alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kenneth Henderson, Appellant.

[789 NYS2d 249]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Berry, J.), rendered April 22, 2003, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with *Anders v California*(386 *715US 738 [1967]) in which he moves to be relieved of the assignment to prosecute this appeal.

Ordered that the motion is granted, and Dennis E Portar aro is relieved as the attorney for the defendant and is directed to turn over all papers in his possession to new counsel assigned herein; and it is further,

Ordered that Bruce Townsend, 26 Albany Avenue, Walden, N.Y., 12586, is assigned as counsel to perfect the appeal; and it is further,

Ordered that the People are directed to furnish a copy of the stenographic minutes to the new assigned counsel; and it is further,

Ordered that new counsel shall serve and file a brief on behalf of the defendant within 90 days of the date of this decision and order and the People shall serve and file their brief within 120 days of the date of this decision and order; by prior decision and order on motion of this Court, the defendant was granted leave to prosecute the appeal on the original papers (including the typewritten stenographic minutes) and on the typewritten briefs of the parties, who were directed to file nine copies of their respective briefs and to serve one copy on each other.

Upon this Court’s independent review of the record, we conclude that potentially nonfrivolous issues exist with respect to, inter alia, the denial of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and his statement to law enforcement officials. Accordingly, assignment of new counsel is warranted *(see People v Stokes,*95 NY2d 633 [2001]; *People v Casiano,*67 NY2d 906 [1986]; *People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606 [1979]). Florio, J.P., Adams, Goldstein, Rivera and Spolzino, JJ., concur.
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

May 13, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

BROOK STREET, INC., 

 Petitioner, 

v. 

GORDON

CREEK INVESTORS, LLC, 

 Respondent. 

No. 10-600

(D.C. No. 2:10-CV-00107-TC)

(Bankruptcy Case No.09B-28298)

(D. of Utah)

ORDER

Before KELLY, LUCERO, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.

This matter is before the court on the unopposed petition for permission to

appeal filed by Debtor Brook Street, Inc., pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(2).

The petition is granted. The date of this order shall serve as the date of the

notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 5(d)(2).

Pursuant to Judicial Conference policy, where a direct appeal is authorized,

the appellant shall pay only the difference between the circuit filing fee and the

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel fee. (No additional fee was paid after the election

was made to transfer the appeal to the district court.) Accordingly, the appellant

Debtor shall pay $200 to the Clerk of the District Court for the District of Utah

Appellate Case: 10-600 Document: 01018421543 Date Filed: 05/13/2010 Page: 1 
2

within 14 days of the date of this order. Once the appellant has paid the

remainder of the fee, the Clerk will notify this court, and an appeal with a new

case number will be docketed. See id. 5(d)(3).

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Lara Smith

Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 10-600 Document: 01018421543 Date Filed: 05/13/2010 Page: 2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22 - 0351 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. ISAAC WILLIAM MACY,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including April 7 , 2023, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

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

March 1 2023

03/01/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0351
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 212 (Wednesday, November 3, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 67688]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27744]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XA014


Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of public meetings.

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

SUMMARY: The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council's) Ad Hoc 
Groundfish Essential Fish Habitat Review Committee (EFHRC) will hold a 
work session, which is open to the public, to plan the periodic 5-year 
review of groundfish Essential Fish Habitat (EFH).

DATES: The work session will be held Monday, December 20, 2010 from 9 
a.m. to 4 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The work session will be held at the Hyatt Place Hotel 
Portland Airport, 9750 NE Cascades Parkway, Portland, OR 97220, (503) 
288-2808.
    Council Address: Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE 
Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220-1384.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Chuck Tracy, Staff Officer, 
Pacific Fishery Management Council; telephone: (503) 820-2280.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of the work session is to 
develop recommendations for the process and scope of the groundfish EFH 
periodic 5-year review, and for the role of the EFHRC in that review. 
Recommendations are tentatively scheduled to be presented to the 
Council at the April 2011 Council meeting in San Mateo, CA.
    Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda 
may come before the EFHRC for discussion, those issues may not be the 
subject of formal EFHRC action during this meeting. EFHRC action will 
be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and 
any issues arising after publication of this notice that require 
emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified 
of the EFHRC's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
    Special Accommodations
    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. 
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids 
should be directed to Ms. Carolyn Porter at (503) 820-2280 at least 5 
days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: October 29, 2010.
Tracey L. Thompson,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-27744 Filed 11-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**SPORT-HALEY, INC.**

**CERTIFICATION**

 

**Pursuantto 18 U.S.C. § 1350,**

**AsAdopted Pursuant to Section 906**

**of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

*Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Sport-Haley, Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, theundersigned Interim Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, do each certify, to our respective knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:*

 

(1)           The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

(2)           The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultof operations of the Company.

 
| Dated: May  20, 2005                            |
|-------------------------------------------------|
|                                            |
|                                            |
| /s/ DONALD W. JEWELL                            |   |
| Donald W. Jewell                                |
| Interim Chief Executive Officer                 |
| *(Principal Executive Officer)*                 |
|                                            |
|                                            |
| /s/ PATRICK W. HURLEY                           |   |
| Patrick W. Hurley                               |
| Chief Financial Officer                         |
| *(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer )* |
|                                                 |  |  |

 

----
Certification of CEO and CFO 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Harris & Harris Group, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended June 30, 2013,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Douglas W. Jamison, as Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, and Patricia N. Egan, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:



(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/ Douglas W. Jamison |                        
|---------------------- | -----------------------
|Name:                  | Douglas W. Jamison     
|Title:                 | Chief Executive Officer
|Date:                  | August 8, 2013         
|                       |                        
|/s/ Patricia N. Egan   |                        
|Name:                  | Patricia N. Egan       
|Title:                 | Chief Financial Officer
|Date:                  | August 8, 2013
National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration

Mary W. Jackson Building NASA Headquarters

Washington, DC 20546-0001

February 16, 2023 

Reply to Attn of: General Law Practice Group

TO: Distribution

FROM: Agency Counsel for Ethics

SUBJECT: Determination Regarding Attendance by NASA employees at the Space 

Foundation Event on February 16, 2023 

On February 16, 2023, the Space Foundation, a nonprofit organization under 501(c)(3) of the 

Internal Revenue Code, will host a New Gen Kick-off Event at Hawk N’ Dove, 329 

Pennsylvania Ave., SE, Washington, DC 20003, starting at 5:30 pm. The event is an 

opportunity for young professionals in the space policy industry to network and mingle. There 

will be two speakers from the government and military to provide insight on the benefits of 

networking and getting to know the industry and its members. The two speakers are Colonel 

Dennis Wille (USSPACECOM) and Dr. Quincy Brown. 

Approximately 100 people have been invited to attend. Attendees will have a diversity of 

views or interests and will include representatives from the legislative branch, state and local 

government officials, representatives from industry, employees of Federal agencies, and 

members from the foreign government space agencies. The estimated cost of the event, 

including all food and beverages, is $20 per person. The Space Foundation is in control of the 

organizing, planning and invitations for this event. Attendance at this event will allow 

NASA attendees to exchange information regarding various NASA programs. I find that the 

event meets the requirements of a “widely attended gathering” as defined in 5 C.F.R. § 

2635.204(g)(2). 

I further determine that there is an Agency interest in having NASA personnel attend the 

event because it will provide an opportunity for the invited persons to exchange ideas and 

views pertaining to NASA’s policies, programs and operations. NASA employees, including 

NASA employees in non-career positions who are required to sign the ethics pledge under 

Executive Order 13989, who do not have a significant role in a matter affecting the interests 

of the sponsor may accept an invitation for free attendance to the event. In those 

circumstances, I find that the Agency’s interest in attendance outweighs any concern that the 

individual may be, or may appear to be, improperly influenced in the performance of their 

duties. 

However, NASA employees who have a significant role in any pending matter affecting the 

interests of the Space Foundation, such as procurement duties, program management, or 
2 

negotiating or administering a Space Act Agreement, should seek a separate determination 

from their local ethics counselor as to whether they may accept the invitation. Attendees are 

reminded to exercise any COVID-19 precautions appropriate to their individual situation. 

Adam F. Greenstone
#### Davis *v.*Heady.

*Wednesday, November*27.

If by a contract for the sale of real estate, the purchase-money is to be paid *before*the execution of the deed, it is no defence to a suit on a note given for the purchase-money, that the deed had not been made or tendered.

If to a suit on a note given in part payment for land, &c., the defendant plead that the vendor had no title, that he had not conveyed, &c., a replication that the consideration had not failed as alleged is good.

ERROR to the *Boone*Circuit Court.

Blackford, *J.*

— Heady sued *Davis*in debt on a sealed note for the payment of 200 dollars, dated the 8th of December, 1840, and payable the first of November, 1842. Pleas, 1. That on the 8th of December, 1840, the plaintiff agreed by a title-bond to sell to the defendant a certain tract of land; that the defendant was to pay for the same 500 dollars, 200 dollars of which were to be paid on the first of November, 1842 ; that the plaintiff agreed by said bond that on or before the first of November, 1842, he would make the defendant a good title to said land if the defendant should pay said 200 dollars ; that the note.sued on was given for the payment of said 200 dollars in consideration as aforesaid; and that the plaintiff neither did nor would, on the first of November, 1842, make or offer to make said title, though often requested. 2. That the note sued on was given in part consideration of the land mentioned in the first plea ; and that the plaintiff never had any title in fee for said land. 3. That the note sued on' was given in part consideration that the plaintiff would, on or before the first of November, 1842, make to the defendant a deed in fee for certain land, (describing it); and that the plaintiff neither did nor could, on said day, make said deed, nor did he offer to make it.

The plaintiff craved and obtained *oyer*of the title-bond named in the first plea. The bond was conditioned to make *262a good title for the land, &c., on or before the first of *November,*1842, provided the last payment for the land was made *before*the deed was to be executed. The *oyer*being given, the plaintiff demurred to the first plea. Replication to the second and third pleas, that the consideration had not failed in manner and form as alleged, and demurrer to the replication. The demurrer to the first plea was sustained, and the demurrer to the replication was overruled.

*C. C. Nave,*for the plaintiff.

*W. W. Wick,*for the defendant.

The issues in fact were submitted to the Court, and judgment rendered for the plaintiff.

The only questions in this case are as to the validity of the first plea, and of the replication to the second and third pleas. The first plea is bad. It appears from the title-bond, which, by the *oyer,*is a part of that plea, that the plaintiff had expressly stipulated that the purchase-money should be paid *before*he was to execute the deed. It is no defence, therefore, to a suit for the money, that the deed had not been made or tendered. The replication is sustained by the case of *Thomas*v. *Quick,*5 Blackf. 334.

*Per Curiam.*

— The judgment is affirmed with 5 *per cent.*damages and costs.
EXHIBIT 32



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



In connection with the Annual Report of Ventana Medical Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), Christopher Gleeson, President, Chief Executive Officer, and Director of the Company, and Nicholas Malden, Senior Vice
President, Chief Financial Officer, and Secretary of the Company, respectively, do each hereby certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to their knowledge:



|(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.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



April 22, 2005



|                                                                    
|--------------------------------------------------------------------
|/S/ CHRISTOPHER GLEESON                                             
|Christopher Gleeson President, Chief Executive Officer, and Director



April 22, 2005



|                                                                             
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/S/ NICHOLAS MALDEN                                                          
|Nicholas Malden Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, and Secretary
COURT OF APPEALS

S E C O N D D I S T R I C T O F T E X A S

CHIEF JUSTICE

 TERRIE LIVINGSTON

JUSTICES

 LEE ANN DAUPHINOT

 ANNE GARDNER

 SUE WALKER

 BOB McCOY

 BILL MEIER

 LEE GABRIEL

TIM CURRY CRIMINAL JUSTICE CENTER

401 W. BELKNAP, SUITE 9000

FORT WORTH, TEXAS 76196

TEL: (817) 884-1900

FAX: (817) 884-1932

www.2ndcoa.courts.state.tx.us

CLERK 

 DEBRA SPISAK

CHIEF STAFF ATTORNEY

 LISA M. WEST

GENERAL COUNSEL

 CLARISSA HODGES

February 20, 2014

Robert Thompson

#1830012

Jester III Unit

3 Jester Rd.

Richmond, TX 77406

District Clerk, Denton County

P.O. Box 2146

Denton, TX 76202-2146

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

David M. Wacker

Attorney at Law

P.O. Box 1142

Denton, TX 76202

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Hon. Jeff Walker

Regional Presiding Judge

Tim Curry Criminal Justice Center

401 W. Belknap, 5th Floor

Fort Worth, TX 76196

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Charles E. Orbison

Assistant Criminal District Attorney

1450 E. McKinney St., 3rd Floor

Denton, TX 76209

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Hon. Margaret Barnes

Judge, 367th District Court

Denton County Courts Bldg.

1450 E. McKinney

Denton, TX 76201

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

RE: Court of Appeals Number: 02-12-00552-CR

Trial Court Case Number: F-2012-0401-E

Style: Robert Thompson

v.

The State of Texas

Today the Second Court of Appeals issued an opinion and judgment in the

above-referenced cause. 

Respectfully yours,

DEBRA SPISAK, CLERK

FILE COPY
Exhibit 31.1
CERTIFICATION
I, Konstantin Sarafis, certify that:
 1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of GeneMax Corp.;  2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this report;  3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issueras of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4.  The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in ExchangeAct Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:
 (a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  (b)  evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (c)  disclosed in this report any change in the small businessissuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during thesmall business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small businessissuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.  The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small businessissuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 (a)  all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and
 (b)  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting.   Date: April 15, 2005 By: *“Konstantine Sarafis”*   Konstantine Sarafis, President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL LEON JAMESON, 

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 14-5152

(D.C. No. 4:08-CR-00070-GKF-1)

(N.D. Okla.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

This matter is before the court on appellant's motion to dismiss the captioned 

appeal. The motion is granted. The appeal is dismissed pursuant to 10th Cir. R. 46.3(B).

Because counsel did not show proof of service of the motion to dismiss on the 

client, counsel must serve his client with a complete copy of the motion to dismiss and of 

this order. Counsel shall provide proof of service to this court within seven days of the 

date of this order.

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

August 7, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 14-5152 Document: 01019472542 Date Filed: 08/07/2015 Page: 1