alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION


Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 1350


(Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)




In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Pervasip Corp. (the
"Company") for the quarter ended February 28, 2009, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Paul H. Riss, as
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




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




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




Date:   April
20, 2009




By:      /s/ Paul H.
Riss


Paul H. Riss


Chief Executive Officer
and


Chief Financial Officer










This
certification accompanies each Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





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

                                                                    EXHIBIT 15.2

                        [Letterhead of Guantao Law Firm]

June 29, 2006

China Techfaith Wireless Communication Technology Limited
3/F M8 West, No. 1 Jiu Xian Qiao East Road
Chao Yang District
Beijing 100016, People's Republic of China

Dear Sirs,

Re: China Techfaith Wireless Communication Technology Limited (the "Company")

      We consent to the reference to our firm under the headings "Risk Factors"
and "Regulation," insofar as they purport to describe the provisions of PRC laws
and regulations, in the Company's Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended
December 31, 2005, which will be filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission in the month of June 2006.

                                                      Yours faithfully,

                                                      /s/ Guantao Law Firm

                                                      Guantao Law Firm
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.13

Mr. L. Ben Lytle
Grandview Lake
3741 Poplar Drive
Columbus, IN 47201


Re:  Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc. -
     L. Ben Lytle Approved Retirement
     Consulting Arrangement

Dear Ben:

When you retired from Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc. ("Anthem") effective
April 1, 1999, pursuant to an Approved Retirement, the Compensation Committee of
the Board of Directors approval payments to you if you agreed to be available
for consultation at mutually agreed upon times, up to a maximum of eight (8)
days each quarter of the year until December 31, 2002.  Since you agreed to make
yourself so available, Anthem has paid and is obligated to continue to pay you
$400,000 annually for your consultation services through December 31, 2002.  In
addition, the Compensation Committee approved that in any quarter in which
Anthem has requested you to provide more than eight (8) days of consultation,
Anthem will pay you $500 per hour, up to a maximum of $5,000 per day.

Sincerely,


/s/ David R. Frick
David R. Frick


/jrs
##### 



Exhibit 10.17
 Form 
3600-9
(April 2002)
    
    UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
CONTRACT FOR THE SALE OF MINERAL MATERIALS
    
    FORM APPROVED
OMB No. 1004-O103
Expires: March 31, 2008
Office: NV-050
Contract Number: N-83168
  Ready Mix, Inc
3430 East Flamingo Suite 100
Las Vegas, NV 89121
 Contract area.
 County

    
    State
    
    Township
    
    Range
    
    Section
    
    Aliquot Parts
    
    Meridian
    

AcreageClark [X]
    
    Nevada
    
    T. 17 S.
    
    R. 58 E.
    
    
    9
    
    
    NE1/4SE1/4
    
    MD
    
    
    40Nye [  ]
 Amount and price of materials.
 QUANTITY
    
    PRICEKIND OF MATERIALS
    
    (Units Specified)
    
    PER UNIT
    
    TOTAL PRICESand & Gravel
    
    200,000 cubic yards
    
    $
    1.08
    
    
    $
    216,000.00Reclamation/Maintenance Fee
    
    200,000 cubic yards
    
    $
    0.01
    
    
    $
    2,000.00TOTAL
    
    200,000 cubic yards
    
    $
    1.09
    
    
    $
    218,000.00
 
 Sec.
3. Payments, title, and reappraisals. [ ] If
you pay in advance, BLM will check this box and subsections 3(a) through 3(c) do not apply to your
contract. You must pay in fall for all sales of $2,000 or less
  th must not
  Sec.
4. Risk of loss.
 Sec.
5. Liability for damages to materials not sold to you.
 Sec. 6. Stipulations and reserved terms. [ X ] BLM will check
this box if there are stipulations attached to this contract
 Sec. 7. Notice of operations.
 Sec.
8. Bonds.
   Sec.
9. Assignments.
 Sec.
10. Modification of the Approved Mining or Reclamation Plan.




---



##### 



Sec. 11 Expiration of contract. BLM will check this box if
this contract is a renewable competitive contract
 Sec. 12 Renewal of renewable competitive contract.
 Sec. 13 Violations: and cancellations.(a)
  Sec. 14. Responsibility for damages suffered or costs incurred by the United States. must
 Sec. 15 Extensions of time. must must
 Sec. 16 Time for removing personal property.
 Sec.
17 Equal opportunity clause. must
 Sec-
18 Effective date. If this contract
becomes effective on the date BLM signs the contract, BLM will check this box.
 [ X ] If this contract becomes effective only after certain conditions are met, BLM will check
this box, list the conditions below, and indicate the effective date.
 Sec. 19 Appeal.
  PURCHASER
    
    
    
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA-s- ILLEGIBLEReady Mix, Inc.(Individual or Firm Name)
    
    
    
    (Authorized Officer)3430 East Flamingo, Suite 100, Las Vegas, NV 89121-s- ILLEGIBLE(Address)
    
    
    
    (Title)(702) 433-2090(Phone
Number)5-24-07(Date)-s- ILLEGIBLE(Signature)If
you are a corporation, affix corporate seal here.
    
    
    
    Effective date of contract is April 28, 2007




---



##### 



Backhauling of any materials and/or debris into any community pit is not allowed.




---



##### 



General Stipulations
 will not
  Purchaser will conform to all Federal. State of Nevada, County, and Local laws, ordinances
and regulations.




---



##### 



£
  in situ




---



#####
|                                                                             
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                             
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                               
|View History: Annual                                                         
|View History: Annual                                                         
|View History:                                                                
|                                                                             
|Arkansas Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves Acquisitions (Million Barrels)
|                                                                             
|                                                                             
|Arkansas Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves Acquisitions (Million Barrels)
|                                                                             

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 3      | 0      | 0      | 11     | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
#### In the Matter of H. Henry Schulman (Admitted as Hyman Schulman), an Attorney, Respondent. Grievance Committee for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts, Petitioner.

Second Department,

May 20, 1991

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Robert H. Straus*for petitioner.

*Jerome Karp*for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

The respondent was admitted to practice as an attorney by *92this court on April 26, 1939, under the name of Hyman Schulman.

In this proceeding the Special Referee sustained one charge of professional misconduct alleged against the respondent. The petitioner moved to confirm the report of the Special Referee, and the respondent submitted an affidavit in response thereto.

Charge one alleged that the respondent neglected a legal matter entrusted to him. In or about November 1978, the respondent was retained to handle a negligence case on behalf of an eight-year-old child. Despite frequent calls from the child’s mother over the following 10 years, the respondent failed to take any action on the case until a complaint was filed against him with the Grievance Committee in or about October 1988.

After reviewing all of the evidence, we are in agreement with the report of the Special Referee sustaining the charge of misconduct. The respondent is guilty of the misconduct outlined above. Accordingly, the petitioner’s motion to confirm the report of the Special Referee is granted.

In determining an appropriate measure of discipline to be imposed, we have taken into consideration the mitigating circumstances advanced by the respondent, including a succession of personal and family problems. Accordingly, the respondent is censured for his professional misconduct.

Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Bracken, Brown and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the petitioner’s motion to confirm the report of the Special Referee is granted; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent, H. Henry Schulman, is hereby censured for his professional misconduct.
|                                                                                   
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                   
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                     
|View History: Annual                                                               
|View History: Annual                                                               
|View History:                                                                      
|                                                                                   
|Colorado Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves Revision Increases (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                   
|                                                                                   
|Colorado Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves Revision Increases (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                   

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 28    
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 52     | 71     | 149    | 389    | 356    | 95     | 211    | 118    | 250    | 148   
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 240    | 458    |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-7393

CHRISTOPHER MOSBY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant - Appellee.

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

Wilmington. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (7:17-cv-00253-BO)

Submitted: October 31, 2023 Decided: November 2, 2023

Before HARRIS and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Mosby, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7393 Doc: 13 Filed: 11/02/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Mosby appeals the district court’s orders denying postjudgment 

motions filed in his 18 U.S.C. § 983(e) proceeding to set aside an administrative forfeiture. 

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the 

district court’s orders. Mosby v. United States, No. 7:17-cv-00253-BO (E.D.N.C. Nov. 2 

& Nov. 11, 2022). 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.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7393 Doc: 13 Filed: 11/02/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN
NO. 03-0 7 -00 680 -CR

Al onz o M os e s Bo te llo , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF LAMP ASAS COUNTY , 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 7964 , HO NORAB LE JO E CARROLL , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant Alonzo Moses Botello’s court-a ppointed attorney

filed a br ief c oncluding th a t th e a

p p e a l is f

r iv o lo u s an d w it

h o u t me r it
. T h e b r ie f me e ts th e r e qu ir e ments of An de rs
v . Ca lif or nia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by prese nting a p ro fe s s ional evaluation of the rec ord demonstrating why t h er e ar e no arguable g rounds to be adva nced. Se e als o Pe ns on v . O hio , 48 8 U .S. 75 (1 98 8) ; Hi

gh v. S ta te , 5 73 S.W. 2d 80 7 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 78 ); Cur riev . S tate , 51 6 S.W. 2d

68 4 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 74 ); J ac k so n v . S tate , 485 S.W .2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Ga ino us v . S

tate , 436 S.W .2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Bote llo r ece ived a copy of co u n s el ’s br ie f a nd wa s a dv ise d o f h is r ig ht t o e xami ne the a pp e llate re c or d a

nd to fi le a pr o se br ie f. B ote llo filed a w ritten response with this Court on J une 6, 2008, which we have considere d as a pr o se brief
.2 We have r eviewe d the re cord, counsel’s br ief, a nd Bote llo’s written response and we ag ree that the appe al is frivolous and without merit. We find not h i ng in the rec ord that mig ht arguably support the appe al. Se e Bl e ds oev . S tate , 178 S.W .3d 824, 826-27 (Te x . Crim. App. 2005). Counsel’s motion to wit hdrawis gr anted.

The judg ment of convic tion is affirmed.

_______________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____________ Diane M. H enson, Jus tice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pury ear and He nson Affir med Filed: Jul y

2, 2008 Do No t Pu

bli sh
|                                                                                 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                 
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                   
|View History: Annual                                                             
|View History: Annual                                                             
|View History:                                                                    
|                                                                                 
|Arkansas Dry Natural Gas Reserves Extensions and Discoveries (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                 
|                                                                                 
|Arkansas Dry Natural Gas Reserves Extensions and Discoveries (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                 

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        | 63     | 869    | 7      | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
1... See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-08-295-CR

NO. 2-08-296-CR

NO. 2-08-297-CR

RANDOLPH HOBBS JR. APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

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

FROM THE 213TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

Appellant Randolph Hobbs Jr. was charged with burglary of a habitation

in three separate cause numbers. Hobbs entered open pleas of guilty to all

three offenses and pleaded true to the enhancement paragraphs in each

indictment. After a punishment hearing, the trial court orally sentenced Hobbs

to thirty years’ imprisonment for each conviction and ordered the sentences to

run concurrently. The trial court’s written judgments reflect these sentences
2

and also require Hobbs to pay court costs totaling $832.00 for all three causes.

In a single issue, Hobbs argues the trial court’s written judgments should be

reformed to delete the requirement that Hobbs pay court costs because court

costs were not announced in open court as part of the sentences.

As the State points out, during the pendency of this appeal, the Texas

Court of Criminal Appeals directly addressed this issue and held that court costs

are not punitive and, consequently, do not have to be included in the oral

pronouncement of the sentence in order to be included in the trial court’s

written judgment. Weir v. State, No. PD-0616-08, 2009 WL 605362, at *2

(Tex. Crim. App. Mar. 11, 2009). The court noted that the legislature intended

that the assessment of court costs against a convicted defendant be “a

nonpunitive ‘recoupment of the costs of judicial resources expended in

connection with the trial of the case’” and that requiring a defendant to pay

court costs “does not alter the range of punishment to which the defendant is

subject, or the number of years assessed.” Id. at *1–2 (citations omitted).

This court is bound by the precedent of the Texas Court of Criminal

Appeals and has no authority to disregard or overrule it. Sierra v. State, 157

S.W.3d 52, 60 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004), aff'd, 218 S.W.3d 85 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2007). Consequently, we hold that the trial court did not need to

announce court costs as part of the sentences in order to include them in the
3

written judgments. See Weir, 2009 WL 605362, at *2. We overrule Hobbs’s

sole issue and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

SUE WALKER

JUSTICE

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, DAUPHINOT, and WALKER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: April 16, 2009
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4531 

To extend the temporary reduction of duty on fine animal hair of Kashmir 

(cashmere) goats, processed beyond the degreased or carbonized condition. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 24, 2012 

Mr. COURTNEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary reduction of duty on fine animal 

hair of Kashmir (cashmere) goats, processed beyond the 

degreased or carbonized condition. 

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

3 SECTION 1. FINE ANIMAL HAIR OF KASHMIR (CASHMERE) 

4 GOATS, PROCESSED BEYOND THE 

5 DEGREASED OR CARBONIZED CONDITION. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.22.77 of the Har7 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

8 fine animal hair of Kashmir (cashmere) goats, processed 

9 beyond the degreased or carbonized condition) is amended 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4531 IH

1 by striking the date in the effective period column and 

2 inserting ‘‘12/31/2015’’. 

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

4 subsection (a) apply with respect to goods entered, or 

5 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

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

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS