alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### People ex rel. Kendrick A. Luther et al., Individually and as Copartners Doing Business under the Name of The Luther-Keffer Agency, Appellants, against State Tax Commission, Respondent.

Argued October 5, 1943;

decided November 18, 1943.

*692
      *Daniel P. Cavanaugh*(of the Connecticut bar), *T. Carlyle J ones*and *Daniel Miner*for appellants.

*Nathaniel L. Goldstein, Attorney-General (John C. Crary, Jr., Orrin G. Judd*and *Wendell P. Brown*of counsel), for respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thacher, JJ.
---

---

Exhibit 13.1

# 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 Annual Report of AudioCodes Ltd. (the Company) on Form
20-F for the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Shabtai Adlersberg, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my 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.

| |  | Date: June 29, 2006/s/ SHABTAI ADLERSBERG
Shabtai AdlersbergChief Executive Officer
| |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



---

---
Filed 7/16/13 In re S.H. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re S.H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. J.H., Defendant and Appellant. F066845 (Super. Ct. No. 12CEJ300087

- 1)

O P I N I O N

THE COURT * APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Mary Dolas, Judge. Roland Simoncini, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

- ooOoo

-

* Before Levy, Acting P.J., Gom es, J., and Kane, J.2

J.H. (mother) appealed from a February 2013 juvenile court order terminating parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26) to her 16

- month

- old daughter, S. 1 This court previously upheld the juvenile court’s decision to remove S. from parental custody, deny mother reunification services, and set the termination hearing. ( J.H. v. Superior
Court (Jan. 15, 2013 , F065695 [nonpub. opn.].) After reviewing the entire record, mother’s court

- appointed appellate counsel informed this court he could find no arguable issues to raise on mother’s behalf. Counsel requested and this court granted leave for mother to pers onally file a letter setting forth a good cause showing that an arguable issue of reversible error did exist. ( In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, 844.) Mother has now submitted a letter asking that S. either be placed with her or with
mother’s fa mily. Mother’s letter neither addresses the termination proceedings nor sets forth a good cause showing that any arguable issue of reversible error at the termination hearing does exist. ( In re Phoenix H., supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 844.) An appealed

- fro m judgment or order is presumed correct. ( Denham v. Superior
Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) It is up to an appellant to raise claims of reversible error or other defect and present argument and authority on each point made. If an appellant does not do so, the appeal should be dismissed. ( In re Sade C . (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.) Here, mother does not raise any claim of error or other defect against the termination order from which she appealed. At the termination hearing, the juvenile court’s prope r focus was on S. and her need for permanency and stability. ( In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 309.) The law required the court to determine whether it was likely she would be adopted and if so, order termination of parental rights. (§ 366.26; In re Celine R. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 45, 53.)

1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.3

Returning S. to mother’s custody or placing her for the first time with mother’s family was not an option at the termination hearing.
DISPOSITION This appeal is dismissed.
Jonathan Earl HERRINGTON v. STATE of Mississippi

2016-CT-01376-COA

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Filed: February 21, 2018 Closed: May 17, 2018

Motion Desc: Motion for Writ of Certiorari.

Certiorari - Denied.
**EXHIBIT 31.01**

**RULE13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Robert D. Ollwerther, certify that:

1. I have reviewed thisreport on Form 10-Q of ML Trend-Following Futures Fund L.P.;

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

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

4. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures,or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;

c) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

a) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
| Date: November 14, 2007                |
|----------------------------------------|
|                                   |
| By                                     | /s/ ROBERT D.  OLLWERTHER |   |
| Robert D.  Ollwerther                  |
| Chief Executive  Officer and President |
| (Principal  Executive Officer)         |

 

----
#### Aroldo Isaias HERNANDEZ, AKA Jose Natividad Ontiveros-Gomez, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 13-71356

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted June 6, 2016 Seattle, Washington

Filed April 20, 2017

Lesley Irizarry-Hougan, Attorney, L.I.H. Law, P.S., Seattle, WA, Kristin Kyrka, Law Offices of Marie Higuera, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner

Lance Lomond Jolley, Esquire, Trial Attorney, Tiffany L. Walters, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: PAEZ and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and TIGAR,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Jon S. Tigar, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner Aroldo Isaías Hernandez, a citizen of Mexico, appeals the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). On appeal, Hernandez argues that the BIA erred in finding that he does not have a well-founded fear of future persecution if he is removed to Mexico. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we grant the petition for review.

We review legal questions de novo. *Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions,*850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). The BIA, citing our opinion in *Castro-Martinez v. Holder,*674 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2011), *overruled in part by Bringas-Rodriguez,*850 F.3d 1051, held that Hernandez did not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution because the 2010 U.S. Department of State Human Rights Report for Mexico

> indicates that Mexican society increasingly accepts homosexual behavior, that Mexico’s supreme court ruled that all states are required to recognized [sic] homosexual marriages, that the law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and that women and men were given equal access to diagnostic services and treatment for HIV.

But since the BIA’s decision, we have made clear that *Castro-Martinez*“falsely equated legislative and executive enactments prohibiting persecution with on-the-ground progress.” *Bringas-Rodriguez,*850 F.3d at 1075.

We grant the petition so that the BIA can, in the first instance, apply this court’s newly enunciated law to determine whether Hernandez is likely to face persecution. *See Lopez v. Ashcroft,*366 F.3d 799, 807 (9th Cir. 2004).

The petition for review is GRANTED.

**

**This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rulfe 36-3.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6633 Reported in Senate (RS)]

<DOC>

                                                       Calendar No. 571
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6633

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 24, 2024

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

                           November 20, 2024

               Reported by Mr. Peters, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 9355 113th Street in Seminole, Florida, as the ``Army SSG Ryan 
           Christian Knauss Memorial Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. ARMY SSG RYAN CHRISTIAN KNAUSS MEMORIAL POST OFFICE 
              BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 9355 113th Street in Seminole, Florida, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Army SSG Ryan Christian Knauss Memorial Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Army SSG 
Ryan Christian Knauss Memorial Post Office Building''.
                                                       Calendar No. 571

118th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 6633

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 9355 113th Street in Seminole, Florida, as the ``Army SSG Ryan 
           Christian Knauss Memorial Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           November 20, 2024

                       Reported without amendment
```
SPAR Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries




EXHIBIT 32.1




Certification of the Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to


Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002






In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the three-month period ended March 31, 2011 (this "report"), of SPAR Group, Inc. (the "registrant"), the undersigned hereby certifies 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, 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.








/s/ Gary S. Raymond

Gary S. Raymond

President and Chief Executive Officer



May 10, 2011




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to SPAR Group, Inc. and will be retained by SPAR Group, Inc., and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.






















Ex-3
##### 



Annual Salary
    
    $
    140,000Annual Deferred Compensation
    
    $
    510,000Base Compensation
    
    $
    650,000




---



##### 




    
    If your employment terminates during the first five years (other than for
cause as defined below), you will be entitled to SERP benefits and receive credit for
eight years of service and the five-year vesting requirement will be waived.
    
    If your employment terminates after five years of service, your SERP
benefits will be based on your actual service plus three years.
    
    The Prior Employer Offset will be waived.
    
    The Qualified Plan Offset will be calculated based on the pension benefit
you would be eligible to receive as a participant in TVAs Cash Balance Benefit
Structure with the years of credited service used for SERP benefit calculation
purposes.
    
    In the event of termination (other than for cause as defined below), your
termination will be considered an approved termination under TVAs SERP and a benefit
equal to that calculated for an Approved Termination will be payable upon
termination.




---



##### 



/s/ John E. Long, Jr.John E. Long, Jr.Tom D. KilgoreDate
#### Edward CARTER Plaintiff-Appellant v. Amanda KING, RN/Health Service Administrator, Varner Unit; Jeremy Andrews, Former Assistant Warden, Varner Unit; Correctional Care Services; John and Jane Does, company share holders Defendants-Appellees

No. 16-4250

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: August 31, 2017

Filed: September 15, 2017

Edward Carter, Pro Se

Michelle Batiks Odum, Humphries & Odum, White Hall, AR, for Defendant-Appellee Amanda Kang

Michael Cantrell, Assistant Attorney General, Attorney General’s Office, Civil Litigation, Little Rock, AR, for Defendant-Appellee Jeremy Andrews

Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Arkansas inmate Edward Carter appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 deliberate-indifference claim related to a medical decision to' terminate a prescription that precluded him from having to use stairs.

After carefully reviewing the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment. *See Beaulieu v. Ludeman,*690 F.3d 1017, 1024 (8th Cir. 2012) *(de novo*review of grant of summary judgment, viewing record in light most favorable to nonmovant). To begin, we find no merit to Carter’s suggestion that evidence in the record was falsified. *Cf. Clay v. Credit Bureau Enters., Inc.,*754 F.3d 535, 539 (8th Cir. 2014) (to survive summary judgment motion, non-moving party must substantiate allegations with sufficient probative evidence that would permit finding in his favor based on more than speculation or conjecture). Furthermore, the evidence established beyond genuine dispute that the medical decision at issue was based upon an appropriate review of *484Carter’s medical records, and Carter merely disagreed with that decision. *See Nelson v. Corr. Med. Servs.,*583 F.3d 522, 528-29 (8th Cir. 2009) (prison official violates Eighth Amendment if official knows of and disregards serious medical need or substantial risk to inmate’s health or safety); *Langford v. Norris,*614 F.3d 445, 460 (8th Cir. 2010) (mere disagreement with treatment decisions does not rise to level of constitutional violation). Accordingly, we affirm. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable James M. Moody, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Beth Deere, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
#### Harry Eriksson, Appellant, *v.*Refiners Export Company, Inc., Respondent. (Action No. 1.)

Argued March 8, 1943;

decided April 15, 1943.

*715
      *Forrest E. Single*for appellant.

*James F. Dwyer*and *Harold H. Meyers*for respondent appearing specially.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Lohghran, Finch, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond. JJ.
Exhibit 99.1



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 Annual Report of
drugstore.com, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 29, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kal Raman, 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 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/    KAL RAMANKal Raman Chief Executive Officer




A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to drugstore.com, inc. and will be retained by drugstore.com, inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



|March |  | 31, 2003
|----- |  | --------
Victor G. EVERETT, Appellant, v. Sarah K. EVERETT, Appellee.

No. 1D16-2387

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 27, 2018 Rehearing Denied April 27, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
John WILLIAMS d/b/a Plant City Discount Factory Outlet, Appellant/Petitioner (s) v. Kristen RICHELIEU, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-1371

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 16, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

This appeal is dismissed because of the appellant's failure to satisfy this court's April 10, 2018, fee order.

KELLY, MORRIS, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
#### Haichun WANG, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 14-70129

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 14, 2016 *

Filed December 22, 2016

Haichun Wang, Pro Se

Shahrzad Baghai, Attorney, Siu P. Wong, Esquire, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Haichun Wang, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual' findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act. *Shrestha v. Holder,*590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on Wang’s demeanor, implausible testimony, and in-court embellishment of his alleged mistreatment as compared to his written statement. *See Shrestha v. Holder,*590 F.3d 1034, 1048 (9th Cir. 2010) (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the “totality of circumstances”). Wang’s explanations do not compel a contrary result. *See Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony in this case, Wang’s asylum and withholding of *992removal claims fail. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Wang’s CAT claim because it was based on the same testimony found not credible, and Wang does not point to any other evidence establishing it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to China. *See Shrestha,*590 F.3d at 1048-49.

Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider Wang’s remaining due process contentions because he did not exhaust them before the BIA. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (no jurisdiction over legal claims not presented in administrative proceedings below).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### William H. Smith, Resp’t, *v.*The London & Lancashire Fire Ins. Co. of Liverpool, England, App’lt.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and printing disbursements.
MEMORANDUM 

From: Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

To: EGU NSPS Docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495) 

Date: August, 2015 

Subject: Meetings with Outside Groups 

The EPA had meeting/conference calls with the follow ing outside groups to discuss their comments on 

the EGU GHG NSPS proposal(s). 

General Electric (GE) 

2/20/2015 

2/27/2015 

3/20/2015 

3/25/2015 

Siemens: 

12/11/2015 

American Petroleum Institute (API) 

1/27/2014 

2/19/2015 

Nothing outside the scope of the submitted comments was discussed.