alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Name
    
    Jurisdiction of IncorporationInternet Capital Group Operations, Inc.
    
    DelawareICG Holdings, Inc.
    
    Delaware2008 Internet Capital LP
    
    DelawareAnthem Ventures Fund, L.P.
    
    DelawareAnthem
Ventures Annex Fund, L.P.
    
    DelawareAnthem
Venture Investors, LLC
    
    DelawareBlackboard, Inc.
    
    DelawareCaptive Capital Corporation (f/k/a eMarket Capital, Inc.)
    
    DelawareChannel Intelligence, Inc.
    
    DelawareClickEquations, Inc. (f/k/a Commerce360, Inc.)
    
    DelawareFreeborders, Inc.
    
    DelawareGoIndustry DoveBid plc
    
    United KingdomICG Commerce Holdings, Inc.
    
    DelawareICG Commerce, Inc.
    
    PennsylvaniaICG Commerce Australia Pty Limited
    
    AustraliaICG Commerce India Private Limited
    
    IndiaICG Commerce Investments, LLC
    
    DelawareICG Commerce International, LLC
    
    DelawareICG Commerce Mexico I, LLC
    
    DelawareICG Commerce Mexico II, LLC
    
    DelawareICG Commerce UK Limited
    
    United KingdomICG Commerce Germany GmbH
    
    GermanyICG Commerce Latin America, S. de. R.L., de C.V.
    
    MexicoICG Commerce Services, S. de. R.L. de C.V.
    
    MexicoICGC Singapore Pte. Ltd.
    
    SingaporeICG Patent, Inc.
    
    DelawareInvestor Force Holdings, Inc.
    
    DelawareInvestor Force, Inc.
    
    DelawareInvestor Force Securities, Inc.
    
    DelawareJamcracker, Inc.
    
    DelawareKadoo Inc.
    
    DelawareLGO Corporation (f/k/a Logistics.com, Inc.)
    
    DelawareMetastorm Inc.
    
    MarylandOneCoast Network Holdings, Inc. (f/k/a USgift Corporation)
    
    GeorgiaStage2
Capital Ventures Associates, L.P.
    
    DelawareStarCite, Inc.
    
    DelawareStarCite LLC
    
    DelawareTibersoft Corporation
    
    MassachusettsVcommerce Corporation
    
    DelawareWhiteFence, Inc. (f/k/a Qcorps Residential, Inc.)
    
    Delaware
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

                In connection with the Quarterly Report of VendingData Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Steven J. Blad, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, and Douglas H. Caszatt, Acting Chief Financial Officer and Controller 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:

| By:    |   /s/ Steven J. Blad                                                                               | Dated: |   | August 10, 2004 |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|-----------------|
|   | —————————————————— |   |   |            |
|   |   Steven J. Blad                                                                                   |   |   |            |
| Title: |   Chief Executive Officer and President                                                            |   |   |            |
|   |                                                                                                         |   |   |            |
|   |                                                                                                         |   |   |            |
|   |                                                                                                         |   |   |            |
| By:    |   /s/ Douglas H. Caszatt                                                                           | Dated: |   | August 10, 2004 |
|   | —————————————————— |   |   |            |
|   |   Douglas H. Caszatt                                                                               |   |   |            |
| Title: |   Acting Chief Financial Officer and Controller                                                    |   |   |            |

                This certification is made solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other purpose.

----
CMAQ version 5.0.1 (July 2012 release) Technical Documentation- cmaqwiki 

# CMAQ version 5.0.1 (July 2012 release) Technical Documentation
From cmaqwiki Page 1 of2

Re fer to the CMAQv5.0 Technical Documentation for information on the technical features of this version. 

## RELEASE

_NOTES for CMAQv5.0.1 -July 2012 The changes for this release are: 1. AQCHEM (base and MP version) • Fixed bug where negative oxidized Fe and Mn concentrations resulted in negative oxidation time steps , which caused the estimated wet deposition factor, WETFACto blow up • The washout rate was removed from the calculation of the estimate for doubling the time step if the sulfur oxidized is< 5%. 2. NML & runscripts (CCTM , ICON, BCON) • Changed the environment variable name for the CGRID species Namelist files from an embedded'.' to' '. 

### 3. I CON • Moved mapping_init.F from par module to m3conc module where it belongs 4. Inline BEIS • Bounded COSZEN against numerical rounding errors • Made Pleim-Xiu version the default method for soil data in so il NO subroutine 5. Inline Plume Rise (point source emissions) • Fi xed the number of substeps, NTICS to be the number of synchronization time steps rather than the number of seconds in the calculation of the average plume rise emissions for the diagnostic file. 6. M3DRY • fixed errors in crop

_lai • Soil NH3 initialization was rewritten for new daily EPIC output which now includes soil NH3 from mineralization of organic but no longer includes the monthly fertilizer totals • Set bounds on the soil pH for fertilized AG landuse • corrected soil NH4 and H + initialization error 7. Advection • changed default HDIV_LIM to 0.9; made CFL an env var 8. BLDMAKE utility Retrieved from "http: //www.airqualitymodeling.org/cmaqwiki /index.php?title=CMAQ_ version

_5.0.1_ (July _2012

_release)_Technicai

_Documentation&oldid=235" 

### --· 

## ---·----- ..

### - 

## - 

# ____"

# _______ • Thi s page was last modified on 14 March 2014, at 07:34. http://www.airqualitymodeling.org/cmaqwiki/index.php?title= CMAQ
_version_5.0.1_(July

_ ... 6/1/2015CMAQ version 5.0.1 (July 2012 release) Technical Documentation- cmaqwiki Page 2 of2 • This page has been accessed 11,586 times. http://www.airqualitymodeling.org/cmaqwiki/index.php?title =C MAQ _ version _ 5.0.l _ (July _ ... 6/1 / 2015
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, James R. Lavelle, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge, Cotelligent, Inc.s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended March 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Cotelligent, Inc.



|                         |  |     |  |                                                  
|------------------------ |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------
|Date: September 21, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ James R. Lavelle                             
|                         |  |     |  | James R. Lavelle                                 
|                         |  |     |  | Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer



23
#### Lillian Miller et al., Appellants, *v.*Home Owners’ Loan Corporation, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

Argued January 11, 1943;

decided February 25, 1943.

*567
      *Edwin C. Morsch*and *Edwin B. Goddin*for appellants.

*Jacob D. Menkes, Simon H. Trevas*and *Neal L. Thompson*(of the District of Columbia bar) for respondent.

Judgments reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellants to abide the event, solely on the ground the record presents a question of fact whether the defendant-owner exercised reasonable care in the selection of a contractor. No opinion. (See 290 N. Y. 739.)

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Finch, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ.
#### IN RE: Larry Bruce THACKER, Debtor. Larry Bruce Thacker, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SE Property Holdings, LLC Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-11802

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Filed (January 30, 2017)

Natasha Revell, Teresa Marie Dorr, Kenneth W. Revell, Zalkin Revell, PLLC, Santa Rosa Beach, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Michael Patrick Dickey, Barron <& Red-ding, PA, Panama City, FL, for Defendant-Appellee

Before WILSON and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges, and HALL,* District Judge.

*

 Honorable James Randal Hall, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Georgia, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Larry Thacker appeals the district court’s affirmance of the bankruptcy court’s denial of his discharge and grant of summary judgment for the appellee SE Property Holdings, LLC (SEPH) based on a continuing concealment theory and collateral estoppel. After careful review of the record and parties’ briefs, along with the benefit of oral argument, we affirm.

We review a grant of summary judgement de novo. *In re Optical Techs., Inc.,*246 F.3d 1332, 1335 (11th Cir. 2001). This litigation originated in 2009 and has allowed Mr. Thacker to avoid satisfying a million dollar judgment owed to SEPH. Since then, several courts have affirmed the finding of fraudulent conduct exhibited by Mr. Thacker when he transferred most of his assets into a trust with intent to hinder, delay, and defraud SEPH, The district court determined that the bankruptcy court properly gave collateral estoppel effect to the findings of fraud in order to conclude that “Thacker is not the kind of *816honest debtor who is entitled to discharge.” *Thacker v. SE Prop. Holdings, LLC,*No. 5:15-cv-00183-MP-CJK, 2016 WL 6039204 at *20 (N.D. Fla., Mar. 21, 2016). The bankruptcy court also properly applied the doctrine of continuing concealment to conclude that Thacker’s fraudulent behavior continued after the initial transfers were made. We agree with the thorough' and well-reasoned decision of the district court. Although denial of discharge is an extraordinary measure, “it is clear that these facts present a case in which the denial was warranted.” *Id.*at 21.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

as Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of Mortons Restaurant Group, Inc. (Mortons) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ronald M. DiNella, the Chief Financial Officer of Mortons, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

Date: October 31, 2007



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ RONALD M. DINELLA  
|Ronald M. DiNella      
|Chief Financial Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0709

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

CISSY DEAN MANYHIDES,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including May 17, 2024, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 9 2024

04/09/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0709
**Exhibit 32.1**

**SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION**

Eachof the undersigned hereby certifies that, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, in his capacity as an officer of Liberate Technologies, that this annualreport on Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,and that the information contained in the report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofLiberate Technologies.
| Date: August 15, 2005  |                                                 |
|-----------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|
|                        | /s/ DAVID LOCKWOOD                                   |
|                        | David Lockwood                                       |
|                        | Chief Executive Officer                              |
| Date: August 15,  2005 |                                                 |
|                        | /s/ GREGORY S. WOOD                                  |
|                        | Gregory S. Wood                                      |
|                        | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
* P ursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the lim ited circumstances set forth in 5 T H C IR

. R.

47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________

No. 98-30085

USDC No. 94-CR-50068-5

(Summary Calendar)

_________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

REGINALD D. WILSON,

also known as Reg,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Western District of Louisiana

November 19, 1998

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Regi nald Wilson appeals the sentence he received after his

case was remanded for resentencing. He contends that the district

court erred in enhancing his sentence under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1)

because, “[t]here was no evidence that [he] ever carried a weapon

during a drug transaction or around a drug transaction.” He also

challenges the quantity and type of drugs attributable to him for-2-

sen tencing purposes and the district court's refusal to grant a

downward departure based on his “model prison record.”

Our review of the rec ord and the arguments and authorities

convinces us that the district court committed no reversible error.

We review the district court's application of the Sentencing

Guidelines de novo and the factual findings for clear error. See

United States v. Dixon , 132 F.3d 192, 201 (5th Cir. 1997), c ert.

denied

, )) U.S. ) )

, 118 S. Ct. 1581, 140 L. Ed. 2d 796 (1998). The

district court did not clearly err when it found that Wilson

possessed a firearm during a drug trafficking offense and enhanced

Wilson's sentence under § 2D1.1(b)(1). S ee Dixon

, 132 F.3d at 202

(finding no clear error where evidence indicated defendant

possessed firearm and possession of firearm by coconspirator

reasonably fo reseeable). Wilson's challenge to the quantity and

type of drugs attributable to him for sentencing purposes is barred

by the law of the case doctrine and is beyond the scope of remand.

See United States v. Marmolejo

, 139 F.3d 528, 530-31 (5th Cir.

1998)(holding that resentencing court on remand may only decide the

issues directed by appeals court), peti tion for cert. filed

, ) )

U.S.L.W. )) (U.S. Jul. 20, 1998)(No. 98-5372); Chevron U.S.A., Inc.

v. Traillour Oil Co., 987 F.2d 1138, 1150 (5th Cir. 1993)(“The 'law

of th e case' doctrine generally precludes the reexamination of

issues decided on appeal, either by the district court on remand or

by the appellate court itself on subsequent appeal.”).

Additionally, we do not address Wilson's challenge to the district

court's refusal to depart downwardly because this issue is beyond-3-

the scope of remand. See Marmolejo , 139 F.3d at 530-31.

Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Reba Marcelle MYERS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-4231

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: September 7, 2017

Decided: September 14, 2017

Robert C. Stone, Jr., ROBERT C. STONE, JR., PLLC, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Randolph J. Bernard, Shawn, M. Adkins, Assistant United States Attorneys, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Reba Marcelle Myers pleaded guilty to tax evasion, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7202 (2012). The district court sentenced Myers to one year and one day of imprisonment, and she now appeals. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

On appeal, Myers argues that her counsel rendered ineffective assistance during the plea negotiations and at sentencing. To prove a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show (1) “that counsel’s performance was deficient,” and (2) “that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.” *Strickland v. Washington,*466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Under the second prong of the test in the context of a conviction following a guilty plea, a defendant can show prejudice only by demonstrating “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.” *Hill v. Lockhart,*474 U.S. 52, 59, 106 S.Ct. 366, 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985).

However, we will address a claim of ineffective assistance on direct appeal only if the lawyer’s ineffectiveness conclusively appears on the record. *United States v. Faulls,*821 F.3d 502, 507-08 (4th Cir. 2016). Here, there is no conclusive evidence of ineffective assistance on the face of the record and we conclude that Myers’ claims should not be addressed at this time.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral *205argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6474 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6474

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
     To amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to expedite geothermal 
 exploration and development in previously studied or developed areas.

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

SECTION 1. NEPA REVIEW.

    Section 390 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 15942) is 
amended--
            (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``, or the Geothermal 
        Steam Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.) for the purpose of 
        exploration or development of geothermal resources'' after ``or 
        gas''; and
            (2) in subsection (b)--
                    (A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``or gas'' and 
                inserting ``, gas, or geothermal''; and
                    (B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``or gas'' and 
                inserting ``, gas, or geothermal''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 24, 2024.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
118th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 6474

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

     To amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to expedite geothermal 
 exploration and development in previously studied or developed areas.
```
OFFlCEOFTHEATTORNEYGENERALOFTEXAS AUSTIN

Qauu,C.MANN *- .#mIUC
HonorableCeail H. &to CountyAttorney Flailey County liuleehbe

, Taxa Dear Sir:

pant out iul

opfnlcm loaal newpaper, to to hxatlon. ou requeet the opinion era1 Mi~tory auU ate8 0r herba, to thl.8 eonnQotion

you ppearing in four servesara **aubfoet**
t have 8onsernodthe **taxabllitjr** rve8 **end** owned br prlvato shed in Texas and all other JarJrte has, rmder ths Constitution either the property0r the a, or the property of any federal in suah Stats. Thie principleot th8 ferment to date taxation 18 **too** well iSUW8iOll of the at+horitles, **and** it **the** general ruls. ?roTex hr. p. 2%. bg Artlole 'PlSQ,Subout of abundant caution, artirnd this existing princlp1.b or taxation by prevldin% that 'all property, whether real or personal,beloxqging ex8losivelyEon. Ceoil Ii. Tate, me 8

t0 this &Ate, or 8Ey politioal8~bdiViSi0n thereof,or the United Statea* **Is** exempt rrom taxation.

**TrU8ting** this **8ati8! ‘** **aOtOrily aIItier8**  **yOUr inquiry,**  **We are**  Yours very truly ATTOBNE'Y

GEHERAL OF TEXAS
FILED

February 17, 1998

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate C ourt Clerk

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

STATE OF TENNESSEE, (

(

Plaintiff-Appellee, ( Filed: February 17, 1998

(

(

v. (

( S. Ct. No.

( 03S01-9612-CR-00120

DAVEY JOE VINEYARD AND (

JIMMY LEE COCKBURN, (

(

Defendants-Appellants. (

Order on Petition To Rehear

Upon consideration of the petition to rehear filed by the appellants Davey Joe

Vineyard and Jimmy Lee Cockburn, this Court is of the opinion that the petition

should be and the same is hereby denied.

PER CURIAM
#### Tague v. Benner et al.

1. Practice on Appeal: imperfect record: dismissal. An appeal from, an order excluding certain affidavits upon the hearing of a commissioner’s report must be dismissed, where the abstract does not show what judgment the court rendered in the case, nor what the affidavits contained.

*Appeal from Fremont District Court.*

Saturday, June 11.

This is a proceeding, under chapter 8 of the Laws of 1874, for the establishment of disputed corners and boundaries of certain real estate. A commissioner was appointed, who went upon the premises, took testimony and made a survey, and returned his report to the court. The defendants tiled objections to the report, and offered to introduce certain affidavits in evidence, on the hearing of the objections to the report. The plaintiffs objected to the affidavits, and the objection was sustained. The defendants excepted, and appeal.

*A. B. Brewer,*for appellants.

*Draper & ThorneTl,*for appellees.

Rothrock, J.

The abstract does not show that any ruling was made upon the objections to the report. It does not *652appear what the objections were, and the record is silent as to whether or not the report was approved and confirmed. It does appear that certain affidavits were offered by the defendants on the hearing of the motion.. These were excluded, exceptions were taken, and error is assigned upon the ruling; but it is not shown what the'affidavits contained. It is apparent that we cannot reverse the case upon this record. It is impossible to determine whether the court erred in excluding the affidavits unless we are advised of their contents. They may have been upon facts not pertinent to any issue in the case, and we cannot entertain an appeal unless the record presented to us shows that the court below entered a judgment or order from which an appeal may be taken. The appeal must be

Dismissed.