alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32

                          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 Hesperia Holding, Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2003, as filed  with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I,
Donald  Shimp,  President  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:

(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/Donald Shimp
                              Donald Shimp
                              President
                              August 13, 2003


     In  connection with the Quarterly Report of Hesperia Holding, Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2003, as filed  with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I,
Mark Presgraves, 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:

(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/Mark Presgraves
                              Mark Presgraves
                              Chief Financial Officer
                              August 13, 2003
<PAGE>   1


                                                            EXHIBIT 21

         THE WENDT-BRISTOL HEALTH SERVICES CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
                         ------------------------------

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                    STATE OF                       OWNERSHIP OF
                     NAME                        INCORPORATION                   VOTING SECURITIES
                     ----                        -------------                   -----------------

<S>                                                 <C>           <C>
Consolidated Subsidiaries:

  The Wendt-Bristol Company                         Delaware      100% by The Wendt-Bristol Health
   ("Wendt-Bristol")                                              Services Corporation

  Wendt-Bristol Home Health                           Ohio        100% by Wendt-Bristol
   Care Company

  Wendt-Bristol Diagnostics                           Ohio        83.3% by Wendt-Bristol
   Company (1)

  Wendt-Bristol Organizational                        Ohio        100% by Wendt-Bristol
   L.P., Inc. (2)

  1275 Olentangy River Road                           Ohio        Wendt-Bristol is the sole general and
   Limited Partnership (2) (3)                                    limited partner

  Wendt-Bristol Diagnostics                         Delaware      Wendt-Bristol Diagnostics Company is
   Company L.P. (2)                                               the sole general partner

  Consolidated Medical                                Ohio        100% by Wendt-Bristol Home Health
   Services, Inc.                                                 Care Company

  CMSI Medco Limited                                  Ohio        Consolidated Medical Services is the
   Partnership (2) (3)                                            sole general partner

  American Living Centers, Inc.                       Ohio        100% by Wendt-Bristol

  American Care Center, Inc.                          Ohio        100% by American Living Centers, Inc.
   dba Bristol House of Columbus

  Ethan Allen Care Center, Inc.                       Ohio        100% by American Living Centers, Inc.
   dba Bristol House of Springfield

  Congress Liquors, Inc. (3)                        Florida       100% by Wendt-Bristol

  Health America, Inc.                                Ohio        100% by Wendt-Bristol Diagnostics
    dba The Wendt-Bristol Center                                  Company

American Hospital of Athens, Inc. (3)                 Ohio        100% by Health America, Inc.

<FN>
(1)  See Item 1.  Business - MEDICAL AND RELATED SERVICES
(2)  Limited partnership
(3)  Inactive
</TABLE>


                                      IV-8
#### Ex parte Truman Lee HILL.

No. 27983.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 14, 1955.

*764No appearance for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order of the District Court of Smith County remanding appellant to the custody of the Sheriff of Smith County to be delivered to an agent of the demanding State. :

No statement of facts accompanies the record, and no bills of exception are found therein.

The proceedings being in all things regular and no errors appearing, the judgment , is affirmed.
#### Elmer HARDY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27585.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 4, 1955.

*313R..E..Murphey,- Coleman, for appellant.

Leo Do'ug1~*, State's Atty., Austin, for the St~te

DAVIDSON, Judge.

This is. a conviction for the unlawful sale of whisky in a dry area; the punishment, a fine of $100 and sixty days’ confinement in jail.

Hynd,- an agent of the Liquor Control Board' to: whom it was alleged that' appellant sold'-tlie'Vhisky, testified that the salé occurred at appellant’s home and that no other person \yas present. In fact, the witness testified, “I was by myself,” and answered affirmatively the question, “And Elmer Hárdy (appellant) was alone?”

The appellant did not testify as a witness in the case.

Bill o.f Exception No. 9, which complies with the requirements of Fowler v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 274 S.W.2d 705, certifies that state’s counsel-stated in his argument to the jury the following:

> “No evidence herein to show that this d~ft &dnt make this sale-this Swday morning ”

Appellant’s objection that the argument was a reference'to the failure of the appellant to testify was overruled.

This-was ¿ direct reference to the failure of the appellant to testify and violative of Art. 710; C.C.P. See, also, Fowler v. State, supra.

The conclusion expressed as to the variance between the complaint and the information in the case of Hardy v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 279 S.W.2d 345, is here applicable. For' the reasons stated, the 'conlplkint and the' information are sufficient. • v-- h-.--. ■■

Because- of the erroneous argument, the judgment ,is reversed and the. cause ip remanded,. - .
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 21, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 13085]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-03511]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

[DOCKET NO. 24-09]


Notice of Filing of Complaint and Assignment; Impact Products, 
LLC and Safety Zone, LLC, Complainants, COSCO Shipping Lines Co., Ltd., 
Respondent

Served: February 14, 2024.
    Notice is given that a complaint has been filed with the Federal 
Maritime Commission (the ``Commission'') by Impact Products, LLC and 
Safety Zone, LLC (the ``Complainants'') against COSCO Shipping Lines 
Co., Ltd. (the ``Respondent''). Complainants state that the Commission 
has jurisdiction over the complaint pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 41301 through 
41309 and personal jurisdiction over the Respondent as an ocean common 
carrier, as defined in 46 U.S.C. 40102(18), that has entered into a 
service contract, as defined in 46 U.S.C. 40102(21), with the 
Complainants. Complainant Impact Products, LLC is a corporation located 
in Toledo, Ohio. Complainant Safety Zone, LLC is a corporation located 
in Guilford, Connecticut. Complainants are shippers as this term is 
defined under 46 U.S.C. 40102(23).
    Complainants identify Respondent as a company organized under the 
laws of China with its United States office located in Secaucus, New 
Jersey and as a global ocean carrier. Complainants allege that 
Respondent violated 46 U.S.C. 41102(c) and 41104(a)(10) and 46 CFR 
545.5. Complainants allege these violations arose from assessment of 
demurrage, detention, per diem, and yard storage charges during periods 
of time in which the charges were not just or reasonable because of 
circumstances outside the control of the Complainants and its agents 
and service providers, and from the acts or omissions of the Respondent 
that led to the assessment of these charges.
    An answer to the complaint must be filed with the Commission within 
25 days after the date of service.
    The full text of the complaint can be found in the Commission's 
electronic Reading Room at https://www2.fmc.gov/readingroom/proceeding/24-09/. This proceeding has been assigned to the Office of 
Administrative Law Judges. The initial decision of the presiding judge 
shall be issued by February 14, 2025, and the final decision of the 
Commission shall be issued by August 29, 2025.

David Eng,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-03511 Filed 2-20-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-02-P
# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, May 25, 2021 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A21A1338. DEWAYNE THOMAS v. THE STATE .

The appellant in this case failed to comply with the notice of docketing mailed by this Court and with Court of Appeals Rule 23 (a), regarding the filing of an enumeration of errors and brief within twenty days after the appeal was docketed. See also Court of Appeals Rule 13. On May 13, 2021, this Court ordered the appellant to file an enumeration of errors and a brief no later than May 24, 2021. As of the date of this order, the appellant's enumeration of errors and brief still have not been filed. Accordingly, this appeal is deemed abandoned and is hereby ordered DISMISSED. Court of Appeals Rules 7, 23 (a). Because procedural deficiencies have deprived the appellant of the right of appellate review, the appellant is hereby informed of the following in accordance with Rowland v. State, 264 Ga. 872 (452 SE2d 756) (1995): This Court has dismissed your appeal because an enumeration of errors and a brief have not been filed on your behalf as required. If this failure occurred while you were represented by legal counsel and was due to your appellate counsel's failure to perform the duties of appellate counsel, and if you still wish to appeal, you may file a motion in the trial court for permission to pursue an out-of-time appeal. If the trial court grants your motion for an out-of-time appeal, you will have 30 days from the filing date of the order granting your motion to file in the trial court a notice of appeal from the judgment of conviction and sentence. If the trial court denies your motion for an out-of-time appeal, you will have 30 days from the filing date of the order denying your motion to file in the trial court a notice of appeal from that order.Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, May 25, 2021. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the appellant as well as to the appellant's attorney of record, if any. The appellant's attorney is also directed to send a copy of this order to the appellant.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-7035

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL C. HILLIARD,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:17-cr-00044-HEH-EWH-1; 3:19-

cv-00681-HEH-EWH)

Submitted: December 21, 2021 Decided: December 27, 2021

Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael C. Hilliard, Appellant Pro Se. Aidan Taft Grano-Mickelsen, Assistant United

States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7035 Doc: 7 Filed: 12/27/2021 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael C. Hilliard seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. 

Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. 

Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hilliard has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7035 Doc: 7 Filed: 12/27/2021 Pg: 2 of 2
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We have issued our report dated March 15, 2001, accompanying the consolidated
financial statements and schedule of The Coast Distribution System, Inc. and
Subsidiaries (the "Company") included in the Company's Annual Report on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2000. We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference of said report in the Company's Registration
Statements on Forms S-8 (File Nos. 333-55941, 333-55933, 333-52876, 33-86072,
33-64582 and 33-15322).


GRANT THORNTON LLP

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP
San Jose, California
March 15, 2001
Employment Agreement Amendment



 EXHIBIT 10.7 
  
 

 
  

			
	 W6316 Design Drive
	 	 920-882-5622

	 Greenville, WI 54942
	 	 920-882-5814 Fax



  
 June 3, 2004 
  
 Employment Agreement 
 Amendment II 
 Effective April 25, 2004 
  
 Both School Specialty, Inc., a Wisconsin corporation (the “Company”) and A. Brett
Pulsipher (“Employee”) agree, by the below duly executed document, to the below Amendment to section I- Employment and Duties. 
  
 Amendment 
  
 Section I amended and rewritten to reflect new title and to redefine reporting relationship and in no way alters and or changes any previous amendments or sections of the agreement. 
  
 New Section Language 
  
 Employment and Duties The Company hereby agrees to employ the Employee and the Employee hereby accepts employment as Executive Vice
President, of Corporate Technology for the Company and agrees to devote his full business time and efforts to the diligent and faithful performance of his duties hereunder the direction of the Chief Executive Officer of the Company. Such duties
shall be performed in the State of Wisconsin. 
  
 In witness whereof, the parties
hereto have amended this agreement as of the late reflective date listed above. 
  

			
	 Company: School Specialty, Inc.
	 	 
		
	 June 3, 2004
	 	 
	 Date
	 	 /s/ David Vander Zanden


	 	 	 David Vander Zanden, CEO

	 Employee:
	 	 
		
	 June 3, 2004
	 	 
	 Date
	 	 /s/ A. Brent Pulsipher


	 	 	 A. Brent Pulsipher, Individual
EXHIBIT 32.2

THE COAST DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM, INC.

Annual Report on Form 10-K

for the Year ended December 31, 2007

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned, hereby certifies that: (i) the Annual Report of The Coast Distribution System, Inc. (the Company), for the year ended December 31, 2007, filed on Form 10-K with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the Annual Report), to which this Certification is an Exhibit, fully complies with the applicable requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and the information contained in this Annual
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                     |  |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
|-------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 31, 2008 |  | /s/ SANDRA A. KNELL                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
|                     |  | Sandra A. Knell, Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer                                                                                                                                                                                                      
|                     | 
|                     |  | A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to The Coast Distribution System, Inc. and will be retained by The Coast Distribution System, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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






In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of WebEx Communications, Inc. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-Q/A, Amendment No. 1, for the period ending March 31,
      2005
      as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
      "Report"), I, Michael T. Everett, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
      certify, for purposes of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United
      States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:






(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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:
      August 29, 2005










/s/ MICHAEL
      T. EVERETT


Michael
      T. Everett


Chief
      Financial Officer























































_____________________________






(*)
      In
      accordance with Item 601(b)(32)(ii) of Regulation S-K and SEC Release Nos.
      33-8238 and 34-47986, Final Rule: Management’s Reports on Internal Control Over
      Financial Reporting and Certification of Disclosure in Exchange Act Periodic
      Reports, the certification furnished in this Exhibit 32.2 is deemed to accompany
      this Form 10-Q/A, Amendment No. 1, and will not be deemed “filed” for purpose of
      Section 18 of the Exchange Act. Such certification will not be deemed to be
      incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the
      Exchange Act, whether made before or after the date hereof irrespective of
      any
      general incorporation language contained in any such filing, except to the
      extent that the registrant specifically incorporates it by
      reference.
































Form
            10-Q/A, Amendment No. 1, for quarter ended March 31, 2005
EXHIBIT32

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Hesperia Holding, Inc. (the"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2003, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the"Report"), I, Steve Chaussy, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-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/Steve Chaussy                   

SteveChaussy

ChiefFinancial Officer

November14, 2003
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 5, 2016

a0928 

# Order

Clerk October 5, 2016

153185

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 153185

COA: 315323

Wayne CC: 12

- 008021

- FC

WILLIAM LYLES, JR.,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 22, 2015

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral

argument on whether to grant the application or take other action. MCR 7.305(H)(1).

The parties shall file supplemental briefs within 42 days of the d ate of this order

addressing whether the trial court’s failure to correctly instruct the jury regarding

defendant’s evidence of good character was sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a new trial

. The parties should not submit mere restatements of their ap plication papers.