alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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

     I,  Dennis  Sunshine, Chief Executive Officer of Orbit International Corp.,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.   1350, as enacted by  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act  of  2002,  that:
(1)     the  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March
31, 2010 (the "Periodic Report") which this statement accompanies 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  Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
material  respects,  the  financial condition and results of operations of Orbit
International  Corp.

Dated: May 24, 2010
                                   /s/ Dennis Sunshine
                                   -------------------
                                   Dennis Sunshine
                                   Chief Executive Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Miguel PANIAGUA-ORTIZ, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 02-50307.

D.C. No. CRr-02-01032-HBT.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 10, 2003.*

Decided March 20, 2003.

Before CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and T. G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Miguel Paniagua-Ortiz appeals the 18-month sentence and one year term of supervised release imposed following his guilty plea conviction for one count of illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).

Paniagua-Ortiz’s contention that 18 U. S.C. § 3583 violates *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 *950L.Ed.2d 435 (2000) is foreclosed by our recent decision in *United States v. Liero,*298 F.3d 1175, 1177-78 (9th Cir.2002), *cert. denied,*— U.S. —, 123 S.Ct. 913, 154 L.Ed.2d 820 (2003).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the *950courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6080 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6080

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 29, 2022

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 5420 Kavanaugh Boulevard in Little Rock, Arkansas, as the ``Ronald 
                       A. Robinson Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. RONALD A. ROBINSON POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 5420 Kavanaugh Boulevard in Little Rock, Arkansas, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Ronald A. Robinson Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
or other record of the United States to the facility referred to in 
subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Ronald A. 
Robinson Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 28, 2022.

            Attest:

                                             CHERYL L. JOHNSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 16

- 00404

- CV

IN RE GUIDEONE MUTUA L INSURANCE COMPANY

Original Proceeding

ORDER

GuideOne Insurance Company’s petition for writ of mandamus was filed on

November 28, 2016 . The Court requests a response from the other parties to the

proceeding. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(b). Any response shall be filed with the Cle rk of this

Court no later than 28 days from the date of this order.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Response requested

Order issued and filed December 7 , 2016
#### VICTOR DAHLKE v. CAROL MAE DAHLKE.1

November 19, 1943.

Nos. 33,476, 33,477.

*W. F. Odell,*for appellant.

*Everett L. Young,*for respondent.

1

Reported in 11 N. W. (2d) 825.

*112Magney, Justice.

Plaintiff brought action for divorce upon the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment. Defendant denied the allegations of mistreatment. Divorce was granted. Defendant appeals from the judgment and the order denying her motion for a new trial.

The assignments of error present two questions: (1) Whether the findings of the trial court are sustained by the evidence, and (2) whether the award of alimony to defendant is inadequate.

The evidence shows the following facts: Plaintiff was a farmer and defendant a schoolteacher. They were married on June 15, 1941, and separated on March 1, 1942. At the time of the trial plaintiff was of the age of 33 years and defendant 32 years. Plaintiff had previously been married. The first wife committed suicide in 1937. By that marriage plaintiff has a daughter, who was nine years of age at time of trial.

The defendant is a very nervous individual, due probably to certain physical conditions. Differences between the parties arose about a month after marriage. She complained about plaintiff’s relatives and did not want the daughter to associate with them. She said the marriage was a mistake, that she had a better home where she came from, and wanted to go there. She complained that she did not get what other brides get; that she “got everything second-handed — second-handed furniture and second-handed husband and second-handed child.” Only a few of her clothes and a small part of the wedding presents were taken to her new home. Plaintiff claims that on occasions defendant struck and slapped him, and she admits hitting and kicking him and pulling his hair. She suggested that both commit suicide. Arguments lasting most of the night were frequent. She took such a dislike to plaintiff’s daughter that in December 1941 plaintiff was forced to take her out of school and place her with maternal relatives. During the latter part of the short but unpleasant married life, whenever an argument arose, defendant would accuse plaintiff of being the cause of the suicide of his first wife. As a result of the treatment plaintiff received, his health became affected. He finally sold off *113Ms personal property and rented the farm. The finding of the trial court that defendant was guilty of cruel and inhuman treatment toward plaintiff is well supported by the evidence.

The net permanent alimony awarded defendant is the sum of $333.17. She claims this amount to be inadequate. In view of plaintiff’s financial condition, the brevity of the married life, the fact that defendant added nothing to plaintiff’s assets, and that a divorce was granted because of defendant’s misconduct, the court could very well have denied alimony in any amount. In fixing the amount of alimony there was no abuse of discretion.

Affirmed.

Mr. Justice Loring, absent because of accidental injuries, took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
#### Halsey *v.*The State of Ohio.

(No. 23394

Decided March 16, 1932.)

*Mr. Benjamin F. James*and *Mr. George A. Cheney,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Raymond E. Ladd,*prosecuting attorney, for defendant in error.

It is ordered and adjudged that said petition in error be, and tbe same is hereby, dismissed for tbe *629reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Petition in error dismissed.*

Marshall, C. J., Matthias, Day and Stephenson, JJ., concur.
1 The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United St ates District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and r ecommendation of the Honorable Jeffrey J. Keyes, United States Magistrate J udge for the District of Minnesota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 09-2867

___________ Burdette Theodore House, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Michael Campion, Commissioner * of the Minnesota Department of Public * Safety; Bruce Andersohn; James M. * [UNPUBLISHED] Dudgeon, Jr., * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: March 10, 2010 Filed: March 15, 2010

___________ Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Burdette House appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Having reviewed the record de novo, seeOwen v. Gen. Motors Corp. , 533 F.3d 913, 918 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review), we conclude that dismissal was proper. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. Rule 47B.

______________________________
**CONSENT OF KPMG LLP**

Exhibit 23.1 

 

The Board of Directors

Sonic Solutions 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 333-103624, 333-102396, 333-73412 and 333-66187) on Forms S-3 and S-8 ofSonic Solutions of our report dated May 1, 2003, relating to the balance sheets of Sonic Solutions as of March 31, 2003 and 2002, and the related statements of operations, shareholders’ equity and cash flows for each of the years in thethree-year period ended March 31, 2003, and the related financial statement schedule included in the annual report on Form 10-K of Sonic Solutions. 

 

/s/    KPMG LLP 

 

San Francisco, California 

June 26, 2003
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 Acquired Sales Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the three month period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gerard M. Jacobs, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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; 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/ Gerard M. JacobsGerard M. Jacobs Principal Executive Officer

Principal Financial Officer

May 18, 2010
**EXHIBIT 18.1**

February 24, 2010 

Board of Directors 

Calpine Corporation 

717 Texas Avenue 

Houston, Texas 77002 

Dear Directors:

We are providing this letter to you for inclusion as an exhibit to your Form 10-K filing pursuant to Item 601 of Regulation S-K.

We have audited the consolidated financial statements included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year endedDecember 31, 2009 and issued our report thereon dated February 24, 2010. Note 3 to the financial statements describes a change in accounting principle from the composite depreciation method to the component depreciation method for rotableparts at the Company’s natural gas-fired power plants. In addition, also described in Note 3 to the financial statements is a change in accounting principle from the units of production depreciation method to the straight-line depreciationmethod for the Company’s geothermal assets. It should be understood that the preferability of one acceptable method of accounting over another for the depreciation of rotable parts and the depreciation of geothermal assets has not beenaddressed in any authoritative accounting literature, and in expressing our concurrence below we have relied on management’s determination that these changes in accounting principle are preferable. Based on our reading of management’sstated reasons and justification for these changes in accounting principle in the Form 10-K, and our discussions with management as to their judgment about the relevant business planning factors relating to the changes, we concur with managementthat such changes represent, in the Company’s circumstances, the adoption of a preferable accounting principle in conformity with Accounting Standards Codification 250, *Accounting Changes and Error Corrections*. 

Very truly yours, 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 847 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 847

     To reduce the Official Mail Allowance of Members of the House.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 7, 1995

Mr. Davis (for himself, Mr. Weldon of Florida, Mr. Foley, Mr. Portman, 
 Mr. Torkildsen, Mr. Forbes, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Taylor of Mississippi, Mr. 
Blute, Mr. Chambliss, Ms. Pryce, Mr. Hunter, Mr. White, Mr. Gutknecht, 
 Mr. Wicker, Mr. Horn, Mr. Tiahrt, Mr. Canady, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Bass 
and Mr. Whitfield) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on House Oversight

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To reduce the Official Mail Allowance of Members of the House.

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

SECTION 1. REDUCTION IN OFFICIAL MAIL ALLOWANCE.

    (a) In General.--Section 311(e)(2)(B)(i) of the Legislative Branch 
Appropriations Act, 1991 (2 U.S.C. 59e(e)(2)(b)(i)) is amended by 
striking ``3 times'' and inserting ``1.35 times''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to sessions of Congress beginning after the date of 
the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.2


                                  CERTIFICATION


         In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Stratasys, Inc.
(the "Company") for the period ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Thomas
W. Stenoien, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, 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 results of operations of the
Company.


Date: March 12, 2004                       By: /s/ Thomas W. Stenoien
                                               -----------------------
                                               Thomas W. Stenoien
                                               Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1
                                                                    ------------

ERNST & YOUNG


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Electric Fuel Corporation's
Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-81044, 333-19753 and 333-74197) and
Form S-3 (No. 333-95361) of our report, dated February 25, 2000 relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of Electric Fuel Corporation as of December 31, 1999
and 1998 and the related consolidated statements of loss, changes in
stockholders' equity, and cash flows for the years then ended, which report
appears in the December 31, 1999 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Electric Fuel
Corporation.


Tel-Aviv, Israel
March 16, 2000


                                         /s/ KOST, FORER & GABBAY
                                        ---------------------------------------
                                                KOST, FORER & GABBAY
                                        A member of Ernst & Young international
F
I R S T   A M E N D E D   A N D   R E S T A T E
D


C
O N V E R T I B L E   P R O M I S S O R Y   N O T
E





$4,409.36


January
1, 2008


Denver, Colorado





FOR VALUE RECEIVED, PARK-PREMIER MINING
COMPANY, a Utah corporation ("Maker"), hereby promises to pay to the order of
Douglas Lee or his assigns ("Holder"), at 6653 Conch Court, Boyton Beach,
Florida 33437 or at such other place Holder may from time to time designate in
writing, in lawful money of the United States of America, the principal sum of
Four Thousand Four Hundred Nine and 36/100 US Dollars ($4,409.36), together with
interest commencing January 1, 2007 on the unpaid balance at the rate of Twelve
Percent (12%) per annum. “Maturity Date” means December 31,
2009.  This instrument amends, restates and replaces in full the
Convertible Promissory Note by Maker dated January 1, 2007 in the face amount of
$4,409.36.





This Note
may be converted, in whole or in part, into shares of Maker's common stock at
the conversion price of $.10 per share or such other conversion price as the
board of directors of Maker may deem appropriate, not in excess of $.10 per
share, at any time prior to the full payment hereof, at the Holder's
option.





This Note
is subject to prepayment in whole or in part, upon ten (10) days prior written
notice to Holder, at the option of Maker without penalty but subject to exercise
of Holder’s conversion rights.  Prepayments shall be applied first to
collection expenses, interest accrued and then to principal due
hereunder.





In case
this Note shall not be paid in full whenever it shall become due, the Maker
agrees to pay all costs and expenses of collection, including reasonable
attorney's fees, not to exceed 15% of the unpaid balance.





All
rights and obligations hereunder shall be governed by the laws of the State of
Colorado, without application of its choice or conflict of law principles. If
any part of the assets or capital stock of Maker is sold or transferred without
Holder’s prior written consent, except sales and transfers in the ordinary
course of business and except transfers by devise, descent or by operation of
law upon the death of a joint tenant: (1) Holder may, at Holder’s option,
declare all the sums due under this Note to be immediately due and payable, and
(2) if the sale or transfer involves substantially all of the assets of Maker,
the transferee shall be deemed to have assumed all of the obligations of Maker
under this Note. This Note is unsecured.





IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Maker has signed this Note effective as of the date first
above written.





Description:  Unreimbursed
Expenses


PARK-PREMIER
MINING COMPANY








By:/s/ Robert W.
Dunlap


Robert W. Dunlap,
President
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SANTOS MARLENY VELASQUEZ DE

CARCAMO,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 11-72100

Agency No. A095-731-944

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 9, 2015** 

Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges. 

Santos Marleny Velasquez de Carcamo, a native and citizen of El Salvador,

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying

her motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny

the petition for review.

FILED

DEC 15 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
In her opening brief, Velasquez de Carcamo fails to make any argument that

the BIA abused its discretion in denying her motion to reconsider. See MartinezSerrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1260 (9th Cir. 1996) (denying the petition for review

where petitioner failed “to address how the BIA abused its discretion by denying

his motion to reopen and reconsider its decision”). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 11-72100
MANDATE

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-14-00006-CR

Bernardo Torres, Jr., Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appealed from the 232nd District Court 

of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 1377519). 

Opinion delivered by Justice Jamison. 

Justices Busby and Brown also 

participating.

TO THE 232ND DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals on May 12, 2015, the cause upon appeal to 

revise or reverse your judgment was determined. Our Court of Appeals made its 

order in these words:

This cause was heard on the record of the court below. Having considered 

the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The Court 

orders the judgment AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said 

Court in this behalf and in all things have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Kem Thompson Frost, Chief Justice of our Fourteenth 

Court of Appeals, with the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of Houston, August 21, 

2015.
183 La. 443

#### STATE v. HART.

No. 33524.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 4, 1935.

John T. Campbell, of Minden, for appellant.

Gaston L. Porterie, Atty. Gen., James O’Connor, Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert F. Ken-non, Dist. Atty., of Minden, and Lessley P. Gardiner, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

HIGGINS, Justice.

The defendant was charged in an information with petty larceny of property worth in the sum of $58.40. He pleaded not guilty and elected to be tried before the district judge, who found him guilty of larceny of property of the value of $35.

He filed a motion for a new trial on the following grounds : (1) That the judgment of the court in finding him *guilty*was contrary to the law and evidence, because the testimony showed that he was so intoxicated as to be completely deprived of the use of his faculties; and (2) that he had discovered four new witnesses, who would testify that he was so drunk that he was unable to appreciate what he was doing at the time of the. alleged theft.

The motion for a new trial was heard and overruled, bills of exceptions were properly reserved, and the accused was sentenced to serve six months in the parish jail. Pie appealed.

It is well settled that á motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict is contrary to the law and evidence does not present anything which this court can review. State v. Sanderson, 169 La. 55, 124 So. 143; Article 516 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; Constitution of Louisiana of 1921, Art. 7, § 10.

With reference to the second exception predicated on the grounds of newly discovered evidence, the trial judge states in his per curiam that he was convinced that the accused was not so intoxicated or drunk as to be incapable of forming the intent to commit the crime, and that the testimony of the newly discovered witnesses was merely cumulative.

There are numerous authorities that a new trial will not be granted where the alleged newly discovered evidence is merely cumulative. This is particularly true where the judge tries the case and the rule for a new trial. State v. Jones, 163 La. 51, 111 So. 492; State v. Russell, 161 La. 167, 108 So. 324; State v. Foss, 158 La. 471, 104 So. 211; State v. Carlander, 158 La. 244, 103 So. 755; State v. Gardner, 157 La. 116, 102 So. 89; State v. Folden, 135 La. 791, 66 So. 223.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment and sentence of the district court are affirmed.

O’NIELL, C. J., does not subscribe to the proposition that if newly discovered evidence is cumulative, its discovery will not justify the granting of a new trial.