alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002   In connection with the Annual Report of Silicon South, Inc. a Nevada corporation (the Company), on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Zagros Shahvaran, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350), 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.    /s/ Zagros Shahvaran Zagros Shahvaran Chief Executive Officer Date: March 16, 2010
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**WARREN RESOURCES, INC.**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Warren Resources, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Norman F.Swanton, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

 
| (1)    |   | The Report fully  complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934; and                                |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                   |
| (2)    |   | The information  contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the  financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |

 

 
| /s/ Norman F.  Swanton        |
|-------------------------------|
| Norman F. Swanton             |
| ***Chairman of the Board***   |
| *And Chief Executive Officer* |

 

May 10, 2005

 

A signed original of this original statement required by Section 906has been provided to Warren Resources, Inc., and will be retained by WarrenResources, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 

----
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

January 21, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL PATRICK CORRIGAN,

also known as Pat Corrigan,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 14-1152

(D. of Colo.)

(D.C. No. 1:12-CR-00221-SJJ-1)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before LUCERO, TYMKOVICH, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges. 

Michael Patrick Corrigan is currently serving a 56-month sentence after

pleading guilty to four counts of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 and

18 U.S.C. § 2. Mr. Corrigan appeals the district court’s judgment and sentence,

claiming that the district court failed to make a clear and independent ruling as

required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(3)(B) on the disputed issue

of the amount of loss attributable to Mr. Corrigan’s fraud. The government

agrees and also asks us to remand to the district court for resentencing. After a

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,

however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th

Cir. R. 32.1.

Appellate Case: 14-1152 Document: 01019373182 Date Filed: 01/21/2015 Page: 1 
careful review of the record, we agree there was not a “clear and independent

ruling by the district court on [this] critical disputed fact” and remand is

necessary. United States v. Williams, 374 F.3d 941, 947 (10th Cir. 2004); see

also United States v. Schmidt, 244 F. App’x 902, 906–07 (10th Cir. 2007)

(finding the district court accepted the presentence investigation report’s findings

on the disputed issue of loss amount without independent inquiry and remanding

for resentencing). 

Accordingly, exercising our jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and

3742(a), we REMAND for further proceedings, with instructions to vacate the

sentence and resentence in accordance with this order and judgment. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT,

Timothy M. Tymkovich

Circuit Judge

-2-

Appellate Case: 14-1152 Document: 01019373182 Date Filed: 01/21/2015 Page: 2
#### James A. ZELLINGER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CONTROL SERVICES, INCORPORATED, a Louisiana Corporation; Luv N’ Care, Limited, a Louisiana Corporation; N.E. Hakim, an Individual, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 03-1170.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted July 23, 2003.

Decided Aug. 27, 2003.

James A. Zellinger, Appellant Pro Se. John L. Monroe, Jr., Florence Valerie Rusk, Ford & Harrison, Atlanta, Georgia; Grayson Lawrence Reeves, Jr., Charles Atlee Madison, Patterson, Dilthey, Clay & Bryson, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Before LUTTIG, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

James A. Zellinger seeks to appeal the district court’s order transferring his case to the Western District of Louisiana because the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over the Appellees. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Zellinger seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appeal-able interlocutory or collateral order. *See In re Carefirst of Md., Inc.,*305 F.3d 253, 262 (4th Cir.2002). Accordingly, we grant Appellees’ motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Zellinger’s motion to file a formal brief. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDG MENT

No. 04

- 22

- 00276

- CR

Efren MORENO

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 399th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021CR10602

Honorable Frank J. Castro

, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE CHAPA

, JUSTICE WATKINS, AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is permanently ABATED.

SIGNED September 14, 2022.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa , Justice
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

July 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

129930 & (45) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

ERIN LEECH,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 129930 

 COA: 253827 

Kent CC: 03-006701-NI 

ANITA KRAMER, 

Defendant, 

and 

KENT COUNTY BOARD OF ROAD 

COMMISSIONERS, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

By order of April 5, 2006, the application for leave to appeal the October 11, 2005 

judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in Rowland 

v Washtenaw Co Rd Comm (Docket No. 130379). The case was decided on May 2, 2007, 

477 Mich 197 (2007). On May 29, 2007, the defendant Board of County Road 

Commissioners of the County of Kent filed a motion for peremptory reversal. On order 

of the Court, the application and the motion for peremptory reversal are considered and, 

pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we GRANT the motion 

for peremptory reversal and REVERSE the judgment of the Court of Appeals. The 

plaintiff’s notice to the defendant Board was untimely under MCL 691.1404. Rowland, 

supra. We REMAND this case to the Kent Circuit Court for entry of an order granting 

summary disposition to the defendant Board. 

CAVANAGH and KELLY, JJ., would deny leave to appeal. 

p0723 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

July 30, 2007 

 Clerk
**Exhibit
      32.2**





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF


THE
      SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I,
      E.
      Barry Smith, Chief Financial Officer of Telkonet, Inc. (the “Company”), certify
      that:





(1)  The
      Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended December 31,
      2005
      which this certification accompanies 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/
      E.
      Barry Smith


E.
      Barry
      Smith


Chief
      Financial Officer


March
      16,
      2006
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 15, 2018

No. 04-18-00107-CR

Robert MARTINEZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR6698

Honorable Jefferson Moore, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On June 6, 2018, Mr. Martinez, acting pro se, filed a motion requesting a copy of the 

appellate record in Appeal No. 04-18-00107-CR. Mr. Martinez does not have an active case 

before this court. Appeal No. 04-18-00107-CR was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on March 

14, 2018. See Moreno v. State, No. 04-18-00107-CR (Tex. App.—San Antonio March 14, 2018, 

no pet.). Accordingly, Mr. Martinez’s request for a copy of the appellate record is DENIED.

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 15th day of June, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM SINA.com
FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          99,149
<SECURITIES>                                    30,484
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,677
<ALLOWANCES>                                       756
<INVENTORY>                                        156
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               135,088
<PP&E>                                           9,793
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,056
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 156,038
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,221
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,425
<OTHER-SE>                                     141,392
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   156,038
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,170
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,520
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                57,052
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   701
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (50,601)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (50,601)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (51,067)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (3.44)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.44)


</TABLE>
NASA Office of STEM Engagement

Statement of Interest

Organizations interested in exploring a partnership with NASA STEM Engagement should submit a 

Statement of Interest of no more than five pages to NASAEdPartners@nasa.gov. Do not include 

Proprietary Data in the Statement of Interest, as NASA reserves the right to share Statements of Interest 

broadly inside and outside NASA.

Statements of Interest should include the following:

• Entity Name and Web Address

• Physical Address

• Country of Origin of Entity’s Headquarters

• Point of Contact Name and Title

• Overview of your organization, strategic goals and examples of past work with education 

audiences

• Overview of proposed partnership activities and anticipated products or programs to be 

produced through the relationship

• Intended outcomes of partnership activities

• Description how activities align with NASA strategic goals for STEM engagement

• Explanation of how the requested activities further your organization’s mission

• Description of target audience and anticipated student reach

• Description of strategies to engage students from under-resourced communities and/or 

populations traditionally underrepresented in STEM careers

• Summary of proposed organizational roles in the partnership. Include estimated commitment of 

NASA resources necessary (number of hours of requested staff time and facilities, etc.) to 

accomplish activities in non-funded relationship

• Proposed timeline for partnership activities
[786 NYS2d 870]

#### In the Matter of J. Eldon Owens, an Attorney, Respondent. Grievance Committee of the Eighth Judicial District, Petitioner.

Fourth Department,

December 30, 2004

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Margaret C. Callanan, Principal Counsel, Eighth Judicial District Grievance Committee,*Buffalo, for petitioner.

*Richard T. Sullivan,*Buffalo, for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to the practice of law by this *125Court on April 8, 1970, and maintains an office for the practice of law in Buffalo. The Grievance Committee filed a petition charging respondent with acts of misconduct arising from his representation of two estates. Respondent filed an answer denying material allegations of the petition and, by order entered March 19, 2004, a referee was assigned to conduct a hearing. Prior to the hearing, the parties executed a stipulation resolving most of the outstanding factual issues. The Referee filed a report, which the Grievance Committee moves to confirm. Respondent filed papers in opposition to the motion, and appeared before this Court and submitted matters in mitigation.

The Referee found that respondent, as attorney for an estate, allowed the funds in the estate account to escheat to the State, resulting in a loss of a portion of the funds. Additionally, with respect to another estate represented by respondent, the Referee found that the untimely delivery of completed tax returns by respondent to the executor of the estate resulted in the assessment of penalties and interest against the estate.

We confirm the findings of fact made by the Referee and conclude that respondent has violated the following Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility:

> DR 1-102 (a) (5) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [5])—engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;

> DR 6-101 (a) (3) (22 NYCRR 1200.30 [a] [3])—neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him;

> DR 7-101 (a) (1) (22 NYCRR 1200.32 [a] [1])—failing to seek the lawful objectives of a client through reasonably available means permitted by law and the Disciplinary Rules;

> DR 7-101 (a) (2) (22 NYCRR 1200.32 [a] [2])—failing to carry out a contract of employment entered into with a client for professional services; and

> DR 7-101 (a) (3) (22 NYCRR 1200.32 [a] [3])—prejudicing or damaging a client during the course of the professional relationship.

We have considered the matters submitted by respondent in mitigation, including that the beneficiaries of the estates incurred no loss as a result of his misconduct. Respondent, however, previously received letters of caution based upon similar misconduct. Accordingly, after consideration of all of the factors in this matter, we conclude that respondent should be *126suspended for a period of six months and until further order of the Court.

Green, J.P., Pine, Scudder, Gorski and Hayes, JJ., concur.

Order of suspension entered.
# United States Court of Appeals F OR T HE E IGHTH C IRCUIT

___________ No. 96-3677

___________ Lisa J. Montague, * * Appellant, * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * EasternDistrict of Missouri . United States Department of the Army, * Secretary Togo D. West, Jr.; * UNPUBLISHED Togo D. West, Jr., * * Appellees. * *

___________ Submitted: May 23, 1997 Filed: July 31, 1997

___________ Before BEAM, Circuit Judge, HENLEY, Senior Circuit Judge, and LOKEN, Circuit Judge.

___________ PER CURIAM.

### -2- Lisa M ontague was a civilian employee of the Army who worked as a n occupat ional therapist providing services to the disabled children o f United States military personnel stationed in Germany. She brought suit under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §§ 701-797b, alleging that (1) she was constructively discharged from her j ob; (2) she was retaliated against by her supervisors for filing complaints with the EEOC and bringin g to the attention of military commanders what she perceived wer e inadequacies and illegalities in the treatment of disabled children; and (3) she was discriminated against because her supervisors thought that her sym pathyfor handicapped children was evidence that she suffered from a mental or emotional disease. The case was tried to the district court sitting without a jury . The court entered judgment against Montague and for the defendants on eac h coun t of her second amended complaint, explaining its decision in a thorough and well-reasoned opinion. Montague now appeals contending that the court erred as a matter of law with respect to its conclusions on each of the counts of her complaint . After a review of th e record, the briefs of the parties, and the opinion of the district court , we find that the decision of the district court in favor of the defendants contains no error of law, that the findings of fac t by the dis trict court are not clearly erroneous, and that an extende d opinion by our court would have no precedential value. Accordin gly, the judgment appealed from is affirmed. See 8th Cir . R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kenroy Jackson, Also Known as Keyron Jackson, Appellant.

[789 NYS2d 248]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowling, J.), rendered September 10, 2002, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that he could have been convicted only of intentional murder *(see*Penal Law § 125.25 [1]), and that the evidence was legally insufficient to support a conviction of depraved indifference murder *(see*Penal Law § 125.25 [2]; *People v Payne,*3 NY3d 266 [2004]) is unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Gray,*86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]), and we decline to reach the issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction *(see*CPL 470.15 [3] [c]; [6] [a]).

*716Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are without merit. Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Crane and Skelos, JJ., concur.
# Activity Four: Build a Heat Shield

		Back to search page	

## Audience

Educators

## Grade Levels

Grades 5-8

## Subject

Engineering Design, Life Science, Physical Science, Technology, Life Support, Energy, Forces and Motion, Models, Space Vehicles

## Type

Lesson Plans / Activities

Students will work together as a team to design and build a heat shield that will protect the contents (candy) of a crew module (paper cup) from a simulated atmospheric reentry (hair dryer).

Students will:
              - Apply the steps of the engineering design process to successfully complete a team challenge.
              - Design, build, and test a crew module heat shield.
              - Explore concepts related to heat transfer, heat load, thermal resistance, and turbulence.
              - Brainstorm ideas about what material characteristics will best protect the contents (candy) of the simulated crew module.
              - Make observations and collect data to improve their design

Next Generation Science Standards: MS-PS3-3, MS-PS3-4, MS-ETS1-1, MS-ETS1-3

Common Core State Standards: CCSS.MATHPRACTICE.MP.1, CCSS.MATHPRACTICE.MP.3

Activity Four: Build a Heat Shield

This lesson plan is part of the “Crew Transportation with Orion Educator Guide.”
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

www.nasa.gov

Biography

Image Credit: NASA

Mr. Springer is responsible for the key directorate processes and activities including 

strategic communications, education, integration of ARMD and agency strategic 

planning and performance reporting, various program support activities including 

internal reviews, and program, human capital and mission support resources and 

technology requirements. 

He has previously served in multiple positions with in the mission directorate and 

its predecessor organizations including serving as the lead for communications and 

education, and the manager for alliance development. 

Prior to coming to Headquarters Springer served as the resident manager for a NASA 

experimental vehicle program, and was a test engineer at the NASA Marshall Space Flight 

Center where his focus areas were launch vehicle aerodynamics and wind-tunnel testing. 

He began his career with NASA in the late 1980s as a cooperative education student. 

During his career Springer has written or edited numerous technical papers, reports, 

encyclopedia entries and books. He has held numerous positions in aerospace 

professional societies, and is a fellow of the American Institute of Aeronautics and 

Astronautics.

He has a bachelor’s of science in aeronautical and astronautical engineering from the 

University of Illinois.

Mr. Anthoy M. Springer

Director of the Integration and Management Office

NASA Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD)
#### Wilson and Others *v.*Brumfield and Another.—In error.

A PURCPIASER of real estate cannot be compelled to take only a part of the land for which he has contracted. If he cannot get the whole, he has a right to rescind the contract; but he has also a right, generally, to insist that the vendor shall perform the contract so far as he is able, and make compensation in damages for the breach of that part of it which he cannot perform. 2 Story’s Eq., sect. *779.*— Paton v. *Rogers,*1 Ves. & B. *351.*— Todd v. *Gee,*17 Ves. 273.— *Waters*v. *Travis,*9 Johns. 450. — 1 Sugd. Vend- 319.