + u.s. for U.S. Fleet Do not include oncondition costs here access, testing, (@$85/h parts) Registered and close-up) our) Products 

Part replacement 49 23805 9 (prorated for shop visit) 

Part replacement 

(prorated for LPT 0 43545 63 

overhaul) 

' 

I 

I : ' 

I, i I i :(I 

I I ,,, I) tl 

II 'I II' 

I) ' I p 

I (l II (I 

I 

" 'I 

' ., 

' I 

I 

' 

The known number of products in compliance: Number 

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $2,995,065 

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $Warrant: 

On-Condition Costs: • 

Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product 

(e.g., Inspection, (include access, (@$85/hour) testing, and close- replacement) up) 

Inspection 

I ' \1 

8 
LPT overhaul to those that needed replacing because they were over 10,900 and in for a shop visit was 

given by the DAH for the global fleet and assumed to be the same for the domestic fleet. 

Executive Order 12866: 

Could the AD be considered a "significant regulatory action"? 0 

YES* 0 NO 181 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies a nd Procedures: 

Is the AD significant? G 

YES* 0 NO 181 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act: 

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer. G 

YES 0 NO 181 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: 

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? @ 

YES* 0 NO 181 

*Explanation: 

9
#### Ann M. Stanton, Appellant, v Kostas P. Velis, Respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered on or about September 17, 1990, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss the complaint for lack of *in personam*jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS court, after a traverse hearing, properly excluded testimony by a process server, concerning the defendant’s alleged general reputation for evading service of process in prior unrelated malpractice actions where the witness did not effect service of process in the underlying malpractice action. It is well settled that impeachment of a witness by evidence of his reputation in the community is limited to his reputation for truth and veracity, and may not extend to general bad moral character or specific acts of dishonesty, immorality or crime. *(People v Pavao,*59 NY2d 282, 289; *People v Lyde,*160 AD2d 817.)

In any event, we find that the IAS court properly concluded that the evidence adduced at the traverse established that the plaintiff had failed to sustain her burden of proof on service of process *(Frankel v Schilling,*149 AD2d 657). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Rosenberger, Kupferman and Rubin, JJ.
EXHIBIT
32



CERTIFICATIONS
PURSUANT TO

SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



In
connection with the Quarter Report of Liberated Solutions, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2019 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) Brian Conway, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350), 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 results of operation
of the Company.



| | LIBERATED
    SOLUTIONS, INC                                                                                              
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |                                                                                                                           
| | /s/
    Brian Conway                                                                                                      
| | Brian
        Conway Chief Executive Officer
        Chief
        Financial Officer
        Dated:
        August19, 2019



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.
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 Dethrone Royalty Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March
31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Johan M. (Thijs)
Spoor, Chief Executive Officer and 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 to the best of my 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 results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|June 25, 2013 | By: | /s/ Toby McBride                                                            
|------------- | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|              |     | Toby McBride                                                                
|              |     | Chief Executive Officer & Chief Financial Officer                           
|              |     | (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
EX-10.21(vi)



 Exhibit 10.21(vi) 
  





 
 Re: Bridge Loan Agreement 

December 23, 2015 
 This Bridge Agreement
(this “Agreement”) is entered into effect on December 23, 2015 (the “Effective Date”), by and between Protagenic Therapeutics Inc, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Dr. Garo H. Armen (the
“Lender”). 
 WHEREAS, the Lender, pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, will lend the Company an aggregate amount of one
hundred fifty thousand Dollars (US$150,000) (the “Loan Amount”). The loan (the “Loan”) shall be convertible into securities of the Company on the terms and conditions set forth herein. This loan will bear interest rate of 10%
(ten percent) per annum. 
 Protagenic Therapeutics agrees to guarantee the payment of all principal and accrued interest in the form of shares of its
Common Stock, $0.001 par value (“Common Stock”.) at a purchase price of $1.25 per share (“the Shares”) upon competing its next fundraising round. 

The proceeds will be used to fund the research and development, corporate and operational activities for Protagenic Therapeutics Inc. 

The Lender will lend the Company the Loan Amount in one installment upon signature of the agreement. 

This Agreement will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York, U.S.A., without regard to any choice of law principle
that would dictate the application of the law of another jurisdiction. The parties agree that any action, suit or other legal proceeding that is commenced to resolve any matter arising under or relating to any provision of this Agreement shall be
commenced only in a court of the State of New York (or, if appropriate, a federal court located within the State of New York), and each party consents to the jurisdiction of such court. 

This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original and all of which together shall be considered one and the same
agreement. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, duly authorized representatives of the parties have executed this Agreement as of the Effective Date. 

 

							
	 Dr. Garo H. Armen
  

Print Name:

    Garo H. Armen
  

Signature:

    /s/ Garo H. Armen
	 		 		 	 PROTAGENIC THERAPEUTICS, INC.
 By: Dr.
Robert Ziroyan
  
 Print Name:

    Robert Ziroyan
  

Signature:

    /s/ Robert Ziroyan
  

Title: Chief Operating Officer and Interim President


 Protagenic Therapeutics Inc., 149 5th Avenue, Suite 500, New York, NY 10010 

Tel: 416-500-3305; Fax: 508.734.2177, www.protagenic.com
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 Annual Report of Pemstar Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Allen J. Berning, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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/ Allen J. Berning

Allen
J. Berning

Chief Executive Officer

February 10, 2004

.
#### James O’Donnell, Respondent, v Lenora O’Donnell, Appellant.

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant wife appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Kitson, J.), entered June 28, 1989, as, upon her default in appearing for trial, awarded the plaintiff husband custody of the parties’ children with visitation to the defendant, and distributed the parties’ property. The appeal brings up for review an order of the same court, dated June 22, 1989, which denied the defendant wife’s motion to vacate her default in appearing for trial *(see, James v Powell,*19 NY2d 249; *Katz v Katz,*68 AD2d 536). *655Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In this matrimonial action, the defendant wife failed to appear, as directed, for trial. The court thereupon granted the plaintiff husband’s request for an inquest and the wife’s attorney left the courtroom. An inquest was then taken at which the court found that the husband was entitled to a judgment of divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment. The court then heard testimony with respect to custody of the parties’ two children, and equitable distribution of the marital residence. Following that testimony, the court awarded temporary custody of the children to the husband.

The wife moved to vacate her default, although she did not contest the granting of the divorce. The motion was denied on the ground that the wife had failed to establish an adequate excuse for her default. A judgment was subsequently entered granting the husband a divorce, awarding him custody of the children, awarding the wife visitation, and ordering the sale of the marital residence, with the net proceeds to be divided equally between the parties.

Since the defendant wife defaulted in appearing for trial and her attorney did not participate at the inquest, the sole issue before us is whether the trial court properly denied her motion to vacate her default *(see,*CPLR 5511; *Katz v Katz, supra,*at 541). The court’s directive to the wife, that she appear for trial, was clear and unequivocal. We find no fault with the court for having gone forward, based on its finding that the wife’s default was inexcusable. We find her reasons for nonappearance to be unpersuasive. Those explanations are wholly insufficient to override the obligation of the court to conduct the trial in a timely manner, as scheduled. Lawrence, J. P., Harwood, Balletta and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





The undersigned, Philip F. Grey,President, Treasurer, Chief Executive Officerand Chief Financial Officer(Principal Executive Officer, PrincipalAccounting OfficerAndPrincipal Financial Officer)of Diversified Resources Inc., hereby certifies, 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 on Form 10-Q of Diversified Resources Inc. for the period ended January 31, 2013, (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 Diversified Resources Inc.








Dated: March 22, 2013







/s/ Philip F. Grey


Philip F. Grey
 President, Treasurer, Chief Executive Officer
 and Chief Financial Officer
 (Principal Executive Officer, Principal
 Accounting OfficerAnd
 Principal Financial Officer)








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 Diversified Resources Inc. and will be retained by Diversified Resources Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Summary of the December 6, 2023, DFC Board of Directors Meeting

The DFC Board of Directors met at 2:00 PM, on December 6, 2023. In attendance were: Deputy 

Secretary of State for Management and Resources Richard Verma, USAID Deputy 

Administrator Isobel Coleman, DFC Chief Executive Officer Scott Nathan, Deputy Secretary of 

Commerce Don Graves, Under Secretary of Treasury for International Affairs Dr. Jay 

Shambaugh, Mr. Irving Bailey, Mr. Deven Parekh, and Mr. Christopher Vincze. The General 

Session of the meeting of the Board of Directors was preceded by a public hearing. 

During the December 6, 2023 meeting, the Board heard opening remarks from Deputy Secretary 

Richard Verma, Deputy Administrator Isobel Coleman, and Chief Executive Officer Scott 

Nathan and then moved into Executive Session. Upon returning to the General Session, the 

Board approved seven transactions, received an update from DFC’s Vice President and General 

Counsel Sarah Fandell and Vice President of Development Policy Elizabeth Boggs Davidsen on 

the process for revising DFC’s Environmental and Social Policy and Procedures, and received a 

report from the Board’s Audit Committee. The resolutions for approved projects are linked here. 

Following the General Session, the Board held a second Executive Session and then adjourned.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
   (The Company's Annual Report on Form 10K for the Period Ending 
December 31, 1998)
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                                             <C> 
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                        12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                                  JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                                    DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                                                5,207
<SECURITIES>                                                          5,048
<RECEIVABLES>                                                         1,680
<ALLOWANCES>                                                             75
<INVENTORY>                                                           2,550
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                     15,456
<PP&E>                                                                4,315
<DEPRECIATION>                                                        1,812
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                       36,369
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                   713
<BONDS>                                                                 169
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                                          13,131
<COMMON>                                                                 10
<OTHER-SE>                                                           22,346
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                         36,369
<SALES>                                                               5,442
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                      6,027
<CGS>                                                                 3,054
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                         3,054
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                       16
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                     (9,827)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                 (9,827)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                                       (10,857)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                        (1.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                        (1.09)
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v *405Alfred Woodley, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herbert Altman, J.), rendered on May 19, 1989, convicting defendant of attempted arson in the second degree and sentencing defendant to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of *IV2*to 4 Vi years, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no non-frivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to CPL 460.20, defendant has the right to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within thirty (30) days after service of a copy of this order, with notice of entry.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the Judge or Justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other Judge or Justice. Concur—Carro, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Smith and Rubin, JJ.