alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*815 A.2d 953*

#### IN THE MATTER OF STUART P. SCHLEM, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

February 13, 2003.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 02-293, concluding that STUART P. SCHLEM of MORGANVILLE, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1983, should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months for violating *RPC*l.l(a)(gross neglect), *RPC*1.3(lack of diligence), *RPC*1.4(a)(failure to communicate with client), *RPC*8.1(b)(failure to cooperate with disciplinary authorities) and *RPC*8.4(c)(engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that STUART P. SCHLEM is suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months and until the further Order of the Court, effective March 12, 2003; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent be restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of suspension and that respondent comply with *Rule*1:20-20; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs incurred in the prosecution of this matter.
EXHIBIT 32




                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
         SECTION 1350, CHARPTER 63 of TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,
                              AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT of 2002


Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, the
President and Chief Financial Officer of Oxford Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company"), does hereby certify that to the undersigned's knowledge:

  1.  The Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2005 ("10-K") 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 Company's 10-K being filed fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operation of the Company.



Date:  August 2, 2006


/s/ Jacinta Sit
--------------------------------
Jacinta Sit, President and CFO
(Principal executive officer and principal financial officer)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Melvin Haynes, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Rothwax, J., on denial of speedy trial *755motion; Peter J. McQuillan, J., at suppression hearing; Edwin J. Torres, J., at trial and sentence), rendered April 18, 1984, convicting defendant of robbery in the first degree and two counts of robbery in the second degree and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to three concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 25 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

This appeal was held in abeyance to allow further proceedings in the trial court concerning speedy trial motions made by defendant and codefendant Rudolph Garvin. At the hearing conducted on November 29, 1989 (Harold Rothwax, J.), counsel for both defendants indicated that upon review of the minutes of all court appearances, they were satisfied they could not show that their clients’ rights to a speedy trial were violated. Codefendant Garvin withdrew his motion to dismiss. Based on the concessions of counsel, the Supreme Court denied defendant’s motion.

In view of counsel’s concession, the motion to dismiss was properly denied. Nor does the record support defendant’s *pro se*contention that the indictment should have been dismissed for failure to afford him an opportunity to testify before the Grand Jury. There is no indication that defendant ever served written notice, before indictment, of his desire to testify. Therefore, his motion to dismiss the indictment was properly denied *(People v Saldana,*161 AD2d 441). In light of defendant’s failure to indicate his desire to testify, counsel was not ineffective for failing to move to dismiss the indictment on this ground.

We have considered the remaining contentions raised by defense counsel in the main brief and by defendant in his *pro se*brief, supplemental brief and addendum to his supplemental brief and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Asch, Milonas and Rosenberger, JJ.
NO. 07-02-0021-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL C

APRIL 15, 2002

______________________________

CEDRIC JEROME HENRY, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY;

NO. 82275; HONORABLE CHARLES D. CARVER, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before QUINN and REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ. 

ABATEMENT AND REMAND

Upon a plea of not guilty, appellant Cedric Jerome Henry was convicted by a jury

of murder and punishment was assessed at life imprisonment and a $10,000 fine.

Appellant timely perfected his appeal and pursuant to Rule 35.3(b)(2) of the Texas Rules

of Appellate Procedure, requested that the reporter’s record be prepared. The clerk’s
2

record was filed on January 11, 2002. The reporter’s record was due to be filed on March

8, 2002, but has yet to be filed. By letter dated March 20, 2002, this Court notified the

official court reporter, Margaret Thorne, of the defect. The Court also requested that in the

event the record could not be immediately filed, that Ms. Thorne complete a form for an

extension of time that was enclosed with this Court’s letter within ten days. Ms. Thorne did

not file the reporter’s record nor file a request for an extension of time. Thus, we now

abate this appeal and remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings. See Tex.

R. App. P. 37.3(a)(2).

Upon remand, the trial court shall immediately cause notice of a hearing to be given

and, thereafter, conduct a hearing to determine the following:

1. whether appellant desires to prosecute this appeal, and if so,

2. whether appellant is indigent; and

3. why appellant has been deprived of a reporter’s record.

The trial court shall cause the hearing to be transcribed. Should it be determined that

appellant does want to continue this appeal and is indigent, then the trial court shall also

take such measures as may be necessary to assure appellant a reporter’s record. The

trial court shall execute findings of fact, conclusions of law, and such orders as the court

may enter regarding the aforementioned issues, and cause its findings and conclusions

to be included in a supplemental clerk’s record. A supplemental record of the hearing shall
3

also be included in the appellate record. Finally, the trial court shall file the supplemental

records with the Clerk of this Court by Friday, May 31, 2002.

It is so ordered.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.
#### State of Nebraska, appellee, v. Carey Dean Moore, appellant.

553 N.W.2d 120

Filed November 22, 1996.

No. S-95-485.

Thomas M. Kenney, Douglas County Public Defender, and Thomas C. Riley for appellant.

Don Stenberg, Attorney General, and J. Kirk Brown for appellee.

White, C.J., Caporale, Fahrnbruch, Lanphier, Wright, Connolly, and Gerrard, JJ.

Per Curiam.

The motion for rehearing filed by the appellee, State of Nebraska, is overruled; however, the opinion previously adopted by this court, *State*v. *Moore,*250 Neb. 805, 553 N.W.2d 120 (1996), is hereby modified by striking the fifth sentence of the last paragraph of the subsection entitled *“Overbreadth”*of the section entitled “AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE § 29-2523(l)(b),” which sentence reads: “The reach of this aggravating circumstance is even further circumscribed by the requirement that the murder be committed in an apparent effort to conceal the identity of the perpetrator.” 250 Neb. at 814, 553 N.W.2d at 129.

Further, the opinion is hereby modified by striking from the third sentence of the third paragraph of the subsection entitled *“Constitutionality of Resentencing Panel’s Definition”*of the section entitled “AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE § 29-2523(l)(d)” the language reading “Under the panel’s definition,” 250 Neb. at 820, 553 N.W.2d at 132, and substituting therefor the words “Under the facts before the panel,” so that said sentence now reads:

> *163Under the facts before the panel, this aspect of exceptional depravity is restricted to just two situations: (1) where the defendant experimented with the method of causing the victim’s death or (2) where the defendant purposefully selected a particular victim on the basis of specific characteristics such as race, gender, creed, sexual orientation, disability, or age.

Former opinion modified.

Motion for rehearing overruled.
Exhibit23.2

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference into theRegistration Statements on Form

S-8 (see FileNo. 333-17883, effective December 31, 1996) of our report dated February 28,2002 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Inrad, Inc. andSubsidiary included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year endedDecember 31, 2001.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
| /s/  HOLTZ RUBENSTEIN & CO., LLP |
|--------------------------------------|
|                                 |
| HOLTZ  RUBENSTEIN & CO., LLP     |
|                                 |
| Melville,  New York                  |
|                                 |
| March  28, 2001                      |

 

 

 

F-18

----
**EXHIBIT 99.1**

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

          In connection with the CardioDynamics International Corporation  (the“Company”) Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended November 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael K. Perry, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, dohereby certify, pursuant to 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 and 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.

| Date:  February 28, 2003 | /s/ MICHAEL K. PERRY                         |   |
|-------------------------------|----------------------------------------------|--------|
|                          |                                              |   |
|                          | **Michael K. Perry Chief Executive Officer** |   |
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

POLYGROUP LIMITED MCO,

Appellant

v.

WILLIS ELECTRIC COMPANY, LTD,

Appellee

______________________

2018-1745, 2018-1746, 2018-1747

______________________

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2016-

00800, IPR2016-00801, IPR2016-01609, IPR2016-01610, 

IPR2016-01611, IPR2016-01612, IPR2016-01613.

______________________

ON PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING

______________________

Before DYK, REYNA, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

Appellant Polygroup Limited MCO filed a petition for 

panel rehearing. A response to the petition was invited by 

the court and filed by Appellee Willis Electric Company, 

Ltd. 
2 POLYGROUP LTD MCO v. WILLIS ELEC. CO., LTD

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) Polygroup Limited MCO’s petition for panel rehearing is granted.

(2) The previous nonprecedential opinion and judgment in this appeal, issued January 28, 2019, are 

withdrawn and replaced with the modified nonprecedential opinion and judgment accompanying this 

order.

 FOR THE COURT

 March 28, 2019 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court
Exhibit 31.1
**CERTIFICATIONS UNDER SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
I, George H. Bruns, Jr. certify that:
1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Giga-tronics, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure 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 otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared; (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter inthe case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.
Date: 6/3/04                                    /s/  GEORGE H. BRUNS, JR.   George H. Bruns, Jr.   Chairman and Chief Executive Officer  
43
Case 1:11-cv-02430-WYD-KMT Document 21 Filed 01/10/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 9
Case 1:11-cv-02430-WYD-KMT Document 21 Filed 01/10/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 9
Case 1:11-cv-02430-WYD-KMT Document 21 Filed 01/10/12 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 9
Case 1:11-cv-02430-WYD-KMT Document 21 Filed 01/10/12 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 9
Case 1:11-cv-02430-WYD-KMT Document 21 Filed 01/10/12 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 9
Case 1:11-cv-02430-WYD-KMT Document 21 Filed 01/10/12 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 9
Case 1:11-cv-02430-WYD-KMT Document 21 Filed 01/10/12 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 9
Case 1:11-cv-02430-WYD-KMT Document 21 Filed 01/10/12 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 9
Case 1:11-cv-02430-WYD-KMT Document 21 Filed 01/10/12 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 9
Case 1:11-cv-02531-LTB Document 5 Filed 10/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
Case 1:11-cv-02531-LTB Document 5 Filed 10/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
Case 1:11-cv-02531-LTB Document 5 Filed 10/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02538-BNB

THOMAS E. BURGHARDT,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

 

Plaintiff, Thomas E. Burghardt, initiated this action by filing pro se a “Motion to

Cancel Naturalization, Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1481." 

In an October 4, 2011 Order, Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland directed Mr.

Burghardt to cure certain enumerated deficiencies in this case within thirty days. 

Specifically, Mr. Burghardt was ordered to file a Motion and Affidavit for Leave to

Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 on the court-approved form, or to pay the

$350.00 filing fee. Plaintiff was also directed to submit a Complaint on the courtapproved form. The October 4 Order warned Mr. Burghardt that if he failed to cure the

designated deficiencies within the time allowed, the action would be dismissed without

further notice. 

On November 3, Mr. Burghardt submitted a Complaint and an “Application to

Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Costs or Fees.” The Court advised Mr.

Burghardt in a November 7, 2011 Minute Order that the submitted documents did not

comply with the October 4 Order to Cure. Mr. Burghardt was allowed an additional

Case 1:11-cv-02538-LTB Document 9 Filed 12/14/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

thirty days to file a Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915 and Complaint on the court-approved forms. The Court further advised Mr.

Burghardt that the forms were available on the court’s website at www.cod.uscourts.gov

or in person from the Clerk’s Office which is located at 901 19th Street, Denver,

Colorado. Mr. Burghardt was also warned that failure to comply with the November 7,

2011 Minute Order and the October 4 Order to Cure would result in dismissal of this

action without further notice.

Mr. Burghardt submitted a Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915 on December 7, 2011. However, he has not submitted a Complaint

on the court-approved form. Therefore, Mr. Burghardt has failed to cure the designated

deficiencies within the time allowed. Accordingly, it is

 ORDERED that the action be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b)

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the failure of Plaintiff, Thomas E. Burghardt,

to comply with the order to cure dated October 4, 2011. 

 DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 14th day of December , 2011.

 BY THE COURT: 

 s/Lewis T. Babcock 

LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge

United States District Court 

Case 1:11-cv-02538-LTB Document 9 Filed 12/14/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 99.1





WRITTEN STATEMENT PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C SECTION 1350





The undersigned, Alex
Razmjoo, the Chief Executive Officer of Procom Technology, Inc. (the Company), pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, hereby certifies that:





| | (i) |  | the Report on Form 10-Q of the Company (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934; and
| | --- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




| | (ii) |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | ---- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




By:

/s/    ALEX RAZMJOOAlex Razmjoo Chief Executive
Officer








Date: December 16, 2002
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 197 (Thursday, October 9, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 59675]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-24039]



[[Page 59675]]

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

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice (08-075)]


Government-Owned Inventions, Available for Licensing

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

ACTION: Notice of Availability of Inventions for Licensing.

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

SUMMARY: Patent applications on the inventions listed below assigned to 
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, have been filed in 
the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and are available for 
licensing.

DATES: October 9, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Linda B. Blackburn, Patent Counsel, 
Langley Research Center, Mail Code 141, Hampton, VA 23681-2199; 
telephone (757) 864-3221; fax (757) 864-9190.
    NASA Case No. LAR-17335-1: Deconvolution Methods and Systems for 
the Mapping of Acoustic Sources from Phased Microphone Arrays;
    NASA Case No. LAR-16867-2: Sensing/Actuating Materials Made from 
Carbon Nanotube Polymer Composites and Methods for Making Same;
    NASA Case No. LAR-17432-1: Forward Voltage Short-Pulse Technique 
for Measuring High Power Laser Diode Array Junction Temperature;
    NASA Case No. LAR-17485-1: Metal/Fiber Laminate and Fabrication 
Using a Porous Metal/Fiber Preform;
    NASA Case No. LAR-16538-1: Micro-LiDAR Velocity, Temperature, 
Density, Concentration Sensor;
    NASA Case No. LAR-17477-1: Method and System for Aligning Fibers 
During Electrospinning;
    NASA Case No. LAR-16640-1: Dynamic Optical Grating Device and 
Associated Method for Modulating Light;
    NASA Case No. LAR-17361-1: Airfoil System for Cruising Flight;
    NASA Case No. LAR-17526-1: Adaptive Refinement Tools for 
Tetrahedral Unstructured Grids;
    NASA Case No. LAR-17413-1: Nanoparticle-Containing Thermoplastic 
Composites and Methods of Preparing Same;
    NASA Case No. LAR-17243-1: Variably Transmittive, Electronically-
Controlled Eyewear.

    Dated: October 3, 2008.
Michael C. Wholley,
General Counsel.
 [FR Doc. E8-24039 Filed 10-8-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-13-P
**Exhibit 23.2**

 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

The Board of DirectorsGolden Cycle Gold Corporation:

 

We consent to the incorporation by referencein the registration statements (Nos. 333-26975 and 333-12245) on Form S-3and (No. 333-117235) on Form S-8 of Golden Cycle Gold Corporation ofour report dated March 21, 2003, with respect to the consolidatedstatements of operations, shareholders’ equity and comprehensive income (loss),and cash flows of Golden Cycle Gold Corporation and subsidiaries for the yearended December 31, 2002, which report appears in the December 31,2004 annual report on Form 10-K of Golden Cycle Gold Corporation.

 

 

**KPMG LLP**

 

Denver, Colorado

March 29, 2005

 

----
93/12/2811 14:88 . 7196460974 ° CONDAS LLC

PAGE 82/03

GRANTED) TM2n pany isherehy ORDERED
> to provide a eopy of this Order to any Be
‘en . | se panties whochave enter? an i

appearsnee In this action within 10 days
from the date'of this order.”

_ Victor I. Reyes

; District Court Judge
DATROPORORR INTIGATEY ON ATTACHMENT

EXILED Document — Digtrict Cars ~

) DISTRICT COURT, FOEGLO COUNTY CGLGRADO

Court Address: 320°W. 10" Sweet’

‘2011C¥280
CO Pueblo Conaty District Court T0ch
Filing Date; Sep 92011 8:14AM MDT
Filing 1D: 39729115 :

: Pueblo, CQ 81003. :

Plaintiff: ' 7 ‘
FRANCES LoBArO

vs. :

Defendants;

4.

HOLDINGS CORP. and/or SEARS HOLDINGS CORP.
Individually ‘and aba’ KMART: SSTORE Ne. OH

Defendant cxbdtion; wid KOART, Marr" f

Review ‘Clerk: N/A

ie

us MATTER faving: cothe before
-Prohiss et f, DOES HEREB OWEN

EXHIBIT

E



OI Le 20lL Laine _ fL3b4603 14 CONDAS LLC . 7 PAGE 63/83
‘ ‘ Y
Courts. CO Pueblo County Distr .
Judge: Victor TReyes : Lo, ve Bo
Alternate alge: ;Unassignéd ° : fa “ee ht 4 wo ty
Fite & Seive 4 1k ve boy
Transaction ID:' 39669106 i : 7 a a a
Current Date: ‘ Sep 99,2011 ‘ . : ‘ :
Case Numbers! 20110¥289 . .
" Case Name! “ Frances Lobato vs matt Corporation; ‘big: Siar Kmart Holdings Copan Seats, Toh,
; _ Holeings Sor. indie "sind/or 7 ee ‘Kmart Store Ro. aa7t _ .

i ‘
“ a
1 oh yh
et
oy ‘ L
u 4

boo 4
1 . *
Say

' e