alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| (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                  registrant. |
|-----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                October 26, 2007 | By:    | /s/                Ronald C. Schmeiser              |
|---------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|                                  |   | Ronald                C. Schmeiser                  |
|                                  |   | President,                Chief Executive           |
|                                  |   | Officer,                and Chief Financial Officer |

----
Exhibit 32.1

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                           PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

In connection with the Annual Report of Netventory Solutions, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended July 31, 2010 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ronald
C. Dela Cruz, Chief Executive Officer an Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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: November 15, 2010


/s/ Ronald C. Dela Cruz
------------------------------------
Ronald C. Dela Cruz
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 56 (Wednesday, March 25, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12874-12875]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-6591]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Public Comment Session for Cancer Patients' CAM Information Needs 
Comment Period

AGENCY: National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health 
(NIH), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

ACTION: Request for public comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In compliance with the provisions of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of 
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, for opportunity for public 
comments on proposed data collection projects, the National Institutes 
of Health (NIH), National Cancer Institute (NCI) will publish periodic 
summaries of proposed

[[Page 12875]]

projects to be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
for review and approval.

DATES: The Public Comment Session for Patients' CAM Information Needs 
public comment period will run from April 1, 2009 through May 30, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically at http://www.cancer.gov/cam.
    Background: Title: Public Comment Session for Patients' CAM 
Information Needs. Type of Information Collection Request: New. Need 
and Use of Information Collection: The National Cancer Institute's 
Office of Cancer Complementary and Alternative Medicine (OCCAM) strives 
to increase the amount of high-quality information on cancer and 
complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) available for cancer 
patients and their families. We would like to better understand CAM 
information needs from the viewpoints of cancer patients and health 
professionals who regularly interact with and serve cancer patients.
    Request for Comments: Written comments and/or suggestions from the 
public and affected agencies are invited on one or more of the 
following points: (a) Common issues, topics, or themes that emerge when 
discussing CAM with patients; (b) specific CAM therapies asked about 
most frequently; (c) ways media stories about CAM affect cancer 
patients; (d) resources patients use to get information about CAM; (e) 
common myths or misinformation patients have about CAM; and (f) cancer 
CAM information resources or services that NCI should provide to cancer 
patients.

    Dated: March 16, 2009.
Shea Buckman,
NCI OCCAM Communications and Outreach Manager, National Institutes of 
Health.
 [FR Doc. E9-6591 Filed 3-24-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
**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**

|                          |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|
|                          |   |   |
|                          |   |   |
| March                27, 2006 | By:    | /s/                Craig E. Peeples |
|                          |   | Craig                E. Peeples |
|                          |   | Interim                Chief Financial Officer |
|                          |   | (Principal                Financial and Accounting Officer) |

----

**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.**
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 29, 2020

b0420 

# Order

Clerk April 29, 2020

159358(44)

JAMES LOCKARD and MARY LOCKARD,

Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

v SC: 159358

COA: 341808

Macomb CC: 2016

- 002216

- NO

MAYCO INTERNATIONAL, LLC and

ALPHA TO OMEGA PROPERTIES, LLC,

Defendants

- Appellees,

and

TEE DEE ENTERPRISES, LLC,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for r econsideration of this Court’s December 23,

2019 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that

reconsideration of our previous order is warranted. MCR 7.311(G).
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 52 (Thursday, March 19, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 11765]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-5921]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,439]


Mazer Corporation, Creative Services Division, Dayton, OH; Notice 
of Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on March 2, 2009 in response to a worker 
petition filed on behalf of workers of Mazer Corporation, Creative 
Services Division, Dayton, Ohio.
    The petitioners have requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 11th day of March 2009.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-5921 Filed 3-18-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William Rivera, Appellant.

[718 NYS2d 830]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Tejada, J.), rendered April 14, 1999, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree and criminal impersonation in the first degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 2V4 to 4Vs years and 1 to 3 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was *309not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis upon which to disturb the jury’s determinations regarding the credibility of the witnesses or the reliability of the complainant’s identification of defendant.

Defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them. Concur — Tom, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Lerner and Buckley, JJ.
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 4- 16 33

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Ro be rt L. Bl an d ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt
v. O.P. & C.M.I.A. ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Weste rnDis tri ctof M is so ur i - Kan sa s C ity

__ __ __ __ __ __ Subm it te d: Sep te m

be r 18 , 20 14 Fi le d: Sep te m

be r 24 , 20 14 [Unpubl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re LOKEN, MURPHY, andGRUENDER, Circu itJu dg es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM. Ro be rt L. Bl an d ap pe al s t he di st ric t co urt's or de r de nyin g hi s m ot io n fo r 1 su m m ary jud gm en t an d gr an ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t fo r O.P. & C.M.I.A. (th e un io n)
. The Hon or ab le Sco tt O. Wrig ht , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e W es te rn 1 Dis tri ctof M is so ur i.Afte r de no vo rev ie w, s ee Torg e rs on v. Ci ty o f Ro ch es te r, 64 3 F.3 d 10 31 , 1 04 2- 43

(8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (en ba nc ), we affi rm . W e c o n c l u d e th at su m m ary jud gm en t fo r th e un io n was ap pr op ria te . As Bl an d fai le d to pr oduc e ev id en ce tha t th e un io n referr ed un io n m em

be rs ou ts id e th e pr ot ect ed cl as s fo r work durin g th e ti m e in qu es ti on , he fai le d to supp ort hi s Tit le VII cl ai m th at th e un io n "fa il [ed ] or refu se [d ] to refe r [h im ] fo r em pl oym en t" onacco un t o f hi s ra ce. 4 2 U.S.C. § 20 00 e-2 (c)( 2) ; c.f. Jack so n v . Uni te d P arce l Se rv ., Inc ., 64 3 F .3d10 81 , 10 86 (8t h C ir. 2 01 1)
. Acco rd in gl y , th e jud gm en t i s af firm ed . See 8 th Cir . R. 47 B.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2
-
FALL SPECIAL TERM,

CHARLESTON.

#### Snodgrass *v.*Copenhaver.

Submitted November 11, 1890.

Decided November 25, 1890.

Apiusat, — W AI VISE.

Where a case is tried by a jury and á verdict rendered and a motion made to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial, and such motion is overruled by the trial-court, the record must show that exception was taken or objection made to the overruling of such motion, or the appellate court will deem all errors to have been waived.

*H. McJEldoioney*for appellants

cited:

II Gratt. 172; 18 W. Ya. 598; 27 W. Ya. 770 ; 7 W. Ya. 246-251.

*172
      *W. S. Wiley, JE. B. Snodgrass*and *W. O. Snodgrass*for apx>ellee

cited:

31 W. Va. 363, 364; 29 *W.*Va. 777; 28 W. Va. 220; 26 W. Va. 274; 24 W. Va. 657, 658 pts 3, 4, Syll.; 26 W. Va. 150; Code c. 71 s. 11; 7 *W.*Va. 332, 233; 2 Tuck. Comm. 438, 440; 19 Gratt. 720; 6 Mnnf. 38; Code c. 73 s. 4. .

Holt, Judge:

This was an action of ejectment tried in the Circuit Court of "Wetzel county with verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. During the progress of the trial various exceptions were taken to rulings of the court and noted on the record; and a motion was made by defendants Copen-haver and Barkus to the court below to set aside the verdict of the jury and grant them anew trial which motion the court overruled. The record does uot show that any objection was made or exception taken to such rulings therefore this Court can not look into the assignment of errors contained in the bill of exceptions. *State*v. Hollins, 31 W. Va. 363 (6 S. E. Rep 923); *Brown*v. *Brown,*29 W. Va. 777 (2 S. E. Rep. 808); *Congrove*v. *Burdett,*28 W. Va. 220; *Danks*v. *Rodeheaver,*26 W. Va. 274; *State*v. *Thompson,*Id. 149; *State*v. *Phares,*24 W. Va. 657; *Riddle*v. *Core,*21 W. Va. 530; *Shrewsbury*v. *Miller,*10 W. Va. 115. The judgment of the Circuit Court is therefore affirmed.

AeRIRMED.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 October 27, 2020

b1019

Order 

Clerk

October 27, 2020

160984(75)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 160984

COA: 346401

Wayne CC: 17-007272-FH

RODNEY BROWN,

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s June 30, 2020 

order is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that reconsideration 

of our previous order is warranted. MCR 7.311(G).
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Thomas E. GARNER, Appellant.

WD 81544

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

ORDER FILED: June 25, 2019

Scott Walter, St. Louis, MO, Counsel for Appellant

Richard Starnes, Jefferson City, MO, Counsel for Respondent

Before Division Three: Thomas H. Newton, P.J., Anthony Rex Gabbert, and Edward R. Ardini, JJ.

**ORDER**

Per Curiam:

Mr. Thomas E. Garner appeals from his conviction by a Jackson County jury for driving while intoxicated. § 577.010, RSMo (2010 Supp.). The circuit court sentenced him, as a persistent offender, to thirty days of shock time, which he served, and to four years in the Department of Corrections, but suspended execution of sentence and placed him on probation for three years subject to certain conditions. For reasons stated in the memorandum provided to the parties, we affirm. Rule 30.25(b).
EXHIBIT
31.2





CERTIFICATIONS





I, John
Leper, certify that:





1. I have
reviewed this Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2009, of Asia Global
Holdings Corp.:





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





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





4. The
small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and
have:





(a)
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the small business issuer, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;





(b)
Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and





(c)
Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and





5. The
small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small
business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):





(a) All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and





(b) Any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over
financial reporting.





Date:
      September 8, 2009
            /s/ John LeperJohn
      Leper, Chief Executive Officer
#### Howard M. Jaslow, Appellant, v Pep Boys — Manny, Moe & Jack, et al., Respondents.

[719 NYS2d 881]

In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for breach of implied warranty and violation of General Business Law § 349, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County *612(Martin, J.), entered April 27, 2000, which granted the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7) to dismiss the complaint, and (2) a judgment of the same court, entered July 12, 2000, upon the order, dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the defendants are awarded one bill of costs.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action *(see, Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment *(see,*CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) to dismiss the cause of action to recover for an alleged violation of General Business Law § 349. It is well settled that dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3211 may be granted where “ ‘documentary evidence submitted conclusively establishes a defense to the asserted claims as a matter of law’ ” *(Held v Kaufman,*91 NY2d 425, 430-431; *Leon v Martinez,*84 NY2d 83, 88). Further, under CPLR 3211 “a trial court may use affidavits in its consideration of a pleading motion to dismiss” *(Rovello v Orofino Realty Co.,*40 NY2d 633, 635; *Nevin v Laclede Professional Prods.,*273 AD2d 453). The documentary evidence submitted by the defendants established that they did not engage in “deceptive acts or practices” as that term is used in General Business Law § 349, in conducting their business relative to the packaging and sale of the license plate guards in question.

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J. P., S. Miller, Goldstein and Smith, JJ., concur.
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Joseph DAVIS, Appellant.

No. ED 105817

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.

Filed: December 26, 2018

Jedd C. Schneider, 1000 West Nifong Blvd, Building 7, Suite 1000, Columbia, MO. 65203, for appellant.

Richard A. Starnes, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO. 65102, for respondent.

Before Roy L. Richter, P.J., Robert M. Clayton III, J., Angela T. Quigless, J.

***ORDER***

PER CURIAM.

Joseph Davis appeals from the judgment of the trial court convicting him of two counts of first-degree statutory sodomy following a bench trial. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. An extended opinion would *407have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 84.16(b) (2018).
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
 
 
 I, Michael D. Price, President and Chief Executive Officer of Platinum Underwriters Holdings, Ltd., hereby certify to the best of my knowledge and belief that this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Platinum Underwriters Holdings, Ltd.
 
 
 
 Date: April 30, 2010
/s/ Michael D. PriceBy: Michael D. PricePresident and Chief Executive Officer
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc., 

Complainant, 

v. 

FAA Docket No. 16-14-05 

Horry County Department of Airports, South Carolina 

Respondent. 

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME 

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is continuing its review ofDocket No. 16-14-05. 

At this time, FAA has determined that additional time is necessary to ensure a fair and complete 

hearing of the matter before the agency. 

Part 16 is intended to expedite substantially the handling and disposition of airport-related 

complaints. [See, Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted Airport Enforcement Proceedings, 

Final Rule, 61 Fed. Reg. 53998 (October 16, 1996).] The rule provides that an extension oftime 

may be necessary or appropriate for a fair and complete consideration of matters before the 

agency. See 14 CFR § 16.11(a). 

An extension of time is reasonable under the circumstances. Therefore, pursuant to 14 CFR 

§ I6.11(a), the Director does hereby extend the date that the Director's initial determination will 

be rendered in the above referenced case. The Director's Determination in this matter will be 

rendered on or about August 14, 2015. 

Randall S. Fiertz Date 

Director, Office of Airport 

Compliance and Management Analysis 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on June lOth, 2015, I caused to be placed in the United States mail (first class, postage 

paid) or personally delivered a true copy of the foregoing Order addressed to: 

Counsel for Respondent 

David Y. Bannard, Esq. 

Jeffrey R. Blease, Esq. 

Jaclyn V. Pilch, Esq. 

Foley and Lardner LLP 

111 Huntington A venue 

Boston, MA 02199 

Counsel for Complainant 

Robert G. Eastman 

Eastman & Associates, LLC 

P.O. Box 180 

Charleston, SC 29402 

Hand-Delivered to: 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket (AGC-600) 

FAA Office of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis, AC0-1 00 

~t:J!LJb Claudia RobertS" 

~ Office of Airport Compliance and Management 

Analysis
TENTH AMENDMENT OF AGREEMENT OF PURCHASE AND SALE
AND JOINT ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS




---



##### 



th
     Outside Closing Date




---



##### 



Miscellaneous
 Remainder of page intentionally left blank




---



##### 



SELLER:
    WEST OAHU MALL ASSOCIATES, LLC,
A Hawaii limited liability companyBy:
    /s/ Faraz DaneshgarName:
    Faraz DaneshgarTitle:BUYER:
    TNP SRT WAIANAE MALL, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability companyBy:
    /s/ Anthony W. ThompsonName:
    Anthony W. Thompson




---



##### 



CONSENT OF ESCROW HOLDER
  DATED:
    
    
    
    
    
    TITLE GUARANTY ESCROW SERVICES, INC(Escrow Holder)By:Its: