alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Barthe WILLIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 46684.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Feb. 9, 1993.

Lorry L. Kohrs, Asst. Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

*736William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Michael J. Runzi, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before SMART, P.J., and SHANGLER and FENNER, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from dismissal of successive Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
**Exhibit 32**

**CERTIFICATION**

**Pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title18, United States Code)**

Pursuantto section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) ofsection 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of theundersigned officers of Services Acquisition Corp. International andSubsidiary, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, tosuch officer’s knowledge, that:

TheQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31,2006 (the “Form 10-Q”) of the Company fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934, and information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents,in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofthe Company.
| Dated: May 15, 2006 | /s/ Steven R. Berrard |
|--------------------------|-----------------------|
|                     |                  | Steven R. Berrard |
|                     |                  | Chief Executive Officer |
|                     |                  | (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial  and Accounting Officer) |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Companyand will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----
---

EXHIBIT 32.1CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO     18 U.S.C. 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Major Creations
Incorporated (the Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended July 31, 2006,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report"), I, Guy Peckham, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
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 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

|                         | /s/ Guy Peckham           
|------------------------ | --------------------------
|                         | --------------------------
|Date: September 14, 2006 | Guy Peckham               
|                         | President and CEO         

---
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 111 (Friday, June 7, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 29072]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14335]



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

ARCTIC RESEARCH COMMISSION


Notice of Meeting

May 30, 1996.
    Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Arctic Research Commission 
will hold its 43rd Meeting in Arlington, VA on June 20 and 21, 1996. On 
the morning of Thursday, June 20, the Commission will meet with the 
U.S. Geological Survey in Reston, VA to review USGS programs (this 
meeting is open to the public). A Business Session open to the public 
will convene at 1:00 p.m. in the Holiday Inn, Ballston. Agenda items 
include:
    (1) Call to order and approval of the Agenda.
    (2) Approval of the minutes of the 42nd Meeting.
    (3) Reports of Congressional Liaisons.
    (4) Agency Reports.
    On Friday, June 21, the Business Session will continue. Agenda 
items include:
    (5) A general discussion of the Arctic Environmental Protection 
Strategy and the negotiations leading toward and Arctic Council.
    (6) Information Items
    (a) The Canadian Polar Continental Shelf
    (b) The Detection of Whales by Passive SONAR
    The business meeting will be followed by an Executive Session 
followed by adjournment of the 43nd Meeting.
    Any person planning to attend this meeting who requires special 
accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language 
interpreters must inform the Commission in advance of those needs.
    Contact Person for More Information: Dr. Garrett W. Brass, 
Executive Director, Arctic Research Commission, 703-525-0111 or TDD 
703-306-0090.
Garrett W. Brass,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 96-14335 Filed 6-6-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
<PAGE>





                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                            INDUS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
  NAME OF SUBSIDIARY (AND DOING BUSINESS AS)                     STATE OF INCORPORATION
  ------------------------------------------                     ----------------------
<S>                                                              <C>
Indus Group North America, Inc.                                            California
Indus Foreign Sales Corporation                                            U.S. Virgin Islands
Indus UK, Inc.                                                             California
Indus International, Ltd.                                                  United Kingdom
Indus International, S.A.                                                  France
Indus International Pty Ltd.                                               Australia
Indus International Software Pte. Ltd.                                     Singapore
Indus International Canada, Inc.                                           Canada
Indus International Japan, Inc.                                            Delaware
</TABLE>
Marcus L. Williams, Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

# FILED AUG 2,6 2010 Clerk, U.S. District and Bankruptcy Courts

v. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 

# lD - \

# 44-**~** U

## tJADepartment ofthe Air Force and the Secretary ofthe Air Force Michael B. Donley, Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on plaintiffspro se complaint and application to proceed informapauperis. The Court will grant plaintiffs application and dismiss the complaint on the ground ofresjudicata. Under the principle ofresjudicata, a final judgment on the merits in one action "bars any further claim based on the same 'nucleus offacts'
...." Page v. United States, 729 F.2d 818, 820 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (quoting Expert Elec., Inc. v. Levine, 554 F.2d 1227, 1234 (D.C. Cir. 1977)). Resjudicata bars the relitigation "ofissues that were or couldhave been raised in [the prior] action." Drake v. FAA, 291 F.3d 59 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (emphasis in original) (quotingAllen
v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94 (1980)); see I.A.M Nat 'I Pension Fund v. Indus. Gear Mfg. Co., 723 F.2d 944, 949 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (noting that resjudicata "forecloses all that which might have been litigated previously"). The current complaint "for declaration ofin personam status" is mostly unclear but plaintiffseeks ajudgment declaring that the Air Force acted contrary to law in suspending "his Date ofSeparation
... occurring on 28 December, 2001
... which procured an collateral U.S.Armed Forces in personam status into the membership class ofpersons, whom are: 'awaiting discharge after expiration ofterm ofenlistment'." CompI. at 11. In Williams v. United States, the Court ofFederal Claims decided (1) whether the Air Force had the authority to extend Mr. Williams' term ofservice beyond his [expiration term ofservice] and whether the Air Force properly invoked that authority, and (2) whether the dishonorable discharge that resulted from Mr. Williams' court-martial was aproperpredicate for the forfeiture ofany leave that Mr. Williams had accrued. 71 Fed. Cl. 194,201 (2006). It resolved those questions in the Air Force's favor. See id. at 201- 02. In the earlier case, as it seems here, plaintiffhad contended that the Air Force lacked "authority to separate him from service on October 1, 2004 and to classify his discharge as dishonorable" because his term had expired on December 28,2001. Id. at 195. Plaintiffcannot litigate that claim anew. A separate Order ofdismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Uni Date:

### August~, 2010

2
**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

 

 

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, in his capacity as an officer of Omega Flex, Inc. (the “Company”), that, to his knowledge: 

 

 (a)     the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 operations of the Company. 

 

Dated: March 31, 2009

 

/s/  Kevin R. Hoben___________________

 

Kevin R. Hoben

Chief Executive Officer 

 

/s/  Paul J. Kane______________________

 

Paul J. Kane

Chief Financial Officer 

 

This certification is not deemed to be “filed” for purposes of section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section.  This certification is not deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.

 

 

|   | Page 1 |
|--------|--------|
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LELAND ANTHONY NEYER; JUNE E. NEYER,

Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

v.
GMAC HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL BANK; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 11

- 15722

D.C. No. 2:09

- cv
- 01671

- GEB

CMK

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 8, 2017 **

Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. Leland Anthony Neyer and June E. Neyer appeal pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing their action arising from foreclosure proceedings. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Medrano v.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral a rgument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAY 11 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 11

- 15722

Flagstar Bank

, FSB , 704 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir. 2012) , and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the Neyers’ action because the Neyers
failed to allege facts sufficient to show that any defendant failed to provide a
required disclosure under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act

. See 12
U.S.C. § 2605(e) ( identifying service

- related inquires that requ ire a loan servicer to
respond) ; see also Medrano , 704 F.3d at 667 ( “ [L] etters challe nging only a loan’ s
validity or its terms are not qualified written requ ests that give rise to a du ty to
respond under § 2605(e)

. ” )

.
T he district court did not abuse its discretion by denying as moot the Neyers’
motion for a preliminary injunction

. See Harris v. Bd. of Supervisors , 366 F.3d

754 , 759

- 60 (9th Cir. 2004 ) ( setting forth standard of review and requirements for
a preliminary injunction ).
We reject the Neyers’ contention that the district court improperly refused to

file their “fourth amended complaint

. ” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) (other than
amending a pleading once within certain time limits, “a party may amend its
pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave”).

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.4B


                               AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
                              EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


            This Amendment No. 1 ("Amendment No. 1") is entered into as of
this 15 day of November, 2000, by and between The Penn Traffic Company (the
"Company") and Martin A. Fox ("Executive") to the Employment Agreement dated
as of January 31, 2000 (the "Employment Agreement") between the Company and
the Executive.

            WHEREAS, on the date hereof, the Company and Executive have agreed
to amend certain provisions of the Employment Agreement;

            WHEREAS, Executive and the Company desire to enter into this
Amendment No. 1 to provide for the amendments to the Employment Agreement on
the terms specified below; and

            WHEREAS, all capitalized terms used herein but not defined herein
shall be given the meanings ascribed to them in the Employment Agreement.

            NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereby agree as follows:

            1. Paragraphs 2, 11(a) and 12(a) of the Employment Agreement
shall be amended as follows: all references to the words "March 31, 2001,"
appearing in such paragraphs shall be deleted and replaced with the words
"December 31, 2001".

            2. In accordance with the last sentence of Paragraph 5(a), the
Company was obligated to adopt a Supplemental Retirement Plan (or otherwise)
for the purposes indicated therein. The executive hereby agrees and
acknowledges that the Company has satisfied its obligation to adopt such a
Plan; and the Company hereby acknowledges its continuing obligation to
continue to accrue retirement benefits as required pursuant to Paragraph
5(a)(ii).

            3. The Company agrees to promptly reimburse the Executive for all
of Executive's reasonable attorney's fees and expenses incurred in connection
with the review of this Amendment No. 1.

            4. The Company hereby represents and warrants that all necessary
corporate action has been taken in order to authorize the within Amendment
and that this Amendment constitutes the valid, binding and enforceable
obligation of the Company.

            5. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, all of the
terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement are ratified and shall
remain unchanged and continue in full force and effect.

<PAGE>

            6. This Amendment No. 1 may be executed in one or more
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which
taken  together shall constitute one and the same instrument.

            IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment No. 1 has been executed as of
the date first above written.


THE PENN TRAFFIC COMPANY


By:   /s/ JOSEPH V. FISHER
   ---------------------------------
    Name:  Joseph V. Fisher
    Title:  President and Chief Executive Officer


By:   /s/ MARTIN A. FOX
   ---------------------------
      Martin A. Fox


                                       2
# ***Exhibit 32***

 

**SECTION 906 CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVEOFFICER ANDCHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OFBOISE CASCADE COMPANY**

 

**We are providing this Certificate pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C., Section 1350.  It accompanies Boise Cascade Company’squarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005.**

 

----

 

**I, W. Thomas Stephens, BoiseCascade Company’s chief executive officer, certify that:**

 

(i)            the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

 

(ii)           the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairlypresents, in all material respects, Boise Cascade Company’s financial conditionand results of operations.

 

 
|   | /s/ W. Thomas Stephens                      |
|--------|---------------------------------------------|
|   | W. Thomas Stephens  Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

 

I, Thomas E. Carlile, BoiseCascade Company’s chief financial officer, certify that:

 

(i)            the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

 

(ii)           the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairlypresents, in all material respects, Boise Cascade Company’s financial conditionand results of operations.

 

 
|   | /s/ Thomas E. Carlile                      |
|--------|--------------------------------------------|
|   | Thomas E. Carlile  Chief Financial Officer |

 

Dated: August 11, 2005

 

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 will beretained by Boise Cascade Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

----
IV 

House Calendar No. 2 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 53 

[Report No. 111–2] 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 384) to reform the Troubled 

Assets Relief Program of the Secretary of the Treasury and ensure 

accountability under such Program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 13, 2009 

Mr. MCGOVERN, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 384) to reform 

the Troubled Assets Relief Program of the Secretary 

of the Treasury and ensure accountability under such 

Program. 

1 Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 

2 resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of 

3 rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee 

4 of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consider5 ation of the bill (H.R. 384) to reform the Troubled Assets 

6 Relief Program of the Secretary of the Treasury and enVerDate Nov 24 2008 01:20 Jan 14, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HR53.RH HR53

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 53 RH 

1 sure accountability under such Program. The first reading 

2 of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order 

3 against consideration of the bill are waived except those 

4 arising under clause 9 of rule XXI. General debate shall 

5 be confined to the bill and shall not exceed 2 hours equally 

6 divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 

7 member of the Committee on Financial Services. After 

8 general debate, the Committee of the Whole shall rise 

9 without motion. No further consideration of the bill shall 

10 be in order except pursuant to a subsequent order of the 

11 House. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
House Calendar No. 2 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 53 

[Report No. 111–2] 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 384) 

countability under such Program. the Secretary of the Treasury and ensure acto reform the Troubled Assets Relief Program of 

JANUARY 13, 2009 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

David A. Chami, AZ #027585

PRICE LAW GROUP, APC

8245 N. 85th Way

Scottsdale, AZ 85258

T: (818) 600-5515

F: (818) 600-5415

david@pricelawgroup.com

Haytham Faraj

LAW OFFICES OF HAYTHAM FARAJ

1935 W Belmont Ave.

Chicago, IL 60657

T: (312) 635-0800

F: (202) 280-1039

haytham@farajlaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Mussalina Muhaymin as Personal 

Representative of the Estate of 

Muhammad Abdul Muhaymin Jr., 

Plaintiff,

v.

City of Phoenix, an Arizona Municipal 

Corporation, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: CV-17-04565-PHX-SMB

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SEAL 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO 

EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY

Pursuant to the Protective Order [Doc. 72], Plaintiff Mussalina Muhaymin respectfully

requeststhis Court seal Plaintiff’s Motionsto Exclude Expert Testimony by Defendants’ Experts, 

Dr. Gary M. Vilke, Dr. Binh T. Ly and Greg Meyer, including the exhibits identified in the 

Motions.
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Date: April 2, 2021 PRICE LAW GROUP, APC

By: /s/ David A. Chami 

David A. Chami, AZ #027585

david@pricelawgroup.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on April 2, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of 

the Court using the ECF system, which will send notice of such filing to all attorneys of record in 

this matter. Since none of the attorneys of record are non-ECF participants, hard copies of the 

foregoing have not been provided via personal delivery or by postal mail.

/s/ Florence Lirato
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MARKEZ PRIEST,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 262 WAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 13th day of December, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of

Appeal is DENIED

.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       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 International Cellular, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Rachel Wosk, Chief Executive 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 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.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
14th day of November, 2005.

/s/ Rachel Wosk
-----------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
Case 2:17-cv-04540-DGC Document 177-1 Filed 09/28/18 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:17-cv-04540-DGC Document 177-1 Filed 09/28/18 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:17-cv-04540-DGC Document 177-1 Filed 09/28/18 Page 3 of 3
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
listed below of Indus International, Inc. of our report dated January 24, 2003,
with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Indus International,
Inc. included in this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year
ended December 31, 2002:

1.  Registration Statement Number 333-36995 on Form S-8
2.  Registration Statement Number 333-44438 on Form S-8
3.  Registration Statement Number 333-64632 on Form S-8
4.  Registration Statement Number 333-70475 on Form S-8
5.  Registration Statement Number 333-104028 on Form S-3


/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Atlanta, Georgia
June 24, 2003