alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ronald Drayton, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Beldock, J.), rendered September 14, 1988, convicting him of robbery in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s present contention, we discern no improvident exercise of discretion in the trial court’s denial of a lengthy and indeterminate adjournment to permit the defendant an opportunity to procure the testimony of one or more codefendants at his trial. The record reveals that the codefendants entered pleas of guilty with regard to their involvement in the same robberies for which the defendant was to stand trial. On the date of his pretrial hearing, the defendant claimed that his codefendants might testify in his favor at his impending trial. He subsequently requested an adjournment until 30 days after the sentencing of the several codefendants, reasoning that this period would mark the end of their time within which to file notices of appeal from their convictions and therefore would permit him to obtain their testimony at his trial without the possibility that they would invoke the privilege against self-incrimination. However, the defendant failed to adequately demonstrate that his codefendants would testify if called upon to do so, and he further failed to establish that any potential testimony they might provide would be exculpatory with regard to his participation in the instant offenses. Moreover, inasmuch as the defendant did not present the trial court with proof that his codefendants would forego their rights to appeal, he did not negate the possibility that they would pursue appeals and continue to exercise the privilege against self-incrimination during the appellate process. Under these circumstances, the defendant’s application for an adjournment based upon the mere possibility that his codefendants might testify in his favor was highly speculative *(see generally, People v Wallace,*153 AD2d 59; *People v Williams,*124 AD2d 615), and we cannot say that its denial constituted a departure from the trial court’s sound discretion. Bracken, J. R, Eiber, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
```
**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**

Solely for the purpose of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and
solely to the extent this certification may be applicable to this report, the
undersigned hereby certify that this report of Edmonds 5, Inc. (the "Company")
fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in this report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

Dated: June 14, 2005                          /s/ Tim Novak

                                              Name:    Tim Novak
                                              Title:   President and Chief Executive Officer
                                              Chief Financial Officer
```
#### Ervin McFERRIN, Defendant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent.

No. 67573.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Oct. 3, 1995.

S. Paige Canfield, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Becky Owenson Kilpatrick, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and KAROHL and WHITE, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals the denial, without an evi-dentiary hearing, of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 29, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-7330

Nissan North America, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 74 (Tuesday, April 18, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 19462]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9498]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

UNITED STATES INFORMATION AGENCY


Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition; 
Determination

    Notice is hereby given of the following determination: Pursuant to 
the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 
985, 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978 (43 F.R. 
13359, March 29, 1978), and Delegation Order No. 85-5 of June 27, 1985 
(50 F.R. 27393, July 2, 1985), I hereby determine that the objects to 
be included in the exhibit, ``James McNeill Whistler'' (See List\1\), 
imported from abroad for the temporary exhibition without profit within 
the United States, are of cultural significance. These objects are 
imported pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign lenders. I also 
determine that the temporary exhibition or display of the listed 
exhibit objects at the National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C. from 
on or about May 28, 1995 through August 20, 1995, is in the national 
interest. Public Notice of this determination is ordered to be 
published in the Federal Register.

    \1\A copy of this list may be obtained by contacting Ms. Carol 
B. Epstein, Assistant General Counsel, at (202) 619-6981, and the 
address is Room 700, U.S. Information Agency, 301 Fourth Street, 
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20547.

    Dated: April 12, 1995.
Les Jin,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 95-9498 Filed 4-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8230-01-M
EXHIBIT 32.1


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 on Form 10-Q of Smartpay Express, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.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 Smartpay Express Inc.








Date: November 20, 2009
By
/s/ Ping TangPing TangChairman and Chief Executive Officer
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 BioForce Nanosciences Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gregory D. Brown, 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.





/s/ Gregory D. Brown

Gregory D. Brown

Chief Financial Officer

August 28, 2008







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 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.  The foregoing certifications are accompanying the Company's Form 10-QSB/A solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and are not being filed as part of the Form 10-QSB/A or as a separate disclosure document.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 71 (Thursday, April 13, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 18815]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9041]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION


Network Reliability Council Meeting

April 7, 1995.
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public 
Law 92-463, as amended, this notice advises interested persons of the 
eleventh meeting of the Network Reliability Council (``Council''), 
which will be held at the Federal Communications Commission in 
Washington, D.C.

DATES: Friday, April 28, 1995 at 1:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Room 856, 1919 M Street, 
N.W. Washington, D.C. 20554.

FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert Kimball at (202) 634-7150.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Council was established by the Federal 
Communications Commission to bring together leaders of the 
telecommunications industry and telecommunications experts from 
academic, consumer and other organizations to explore and recommended 
measures that would enhance network reliability.
    The agenda for the eleventh meeting is as follows: the Council will 
receive an overview of Steering Committee activities and an update on 
network reliability performance. Progress reports will be made by three 
NRC focus group leaders and discussion will follow. The Council will 
also discuss data collection activities including funding problems.
    Members of the general public may attend the meeting. The Federal 
Communications Commission will attempt to accommodate as many people as 
possible. However, admittance will be limited to the seating available. 
The public may submit written comments to the Council's designated 
Federal Officer before the meeting.

Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-9041 Filed 4-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND 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,
Gregory Lykiardopoulos, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report of Triton Distribution Systems, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal
quarter ended March 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all
material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Triton
Distribution Systems, Inc.









Date:
June 13,
2008                           By:/s/Gregory
Lykiardopoulos


Gregory Lykiardopoulos


Chief Executive Officer
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 18-1569V

UNPUBLISHED

PAMELA A. STRICKER,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: February 19, 2020

Special Processing Unit (SPU);

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS)

Firooz Taghi Namei, McKinney & Namei Company, L.P.A., Cincinnati, OH, for 

petitioner.

Althea Walker Davis, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On October 10, 2018, Pamela A. Stricker filed a petition for compensation under 

the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.,

2

(the 

“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS)

after receiving the influenza vaccination on September 11, 2017. Petition at ¶¶ 1, 5. 

Petitioner further alleges that she suffered the residual effects of her GBS for more than 

six months and that neither she nor any other party has filed a civil action or received 

compensation for her GBS. Id. at ¶¶ 40, 49. The case was assigned to the Special 

Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

 

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am 

required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the EGovernment Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of 

Electronic Government Services). This means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to 

the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to 

redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of 

privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such 

material from public access. 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for 

ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa (2012).
2

On February 12, 2020, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he

concedes that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 

4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, Respondent “concluded that petitioner suffered the Table 

injury of GBS following a flu vaccine within the Table time period, and there is not a 

preponderance of the medical evidence that petitioner’s GBS was due to a factor 

unrelated to the vaccination.” Id. at 6. Respondent further agrees that “based on the 

record as it now stands, compensation is appropriate, as petitioner has satisfied all legal 

prerequisites for compensation under the Act.” Id. at 7.

In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that 

Petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

March 15, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6023

Aisin World Corp. of America:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request concerns a product strategically important or related to 

‘‘Made in China 2025’’ or other Chinese industrial programs.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
EXHIBIT 32.1


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 on Form 10-Q of Smartpay Express, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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 Smartpay Express Inc.








Date: May 16, 2011
By
/s/ Ping TangPing TangChairman and Chief Executive Officer
* Pursuant to 5TH Cir. R. 47.5 the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH Cir. R.

47.5.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-31160

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ARCOS GILBERTO LOPEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

______________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 94-CR-20022

______________________________________

July 8, 1997

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Arcos Gilberto Lopez, a federal prisoner (# 32794-019), appeals from the district court’s

denial of his motion to reconsider the court’s denial of his “Emergency Motion for Specific

Performance of Plea Agreement,” which he filed almost 20 months after he pleaded guilty to

conspiracy to escape from a federal correctional facility. Lopez’s “Emergency Motion” was

“unauthorized” because the relief he sought was not available under any federal statute or rule

providing for postconviction relief. See United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 141-42 (5th Cir. 1994).
Relief was not available to Lopez under Fed. R. Crim. P. 35, 18 U.S.C. § 3742, 18 U.S.C. §

3582(c)(2), or 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See id.; § 2255. Although the district court denied Lopez’s motion

on the merits, it should have denied the motion for lack of jurisdiction. See Early, 27 F.3d at 142.

However, this court may affirm on the alternative ground that Lopez’s “Emergency Motion” was

meritless, in that the Government did not breach the plea agreement with Lopez. See id. 

AFFIRMED.
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Walter Lee ROSS, Appellant.

No. WD 48287.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

March 21, 1995.

Patricia A Richter, Asst. Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Philip M. Koppe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kansas City, for respondent.

Before HANNA P.J., and BRECKENRIDGE and SMART, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Appeal from a conviction of tampering in the first degree, § 569.080, RSMo 1994.

Affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).
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 Annual Report of A Better Way Financial Corp. on
Form  10-KSB  for the  period  ending  December  31,  2002,  as  filed  with the
Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, B.
Stephen Bailey, President 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 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/ B. Stephen Bailey
B. Stephen Bailey
President, Director
(Principal Executive Officer)


April 19, 2004


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
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.
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



I, Paul A. Parisotto, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Blacksands Petroleum, Inc., for the fiscal quarter ended January 31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Blacksands Petroleum, Inc.



Date:  March 20, 2009
        By:  
/s/ Paul A. Parisotto


Paul A. Parisotto, Principal Executive Officer