alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| (1) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of GeenChek Technology Inc. for the quarter ended May 31, 2010 (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 Medical Care Technologies Inc. |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated: July 20, 2010 |   |                                                                                         |
|----------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                 |   |                                                                                         |
|                 |   |                                                                                         |
|                 |   | /s/ Lincoln Parke                                                                            |   |   |
|                 |   | Lincoln Parke                                                                                |
|                 |   | President and Director                                                                       |
|                 |   | (Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer.) |
|                 |   | GreenChek Technology Inc.                                                                    |
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

DAVID NAUGHTON, § 

§ No. 540, 2016

Defendant Below, §

Appellant, § Court Below—Superior Court of the 

§ State of Delaware 

v. §

§ Cr. ID No. 1306023761A 

STATE OF DELAWARE, §

§

Plaintiff Below, §

Appellee. §

Submitted: May 8, 2017

Decided: May 11, 2017

O R D E R

This 11th day of May 2017, it appears to the Court that the Clerk issued a 

notice, by certified mail, directing the appellant to show cause why this appeal 

should not be dismissed for the appellant’s failure to file the opening brief and 

appendix. The appellant received the notice to show cause on April 25, 2017, and 

has not responded to the notice within the required ten-day period. Accordingly, 

dismissal of this appeal is deemed to be unopposed.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rules 3(b)(2) 

and 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.

Chief Justice
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 205 (Wednesday, October 23, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 84663]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-24566]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration #20753 and #20754; GEORGIA Disaster Number GA-
20014]


Presidential Declaration Amendment of a Major Disaster for Public 
Assistance Only for the State of Georgia

AGENCY: Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 3.

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

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Georgia 
(FEMA-4830-DR), dated 10/09/2024.
    Incident: Hurricane Helene.
    Incident Period: 09/24/2024 and continuing.

DATES: Issued on 10/16/2024.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 12/09/2024.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 07/09/2025.

ADDRESSES: Visit the MySBA Loan Portal at https://lending.sba.gov to 
apply for a disaster assistance loan.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd 
Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the President's major disaster 
declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of 
GEORGIA, dated 10/09/2024, is hereby amended to include the following 
areas as adversely affected by the disaster.

Primary Counties: Ben Hill, Irwin, Taliaferro, Turner

    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

Rafaela Monchek,
Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of Disaster Recovery & 
Resilience.
[FR Doc. 2024-24566 Filed 10-22-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8026-09-P
<PAGE>
                                                                  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 this Amendment No. 2 on Form 10-Q/A to the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q of SEEC, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
14, 2003 (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and dates listed
below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  The 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.

    A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version 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.


Date:  September 18, 2003                      /s/ W.B. LIPSIN
                                -----------------------------------------------
                                                 W.B. Lipsin
                                President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
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  clickNsettle.com,   Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the three and nine months ended March 31, 2005 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Form
10-QSB"),  I, Roy  Israel,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the  Company,  certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that;

            (1) The Form 10-QSB fully complies with the  requirements of Section
            13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m
            or 78o(d)); and

            (2) The information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in
            all  material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and  results of
            operations of the Company.

Dated:  May 12, 2005

/s/ Roy Israel
-----------------------------------------------------
Roy Israel - Chairman of the Board, CEO and President


                                       26
#### Waseka and another, Appellants, vs. Industrial Commission and another, Respondents.*

*June 10*

July *12, 1949.*

*338For the appellants there was a brief by *Martin L. Fugina*and *Marvin L. Fugina,*both of Fountain City, attorneys, and *Fugina, Kostner, Quinn & Ward*of Arcadia of counsel, and oral argument by *Martin L. Fugina*and *Marvin L. Fugina.*

For the respondent Industrial Commission there was a brief by the *Attorney General*and *Mortimer Levitan,*assistant attorney general, and oral argument by *Mr. Levitan.*

*

 Motion for rehearing denied, with $25 costs, on September 13, 1949.

Hughes, J.

The appellants contend that the determination of whether one is an employee is a conclusion of law, and that the courts have the duty of reviewing the evidence to determine whether the commission erred.

It is true that where the facts are not in dispute the determination of whether the relationship of employer and employee existed constitutes a conclusion of law, and the determination of the commission is not conclusive. *Tesch v. Industrial Comm.*(1930), 200 Wis. 616, 229 N. W. 194.

In the instant case the facts were in sharp dispute. Applicant and Robert Bachler were young boys of high-school age. Applicant worked for the Waseka brothers in a meat market formerly owned by their father. Their widowed mother lived in the apartment above the market. It was the contention of the appellants that Bachler worked for their mother, mowing lawn, tending shrubs and garden, and doing other odd jobs; and that he had never worked for the brothers. Appellants and their mother testified that the mother hired Bachler and paid for his services. Bachler gave like testimony.

Schollmeier testified that he was paid in cash by the appellants, that Bachler was paid in cash at the same time by appellants, and that they worked together in the store.

This alone would appear to be enough to raise an issue of fact for the commission.

*339In addition, applicant produced several witnesses who testified that they saw Melvin Schollmeier and Robert Bachler at various times working in the store together. Appellants contend that because these witnesses were all related to applicant, their testimony should not be given weight.

This contention is not sound. Appellants were interested in the outcome as well as applicant. Presumably, their mother would like to see them win, just as applicant’s kinfolk would like to have him recover. These interests, while proper matters for the trier of the facts to consider when evaluating the testimony and passing upon the credibility of the witnesses, do not disqualify any of the witnesses nor render their testimony incredible. The commission had the right to believe the applicant and his witnesses, and its conclusion on that question of fact is final.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

JULIO GARCIA-EQUIHUA,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 09-50453

D.C. No. 3:09-cr-01238-JM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Jeffrey T. Miller, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 15, 2011** 

Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Julio Garcia-Equihua appeals from the 72-month sentence imposed

following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted entry after deportation, in

violation of 8 U.S.C. §1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we

affirm.

FILED

FEB 22 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-50453

Garcia-Equihua contends that the district court procedurally erred at

sentencing by failing to adequately explain the sentence. The record reflects that

the district court did not so err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93

(9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

Garcia-Equihua also contends that under Kimbrough v. United States, 552

U.S. 85 (2007), the district court erred by not explaining the reason for imposing a

16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, which Garcia-Equihua believes is

empirically unsound. The policy behind the enhancement is sound. See United

States v. Ramirez-Garcia, 269 F.3d 945, 947-48 (9th Cir. 2001). As there is no

separate obligation under Kimbrough for the district court to explain why it is

imposing a valid enhancement, the district court’s explanation was sufficient. See

Carty, 520 F.3d at 992 (“[T]he district court must explain [the sentence]

sufficiently to permit meaningful appellate review.”).

Finally, Garcia-Equihua contends that his sentence is substantively

unreasonable. In light of the totality of the circumstances, the sentence below the

Guidelines range is substantively reasonable. See id. at 993.

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                  EXHIBIT NO. 11


                STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE


                                   SIX MONTHS ENDED         THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                     JUNE 30, 1998            JUNE 30, 1998
                                 --------------------     ---------------------
                                            EARNINGS                 EARNINGS
                                 SHARES     PER SHARE     SHARES     PER SHARE
                                 ------     --------      ------     ----------
                                     (in Thousands)          (in Thousands)
                                                                    
BASIC WEIGHTED AVERAGE                                              
  Shares Outstanding              2,277        $0.41      2,297          $0.21
                                 ======     ========      =====     ==========
                                                                    
DILUTED                                                             
  Average Shares Outstanding      2,277                   2,297     
  Common Stock Equivalents          220                     209     
                                 ------                   -----     
                                                                    
                                  2,497        $0.38      2,506          $0.19
                                 ======     ========      =====     ==========

                                   Six Months Ended         Three Months Ended
                                     June 30, 1998            June 30, 1998
                                 --------------------     ---------------------
                                            Earnings                 Earnings
                                 Shares     Per Share     Shares     Per Share
                                 ------     --------      ------     ----------
                                     (in Thousands)          (in Thousands)

BASIC WEIGHTED AVERAGE
  Shares Outstanding              2,099        $0.40      2,099          $0.21
                                 ======     ========      =====     ==========
DILUTED                                                                 
  Average Shares Outstanding      2,099                   2,099         
  Common Stock Equivalents          293                     309         
                                 ------                   -----     
                                  2,392        $0.35      2,408          $0.18
                                 ======     ========      =====     ==========
cassis travel services inc. 

los angeles 

9200 Sunset Blvd 

Suite 320 

Los Angeles 

CA 90069 

t: 310.246.5400 

f: 310.246.5499 

new yopk 

535 Fifth Avenue 

Suite 1010 

New Yorl< 

NY 10017 

t: 212.333.3633 

f: 212.333.3595 

london 

2/4 Circus Road 

St.John's Wood 

London 

NW 8 6PG 

207.586.5566 

207.586.9097 

February 24, 2010 

-,-T- r\r- Ti'V 

•"1 Vr ;;: 

www.travelcts.com 

CSTR# 1014633-10 

The Honorable Ray LaHood 

Secretary 

United States Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Subject: Haneda Combination Services Allocation Proceeding DOT-OST-2010-0018 

Dear Secretary LaHood: 

As a dedicated travel partner of American Airlines, 1 am writing in support of American's 

application to provide new service from New York's John F. Kennedy International 

Airport and Los Angeles International Airport to Tokyo International Airport at Haneda. 

I recognize and applaud you and the Obama administration for your success last 

December in reaching a landmark Open Skies agreement with Japan, which opens up 

Haneda to service by U.S. airlines. 

I encourage your selection of American Airlines to provide nonstop service from New 

York and Los Angeles to Haneda in order to provide an essential connection between 

three of the world's largest financial and commerce centers. 

Recent events, including the successful preservation of Japan Airlines' oneworld 

Alliance membership, have underscored American's strong commitment to the transPacific market. American is likewise committed to New York and Los Angeles - both 

vital focal points of business, trade, entertainment, technology and education - providing 

unsurpassed air service since the mid-1900s 

Both the New York and Los Angeles metro areas will gain significant economic benefits 

from these proposed new flights, as will American's customers and employees. 

However, we need your help to make the JFK/Haneda connection a reality. 

Therefore, I strongly urge you to say yes to American Airlines and its request for slots to 

fly from Kennedy to Haneda! 

Sincerely, 

Cassis Travel Services, Inc. 

Miche 

President &
106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 452

AN ACT

For the relief of Belinda McGregor.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

S 452 ES

1 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENCE.

2 (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for

3 purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8

4 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), Belinda McGregor shall be held and

5 considered to have been selected for a diversity immigrant

6 visa for fiscal year 2000 as of the date of the enactment

7 of this Act upon payment of the required visa fee.

8 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Belinda McGregor,

9 or any child (as defined in section 101(b)(1) of the Immi10 gration and Nationality Act) of Belinda McGregor, enters

11 the United States before the date of the enactment of this

12 Act, he or she shall be considered to have entered and

13 remained lawfully and shall, if otherwise eligible, be eligi14 ble for adjustment of status under section 245 of the Im15 migration and Nationality Act as of the date of the enact16 ment of this Act.

17 SEC. 2. REDUCTION OF NUMBER OF AVAILABLE VISAS.

18 Upon the granting of permanent residence to Belinda

19 McGregor as provided in this Act, the Secretary of State

20 shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by one number

21 during the current fiscal year the total number of immi22 grant visas available to natives of the country of the alien’s
3

S 452 ES

1 birth under section 203(c) of the Immigration and Nation2 ality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(c)).

Passed the Senate August 5, 1999.

Attest:

Secretary.
106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 452

AN ACT

For the relief of Belinda McGregor.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JULIANA PIO,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 12-71487

Agency No. A096-361-993

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 14, 2015** 

Before: SILVERMAN, BERZON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Juliana Pio, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of her motion to reopen removal

proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of

FILED

OCT 21 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
discretion the agency’s denial of a motion to reopen, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597

F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen to

apply our decisions in Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2009) and

Tampubolon v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1056 (9th Cir. 2010). See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at

1065 (even under disfavored group analysis, petitioner must present some evidence

of individualized risk).

Further, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Pio’s motion to

reopen, because Pio failed to establish materially changed circumstances in

Indonesia to qualify for an exception to the time limitations for a motion to reopen,

see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 988-89 (evidence must be

“qualitatively different” to warrant reopening).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 12-71487
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 this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Marvin’s Place, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Georgette Mathers, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of our 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 results of operations of the Company.





By:           /s/Georgette Mathers


Georgette Mathers


Chief Executive Officer


Chief Financial Officer





Dated: November 12, 2009





This certification accompanies this report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purpose of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, another document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Marvin’s Place, Inc. and will be retained and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Movie Gallery, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 4, 2004, as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Ivy M. Jernigan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

 

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

 

(2)                                  The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Date:   August 13, 2004

 

 
| /s/  Ivy M. Jernigan          |   |
|------------------------------------|--------|
| Name:  Ivy M. Jernigan        |
| Its:  Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to Movie Gallery, Inc. and will be retainedby Movie Gallery, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

 

----