alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Michael Douglas McGIBNEY, Petitioner, v. The Honorable C. McFerrin SMITH, Respondent.

No. 87-1225.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Aug. 28, 1987.

Gordon H. Savage, Jr., Leesburg, for petitioner.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Arden M. Siegendorf, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for respondent.

UPCHURCH, Chief Judge.

This cause is before this court on a petition for writ of prohibition occasioned by the refusal of the respondent, Judge Smith, to recuse himself after a motion for disqualification was filed. This court ordered a response. Counsel for Judge Smith devoted considerable time and effort to the preparation of a detailed and thoroughly *1084researched brief on the law of disqualification.

Judge Smith argues that the allegations of the motion were insufficient to require disqualification. We disagree and were the motion otherwise in compliance with section 38.10, Florida Statutes (1985), we would issue the writ.

The motion, however, is legally insufficient in that it fails to include an affidavit as required by the statute. An acknowledgment before a notary public is attached to the motion; however, the petitioner merely acknowledges that he executed the motion, he does not swear that the facts alleged are true.

Writ DENIED.

DAUKSCH, J., concurs.

COWART, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with opinion.

COWART, Judge,

concurring in part, dissenting in part.

The petition for writ of prohibition should be denied because the motion for disqualification of judge is unsworn. However, this court should not, by way of *dicta,*express an opinion as to the merits of the motion.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21

- 0574 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. MALINDA CRAZYMULE ,

Defendant and Appellant.

**GRANT** Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the Appellant is given an extension of time until March 9, 2022, to prepare, file, and serve the Appellant’s opening brief.

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court February 7 2022

02/07/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0574
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 Global Services Partners Acquisition
      Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending April 30, 2007 (the
‘‘Report’’), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
      hereof, I Rahul Prakash, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
      of
      the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




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




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




Dated:
      June 14, 2007




By: /s/
      Rahul
      Prakash


Rahul
      Prakash


Chairman
      of the Board and Chief Executive Officer


(Principal
      Executive Officer)
1 Peter D. Keisler has been appointed to serve as Acting Attorney General, and is substituted as respondent pursuant to Fe deral Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2). 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 06-2393

___________ Xiang Cheng Lin, * * Petitioner, * * Petition for Review of v. * an Order of the Board * of Immigration Appeals. Peter D. Keisler, * Acting Attorney General * [UNPUBLISHED] of the United States, 1 * * Respondent. *

___________ Submitted: October 5, 2007 Filed: October 12, 2007

___________ Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Xiang Cheng Lin (Lin), a citizen of Chin a, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed an Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). See Mouawad v. Gonzales , 485 F.3d 405, 413 (8th Cir.-2- 2007); Eta-Ndu v. Gonzales , 411 F.3d 977, 982-83 (8th Cir. 2005) (standard of review). We deny the petition.
When an asylum decision is based on anadverse credibility finding, as it was in this case, we generally defer to the IJ if the credibility finding is supported by “specific, cogent reasons for disbelief.” See id. at 982 (citation omitted). Upon careful review, we conclude the IJ provide d such reasons: inconsistencies in Lin’s testimony and asylum applications and Lin’s failure to provide corroborating evidence. SeeHamzehi v. INS , 64 F.3d 1240, 1243 (8th Cir. 1995) (upholding an adverse credibility determination becausethe asylum applicant did not provide specific, consistent details of, or even c onsistently describe, events giving rise to asylum claim); Nyama v. Ashcroft , 357 F.3d 812, 817 (8th Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (concluding the IJ did not err in demandi ng corroborating evidence where an asylum applicant’s narrative was not credible). The adverse credibility finding is dispositive of Lin’s withholding-of-removal and CAT claims as well. See Sheikh v. Gonzales , 427 F.3d 1077, 1081 (8th Cir. 2005) (withholdi ng of removal); Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 426 F.3d 520, 522-23 (2d Cir. 2005) (CAT).
Lin argues his due process rights were vi olated during the hearing, but he has pointed to nothing in the record suggesti ng he was denied a full and fair opportunity to present his case, or he was otherwis e deprived of fundamental fairness, see Burger v. Gonzales , Nos. 03-40395, 05-1058, 2007 WL 2331944, at *2 (2d Cir. Aug. 17, 2007); we lack jurisdiction to review Lin’s newly raised assertion that he should be in exclusion, not removal, proceedings, Afolayan v. INS , 219 F.3d 784, 788 (8th Cir. 2000) (ruling an appeals court lacks jurisdic tion to review a claim that has not been first presented to BIA); and there is no ev idence in the record to suggest any penalty Lin faces for violation of Chinese exit laws would be because of one of the protected grounds, see Behzadpour v. United States , 946 F.2d 1351, 1353 (8th Cir. 1991) (stating punishment for violation of a fairly administered passport law is not political persecution).
We deny the petition.

______________________________
## In T he Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 22 - 00325 - CV IN THE INTEREST OF O.J.N., A CHILD On Appeal from the County Court at Law No . 1

Lubbock County, Texas Trial Court No . DC - 2022 - FM - 0905 , Honorable Mark Hocker , Presiding



### December 19 , 2022 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before PARKER and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ. Appellant, Katelyn Hannah, appeal s from an O rder in S uit A ffecting the P arent C hild R elationship issued by the trial court. We dismiss the untimely appeal for want of jurisdiction. The trial court signed the order on July 25, 2022
. Hannah timely filed a motion for new trial
. Hannah ’s notice of appeal was , therefore, due within ninety days after the order w as signed, i.e. by October 24, 2022. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 4.1(a) , 26.1(a). Hannah filed a notice of appeal on October 2 7 , 2022
. The following day , Hannah electronically submitted a motion for an extension of time to file her late notice of appeal . The Clerk of2

this Court rejected the motion , however, as it failed to include a certificate of service and a certificate of conference as required by the appellate rules
. See T EX . R. A PP . P
. 10.1(a)(4), (5). Ha nnah was notified of the se deficiencies and was directed to correct and file the motion by October 31, 2022. Hannah never filed a corrected motion for extension. A timely notice of appeal is essential to invoking this C ourt ’ s jurisdiction. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 25.1(b), 26.1. We may extend the time to file a notice of appeal by fifteen days if an appellant files a notice of appeal and a motion for an extension of t ime that reasonably explains the need for an extension. T EX . R. A PP . P . 26.3, 10.5(b). A motion for extension is implied if the notice of appeal is filed within fifteen days after the notice deadline. Verburgt v. Dorner , 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). However, an appellant must still reasonably explain the delay in filing the notice of appeal when a motion for extension is implied. Jones v. City of Houston , 976 S.W.2d 676, 677 (Tex. 1998). By letter of November 17 , 202 2 , we notified Hannah that a mot ion for extension was implied because her notice of appeal was filed within fifteen days of the appellate deadline . We, th us , directed her to file a written response explaining why her notice of appeal was filed untimely. We advised Hannah that if she di d not file a response by November 30 , we would dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Hannah has not filed a response to date. Because Hannah failed to provide a reasonable explanation for her untimely notice of appeal, we cannot grant an implied motion for extension. See T EX . R. A PP . P . 26.3, 10.5(b); Phillips v. Gunn , No. 07 - 14 - 00094 - CV, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 4027, at *2
– 3 (Tex. App.
— Amarillo Apr. 11, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.). And, as her l ate notice of appeal failed3

to invoke the jurisdiction of this C ourt , we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.3(a). For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed. Per Curiam
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)




In connection with the Annual Report of Pharmacyclics, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-K, as amended, for the year ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Robert W. Duggan, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350), that to 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 result of operations of the Company.




/s/ Robert W. DugganRobert W. Duggan

Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)


October 26, 2010






CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)
  In connection with the Annual Report of Pharmacyclics, Inc, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-K, as amended, for the year ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Rainer M. Erdtmann, Vice President, Finance and Administration and Secretary of the Company, certify, pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350), that to 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 result of operations of the Company.
  /s/ Rainer M. ErdtmannRainer M. Erdtmann

Vice President, Finance and Administrationand Secretary (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
 October 26, 2010
SFBC International - Exhibit 10.9






Exhibit 10.9







AMENDMENT

TO

SFBC INTERNATIONAL, INC.

1999 STOCK PLAN










Pursuant to Section 16 of the SFBC INTERNATIONAL, INC. 1999 STOCK PLAN (the “Plan”), the Plan is hereby amended as follows:




1.

The second sentence of Section 17 of the Plan is deleted in its entirety and the following inserted in lieu thereof:




Provided, however, the Committee shall not reprice any outstanding Options or SARs by reducing the exercise price without the approval of the Company’s stockholders.




2.

Section 4 of the Plan is amended by increasing the number of shares available to be granted under the Plan from 2,850,000 to 3,150,000.




3.

Except to the extent set forth above, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.
I hereby certify that the foregoing notice was published in The Union 

Leader and/or New Hampshire Sunday News, newspapers printed at 

Manchester, N.H., by th Upon Leader Corporation on the following 

dates, Viz : . . . . . . . .

. 

~ .~ .I .~o?' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

(Signed) 

UNION LEADER CORPORATION 

State of New Hampshire, 

_rough, SS . (Dated) . . . . ~.I ~ . l ~a. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~. 

d sworn to by the said . . . < 

/
III

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 104

Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the ongoing prosecution

of 13 members of Iran’s Jewish community.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 13, 2000

Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. DODD, Mr.

LIEBERMAN, and Mr. FEINGOLD) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the ongoing

prosecution of 13 members of Iran’s Jewish community.

Whereas on the eve of the Jewish holiday of Passover in

1999, 13 Jews, including community and religious leaders in the cities of Shiraz and Isfahan, were arrested by

the authorities of the Islamic Republic of Iran and accused of spying for the United States and Israel;

Whereas no evidence has been brought forth to substantiate

these arrests, and no formal charges have been lodged

after more than a year of consideration;

Whereas the Secretary of State has identified the case of the

13 Jews in Shiraz as ‘‘one of the barometers of U.S.-Iran

relations’’;
2

•SCON 104 IS

Whereas countless nations have expressed their concern for

these individuals and especially their human rights under

the rule of law;

Whereas Iran must show signs of respecting human rights as

a prerequisite for improving its relationship with the

United States; and

Whereas President Khatami was elected on a platform of

moderation and reform: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that the

3 Clinton Administration should—

4 (1) condemn, in the strongest possible terms,

5 the arrest and continued prosecution of the 13 Ira6 nian Jews;

7 (2) demand that these fabricated charges be

8 dropped immediately and individuals released forth9 with; and

10 (3) ensure that Iran’s treatment of this case is

11 a benchmark for determining the nature of current

12 and future United States-Iran relations.

Æ
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

ANDRES MIGUEL MORALES,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 100 MAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 15th day of July, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 21, 2017

No. 04-17-00214-CV

Amin Qassam ALI et al,

Appellant

v.

Nizarshah MOHAMMAD,

Appellee

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CI10486

Honorable Laura Salinas, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The reporter’s record was originally due on May 10, 2017. On May 16, 2017, the clerk of 

this court notified the court reporter, Mary Beth Simpkins, that she is the court reporter 

responsible for timely filing a portion of the reporter’s record in this appeal and that portion of 

the reporter’s record is late. The clerk explained that the court reporter must file a notification of 

late record within ten days or file the appropriate portion of the reporter’s record within thirty 

days. 

The court reporter did not timely file a notification of late record, nor did she file the 

appropriate portion of reporter’s record. Therefore, on June 4, 2017, we ordered Mary Beth 

Simpkins to file the reporter’s record no later than July 14, 2017. Despite our order, Mary Beth 

Simpkins has wholly failed to file the appropriate portion of the reporter=s record.

We ORDER Mary Beth Simpkins to file the appropriate portion of the reporter=s 

record in Appeal No. 04-17-00214-CV within twenty days of being served a copy of this 

order. NO EXTENSIONS WILL BE GRANTED. If Mary Beth Simpkins fails to file the 

reporter=s record in Appeal No. 04-17-00214-CV as ordered, Mary Beth Simpkins will be 

ordered to appear and show cause why she should not be held in civil or criminal contempt 

or otherwise sanctioned. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(c), 37.3(a). 

We further ORDER the Clerk of this Court to have Mary Beth Simpkins personally 

served with a copy of this order. We also ORDER the person who personally serves Mary 
Beth Simpkins to file with this Court written proof of the date and time that Mary Beth 

Simpkins was served with a copy of this order.

We also ORDER the Clerk of this Court to mail a copy of this order to the trial judge, the 

Honorable Laura Salinas. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(c) (AThe trial and appellate courts are jointly 

responsible for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed.@).

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 21st day of July, 2017.

___________________________________

Luz Estrada

Chief Deputy Clerk
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

I, Allyn P.
Hebner, Chief Financial Officer of Motricity, Inc. (the Registrant), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



|1. | The Registrants quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2011 (the Periodic Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

Date: August 15, 2011



/s/    Allyn P. HebnerAllyn P. HebnerChief Financial Officer


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

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 46

Expressing the sense of Congress that the July 20, 1999, 30th anniversary

of the first lunar landing should be a day of celebration and reflection

on the Apollo-11 mission to the Moon and the accomplishments of the

Apollo program throughout the 1960’s and 1970’s.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 20, 1999

Mr. SHELBY (for himself, Mr. SESSIONS, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. SMITH of

New Hampshire, Mr. GRAHAM, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. STEVENS, Mr. ABRAHAM, Mr. ALLARD, Mr. BUNNING, Mr. GRAMS, Mr. LOTT, Mr. JOHNSON,

Mr. BREAUX, Mr. GRASSLEY, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. BURNS, Mr. BYRD, Mr.

BROWNBACK, Mr. HAGEL, Mr. COVERDELL, Mr. HELMS, Mr. SPECTER,

Mr. THURMOND, Mr. THOMAS, Mr. DEWINE, Mr. DODD, Mr. FEINGOLD,

Mr. LEVIN, Mr. MOYNIHAN, Mr. GRAMM, Mr. MACK, Mr. FRIST, Mr.

ENZI, and Mr. GREGG) submitted the following concurrent resolution;

which was considered and agreed to

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of Congress that the July 20, 1999,

30th anniversary of the first lunar landing should be

a day of celebration and reflection on the Apollo-11

mission to the Moon and the accomplishments of the

Apollo program throughout the 1960’s and 1970’s.

Whereas the Apollo-11 mission successfully landed a manned

spacecraft on the Moon on July 20, 1969, marking the

first time in history that humans have walked on the surface of the Moon or any other planet;
2

•SCON 46 ATS

Whereas the 6 Apollo missions successfully departed Earth

aboard a Saturn V Rocket, the largest and most powerful

American rocket ever produced, en route to the Moon;

Whereas 12 Americans successfully landed on the surface of

the Moon where they performed various experiments and

collected samples for study, and planted the flag of the

United States of America in the lunar soil achieving a

milestone in American and human history;

Whereas the contributions of other Americans who made up

the thousands of contractors and Government employees

who worked on the Apollo program are recognized; and

Whereas the events of the Apollo missions are examples of

the great achievements of the American space program

reflecting the explorer’s spirit of the American people:

Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that the 30th

3 anniversary of the first lunar landing should be a day of

4 celebration and reflection on the Apollo-11 mission to the

5 Moon and the accomplishments of the Apollo program

6 throughout the 1960’s and 1970’s.

Æ
Exhibit 31.1
       a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this
report is being prepared;b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles.c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures
and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting; and
  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 Date: March 20, 2009/s/ John R. StrangfeldJohn R. StrangfeldChief Executive Officer
The Prudential Insurance Company of America