alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Curly G. BRASHER, Petitioner, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF the STATE of Colorado, Department of Labor and Employment, Safeway Stores, Inc., and Home Insurance Company, Respondents.

No. 85CA0201.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. III.

Dec. 12, 1985.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 30, 1986.

Certiorari Granted (Brasher) April 7, 1986.

*991Dawes and Crane, P.C., Robert C. Dawes, Durango, for petitioner.

Duane Woodard, Atty. Gen., Charles B. Howe, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Richard H. Forman, Sol. Gen., Robert C. Lehnert, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for respondents Industrial Com’n and Dept, of Labor and Employment.

Watson, Nathan *&*Bremer, P.C., Anne Smith Myers, Denver, for respondent Safeway Stores, Inc.

No appearance for respondent Home Ins. Co.

BERMAN, Judge.

Workmen’s compensation claimant, Curly Brasher, seeks review of a final order of the Industrial Commission denying his petition to reopen. We affirm.

Claimant contends that the Industrial Commission misconstrued § 8-53-113, C.R.S. (1985 Cum.Supp.) by reading into it a requirement that “change in condition” means physical change of claimant. We disagree that the Commission misconstrued the meaning of the statute.

The phrase “change in condition” in § 8-53-113 refers to a change in the physical condition of claimant, and not to changes in economic circumstances. *Lucero v. Industrial Commission,*710 P.2d 1191 (Colo.App.1985).

Claimant also contends that Industrial Commission Rule X B, 7 Code Colo. Reg. 1101-3, is either inapplicable to a petition to reopen based on change of economic conditions or that the Commission acted in excess of its authority in adopting such a rule. Again we disagree.

Industrial Commission Rule X B provides that an applicant petitioning to reopen a claim on the grounds of changed condition must submit a physician’s report showing, among other things, “how his/her condition has worsened or improved and estimating the percentage of impairment....” There is no inconsistency between this rule and § 8-53-113 and, thus, no error in the Commission’s denial of claimant’s petition to reopen. *Lucero v. Industrial Commission, supra.*

Order affirmed.

TURSI and METZGER, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.2



Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section

As Adopted to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I, David C. Burns, Chief Financial Officer of i2 Telecom International, Inc. (the Company), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | 3. | The Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the Periodic Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §§78m or 78o(d)); and
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 4. | The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: June 17, 2005



By:

/s/ David C. BurnsDavid C. BurnsChief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1



Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section

As Adopted to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I, Paul R. Arena, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of i2 Telecom International, Inc. (the Company), do hereby certify in accordance with 18
U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | 1. | The Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the Periodic Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §§78m or 78o(d)); and
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



Dated: October 13, 2005



By:

/s/ Paul R. ArenaPaul R. ArenaChief Executive Officer
**Exhibit32.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002**

 

I, Shaun Passley, Chief Executive Officer and Principal FinancialOfficer of Epazz, Inc., a Illinois corporation (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

 

(1) The report on Form 10-Q of Epazz, Inc. (the "Registrant")for the quarter ended June 30, 2013 (the "Report") which this statement accompanies fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 

Date: August 19, 2013

 

 

By: */s/ Shaun Passley*

Shaun Passley,

Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of the Treasury United States Mint
 AGENCY: United States Mint, Department of the Treasury.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: The United States Mint is announcing 2012 pricing for Kennedy Half-Dollar bags and rolls, bronze medals, the First Spouse Bronze Medal Set and the Birth Set. Product
Retail priceKennedy Half-Dollar Bags
139.95Kennedy Half-Dollar Two-Roll Set
32.95Large Bronze Medals
39.95Small Bronze Medals
6.95First Spouse Bronze Medal Set
16.95Birth Set
19.95
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: B. B. Craig, Associate Director for Sales and Marketing; United States Mint; 801 9th Street NW., Washington, DC 20220; or call 202-354-7500. Authority:
                        31 U.S.C. 5111, 5112 & 9701. Dated: March 6, 2012. Richard A. Peterson, Deputy Director, United States Mint.


[FR Doc. 2012-5871 Filed 3-9-12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2159 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on helium. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mr. CASEY) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on helium. 

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

3 SECTION 1. HELIUM. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.01.47 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended 

6 by striking ‘‘12/31/2009’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

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

8 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 

9 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

10 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
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

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Cougar Biotechnology, Inc. does hereby certify that, to his knowledge:



| | (a) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Cougar Biotechnology, Inc. for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (b) | information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Cougar Biotechnology, Inc.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |                               
|------------------- |  | ------------------------------
|Dated: May 11, 2009 |  | /S/ CHARLES R. EYLER          
|                    |  | Charles R. Eyler              
|                    |  | Senior Vice President, Finance
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. § 1350), Anthony J. Bettencourt, Chief Executive Officer of Verity, Inc. (the Company),
and Steven R. Springsteel, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certify that, to the best of his knowledge:



1. The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended May 31, 2005, and to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit
32.1, (the Periodic Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and



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



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned
have set their hands hereto as of August 9, 2005.



By:

/s/    ANTHONY J.
BETTENCOURTAnthony J. BettencourtChief Executive OfficerBy:

/s/    STEVEN R.
SPRINGSTEELSteven R. SpringsteelSenior Vice President of Finance and Administration and Chief Financial Officer




The foregoing
certification is not filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as part of the Form 10-K or as a separate disclosure document and is not incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-K), irrespectively of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
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

The undersigned, David O'Neill, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Global Electronic Recovery Corp., 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 quarterly report on Form 10-KSB of Global Electronic Recovery Corp. for the period ended July 31, 2007 (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 Global Electronic Recovery Corp.

Dated: September 15, 2007

/s/ David O'NeillDavid O'Neill
President, Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
#### Michael Lee GRESHAM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 86-60.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 22, 1987.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Stephen Krosschell, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Gary 0. Welch, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant after jury trial was convicted of sexual battery, a capital felony, in violation of section 794.011(2), Florida Statutes (1985). He was sentenced to life in state prison with at least twenty-five years’ incarceration before becoming eligible for parole. § 775.082(2), Fla.Stat. (1985).

Appellant contends that because the offense was committed on April 17, 1985, he will never be eligible for parole due to the passage by the legislature of section 921.-001(8), Florida Statutes (1985), which became effective October 1, 1983. He is mistaken. Section 921.001(4)(a) provides in pertinent part that “the guidelines shall be applied to all felonies, *except capital felonies,*committed on or after October 1, 1983.” (Emphasis added).

In conclusion, we hold that appellant’s sentence is not a guidelines sentence. *See*§ 921.001(4)(a). Therefore, he is eligible for parole after the expiration of twenty-five years.

Affirmed.

FRANK, A.C.J., SANDERLIN, J., and BOARDMAN, EDWARD F., (Retired), J., concur.
Order entered February 18, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-00242-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF M.C.M. AND M.A.M., CHILDREN

No. 05-21-00360-CV

MOLLY WILKERSON, Appellant

V.

MARK MALDONADO, Appellee

No. 05-21-00373-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF M.C.M. AND M.A.M., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 366-53554-2020, 366-51795-2021, and 366-50788-2021

ORDER

Before the Court is the February 17, 2022 request of Antoinette Varela, 

Official Court Reporter for the 366th Judicial District Court, for an extension of 
time to file the reporter’s record. We GRANT the request and extend the time to 

March 21, 2022.

/s/ BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN

JUSTICE
November 7, 2013

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

IKECHUKWU CHRIS OBUDULU, Appellant

NO. 14-12-01143-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. 

Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the 

judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED.

We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
## FILED

Bowen Greenwood CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF MONTANA **IN THE SUPREME COURT**  **FOR THE STATE OF MONTANA**  No. DA 23
- 0088 BRANDAE LEE ROSSOL , Defendant and Appellant, v. STATE OF MONTANA , Plaintiff and Appellee
. **ORDER** Defendant and Appellant has filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal pursuant to Rule 16(4) of the Montana Rules of Appellate procedure: IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this appeal is DISMISSED. The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this Order to all counsel of record and to the appellant personally.

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

February 20 2024

02/20/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0088
#### Paris L. TAYLOR, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Jean HILL, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 02-35400.

D.C. No. CV-00-00660-MFM.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Feb. 10, 2003.

Decided April 29, 2003.

*621Before BRUNETTI, T.G. NELSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Paris Taylor appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Taylor contends that the state court violated his right to due process when it denied his motion for a continuance of his trial.

On October 29, 1994, Taylor was incarcerated at the Oregon State Penitentiary when prison guards found two combination padlocks tied together with a heavy cord, in Taylor’s coat pocket. Taylor was indicted on one count of Inmate in Possession of a Weapon, in violation of O.R.S. 166.275. The trial was scheduled for November 29, 1995. On November 16, 1995, Taylor sent a letter to his counsel, Mr. Price, requesting that Price resign from his case. On November 20, 1995, Price moved to withdraw as attorney of record and to have the court appoint new counsel. Price stated that the attorney-client relationship had reached a stage where he could no longer continue to represent Taylor.

On November 22, 1995, the state court ordered that Price was allowed to withdraw as the attorney of record in the case and appointed Hellewell to represent Taylor. Although the court granted the motion, it warned that there would be no continuance. On November 29, 1995, the morning of trial, Hellewell moved for a continuance. The state court denied the motion as untimely, stating that if Taylor had problems with Price he should have addressed those issues at an earlier date.

Taylor argues that the state court’s denial of the motion violated his right to due process. This argument fails. To warrant reversal, Taylor must show prejudice from the denial of the continuance. *United States v. Pope,*841 F.2d 954, 957 (9th Cir.1988). Taylor has never shown any merits of the defense or evidence that he would have presented had the motion been granted. Further, Taylor had a witness list, yet he does not say that any of those witnesses would have been used had the motion been granted. Ultimately, Taylor has not hinted at anything that would have changed the outcome of the trial had the motion been granted.

Accordingly, the district court’s denial of Taylor’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is AFFIRMED.

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2241 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2241

  To extend and modify the temporary reduction of duty on artichokes, 
            prepared or preserved by vinegar or acetic acid.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

Mrs. Feinstein introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To extend and modify the temporary reduction of duty on artichokes, 
            prepared or preserved by vinegar or acetic acid.

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

SECTION 1. ARTICHOKES, PREPARED OR PRESERVED BY VINEGAR OR ACETIC ACID.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.03.90 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to artichokes prepared or 
preserved by vinegar) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``7.9%'' and inserting ``6.64%''; and
            (2) by striking ``12/31/2009'' and inserting ``12/31/
        2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Charles Raymond CARTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. BS-133.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Dec. 9, 1987.

Phil Patterson, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Royall P. Terry, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Carter appeals an order revoking his probation and sentencing him to two years imprisonment. We reverse.

Carter was placed on probation July 20, 1982. On July 10, 1984, nine days before *332his probation would have terminated, Carter agreed with his probation officer to extend his probationary term for one additional year. On July 20, 1984 a court order was entered accordingly. In April 1985 an affidavit of violation of probation was filed and following a hearing in January 1987 Carter was found to have violated his probation. The probation was revoked and a two year sentence imposed.

Carter argues the court had no jurisdiction to revoke his probation by virtue of the fact that his probation terminated in July 1984 and that his purported agreement to extend it is a nullity. We agree. Section 948.06, Pla.Stat. provides the sole means by which a probationary term may be modified. *Patrick v. State,*336 So.2d 1253 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). A probationer cannot agree with his probation officer to an extension of probation in lieu of compliance with the procedures set forth in § 948.06. *Gurganus v. State,*391 So.2d 806 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Therefore Carter’s probation terminated in July 1984, and the court was without jurisdiction to consider any violation purportedly occurring at any point thereafter. The order revoking probation is reversed and Carter is ordered discharged as to circuit court case numbers 82-1461 and 82-1462.

REVERSED.

BOOTH, THOMPSON and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 23.02

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No.  333-39613)  pertaining  to the 1995  Equity  Incentive  Plan and in the
Registration  Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-98880)  pertaining to the 1995 Employee
Stock  Purchase  Plan,  the 1995  Directors  Stock Option Plan,  the 1995 Equity
Incentive Plan, the 1994 Equity Incentive Plan and the 1983 Stock Option Plan of
Elantec  Semiconductor,  Inc., of our report dated October 22, 1997 with respect
to the consolidated  financial statements and schedule of Elantec Semiconductor,
Inc.  included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended September 30,
1998.


                                                     ERNST & YOUNG LLP


San Jose, California
December 7, 1998


                                       52