alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEXAS ELPASO, TEXAS
YOLANDA JEFF ERSON, Ap pe lla nt,
v. RAYMOND JEFFE RSON, Appellee
. § § § § § § No . 0 8- 08 -0 00 21 -C V

Appea l from the 366th J udicial District Court of Col lin County , T e xas (TC# 366-54021-06)

M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION Pending be fore the Court is Appellee’ s motion t o dismiss the appe al for w ant of prosec ution. Finding that Appellant has not filed a brief, w e dismiss the appea l for wa nt of prosec ution. Appellant filed he r notice of appea l on Dece mber 7, 2007. The Clerk’s re cord w as filed on J anuar y 24, 2008. A re porter’ s rec ord has not bee n filed. Ther efor e, Appe llant’s brief w as due to be f

iled by Fe bruar y 25, 2008. See T EX .R.A PP .P. 38.6(a). B y letter dated April 7, 2008, the cler k of this Court notified Appellant in writing of the Court’s intent to dismi ss the case for lack of prosec ution because her brief wa s past due and no motion for e x tension of time had bee n filed. On April 14, 2008, Appellee f iled a motion to dism iss the appea l for wa nt of prosec ution. Appellant has not re sponded to the Court’s notice, nor to Appellee’ s motion. This Court possesses the authority to dismi ss an appe al for w ant of prose cution when the
a pp e lla nt h a s f a ile d to fi le he r b ri e f i n th e tim e pr e sc ri be d, and do e s n ot p ro vid e a

re a so na ble explanation for the fa ilure. T EX .R.A PP .P. 38 .8 (a)( 1) ; El izo nd o v . Ci ty of S an An ton io , 975-2-

S.W .2d 61, 63 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 1998, no pet.) . There fore , we grant Appe llee’s motion and dismiss thi s appea l for wa nt of prosec ution pursuant to Texas Rul es of Appe llate Proce dure 38.8(a) (1) a

nd 42.3(b).

J une 5, 2008 DAVID WEL L I NGTONCHEW, C hief Just ice B e f o r e C h e w , C
. J. , M c C l ur e , a n d C ar r , JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.1

               CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned  hereby certifies in his capacity as Chief Executive  Officer of
Belrose Capital Fund LLC (the "Fund"), that:

(a)  the  Quarterly  Report  of the  Fund on Form  10-Q  for the  quarter  ended
     September 30, 2003 (the "Report")  fully complies with the  requirements of
     Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(b)  the information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
     respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of the Fund
     for such period.



Date:  November 10, 2003



                                /s/ Thomas E. Faust Jr.
                                -----------------------
                                Thomas E. Faust Jr.
                                Chief Executive Officer
aaxi8kex102_372011.htm


 








 


EXHIBIT 10.2


 


 


Accelerated Venture Partners, LLC


1840 Gateway Drive, Suite 200


Foster City, CA 94404


 


 


March 7, 2011


 


 


Accelerated Acquisitions XI, Inc.


1840 Gateway Drive, Suite 200


Foster City, CA 94404


 


Re: Tender of shares for cancellation


 


Gentlemen:


 


By this letter, the undersigned tenders for cancellation 1,500,000 of the 5,000,000 shares of common stock par value $0.0001 of Accelerated Acquisitions, XI, Inc. (the “Company”) which it holds. Following the cancellation of such shares and the issuance of consulting shares Accelerated Venture Partners, LLC will hold a total of 3,000,000 of the Company’s Common Shares.


 


Sincerely,


 


ACCELERATED VENTURE PARTNERS, LLC


 


 


By: /s/ Timothy Neher


 


Timothy Neher, Managing Member
Joseph SHIELDS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. ED 106253

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FOUR.

Filed: September 11, 2018

Amy E. Lowe, St. Louis, MO, for Plaintiff/Appellant.

Nathan J. Aquino, Jefferson City, MO, for Defendant/Respondent.

Before Kurt S. Odenwald, P.J., Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., J., and Colleen Dolan, J.

***ORDER***

PER CURIAM.

*523Joseph Shields ("Movant") appeals the motion court's judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief and finding that Movant failed to demonstrate that his plea counsel was ineffective. Finding that Movant has failed to demonstrate that the motion court clearly erred in denying his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing, we affirm the judgment of the motion court.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, we have provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).
CHARLESTON.

#### Hamilton *v.*Ammons.

Submitted June 6, 1904

Decided November 15, 1904.

1. Syllabus Appkoved.

Syllabus in *Eldon*v. *Hamrick,*46 S. E. 102>9, approved and re-affirmed, (p. lál).

*191Error to Circuit Court, Wirt County.

Action by J. Y. Hamilton against Z. F. Ammons. Judgment' for plaintiff. Defendant brings error.

*Dismissed.*

C. Poweli, and B. L. Bütcheíl, for plaintiff in error. .

C. H. Deeds, for defendant in error.

McWhoRteR, Judge :

This is a writ of error and *supersedeas*from the final judgment of the circuit court of Marion county, rendered on the 26th day of May, 1901, involving the title to the office of mayor of the town of Fairview, a municipal corporation in the county of Marion, for which office J. Y. Hamilton was contestant, and Z. F. Ammons was respondent or contestee., Upon submission ■of this case, the following stipulation was filed:

> *“J.*Y. Hamilton, defendant in error, v. Z. F. Ammons, plaintiff in error. Writ of error and *supersedeas.*From the circuit court of Marion county. The undersigned, C. H. Leeds, attorney for the defendant in error, and B. L. Butcher and C. Powell, attorneys for the plaintiff in error, in the above styled action or suit, hereby stipulate and agree that the writ of error in this suit or action involves a contest as to the office of mayor of the town of Fairview, a municipal corporation, in the county of Marion; and that during the pendency of this writ of error the term of said office has ended. And that this stipulation may be filed in the Supreme Court of Appeals in lieu of any argument or brief on the part of either of us. Dated this 26th day of May, 1904. C. H. Leeds, attorney for J. Y. Hamilton, defendant in error. B. L. Butcher, G. Powell, attorneys for Z. F. Ammons, plaintiff in error.”

This case comes clearly within the purview of *Elbon,*v. *Hamrick,*46 S. E. 1029, and cases and authorities there cited, therefore the writ of error will be dismissed without costs.

*Dismissed.*
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION OF 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, Narsi Narayanan, certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of ClearOne Communications, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2009, 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of ClearOne Communications, Inc.











Date:  October 13, 2009
By:
/s/ Narsi NarayananNarsi NarayananVice President of Finance
































A signed original of the written statement above required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to ClearOne Communications, Inc. and will be retained by ClearOne Communications, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5181 

To amend the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 

to limit the number of, and require reporting relating to, all subcontracts 

under contracts with the Federal Government. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 25, 2006 

Mr. JINDAL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Government Reform 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Property and Administrative Services 

Act of 1949 to limit the number of, and require reporting 

relating to, all subcontracts under contracts with the 

Federal Government. 

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 ‘‘Federal Contract 

5 Transparency Act’’. 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5181 IH

1 SEC. 2. LIMITATIONS AND REPORTING RELATING TO SUB2 CONTRACTS UNDER FEDERAL CONTRACTS. 

3 (a) REQUIREMENTS.—The Federal Property and Ad4 ministrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 251 et seq.) 

5 is amended by adding at the end the following new section: 

6 ‘‘SEC. 318. LIMITATIONS AND REPORTING RELATED TO 

7 SUBCONTRACTS. 

8 ‘‘(a) LIMITATIONS ON SUBCONTRACTING TIERS.— 

9 Any contract awarded by an executive agency shall pro10 hibit the contractor from having more than three tiers of 

11 subcontracts under the contract. 

12 ‘‘(b) WAIVER OF LIMITATION.—The head of an exec13 utive agency may waive the limitation in subsection (a) 

14 with respect to a contract if the contractor requests the 

15 waiver and— 

16 ‘‘(1) the head of the agency determines it is 

17 necessary to facilitate emergency response by the 

18 Federal Government during a major disaster or 

19 emergency declared to exist by the President under 

20 the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emer21 gency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.); or 

22 ‘‘(2) the contractor justifies the waiver in writ23 ing and the head of the agency determines the jus24 tification is adequate and makes the justification 

25 and the agency’s determination available upon re26 quest to Congress. 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
3 

•HR 5181 IH

1 ‘‘(c) REPORT RELATING TO SUBCONTRACTS.—Any 

2 contract awarded by an executive agency shall require the 

3 contractor to track and report to the agency all sub4 contracts, at any tier, awarded by the contractor. The in5 formation in the reports shall be available upon request 

6 to Congress.’’. 

7 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

8 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to contracts entered 

9 into by executive agencies after the expiration of the 30- 

10 day period beginning on the date of the enactment of this 

11 Act. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32.2

                               TELVUE CORPORATION

                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                              18 U.S.C. sec. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Annual Report of TelVue Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John Fell, Treasurer
and Controller of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sec. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

Date: April 15, 2011                /s/ John Fell
                                    -------------
                                    John Fell
                                    Treasurer-Controller
J
~ "SfD ST,yJ

~ iS UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
o e WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

0 4 PROS

~ G ~ 2 

### JUL 2 3 2013

OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION 

### Mr. J. R. Stroble Director, National TRU Program Carlsbad Field Office Department of Energy P.O. Box 3090 Carlsbad, NM 88221
Dear Mr. Stroble: We received your letter dated July 23, 2013, requesting the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) concurrence on the draft recertification memo the Carlsbad Field Office (CBFO) plans to issue to the Central Characterization Project (CCP) at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). We concur with the draft recertification memo to recertify ORNL's TRU waste characterization program with the following stipulation. Since July 2011, ORNL's TRU waste characterization program has been suspended. Therefore, EPA must be notified when ORNL-CCP again begins to characterize TRU waste for disposal at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). The notification must be sent three months ahead of the first anticipated waste shipment for WIPP disposal. At that time, EPA will conduct a continued compliance inspection to verify that the ORNL-CCP is adequately implementing the EPA-approved waste characterization components for waste characterization and tracking purposes. In accordance with EPA regulations at 40 CFR 194.8 (69 FR 42571-42583), on August 21, 2008, EPA approved ORNL's contact-handled (CH) transuranic (TRU) waste characterization program (See EPA Air pocket No. A-98-49, II-A4-103) and on February 3, 2009, EPA approved ORNL's remote-handled (RH) TRU waste characterization program (See EPA Air pocket No. A-98-49, II-A4-111).Thank you for providing us with an opportunity to review the draft recertification memo for ORNLCCP. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Rajani Joglekar (202-343-9462) or Ed Feltcorn (202-343-9422). Sincerely,



# ~ Z
Edward Feltcorn Center for Waste Management and Regulations

Intemet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov Recycled/Recyclable o Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100°/, Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Papercc: (Electronic Distribution)

Alton Harris, DOE HQ EM Joe Franco, CBFO Norma Castaneda, CBFO NTP Marcus Pinzel, CBFO NTP Tom Morgan, CBFO NTP Lloyd Generette, EPA Region 4 Trais Kliphuis, NMED Site Documents, CBFO Jon Edwards, EPA Tom Peake, EPA Raymond Lee, EPA
Exhibit 32.2

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Michael A. Gerlich,
Chief Financial Officer of Gastar Exploration, Ltd. (the Company), hereby certify that the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three and six months ended June 30, 2007 (the Report), filed by the Company
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 fully complies with the requirements of that section.

I further certify that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

Date: August 14, 2007



/s/ MICHAEL A. GERLICHMichael A. GerlichChief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ramon Santos, Appellant.

[718 NYS2d 878]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Fisher, J.), rendered April 7, 1999, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the trial court usurped the jury’s fact-finding function is without merit. The trial court’s statement that no evidence had been presented that the defendant had the legal authority to sell cocaine was factually accurate. Moreover, that statement was consistent with the presumption that the sale of narcotics is unlawful *(see, People v Rodriguez, 58*AD2d 612; *People v Strong,*47 AD2d 798, *affd*42 NY2d 868), as well as with the defendant’s right to present evidence of any legal authority he might have had to sell cocaine *(see,*Public Health Law § 3396 [1]; *People v Rodriguez, supra).*Additionally, the defendant was not prejudiced by the trial court’s remark, since the trial court repeatedly instructed the jurors that their recollection of the evidence was controlling. Altman, J. P., Goldstein, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
Ernest CANADA, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. ED 105229

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FOUR.

Filed: March 20, 2018

Maleaner R. Harvey, 1010 Market St. Ste. 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101, For Plaintiff/Appellant.

Karen L. Kramer, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, For Defendant/Respondent.

Before Colleen Dolan, P.J., Mary K. Hoff, J., and Lisa S. Van Amburg, J.

***ORDER***

PER CURIAM.

Ernest Canada ("Movant") appeals the motion court's judgment denying certain claims for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Movant offers four points on appeal. Movant alleges in all four points that the motion court erred in denying his Rule 29.15 motion because he proved by a preponderance of the evidence that his trial counsel was ineffective and that he was prejudiced by said ineffective assistance. Specifically, Movant alleges that his trial counsel was ineffective by 1) failing to request a court-ordered psychological evaluation of the victim; 2) failing to object and failing to request a mistrial when the trial court removed a juror for cause; 3) failing to present available evidence that Movant suffered from impotence at the time of the charged crimes; and 4) offering into evidence and failing to redact a video interview of Victim conducted at the Children's Advocacy Center of St. Louis, where Victim made additional allegations of sexual abuse against Movant and stated that Movant wrote letters and cards apologizing to Victim for the sexual abuse. We affirm the judgment of the motion court.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, we have provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).
<page>
EXHIBIT 32.01

CERTIFICATION OF PRESIDENT 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 Morgan Stanley
Charter Campbell L.P. (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Walter Davis, President of Demeter Management
Corporation, the general partner of the Partnership, 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:
(1)	The Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934; and
(2)	The information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the
Partnership.









By:   /s/ Walter Davis

Name:		Walter Davis
Title:	President of Demeter Management Corporation,
			the general partner of the Partnership

Date:		November 13, 2008
##### 



EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the
undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as an officer of Monarch Community
Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) that the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form
10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2003 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and that the information contained in such report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company at the end of
such period and the results of
operations of the Company for such period.

|                      |  |      |  |                                      
|--------------------- |  | ---- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: August 14, 2003 |  | By:  |  | /s/ John R. Schroll                  
|                      |  |      |  |                                      
|                      |  |      |  | John R. Schroll                      
|                      |  |      |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                      |  |      |  | (Principal Executive Officer)        
|                     
|Date: August 14, 2003 |  | And: |  | /s/ William C. Kurtz                 
|                      |  |      |  |                                      
|                      |  |      |  | William C. Kurtz                     
|                      |  |      |  | Senior Vice President and Treasurer  
|                      |  |      |  | (Principal Financial Officer)        

Page 16
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connectionwith the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of East Kansas Agri-Energy, LLC (the“Company”) for the period ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, William Pracht, ChiefExecutive 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:

 

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

 

2.                                       The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   |   /s/  William Pracht        |
|--------|----------------------------------------|
|   | President  and Chief Executive Officer |
|   | Dated:  August 16, 2004                |

 

----
exv10w72






Exhibit 10.72




TENNECO INC. THREE YEAR

LONG TERM PERFORMANCE UNIT AWARD AGREEMENT

(2007-2009 Performance Period)




December [__], 2009




Dear Participant:




          Pursuant to the provisions of the Tenneco Inc. (the “Company”) 2006 Long-Term Incentive Plan,
you were granted an Award (the “Award”) of Long Term Performance Units on [                    ], [___] pursuant
to a Long Term Performance Unit Award Agreement (the “Original Award Agreement”). The Award covers
the three calendar years 2007, 2008 and 2009 (the “Performance Period”). Capitalized terms not
otherwise defined in this letter shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Original Award
Agreement.




          Pursuant to paragraph 3 of the Original Award Agreement, the Committee may amend the Award at
any time in its sole discretion to exercise downward discretion in the amount payable under the
Award if the Committee determines that the payout yielded or that would be yielded by this Award
for the Performance Period does not accurately reflect the Company’s performance for the
Performance Period. The purpose of this letter is to so amend the
Award.




          This letter amends the Award so that, for purposes of calculating the amount (if any) payable
to you in respect of the Award, the term “Three Year Annualized TSR” shall mean the lesser of (i)
the Three Year Annualized TSR calculated pursuant to the definition thereof in the Original Award
Agreement and (ii) the Three Year Annualized TSR calculated as follows:





“Three Year Annualized TSR” means the amount (expressed as a percentage) equal to the
Company’s compound annualized total shareholder return over the Performance Period;
provided, that, the calculation shall be made using an ending price for the Company’s common
stock equal to the closing sales price of a share of the Company’s common stock on the New
York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) on the last business day of the Performance Period and using a
starting price for the Company’s common stock equal to the closing sales price of a share of
the Company’s common stock on the NYSE on the first business day of the Performance Period.



          Except as expressly set forth herein, all terms of the Original Award Agreement remain in full
force and effect and are not modified by this letter.




TENNECO INC.