alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Barbara Nadboy, Doing Business as Barbara Nadboy Realty, Respondent, v Alexander Kaplan et al., Appellants.

In an action to recover a real estate broker’s commission pursuant to a written agreement, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Brown, J.), entered May 1, 1989, which, upon the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $21,750.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

It is undisputed that the plaintiff, a licensed real estate broker, brought about the sale of the defendants’ house as explicitly acknowledged in a rider to the contract of sale. The defendants also executed a commission agreement which provided that the plaintiff would be entitled to her commission at the time of closing. Even accepting as true the defendants’ assertions made in their answer and counterclaims that the plaintiff improperly placed a sign on the premises indicating that she had an exclusive listing, when in fact, the house was listed on a multiple listing, and that the plaintiff improperly listed the house as being located in Melville, when in fact, it is located in Huntington, the defendants failed to establish that they were damaged by her actions. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to her commission *(see, Ambrose Mar-Elia Co. v Dinstein,*151 AD2d 416), and summary judgment was properly granted. Lawrence, J. P., Kunzeman, Rubin and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
EX-32
SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF PATRICK A. GALLIHER AND ARTHUR DE JOYA

                     SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the quarterly report of RMD Technologies, Inc.
("Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the quarter ended February 28, 2006
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below,
hereby certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to their 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.


Dated: July 11, 2006                   By: /s/  Patrtick A. Galliher
                                       Patrick A. Galliher, President



Dated: July 11, 2006                   By: /s/  Arthur De Joya
                                       Arthur De Joya,
                                       Chief Financial Officer
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A24A1718. MCKENZIE et al. v. SUBER et al.

Appellant Wyman McKenzie moved for an extension of time to file his brief,

and this Court granted his motion, extending the filing deadline until July 25, 2024.

McKenzie has not filed his brief to date. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby

DISMISSED. See Court of Appeals Rule 23 (a).

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

August 02, 2024

08/02/2024
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001103090
<NAME>                        COLE, INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                          5,564
<SECURITIES>                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   0
<ALLOWANCES>                    0
<INVENTORY>                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                5,564
<PP&E>                          1,410
<DEPRECIATION>                  469
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  6,505
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           100
<BONDS>                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<COMMON>                        10,850
<OTHER-SE>                     (11,524)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    0
<SALES>                         1,142
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                1,142
<CGS>                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                4,600
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                (3,458)
<INCOME-TAX>                    100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             0
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                   (3,558)
<EPS-BASIC>                    (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                  (.01)


</TABLE>
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

August 6, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00384

- CR

The STATE of Texas

, Appellant

v.

Desiree Renee GOMEZ

, Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 5, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 542323 Honorable John Longoria , Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The State’s brief was due July 18, 2018. On July 18, 2018, the State filed a motion, requesting an extension of time of fourteen (14) days. Thereafter, on July 24, 2018, the State

fil ed its brief. Accordingly, we GRANT the State’s motion and deem the State’s brief as timely

filed. Appellee is reminded her brief is due on or before August 23, 2018

.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

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

court on this 6th day of August, 2018

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
**EXHIBIT 99.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer ofPeerless Systems Corporation (the “Company”) hereby certifies that: 

 

(i)    the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2003 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

 

(ii)    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**RONALD CURTIS SEATON,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 957 MAL 2015** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 21st day of April, 2016, the Petition for All owance of Appeal is** 

DENIED

**.**
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 587 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 587

To authorize the President to award the Medal of Honor to James Capers, 
   Jr., for acts of valor as a member of the Marine Corps during the 
                              Vietnam War.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 26, 2023

  Mr. Norman introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the President to award the Medal of Honor to James Capers, 
   Jr., for acts of valor as a member of the Marine Corps during the 
                              Vietnam War.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION FOR AWARD OF MEDAL OF HONOR TO JAMES CAPERS, 
              JR., FOR ACTS OF VALOR AS A MEMBER OF THE MARINE CORPS 
              DURING THE VIETNAM WAR.

    (a) Authorization.--Notwithstanding the time limitations specified 
in sections 8298(a) and 8300 of title 10, United States Code, or any 
other time limitation with respect to the awarding of certain medals to 
persons who served in the Armed Forces, the President is authorized to 
award the Medal of Honor, under section 8291 of such title, to James 
Capers, Jr., for the acts of valor described in subsection (b).
    (b) Acts of Valor Described.--The acts of valor described in this 
subsection are the actions of James Capers, Jr., as a member of the 
Marine Corps, during the period of March 31 through April 3, 1967, 
during the Vietnam War, for which he was previously awarded the Silver 
Star.
                                 <all>
```
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 on Form 10-Q of Four Rivers BioEnergy Inc. (the Company) for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Stephen Padgett, as Chief Executive Office of the Company, and Martin Thorp, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of each such officers knowledge:



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



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





|    |                                         | 
|--- | --------------------------------------- | 
|By: | /s/ Stephen Padgett                     | 
|    | Stephen Padgett
Chief Executive Officer | 



Date: June 18, 2010





|    |                                      | 
|--- | ------------------------------------ | 
|By: | /s/ Martin Thorp                     | 
|    | Martin Thorp
Chief Financial Officer | 



Date: June 18, 2010





This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.



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.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5849 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow refunds of Federal 

motor fuel excise taxes on fuels used in mobile mammography vehicles. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 29, 2023 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER (for himself, Mr. COSTA, Mrs. KIM of California, Mr. VAN

DREW, Mr. KEAN of New Jersey, Mr. BACON, Mr. CISCOMANI, Mr. 

MOORE of Alabama, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mrs. CAMMACK, and Mrs. 

HINSON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow refunds of Federal motor fuel excise taxes on fuels used 

in mobile mammography vehicles. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Mobile Mammography 

5 Promotion Act of 2023’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 5849 IH

1 SEC. 2. REFUNDS OF FEDERAL MOTOR FUEL EXCISE TAXES 

2 FOR FUEL USED IN MOBILE MAMMOGRAPHY 

3 VEHICLES. 

4 (a) REFUNDS.—Section 6427 of the Internal Rev5 enue Code of 1986 (relating to fuels not used for taxable 

6 purposes) is amended by inserting after subsection (e) the 

7 following new subsection: 

8 ‘‘(f) FUELS USED IN MOBILE MAMMOGRAPHY VEHI9 CLES.—Except as provided in subsection (k), if any fuel 

10 on which tax was imposed by section 4041 or 4081 is used 

11 in any highway vehicle designed exclusively to provide mo12 bile mammography services to patients within such vehi13 cle, the Secretary shall pay (without interest) to the ulti14 mate purchaser of such fuel an amount equal to the aggre15 gate amount of the tax imposed on such fuel.’’. 

16 (b) EXEMPTION FROM RETAIL TAX.—Section 4041 

17 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the fol18 lowing new subsection: 

19 ‘‘(n) FUELS USED IN MOBILE MAMMOGRAPHY VEHI20 CLES.—No tax shall be imposed under this section on any 

21 liquid sold for use in, or used in, any highway vehicle de22 signed exclusively to provide mobile mammography serv23 ices to patients within such vehicle.’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 5849 IH

1 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment 

3 of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-18-00323-CR

JUSTIN ARTIS,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 440th District Court

Coryell County, Texas

Trial Court No. 17-24299

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In this matter, appellant, Justin Allen Michael Artis, filed his notice of appeal 

challenging his conviction for assault family violence. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 

22.01(b)(2)(A) (West Supp. 2018). The trial court’s certification of appellant’s right of 

appeal in this case indicates that this “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO 

right of appeal” and that “the defendant has waived the right of appeal.”
Artis v. State Page 2

We must dismiss an appeal “without further action, regardless of the basis for the 

appeal” if the trial court’s certification shows there is no right to appeal. See Chavez v. 

State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Monreal v. State, 99 S.W.3d 615, 622 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2003) (holding that an appellant who has executed a waiver of appeal, 

whether negotiated or non-negotiated, could not appeal without securing the permission 

of the trial court). Because the trial court’s certification indicates that appellant has no 

right of appeal, we hereby dismiss this appeal.1

AL SCOGGINS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed October 24, 2018

Do not publish

[CR25]

 

1 Nevertheless, we note that a motion for rehearing may be filed within 15 days after the judgment 

or order of this Court is rendered. See id. at R. 49.1. If the appellant desires to have the decision of this 

Court reviewed by filing a petition for discretionary review, that petition must be filed in the Court of 

Criminal Appeals within 30 days after either the day the court of appeals’ judgment was rendered or the 

day the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by the court of appeals. See id. at R. 68.2(a).
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5770 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5770

   To reauthorize certain United States Geological Survey water data 
                         enhancement programs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 27, 2023

  Mr. Neguse (for himself and Mr. Ciscomani) introduced the following 
     bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To reauthorize certain United States Geological Survey water data 
                         enhancement programs.

    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 ``Water Data Improvement Act''.

SEC. 2. WATER DATA ENHANCEMENT BY UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY.

    Section 9507 of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (42 
U.S.C. 10367) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)(6)--
                    (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``2023'' and 
                inserting ``2028''; and
                    (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``2019'' and 
                inserting ``2028'';
            (2) in subsection (b)(7), by striking ``2023'' and 
        inserting ``2028''; and
            (3) in subsection (d)(4), by striking ``2019'' and 
        inserting ``2028''.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 32.2**

** **

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

** **

** **

In connection with the Annual Report of Alamo Group Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Dan E. Malone, Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer) of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

 

1.   The Form10-K fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

2.   Theinformation contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

| March  15, 2010 | /s/Dan  E. Malone                                                     |
|-----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|            | Dan E. Malone

Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer |
|            | (Principal Financial Officer)                                         |
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 09**  **- 1059** 

EUGENIA B. WHITE , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,
v. FAIRFAX COUNTY GOVERNMENT , Defendant

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern D istrict of Virginia , at Alexandria
. Leonie M. Brinkema , District Judge. ( 1:08

- cv - 01110

- LMB

- TRJ )

Submitted : February 18, 2010 Decided: February 23, 2010

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opi nion
. Eugenia B. White, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Eugenia B. White appeals the district court ’ s order denying her second motion to reconsider its order dismissing her employment dis crimination complaint without prejudice . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. White v. Fairfax County Gov’t , No. 1:08

- cv - 01110

- LMB

- TRJ (E.D.
Va. filed Dec. 9 & ent ered Dec. 10, 2008) . 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
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 6109** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. MARTY BROWN , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Distric t of Virginia , at Roanoke
. James C. Turk , Senior District Judge. ( 7:05

- cr - 00060

- jct

- mfu

- 1; 7:09

- cv - 80182

- jct

mfu )

Submitted : March 16, 2010 Decided: March 24, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Marty Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Andrew Bassford, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Marty Brown seeks to appeal the di strict court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2009 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (200 6 ). A certificate of appealability wi ll not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (200 6 ). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);
Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 6 83

- 84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Brown has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 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 the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED