alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CERTIFICATION OF
                             CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I,  Jay  Sargeant,  Chief  Executive  Officer  of  EYI  Industries,   Inc.  (the
"Company"),  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
my knowledge:

      (i)   the Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company,  for the fiscal
            quarter  ended March 31, 2006,  and to which this  certification  is
            attached as Exhibit  32.1 (the  "Report")  fully  complies  with the
            requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange
            Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

                                  By:
                                         /s/ Jay Sargeant
                                         ------------------------
                                  Name:  Jay Sargeant

                                  Title: Chief Executive Officer

                                  Date:  May 15, 2006


A signed  original  of this  written  statement  required  by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.

This  certification  accompanies  the Form  10-QSB to which it  relates,  is not
deemed  filed  with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  and is not to be
incorporated  by reference  into any filing of the Company under the  Securities
Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after
the date of the Form 10-QSB), irrespective of any general incorporation language
contained in such filing.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 16-0837

Filed November 23, 2016

JESSIE THOMAS GRAMS,

Applicant-Appellant,

vs.

STATE OF IOWA,

Respondent-Appellee.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Paul L. Macek, 

Judge.

Applicant appeals from the denial of his application for postconviction 

relief. AFFIRMED.

Thomas J. O'Flaherty of O'Flaherty Law Firm, Bettendorf, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Thomas E. Bakke, Assistant 

Attorney General, for appellee State.

Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Doyle and McDonald, JJ.
2

MCDONALD, Judge.

In 2012, Jessie Grams was convicted of sex abuse in the third degree in 

violation of Iowa Code section 709.4(2)(c)(4) (2011). In 2014, Grams filed the 

instant application for postconviction relief, contending his counsel was 

ineffective in failing to advise Grams how to file an appeal following conviction. 

The postconviction-relief court denied Grams’ application, concluding Grams 

could not establish prejudice because the sentencing court explicitly advised 

Grams of his right to appeal and explicitly advised Grams how to file the appeal 

and the consequences for the failure to do so. The standard of review and 

controlling legal standard are well established and need not be repeated in full 

herein. See State v. Straw, 709 N.W.2d 128, 133 (Iowa 2006). 

On de novo review, we affirm the judgment of the district court. First, 

there is no constitutional mandate that counsel must always inform a criminal 

defendant of the right to appeal where judgment is entered following a guilty plea. 

“Instead, counsel has a constitutional obligation to advise a defendant of appeal 

rights when there is reason to think either (1) that a rational defendant would 

want to appeal (for example, because there are nonfrivolous grounds for appeal), 

or (2) that this particular defendant reasonably demonstrated to counsel that he

was interested in appealing.” See King v. Comm’r of Corr., 808 A.2d 1166, 

1170–71 (Conn. App. Ct. Nov. 2002). Second, and related, there were no nonfrivolous grounds for appeal. Thus, there is no showing counsel breached any 

duty owed Grams. Third, the sentencing court explicitly advised Grams of the 

right to appeal, how to file an appeal, and the consequences for failing to do so. 

Grams makes only conclusory allegations of prejudice. This is insufficient to 
3

warrant relief. See State v. Tate, 710 N.W.2d 237, 241 (Iowa 2006) (holding

conclusory claims of prejudice are insufficient to satisfy the prejudice component 

of a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel). 

AFFIRMED.
99-1303.

#### State v. Tobias.

Cuyahoga App. No. 76402. On motion for stay of court of appeals’ judgment. Motion denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                                  CERTIFICATION
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
        (SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18,
                               UNITED STATES CODE)


I, David V. Lott, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly  report on Form 10-QSB of Showintel  Networks,
Inc.;

2. Based on my  knowledge,  this  quarterly  report  does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact  necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the  circumstances  under which such statements
were made, not  misleading  with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information  included in this quarterly  report,  fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition,  results of operations,  and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the period presented in this quarterly report;

4. As the registrant's certifying officer, I am responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a) designed  such  disclosure  controls and  procedures  to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others  within those  entities,  particularly  during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b) evaluated  the  effectiveness  of the  registrant's  disclosure  controls and
procedures  as of a date  within  90  days  prior  to the  filing  date  of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this quarterly report are conclusions about the effectiveness of
the  disclosure  controls  and  procedures  based  on my  evaluation  as of  the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation,  to the registrant's auditors and the registrant's board
of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) all significant  deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which  could  adversely  affect the  registrant's  ability  to record,  process,
summarize and report  financial data and have  identified  for the  registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any  fraud,  whether  or not  material,  that  involves  management  or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and I have  indicated in this
annual report whether there were significant  changes in internal controls or in
other factors that could  significantly  affect internal controls  subsequent to
the date of our most recent  evaluation,  including any corrective  actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: Sept 30, 2003

/s/ David V. Lott
-------------------------
David V. Lott
President
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM TCI
SATELLITE ENTERTAINMENT INC.'S ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         463,133
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 463,133
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        67,745
<OTHER-SE>                                    (74,110)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   463,133
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               168,500
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   98,446
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                65,105
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,177
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (445,266)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (445,266)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (445,266)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (6.58)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (6.58)
        

</TABLE>
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2299 

To modify the age requirement for the Student Incentive Payment Program 

of the State maritime academies. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 24, 2021 

Mr. PETERS (for himself, Mr. YOUNG, Mr. CRUZ, Ms. BALDWIN, Mr. BRAUN, 

and Mr. MARKEY) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To modify the age requirement for the Student Incentive 

Payment Program of the State maritime academies. 

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 may be cited as the ‘‘Changing Age-Deter5 mined Eligibility To Student Incentive Payments Act’’ or 

6 the ‘‘CADETS Act’’. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2299 IS

1 SEC. 2. AGE REQUIREMENT FOR THE STUDENT INCENTIVE 

2 PAYMENT PROGRAM OF THE STATE MARI3 TIME ACADEMIES. 

4 Section 51509 of title 46, United States Code, is 

5 amended by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(i) AGE REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary may make 

7 an agreement under this section only with a qualified stu8 dent who will meet the age requirement for enlistment in 

9 the Navy Reserve at the time of graduation from the acad10 emy.’’. 

Æ 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with BILLS
World Atlantic Airlines Exhibit C (2 pages)
# C_2016192EN.01000101.xml

| 31.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 192/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 192/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8001 — Pillarstone/Sirti)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 192/01)

On 25 May 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in the English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | In the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes. |
| --- | --- |

—

In the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes.

| — | In electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8001. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

In electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8001. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
Order entered February 18, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00098-CR

JOSEPH WALLACE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F10-24982-R

ORDER

The State’s motion for the Court to accept its contemporaneously tendered response brief 

and to permit oral argument is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to file the 

State’s brief as of the date received. 

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

PRESIDING JUSTICE
Exhibit
32





CERTIFICATIONS
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Impart Media Group, Inc., a Colorado
corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2008,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Joe
Martinez, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Alan Chaffee, Principal
Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to §906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to his
knowledge:





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





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





/s/ Joe
Martinez


By: Joe
Martinez


Its:
Chief Executive Officer, Director





/s/ Alan
Chaffee


By: Alan
Chaffee


Its:
Principal Financial Officer





May 1,
2009





[A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Impart Media Group, Inc. and will be retained by it and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.]
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SAMUEL GUERRERO VERDEJA,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

Nos. 13-72958

14-70397

Agency No. A046-615-804

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 24, 2016** 

Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

Samuel Guerrero Verdeja, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal

from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for relief under the

Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) (No. 13-72958), and of the BIA’s order

FILED

MAR 07 2016

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 these cases are suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Thus, we deny Guerrero

Verdeja’s request for oral argument.
denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings (No. 14-70397). We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the

agency’s factual findings, Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008),

and review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Najmabadi v.

Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petitions for review.

As to petition No. 13-72958, substantial evidence supports the agency’s

dispositive finding that, even if Guerrero Verdeja was credible, he failed to

establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to Mexico. See

Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073. We reject Guerrero Verdeja’s contentions that the BIA

failed to consider relevant evidence or sufficiently consider his claim. See

Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990 (BIA adequately considered evidence and sufficiently

announced its decision). Thus, Guerrero Verdeja’s CAT claim fails.

As to petition No. 14-70397, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying

Guerrero Verdeja’s motion to reopen because his new evidence did not address the

agency’s conclusion that he failed to establish it is more likely than not he would

be tortured in Mexico. See id. at 986 (the court “defer[s] to the BIA’s exercise of

discretion unless it acted arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law”). We reject

Guerrero Verdeja’s contention that the BIA erred by not addressing his arguments

based on this court’s decision in Cordoba v. Holder, 726 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir.

2 13-72958/14-70397
2013). See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (“As a general

rule courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of

which is unnecessary to the results they reach.”) (internal quotation and citation

omitted). 

PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 13-72958/14-70397
# C_2016023EN.01000102.xml

| 22.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 23/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 23/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7855 — Ageas/AXA Portugal)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 23/02)

On 18 January 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M7855. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M7855. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Ernest Jackson, :

Appellant :

:

v. : No. 2267 C.D. 2015

:

Shikellamy School District :

O R D E R

NOW, November 30, 2016, upon consideration of appellant’s

application for reargument en banc and appellee’s answer in response thereto, 

the application is denied.

 MARY HANNAH LEAVITT,

 President Judge
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

STEPHEN SWARTZ,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

JOSEPH GALLEGOS,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-15876

D.C. No. 4:11-cv-00302-FRZ

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Frank R. Zapata, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 16, 2016** 

Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Arizona state prisoner Stephen Swartz appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment following a bench trial in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging

excessive force while he was a pretrial detainee. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

FILED

NOV 23 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
We are unable to consider Swartz’s contentions that the district court erred

by entering judgment for Gallegos because Swartz failed to provide any portion of

the trial transcript. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(2) (“If the appellant intends to urge

on appeal that a finding or conclusion is unsupported by the evidence or is contrary

to the evidence, the appellant must include in the record a transcript of all evidence

relevant to that finding or conclusion.”); Syncom Capital Corp. v. Wade, 924 F.2d

167, 168 (9th Cir. 1991) (dismissing appeal filed by pro se appellant for failure to

comply with Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(2)).

AFFIRMED.

2 15-15876