alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit
      32.2**





Certification
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 by the Chief Financial Officer,


as
      adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of VirtualScopics, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I Molly
      Henderson ,
      as
      Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of
      2002 to the best of my knowledge, that:





|(3) | The
              Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
              of
              the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




|(4) | The
              information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
              respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
              Company.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------









Date: May
      2,
      2006




/s/
      Molly Henderson


Molly
      Henderson


Chief
      Financial Officer and Vice President of Finance





This
      Certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
      purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
      amended.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R . 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 96-50676

Summary Calendar

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TIMOTHY ROBERTS,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. A-95-CA-29-4

_________________________________________________________________

April 20, 1998

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Timothy Roberts, federal prisoner # 60934-080, has a ppealed

the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to

vacate his sentence for a drug-trafficking offense.

The district court agreed with the magistrate judge’s findings

that Roberts’s plea agreement waived his right (1) to contest the

type of methamphetamine involved, and (2) to assert that he was

entitled to additional sentence credit fo r acceptance of-2-

responsibility on authority of U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b)(2). We find no

error in these rulings.

The district court held an evidentia ry hearing on Roberts’s

claims that his counsel was ineffective (1) for not asserting that

L-methamphetamine rather than D-methamphetamine was involved, and

(2) for not preserving Roberts’s right to take a direct appeal.

However, the court denied Roberts’s application for the appointment

of counsel to represent him at the hearing. This ruling requires

the reversal of the district court’s denial of relief on these

counsel-ineffectiveness claims. See United States v. Vasquez

, 7

F.3d 81, 83-86 (5th Cir. 1993) (a harmless error analysis is

inappropriate).

Roberts is not entitled to relief on his claims (1) that the

district court should not have denied his reque st for discovery;

(2) that the court failed to address some of his objections to the

magistrate judge’s report; and (3) that the district court should

have considered new claims alleged in his objections to the report

as amendments to his § 2255 motion.

The new claims are (1) denial of due process and (2)

ineffec tive assistance of counsel, based on Roberts’s assumption

that the probation officer did not receive his objections to the

presentence report until the day he was sentenced. These claims

lack merit because the record shows that the probation officer

received the objections nine days before Roberts was sentenced.

AFFIRMED in part; VACATED and REMANDED in part.-3-
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-08-00040-CR

______________________________

CHAD COLEMAN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

 

On Appeal from the 124th Judicial District Court

Gregg County, Texas

Trial Court No. 35803-B

 

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Chad Coleman has appealed from his open plea of guilty to the offense of driving while

intoxicated (DWI), subsequent offense. He was sentenced by the trial court to ten years'

confinement.

On appeal, Coleman contends his sentence is disproportionate to the crime, citing, among

other cases, Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991), and Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (1983).

To preserve such complaint for appellate review, Coleman must have presented to the trial court a

timely request, objection, or motion that stated the specific grounds for the desired ruling, or the

complaint must be apparent from the context. See TEX.R.APP. P. 33.1(a)(1); Harrison v. State, 187

S.W.3d 429, 433 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Williams v. State, 191 S.W.3d 242, 262 (Tex.

App.—Austin 2006, no pet.) (claims of cruel and unusual punishment must be presented in timely

manner); Nicholas v. State, 56 S.W.3d 760, 768 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, pet. ref'd)

(failure to complain to trial court that sentences were cruel and unusual waived claim of error for

appellate review). We have reviewed the records of the trial proceeding and the hearing on the

motion for new trial. No relevant request, objection, or motion was made. And, while this Court

has held that a motion for new trial is an appropriate way to preserve this type of claim for review

(see Williamson v. State, 175 S.W.3d 522, 523–24 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2005, no pet.); Delacruz

v. State, 167 S.W.3d 904 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2005, no pet.)), Coleman's motion for new trial
3

did not contain an allegation that the sentence was disproportionate to the offense. He has not

preserved such an issue for appeal.

Therefore, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: September 4, 2008

Date Decided: September 5, 2008

Do Not Publish
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of - )

)

K&K Industries, Inc. ) ASBCA No. 62444

)

Under Contract No. FA4418-15-C-00015 )

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: William A. Scott, Esq.

 Pedersen & Scott, P.C.

 Charleston, SC

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Jeffrey P. Hildebrant, Esq.

 Air Force Deputy Chief Trial Attorney

Kyle E. Gilbertson, Esq.

Jason R. Smith, Esq.

 Trial Attorneys

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: April 26, 2021

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 62444, Appeal of K&K Industries, 

Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: April 26, 2021

STEPHANIE CATES-HARMAN

Administrative Judge

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
Charissa A. SMALLS and Eugene C. Smalls v. WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al.

2160891

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

January 5, 2018

Affirmed.
# L_2018302EN.01011501.xml

| 28.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 302/115 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 302/115

---

Corrigendum to Commission Decision (EU) 2018/860 of 7 February 2018 on the Aid Scheme SA.45852 — 2017/C (ex 2017/N) which Germany is planning to implement for Capacity Reserve

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 153 of 15 June 2018
  )

On page 156, footnote 2:

for:

‘The European Commission points to the fact that a proposal for a new Regulation on the internal market on electricity (COM(2016)861 final of 30 November 2016) is currently being negotiated; however, the present measure remains uninfluenced by the future rules on the design of the electricity market.’,

read:

‘The Commission underlines that the present decision needs and will need to be interpreted in the light of relevant secondary legislation, including legislation that has not been adopted yet at the time of this decision. In this regard, the Commission would like to point to the proposal for a Regulation on the internal market for electricity (recast), COM (2016) 861, and in particular to the principles (such as the requirements regarding CO2 emission limits) which capacity mechanisms need to incorporate and apply, even if they are already in force and have been deemed as compliant with Union state aid rules, in line with the final text of the Regulation when it becomes effective.’.

---
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

CHAUNCEY DEANDRE REED,

 

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 State.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-19-00283-CR

Appeal from the

168th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 20150D00451)

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS Rachel Simons’ request for an extension of time within which to file 

the Reporter’s Record until September 13, 2020. NO FURTHER REQUESTS FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THE REPORTER’S RECORD WILL BE CONSIDERED 

BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that Rachel Simons, Official Court Reporter for the 168th District 

Court for El Paso County, Texas, prepare the Reporter’s Record and forward the same to this 

Court on or before September 13, 2020.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 14th day of August, 2020.

PER CURIAM

Before Alley, C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox, JJ.
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


L\_2017238EN.01005501.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 16.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 238/55 |

---

Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1398 of 25 July 2017 amending Regulation (EU) 2017/127 as regards certain fishing opportunities

(
[Official Journal of the European Union L 199 of 29 July 2017](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2017_199_R_TOC)
)

On page 3, recital 8:

for:

‘The prohibition under that recommendation no longer applied after that the end of that period.’,

read:

‘The prohibition under that recommendation no longer applied after the end of that period.’;

on page 3, Article 1, point 2:

for:

‘Annexes IA and ID to Regulation (EU) 2017/127 are amended ...’,

read:

‘Annexes IA, IB and ID to Regulation (EU) 2017/127 are amended ...’;

on page 7, the Annex, point 1(f), the opening wording:

for:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| ‘(f) | the fishing opportunities table for redfish in international waters of I and II is replaced by the following:’, |

read:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| ‘2. | In Annex IB to Regulation (EU) 2017/127, the fishing opportunities table for redfish in international waters of I and II is replaced by the following:’; |

on page 7, the Annex, point 2:

for:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| ‘2. | In Annex ID to Regulation (EU) 2017/127 ...’, |

read:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| ‘3. | In Annex ID to Regulation (EU) 2017/127 ...’. |

---
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BAKER 

&

HOSTETLER LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS 

ANGELES

- 1 -

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION TO REMAND CASE TO ALAMEDA SUPERIOR COURT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO 

DEFENDANT’S ABILITY TO RE-REMOVE CASE IN LIGHT OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT 

CASE NO.: 3:16-CV-07231-JST 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NYTASIA CALIP, on behalf of herself 

and all others similarly situated, and on 

behalf of the general public,

Plaintiff,

v.

CIOX HEALTH, LLC, a Georgia 

corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, 

inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:16-cv-07231-JST 

[Judge Jon S. Tigar, Dept. 9]

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

GRANTING STIPULATION TO 

REMAND CASE TO ALAMEDA 

SUPERIOR COURT WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE TO DEFENDANT’S 

ABILITY TO RE-REMOVE

CASE IN LIGHT OF PROPOSED 

SETTLEMENT

Action Removed: December 19, 2016

Action Filed: November 18, 2016

Trial Date: None Set
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BAKER 

&

HOSTETLER LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS 

ANGELES

- 2 -

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION TO REMAND CASE TO ALAMEDA SUPERIOR COURT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO 

DEFENDANT’S ABILITY TO RE-REMOVE CASE IN LIGHT OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT 

CASE NO.: 3:16-CV-07231-JST 

PROPOSED ORDER

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS ORDERED:

1. The instant Action is remanded to the Superior Court of the State of 

California, County of Alameda, for purposes of seeking approval of the global 

settlement reached between the Parties to this Action and the related matter, titled 

Rutledge, et al. vs. HealthPort Technologies, et al., pending in Alameda Superior 

Court, Case No. RG16835813 (“Rutledge”).

2. This order of remand is made without prejudice to Defendant, Ciox 

Health, LLC’s ability to re-remove this Action to this Court if, for any reason, the 

global settlement is not approved or consummated. 

DATED: ________________________ ________________________________

United States District Judge

January 12, 2018
EXHIBIT E 

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 1-5 Filed 01/24/17 Page 1 of 2
1

From: Sonal Mehta

Sent: Friday, January 20, 2017 5:15 PM

To: David Godkin; James Kruzer; bpf@criterionlaw.com

Cc: SERVICE-SIX4THREE

Subject: Six4Three, LLC v. Facebook, Inc., Case No. CIV533328

Counsel,

We have reviewed Plaintiff Six4Three LLC’s January 12, 2017 Response To Defendant Facebook Inc.'s Specially Prepared 

Interrogatories (Set Two) seeking the basis for Six4Three’s contentions with respect to the predicates for Section 

17200.  In its responses, Six4Three identifies a variety of state and federal laws that it contends that Facebook has 

violated, a number of which are facially inapplicable and for which we do not believe Six4Three could even assert a claim 

in good faith.  Before we take action with the court, we ask that Six4Three review its contentions with respect to the 

underlying state and federal laws referenced in these interrogatory responses and let us know by 5 pm ET on Monday 

which of the predicate laws listed in the interrogatory responses Six4Three intends to pursue as a basis for its 

unlawfulness claim. If we do not hear from you by then, we will understand that Six4Three maintains its contentions 

that Facebook has violated the all of the laws identified therein and plans to assert those laws as a basis for its 

unlawfulness claim in the case going forward, including to oppose summary judgment and thereafter, and we will 

proceed accordingly. 

Best,

Sonal N. Mehta | Durie Tangri LLP | smehta@durietangri.com | (415) 376-6427

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 1-5 Filed 01/24/17 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

The Partners
CarrAmerica Realty, L.P.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-53751) on Form S-3 of CarrAmerica Realty, L.P. of our report dated January
31, 2002, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of CarrAmerica Realty,
L.P. and subsidiary as of December 31, 2001 and 2000 and the related
consolidated statements of operations, partners' capital, and cash flows for
each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2001 and the
related schedule, which report appears in the December 31, 2001 annual report on
Form 10-K of CarrAmerica Realty, L.P.


/s/KPMG LLP

Washington, D.C.
March 22, 2002
Case 4:17-cv-00328-HSG Document 1 Filed 01/23/17 Page 1 of 3
Case 4:17-cv-00328-HSG Document 1 Filed 01/23/17 Page 2 of 3
Case 4:17-cv-00328-HSG Document 1 Filed 01/23/17 Page 3 of 3
Order entered October 10, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 14
- 00830
- CR JOSE ANGEL GONZALEZ, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 380
- 81581
- 08



### O RDER
We GRANT Official Court Reporter Charon Evans’s October 8, 2014 request for an extension of time to file the reporter’s record. The reporter’s record shall be due on or before November 21, 2014

. The clerk’s record has not been filed and is now overdue. We ORDER the Collin County District Clerk to file the clerk’s record within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order.
We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to transmit a copy of this order, by electronic transmission, to Charon Evans and to the Collin County District Clerk.
/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
Carl Dean KING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-5091

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 17, 2019.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**Certifications Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

**(18 U.S.C. Section 1350)**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of National Health Partners, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “report”), David M. Daniels, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Alex Soufflas, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do each hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), 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; and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

 

|        |   |   | /s/ David M. Daniels                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      |
|--------|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |   |  

 

 

David M. Daniels

 

 

 

Chief Executive Officer

 

 

 

 

 

 

/s/ Alex Soufflas

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alex Soufflas

 

 

 

Chief Financial Officer  

Date:  November 14, 2006 |
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





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of VirtualScopics, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I Molly Henderson, as
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 to the best of my knowledge, 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.




Date:
August 12, 2010





/s/ Molly HendersonMolly
      HendersonChief
      Business and Financial Officer and Senior Vice
  President





This
Certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN ANDREW LEON,

Plaintiff,

v.

GUZMAN,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-00328-HSG (PR) 

JUDGMENT

A judgment of dismissal without prejudice is entered.

IT IS SO ORDERED and ADJUDGED.

Dated:

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

12/10/2018
Hardy Devan TOLBERT, Jr. v. STATE

CR-16-1292

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

January 5, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.
Kenneth TOLBERT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D19-75

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed June 18, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Joshua C. YALE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-3551

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 31, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALBERT DYTCH,

Plaintiff,

v.

PEET'S OPERATING COMPANY, INC., et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-00410-EDL 

ORDER

The parties hereto, by their counsel, having advised the Court that they have agreed to a 

settlement of this cause, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is dismissed without prejudice, 

with leave to reinstate on or before June 15, 2017 for the purpose of proceeding with the litigation 

in the event a settlement has not been completed prior to that date. In the event a request to 

reinstate the case is not filed and served on opposing counsel on or before the foregoing date, the 

dismissal will be with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 27, 2017

______________________________________

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge