alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Mary Ann CLARK, Defendant/Appellant. Mary Ann CLARK, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

Nos. 63885, 66142.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

June 6, 1995.

Lew Kollias, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Cheryl A. Caponegro, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before GRIMM, C.J., REINHARD, P.J., and CRAHAN, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals the judgment upon her conviction by a jury of robbery in the second degree, § 569.030 RSMo 1994, for which she was sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment. Defendant also appeals the denial of her Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. However, Defendant has abandoned that appeal by failing to brief any errors pertaining to the denial of post-conviction relief.

With respect to Defendant’s direct appeal, no error of law appears. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(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 Quarterly Report of China Multimedia, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010 (the "Report"), I, Wilson Cheung, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 1) The Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations. /s/Wilson CheungWilson Cheung, Chief Executive Officer August 13, 2010
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





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 officers of Infrastructure Materials Corp. (the "Company"), does hereby
certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:





The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the quarter ended March 31, 2010 (the “Form 10-Q”) of the Company fully complies
with the requirement of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.











Dated:
May 12, 2010

















/s/ Todd D.
Montgomery


Todd D.
Montgomery


Chief
Executive Officer


Infrastructure
Materials Corp.








Dated:
May 12, 2010

















/s/ Rakesh
Malhotra


Rakesh
Malhotra


Chief
Financial Officer


Infrastructure
Materials Corp.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Infrastructure Material Corp. and will be retained by Infrastructure Materials
Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
<PAGE>
                                                                     Exhibit 8.1

                        LIST OF SIGNIFICANT SUBSIDIARIES.

      The following is a list of Mittal Steel Company N.V.'s material
subsidiaries as of December 31, 2004, each wholly or majority owned directly or
indirectly through intermediate holding companies:


      -     Mittal Steel Annaba, incorporated in Algeria;

      -     Mittal Steel Tebessa, incorporated in Algeria;

      -     RZR Ljubija, incorporated in Bosnia and Herzegovina;

      -     Mittal Steel Zenica, incorporated in Bosnia and Herzegovina;

      -     Mittal Canada, incorporated in Canada;

      -     Mittal Steel Ostrava, incorporated in the Czech Republic;

      -     Mittal Steel Marketing, incorporated in the United Arab Emirates.

      -     Mittal Steel Gandrange, incorporated in France;

      -     Trefileurope, incorporated in France;

      -     Mittal Steel Hamburg, incorporated in Germany;

      -     Mittal Steel Ruhrort, incorporated in Germany;

      -     Mittal Steel Hochfeld, incorporated in Germany;

      -     Mittal Steel Temirtau, incorporated in Kazakhstan;

      -     Mittal Steel Europe, incorporated in Luxembourg;

      -     Mittal Steel Skopje, incorporated in Macedonia;

      -     Mittal Steel Lazaro Cardenas, incorporated in Mexico;

      -     Mittal Steel Poland, incorporated in Poland;

      -     Mittal Steel Galati, incorporated in Romania;

      -     Mittal Steel Roman, incorporated in Romania;

      -     Mittal Steel Iasi, incorporated in Romania;

      -     Mittal Steel Hunedoara, incorporated in Romania;

      -     Mittal Steel South Africa, incorporated in South Africa;

      -     Mittal Steel Point Lisas, incorporated in Trinidad and Tobago;

      -     Ispat Inland, incorporated in the United States; and

      -     Mittal Steel Holdings N.V., incorporated in the Netherlands
            Antilles.
#### Elza SANFORD, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 56953.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

June 5, 1990.

Henry B. Robertson, Lisa K. Clover, Asst. Public Defenders, St. Louis, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Jared R. Cone, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion after an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would serve no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only setting forth the reasons for our order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
#### Timothy V. BIERMANN and Fran Biermann, his wife, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Danny HALEL, Rick Runyan, Bill Howard, Art Vincent, and Leon Glosemeyer, Defendants/Respondents.

No. 64913.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

July 26, 1994.

Robert Alan Zick, Washington, for appellants.

Debbie Champion, St. Louis, for respondents.

Before CRANE, P.J., and KAROHL and CRAHAN, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs appeal the trial court’s order sustaining Defendants’ motion to dismiss their common law action for personal injuries. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record and find no error of law. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prec-edential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
Amendment to Employment Agreement between WABCO Expats Inc and Kevin Tarrant



 Exhibit 10.26 
 AMENDMENT 
 TO 
 LETTER
AGREEMENT 
 THIS AMENDMENT TO LETTER AGREEMENT (the “Amendment”) is made December 31, 2008, by and between WABCO Expats Inc.
(the “Company”) and Kevin Tarrant (the “Executive”). 
 WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive entered into that certain
letter agreement dated June 28, 2007 (the “Letter Agreement”); 
 WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive desire to amend the
Letter Agreement to comply with Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code as provided herein. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable
consideration, the sufficiency of which is acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: 
  

	1.	The section of the Letter Agreement entitled “International Assignment” shall be amended by adding the following new paragraph at the end of such section: 


“All benefits, reimbursements and other payments made or paid in connection with your assignment shall be done in a manner that complies with the
requirements of Section 409A of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the ‘Code’). If WSW reimburses you for the amount of any such benefit, such reimbursement will be made not later than the last day of your taxable
year following the year in which the related expense was incurred (subject to your providing any required supporting documentation); provided, however, that the timing for reimbursements of any tax equalization payments shall be as set forth below.
Any reimbursement payments due to you pursuant to this letter shall not be subject to liquidation or exchange for another benefit and the amount of such expenses eligible for reimbursement or such benefits that you receive in one taxable year shall
not affect the expenses eligible for reimbursement or the amount of such benefits that you will receive in any other taxable year. 
 Any amounts
payable to you pursuant to any tax equalization agreement (within the meaning of Treas. Reg. Section 1.409A-1(b)(8)(iii)) shall be made to you not later than the last day of your second taxable year following the year in which your U.S. Federal
income tax return is required to be filed (including any extensions) for the year to which the compensation subject to the tax equalization payment relates, or, if later, your second taxable year following the latest such taxable year in which your
foreign tax return or payment is required to be filed or made for the year to which the compensation subject to the tax equalization payment relates.” 
  

	2.	All other terms of the Letter Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 

 This instrument, together with the Letter Agreement, contains the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Executive and the Company have caused this Amendment to be executed as of the day and year first written above. 
  

			
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Arielle van der Perren

	WABCO EXPATS INC
	
	 /s/ Kevin Tarrant
 Kevin Tarrant
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

KARP & WEISS, P.C.

3060 North Swan Road

Tucson, Arizona 85712-1225

Telephone (520) 325-4200

Facsimile (520) 325-4224

Stephen M. Weiss

PCC No. 61412

State Bar No. 002261

sweiss@karpweiss.com

Adam C. Page

PCC No. 66148

State Bar No. 025015

apage@karpweiss.com

Attorneys for Defendant Joye Vaught

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

 v.

MICHAEL LACEY, JAMES LARKIN, 

SCOTT SPEAR, JOHN “JED” BRUNST, 

DAN HYER, ANDREW PADILLA, and 

JOYE VAUGHT

Defendants

 2:18-CR-00422-SPL 

 (CR-18-422-PHX-SPL (BSB)

JOINDER IN DEFENDANT

LARKIN’S MOTION FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE

RESPONSE TO GOVERNMENT’S

MOTION TO DISQUALIFY 

COUNSEL

It is expected that excludable delay under 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(1) may occur as a 

result of this Motion or an order based thereon, as explained more fully below.

The Defendant Joye Vaught, by and through her attorney Stephen M. Weiss, 

hereby joins in the Motion to Extend Time to file a Response to the Government’s 

Motion to Disqualify Counsel filed by and on behalf of Defendant Larkin and adopts the 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 161 Filed 05/23/18 Page 1 of 2
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

positions set forth in said Motion as if fully set forth herein. The issues raised by 

Defendant Larkin in said Motion apply with equal force to Defendant Vaught.

DATED this 23rd day of May, 2018.

KARP & WEISS, P.C.

By /s/ Stephen M. Weiss 

Stephen M. Weiss

Attorney for Defendant Vaught

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 23rd day of May, 2018, I electronically transmitted 

the foregoing Joinder in Defendant Larkin’s Motion for Extension of Time to File 

Response to Government’s Motion to Disqualify Counsel on behalf of Joye Vaught to 

the Clerk of the Court by filing with the CM/ECF system and understand a copy of the 

filing will be emailed to the following CM/ECF registrants:

Honorable Steven P. Logan: logan_chambers@azd.uscourts.gov

Kevin M. Rapp: kevin.rapp@usdoj.gov

Dominic William Lanza: dominic.lanza@usdoj.gov

Margaret Perlmeter: margaret.perlmeter@usdoj.gov 

John J. Kucera: john.kucera@usdoj.gov

Reginald E. Jones: reginald.jones4@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Government

Bruce S. Feder: bf@federlawpa.com

James C. Grant: jimgrant@dwt.com

K. C. Maxwell: kmaxwell@bgrfirm.com

Michael D. Kimerer: MDK@kimerer.com

Michael L. Piccarreta: mlp@pd-law.com

Paul J. Cambria, Jr.: pcambria@lglaw.com

Robert Corn-Revere: bobcornrevere@dwt.com

Attorneys for Defendants

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 161 Filed 05/23/18 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 974 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 974

  Urging the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to 
reevaluate the endangerment and cause or contribute findings regarding 
              greenhouse gases signed on December 7, 2009.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 15, 2009

Mr. Alexander submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                  the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Urging the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to 
reevaluate the endangerment and cause or contribute findings regarding 
              greenhouse gases signed on December 7, 2009.

Whereas the Environmental Protection Agency found that 6 naturally occurring 
        gases contained in Earth's atmosphere, including carbon dioxide and 
        methane, threaten the public health and welfare;
Whereas the Environmental Protection Agency, under the banner of clean air laws 
        originally drafted over 30 years ago, stretching its authority by using 
        such laws as a scare tactic, found that action must be taken to reduce 
        greenhouse gas emissions; and
Whereas the impacts of climate change and proposed resolutions, tainted by the 
        recent uncovering of climategate, are not universally accepted: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) finds the endangerment and cause or contribute findings 
        for greenhouse gases signed by the Administrator of the 
        Environmental Protection Agency, under the pretense of the 
        Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA (549 U.S. 497 
        (2007)), unacceptable;
            (2) disapproves of the actions of the Administrator of the 
        Environmental Protection Agency in casting aside the 
        legislative process and signing such controversial and 
        potentially unfounded endangerment and cause or contribute 
        findings; and
            (3) urges the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
        Agency to reevaluate the endangerment and cause or contribute 
        findings signed on December 7, 2009.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 120 (Thursday, June 20, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31442-31443]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15621]



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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 70

[AD-FRL-5522-9]


Clean Air Act Final Interim Approval of Operating Permits 
Program; Delegation of Section 112 Standards; State of Massachusetts; 
Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final interim approval; Correction.

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

SUMMARY: On May 15, 1996 (61 FR 24460), EPA promulgated interim 
approval of the 40 CFR Part 70 Operating Permits Program for the 
Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The document correctly identified the 
effective date as May 15, 1996. However, the language to amend 40 CFR 
Part 70 listed an incorrect effective date and an incorrect expiration 
date for the interim approval of this program.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 15, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ida E. Gagnon, Air Permits Program, 
CAP, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, JFK Federal 
Building, Boston, MA 02203-2211, (617) 565-3500.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the document published on May 15, 
1996 at 61 FR 24461, column 3, the effective date and expiration 
date were incorrect. This final rule corrects the language to amend 
40 CFR Part 70 in a manner which is consistent with the May 15, 
1996 rule. The correct effective date of this interim approval is 
May 15, 1996, and the correct expiration date of this interim 
approval is May 15, 1998.

    The EPA regrets any inconvenience the earlier information has 
caused.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70

    Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, 
Environmental Protection, Intergovernmental relations, Operating 
permits, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 30, 1996.
John P. DeVillars,
Regional Administrator, Region I.
    Part 70, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as 
follows:

[[Page 31443]]

PART 70--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 70 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

    2. Appendix A to part 70 is amended by revising the entry for 
Massachusetts to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 70--Approval Status of State and Local Operating 
Permits Programs

* * * * *

Massachusetts

    (a) Department of Environmental Protection: submitted on April 
28, 1995; interim approval effective on May 15, 1996; interim 
approval expires May 15, 1998.
    (b) (Reserved).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-15621 Filed 6-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Exhibit 32

Written Statement of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Rule
13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) under the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. 1350

Each of the undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, of ITC^DeltaCom, Inc., hereby
certifies that, on the date hereof:



| | 1. | The annual report on Form 10-K of ITC^DeltaCom, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2008 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of ITC^DeltaCom, Inc.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |                                                                          
|-------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 16, 2009 |  | /s/    RANDALL E.
CURRAN                                                 
|                     |  | Randall E. Curran Chief Executive Officer                                
|                     | 
|Date: March 16, 2009 |  | /s/    RICHARD E. FISH,
JR.                                              
|                     |  | Richard E. Fish, Jr. Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 102 (Friday, May 24, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 26102]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13148]



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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

32 CFR Part 95

[DoD Directive 1005.13]


Gifts From Foreign Governments; Removal of Part

AGENCY: Department of Defense.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document removes the Department of Defense's rule 
concerning gifts from foreign governments. The part has served the 
purpose for which it was intended for the Code of Federal Regulations, 
and is no longer necessary.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 24, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. R. Kennedy, 703-697-1142.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Paper copies of DoD Directive 1005.13 are 
available, at cost, from the National Technical Information Service, 
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161. The Directive is also 
available on the World-Wide Web at URL address: http:\\<a href="http://www.dtic.mil/
adm">www.dtic.mil/
adm</a>.

List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 95

    Foreign relations; Government employees; Government property.

PART 95--[REMOVED]

    Accordingly, by the authority of 10 U.S.C. 301, 32 CFR Part 95 is 
removed.

    Dated: May 21, 1996.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 96-13148 Filed 5-23-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 121 (Friday, June 21, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32028-32029]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15808]



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


DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

June 14, 1996
    The Department of Treasury has submitted the following public 
information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Copies of 
the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau 
Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information 
collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the 
Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the

[[Page 32029]]

Treasury, Room 2110, 1425 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.

U.S. Customs Service (CUS)

OMB Number: 1515-0071
Form Number: CF 26
Type of Review: Extension
Title: Report of Diversion
Description: Customs needs to keep track of a vessel's true itinerary 
to ensure compliance with such laws as the Jones Act and Customs and 
other agency related reporting requirements.
Respondents: Business or other for-profit, Federal Government
Estimated Number of Recordkeepers: 1,400
Estimated Burden Hours Per Recordkeeper: 5 minutes
Frequency of Response: On occasion
Estimated Total Recordkeeping Burden: 233 hours
Clearance Officer: J. Edgar Nichols (202) 927-1426, U.S. Customs 
Service, Printing and Records Management Branch, Room 6216, 1301 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20229
OMB Reviewer: Milo Sunderhauf (202) 395-7340, Office of Management and 
Budget, Room 10226, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 
20503.
Lois K. Holland,
Departmental Reports Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 96-15808 Filed 6-20-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4820-02-P