alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.2  CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, Simon Thomas, Chief Financial Officer of TransAct Energy Corp., (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:  (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2013 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78 o(d)); 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: April 26, 2013   /s/ Simon Thomas Simon Thomas Chief Financial Officer    A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been furnished to TransAct Energy Corp. and will be retained by TransAct Energy Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
##### 



Exhibit 21 ATMI, INC.
Subsidiaries Entity
    
    
    State or Jurisdiction of Incorporation or OrganizationAdvanced Technology Materials, Inc.
    
    
    DelawareEpitronics Corporation
    
    
    DelawareATMI Ecosys Corporation
    
    
    CaliforniaAdvanced Delivery & Chemical Systems Nevada, Inc.
    
    
    NevadaAdvanced Delivery & Chemical Systems Holdings, LLC
    
    
    DelawareAdvanced Delivery & Chemical Systems Operating, LLC
    
    
    DelawareAdvanced Delivery & Chemical Systems Manager, Inc.
    
    
    DelawareATMI Materials, Ltd.
    
    
    TexasATMI Korea Co. Ltd.
    
    
    KoreaATMI UK Limited
    
    
    ScotlandATMI Fab Services, Inc.
    
    
    New MexicoATMI Fab Services Ireland, Inc.
    
    
    New MexicoMST Measurement Systems, Inc.
    
    
    IllinoisATMI Packaging, Inc.
    
    
    MinnesotaATMI Packaging International Ltd.
    
    
    MinnesotaATMI International Holdings, Inc.
    
    
    DelawareATMI Taiwan Holdings, Inc.
    
    
    DelawareATMI Belgium Holdings, Inc.
    
    
    DelawareATMI Belgium, LLC
    
    
    DelawareEmosyn LLC
    
    
    DelawareATMI Packaging N.V.
    
    
    BelgiumATMI Japan KK
    
    
    JapanATMI Taiwan Co. Ltd.
    
    
    TaiwanATMI GmbH
    
    
    GermanyATMI PTE Ltd
    
    
    SingaporeATMI Fab Services Ireland, Ltd
    
    
    IrelandATMI Acquisition BVBA
    
    
    Belgium
#### Cynthia Lynn CLARK, Respondent, v. Charles J. CLARK, Appellant.

No. 18431.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division One.

Aug. 5, 1993.

Charles J. Clark, pro se.

No appearance, for respondent.

MONTGOMERY, Judge.

Charles J. Clark appeals, pro se, from a decree dissolving his marriage with Cynthia Lynn Clark. The decree also divided the parties’ marital property, apportioned certain debts and ordered each party to pay his or her own attorney fees.

All we can glean from Appellant’s brief is his dissatisfaction with lack of notice of the hearing date (although he filed no pleadings) and the division and valuation *838of marital property. Appellant’s brief contains no jurisdictional statement, statement of facts, points relied on or argument. Furthermore, the brief fails to cite a single authority and contains no page references to the legal file or transcript. In short, the brief is written in total disregard of every requirement in Rule 84.041 for an appellant’s brief.

Rule 84.04(a) provides:

> The brief for appellant shall contain:  A concise statement of the grounds on which jurisdiction of the review court is invoked; (2) A statement of the facts; (3) The points relied upon; and (4) An argument which shall substantially follow the order of “Points Relied On.”

If Rule 84.04 is not substantially complied with, nothing is preserved for appellate review. *Simpson v. Galena R-2 School Dist.,*809 S.W.2d 457 (Mo.App.1991); *Federbush v. Federbush,*667 S.W.2d 457, 458 (Mo.App.1984); *Pillow v. Sayad,*655 S.W.2d 816 (Mo.App.1983).

Plain error review under Rule 84.-13(c) is not appropriate when an appellant’s brief fails to identify wherein and why the trial court erred. *Arenson v. Arenson,*787 S.W.2d 845, 846 (Mo.App.1990). It is not the function of an appellate court to search the record to identify possible errors and research any issue so revealed. *Id.*In fairness to Respondent, we cannot become Appellant’s advocate.

“[Appellant] is bound by the same rules of procedure as those admitted to practice law and is entitled to no indulgence [he] would not have received if represented by counsel.” *Johnson v. St. Mary’s Health Center,*738 S.W.2d 534, 535 (Mo.App.1987).

For failure to comply with Rule 84.04 the appeal is dismissed.

PARRISH, C.J., and SHRUM, J., concur.

1

. Rule references are to Missouri Rules of Court (1993).
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

559 

KA 10-01503 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JAMIE C. HARRISON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

 

CARA A. WALDMAN, FAIRPORT, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

SCOTT D. MCNAMARA, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, UTICA (STEVEN G. COX OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Oneida County Court (Michael L.

Dwyer, J.), rendered June 20, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant,

upon a jury verdict, of murder in the second degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him

upon a jury verdict of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25

[1]) for intentionally causing the death of Jamon Miller, whose body

was found in defendant’s home. In his statements to the police,

defendant claimed that someone else, whom he would not identify, had

killed Miller, and that he then killed the person who was responsible

for killing Miller. That other person was referred to as “W” by the

police during the interrogation of defendant. On appeal, defendant

contends that reversal is required because he may have been convicted

of an unindicted act of murder, i.e., the killing of “W.” That

contention is not preserved for our review (see People v Allen, 24

NY3d 441, 449-450), and is without merit in any event. The prosecutor

and defense counsel reminded the jury during their opening and closing

statements that defendant was charged with killing only Miller, and

County Court gave similar instructions to the jury. There is

therefore no danger that the jury convicted defendant of an unindicted

act (see People v Cooke, 119 AD3d 1399, 1400, affd 24 NY3d 1196; see

also People v Rodriguez, 32 AD3d 1203, 1205, lv denied 8 NY3d 849).

Defendant contends that his statements to the police were

involuntarily made inasmuch as he was sleep-deprived and intoxicated

during the 12-hour interrogation. Defendant failed to raise that

specific contention as a ground for suppressing those statements in

his motion papers or at the suppression hearing and thus failed to

preserve that contention for our review (see People v Brown, 120 AD3d

954, 955, lv denied 24 NY3d 1118). In any event, we conclude that the
-2- 559 

KA 10-01503 

record does not support defendant’s contention regarding the alleged

involuntariness of his statements (see People v Hunter, 46 AD3d 1374,

1375, lv denied 10 NY3d 812; People v Swimley, 190 AD2d 1070, 1071, lv

denied 81 NY2d 977).

Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime as

charged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349), we

reject defendant’s contention that the verdict is against the weight

of the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). 

Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

Entered: May 1, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Jerome ABRAMS, Defendant/Appellant. Jerome ABRAMS, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

Nos. 66345, 69777.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Dec. 17, 1996.

Douglas R. Hoff, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for defendant/appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Breck K. Burgess, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, for plaintiffirespon-dent.

Before DOWD, P.J., and REINHARD and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals after he was convicted by a jury of one count of first degree robbery, § 569.020, RSMo 1986. The court sentenced him as a persistent offender to a prison term of twenty-five years. Defendant failed to address any points on appeal to his direct appeal. Therefore, that appeal is considered abandoned. *State v. Brooks,*916 S.W.2d 454, 455 (Mo.App. E.D.1996). Defendant also appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error are without merit; the judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
1

Filed 10/30/14 Pride v. Super. Ct. CA4/2 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS 

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

DIVISION TWO 

DAVID C. PRIDE, 

 Petitioner, 

v. 

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, 

 Respondent; 

THE PEOPLE, 

 Real Party in Interest. 

 E061385 

 (Super.Ct.No. SCR57051) 

 OPINION 

 ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of mandate. Annemarie G. Pace, 

Judge. Petition granted in part with directions. 

 David C. Pride, in pro. per, for Petitioner. 

 No appearance for Respondent. 

 Michael A. Ramos, District Attorney, and Stephanie H. Zeitlin, Deputy District 

Attorney, for Real Party in Interest. 
2

 In this matter we have reviewed the petition and the opposition filed by real party 

in interest. We have determined that resolution of the matter involves the application of 

settled principles of law, and that issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance is 

therefore appropriate. (Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 

178.) 

DISCUSSION 

 There is no requirement in In re Steele (2004) 32 Cal.4th 682 (Steele) that a 

defendant seeking discovery under Penal Code section 1054.9 prove that he or she has an 

actual, physical petition for writ of habeas corpus waiting for the “final touches.” All that 

is required is that such a petition be in some state of preparation (Steele, at p. 691; Curl v. 

Superior Court (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 310.) The petition is not inadequate in this 

respect. Although petitioner may not be entitled to all items sought, his request has 

sufficient specificity and clarity and Kennedy v. Superior Court (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 

359 does not apply. Nor do the cases require a defendant to articulate his or her theories 

of relief before obtaining the statutory discovery. Finally, we decline to hold that the 

absence of a proof of service of the demand letters to trial counsel invalidates petitioner’s 

request. 

 Hence, we can find no basis for the trial court’s flat denial of the motion for 

discovery. 
3

DISPOSITION 

 Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandate is granted in part. Let a peremptory 

writ of mandate issue directing the Superior Court of San Bernardino County to vacate its 

order summarily denying the request for discovery, and to reconsider the motion with 

respect to each category of items requested. The court may request such further briefing 

as it deems appropriate. 

Petitioner is directed to prepare and have the peremptory writ of mandate issued, 

copies served, and the original filed with the clerk of this court, together with proof of 

service on all parties. 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS 

KING 

 J. 

We concur: 

McKINSTER 

 Acting P. J. 

MILLER 

 J.
Exhibit 10.3

                               LOCK-UP AGREEMENT

     This LOCK-UP AGREEMENT (this "Lock-up Agreement") is dated as of December
7, 2007, by and among U.S. Sustainable Energy Corp., a Nevada corporation
("USSE"), and Sustainable Power Corp., a Nevada corporation (the "Company").

                                    RECITALS

     WHEREAS, pursuant to a Licensing Agreement entered into by the parties in
April 2009, the Company was granted an exclusive worldwide license to distribute
USSE's recycled renewable biofuel;

WHEREAS, USSE received 648,547,740 shares of the Company's common stock as
compensation for the exclusive worldwide license;

WHEREAS, in an attempt to increase shareholder confidence in the Company, USSE
agrees not to sell, offer to sell or otherwise transfer any shares of the
Company's common stock for a period commencing on the date hereof and ending
December 7, 2009 (the "Lock Up Period"); and

WHEREAS, USSE is willing to "lock up" its shares of the Company's common stock
until December 7, 2009 so that the Company's shares have an opportunity to
appreciate without the overhang of USSE's share position in the market.

NOW THEREFORE, in exchange for one dollar ($1.00) paid to USSE by the Company
and other valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:

                                   AGREEMENT

Management Lock-Up. USSE, the beneficial owner of 351,452,260.00 shares of the
------------------
Company's common stock, hereby agrees for a period commencing on the date hereof
and ending on December 7, 2009 (the "Lock-up Period") not to sell, loan, pledge,
assign, transfer, encumber, distribute, grant or otherwise dispose of, directly
or indirectly, or offer, contract or agree to sell or otherwise dispose of (a)
any of the shares it beneficially owns, (b) any options, warrants or rights to
purchase any of such shares, or (c) any shares it hereafter acquires directly or
indirectly during the Lock-up Period, provided the donee(s) thereof agree(s) in
writing to be bound by this Lock-up Agreement.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed and delivered this
Management Lock-up Agreement as of December 7, 2007.

SUSTAINABLE POWER CORP.               U.S. SUSTAINABLE ENERGY CORP.

By:  \s\ Keith Mazer                  By:  \s\ John Rivera
     ---------------                       ---------------
     Keith Mazer                           John Rivera
     President                             Chairman and CEO
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

Certification by the Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

I, Kevin R. Hoben,, certify that: 

 

1.     I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2008, of Omega Flex, Inc. (the “registrant”); 

 

2.       Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3.       Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4.        The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

 (a)          Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

 (b)         Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

 (c)          Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

5.        The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

 (a)          All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’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 have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date:  June 30, 2008 

 

/s/ Kevin R. Hoben__________________________

 

Kevin R. Hoben

Chief Executive Officer

 

|   | Page 1 |
|--------|--------|
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 104 (Wednesday, May 29, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 26898]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13351]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. MT96-14-000]


Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation; Notice of Proposed 
Changes in FERC Gas Tariff

May 22, 1996.
    Take notice that on May 17, 1996 Texas Eastern Transmission 
Corporation (Texas Eastern) submitted for filing as part of its FERC 
Gas Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff 
sheets:

Third Revised Sheet No. 624
First Revised Sheet No. 624A
Second Revised Sheet No. 647

    Texas Eastern states that the purpose of this filing is to reflect 
the name change of Panhandle Trading Company to PanEnergy Gas Services, 
Inc. (PGS), which is the marketing company which manages day to day 
performance of Texas Eastern's remainnig gas purchase contracts.
    The proposed effective date of these tariff sheets is June 17, 
1996.
    Texas Eastern states that copies of the filing were served on Texas 
Eastern's jurisdictional customers, interested state commissions, and 
all current interruptible customers.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed as provided 
in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-13351 Filed 5-28-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION OF BILL SCHAEFER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Annual Report of Legends Business Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (Report), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant 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.  Date: December 19, 2013  By: /s/ Bill SchaeferBill SchaeferChief Executive Officer andPrincipal Accounting 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 TransAct Energy Corp. a Nevada corporation (the Company), on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Harold Forzley, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350), 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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/ Harold Forzley Harold Forzley Chief Financial Officer Date: August 13, 2007
#### Arthur PASHOS, Respondent, v. James G. BUCY, M.D., Appellant.

No. 62034.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District. Division One.

Feb. 23, 1993.

Morris E. Stokes, Clayton, for appellant.

Charles E. Foehner, II, Philip Louis Will-man, St. Louis, for respondent.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant James Buey, M.D. (Doctor), appeals from the trial court’s order granting Plaintiff Arthur Pashos (Patient) a voluntary dismissal without prejudice in his suit against Doctor. Doctor also appeals the trial judge’s order setting aside sanctions imposed on Patient. We affirm per Rule 84.16(b). The trial judge did not abuse his discretion and no error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have furnished the parties with a memorandum for their information only.