alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Rohit Patel,  Principal Executive Officer of English Language Learning and
Instruction System, Inc. (the "Company") do hereby certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

1.  This amended Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.  The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date:    October 26, 2004

/s/ Rohit Patel
----------------------------
Rohit Patel
Principal Executive Officer
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 27, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r 136702 Marilyn Kell y Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman,
J ustices PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 136702 COA: 278148 Wayne CC: 05-004348-01 COREY JUAN BURTON, a/k/a COREY JJUAN BURTON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 3, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

d1020 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 27, 2008

Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1763 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1763

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 14 Chestnut Street, in Liberty, New York, as the ``Ben R. Gerow Post 
                           Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 21, 2003

  Mr. Schumer (for himself and Mrs. Clinton) introduced the following 
      bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                          Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 14 Chestnut Street, in Liberty, New York, as the ``Ben R. Gerow Post 
                           Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. BEN R. GEROW POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 14 Chestnut Street, in Liberty, New York, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Ben R. Gerow Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the Ben R. Gerow 
Post Office Building.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit
      32




**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350**








In
      connection with the report of Spectre Gaming, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
      10-QSB/A for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Russell C. Mix, Chief
      Executive Officer of the Company, and I Kevin M. Greer, Chief Financial Officer
      of the Company, certify to the best of our knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§
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.








/s/
      Russell C. Mix


Russell
      C. Mix


Chief
      Executive Officer


June
      27,
      2006





/s/
      Kevin M. Greer


Kevin
      M.
      Greer


Chief
      Financial Officer


June
      27,
      2006
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 accompanying Annual Report of Health Systems
Solutions, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ending
December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, B.M. Milvain, Principal Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge,
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 fully presents, in
                      all material respects, the financial condition and results
                      of operations of the Company.



By:  /s/ B. M. Milvain
     ---------------------------
         B.M. Milvain
         Principal Executive Officer
         March 26, 2004
FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

APR8 2005 

PATRICK FISHER 

Clerk 

JAMES R. DUNCAN, 

Plaintiff - Appellant, 

vs. 

CAPTAIN GIBSON; CAPTAIN 

MIRCHEIA, 

Defendants - Appellees. 

No. 04-1419 

(D.C. No. 02-F-561 (BNB)) 

(D. Colo.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before KELLY, O'BRIEN, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges:• 

Plaintiff-Appellant James Duncan, a state inmate appearing pro se, appeals 

from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant 

prison officials in his § 1983 action. 

The parties are familiar with the facts and we need not restate them here. 

• This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the 

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court 

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order 

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

•• After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge 

panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material 

assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th 

Cir. R. 34.1 (G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 04-1419 Document: 010110533933 Date Filed: 04/08/2005 Page: 1
...... -

Appellate Case: 04-1419 Document: 010110533933 Date Filed: 04/08/2005 Page: 2
Upon reviewing the record, we are satisfied that the district court was correct in 

granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants-Appellees as Mr. Duncan 

failed to exhaust administrative remedies. See Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 

532 (2002); Jernigan v. Stuchell, 304 F.3d 1030, 1032 (10th Cir. 2002). Even 

assuming that Mr. Duncan was affirmatively misled by prison officials that his 

excessive force claim could not be grieved (thereby excusing the exhaustion 

requirement), he has failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact on that 

claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). Given the nature of this case, we refuse to 

appoint counsel. See Long v. Shillinger, 927 F.2d 525, 527 (10th Cir. 1991) 

(identifying factors courts consider in deciding whether to appoint counsel in civil 

cases). 

Mr. Duncan's motion to proceed on appeal without prepayment of fees is 

GRANTED, his motion for reconsideration of appointment of counsel is 

DENIED, and the district court's judgment is AFFIRMED. Mr. Duncan is also 

reminded that he is obligated to make partial payments to this court until the 

entire appellate filing fee is paid in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b ). 

Entered for the Court 

Paul J. Kelly, Jr. 

Circuit Judge 

- 2 -

Appellate Case: 04-1419 Document: 010110533933 Date Filed: 04/08/2005 Page: 3
Appellate Case: 04-1419 Document: 010110533933 Date Filed: 04/08/2005 Page: 4
#### Jaques *v.*Denehie and Another.

*Thursday, January*4, 1844.

Debt on a replevin-bond against *A.*and *B.*Plea, that, after the suit was commenced, the same had been, on, &e., settled and compromised by the parties; and that it was then agreed by the plaintiff and *A.,*that the suit should be dismissed at the defendants’ costs; which costs, amounting to six dollars and nine cents, *A.*had paid according to the agreement; which the defendants were ready to verify. *Held,*that the plea was bad.

ERROR to the *Vigo*Circuit Court.

*C. W.*Barbour, for the plaintiff.

*A. Kinney*and *S. B.*Goolcins, for the defendants.

Blackford, J.

— Debt by Jaques, assignee of Strain, against' *Denehie*and Biggs, on a replevin-bond. The defendants pleaded, *inter*alia, as follows : They say *actio*non, because they say that since the commencement of this suit, the same has been, on, &c., settled and compromised by a.nd between the parties, and that it was then agreed by and ■ between said *Jaques*and said Denehie, that said suit should be dismissed at the defendants’ costs, which costs, amounting to six dollars and nine cents, said *Denehie*has paid according to said agreement ; and this they are ready to verify. General demurrer to the plea, demurrer overruled, and judgment against the defendants for costs.

The plea in question is pleaded in bar of the action generally, but it shows that the matter contained in it arose after the action was brought; it could, therefore, if otherwise unobjectionable, be pleaded only in bar of the further maintenance of the suit. *Le Bret*v. Papillon, 4 East, *502.*—White *et al.*v. Guest, 6 Blackf. 228.

But the plea is bad on other grounds. If it be viewed as a plea that the damages claimed had been satisfied, it is objectionable for not showing the terms of the settlement relied on ; that is, whether the satisfaction was by payment of money, or by the delivery and acceptance of property. If the plea be considered as alleging that the settlement consisted of an agreement by the plaintiff to dismiss the suit at the defendants’ costs, it is bad as being pleaded in bar, and containing, at most, only matter in delay of the plaintiff’s recovery ; for were the suit to be dismissed, the defendants could be sued again for the same demand.

*Per Curiam,.*

— The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.
Exhibit 32.2

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

of Chief Financial Officer

In connection with the Annual Report of eDiets.com, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas Hoyer, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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.



|                     |  |        |  |                        
|-------------------- |  | ------ |  | -----------------------
|Date: March 18, 2009 |  |        |  |                        
|                     |  |       
|                     |  | By:    |  | /s/ Thomas Hoyer       
|                     |  | Name:  |  | Thomas Hoyer           
|                     |  | Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has
been provided to eDiets.com, Inc. and will be retained by eDiets.com, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### A. K. Cox *v.*C. L. Sharpe.

Sale of Land — Specific Execution of Contract — Legal Remedy.

Where a party to a sale of real estate has an adequate legal remedy for the breach of the contract by the other party, a court of equity will not enforce a specific execution of the contract, unless it be necessary for j ustice.

APPEAL PROM NELSON CIRCUIT COURT.

October 1, 1866.

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Robertson :

When a party to a sale of real estate has an adequate legal remedy for a breach of the contract by the other party, a court of equity will not enforce a specific execution unless it be necessary for justice.

In. this' case, so far as we can judge from the record, the vendee has neithe'r parted with anything, nor has been, or will be, subject to any special damage or inconvenience by a failure to get the legal title. It does not even appear that he would lose a fair speculation. On the contrary, a dismissal of his bill for a conveyance might and probably would leave both parties equitably *in stain quo.*

It is at least very doubtful whether the written memorial.is not essentially different from the oral contract previously negotiated, and whether the vendor would ever have signed it or did sign it deliberately and understandingly. And, moreo-s er, his wife refuses, and could not be compelled, to relinquish her contingent dower, and is unwilling to leave her home.

On such facts we can see no controlling principle or sufficient reason for a compulsive enforcement of the contract as sought by the appellee or as decreed by the Circuit Court. In our opinion; all the appellee can rightfully and conscientiously claim in this case is an assessment of special damages, if any he shall have sustained, and should elect an inquiry by a jury. And if he shall not ask this, his petition should be dismissed.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2031 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2031

 To authorize the States to implement such mechanisms as are necessary 
in a time of national crisis to ensure the continuity of the Senate in 
    the event that a quorum of the Senate is not present due to the 
  inability of the members of the Senate to discharge the powers and 
                        duties of their office.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 27, 2004

    Mr. Cornyn (for himself, Mr. Dodd, and Mr. Lott) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                        Rules and Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To authorize the States to implement such mechanisms as are necessary 
in a time of national crisis to ensure the continuity of the Senate in 
    the event that a quorum of the Senate is not present due to the 
  inability of the members of the Senate to discharge the powers and 
                        duties of their office.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Continuity of the Senate Act of 
2004''.

SEC. 2. INCAPACITIES IN THE SENATE FOLLOWING A CATASTROPHIC INCIDENT.

    (a) In General.--In the event that the Senate ascertains that a 
quorum of the Senate is not present, the Majority Leader and Minority 
Leader of the Senate, or their designees, may jointly determine that 
such absence of a quorum is caused by the inability of the members of 
the Senate to discharge the powers and duties of the office during a 
time of national crisis.
    (b) State Laws.--The legislature of each State may enact such laws 
as the State determines necessary declaring who shall serve in the 
place of members that are determined to be unable to discharge the 
powers and duties of the office under subsection (a).

SEC. 3. LIMITATION.

    Nothing in this Act shall limit the authority of any State under 
the Constitution of the United States to fill a vacancy in the Senate.
                                 <all>
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel HIV, HAART and AGING.                    

*Date:*                         November 23, 2010.                    

*Time:*                         1 p.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute On Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2C212, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Elaine Lewis, PhD, Scientific Review Branch, National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, Suite 2C212, MSC-9205, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-7707.                         *elainelewis@nia.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS).

Dated: October 25, 2010.

Jennifer S. Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2010-27576 Filed 11-1-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D2023-3143

LT Case No. 2020-CF-0788

_____________________________

WILLIAM SANTIAGO,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Putnam County. 

Elizabeth Ann Morris, Judge. 

Joshua S. Alexander, of Alexander Law Firm, LLC, St. 

Augustine, for Appellant. 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee and Bonnie J. 

Parrish, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for 

Appellee.

July 23, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WALLIS, KILBANE, and PRATT, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Barry Mitchell, Appellant.

[789 NYS2d 185]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Buchter, J.), rendered August 1, 2003, convicting him of burglary in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.

The defendant was indicted, inter alia, on two counts of burglary in the first degree. During a pretrial *Wade*hearing *(see United States v Wade,*388 US 218 [1967]), the People turned over to the defense copies of certain police reports in which the perpetrator was described as a 30-year-old Hispanic male. The defendant is black and was 44 years old at the time of the trial. During jury selection and in opening statements, the defense counsel stated that the defense would be misidentification, and relied heavily upon the contention that the police reports described a very different person than the defendant. After the first witness testified, the People turned over copies of additional police reports containing different descriptions of the perpetrator, which were much closer to that of the defendant. The Supreme Court determined that the prosecutor committed a *Rosario*violation *(see People v Rosario,*9 NY2d 286 [1961], *cert*
      *580
      *denied*368 US 866 [1961]), but indicated that a mistrial was not warranted under the circumstances.

We agree with the defendant that the Supreme Court abused its discretion in declining to grant a mistrial. It is well settled that the People must turn over to the defense any prior statements by a witness which relates to the subject matter of that witness’s testimony for use on cross-examination *(see*CPL 240.45 [1] [a]; *People v Rosario, supra).*The material must be provided at a time when it can be useful to the defense *(see People v Goins,*73 NY2d 989, 991 [1989]). As the People correctly concede, it was a violation of this rule to fail to turn over the additional police reports before the start of the trial. However, contrary to the People’s contentions, the prejudice to the defendant was not obviated by the remedial action taken by the trial court *(see People v Thompson,*71 NY2d 918, 919-920 [1988]; *People v Mackey,*249 AD2d 329, 330 [1998]). When the late disclosure of *Rosario*material results in substantial prejudice to the defendant, a new trial is required *(see People v Smith,*190 AD2d 700, 701 [1993]). As the defendant framed the issue entirely in terms of the misidentification shown by the documents in his possession, and cross-examined the first witness without the benefit of the missing documents, he was substantially prejudiced by the violation *(see People v Goins, supra*at 991).

In light of our determination, we need not reach the defendant’s remaining contention. Ritter, J.P., Goldstein, Smith and Fisher, JJ., concur.