alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES *v.*DREW.

error to the circuit court of the united states for the WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA.

No. 1061.

Argued January 28, 29,1889. —

Decided May 13, 1889.

*United States*v. *Jones, ante,*1, affirmed and applied to this case.

The case is stated in tHe opinion.

*Mr. Solicitor General*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. James L. 'Bradford*for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice Bradley

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a suit in equity brought against the United States to establish the claim of the plaintiff to have land warrants or certificates of location for one thousand and fifteen acres of land made out and delivered to him by way of indemnity and satisfaction for a certain concession or grant of land made by the Spanish governor to one Francisco Adante, in 1788, the land itself having been surveyed as public land by the United States and disposed of to purchasers. The claim is made under the provisions of the act of June 2d, 1858, entitled “An act to provide for the location of certain confirmed private land claims of the State of Missouri, and for other purposes,” 11 Stat. 294, the claim in question having been confirmed by act of Congress passed February 28, 1823, 3 Stat. 727. The suit is subject to the same objections which exist in relation to the suits of Carrie Jones and others, just disposed of, and the same decree must be made as in those cases.

*The decree of the Circuit Court is*reversed, *am,d the cause*rema/nded, *with instructions to dismiss the originad petition or hill.*

Mr. Justice Miller and Mr. Justice Field dissented, for the reasons stated in their dissent in *United States*v. *Jones.*
Exhibit 32.2



COMPUTER ACCESS TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION



CERTIFICATION



In connection with the annual report of Computer Access Technology Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31,
2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Carmine J. Napolitano, President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18,
Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States of America Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



(1)    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.



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 the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



This
Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



|      |  |               |  |  |  |     |  |                                                                       
|----- |  | ------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------
|      |  |               |  | 
|Date: |  | March 2, 2004 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/    CARMINE J. NAPOLITANO                                          
|      |  |               |  |  |  |     |  | Carmine J. Napolitano President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
<PAGE>   1



                                                                   EXHIBIT 11.1

                                  Tekgraf, Inc.


                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                          1999              1998
                                                          ----              ----

<S>                                                <C>                   <C>
FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30:

Net loss                                           $(6,915,685)          $  (267,664)
Basic and diluted weighted average shares
  outstanding                                        6,161,664             6,161,664

Net loss per share                                 $     (1.12)          $     (0.04)


FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30:

Net income (loss)                                  $(7,199,772)          $    36,223
Basic and diluted weighted average shares
  outstanding                                        6,161,664             5,797,727

Net income (loss) per share                        $     (1.17)          $      0.01
</TABLE>



                                       17
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 81 (Thursday, April 26, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 20993]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10288]


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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Ocean Transportation Intermediary License Revocations

    The Federal Maritime Commission hereby gives notice that the 
following Ocean Transportation Intermediary licenses have been revoked 
pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. app. 
1718) and the regulations of the Commission pertaining to the licensing 
of Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, effective on the corresponding 
dates shown below:
    License Number: 16629N.
    Name: Cargomania International, Inc.
    Address: 161-15 Rockaway Blvd., Suite 102, Jamaica, NY 11434.
    Date Revoked: March 15, 2001.
    Reason: Failed to maintain a valid bond.

    License Number: 13141N.
    Name: North Star Airlines, Inc. d/b/a North Star Ocean Services.
    Address: Cargo Bldg., 68 JFK International Airport, Jamaica, NY 
11430.
    Date Revoked: March 17, 2001.
    Reason: Failed to maintain a valid bond.

Sandra L. Kusumoto,
Director, Bureau of Consumer Complaints and Licensing.
[FR Doc. 01-10288 Filed 4-25-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
EXHIBIT 32.2





                             AMERICAN SKIING COMPANY


                  SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 906 CERTIFICATIONS

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of American Skiing Company (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 24, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Helen
E. Wallace, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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 Company.


Date:  December 8, 2004

                                     By:   /s/ Helen E. Wallace
                                        --------------------------------
                                        Helen E. Wallace
                                        Senior Vice President, Chief
                                        Financial Officer
                                       (Principal Financial Officer)
# USCIS Expands myProgress to Form I-485 and Form I-821

11/21/2023

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services announced today that we are expanding myProgress (formerly known as personalized processing times) to Form I-821, Application for Temporary Protected Status, and Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status. myProgress will initially only be available for family-based or Afghan special immigrant I-485 applicants.

myProgress provides applicants with access, in their online account, to personalized estimates of their wait time for major milestones and actions on their case, including their final case decision. While estimates are based on case type and historical patterns, they are not a guarantee of timing, and cannot take into consideration all possible unique application processing factors.

myProgress was implemented to improve customer experience by proactively addressing applicant concerns as to the status of their benefit requests while waiting for a decision, demonstrating our commitment both to supporting the Executive Order 14058 on Transforming Federal Customer Experience and Service Delivery to Rebuild Trust in Government Mandates, and to reducing the need for case status inquiries. This effort is part of USCIS’ Strategic Plan to enhance the experience of the people we serve. We anticipate that the expansion of myProgress will increase transparency in the adjudication process.

In addition to Form I-485 and Form I-821, myProgress is available for applicants with a USCIS online account who file Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization; Form I-131, Application for Travel Document; Form N-400, Application for Naturalization; Form I-90, Application to Replace Permanent Resident Card; or Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative.

To view myProgress, applicants must first create a USCIS online account or log into their online account and select their pending application. If they filed online or linked one of the applicable forms to their online account using an online access code, they will see a myProgress tab for their application. The myProgress tab displays the estimated wait time until their case has a decision, along with a checkmark beside milestones as they are completed:
                - Confirmation that the application was received;
                - Movement of the application through preprocessing and adjudicative steps; and
                - Case decision.

Applicants will still need to visit the public Check Case Processing Times webpage to determine if they are eligible to file an Outside of Normal Processing Times service request.

11/21/2023

0 / 2000To protect your privacy, please do not include any personal information in your feedback. Review our Privacy Policy.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kermit Glendy, Also Known as Robert Mullins, Appellant.

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Maraño, J.), rendered March 28, 1980, as amended April 27, 1983, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment, as amended, is affirmed.

We find no merit to the defendant’s contention that his conviction should be reversed based upon the absence of certain transcripts of his trial and pretrial hearings. The court stenographers had no duty, according to the law at that time, to retain the original stenographic notes more than two years after the defendant’s conviction (Judiciary Law § 297) and the unavailability of the notes did not result from any fault of the People but rather from the defendant’s willful and unexcused absence from the jurisdiction *(see, People v Mirenda,*57 NY2d 261; *People v Suren,*131 AD2d 896).

We further find that testimony taken at the reconstruction hearing sufficiently demonstrated that the defendant had *598voluntarily forfeited his right to appear at his trial by absconding after the first day of the trial *(see, People v Sanchez, 65*NY2d 436). Under such circumstances, it is of no consequence that the records available do not reflect that the defendant was warned that he would be tried in absentia if he failed to appear as, under the circumstances, no such warning was required *(see, Taylor v United States,*414 US 17; *People v Smith,*68 NY2d 725; *People v Sanchez, supra).*

Moreover, during the reconstruction hearing ordered by this court, the Trial Judge stated that he would not have started a trial without first giving *Parker*warnings *(see, People v Parker,*57 NY2d 136) and that he was certain he gave the warnings at some time prior to the trial. He added that he remembered that the defense counsel had made a motion requesting that the court not try the defendant in absentia, but that he had denied the motion because the defendant had been warned that he would be tried in absentia if he absconded.

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Brown, Kunzeman and Hooper, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1736
NORTON M. BOWMAN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States Tax Court. (Tax Ct. No. 95-6078) Submitted: May 29, 1998 Decided: June 18, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Norton M. Bowman, Appellant Pro Se. Ann Belanger Durney, Karen Deborah Utiger, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Norton M. Bowman appeals from the tax court’s final decision determining a deficiency with respect to his 1988 federal income tax liability. Our review of the record and the tax court’s opiniondiscloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the tax court. (U.S. Tax Ct. Mar. 4, 1997). We dispensewith 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.

AFFIRMED
##### 



Exhibit 99.1

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

In connection with the Annual Report of Embraer  Empresa Brasileira de
Aeronáutica S.A. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2002, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), I, Maurício Novis Botelho, President and Chief
Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the
best of my knowledge:



| | (i)  |  | the Report fully complies with the requirements
of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934; and                          
| | ---- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | (ii) |  | the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.

By:/s/ MAURÍCIO NOVIS BOTELHO
Name: Maurício Novis Botelho
Title:   President and Chief Executive Officer

June 30, 2003
THEATTORNEYGENEECAL 

OF’ TEXAS 

March 1, 1962 

Honorable Bill Pemberton Opinion No. W-1268 

County Attorney 

Hunt County Re: Does Article 286, V.P.C., 

Greenville, Texas apply to keepers of drug 

stores as set out in 

Dear Mr. Pemberton: Article 287, V,P.C.? 

We have your letter requesting an opinion on the 

following question: 

“Does Article 286s. Vernon’s Annotated 

Penal Code which concerns the prohlbltlon 

of the sale of goods on both the two oon~- 

secutlve days of Saturday and Sunday within 

the State of Texas apply to keepers of 

drug stores as set out in Article 287 VAPASC 

of the State of Texas?” 

Seation 1 of Senate Bill 35, Flrst Called Session, 

57th Legislature (Art* 286a, V.P.C.), lists the items which 

cannot be sold on the two consecutive days of Saturday and 

Sunday. Nowhere within the enumerated items do we find 

drugs, medicines, foods, or newspapers, Attorney General’s 

Opinion No, O-2293 sets out the items that drug stores are 

privileged to sell. A copy of that opinion Is attached 

hereto, We affirm that opinion herein. Under the provisions of Article 287, Vernon18 Penal Code, keepers of drug 

stores are exempt from Article 286, VIPcCc, whioh prohibits 

the sale, barter, or opening of a place of business for the 

purpose of traffio or public amusement. 

Inasmuch as Section 5a of Article 286a specifically 

does not repeal Articles 286 and 287, we hold that drug 

stores do not come within Its prohibition Insofar as dtWgS, 

medicines, foods, or newspapers are concerned, and that 

Articles 287 and 286 apply to that business, 
Hon. Bill Pemberton Page 2 ' Opinion NO* ~~-1268 

SUMMARY 

. AxvtioZe g86as VemonCs Penal CodeS does 

not cover 06 apgCly to keepers of drug stores& 

Very truly yours, 

BY 

Norman V. Suarez 

Asslstant Attorney General 

NVS:sh 

Enclosure 

APPROVED: 

OPINION CO-E 

w,, V. Geppert, Chairman 

Charles Hewel 

ISan Williams 

Jim Broadhurat 

REVIEWED FOR TKE ATTORNIEY GENERAL 

BY: Houghton Brownlee&,
<PAGE>


                                                                 EXHIBIT 32(b)

  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, James M. Sullivan, Chief Financial Officer of Solutia Inc. (the "Company"),
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

         (1)      the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the
                  quarterly period ended March 31, 2007 (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.

Dated: May 7, 2007

                                               /s/ James M. Sullivan
                                               ---------------------
                                               James M. Sullivan
                                               Chief Financial Officer

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 Solutia Inc. and will
be retained by Solutia Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 13.1



Certification

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with the annual report of Metal Storm Limited for the period ending December
31, 2003, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof under cover of Form 20-F (the Report), I, Charles A. Vehlow, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|1. | The Report fully complies with the applicable 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: July 15, 2004



By:

/s/ CHARLES A. VEHLOWName:

Charles A. VehlowTitle:

Chief Executive Officer
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of ImproveNet, Inc., a Delaware
corporation ( "ImproveNet") on Form 10-QSB, for the period ended September 30,
2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report") I, Jeffrey I. Rassas, Co-Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,
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, as amended; and

     2.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of ImproveNet.

ImproveNet, Inc.

/s/ Jeffrey I. Rassas
----------------------------------
Jeffrey I. Rassas
Co-Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Dated: November 15, 2004
Exhibit 15.1



|     |  |                 
|---- |  | ----------------
|LOGO |  | YEHEZKEL CPA LLC

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File No. 333-146265) and Forms F-3 (File Nos.
333-114504 and 333-130632) of ViryaNet Ltd. of our report dated April 29, 2013, relating to the financial statements of the Company included in this Annual Report of ViryaNet Ltd. on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2012

/s/ Yehezkel CPA LLC

April 29, 2013
NO. 07-04-0109-CV IN THE COUR

T OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVEN TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL D APRIL 20, 2004

______________________________ IN THE INTEREST O F T.R.M. AND H.S.M., C HILDREN

_________________________________ FROM THE 2 23RD DIST RICT COURT OF GRAY COUNT Y; NO. 31036; HON ORABLE LEE WATERS, JUDGE

_______________________________ Before QUINN and REAVIS an d CAMPBELL, JJ. MEMORA NDUM OPIN ION Appellant

Shanno n Luste r, appe aring pro se , filed wi th the Dist rict Clerk of Gray Coun ty, in Cause No. 31036 pending in the 223rd District Court of that coun ty, a document entitled Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 306a(5) Motion. The District Clerk forward ed th e motion to this court, considering that it could be interprete d as a bona fid e atte mpt to invoke this court’ s jurisdi ction. See Verburgt v. Dorner , 959 S.W.2d 615 (Tex. 1997). W hile the motion did not meet the requir

ements for a notice of appeal, it contai ned a notation “Notice of Appeal ” at the bottom of each page. The relief requested i n the motion was of a nature to be addr

essed by the trial cour

t, not an appellate court. The motion did not s tate-2-

the date of the judgment or order appealed from or state cl early that appellant desi red to appeal. Tex. R. App. Proc. 25.1(d) . Additional information from the Distric t Clerk i ndicated thatno appealable order of the ty pe referred toin the motion had been entered by the trial court in that cause n umber, and further i ndicat ed that the trial court had addre ssed the relief expr

essly r equested in th e motion.
The motion was received by this court on March 11, 2004. By letter dated March 26, 2004, the clerk of this c ourt directe d appellant to file, within ten days, a respon se stating the date of the judg ment or order ap pealed from and contai ning the informat ion required by Rule 2 5.1(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Appellant was adv ised that failure to respond could result in dismissal of the app eal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3. That date has passed an d no response hasbeen received.
All parties have had more than ten day s’ notice that

di sm issal coul d result from appellant’s failure to comply with the rules and this court’s orders. Tex . R. App. Proc. 42.3(c). Ac cordingly , the appeal is dismissed.

James T. Campbell Justice