alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.1
                              ---------------------


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


In connection with the Annual Report of Category 5 Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending June 30, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Paul
Anderson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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/Paul Anderson
-----------------------
Paul Anderson
Chief Executive Officer
September 26, 2002


<PAGE>






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


In connection with the Annual Report of Category 5 Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending June 30, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Matthew
Crumley, Controller, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of
my knowledge and belief:

         (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/Matthew Crumley
-----------------------
Matthew Crumley
Controller
September 26, 2002
Order entered October 6, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-00612-CV

LIANG BI, Appellant

V.

WZH INFINITE INC. D/B/A M&Y AUTO COLLISION, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-20-01498-B

ORDER

The reporter’s record is past due. On September 2, 2021, Robin 

Washington, Official Court Reporter for County Court at Law No. 2, filed a letter 

stating that no party had requested the reporter’s record. Appellant filed a request 

for the reporter’s record on July 27, 2021.1 Accordingly, we ORDER Ms. 

Washington to file the reporter’s record WITHIN THIRTY DAYS of the date of 

this order.

1 The request is viewable on the trial court’s website.
We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to send a copy of this order to Ms. 

Washington and all parties.

/s/ KEN MOLBERG

JUSTICE
Form 12b-25
[As last amended in Release No. 34-35113. December 19, 1994, 59 F.R. 67752.]

                  U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

                          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

                                FORM 12b-25

                        NOTIFICATION OF LATE FILING

                               (Check One):

   [ ]Form 10-K  [ ]Form 20-F  [ ]Form 11-K  [X]Form 10-Q  [ ]Form N-SAR
               For Period Ended: February 28, 1997                            


Part I----Registrant Information

     Full Name of Registrant
     Energy Conservation International, Inc.
     Former Name if Applicable
     Vision Marketing Group, Inc.
     Address of Principal Executive Office (Street and Number)
     503 Barnes Dr.
     City, State and Zip Code
     Brandon, FL 33511

Part III---Narrative

The Company needs additional time to collect and complete the information
needed to file the 10-Q report, for the quarter ended 2/28/97, as accurately
and completely as possible. 

Part IV----Other Information

     (1) Name and telephone number of person to contact in regard to this
notification.
     Jose A. Alvarez   (813)689-1041

     (2) Have all other periodic report required under section 13 or 15(d) of
the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 or section 30 of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 during the preceding 12 months or for such shorter period
that the registrant was required to file such report(s) been filed?  If the
answer is no, identify report(s).  
                            [x]YES [ ]NO
                         
     (3) It is anticipated that any significant change in results of
operations from the corresponding period for the last fiscal year will be
reflected by the earnings statements to be included in the subject report or
portion thereof?
                           [ ]Yes [X]No

               (Name of Registrant as specified in charter)
has caused this notification to be signed on its behalf be the undersigned
thereunto duly authorized.
Date 04/11/97                  By Jose A. Alvarez
#### Tex. & Pac. R’y Co. v. D. D. Crawford.

(No. 3535.)

Appeal from Howard County.

Opinion by

Will-son, J.

§ 757. *Jurisdiction of county court as to amount; attempt to improperly confer jurisdiction; case stated.*Appellant brought this suit in the county court to recover of appellee $72.15, which he alleged to be due to him for services rendered as a conductor oh appellant’s line of railway. He claimed damages, also, in an amount over $200. He claimed these damages upon the alleged ground that appellant had maliciously and oppressively refused to pay the debt due to him, whereby he had been *664put to much trouble and expense, and had been kept out of employment, etc. Upon exceptions made by appellant the claim for damages was stricken out. Thereupon appellant pleaded that the court was without jurisdiction of the amount in controversy, and asked that the suit be dismissed. The court overruled the plea and rendered judgment for appellee for the debt sued for and costs. *Held:*The damages claimed were clearly not recoverable. Appellee showed no greater right to recover such damages than exists in any case of a failure and refusal to pay money due on contract. In such cases the only damage recoverable is interest. If jurisdiction can be conferred in the manner here attempted, it can be so conferred in any action of debt. We think it is apparent from the petition that appellee was seeking, by this manifestly illegal claim of damages, to improperly confer upon the county court jurisdiction of his cause of action, and, such being the case, the court erred in refusing to dismiss the suit.

June 13, 1885.

Reversed and remanded.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Danny J. LABORDE.

No. 2011-KK-1154.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 16, 2011.

In re Laborde, Danny J.; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or . Remedí*1152al Writs, Parish of Avoyelles, 12th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 151090; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KW 11-00470.

Denied.
#### Robert Anthony NORMAN, Sr., et al. v. ANCO INSULATIONS, INC., et al.

No. 2011-CC-2619.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 6, 2011.

In re Borg-Warner Corporation; Borg-Warner Morse Tec, Inc.; — Defendant(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. C, No. 07-15314; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-C-1650.

Stay recalled. Writ denied

VICTORY and GUIDRY, JJ., would grant.
858 A.2d 75

#### COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. Aaron JONES, Appellant.

No. 423 CAP.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Sept. 21, 2004.

Stuart Brian Lev, Esq., Stephen L. 'Marley, III, Esq., Victor J. Abreu Jr., Esq. for Aaron Jones.

Hugh J. Burns, Esq., Amy Zapp, Esq., Philadelphia, for Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

BEFORE: CAPPY, C.J., and CASTILLE, NIGRO, NEWMAN, SAYLOR, EAKIN, and BAER, JJ.

*591
      *ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 21st day of September, 2004, the order of the common pleas court is AFFIRMED. *See Commonwealth v. Robinson,*575 Pa. 500, 837 A.2d 1157 (2003).
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 141 

To direct the Secretary of Labor to revise regulations concerning the recording 

and reporting of occupational injuries and illnesses under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2007 

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Labor to revise regulations concerning the recording and reporting of occupational injuries and illnesses under the Occupational Safety and 

Health Act of 1970. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. RECORDING AND REPORTING OF OCCUPA4 TIONAL INJURIES AND ILLNESSES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the 

6 date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Labor shall 

7 revise the regulations in part 1904 of title 29, Code of 

8 Federal Regulations, concerning the recording and reportVerDate Aug 31 2005 01:59 Jan 12, 2007 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H141.IH H141

ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HR 141 IH

1 ing of occupational injuries and illnesses under the Occu2 pational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 651 

3 et seq.), to require site-controlling employers to keep a site 

4 log for all recordable injuries and illnesses occurring 

5 among all employees on the particular site, whether such 

6 employees are employed directly by the site-controlling em7 ployer or are employed by contractors or temporary help 

8 or employee leasing services. 

9 (b) DEFINITION.—As used in this section, the term 

10 ‘‘site-controlling employer’’ means the employer that has 

11 primary control over the work on a particular work site 

12 and supervises the employees on a day-to-day basis on a 

13 particular work site. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Joseph COSIMINI.

No. 2010-KP-1600.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 18, 2011.

In re Cosimini, Joseph; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Livingston, 21st Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 21531; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 0545.

Denied.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7569 RUSSELL ADAM PELLETIER, Plaintiff - Appellant, and BOBBY PATTERSON; ALVIN O. WASHINGTON; LAYRANZY ARMSTRONG, Plaintiffs,

versus WHITNEY COLEMAN; BOBBY HARDISON; JACK MCKEEN; MELBA JONES; KENNETH BILLER, Defendants - Appellees, and BERRY; LEWIS; CLATTERBUCK; WOLKOWICZ; STEVEN KEYS; LUGGAR; DYER; GRAY; (MALE); GARRISON; MCDANIALS; GRAVES; AYLOR; DR. REESE; CENTRAL VIRGINIA REGIONAL JAIL, all Officers; E. L. CROSLEY; RANDALL J. ARFT, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (CA-02-828-7)- 2 - Submitted: January 13, 2005 Decided: January 20, 2005 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Russell Adam Pelletier, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Kay Dillon, Jim Harold Guynn, Jr., GUYNN, MEMMER & DILLON, P.C., Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 3 - PER CURIAM: Russell Adam Pelletier appeals the district court’s order entering judgment in favor of Defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action pu rsuant to a jury verdict. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. SeePelletier v. Coleman , No. CA-02-828-7 (W.D. Va. Sept. 7, 2004). We 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
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1280

ADELINE B. BENJAMIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ANN VENEMAN, Secretary, United States Department of Agriculture, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (8:05-cv-00175-PJM) Submitted: February 14, 2007 Decided: March 8, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Curtis J. Karpel, Richard J. Link, Jr., KARPEL & LINK, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Ariana W. Arnold, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Adeline B. Benjamin appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of her employer, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, on her claims of retaliation and hostile work environment brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2000). Summary judgment is appropriate only if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, there are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986); Evans v. Technologies Applications & Serv. Co. , 80 F.3d 954, 958 (4th Cir. 1996). We have thoroughly reviewed the briefs and joint appendix and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court on January 30, 2006. (JA 1758-1770). Benjamin v. Veneman , No. 8:05-cv-00175-PJM (D. Md. Jan. 31, 2006). We 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 decision making process.

AFFIRMED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 2 2

- 0 059

STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

ROBERT AYRES DASILVA
, Defendant and Appellant.

O RDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s unopposed motion for extension

of time, and good cause appearing,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension
of time to and including March 13 , 202 3 , within which to prepare, file,
and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

February 6 2023

02/06/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0059
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 169 

To require that, in cases in which the annual trade deficit between the 

United States and another country is $10,000,000,000 or more for 

3 consecutive years, the President take the necessary steps to create 

a more balanced trading relationship with that country. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2007 

Ms. KAPTUR introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To require that, in cases in which the annual trade deficit 

between the United States and another country is 

$10,000,000,000 or more for 3 consecutive years, the 

President take the necessary steps to create a more 

balanced trading relationship with that country. 

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 ‘‘Balancing Trade Act 

5 of 2007’’. 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HR 169 IH

1 SEC. 2. ACTION BY THE PRESIDENT IN CASES OF LARGE 

2 CONSECUTIVE ANNUAL TRADE DEFICITS 

3 WITH OTHER COUNTRIES. 

4 (a) ACTION BY THE PRESIDENT.—If in 3 consecutive 

5 calendar years the United States has a trade deficit with 

6 another country of $10,000,000,000 or more, the Presi7 dent shall take the necessary steps to create a trading re8 lationship with the country that would eliminate or sub9 stantially reduce that trade deficit, by entering into an 

10 agreement with that country or otherwise. 

11 (b) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘‘trade 

12 deficit’’ means, with respect to the United States and an13 other country, that the value of goods and services that 

14 are products of that country and are imported into the 

15 United States from that country exceeds the value of 

16 goods and services that are products of the United States 

17 and are exported from the United States to that country. 

18 (c) REPORTS.— 

19 (1) INITIAL REPORT.—Not later than 3 months 

20 after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 

21 President shall submit to the Congress a report set22 ting forth— 

23 (A) the likely reasons for the trade deficits 

24 with each country to which subsection (a) ap25 plies, as of the date of the report; and 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
3 

•HR 169 IH

1 (B) the steps the President intends to take 

2 under subsection (a) with respect to each such 

3 country. 

4 (2) ANNUAL REPORTS.—The President shall 

5 submit to the Congress, not later than December 31 

6 of each year, a report on actions taken to carry out 

7 this section. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
856 A.2d 54

#### Judith JARDIN and All Others Similarly Situated, Appellants, v. Honorable Pedro A. CORTES, Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Aug. 18, 2004.

Joseph E. Alternare, Esq., Titusville, for Judith Jardín.

Christal Pike-Nase, Esq., Andrew Simon Sislo, Esq., for Pedro A. Cortes.

BEFORE: CAPPY, C.J., and CASTILLE, NIGRO, NEWMAN, SAYLOR, EAKIN and BAER, JJ.

*424
      *ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 18th day of August, 2004, the order of the Commonwealth Court is REVERSED, and the matter is remanded to the Commonwealth Court for further proceedings in accordance with *Tritt v. Cortes,*851 A.2d 903 (Pa.2004).

Justice CASTILLE dissents.
#### H. & T. C. R’y Co. v. W. B. Pressley.

(No. 1704.)

Appeal from Washington County.

Opinion by

Will-son, J.

§ 504. *Jurisdiction of court of appeals as to amount where the suit originated in justice’s court; the amount in controversy, or the amount of the judgment appealed from, must exceed*$100, *exclusive of interest and costs.*This suit was instituted by appellee in justice’s court to recover of appellant the sum of $92.25 damages. He recovered judgment in that court for the sum of $42.50 and costs. Appellant appealed to the county court, where, upon a trial *de novo,*appellee recovered judgment for $47.50 and all costs, the costs amounting to $79.89. Appellee moves to dismiss this appeal upon the ground that this court is without jurisdiction to hear and determine the case, because neither the amount in controversy, nor the judgment appealed from, exceeds $100. Appellant contends, in opposition to the motion, that the costs are a part of the judgment, and that therefore the judgment exceeds $100. It is provided by the constitution that, *“*in all appeals from justice’s court, there shall be a trial *de novo,*and when the judgment rendered or fine imposed shall not exceed $100, such trial shall be final; but if the judgment rendered or fine imposed shall exceed $100, .... an appeal shall lie to the court of appeals, under such regulations as may be prescribed by law.” [Const, art. V, sec. 16.] Article 1382 of the Revised Statutes provides that “an appeal or writ of error may also be taken to the court of appeals from any final judgment of the county court rendered on appeal or *cer-*, *tiorari*in civil cases taken from the justices’ courts, when *452the judgment or the amount in controversy exceeds $100.” If these provisions were the only ones relating to the subject, we should hold, with counsel for appellant, that the costs are a part of the judgment, and that where the principal, interest and costs adjudged amount in the aggregate to more than $100, this court would have jurisdiction. But there is another provision of the statute, which, in our opinion, controls and restricts the above quoted provisions. It is that provision which defines the appellate jurisdiction of this court, and limits the same in cases of this character to those “where the judgment rendered, or the amount in controversy, shall exceed $100, *exclusive of interest and costs.”*[R. S. art. 1068.] Under section 22, article V, of the constitution, it was within the power of the legislature to thus limit the appellate jurisdiction of this court. In accordance with the last cited article of the statute, and also in accordance with former decisions of this court [W. & W. Con. Rep. §§ 510, 629, 630 it is held that this court is without jurisdiction to hear and determine this appeal.

January 8, 1885.

Appeal dismissed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1820

YONGQING LIN, Petitioner,

v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted: January 13, 2010 Decided: February 16, 2010

Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward T. Giuliano, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant Director, Robbin K. Blaya, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.PER CURIAM: Yongqing Lin, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Lin first challenges the determination that he failed to establish his eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Lin fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. We therefore find that substantial evidence supports

the denial of relief. Additionally, we uphold the denial of Lin’s request for withholding of removal. “Because the burden of proof for withholding of removal is higher than for asylum--even though the facts that must be proved are the same--an applicant who is ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).” Camara v. Ashcroft , 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). Because Lin failed to show

23 that he is eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the higher standard for withholding of removal. Accordingly, we deny t he petition for review. ∗ We 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.

PETITION DENIED

∗ Lin failed to challenge the denial of his request for protection under the Convention Against Torture. He has therefore waived appellate review of this claim. See Ngarurih v. Ashcroft , 371 F.3d 182, 189 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004) (finding that failure to raise a challenge in an opening brief results in abandonment of that challenge); Edwards v. City of Goldsboro , 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999) (same).