alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32(a)

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 on Form 10-Q of NewMarket Corporation (the Company) for the period ending
March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas E. Gottwald, chief executive officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
§ 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.



|                                                                        |  |                       
|----------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------
|By:                                                                     |  | /s/ Thomas E. Gottwald
|Thomas E. Gottwald
President and Chief Executive Officer
April 28, 2010
Karyn WILSON and Thomas Baumgardner, Individually, and Walter L. Hart, IV, Guardian Ad Litem for B.B., a Minor v. ASHLEY WOMEN'S CENTER, P.A., George Daniel Jacobs, M.D., and Nancy Kuney, CNM

No. 178P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 7, 2017

Mr. George S. Tolley, III, Attorney at Law, Mr. Charles G. Monnett, III, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Wilson, Karyn, et al.

Mr. John H. Beyer, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, Mr. Jonathan E. Hall, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Ashley Women's Center, P.A., et al.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 6th of June 2017 by Plaintiffs in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order *152was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 7th of December 2017."
Exhibit
32.1
  CERTIFICATION
  In
connection with the periodic report of Novint Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Tom Anderson, Chief
Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer) of the Company, hereby certify as of the date
hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United
States 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.
 
 Date:
      November 23, 2009
              /s/
      Tom AndersonTom
      AndersonChief
      Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) and
                Chief
      Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
1

The Honorable John A. Jarvey, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-2329

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Southern

* District of Iowa.

Gerardo G. Salinas, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 20, 2010

Filed: December 23, 2010

___________

Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Gerardo Salinas appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed after he

pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute a mixture or substance containing

methamphetamine. Counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), arguing that the sentence is unreasonable because the court gave undue weight

to Salinas’s prior convictions. In a supplemental pro se brief, Salinas challenges the

presentence report’s (PSR’s) calculation of his criminal history score and the

description of his prior felony convictions; argues that he does not deserve career-
-2-

offender status; and asserts that the court stenographer inaccurately transcribed his

allocution testimony. For the following reasons, we affirm.

First, we conclude that Salinas forfeited any challenge to the PSR’s recitation

of the facts and its recommendations as to his career-offender status and criminal

history score. Salinas resolved his objections to the PSR upon reaching an agreement

with the government, and he advised the district court that the PSR, as amended to

reflect his agreement with the government, accurately stated the facts and correctly

calculated his Guidelines range. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733-34

(1993). In any event, exercising our discretion to review for plain error, see United

States v. Wallace, 408 F.3d 1046, 1048-49 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam), we find none.

Second, Salinas does not explain how his allegedly inaccurately transcribed allocution

testimony is a basis to challenge his sentence in this direct criminal appeal. And third,

the district court’s sentence is not unreasonable. See United States v. Feemster, 572

F3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standard of review; describing factors that

demonstrate procedural error). 

Finally, having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly,

we affirm the district court’s judgment.

______________________________
In the Matter of: L.A.T.

No. COA16-602

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 20, 2016

AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2155

MARVIN J. PERRY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HOUSEHOLD FINANCE CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee, andJOHN ADAMS; ROBERT FISHER; BERNIE HEFFELFINGER; MARK SHEPPARD, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA97-2091-S) Submitted: April 13, 1999 Decided: April 30, 1999Before LUTTIG and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brian K. McDaniel, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Steven D. Frenkil, Suzzanne W. Decker, MILES & STOCKBRIDGE, P.C., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Following Marvin J. Perry’s repeated failure to comply with discovery requests, the district court dismissed with prejudice his action in which he alleged that Household Finance Corporationdiscriminated against him on the basis of his race. Perry appealed, contending that he substantially complied with the discovery requests and that the district court failed adequately to consider lesser sanctions. Finding no abuse of discretion by the district court, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Perry v. Household Fin. Corp. , No. CA-97-2091-S (D. Md. July 8, 1998); see also National Hockey League v. Metropolitan Hockey Club, Inc. , 427 U.S. 639, 642 (1976) (providing standard of review); Mutual Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Richards & Assocs., Inc., 872 F.2d88, 92 (4th Cir. 1989) (setting forth four-factor test). We dispense with 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
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-20-00018-CV

DICEX INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

Appellant

v.

AMIGO STAFFING, INC.,

Appellee

From the 111th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020CVK000091-D2

Honorable Monica Z. Notzon, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE WATKINS, JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ, AND JUSTICE VALENZUELA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is 

AFFIRMED. Costs of appeal are assessed against Dicex International, Inc. See TEX. R. APP. P.

43.4 (“The court of appeals’ judgment should award to the prevailing party costs incurred by that 

party related to the appeal, including filing fees in the court of appeals and costs for preparation of 

the record.”).

SIGNED March 24, 2021.

_____________________________

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DEAN PHILIP HARRIS,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

ESTATE OF DR. IAN ROBERT

DUNCAN,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 09-35430

D.C. No. 3:07-cv-00806-ST

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Anna J. Brown, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 15, 2011** 

Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Oregon state prisoner Dean Philip Harris appeals pro se from the district

court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Eighth

Amendment violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review

FILED

MAR 10 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-35430

de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004), and we may

affirm on any ground supported by the record, O’Guinn v. Lovelock Corr. Ctr., 502

F.3d 1056, 1059 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Harris failed

to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendant was deliberately

indifferent to his lower back pain. See Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1060 (“Deliberate

indifference is a high legal standard. A showing of medical malpractice or

negligence is insufficient to establish a constitutional deprivation under the Eighth

Amendment.”); Nelson v. Pima Cmty. Coll., 83 F.3d 1075, 1081-82 (9th Cir. 1996)

(“[M]ere allegation and speculation do not create a factual dispute for purposes of

summary judgment.”). 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Harris’s motion for

appointment of counsel because he failed to establish exceptional circumstances. 

See Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004) (setting

forth standard of review and requirements for appointment of counsel).

Harris’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

We do not consider Harris’s arguments raised for the first time on appeal. 

See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999).

AFFIRMED.
**EXHIBIT 31.2****Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**     I, Alan G. Shuler, Chief Financial Officer, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-KSB of MakeMusic! Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin the annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperation and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15(d)-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:     a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;     b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based onsuch evaluation; and     c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control overfinancial 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 hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting; and     5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’sauditors and the audit committee of small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):     a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect thesmall 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 havea significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.     Date: February 28, 2006 By: /s/ Alan G. Shuler    Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 10.4
 RESTRICTED STOCK AGREEMENT
 MAKEMUSIC, INC.
2003 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN
       Grant of Restricted Stock Award
 Vesting of Restricted Stock
 General .
 Vesting Date Cumulative Percentage of Shares Vested
 Termination of Relationship . [a key employee or
officer] [a consultant or advisor] [a director]
 Issuance of Shares; Rights as a Shareholder .




---



##### 



Change of Control .
 Acceleration .
 Change of Control Defined .
     Limitation on Change of Control Payments .
 2




---



##### 



Miscellaneous .
 Employment
 Securities Law Compliance .
 Mergers, Recapitalizations, Stock Splits, Etc.
 Shares Reserved
 Withholding Taxes
 3




---



##### 



Nontransferability .
 2003 Equity Incentive Plan .
 Lockup Period Limitation .
 Blue Sky Limitation .
 Stock Legend .
 Scope of Agreement .
 Arbitration .
 4




---



##### 



Accounting Compliance .
 Governing Law .
 [Signature page follows]
 5




---



##### 



MAKEMUSIC, INC.By:Its:PARTICIPANT By execution hereof, the
Participant acknowledges having
received a copy of the Plan.
 6
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Hum phreys, McCullough and Se nior Judge Bumgardner

LOWE’S HOME COMP ANIES, INC. AND SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 0434-14-3 PER CURIAM JUNE 24, 2014 RONALD R. LANDES

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION (Brandi R. Howell; Franklin & Prokopik, P.C., on brief), for appellants. (Amber H. Russo; HammondTo wnsend, PLC, on brief), for appellee.

Lowe’s Home Companies, Inc., and its in surer (appellants) app eal a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commi ssion finding that Ronald R. Landes suffered compensable injuries arising out of his employment and that the injury to his knee materially aggravated a pre-existing condition. We have reviewed the record and th e commission’s opi nion and find that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the commission in its final opinion. See Landes v. Lowe’s Home Ctrs., Inc., VWC File No. JCN VA00000771689 (Feb. 7, 2014). We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in th e materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27.

Affirmed.

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.UNPUBLISHED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-1595

NANCY LEE BOGART,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

GEICO INSURANCE,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Chief

District Judge. (CA-95-1635-A)

Submitted: June 28, 1996 Decided: July 23, 1996

Before HALL, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nancy Lee Bogart, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Andrew Geschickter,

Staff Counsel, GEICO, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing

her complaint without prejudice. A district court's dismissal without prejudice is not appealable. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar

Workers' Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). A

dismissal without prejudice could be final if "no amendment [to the

complaint] could cure defects in the plaintiff's case." Id. at

1067. In ascertaining whether a dismissal without prejudice is

reviewable in this court, the court must determine "whether the

plaintiff could save her action by merely amending the complaint."

Id. at 1066-67.

Because Appellant could have amended her complaint to prevent

dismissal, the dismissal order is not appealable. Accordingly, we

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with 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.

DISMISSED
**Exhibit
      32.2**








**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 Third Century Bancorp on Form 10-QSB
      for
      the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission (the “Report”), I, Debra K. Harlow, Chief Financial Officer of Third
      Century Bancorp, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §
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 operation of Third Century
          Bancorp.













/s/
      Debra K.
      Harlow


Debra
      K.
      Harlow


Vice
      President, Chief Financial Officer


(Principal
      Financial Officer)





May
      11,
      2006





The
      foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350
      and is not being filed for any other purpose.
Exhibit 14.3




SALLES, SAINZ – GRANT THORNTON, S.C.
 
 Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
  We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement Form F-3 (No. 333-111019, 333-119998, 333-126257, 333-143399) and related Prospectus and on Form S-8 (No. 333-118897, 333-113420, 333-141306, 333-139717) pertaining to the Employees' Stock Option Plan of Pointer Telocation Ltd., of our report dated January 25, 2008, with respect to the financial statements of Pointer Recuperación de México, S.A de C.V, included in the Annual Report (Form 20-F) of Pointer Telocation Ltd., for the year ended December 31, 2009, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
 
 /s/SALLES, SAINZ – GRANT THORNTON, S.C.
 
 Mexico City, Mexico
 March 23, 2010
David WICHNOSKI, O.D., P.A., et al. v. PIEDMONT FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS, LLC, et al.

26PA17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 8, 2018

John W. Reis, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Main Street America Assurance Company.

Jay M. Goldstein, Attorney at Law, Albert S. Nalibotsky, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for David Wichnoski, O.D., P.A., et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 8th of March 2018 by Plaintiffs to Withdraw Appeal:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of March 2018."
##### 



(a)
    
    The quarterly report of the Company for the period ending September 30,
2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on this date fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934; and(b)
    
    The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
 Date:  November 9, 2005
    By:  /s/ Corey J. CoughlinCorey J. Coughlin


President and Chief Executive OfficerDate:  November 9, 2005
    By:  /s/ Dennis GrinsteinerDennis Grinsteiner


Chief Financial Officer
STATE of North Carolina v. Kenneth James LANE

No. COA17-435

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 19, 2017

NO ERROR IN PART. REMANDED IN PART FOR CORRECTION OF CLERICAL ERROR.
STATE of North Carolina v. Rodney James Tyrell BROOKS

No. COA16-674

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: March 7, 2017

NO ERROR.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

July 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

133906 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 133906 

 COA: 267518 

Branch CC: 04-118174-FH 

04-118176-FH 

JOSEPH GLEN FRAZIER,

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 24, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

l0723 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

July 30, 2007 

 Clerk
----

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 9 June 2005

in Case C-510/04: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2002/6/EC - Formalities for ships - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

(2005/C 193/13)

Language of the case: French

In Case C-510/04 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: K. Simonsson and W. Wils) v Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: M. Wimmer) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 13 December 2004 — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Chamber, G. Arestis and J. Klučka (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 9 June 2005, in which it:

----

(1)OJ C 31 of 5.2.2005.

----