alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Thi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

The pane l una ni m ous l y f i nds thi s c a s e s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on w i thout ** o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a) (2). j l f/ Inv en t o ry NOT F OR P UB L I CA T I ON

UN I TE D STATE S COURT OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CI RCUI T P AT R I C I A J E AN E T H A R E VA L OCO N TRER A S, P et i t i o n er, v. E R IC H . H O L D E R J r., A tto rn e y G e n e ra l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 71545 A ge nc y N o. A 000- 113- 594 M E M OR AN DU M *

O n Pet i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a rd o f I m m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls Subm i tt e d N ove m be r17, 2009 ** B efore: A L A R C Ó N , T R O T T , A N D T A S H IM A , C i rcuitJu d g es. P atri ci a Jean eth A revalo-C o n trer as, a n at i v e an dci t i zen o f E l S al v ad o r, pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of

the B oa r d of

I m m i gr at i on A ppe a l s ' de c i s i on a f f i rm i ng the 

# FI L ED NOV 30 2009 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U . S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALSj l f

/ I nvent ory 08- 71545 2 im m ig ra tio n ju d g e ' s d e n ia l o f h e r ap p lic a tio n fo r a s y lu m , w ith h o ld in g o f r e m o v a l, a nd pr ot e c t i on unde rthe C onve nt i on A ga i ns tTortur e ( " C A T") . W e ha ve ju r is d ic ti o n u n d e r8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . W e r e v ie w f o rs ub s ta n ti a l e v id e n c e , Sa n to sL em us v. Mukasey , 542 F. 3d 738, 742 ( 9th C i r . 2008) , a nd w e de ny the pe t i t i on f or r e v i e w. T he r ec ord do es no tcom pel r ever sa l of the I J' s c on clusi on thatpet i t i on er f a i l e dt o e s t ab l i s h th a tth e h a rm s h e s u f f e r e da tth e h an d s o f

g an g me mbe r s i n El S a lv a d o rw a s o n a c c o u n t o f ap r o te c te dg r o u n d . See Ra m os-L op ezv. H older , 563 F. 3d 855, 858- 62 ( 9th C i r . 2009) ( c onc l udi ng thatr e s i s t anc e t o ga ng a c t i vi ty i s not a part i cul arsoci algroup f or the pu rpo se of e st abl i shi ng nexu s t o a prot ec t ed g ro u n d ); Mo l i n a -Mo ra les v . I NS , 23 7 F . 3d 10 48 , 10 51 - 52 ( 9th C i r . 20 01 ) ( per sonal r e tr i but i on i s notpe r s e c ut i on on a c c ountof apr ot e c t e d gr ound) . A c c or di ngl y, p e titio n e r' s a s y lu m , w ith h o ld in g o f r e m o v a l, an dC A T c la im s fa il. C on tr ary t o p et i t i on er ' s a l l egat i on , the B I A di d n oti ss ue a s tr eam l i ned d e c is io n , a n dth e B I A ' s d e c is io n d id n o t c o n s ti tu te adu e p r o c e s s v io la ti o n . See Fa lc o n -C a r ic h e v . A s h c r o ft , 350 F. 3d 845, 849 ( 9th C i r . 2003) . I n a ddi t i on, p e t i t i o n e rr e q u e s t s v o l u n t a ry d e p a rtu r e f o rth e f i r s tt i me i n th i s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w,j l f

/ I nvent ory 08- 71545 3 b u t th is c o u rt l a c k s au th o r ity to p r o v id e s u c h r e li e f . See 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 c (a )( 1 ); 8 C . F. R . § 1240. 26. P E T I T I ON F OR R E VI E W DE NI E D.
Exhibit 32.2



Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, filed herewith.



Armstrong Holdings, Inc. and

Armstrong World Industries, Inc.

(the
Companies)



Written Statement by Chief
Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I certify to the best of my knowledge and belief that the Companies Form 10-Q periodic
report containing their respective financial statements for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that information contained in that report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Companies as of that date.



|                                                                                                          
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    LEONARD A.
CAMPANARO                                                                               
|Leonard A. Campanaro Chief Financial Officer Armstrong Holdings, Inc. and Armstrong World Industries, Inc.



Dated: August 8, 2003



A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to the Companies and will be retained by the Companies and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit
      10.26


**AMENDMENT
      TO EXECUTIVE**


**EMPLOYMENT
      AGREEMENT**





WHEREAS,
      effective July 31, 2006, CAPITAL GOLD CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation
      (“Employer”), and JEFFREY W. PRITCHARD, a Pennsylvania resident (“Executive”),
      entered into an Executive Employment Agreement (the “Agreement”);
      and





WHEREAS, on
      July
      17, 2008, based on the recommendation of the Compensation Committee of the
      Company’s Board of Directors, the Board of Directors increased the salaries of
      our executive officers ;





NOW,
      THEREFORE, to effectuate the foregoing change in salary for Executive, Employer
      and Executive agree:





1.  Section
      3(a) of the Agreement is amended effective August 1, 2008 and, as amended,
      reads
      as follows:





(a)  *Base
      Salary* .
      As
      compensation for the services rendered pursuant to this Agreement, Employer
      agrees to pay Executive a base salary at an annual rate of not less than
      $224,250, payable in installments in accordance with Employer’s standard payroll
      practices, subject to such payroll and withholding deductions as are required
      by
      law or authorized by Executive. The amount of the base salary shall be reviewed
      periodically and may be increased at the sole discretion of Employer.





2.  All
      other
      terms of the Agreement remain the same.





IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this amendment to the Agreement
      effective July 17, 2008.





EMPLOYER
                :CAPITAL
                GOLD CORPORATIONBy:
            s/Gifford
                A. DieterleGifford
                A. Dieterle, PresidentEXECUTIVE:s/Jeffrey
                W. PritchardJeffrey
                W. Pritchard
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1559 

To authorize the Benjamin Harrison Society to establish a memorial in 

the District of Columbia to honor the patriots of the American Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 14, 2011 

Ms. NORTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To authorize the Benjamin Harrison Society to establish 

a memorial in the District of Columbia to honor the 

patriots of the American Revolutionary War and the 

War of 1812. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act shall be cited as the ‘‘National Patriots Me5 morial Act’’. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1559 IH

1 SEC. 2. MEMORIAL TO HONOR PATRIOTS OF THE REVOLU2 TIONARY WAR AND WAR OF 1812. 

3 (a) AUTHORIZATION.—The Benjamin Harrison Soci4 ety may establish a memorial on Federal land in the Dis5 trict of Columbia to honor patriots of the American Revo6 lutionary War and the War of 1812 who served in the 

7 armed forces or who contributed funds in support of the 

8 wars of independence, and our allies who fought in support 

9 of our Nation’s freedom in the American Revolutionary 

10 War and the War of 1812. 

11 (b) COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS FOR COMMEMO12 RATIVE WORKS.—The memorial shall be established in ac13 cordance with chapter 89 of title 40, United States Code. 

14 (c) PROHIBITION ON THE USE OF FEDERAL

15 FUNDS.—The United States shall not pay any expense of 

16 the establishment of the memorial. 

17 (d) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section— 

18 (1) the term ‘‘memorial’’ means the memorial 

19 authorized to be established under subsection (a); 

20 and 

21 (2) the term ‘‘District of Columbia’’ has the 

22 meaning given to the term ‘‘District of Columbia 

23 and its environs’’ by section 8902 of title 40, United 

24 States Code. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
----

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 Magic Media Networks, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the three months ending April 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gordon Scott Venters, President, 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 result of operations of the Company.

Date: June 19, 2006

| /s/ Gordon Scott Venters                                                                                                                                                                    |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                                                                                                             |
| Gordon Scott Venters, President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) and Acting Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer) |
Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO TITLE 18,
UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Dennis J.
  Curtin, Senior Vice President - Chief Financial Officer of E-Z-EM, Inc. (the
  Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
  2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:1.
  the Annual Report on Form
  10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended May 28, 2005 (the 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)); and2.
  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, 2005
    
    /s/
        Dennis J. CurtinDennis
        J. Curtin, Senior VicePresident
        - Chief Financial Officer -137-
#### Robert H. FOLSOM, Appellant, v. Mary Louise BARNETT, an Infant Suing by Her Father and Next Friend, James W. Barnett, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Nov. 1, 1957.

James F. Clay, Danville, for appellant.

W. Earl Dean, Harrodsburg, for appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

Robert H. Folsom, defendant below, has moved for an appeal from a judgment of the Mercer Circuit Court by which appel-lee was awarded damages in the sum of $500 for injury to a thoroughbred colt which resulted in its destruction. The injury was alleged to have resulted from malpractice on the part of appellant, a veterinarian.

An examination of the record has revealed that sufficient evidence was produced to put in issue the question of whether appellant used such skill and attention as may ordinarily be expected of careful and skillful persons in his profession.

The issue was correctly submitted to a jury.

The motion for an appeal is overruled and the judgment stands affirmed.
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 OnScreen Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company"), on Form 10-QSB of the quarter ended September 30, 2005, I hereby
certify solely for the purpose of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my
knowledge:

(1)  The quarterly 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 quarterly report fairly presents, in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
     Company.

OnScreen Technologies, Inc.


By: /s/ Mark R. Chandler                     Dated this 9th day of November 2005
    ------------------------------------
    Mark R. Chandler
    Chief Operating officer and
    Chief Financial Officer
#### The State of Ohio, Appellant, *v.*Wright, Appellee.

(No. 27317

Decided March 22, 1939.)

*Mr. Ralph J. Bartlett,*prosecuting attorney, *Mr. Henry L. Holden*and *Mr. Edmund B. Paxton,*for appellant.

*Mr. Arvin J. Alexander*and *Mr. Robert E. Gibbs,*for appellee.

By the Court.

Harold Wright was found guilty by a jury in the Court of Common Pleas of Franklii county, Division of Domestic Relations, of being tin father of a child by an unmarried female. He filed a motion for new trial and a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The latter was overruled but the motion for new trial was sustained.

The state appealed on questions of law to the Court *188of Appeals, which court overruled a motion to dismiss the appeal, finding that there was no abuse of discretion by the trial court in granting a motion for new trial, and that Section 12223-2, General Code (117 Ohio Laws, 615), was constitutional, and affirmed the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas.

Finding its judgment in conflict with that of the Court of Appeals of the First Appellate District in *Fulton*v. *Madlener,*57 Ohio App., 345, 14 N. E. (2d), 27, and also with a judgment of the Court of Appeals of the Seventh Appellate District, the judges of the Court of Appeals of the Second Appellate District certified the record to this court for review and final determination.

This court having held the questioned provision of amended Section 12223-2, General Code, unconstitutional in the case of *Hoffman*v. *Knollman, ante,*170, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the cause is remanded to that court with instructions to dismiss the appeal and for further proceedings in accordance with law.

*Judgment reversed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Day, Zimmerman, Williams, Myers, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur.
Filed 10/20/20 P. v. Stopani CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b) . This opinion has not been certified for publication

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

DANIEL C

. STOPANI,

Defendant and Appellant. B302980

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. VA124204)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court for Los Angeles

County, John A. Torribio, Judge. Appeal dismissed

.

Heather J. Manolakas , under a ppointment by the Court of Appeal,

for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.2

Defendant Daniel C. Stopani appeals from the denial of his

petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95. His

appointed counsel found no arguable issues and filed a brief under

People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 4 36 ( Wende ) , asking that we

in dependently review the record. On July 2, 2020, we sent a letter to

defendant, informing him that his counsel was unable to find any

arguable issues and inviting him to submit a supplemental brief or

letter within 30 days raising any contentions or arguments he would

like the court to consider. We have not received any supplemental brief

or letter from defendant.

As recently explained by our c olleagues in Division Two of this

Appellate District, the procedures set forth in Wende , supra

, 25 Cal.3d

436, are not constitutionally required for appeals other than a criminal

defendant’s first appeal of right. ( People v. Cole (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th

102 3, 1034 .) In stead, based upon its analysis of the caselaw involving

no

- issue briefs filed by appointed counsel, the Cole court proposed a

variation of the Wende procedures for appeals from the denial of

postconviction relief. Under those procedures, if t he defendant’s counsel

files a brief indicating there are no reasonably arguable issues to

present to the court, and the defendant does not exercise his or her

right (after notice) to file a supplemental brief, we may dismiss the

appeal as abandoned. ( Id. at p p. 1037

- 1039 .) We agree with the Cole

court’s analysis and adopt those procedures. Accordingly, we will

dismiss this appeal.3 DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

WILLHITE, J.

We concur:

MANELLA, P. J.

C URREY , J.
EXHIBIT32

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18U.S.C. SECTION1350,

ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Interbank Capital Corp. (the"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2004, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the"Report"), I, Anthony N. DeMint, President and Chief AccountingOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

-  The    Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the    Securities Exchange Act of 1934; andThe    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material    respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/Anthony N.DeMint                       

AnthonyN. DeMint

Presidentand Chief Accounting Officer

November 10,2004
#### Galvino BELTRAN, Appellee, v. STATE, Appellee.

No. 27667.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 22, 1955.

No appearance for appellant.

Austin F. Anderson, Crim. Dist. Atty., Roy R. Barrera, Asst. Crim. Dist. Atty., San Antonio, Leon Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

The conviction is for felony theft of an automobile.

The issues on appeal are identical with those in Beltran v. State, No. 27,666, Tex.Cr.App., 282 S.W.2d 228, and the five year term herein assessed is concurrent with the term assessed in No. 27,666.

The judgment is affirmed.
Order filed December 28, 2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-12-00955-CV

____________

IN RE SILVER 1999 LEXUS GS300 4DR, TXLP-DG4C418,

AND VIN #T8BD68S3X0066038, ET, AL.

On Appeal from the 56th District Court

Galveston County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 12-CV-0513

ORDER

The notice of appeal in this case was filed September 13, 2012. The clerk’s 

record was filed October 16, 2012. To date, the filing fee of $175.00 has not been 

paid. No evidence that appellant has established indigence has been filed. See Tex. 

R. App. P. 20.1. On November 2, 2012, the court notified appellant that the filing 

fee was past due and the appeal was subject to dismissal. No response was filed.

In addition, the reporter’s record in this case was due October 16, 2012. See

Tex. R. App. P. 35.1. The official court reporter notified this court that appellant 

has not made payment arrangements for preparation of the record. On October 23, 
2

2012, the clerk of this court notified appellant that we would consider and decide 

those issues that do not require a reporter=s record unless appellant, within 15 days 

of notice, provided this court with proof of payment for the record. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 37.3(c). Appellant filed no response. 

Therefore, the court issues the following order:

Accordingly, we order appellant, Andrew Ronald Rodriguez, to file a brief 

in this appeal and pay the filing fee in the amount of $175.00 to the Clerk of this 

court on or before January 18, 2013. If appellant fails to comply with this order, 

the court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 

42.3(b). 

PER CURIAM
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1263 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1263

   To amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to provide surviving 
  spouses with certain protections relating to mortgages and mortgage 
                             foreclosures.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 30, 2011

  Mr. Filner introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to provide surviving 
  spouses with certain protections relating to mortgages and mortgage 
                             foreclosures.

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

SECTION 1. EXPANSION OF PROTECTIONS RELATING TO MORTGAGES AND MORTGAGE 
              FORECLOSURES FOR SURVIVING SPOUSES.

    (a) Protection for Surviving Spouse.--Section 303 of the 
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (50 U.S.C. App. 533) is amended by 
adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(e) Protection for Surviving Spouse.--With respect to a 
servicemember who dies while in military service and whose death is 
service-connected, this section shall apply to the surviving spouse of 
the servicemember if such spouse is the successor in interest to 
property covered under subsection (a).''.
    (b) Effective Date.--Subsection (e) of section 303 of such Act, as 
added by subsection (a), shall apply to a surviving spouse of a 
servicemember whose death is on or after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of iPCS, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for thequarter ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 
| /s/ Timothy M. Yager                                                                 |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Timothy M. Yager, President and Chief Executive  Officer                             |
| Date:  May 7,  2008                                                             |
|                                                                                 |
|                                                                                 |
| /s/ Stebbins B. Chandor, Jr.                                                    |   |
| Stebbins B. Chandor, Jr., Executive Vice  President and Chief Financial Officer |
| Date:  May 7,  2008                                                             |

 

 

----