alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 on Form 20-F of ViryaNet Ltd. (the Registrant) for the year ended
December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 29, 2008 (the Report), the undersigned, Menahem Ish-Shalom, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certifies, 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 our 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 Registrant.
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|    |  |                        
|--- |  | -----------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Memy Ish-Shalom    
|    |  | Memy Ish-Shalom        
|    |  | Chief Executive Officer
|    |  | September 29, 2008     

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7448
MICHAEL EDWARD KING, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-02-82-2) Submitted: November 21, 2002 Decided: December 4, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Edward King, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen R. McCullough, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Michael King, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) as untimely filed. An appeal may not be taken to this court from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). When, as here, a district court dismisses a § 2254 petition solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’” Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)), cert. denied , 122 S. Ct. 318 (2001). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that King has not made the requisite showing. King v. Angelone , No. CA-02-82-2 (E.D. Va. Sept. 24, 2002). Accordi ngly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the3 materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### In re GILROY.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.

May 14, 1894.)

Eminent Domain—Award of Damages—Sufficiency of Evidence.

The report of the commissioners in a condemnation proceeding as to the amount of the award will not be disturbed unless it is apparent that the same amount is so grossly inadequate as to show evidence of partiality, fraud, or undue influence.

Appeal from special term, Westchester county.

Application by Thomas F. Gilroy to acquire lands under the aqueduct law. From the award of damages, the landowner appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before BROWN, P. J., and DYKMAN and PRATT, JJ.

*911Bangs, Stetson, Tracy & McVeagh, for appellant.

Wm. H. Clark, for respondent.

PRATT, J.

This proceeding was instituted under chapter 490 of the Laws of 1883, commonly known as the “Aqueduct Law,” to acquire land in Westchester county for a storage reservoir. Commissioners were duly appointed, entered upon their duties, viewed the premises, heard testimony and arguments, and made a report. The only ground upon which the report is sought to be set aside is that the commissioners failed to award a sufficient amount to the appellant to afford him “just compensation” for the property taken, and damages caused by such taking. It is to be observed that it is not claimed that there is any irregularity in the proceeding, or that any legal principle has been violated, but simply that, upon the proofs, the award is insufficient in amount. The evidence is conflicting, no two witnesses fully agreeing as to a proper amount; but the report in no respect is lower than the sum fixed by any witness who testified to the lowest amount, or, in other words, the report is at a sum between the highest and lowest estimates; so that, as sometimes said of a verdict, it is supported by the evidence. But it must be recognized that the commissioners were not entirely bound by the oral testimony. They saw the property, its location and capabilities, and their report must stand, unless it is apparent that the sum awarded is so grossly inadequate as to afford evidence of partiality, fraud, or undue influence. It must appear that the award is grossly inadequate, to justify a court in setting it aside. The rule is well settled that, except in extreme cases, an appellate court will not set aside an assessment unless the same is clearly proved to be grossly inadequate, or that the commissioners fell into some error in their estimates, or adopted some erroneous principle. Because the landowner may have more witnesses is not sufficient to overcome the opinions of the commissioners. In re Central Park Extension, 16 Abb. Pr. 56; Railroad Co. v. Lee, 13 Barb. 169. Under well-settled principles, the order appealed from must be affirmed.
1

The HONORABLE RICHARD G. KOPF, Chief Judge, United States District

Court for the District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 01-2998

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * District of Nebraska.

*

Juan Jose Padilla, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: February 5, 2002

 Filed: February 6, 2002

___________

Before LOKEN, BEAM, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

A jury found Juan Jose Padilla guilty of conspiring to distribute at least 50 but

less than 500 grams of methamphetamine. The district court1

 sentenced him to 78

months in prison and five years supervised release. Padilla appeals, challenging the

sufficiency of the evidence and the denial of his request for a downward departure.

We affirm.
-2-

At trial, two witnesses testified that Padilla sold them resale quantities of

methamphetamine, and introduced one of them to other methamphetamine sources.

Another witness testified that Padilla and an alleged conspirator provided a reseller

with methamphetamine which was stored for later distribution. The jurors were free

to accept or reject any witness’s testimony in whole or in part. See United States v.

One Star, 979 F.2d 1319, 1321(8th Cir. 1992). Examining the evidence in the light

most favorable to the jury verdict and giving the verdict the benefit of all reasonable

inferences, see United States v. Robinson, 217 F.3d 560, 564 (8th Cir.), cert. denied,

531 U.S. 999 (2000), we conclude the evidence supports Padilla’s conspiracy

conviction. See United States v. Miller, 91 F.3d 1160, 1162 (8th Cir. 1996) (evidence

of multiple sales of resale quantities of drugs is sufficient to make submissible case

of conspiracy to distribute); United States v. Dugan, 238 F.3d 1041, 1044-45 (8th Cir.

2001) (appellate court does not reweigh evidence or judge credibility of witnesses).

The district court’s discretionary decision to deny Padilla’s request to depart

downward is unreviewable. See United States v. Saelee, 123 F.3d 1024, 1025 (8th

Cir. 1997). Accordingly, we affirm and deny Padilla’s pending motion for new

counsel.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
EXHIBIT 99.1


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



     In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Pacel Corp. (the "Company") on
Form [10-Q/10- QSB] for the period ending  September 30, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, David
E. Calkins,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

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

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





/s/ David E. Calkins
--------------------------------
David E. Calkins
Chief Executive Officer
(or the equivalent thereof)
November 14, 2002
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6915

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MANUEL HERNANDEZ LASTRA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CR-90-70115, CA-97-12-R) Submitted: August 13, 1998 Decided: September 4, 1998 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Manuel Hernandez Lastra, Appellant Pro Se. Ray B. Fitzgerald, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion andfind no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Lastra , Nos. CR-90-70115; CA-97-12-R (W.D. Va. Apr. 14, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
(RYDER SCOTT COMPANY LOGO)
    
    FAX (303) 623-4258
   th
    SEC PARAMETERS    American Oil & Gas Inc.
 ProvedDeveloped
    
    
    
    
    
    
    TotalProducing
    
    
    Non-Producing
    
    
    Undeveloped
    
    
    ProvedNet Remaining ReservesOil/Condensate  Barrels
    
    
    55,598
    
    
    
    8,820
    
    
    
    83,092
    
    
    
    147,510Gas  MMCF
    
    
    500
    
    
    
    146
    
    
    
    311
    
    
    
    957Income DataFuture Gross Revenue
    
    $
    4,754,659
    
    
    $
    996,566
    
    
    $
    5,216,715
    
    
    $
    10,967,941Production Taxes
    
    
    345,852
    
    
    
    57,102
    
    
    
    545,300
    
    
    
    948,253Deductions
    
    
    2,053,975
    
    
    
    555,757
    
    
    
    2,857,468
    
    
    
    5,467,200Future Net Income (FNI)
    
    $
    2,354,832
    
    
    $
    383,708
    
    
    $
    1,813,947
    
    
    $
    4,552,487Discounted FNI @ 10%
    
    $
    1,541,216
    
    
    $
    265,864
    
    
    $
    677,938
    
    
    $
    2,485,018




---



##### 



Discounted Future Net IncomeAs of December 31, 2009Discount Rate
    
    TotalPercent
    
    Proved $5
    
    $
    3,284,4358
    
    $
    2,766,01312
    
    $
    2,243,24815
    
    $
    1,937,884
  Reserves Included in This Report




---



##### 



Estimates of Reserves
   Future Production Rates
   Hydrocarbon Prices




---



##### 



Costs
     Standards of Independence and Professional Qualification




---



##### 



1 Terms of Usage
  (SEAL)
    
    Very truly yours,RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P
TBPE Firm Registration No. F-158-s- Thomas E. Venglar




---



##### 



Professional Qualifications of Primary Technical Person
EXHIBIT 32.1

                     CERTIFICATION OF PRESIDENT PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003

In connection with the Quarterly Report of OraLabs Holding Corp. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") I, Gary H. Schlatter,
President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 USC SS. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to SS. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my
knowledge and belief:

(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/ Gary H. Schlatter
                                                 ----------------------------
                                                 Gary H. Schlatter
                                                 President


DATED AUGUST 22, 2005

A signed original 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         352,900
<SECURITIES>                                    93,492
<RECEIVABLES>                                  105,934
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               558,637
<PP&E>                                         580,161
<DEPRECIATION>                                (15,363)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,918,401
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          166,101
<BONDS>                                        664,720
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,326
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,977,667
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,918,401
<SALES>                                         49,397
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                49,397
<CGS>                                           24,414
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   24,414
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                42,539
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              25,784
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (44,290)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (44,290)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (44,290)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
cbai_ex4ii.htm


    EXHIBIT
4(ii)

     

    

     

    
      
         


      

      
        1

        
          

        

      

      
         


      

    

     

    

     

    
      
         


      

      
        2

        
          

        

      

      
         


      

    

     

    

     

    
      
         


      

      
        3

        
          

        

      

      
         


      

    

     

    

     

    
      
         


      

      
        4

        
          

        

      

      
         


      

    

     

    

     

    
      
         


      

      
        5
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6137 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6137

 To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the 
    possession of a firearm by a person who is adjudicated to have 
               committed a violent act while a juvenile.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 15, 2010

  Mr. Israel introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the 
    possession of a firearm by a person who is adjudicated to have 
               committed a violent act while a juvenile.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Preventing Gun Violence Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON POSSESSION OF A FIREARM BY A PERSON WHO IS 
              ADJUDICATED TO HAVE COMMITTED A VIOLENT ACT WHILE A 
              JUVENILE.

    (a) Possession Ban.--Section 922(g) of title 18, United States 
Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (8);
            (2) by striking the comma at the end of paragraph (9) and 
        inserting ``; or''; and
            (3) by inserting after paragraph (9) the following:
            ``(10) who has been adjudicated by a court of the United 
        States to have committed a violent juvenile act,''.
    (b) Violent Juvenile Act Defined.--Section 921(a) of such title is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(36)(A) The term `violent juvenile act' means an act by a 
        person before the person attains 18 years of age that, if 
        committed by an adult, would be punishable by a term of 
        imprisonment exceeding one year, and--
                    ``(i) has as an element the use, attempted use, or 
                threatened use of physical force against another 
                person; or
                    ``(ii) that by its nature, involves a substantial 
                risk that physical force against another person may be 
                used in the course of committing the act.''.
                                 <all>
```
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 30, 2022

No. 04-22-00720-CV

IN RE Stephen Patrick BLACK

Original Proceeding1

ORDER

On October 28, 2022, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus complaining of the trial 

court’s failure to rule on his constitutional challenge motion. On November 10, 2022, relator filed 

a motion to dismiss his petition for writ of mandamus. We GRANT the motion and DISMISS the 

petition for writ of mandamus.

It is so ORDERED on November 30, 2022.

_____________________________

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 30th day of November, 2022.

_____________________________

Michael A. Cruz, Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. CV-15-1805, styled In the Commitment of Stephen Patrick, pending in the 

274th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas, the Honorable Gary L. Steel presiding.
ex104.htm - Generated by SEC Publisher for SEC Filing






Exhibit 10.4

 


 





 

 


	

February 15, 2010



	 



 

	

Meetesh V. Patel, Esq.

CEO

New Energy Technologies, Inc.

3905 National Drive

Suite 110

Burtonsville, MD  20866



	 


 

	

Dear Meetesh,



	 



	

I have thoroughly enjoyed working with you and the team at New Energy Technologies. Additionally, I wish you the best fortunes with your future endeavors.



	 






	

The determination to cease employment was reached with due respect for both the Company and me. The cessation of employment is being completed amicably, and not the result of misconduct, fault, or negligence by either me or the Company.  Quite simply, it is the appropriate business decision.



	 






	

Please accept my resignation effective today.  Through a series of discussions, the Company and I have mutually decided that discontinuing my employment at New Energy Technologies is the most appropriate course of action.  We have agreed upon terms of severance, and will continue with professionalism and good will to wind-down the relationship professionally.



	 




	

Sincerely,



	
 /s/ James B. Wilkinson








	

James B. Wilkinson
Opinion filed October 21, 2010

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

__________

No. 11-10-00228-CV

__________

MIN RONG ZHENG AND FA WU MA, Appellants

V.

BRIDGESTONE FIRESTONE NORTH AMERICAN 

TIRE, L.L.C., Appellee

On Appeal from the 358th District Court

Ector County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. D-120,041

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Min Rong Zheng and Fa Wu Ma’s motion for extension of time in which to file a notice 

of appeal was overruled on September 30, 2010. Bridgestone Firestone North American Tire, 

L.L.C. has now filed in this court a motion to dismiss. The motion is granted, and the appeal is 

dismissed.

October 21, 2010 PER CURIAM

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Strange, J.