alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## TheHonorable Scott O. Wright, United States District Judge for the Western 1 

## District of Missouri. United States Court of Appeals 

### FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 96-1954

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. David C. Hairabedian, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: August 7, 1997 Filed: August 25, 1997

___________ Before McMILLIAN, BEAM, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. David C. Ha irabedian appeals the district court & s denial without an 1 evidentiary hearing of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 moti on to vacate the 262-month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to a drug charge. After de novo review, we conclude the denial was proper. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

## -2- We also deny Hairabedi an & s motions for oral argument, appointment of counsel, remand, and permission to supplement the record. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
----

----

|   | (1)The quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2009 (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(a) or 78o(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: August 14, 2009 | /s/Robert T. Strong                   |
|-----------------------|---------------------------------------|
|                  | Robert T. Strong                      |
|                  | President and Chief Executive Officer |

| Date: August 14, 2009 | /s/Diane J. Colyer                                             |
|----------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|
|                       | Diane J. Colyer                                                |
|                       | Operations Officer(principal financial and accounting officer) |
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.2

                    SUBSIDIARIES OF CROWN NORTHCORP, INC.

Crown Revenue Services, Inc., an Ohio corporation, is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Crown NorthCorp, Inc.

Crown Properties, Inc., an Ohio corporation, is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Crown Revenue Services, Inc.

CNC Holding Corp., a Delaware corporation, is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Crown NorthCorp, Inc.

Eastern Realty, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company, with 99% of the
membership interests owned by CNC Holding Corp., and 1% owned by Crown
Revenue Services, Inc.

Crown NorthCorp Euro A/S, a Danish corporation, is a wholly owned subsidiary
of CNC Holding Corp.

Crown NorthCorp Limited, a corporation organized under the laws of England
and Wales, is a wholly owned subsidiary of CNC Holding Corp.

Eastern Realty Corporation, a Virginia corporation, is a wholly owned
subsidiary of CNC Holding Corp.

Eastern Baltimore, Inc., a Virginia corporation, is a wholly owned subsidiary
of CNC Holding Corp.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Forms S-8 No. 33-80147 and 333-XXXX) pertaining to the 1993 Stock Option Plan,
1994 Director's Stock Option Plan and Directors' Warrants and 2000 Directors'
Stock Option Plan and 2000 Employee Stock Option Plan of SigmaTron
International, Inc. of our reports dated June 29, 2000 with respect to the
financial statements and schedules of SigmaTron International, Inc. and SMT
Unlimited L.P. included in the Amended Annual Report (Form 10-K/A, Amendment #1)
of SigmaTron International, Inc. for the year ended April 30, 2000.


                                                ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Chicago, Illinois
December 12, 2000
<PAGE>

Exhibit 32

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
               PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Report of Indigenous Global Development
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the for the fiscal year ended
June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Deni Leonard, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

/s/ Deni Leonard
-------------------------------------
Deni Leonard
CEO and CFO
December 7, 2004
JUDGMENT

Court of Appeals 

 

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-14-00722-CR

THANH KIM HOANG, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 209th District Court of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 1384675).

This case is an appeal from the final judgment signed by the trial court on August 

21, 2014. After submitting the case on the appellate record and the arguments properly 

raised by the parties, the Court holds that the trial court’s judgment contains no reversible 

error. Accordingly, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below for observance.

Judgment rendered December 3, 2015.

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Massengale, and Lloyd. Opinion delivered by Justice 

Massengale.
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 China Vitup Health Care Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 (the Report), I, Yan Zheng, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 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.  May 19, 2009 /s/ Yan Zheng Chief Financial Officer
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 620

To increase the minimum wage and to deny employers a deduction for

payments of excessive compensation.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 20, 1995

Mr. SABO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Economic and Educational Opportunities and, in addition, to the

Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To increase the minimum wage and to deny employers a

deduction for payments of excessive compensation.

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 ‘‘Income Equity Act

5 of 1995’’.

6 SEC. 2. INCREASE IN MINIMUM WAGE.

7 Section 6(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of

8 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(a)(1)) is amended by striking out

9 ‘‘and not less than $4.25 an hour after March 31, 1991’’
2

•HR 620 IH

1 and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘not less than $4.25 an hour

2 until the 90th day after the date of the enactment of the

3 Income Equity Act of 1995, and not less than $6.50 an

4 hour after the 90th day after such date’’.

5 SEC. 3. DENIAL OF DEDUCTION FOR PAYMENTS OF EXCES6 SIVE COMPENSATION.

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 162 of the Internal Reve8 nue Code of 1986 (relating to deduction for trade or busi9 ness expenses) is amended by inserting after subsection

10 (h) the following new subsection:

11 ‘‘(i) EXCESSIVE COMPENSATION.—

12 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—No deduction shall be al13 lowed under this chapter for any excessive com14 pensation with respect to any full-time employee.

15 ‘‘(2) EXCESSIVE COMPENSATION.—For pur16 poses of this subsection, the term ‘excessive com17 pensation’ means, with respect to any employee, the

18 amount by which—

19 ‘‘(A) the compensation for services per20 formed by such employee during the taxable

21 year, exceeds

22 ‘‘(B) an amount equal to 25 times the low23 est compensation for services performed by any

24 other employee during such taxable year.
3

•HR 620 IH

1 ‘‘(3) DEFINITIONS AND SPECIAL RULES.—For

2 purposes of this subsection—

3 ‘‘(A) COMPENSATION.—

4 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘com5 pensation’ means salary, wages, and bo6 nuses.

7 ‘‘(ii) PART-YEAR EMPLOYEES.—In the

8 case of any part-year employee, the com9 pensation of the employee shall be com10 puted on an annualized basis.

11 ‘‘(B) EMPLOYER.—All persons treated as a

12 single employer under subsection (a) or (b) of

13 section 52 or subsection (m) or (o) of section

14 414 shall be treated as 1 employer.’’

15 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

16 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after

17 the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
Maged A. Bishara is Senior Vice President of Iristel Inc.,
Canada’s leading provider of wireless IP services. Mr. Bishara started with Iristel in 2002  as
director of operations. From 1999 to 2001, Mr. Bishara was the corporate controller for Liquidation Depot in Montreal, Qc.
where he oversaw accounting, financial reporting, analysis and preparation of the consolidated financial statements,
including schedules for tax compliance. Mr. Bishara has a Bachelor of Commerce, Accountancy Major, Baccalaureate, B.Sc from
Concordia University.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6064

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

TYRONE CAMP,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Shelby. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (4:96-cr-00053-LHT-8)

Submitted: July 23, 2009 Decided: July 29, 2009

Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Robinson Brewer, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Tyrone Camp appeals the district court’s order denying

his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion. We have reviewed the

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for

the reasons stated by the district court. United States v.

Camp , No. 4:96-cr-00053-LHT-8 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 9, 2009). We deny

Camp’s motion for transcripts at government expense and 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
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sloud, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gene Sokolov, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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, as amended; and

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





|Date:  August 12, 2009 |  | By:  /s/ Gene Sokolov                                                       
|---------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                       |  | Gene Sokolov                                                                
|                       |  | Chairman, President, 
Chief Executive Officer 
(Principle Executive Officer)
180 La. 1

#### Mrs. Annie T. BIRI v. Nicholas BIRI, Her Husband.

No. 32767.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 21, 1934.

Rehearing Denied July 2, 1934.

See, also, 175 La. 229, 143 So. 57.

Harold J. Moore of New Orleans, for appellant.

Soloman S. Goldman, of New Orleans, for appellee.

ODOM, Justice.

The plaintiff was granted a judgment of separation from bed and board from her husband on May 3, 1932. After the lapse of one year, she brought the present suit for divorce, alleging that no reconciliation haij taken place. The defendant put the case at is*26sue by filing answer. At the trial plaintiff proved that no reconciliation had taken place, and was granted • a . divorce as prayed for. Defendant appealed. Counsel for defendant has filed no brief, nor did he appear in court to argue the case orally. The testimony taken at the trial is in the record, and shows that no reconciliation had taken place between the parties since the judgment of separation was signed 'Oil May 3, 1932. The judgment appealed from is correct, and is therefore affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

Stuart Schwartz, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Comcast Cable Holdings, LLC, 

Comcast Cable, Credit Protection 

Association, L.P., jointly and severally, 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 2:09-cv-13738-PJD-VMM 

Hon. Patrick J. Duggan 

BRENT LEDER PLC 

By: Brent Jonathan Leder (P70866) 

5116 Cohoctah Pl. 

Waterford, MI 48327 

(248) 763-1423 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

BODMAN LLP 

By: J. Adam Behrendt (P58607) 

 Michelle A. Carter (P69485) 

201 W. Big Beaver Road, Suite 500 

Troy, Michigan 48084 

(248) 743-6000 

Attorneys for Defendants Comcast Cable 

Holdings, LLC and Comcast Cable 

DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF AND AGAINST DEFENDANT 

CREDIT PROTECTION ASSOCIATION 

At a session of the Court, held in the 

City of Detroit, State of Michigan, 

on: April 29, 2010. 

PRESENT: The Honorable Patrick Duggan 

 

Plaintiff having filed a motion for Entry of Default Judgment Against Credit Protection 

Association, LP, the Court having set the motion for hearing, Plaintiff having provided Credit 

Protection Association with the Notice of Hearing, Credit Protection Association having failed to 

respond to the Motion, and the Court being fully advised in the premises and for the reasons 

stated on the record 
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that Credit Protection Association, LP shall pay Plaintiff 

$1,000 (ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS) in Statutory Damages. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Credit Protection Association, LP shall pay Plaintiff 

$1,000 (ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS) in attorneys fees, and costs incurred 

This is a Final Order and closes the case. 

s/Patrick J. Duggan 

 Patrick J. Duggan 

 United States District Judge 

Dated: April 29, 2010April 29, 2010 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of 

record on April 29, 2010April 29, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. 

 s/Marilyn Orem 

 Case Manager
Exhibit 10.2 Compensation Agreement dated February 3, 2020 between American Battery Metals Corporation and Jeffrey Maller


 

Exhibit 10.2

 

COMPENSATION AGREEMENT

 

This Compensation Agreement is made to be effective from February 3, 2020 by and between Jeffrey Maller (“Consultant”) and American Battery Metals Corporation (the “Company”) (together, Consultant and the Company are each a “Party” and collectively, the “Parties”), who agree as follows:

 

1.Compensation. As partial compensation for legal services rendered to the Company for the calendar year ending December 31, 2020, the Company agrees to issue to Consultant the sum of two million (2,000,000) shares of the Company’s common stock (the “Compensation Shares”). 

 

2.Registration. As soon as reasonably practicable after the full execution of this Agreement, the Company intends to file a Registration Statements on Form S-8 with the Securities and Exchange Commission registering the Compensation Shares to permit the public sale by the Consultant. 

 

3.Restricted Services. The Parties agree that none of the services previously provided or to be provided in exchange for the Compensation Shares are in connection with any capital raising transaction or with directly or indirectly promoting or maintaining a market for the securities of the Company. To the extent that Consultant has or will provide any of such services, he shall be compensated from other sources other than the Compensation Shares.  

 

4.Board Approval. This Agreement was approved by the Board of Consultants of American Battery Metals Corporation on February 3, 2020. 

 

5.Governing Law; Venue. This Agreement shall be constructed and interpreted in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of Nevada. The Parties agree to submit to the jurisdiction of the Federal and State Courts in Washoe County, Nevada for the resolution of all legal disputes arising under the terms of this Agreement. 

 

6.Severability. Should any provision of this Agreement be declared or determined to be invalid or illegal, the validity of the remaining parts, terms or provisions shall not be affected thereby, and the illegal or invalid part, term or provision shall be deemed not to be a part of this Agreement. 

 

7.Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Compensation Agreement to be duly executed by each Party’s authorized officer as of the Effective Date.

 

	“COMPANY”

	 

	“CONSULTANT”:


	American Battery Metals Corporation,

a Nevada corporation

	 

	 


	 

	 

	 


	By: 

	/s/ Douglas Cole

	 

	By: 

	/s/ Jeffrey Maller


	Name:

	Douglas Cole

	 

	Name: 

	Jeffrey Maller


	Title:

	Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the annual report of Veracity Management Global, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the nine months ended March 31, 2012 (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Marc L. Baker, Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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.


/s/ Marc L. BakerMarc L. Baker

Acting Chief Financial Officer
 May 21, 2012   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Veracity Management Global, Inc. and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Case 2:09-cr-20025-AC-MAR Document 21 Filed 06/26/2009 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:09-cr-20025-AC-MAR Document 21 Filed 06/26/2009 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:09-cr-20025-AC-MAR Document 21 Filed 06/26/2009 Page 3 of 3
187 La. 563

#### STATE v. HUMPHREYS.

No. 34300.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 24, 1937.

Gaston L. Porterie, Atty. Gen., James O’Connor, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Charles A. Byrne, Dist. Atty., Niels F. Hertz, Asst. Dist. Atty., both of New Orleans, and Emmett Assenheimer, Sp. Asst, to the Atty. Gen., for the State.

ROGERS, Justice.

The defendant, L. B. Humphreys, was convicted and sentenced for engaging in the business of retail dealer in cigarettes without a permit and with having unstamp*62ed cigarettes in his possession, in violation of Act No. 4 of 1932, as amended by Act No. 52 of 1934. Defendant appealed, but he has submitted the case without brief or argument in support of his appeal.

Before arraignment, defendant filed a demurrer to the information, alleging that the statute so far as it applied to him was violative of clause 3 of section 8 of article 1 of the Federal Constitution and of section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment thereof. The demurrer was overruled. After conviction, defendant filed a motion in arrest, predicated on the same grounds set forth in the demurrer. The motion in arrest was •also overruled.

Neither of defendant’s pleas shows wherein the statute on which the prosecution is based is unconstitutional as applied to-him. We gather, however, from the per curiam of the trial judge, that defendant contended the statute deprived him of his constitutional rights, because he was engaged in interstate commerce.

The question of whether the statute is constitutional is a question of law, but the question of whether the statute as applied to defendant is constitutional involves a question of fact.

The judge by whom the defendant was tried and convicted, as disclosed by his per curiam, found from the evidence that the defendant was not, as he contended, engaged in interstate commerce, but that defendant was engaged in business as a retail dealer in cigarettes in the city of New Orleans; that as such retail dealer he purchased outright, and for cash in advance, from a firm in Mobile, Ala., cigarettes, which he retailed on his own account, for his own profit and to his own customers, who were unknown to the firm in Alabama; that, when the cigarettes were delivered to defendant at New Orleans, they had ceased to be .in transit, having reached their destination, and that defendant constantly had a stock of cigarettes on hand; that defendant had no permit to engage in business as a retail dealer of cigarettes, and the cigarettes in his possession were not stamped as required by the statute, and that defendant had no intention of attaching the required stamps to the cigarettes.

The record, therefore, does not present any distinct question of law, and the trial judge is the sole judge of the facts on the question of defendant’s guilt or innocence.

For the reasons assigned, the conviction and sentence appealed from are affirmed.