alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**STATMON
      TECHNOLOGIES CORP.**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**19
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Statmon Technologies Corp. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
      Geoffrey Talbot, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to 18
      U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that to the best of my 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/ Geoffrey
                P. Talbot**Geoffrey
                P. Talbot**
              **Chief
                Executive Officer**
              **February
                21, 2006**




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to Statmon Technologies Corp. and will be
      retained by Statmon Technologies Corp. and furnished to the Securities and
      Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 21.1

CURRENT SUBSIDIARIES OF TRIZETTO



|                                            |  |             
|------------------------------------------- |  | ------------
|ENTITY NAME                                 |  | JURISDICTION
|                                            | 
|Carekey, Inc.                               |  | Delaware    
|                                            | 
|Creative Business Solutions, Inc.           |  | Texas       
|                                            | 
|Diogenes, Inc.                              |  | Delaware    
|                                            | 
|Finserv Health Care Systems, Inc.           |  | New York    
|                                            | 
|Healthcare Media Enterprises, Inc.          |  | Delaware    
|                                            | 
|HealthWeb, Inc.                             |  | Delaware    
|                                            | 
|Infotrust Company                           |  | Illinois    
|                                            | 
|Margolis Health Enterprises, Inc.           |  | California  
|                                            | 
|Novalis Corporation                         |  | Delaware    
|                                            | 
|Digital Insurance Systems Corporation       |  | Ohio        
|                                            | 
|Health Networks of America, Inc.            |  | Maryland    
|                                            | 
|Novalis Development Corporation             |  | Delaware    
|                                            | 
|Novalis Development & Licensing Corporation |  | Indiana     
|                                            | 
|Novalis Services Corporation                |  | Delaware    
|                                            | 
|Options Services Group, Inc.                |  | Illinois    
|                                            | 
|Plan Data Management, Inc.                  |  | Delaware    
|                                            | 
|Quality Care Solutions, Inc.                |  | Nevada      
|                                            | 
|QCSI Puerto Rico, Inc.                      |  | Delaware    
|                                            | 
|TriZetto Application Services, Inc.         |  | Colorado    
|                                            | 
|Winthrop Financial Group, Inc.              |  | Illinois
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Benton H Wilcoxon, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Composite Technology
Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material 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
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date: May 3, 2005


By: /s/ Benton H Wilcoxon

Benton H Wilcoxon
Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer
### 1 COURT OF APPEAL

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

MARTA ARREDONDO, § Case No.: 04 -17 -00609CV Appellant, § §

v. § Trial Court Case No.: 15-08 -16922

- CV § AEP TEXAS CENTRAL § COMPANY, T&D SOLUTIONS, LLC § AND TECHSERV CONSULTING AND §
TRAINING ,LTD Appellee

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF ADDITIONAL COUNSEL

Branch M. Sheppard of the law firm of Galloway, Johnson, Tompkins, Burr & Smith,

P.L.C., file this Notice of Appearance as additional counsel of record for the Appellee, T&D

SOLUTIONS, LLC, in the above styled matter.

G ALLOWAY

, J OHNSON

, T OMPKINS

, B URR & S MITH

//s// Branch M. Sheppard

James M. Tompkins

State Bar No. 00785534 jtompkins@gallowaylawfirm.com Branch M. Sheppard

State Bar No. 24033057 bsheppard@gallowayfirm.com

Kelsi M. Wade

State Bar No. 24088597 kwade@gallowaylawfirm.com 1301 McKinney, Suite 1400
Houston, Texas 77010 Telephone: (713) 599-0700 Facsimile: (713) 599-0777 ACCEPTED

04-17-00609-CV

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

9/27/2017 4:19 PM

### 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document w as served by and through the Court approved electronic filing manager via e

- filing to all known counsel of record

on this 2 7 th day of September , 20 1 7 , as follows:

Thomas J. He nry Craig L. Farrish

T HE L AW O FFICES OF T HOMAS J. H ENRY
521 Starr Street Corpus Christi, Texas 78401

G. Don Schauer

S CHAUER & S IMANK

, P.C. 615 N. Upper Broadway, Suite 700 Corpus Christi, Texas 78401

Jose “JJ” Trevino

Nicholas Smith

V ALDEZ & T REVINO
1826 N. Loop 1604 W, Suite 275 San Antonio, Texas 78248

//s// Branch M. Sheppard Branch M. Sheppard
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CELESTINO FLORES MARTINEZ, AKA 

Celestino Flores, AKA Celestino Laureano, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 19-72291 

Agency No. A206-407-147 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted July 15, 2022

Pasadena, California

Before: BENNETT and COLLINS, Circuit Judges, and FOOTE,** District 

Judge.

Celestino Flores Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for 

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an 

immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The Honorable Elizabeth E. Foote, United States District Judge for the 

Western District of Louisiana, sitting by designation.

FILED

AUG 31 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have 

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the 

agency’s factual findings, Flores-Vega v. Barr, 932 F.3d 878, 886 (9th Cir. 2019), 

and we deny the petition for review.

Flores Martinez does not raise, and thus waives, any challenge to the 

agency’s determination that his asylum application is untimely. See Rios v. Lynch, 

807 F.3d 1123, 1125 n.1 (9th Cir. 2015) (issues not specifically raised and argued 

in a party’s opening brief are waived).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of withholding of removal 

because Flores Martinez failed to show past persecution or a clear probability of 

future persecution. See Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2021)

(persecution is an extreme concept); Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 

(9th Cir. 2005) (possibility of future harm too speculative).

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection 

because Flores Martinez failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured 

by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. 

See Xiao Fei Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835–36 (9th Cir. 2011) (possibility of 

torture too speculative); Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 

2010) (per curiam) (“Petitioners’ generalized evidence of violence and crime in 
3 

Mexico is not particular to Petitioners and is insufficient to meet [the CAT] 

standard.”). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
CAUSE NO. 2013-36797

MEDICAL MULTIMEDIA § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF

ADVERTISING, INC., §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

vs. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

§

DYNACQ HEALTHCARE, INC., and §

DOCTORS PRACTICE §

MANAGEMENT, INC., §

§

Defendants, § 234th JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Defendant Doctors Practice Management, Inc. (“DPM”), files this Notice of Appeal with the

Clerk of the Court to perfect its appeal in the above entitled and numbered cause, respectfully

showing as follows:

1. DPM is appealing from the Court’s Final Judgment, which the Court signed on

December 8, 2014, as well as all related orders and rulings subsumed in the Court’s Final Judgment.

2. DPM filed a motion for new trial on January 7, 2015, and the Court denied the

motion. DPM is filing this Notice of Appeal within 90 days of the Court’s Final Judgment.

3. DPM is appealing this case to the First or Fourteenth District Court of Appeals in

Houston, Texas. 

3/2/2015 2:51:21 PM

Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County

Envelope No. 4334768

By: Phyllis Washington

Filed: 3/2/2015 2:51:21 PM

ACCEPTED

01-15-00209-CV

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

3/6/2015 10:47:49 AM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 3/6/2015 10:47:49 AM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
Respectfully submitted,

/S/ Byron C. Keeling

By:__________________________________

 Byron C. Keeling

 State Bar No. 11157980

KEELING & DOWNES, P.C.

 1500 McGowen, Suite 220

 Houston, Texas 77004

 Telephone: (832) 214-9900

 Facsimile: (832) 214-9908

 Michael J. Stanley

 State Bar No. 19046600

 Shawn Staples

 State Bar No. 00788457

 STANLEY, FRANK & ROSE, L.L.P.

 7026 Old Katy Road, Suite 259

 Houston, Texas 77024

 Telephone: (713) 980-4381

 Facsimile: (713) 980-1179

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on the 2nd day of March, 2015, a copy of the foregoing instrument was served

on counsel of record by electronic service, by facsimile, by hand delivery and/or by certified mail,

return receipt requested, in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, as follows:

Mr. Ronald C. Campana

Law Office of Ronald C. Campana

6363 Woodway, Suite 725

Houston, Texas 77057

Mr. Eric W. Carter

Mr. Eric G. Carter

The Carter Law Firm

1811 Southmore Blvd.

Houston, Texas 77004

/s/ Byron C. Keeling

____________________________________

Byron C. Keeling

-2-
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

July 1, 2011 Session

 ROBERT STABLER V. RAMIE STABLER-MARSTON 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Knox County

No. 86454 Walter C. Kurtz, Senior Judge

No. E2010-02230-COA-R3-CV-FILED-JULY 1, 2011

The order from which the appellant Ramie Stabler-Marston seeks to appeal was entered on

February 24, 2010. Notices of appeal were filed by the appellant on October 18, 2010, and

October 20, 2010. Because neither of the notices of appeal was timely filed, we have no

jurisdiction to consider this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Appeal Dismissed

CHARLES D. SUSANO, JR., D. MICHAEL SWINEY, AND JOHN W. MCCLARTY, JJ.

Ramie Stabler-Marston, Hampton, New Hampshire, appellant, pro se.

Robert Stabler, Knoxville, Tennessee, appellee, pro se.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

1

Our jurisdiction of this Tenn. R. App. P. 3 appeal as of right is dependent upon the

timely filing of a notice of appeal. Albert v. Frye, 145 S.W.3d 526, 528 (Tenn. 2004). In

the instant case, the day of the relevant order, i.e., February 24, 2010, is not counted in

determining the last day of the 30-day period of time for the filing of a notice of appeal. See

Tenn. R. App. P. 21(a). Hence, the last day the notice could be timely filed was Friday,

Rule 10 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals provides as follows: 1

ThisCourt, with the concurrence of all judges participating in the case, may

affirm, reverse or modify the actions of the trial court by memorandum

opinion when a formal opinion would have no precedential value. When

a case is decided by memorandum opinion it shall be designated

“MEMORANDUM OPINION,” shall not be published, and shall not be

cited or relied on for any reason in any unrelated case.
March 26, 2010. It follows that the notices of appeal filed October 18, 2010, and October

20, 2010, were not timely filed. We have no jurisdiction to hear the appellant’s appeal.

The appeal of Ramie Stabler-Marston is dismissed with costs on appeal taxed to her.

PER CURIAM

-2-
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-13-00084-CR

Joseph Sheldon Hutcheson

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From Criminal District Court No. 4

of Tarrant County (1286841D)

May 16, 2013

Per Curiam

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

PER CURIAM
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Thomas Barnes, Appellant.

[826 NYS2d 28]

Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Gregory Carro, J.), rendered January 14, 2005, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the second degree, and, upon his plea of guilty, of assault in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of seven years, unanimously affirmed.

There was ample evidence establishing that the victim sustained, at the very least, physical injury *(see*Penal Law § 10.00 [9]; *People v Guidice,*83 NY2d 630, 636 [1994]), and we reject defendant’s argument that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence with respect to that element. There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning the credibility of the victim’s description of his injury. During a violent courtroom struggle, defendant injured a court officer’s hand, causing substantial pain. The injury resulted in immediate medical attention, as well as long term care by means of splints, ace bandages and medication. At the time of the trial, the injury had not healed and surgery was anticipated. Moreover, as of the time of the trial, the officer had been unable to return to work for nearly a year, which was a determination made not by him, but by his employer.

Defendant claims that his attorney provided ineffective assistance by failing to request submission of obstructing governmental administration in the second degree (Penal Law § 195.05) as a lesser included offense of second-degree assault under Penal Law § 120.05 (3), and by accepting the court’s suggestion that it charge the jury to draw no adverse inference from defendant’s status of being incarcerated during trial. These claims, however, *171are not reviewable on direct appeal because their resolution involves matters outside the record *(see People v Rivera,*71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]; *People v Love,*57 NY2d 998 [1982]).

Defendant’s generalized objections failed to preserve his present challenges to certain evidence *(see e.g. People v Harris,*98 NY2d 452, 492 [2002]; *People v Gonzalez,*55 NY2d 720 [1981]), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find any error to be harmless. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Nardelli, Sweeny and McGuire, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Grover Francis, on Behalf of Danny Colon, Petitioner, v Warden, George R. Vierno Detention Center, Respondent.

[970 NYS2d *564472]

— Writ of habeas corpus in the nature of an application for bail reduction upon Kings County indictment No. 3202/13.

Adjudged that the writ is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The determination of the Supreme Court, Kings County, was not an improvident exercise of discretion, and did not violate “constitutional or statutory standards” *(People ex rel. Klein v Krueger,*25 NY2d 497, 499 [1969]; *see People ex rel. Rosenthal v Wolfson,*48 NY2d 230 [1979]). Skelos, J.E, Dickerson, Leventhal and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                  Mar-31-1997
<CASH>                        403,023
<SECURITIES>                  000
<RECEIVABLES>                 7,615
<ALLOWANCES>                  000
<INVENTORY>                   000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              000
<PP&E>                        20,246,110
<DEPRECIATION>                (6,127,485)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                15,426,680
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         435,173
<BONDS>                       3,997,683
<COMMON>                      000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         000
<PREFERRED>                   000
<OTHER-SE>                    11,111,309
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  15,426,680
<SALES>                       759,357
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              847,134
<CGS>                         000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 379,902
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              201,159
<LOSS-PROVISION>              000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            105,311
<INCOME-PRETAX>               162,231
<INCOME-TAX>                  000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           162,231
<DISCONTINUED>                000
<EXTRAORDINARY>               000
<CHANGES>                     000
<NET-INCOME>                  162,231
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 3.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                 3.12
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Bingsen Xu, Appellant, v New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation et al., Respondents.

[968 NYS2d 115]

In a proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (6) for leave to amend a notice of claim, the petitioner appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosengarten, J.), entered June 8, 2012, as denied that branch of his petition which was for leave to amend the notice of claim with respect to the cause of action alleging wrongful death.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, and that branch of the petition which was for leave to amend the notice of claim with respect to the cause of action alleging wrongful death is granted.

The petitioner’s decedent, Rongshang Xu (hereinafter the decedent), was severely beaten on November 10, 2010. He was taken first to Queens Center Hospital and soon thereafter transferred to Elmhurst Hospital for surgery, which took place the same day. The decedent died at Elmhurst Hospital a few days later. The petitioner alleged that the respondents’ employees either did not begin the surgery soon enough or did not perform the surgery correctly. In either event, all of the acts and omissions alleged to have been negligent took place on November 10, 2010. The petitioner’s original notice of claim did not mention Elmhurst Hospital, but the petitioner timely sought leave to amend the notice of claim to, inter alia, add allegations regarding the treatment at Elmhurst Hospital. The Supreme Court denied the relief sought by the petitioner.

All of the conduct alleged to have been negligent took place at the two named hospitals on the same day. Moreover, the respondents’ records noted the decedent’s transfer from Queens Center Hospital to Elmhurst Hospital and detailed all of the treatment rendered that day. The respondents could not have been prejudiced by the proposed amendment of the notice of claim and, under the circumstances, there was no need to treat that amendment as the assertion of a new claim (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [6]; *Uzcha v New York City Health &*
      *889
      *Hosps. Corp.,*288 AD2d 48, 48 [2001]; *Lomax v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.,*262 AD2d 2, 4-5 [1999]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the petition which was for leave to amend the notice of claim with respect to the cause of action alleging wrongful death *(see Lomax v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.,*262 AD2d at 2).

The respondents’ remaining contentions are without merit. Balkin, J.P., Hall, Lott and Miller, JJ., concur.