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

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

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

| By:    |  /s/ Dennis M. Terry                         |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |                                              |   |
|   | Dennis M. Terry                                   |   |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer             |   |
|   |                                              |   |
|   |                                              |   |
| By:    |  /s/ Darlene F. McDonald                     |   |
|   |                                              |   |
|   | Darlene F. McDonald                               |   |
|   | Senior Vice-President and Chief Financial 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 Form 10-Q of Madison Avenue Holdings, Inc. (the "Company")
for the quarter ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 /s/ Alex
Kam
 Alex
Kam
 Chief
Executive Officer and President
 (principal
executive officer)
 
 Date:
May 11, 2009
 
 /s/ Pan-Rong
Liu
 Pan-Rong
Liu
 Chief
Financial Officer
 (principal
financial officer and principal accounting officer)
 
 Date:
May 11, 2009
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Madison Avenue Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by Madison Avenue Holdings,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
EXHIBIT 99.33
                            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 MITY Enterprises, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Bradley T
Nielson, 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 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: May 22, 2003                      /s/ Bradley T Nielson
                                        Bradley T Nielson
                                        Chief Executive Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to MITY Enterprises and will be retained by MITY Enterprises and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4036 

To prohibit the Central Intelligence Agency from using an unmanned aerial 

vehicle to carry out a weapons strike or other deliberately lethal action 

and to transfer the authority to conduct such strikes or lethal action 

to the Department of Defense. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 11, 2014 

Mr. BURGESS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Select 

Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select), and in addition to the 

Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Central Intelligence Agency from using an 

unmanned aerial vehicle to carry out a weapons strike 

or other deliberately lethal action and to transfer the 

authority to conduct such strikes or lethal action to 

the Department of Defense. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 4036 IH

1 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE 

2 AGENCY OPERATION OF UNMANNED AERIAL 

3 VEHICLE STRIKES AND TRANSFER OF AU4 THORITY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE. 

5 (a) PROHIBITION.—Notwithstanding any other provi6 sion of law, no officer or employee of, or contractor or 

7 detailee to, the Central Intelligence Agency shall use an 

8 unmanned aerial vehicle to carry out a weapons strike or 

9 other lethal action. 

10 (b) TRANSFER TO DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.— 

11 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the President 

12 shall transfer to the Department of Defense all authority 

13 to use an unmanned aerial vehicle to carry out a weapons 

14 strike or other lethal action. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
LETENDRE v. CURRITUCK COUNTY, et al.

352P18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 18, 2018

George B. Currin, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Long, Michael, et al.

Jonathan E. Hall, Attorney at Law, Michael Joseph Crook, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for LeTendre, Elizabeth E.

Donald I. McRee, Jr., Currituck County Attorney, G. Nicholas Herman, Attorney at Law, for Currituck County

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 17th of October 2018 by Plaintiff for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of October 2018."
STATE v. Tilmon Charles GOLPHIN

441A98-4

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 13, 2018

Jay H. Ferguson, Kenneth J. Rose, Attorneys at Law, Durham, for Golphin, Tilmon Charles.

Danielle Marquis Elder, Special Deputy Attorney General, Jonathan P. Babb, Special Counsel to Attorney General, William R. West, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

James E. Williams, Jr., Attorney at Law, Carrboro, for N.C. Advocates for Justice.

Grady Jessup, Attorney at Law, for N.C. Association of Black Lawyers.

Lisa A. Bakale-Wise, Attorney at Law, Irving Joyner, Attorney at Law, Durham, for N.C. State Conference of the NAACP.

Edward Joseph Blocher, Jr., Attorney at Law, for Social Scientists.

Janet Moore, Attorney at Law, for National Association for Public Defense.

Robert P. Mosteller, Attorney at Law, for Professors John Charles Boger & Robert P. Mosteller.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 12th of July 2018 by National Association for Public Defense for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 13th of July 2018."
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 Mondial Ventures, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, 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 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.





Date:  August 28, 2007





/s/ Scott Taylor

Scott Taylor, President and C.E.O.

(Principal Executive Officer)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

Supreme Court Cause No. DA 23-0682

IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP 

AND CONSERVATORSHIP OF

J.F.R.,

A Protected Person/Appellant,

ORDER GRANTING APPELLANT’S 

MOTION FOR EXTENSION TO 

FILE REPLY BRIEF

Having reviewed Appellant J.F.R.’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellant’s 

Reply Brief and good cause appearing therefrom,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant’s motion is GRANTED and her opening brief 

shall be filed on or before May 20, 2024.

No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 6 2024

05/06/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0682
#### STATE ex rel. Alvin MEAD v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2002-KH-2063.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Aug. 29, 2003.

In re Mead, Alvin;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. H, No. 395-920; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2002-K-0849.

Denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 DSA Financial Corporation (the
"Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date of this Certification
(the "Report"), I, Edward L. Fischer, President and 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, to 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.


                                        /s/ Edward L. Fischer
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Edward L. Fischer
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer


Date:   November 10, 2005

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to DSA Financial Corporation and will be retained by DSA Financial
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### United States Mint 

# SUMMARY:

                        This document updates a notice appearing in the                         **Federal Register**                         that announced a public meeting of the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee (CCAC) scheduled for September 27, 2005, at the United States Mint in Washington, DC. This action is necessary to update the subject of the meeting as stated in the September 2, 2005 notice (70 FR 52484).                     

Date: September 27, 2005. 

Time: 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. 

Location: United States Mint, 801 9th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20220 

Subject: Review designs for the Dr. Martin Luther King and Coretta Scott King Congressional Gold Medal and review CCAC Annual Report for 2005. 

Interested persons should call 202-354-7502 for the latest update on meeting time and room location. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Madelyn Simmons Marchessault, United States Mint Liaison to the CCAC; 801 9th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20220; or call 202-354-7200. 

Dated: September 14, 2005. 

David A. Lebryk, 

Acting Director, United States Mint. 

[FR Doc. 05-18992 Filed 9-22-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810-37-P
STATE v. Anthony Lee MCNAIR

230P17-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 1, 2018

Kimberly P. Hoppin, Attorney at Law, Anthony Lee McNair, for McNair, Anthony Lee.

Michael T. Wood, Special Deputy Attorney General, Kimberly S. Robb, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 10th of January 2018 by Defendant to Submit Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of March 2018."
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

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

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of AventineRenewable Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30,2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Ajay Sabherwal, ChiefFinancial Officer of AventineRenewable Energy Holdings, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C.Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, thatto the best of my knowledge and belief:

 

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

 

(2)                                  The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Aventine Renewable Energy Holdings, Inc. and will beretained by AventineRenewable Energy Holdings, Inc. and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 
|   | /s/  Ajay Sabherwal      |
|--------|--------------------------|
|   | Ajay  Sabherwal          |
|   | Chief  Financial Officer |
|   | August 7,  2008     |

 

1

----
#### Trudy Schwartzman, Respondent, v Sydney Friedler et al., Defendants, and Lowell B. Davis, Appellant.

[718 NYS2d 882]

In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the defendant Lowell B. Davis appeals (1), as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Shifrin, R.), entered October 8, 1999, as, after an inquest, is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of $17,500, and (2) from an order of the same court (Joseph, J.), entered October 22, 1999, which denied his motion to vacate an order of the same court, dated December 22, 1997, granting the plaintiff’s motion to strike his answer for failure to comply with a preliminary conference order, upon his default in opposing the motion, and for reargument of his motion to strike the action from the trial calendar, which was denied by order of the same court dated October 7, 1998.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, and the complaint is dismissed insofar as it is asserted against the appellant; and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed as academic, in light of our determination on the appeal from the judgment; and it is further,

Ordered that the appellant is awarded one bill of costs.

The plaintiff was awarded $17,500 based upon the Referee’s determination after an inquest that she incurred a fracture as a result of the subject accident and underwent two months of medical treatment. In the absence of any medical testimony or records, that determination was pure speculation *(see, Cole v New York Racing Assn.,*24 AD2d 993, *affd*17 NY2d 761). Not only did the plaintiff fail to establish the existence of a fracture by competent medical proof, she also failed to establish by competent medical proof that her injuries were caused by the accident *(see, Wood v Hein Trucking Corp.,*115 AD2d 181). Since the plaintiff did not establish that she suffered any damages, the complaint must be dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant.

*518The appellant’s remaining contentions need not be addressed in light of our determination. Bracken, Acting P. J., Altman, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

Nos. 0 9

- 1297 & 09

- 1298

_____________

THE ABI JAOUDI AND AZAR TRADING CORPORATION

v.

CIGNA WORLDWIDE INSURANCE COMPANY;

SAMUEL M. LOHMAN, ESQ.

THE HONORABLE JOSIE SENESIE, COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE FOR THE

REPUBLIC OF LIBERIA AND COURT APPOINTED RECEIVER FOR THE

LIBERIAN BRANCH OF CIGNA WORLDWIDE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Appellant (09

- 1297)

(Pursuant to Rule 12(a), FRAP)

Samuel M. Lohman, Esq.

Appellant ( 09

- 1298)

_____________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil Action No. 2

- 91

- cv

- 06785)

District Judge: Honorable John P. Fullam

_____________

Argued M arch 9, 2010

_____________

Before: AMBRO, SMITH and MICHEL, * Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: August 20, 2010)

_____________

* Honorable Paul R. Michel, Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal

Circuit, sitting by designation. Chief Judge Michel has since retired, and this opinion has

been approved by a quorum of the panel. See 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).IT IS NOW ORDERED, at the direction of the Court , that the opinion shall

be amended as follows:

Henry F. Reichner, Esquire

Reed Smith LLP

1650 Market Street

2500 One Liberty Place

Philadelphia, PA 19103

- 7301

Paul E. Breene, Esquire

Reed Smith LLP

599 Lexington Avenue

New York, NY 10022

James C. Martin, Esquire (Argued)

Reed Smith LL P

225 Fifth Avenue

Pittsburgh, PA 15222

Counsel for Appellant

Josie Senesie

Michael Conley, Esquire

Anderson, Kill & Olick

1600 Market Street

Suite 2500

Philadelphia, PA 19103

- 0000

Mark Gottlieb, Esquire (Argued)

William H. Pillsbury, Esquire

Offi t Kurman

1601 Cherry Street

Three Parkway, Suite 1300

Philadelphia, PA 19102

Counsel for Appellant/Cross Appellee

Samuel M. Lohman, Esq.

Richard J. Bortnick, Esquire

Cozen & O’Connor

200 Four Falls Corporate Center

P.O. Box 800, Suite 400

West Consho hocken, PA 19428

- 0800Stephen A. Cozen, Esquire

Cozen & O’Connor

1900 Market Street, 3rd Floor

Philadelphia, PA 19103

- 0000

Donald F. Donovan, Esquire (Argued)

Robert D. Goodman, Equire

Matthew S. Hackell, Esquire

Donald W. Hawthorne, Esquire

William H . Taft, V, Esquire

Debevoise & Plimpton

919 Third Avenue, 41st Floor

New York, NY 10022

- 0000

Louis B. Kimmelman, Esquire

O’Melveny & Myers

153 East 53 rd Street

New York, NY 10022

Counsel for Appellee

CIGNA Worldwide Insurance

For the Court,

Marcia M. Waldron, Clerk

Date: November 16, 2010
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Molique Lawson, Appellant.

[718 NYS2d 841]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Dorothy Cropper, J.), rendered February 22, 1999, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first and second degrees, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 10 years and 7 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis upon which to disturb the jury’s determinations concerning credibility. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Tom, Wallach and Friedman, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7330

MAURICE PAUL BROOKS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

TRACY RAY, Warden, Augusta Correctional

Center,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District

Judge. (CA-04-131-7)

Submitted: November 18, 2004 Decided: December 1, 2004

Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Maurice Paul Brooks, Appellant Pro Se. John H. McLees, Jr., OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Maurice Paul Brooks appeals from the dismissal of his

28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as untimely filed. An appeal may

not be taken to this court from the final order in a § 2254

proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate

of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000).

A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that jurists of

reason would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and

that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are

also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,

336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.

Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).

We have reviewed the record and conclude that Brooks has

not made the requisite showing. We, therefore, deny a certificate

of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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 in the decisional process.

DISMISSED