alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Anthony J. Stangle, Deceased. Linda J. Harms, Individually and as Executor of Anthony J. Stangle, Deceased, et al., Respondents; Cindy Laurie et al., Appellants.

[788 NYS2d 241]

Crew III, J. Appeal from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court of Albany County (Doyle, S.), entered January 9, 2004, which construed the residuary clause of decedent’s last will and testament.

Decedent died in January 1999 following the execution of a self-drawn will in November 1998. As pertinent here, the will contained a residuary bequest that provided: “All the rest, residue and remainder of my property both real and personal, I give, devise and bequeath in equal shares to my surviving sisters and brother. To Pearl Craft, West Albany, NY; Linda Harms, Voorheesville, NY; Roger Stangle, Loudonville, NY; share and share alike.” At the time of his death, decedent’s sisters survived him, whereas his brother predeceased him.

*829In October 2003, decedent’s sisters filed a verified petition for construction of decedent’s will, specifically seeking a determination regarding decedent’s intent concerning the aforesaid residuary clause. Respondents, Roger Stangle’s surviving children, objected to the petition on the basis that the residuary clause provided for specific bequests to decedent’s two sisters and brother and, as such, respondents were entitled to receive their father’s share of the estate by virtue of the antilapse statute (see EPTL 3-3.3). Surrogate’s Court dismissed respondents’ objection, determining that the residuary clause required survivorship for the gift to vest, prompting this appeal by respondents.

We affirm. It is axiomatic that a residuary bequest that is ineffective by reason of the beneficiary’s death will not vest if the testator has made an alternative disposition in the will *(see e.g. Matter of*Vaughn, 267 AD2d 763, 764 [1999]). Here, decedent clearly employed words of alternative disposition by providing that the remainder of his estate be shared equally by his surviving siblings. By employing such language, decedent effectively barred application of the antilapse statute.

Mercure, J.P., Spain, Carpinello and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decree is affirmed, without costs.
Exhibit 32.1

                           CERTIFICATION OF PRESIDENT
                       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 on Form 10-KSB of Vista Exploration
Corporation (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
Charles A. Ross, Sr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and David C. Owen,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to and
solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge and belief, that:

     1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities and 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/  Charles A. Ross, Sr.
-------------------------
     Charles A. Ross, Sr.
     Chief Executive Officer

/s/  David C. Owen
----------------------------
     David C. Owen
     Chief Financial Officer
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2124 

To amend part C of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to prohibit 

the comparative cost adjustment (CCA) program from operating in Massachusetts. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 25, 2004 

Mr. KENNEDY (for himself and Mr. KERRY) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend part C of title XVIII of the Social Security Act 

to prohibit the comparative cost adjustment (CCA) program from operating in Massachusetts. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON OPERATION OF MEDICARE 

4 COMPARATIVE COST ADJUSTMENT (CCA) 

5 PROGRAM IN MASSACHUSETTS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1860C–1(b) of the Social 

7 Security Act, as added by section 241 of the Medicare Pre8 scription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 
2 

•S 2124 IS 

1 2003 (Public Law 108–173), is amended by adding at the 

2 end the following: 

3 ‘‘(3) NO CCA AREAS WITHIN MASSACHU4 SETTS.—A CCA area shall not include an MSA any 

5 portion of which is within Massachusetts.’’. 

6 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

7 this section shall take effect as if included in the enact8 ment of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, 

9 and Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108–173). 

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1852 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1852

To provide financial assistance for the rehabilitation of the Benjamin 
   Franklin National Memorial in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and the 
 development of an exhibit to commemorate the 300th anniversary of the 
                      birth of Benjamin Franklin.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 12, 2003

  Mr. Specter (for himself and Mr. Santorum) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide financial assistance for the rehabilitation of the Benjamin 
   Franklin National Memorial in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and the 
 development of an exhibit to commemorate the 300th anniversary of the 
                      birth of Benjamin Franklin.

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

SECTION 1. BENJAMIN FRANKLIN NATIONAL MEMORIAL.

    (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
            (1) in Public Law 92-551 (86 Stat. 1164), Congress--
                    (A) designated the Benjamin Franklin Memorial Hall 
                as the Benjamin Franklin National Memorial; and
                    (B) directed the Secretary of the Interior to enter 
                into a cooperative agreement with the Franklin 
                Institute; and
            (2) in a memorandum of understanding entered into on 
        November 6, 1973, the Secretary of the Interior agreed to 
        cooperate in the preservation and presentation of the Benjamin 
        Franklin Memorial Hall as a national memorial.
    (b) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior shall provide a 
grant to the Franklin Institute to--
            (1) rehabilitate the Benjamin Franklin National Memorial 
        (including the Franklin statue) in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; 
        and
            (2) develop an exhibit featuring artifacts and multimedia 
        collections relating to Benjamin Franklin, to be displayed at a 
        museum adjacent to the Benjamin Franklin National Memorial.
    (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to carry out this Act for fiscal years 2004 through 2008 
$10,000,000.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of Toyota Motor Corporation, a Japanese corporation (the Company), does hereby certify that, to such officers knowledge:

1. The accompanying Annual Report of the Company on Form 20-F for the period ended March 31, 2006 (the Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.
Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



By:

/s/     FUJIO
CHOName:

Fujio ChoTitle:

Chairman of the BoardDate: November 7, 2006By:

/s/     MITSUO
KINOSHITAName:

Mitsuo KinoshitaTitle:

Executive Vice President, Member of the BoardDate: November 7, 2006


(A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Toyota Motor
Corporation and will be retained by Toyota Motor Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.)
**Exhibit 24.5**

**POWER OF ATTORNEY**

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, thatthe undersigned director and/or officer of eLoyalty Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), hereby constitutes and appoints each of Kelly D. Conway and William B. Noon, signing singly, as the undersigned’s true and lawfulattorney-in-fact, with full power and authority and full power of substitution, re-substitution, or revocation, to: 

(a) execute for, in the name and on behalf of the undersigned, in the undersigned’s capacity as a director and/or officer of the Company, the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscalyear ended January 1, 2011, together with any and all amendments thereto on Form 10-K/A deemed necessary, appropriate, or desirable (collectively, the “Form 10-K”), pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rulesthereunder; 

(b) file the Form 10-K, with all exhibits thereto and other documents in connection therewith,with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and any stock exchange or market or similar authority on which the Company’s Common Stock is listed for trading and any other governmental or regulatory authority, and otherwise to act for himand on his behalf in connection therewith; and 

(c) take any other action of any type whatsoever in connectionwith the foregoing which, in the opinion of such attorney-in-fact, may be required, appropriate, or desirable to be done in the exercise of any of the rights and powers herein granted, as fully to all intents and purposes as the undersigned might orcould do if personally present, hereby ratifying and confirming all that such attorney-in-fact, or such attorney-in-fact’s substitute or substitutes, shall lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue of this Power of Attorney and the rights andpowers herein granted. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has signed this Power of Attorney as of this 17thday of February 2011.
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

April 23, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

In re:

LUIS A. AVILES-COLON,

Movant.

No. 10-1147

ORDER

Before TACHA, KELLY, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.

Movant Luis A. Aviles-Colon filed a motion for authorization to file a

second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside or correct

sentence. Although Mr. Aviles-Colon is currently imprisoned at the federal

correctional facility in Florence, Colorado, his sentence was imposed by the

United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. A prisoner “may

move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the

sentence.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). Before a prisoner may file a second or

successive § 2255, however, he must move “in the appropriate court of appeals”

for authorization. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); see also id. § 2255(h)

(incorporating certification process outlined in § 2244). 

Appellate Case: 10-1147 Document: 01018408222 Date Filed: 04/23/2010 Page: 1 
-2-

Because Mr. Aviles-Colon needs authorization to file his successive § 2255

in the District of Puerto Rico, the “appropriate court of appeals” in which he must

seek authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 motion is the First Circuit

Court of Appeals, not this court. See generally 28 U.S.C. § 41 (delineating the

composition of the thirteen judicial circuits). We note that Mr. Aviles-Colon’s

motion for authorization requests a sentence reduction based on Amendment 706,

which modified the Drug Quantity Table in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c). The proper

venue to seek such relief is a motion filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) in

his sentencing court, again, the District of Puerto Rico, and not in this court. 

Accordingly, this matter is DISMISSED. 

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 10-1147 Document: 01018408222 Date Filed: 04/23/2010 Page: 2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLANIA,

Respondent

v.

KYVETT RASHAD BETHEA,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 451 WAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 2nd day of April, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
{"agency":"NASA","generated":"2018-10-24 17:06:02","items":[{"id":"1","parent":null,"text":"Reporting Quarter","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-year","label":"Reporting Year","options":[{"label":"2011","value":"2011"},{"label":"2012","value":"2012"},{"label":"2013","value":"2013"},{"label":"2014","value":"2014"},{"label":"2015","value":"2015"},{"label":"2016","value":"2016"},{"label":"2017","value":"2017"},{"label":"2018","value":"2018"}],"value":"2018"},{"type":"select","name":"2-1-quarter","label":"Reporting Quarter","options":[{"label":"Q1","value":"Q1"},{"label":"Q2","value":"Q2"},{"label":"Q3","value":"Q3"},{"label":"Q4","value":"Q4"}],"value":"Q3"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-1","parent":"1","text":"Ten Oldest Requests","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-1-oldest","label":"Ten Oldest","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"10"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-3","parent":"1","text":"","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-3-closed","label":"Ten Oldest Closed","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"9"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-2","parent":"1","text":"FOIA Requests Information","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/08\/21","fields":[{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-component","label":"Component","options":[],"value":["AFRC","ARC","GRC","GSFC","HQ","JPL","JSC","KSC","LaRC","MSFC","NSSC","OGC","OIG","SSC"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-received","label":"Received","options":[],"value":["1","10","1","24","64","5","37","10","14","5","1"," ","12","3"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-processed","label":"Processed","options":[],"value":["2","13","2","25","61","8","32","11","12","5","1"," ","13","3"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-backlog","label":"Backlog","options":[],"value":[" ","3"," ","8","29","2","12","3","3","3"," "," ","2"," "]}],"multiple":true}],"year":"2018","quarter":"Q3"}
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7738
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus HINES LESTER WASHINGTON, a/k/a Clean, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. James H. Michael, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-94-27) Submitted: April 17, 1997 Decided: April 29, 1997 Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hines Lester Washington, Appellant Pro Se. Jean Barrett Hudson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 35. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Washington , No. CR-94-27 (W.D. Va. Oct. 24, 1996). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
**Exhibit 24.2**

**POWER OF ATTORNEY**

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned directorand/or officer of eLoyalty Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), hereby constitutes and appoints each of Kelly D. Conway and William B. Noon, signing singly, as the undersigned’s true and lawful attorney-in-fact, withfull power and authority and full power of substitution, re-substitution or revocation, to: 

(a) execute for, in the nameand on behalf of the undersigned, in the undersigned’s capacity as a director and/or officer of the Company, the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 27, 2008, together with any and all amendmentsthereto on Form 10-K/A deemed necessary, appropriate, or desirable (collectively, the “Form 10-K”), pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules thereunder; 

(b) file the Form 10-K, with all exhibits thereto and other documents in connection therewith, with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission and any stock exchange or market or similar authority on which the Company’s Common Stock is listed for trading and any other governmental or regulatory authority, and otherwise to act for him and on his behalf in connectiontherewith; and 

(c) take any other action of any type whatsoever in connection with the foregoing which, in the opinion ofsuch attorney-in-fact, may be required, appropriate, or desirable to be done in the exercise of any of the rights and powers herein granted, as fully to all intents and purposes as the undersigned might or could do if personally present, herebyratifying and confirming all that such attorney-in-fact, or such attorney-in-fact’s substitute or substitutes, shall lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue of this Power of Attorney and the rights and powers herein granted. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has signed this Power of Attorney as of this 24th day of February 2009.
Exhibit 32.1



QDM INTERNATIONAL INC.

CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE
OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 Amendment
No. 3 to the Annual Report of QDM International Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2021,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Huihe Zheng, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, and Tim Shannon, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1. The Report fully complies with the requirements
of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities 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.



|Dated: February 25, 2022 | By: | /s/ Huihe Zheng                             
|------------------------ | --- | --------------------------------------------
|                         |     | Huihe Zheng                                 
|                         |     | President and Chief Executive Officer       
|                         |     | (Principal Executive Officer)               
|                         |     |                                             
|Dated: February 25, 2022 | By: | /s/ Tim Shannon                             
|                         |     | Tim Shannon                                 
|                         |     | Chief Financial Officer                     
|                         |     | (Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_______________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JOHNNY LEE POUND,

 Defendant - Appellee,

and

BARBARA POUND; MARY LOU 

HOPSON, 

 Defendants.

No. 10-7020

(D.C. No. 6:07-CV-00427-RAW)

(E.D. Okla.)

_______________________________

ORDER

_______________________________

The matter of appellant’s unopposed motion to dismiss case is before the court. The 

motion is granted. See Fed. R. App. P. 42(b). All other pending motions are denied as 

moot.

Parties shall bear their own costs on appeal. A copy of this order shall stand as and 

for the mandate of this court.

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

July 23, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 10-7020 Document: 01018463145 Date Filed: 07/23/2010 Page: 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
BOOKS-A-MILLION, INC. CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS, CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF
INCOME AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q FOR THE THIRTEEN WEEKS ENDED MAY 3,
1997.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-02-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-03-1997
<CASH>                                           4,720
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,572
<ALLOWANCES>                                       338
<INVENTORY>                                    165,053
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               192,117<F1>
<PP&E>                                          92,982
<DEPRECIATION>                                  30,339
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 256,385<F2>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          115,126
<BONDS>                                              0<F3>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0<F4>
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           174
<OTHER-SE>                                      96,710
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   256,385
<SALES>                                         68,237
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                68,237
<CGS>                                           50,696
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   63,939
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,692
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,011
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    595
<INCOME-TAX>                                       226
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       369
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02
<FN>
<F1>4,110  Other current assets.
<F2>1,625  Other assets.
<F3>42,906 Long term debt.
<F4>1,469  Deferred income taxes.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>