alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Careview Communications 10-K





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 Annual Report of CareView Communications, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, John R. Bailey, Chief Financial 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/John R. BaileyJohn R. BaileyChief Financial OfficerApril 15, 2011




A signed original of this certification 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.




75
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6017

FERNANDO ARMSTEAD, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GENE JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge. (3:06-cv-654-JRS) Submitted: May 31, 2007 Decided: June 6, 2007 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Fernando Armstead, Appellant Pro Se. Joshua Mikell Didlake, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Fernando Armstead seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Armstead has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### KEATING vs. VAUGHAN, et al.

Appeal from Hays county.

*Statutes Construed*— The act of March 24th, 1819, provides in terms that when an assignee refuses to execute a trust, the county judge has power to remove him and appoint another. Resignation of the assignee is tantamount to refusal.

*Same*— Deed *of Assignment.*— The assignment deed in this case conveyed certain designated property without in terms declaring it all conveyed, save exemptions. The inventory, however, made part of the deed, declared unequivocally that the property named was all of the assignor’s estate. Held, that taken together these papers form a sufficient compliance with section 2 of the act named.

*Same*— Reservation *In.*— Tt is immaterial that the assignor did not reserve to himself any surplus arising after the satisfaction of the trust — the statute does that.

*Same*— Practice—Surplus *Fund.*— Under assignments of this character non-consenting creditors cannot take at all, but may garnishee the assignee for any surplus over, after execution of the trust as to consenting creditors. Where such course is not_pursued by non-consenting creditors, under section 1G of the act any surplus would be paid in the district court, to be paid under its decree.

*Same*— JJJvidence.—The original order of the appointment of the assignee, and his official bond, was sufficient proof of appointment.

*Statutory Assignment not an Insolvent law.*— An assignment under the act stated is in no wise an insolvent law, but is only designed to protect creditors in the administration of an insolvent’s estate.

Affirmed.

Stayton, J.
# EUR-Lex - 32001R0913 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32001R0913

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 913/2001 of 10 May 2001 amending the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 on the registration of geographical indications and designations of origin under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 **

*
Official Journal L 129 , 11/05/2001 P. 0008 - 0008 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 913/2001

of 10 May 2001

amending the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 on the registration of geographical indications and designations of origin under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs(1), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2796/2000(2), and in particular Article 9 thereof,

Whereas:

(1) In accordance with Article 9 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92, the Spanish Government has requested that the name "Mahón", registered as a protected designation of origin under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2703/2000(4), be amended to read "Mahón-Menorca".

(2) After examination of that request, the amendment has been deemed not to be a minor one because, since it is an amendment to the registered name itself, it could affect the rights of the holders of the name and also have an impact on the rights of third producers.

(3) In accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 9 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 and because the amendment is not a minor one, the procedure laid down in Article 6 must apply mutatis mutandis.

(4) The amendment is deemed to comply with Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92. No statement of objection within the meaning of Article 7 of that Regulation was sent to the Commission following publication of the name in the Official Journal of the European Communities(5).

(5) As a result, the amendment of the name "Mahón" to read "Mahón-Menorca" should be registered by an appropriate amendment of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1107/96.

(6) In accordance with Article 6(4) of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92, the amendment of the name "Mahón" to read "Mahón-Menorca" must be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 is amended as follows:

The protected designation of origin "Mahón" is replaced by "Mahón-Menorca".

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 10 May 2001.

For the Commission

Franz Fischler

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 208, 24.7.1992, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 324, 21.12.2000, p. 26.

(3) OJ L 148, 21.6.1996, p. 1.

(4) OJ L 311, 12.12.2000, p. 25.

(5) OJ C 214, 27.7.2000, p. 3.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6862 

To amend the FAST Act to include certain mineral production activities 

as a covered project, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 19, 2023 

Mr. LAMBORN (for himself, Mr. MOORE of Utah, and Mr. NEWHOUSE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural 

Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the FAST Act to include certain mineral production activities as a covered project, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DEFINITION OF COVERED PROJECT. 

4 Section 41001(6)(A) of the FAST Act (42 U.S.C. 

5 4370m(6)(A)) is amended by inserting ‘‘mineral produc6 tion,’’ before ‘‘or any other sector’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6862 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION AGAINST FINALIZING, IMPLE2 MENTING, OR ENFORCING THE PROPOSED 

3 RULE RELATED TO THE SCOPE OF MINING 

4 UNDER THE FAST ACT. 

5 The Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Coun6 cil may not finalize, implement, or enforce the proposed 

7 rule titled ‘‘Revising Scope of the Mining Sector of 

8 Projects That Are Eligible for Coverage Under Title 41 

9 of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act’’ (88 

10 Fed. Reg. 65350; September 22, 2023). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
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

The undersigned, Evan Williams, Chief Executive Officer of Border Management,
Inc., 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 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Border Management, Inc. for the year
ended December 31, 2006 (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 Border
Management, Inc.

Dated: March 29,2007

/s/ Evan Williams
------------------
Evan Williams
Chief Executive Officer,
Border Management, Inc.

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 Border Management,
Inc. and will be retained by Border Management, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Herman Terrill BAYLOR Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-4546

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: October 4, 2017

Filed: October 16, 2017

William Reiser Ripley, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Davenport, IA, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee

Herman Terrill Baylor, Pro Se

Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Herman Baylor appeals after he pleaded guilty to a felon-in-possession offense and the District Court1 sentenced him below the advisory United States Sentencing Guidelines range. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that the District Court ap*855plied an incorrect base offense level in its Guidelines calculations, improperly applied obstruction-of-justice and acceptance-of-responsibility adjustments, and imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence.

We conclude that any error by the District Court in determining Baylor’s base offense level was harmless in light of that court’s statements at sentencing. See United States v. Henson, 550 F.3d 739, 741 (8th Cir. 2008) (noting that procedural errors in determining an advisory Guidelines sentencing range are subject to harmless-error analysis and “that a significant procedural error can be harmless”), cert. denied, 556 U.S. 1270, 129 S.Ct. 2736, 174 L.Ed.2d 250 (2009). We further conclude that the District Court did not err in applying the challenged adjustments, see United States v. Calderon-Avila, 322 F.3d 505, 507 (8th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (standards of review), and did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence, see Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007) (discussing substantive reasonableness).

We have independently reviewed the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. We affirm Baylor’s sentence and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

1

. The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF DIGITAL TRANSMISSION FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED
JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                             468
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,969
<ALLOWANCES>                                       321
<INVENTORY>                                      3,435
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,984
<PP&E>                                           2,901
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,962
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  12,603
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,461
<BONDS>                                          4,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            41
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,101
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    12,603
<SALES>                                          6,576
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,576
<CGS>                                            4,888
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,888
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,938
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    95
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 149
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (2,457)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (2,457)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (2,457)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.59)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.59)
        

</TABLE>
#### Juan Jose ZUNIGA-HERNANDEZ, Petitioner-Appellant v. Rachel CHAPA, Warden, Respondent-Appellee

No. 16-40065 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 12, 2017

Juan Jose Zuniga-Hernandez, Pro Se

Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Petitioner-Appellant Juan Jose Zuniga-Hernandez, federal prisoner # 23429-034, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. The district court’s dismissal of the petition was twofold. The court initially determined that the initial pleading was an unauthorized successive § 2255 motion because it failed to meet the requirements of the savings clause of § 2255(e). *See Garland v. Roy,*615 F.3d 391, 394 (5th Cir. 2010) (citing *Reyes-Requena v. United States,*243 F.3d 893, 901 (5th Cir. 2001)). Following consideration of Zuniga-Hernandez’s objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the court determined that no relief was warranted because the claims raised therein already had been rejected by this court.

A § 2241 petition that raises “the same legal issue” addressed and resolved in a prior filing is considered to be abusive and should be dismissed. *United States v. Tubwell,*37 F.3d 175, 177-78 (5th Cir. 1994); *see, e.g., Rich v. Tamez,*489 Fed.Appx. 754 (5th Cir. 2012). We review a district court’s decision to dismiss a habeas petition as an abuse of the writ for an abuse of discretion. *James v. Cain,*56 F.3d 662, 665 (5th Cir. 1995).

Zuniga-Hemandez’s argument that in light of *Watson,*he was convicted of a nonexistent offense, was rejected by the district court and by this court. In reaching this conclusion, this court impliedly considered and rejected the argument that Zuniga-Hernandez now advances. *See Zuniga-Hernandez v. Childress,*548 Fed.Appx. 147, 150-51 (5th Cir. 2013). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the § 2241 peti*315tion. *See Tubwell,*37 F.3d at 177-78. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. We CAUTION Zuniga-Hernandez that frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise abusive filings may invite the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal, monetary sanctions, and restriction's on his ability to file pleadings in this court and any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. '47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### Daniel Gabino MARTINEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee

2016-2168

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

February 15, 2017

A. Blair Dunn, Western Agriculture, Resource and Business Advocates, LLP, Albuquerque, NM, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by Dori Ellen Richards.

Elizabeth Ann Peterson, Environment and Natural Resources Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by John C. Cruden.

(Prost, Chief Judge; Moore and Chen, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Patrick Charles v. Methodist Hospital

— Sugar Land, Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 16

- 00106

- CV

Trial court case number: 15

- DCV

- 221990

Trial court: 240th District Court of Fort Bend County

A ppellant, Patrick Charles

, has filed a notice of appeal of the trial court’s January 22, 2016 order granting appellee Methodist Hospital

— Sugar Land, Texas ’s motion to dismiss and dismissing Charles’s suit with prejudice to the re

- filing of same. Charles has filed a motion to compel the court reporter to file a reporter’s record of a hearing held on January 21 , 2016, and the trial court’s “disposa l of the case” on January 22, 2016. On
March 1 6 , 2016, t he court reporter filed in this appeal an information sheet stating that she is the only court reporter involved in this appeal

, “ no record was made

, ” and there is no reporter’s record. Accordingly, we deny the motion.

It is so ORDERED

.

Judge’s signature:

__

/s/ Russell Lloyd  Acting individually

Date: April 5, 2016
# Europeiska unionens C 11A/2014

| | ISSN 1977-1061
  doi:10.3000/19771061.CA2014.011.swe |
| --- | --- |
| Europeiska unionens
  officiella tidning | C 11A |
| | |
| Svensk utgåva | Meddelanden och upplysningar | 57 årgången15 januari 2014 |

ISSN 1977-1061

doi:10.3000/19771061.CA2014.011.swe

Europeiska unionens

officiella tidning

C 11A

Svensk utgåva

Meddelanden och upplysningar

57 årgången15 januari 2014

---

| Informationsnummer | Innehållsförteckning | Sida |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Rättelser |
| 2014/C 011A/01 | Rättelse till utlysning av ledig tjänst som verkställande direktör för Europeiska järnvägsbyrån i Frankrike (Tillfälligt anställd – lönegrad AD 14) – COM/2014/10345 (EUT C 6 A, 10.1.2014) | 1 |

Informationsnummer

Innehållsförteckning

Sida

Rättelser

2014/C 011A/01

Rättelse till utlysning av ledig tjänst som verkställande direktör för Europeiska järnvägsbyrån i Frankrike (Tillfälligt anställd – lönegrad AD 14) – COM/2014/10345 (EUT C 6 A, 10.1.2014)

(EUT C 6 A, 10.1.2014)

1

SAMMANSTÄLLNING ÖVER EUT C A, UTTAGNINGSPROV

Nedan följer en förteckning över de EUT C A som publicerats under innevarande år.

Om inte annat anges nedan har EUT kommit ut i samtliga språkversioner.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 6 | |
| 11 | |

5

6

11

| SV | |
| --- | --- |

SV

---

Rättelser

| 15.1.2014 | SV | Europeiska unionens officiella tidning | CA 11/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2014

SV

Europeiska unionens officiella tidning

CA 11/1

---

Rättelse till utlysning av ledig tjänst som verkställande direktör för Europeiska järnvägsbyrån i Frankrike

(Tillfälligt anställd – lönegrad AD 14)

COM/2014/10345

(
  Europeiska unionens officiella tidning C 6 A av den 10 januari 2014
  )

(2014/C 11 A/01)

På sidan 4, under ”Ansökningsförfarande”, ska länken i det tredje stycket vara som följer:

”https://ec.europa.eu/dgs/human-resources/seniormanagementvacancies/”.

---
Exhibit 10.1


 


May 25, 2012


 


Mr. Barry Gilbert


Chief Executive Officer


IEC Electronics Corp.


105 Norton St.


P. O. Box 271


Newark, NY 14513-0271


 


Dear Barry:


 


Please reference our letter of December 28, 2011 (the “Agreement”)
related to Insero & Company CPAs, P.C. (the “Firm”) agreement to provide Outsource Accounting Services to IEC Electronics
Corp (“IEC”, or the “Company”).


 


We have mutually agreed that (i) the Firm will continue to make
Vincent A. Leo available to provide CFO services to the Company under the revised title, “Chief Financial Officer”,
and (ii) the first paragraph of the section of the Agreement titled, “Fee arrangements” shall be modified to read:


 


For the services described above, we will charge a fixed fee
of $25,000 per month. In the event other members of our team are engaged in the delivery of Services, we will discuss with you
in advance the impact on our fees.


 


All of the other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain
unchanged and in full force and effect.


 


Please feel free to contact me directly should you have any
questions, and if the above terms are acceptable to you, please execute and return a copy of this letter confirming your agreement
to the same.


 


Very truly yours,


 


/s/ Nancy E. Catarisano


Nancy E. Catarisano, CPA


Partner


Insero & Company CPAs, P.C


 


	 	Accepted and approved for:
	 	 
	 	IEC ELECTRONICS CORP.
	 	 
	 	 
	 	By: 	/s/ W. Barry Gilbert
	 	 	W. Barry Gilbert
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
	 	Dated:	May 25, 2012