alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<SEQUENCE>13

                                  EXHIBIT 32.a


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

                                 18 U.S.C. 1350,

                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Regent Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, David A. Nelson, in my capacity as Chief Executive Officer and Principal
Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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


                                        /S/ DAVID A. NELSON
                                        -------------------
Date: September 13, 2005
                                        David A. Nelson,
                                        Chief Executive Officer and Principal
                                        Accounting Officer
Order entered April 7, 2020

In The 

### Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05-20-00178-CV

IN RE ATKINS BROS. EQUIPME NT CO., INC. AN D RICKEY JOE HOOPER, Relators

Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 3 Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CC-18-01224-C

ORDER Before Justices Bridges, Osborne, and Reichek

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY relators’ petition for

writ of mandamus, and LIFT our stay of the June 30, 2020 trial setting.

/s/ DAVID L. BRIDGES
JUSTICE
##### 



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549
 FORM 8-K CURRENT REPORT Pursuant to Section 13 OR 15(d) of The Securities Exchange Act of 1934  Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported)
    
    DECEMBER 8, 2004
 NORTEL NETWORKS CORPORATION 
  CANADA
    
    001-07260
    
    NOT APPLICABLE(State or other jurisdiction
of incorporation)
    
    (CommissionFile Number)
    
    (IRS Employer
Identification No.)
 8200 DIXIE ROAD, SUITE 100, BRAMPTON, ONTARIO, CANADA
    
    L6T 5P6(Address of principal executive offices)
    
    (Zip Code)
 Registrants telephone number, including area code
    
    905-863-0000
     Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation
of the registrant under any of the following provisions (see General Instruction A.2. below):  o
    
    Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)o
    
    Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR
240.14d-2(b))o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR
240.13e-4(c))




---



##### 



Item 2.02
    
    Results of Operations and Financial Condition On December 8, 2004, the registrant issued a press release providing a status update on its and
Nortel Networks Limiteds financial restatement process and other related matters. Such press
release is attached hereto as Exhibit 99.1 and furnished in accordance with Item 2.02 of Form 8-K.  Item 8.01
    
    Other Events On December 8, 2004, the registrant issued the press release attached hereto as Exhibit 99.1, and
such press release is incorporated by reference herein (other than information included on or
linked from the registrants website, referenced in such release, which is not incorporated by
reference into this report).  Item 9.01
    
    Financial Statements and Exhibits (c)
    
    Exhibits99.1
    
    
    Press Release issued by the registrant on December 8, 2004.




---



##### 



SIGNATURES Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly
caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized. NORTEL NETWORKS CORPORATIONBy:
    /s/ William R. KerrWilliam R. KerrChief Financial OfficerBy:
    /s/ Gordon A. DaviesGordon A. DaviesCorporate Secretary
 Dated:  December 8, 2004




---



##### 



EXHIBIT INDEX Exhibit No.
    
    Description99.1
    
    
    Press Release issued by the registrant on December 8, 2004.
#### Steven B. Samuel, Esq., et al., Respondents-Appellants, v Druckman & Sinel, LLP et al., Appellants-Respondents.

Submitted May 4, 2009;

decided June 25, 2009

*900Motion to resettle, amend and clarify the opinion and remittitur or, in the alternative, for reargument denied *[see*12 NY3d 205 (2009)].

Chief Judge Lippman taking no part.
#### Matthews *v.*Reid.

1. Where an attorney at law prepared an affidavit for the purpose of foreclosing a chattel mortgage, signed his name to it, and then laid it on the desk of the clerk of the superior court, at which the *462latter was sitting, the attorney at the same time remarking, “ Here is an affidavit I want to swear to; I have already signed it; the facts stated in it are true,” and it does not appear that the clerk heard what the attorney said, hut does appear that no oath was formally administered and that the clerk did not then nor till long afterwards sign the jurat, the affidavit was not duly made, and the clerk had no authority to issue an execution thereon.

2. It is grossly improper for the clerk, in concert with an attorney, to privately and secretly add to, or otherwise alter any document of file in the clerk’s office, the same being forbidden by section 4471 of the code as a criminal offence. *Judgment reversed.*

April 2, 1894.

Argued at the last term.

Levy and claim. Before Judge Boynton. Upson superior court. July term, 1892.

A horse was levied on under foreclosure of a mortgage execution in favor of Reid against Barks. Matthews interposed a claim, and set up that the affidavit required by law for foreclosing the mortgage was not made, that no oath was administered to the plaintiff’s attorney whose name is signed to the affidavit, and that the signature to the jurat was made by the clerk of the superior court after the levy was made and the claim interposed, without any authority of court and in vacation. The jury found the property subject, and claimant’s motion for a new trial was overruled.

It appeared that the plaintiff’s attorney wrote the affidavit in question, dated it and signed it as attorney for plaintiff', and then carried it to the clerk of the superior court, laid it upon his desk and said: “ Here is an affidavit I want to swear to. I have already signed it; the facts stated in it are true.” He could not say the clerk heard him, but he could have heard. He did not administer any oath. The attorney did not place his hand on the bible, or hold up his hand, or affirm in any way other than as stated. The clerk did not then sign the jurat, of which fact the attorney was not aware until long afterwards, when the clerk privately called his attention to the omission and then signed his name *463officially to the jurat, not by direction of the court, nor by the knowledge or consent of claimant or his counsel. The clerk testified that he had no recollection of the matter previously to the time he so signed. He knew the affidavit and mortgage were filed in his office, only because the entry of filing on the back was in his handwriting.

J. Y. Allen, for plaintiff in error.

Claude Worrill and B. L. Tisinger, *contra.*
#### Bethune *v.*Wells *et al.*

A single stockholder in a corporation aggregate cannot, without suing in behalf of all the interested stockholders and allowing them to become co-parties, maintain an action against the directors for misfeasance or non-feasance in their official conduct, whereby the income or earnings of the corporation, and consequently the value of the plaintiff’s stock, were less than they otherwise would have been. If the plaintiff was the sole stockholder whose interest was affected by the default attributed to the directors, he should have so alleged in his petition. As the corporation is, in contemplation of law, the party directly and immediately aggrieved by any want *487of diligence or fidelity in the conduct of its directors, it should be a party defendant to an action brought by the stockholders, in order that the result may bind it and bar any future action which it might bring for the same cause. *Judgment affirmed.*

April 9, 1894.

Argued at the last term.

Equitable petition. Before Judge Butt. Muscogee superior court. May term, 1898.

Thornton & McMichael and H. C. Cameron, for plaintiff. W. A. Little and L. E. Garrard, for defendants.

Bethune brought his petition against Wells and six ■other individuals, alleging that they became directors •of the Chattahoochee Building and Loan Association, a corporation, and accepted the trust, and that he became a stockholder in series A, owning ten shares of the capital stock. lie set out the plan of operation of the corporation, as to monthly payments upon the stock, the disposal of its funds at monthly meetings by loans to members, etc.; and alleged that defendants, neglecting their duty as directors, did not have monthly meetings of the stockholders, nor have monthly meetings of the directors, and dispose of the funds as required by the charter and by-laws of the association; so that at the expiration of the eighty-four months when series A ran, each share of that stock was worth only $93, instead of $128 as it should have been according to the plan of the association properly managed; wherefore he was by defendants’ negligence damaged $1,000. Defendants demurred for want of proper parties, and because they were not liable to plaintiff as a stockholder for damages sustained by reason of negligence. The demurrer was ■sustained, and plaintiff excepted.
an order granting the motion and directing that Cody be immediately

released from Spring Mountain Youth Camp pending further order of this

court.
The State of Nevada has now filed a motion for withdrawal of our September 30, 2015, order, as well as a motion for leave to supplement its motion for withdrawal. Additionally, Cody has now filed a petition for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to "exercise its jurisdiction and release Cody S. from juvenile detention and place him with his uncle pending appeal"; this petition has been assigned Docket No. 6893.

We conclude that the arguments raised in the writ petition are more appropriately addressed in the pending appeal, rather than in a separate writ proceeding. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition in Docket No. 68933. As for respondent's motion for withdrawal, we elect to treat it as a motion to reconsider our September 30, 2015, order. 

### See NRAP 27(b) ("A party adversely affected by the court's. . . action may file a motion to reconsider, vacate or modify that action."). Further, we grant respondent's motion for leave to supplement the motion for withdrawal to the extent that we will consider the arguments within it in resolving the motion for reconsideration. Appellant shall have until 4 p.m. on October 9, 2015, to file an opposition to the motion for reconsideration, and within thatarraguirre

opposition may include the arguments previously presented in its now dismissed writ petition. Respondent shall have until 4 p.m. on October 12, 2015, to file a reply. 1

It is so ORDERED.

Cherry

cc: Hon. William 0. Voy, District Judge, Family Court Division Clark County Public Defender Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

1 Documents submitted in this matter shall be filed personally, electronically, or by facsimile transmission with the clerk of this court in Carson City. 

### See NRAP 2; NRAP 25(a)(2)(B); NRAP 25(a)(4). For purposes of this petition, we suspend application of NRAP 25(a)(2)(B)(ii) - (iv) and NRAP26(b)(1)(B).
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

Wniteb ~tate~ QCourt of §ppeaI~ 

for tbe jf eberaI QCircuit 

AFTG-TG, LLC AND 

PHILLIP M. ADAMS & ASSOCIATES, LLC, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v. 

NUVOTON TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION AND 

NUVOTON TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION 

AMERICA, 

Defendants, 

AND 

PEGATRON CORPORATION, PEGATRON 

TECHNOLOGY SERVICE, INC., AND UNIHAN, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

2011-1306 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

District of Wyoming in case no. 10-CV-0227, Judge Nancy 

D. Freudenthal. 

ON MOTION 

ORDER 
AFTG-TG v. NlNOTON TECH 2 

Upon consideration of Nuvoton Technology Corporation and Nuvoton Technology Corporation America's 

unopposed motion to reform the caption, 

IT Is ORDERED THAT: 

The motion is granted. The official revised caption is 

reflected above. 

JUL 192011 

Date 

cc: Ezekiel R. Dumke, IV, Esq. 

s21 

E. Robert Yoches, Esq. 

Ronald S. Lemieux, Esq. 

FOR THE COURT 

/s/ Jan Horbaly 

Jan Horbaly 

Clerk 

FILED 

• .s. COURT OF APPEALS FOR 

THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT 

. 

JUL 1 9 2011 

JANHORBALY 

CLERK
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Daniel Israel, Appellant.

[973 NYS2d 647]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael J. Obus, J.), rendered February 25, 2011, as amended March 16, 2011, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, attempted murder in the first degree, attempted assault in the first degree, assault in the first and second degrees, reckless endangerment in the first degree and two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 35 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see*
      *414
      *People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). Defendant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence his affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance. There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s weighing of conflicting expert testimony concerning defendant’s mental state.

The court properly exercised its discretion in admitting evidence of an uncharged crime committed by defendant while he was incarcerated pending trial on this case. Evidence that he destroyed an inmate telephone because he “felt like it” was relevant to rebut the evidence he presented that he was a calm, nonviolent person, and that the charged crimes were the product of extreme emotional distress triggered by his posttraumatic stress disorder. Defendant’s statements to the testifying Correction Officer provided sufficient context to establish the relevance of this evidence, which was more probative than prejudicial *(see People v Cass,*18 NY3d 553 [2012]; *People v Santarelli,*49 NY2d 241 [1980]). The court’s limiting instructions were sufficient to minimize any prejudice.

Defendant did not preserve his similar challenge to evidence of another uncharged crime, or his challenges to the prosecutor’s summation, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find no basis for reversal. Concur — Moskowitz, J.P., Renwick, DeGrasse and Gische, JJ.
#### Francisco QUEZADA-RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. Francisco Quezada-Ramirez, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General, Respondent. Francisco Quezada-Ramirez, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General, Respondent.

Nos. 04-71750, 05-70884, 05-72846.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 20, 2006.*

Filed Oct. 30, 2006.

Martin Resendez Guajardo, Esq., Martin Roy Robles, Esq., Law Office of Martin Resendez Guajardo, A Professional Corporation, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

John Ashcroft, Attorney General, Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, James E. Grimes, Esq., Margaret Perry, Esq., Mark C. Walters, Esq., Arthur L. Rabin, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, for Respondent.

Before: BEEZER, O’SCANNLAIN, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Francisco Quezada-Ramirez filed petitions for judicial review of three Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decisions. We deny Quezada-Ramirez’s petitions.

We deny Quezada-Ramirez’s petition for review of BIA’s dismissal of his appeal because he presented no arguments on the matter in his briefs to this court. *See Martinez-Serrano v. INS,*94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996). In his second petition, Quezada-Ramirez challenges BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen. With certain exceptions not relevant here, a motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of the final decision sought to be reopened. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2); 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i). Quezada-Ramirez filed his motion nearly five months after the deadline. BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining the expungement of Quezada-Ramirez’s conviction was not a truly exceptional circumstance warranting reopening. Finally, Quezada-Ramirez claims BIA erred in denying his motion to reconsider. Because Quezada-Ramirez failed to point to any “errors of law or fact” in BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen, BIA did not err in denying Quezada-Ramirez’s motion to reconsider. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(C).

DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 10.3

                                                             EXECUTION COPY


                                                September 17, 2004


Martha Stewart
48 Turkey Hill Road South
Westport, Connecticut 06880

Dear Martha:

     Reference is made to that certain Intellectual Property License and
Preservation Agreement (the "IP License Agreement"), dated as of October
22, 1999, by and between Martha Stewart ("Licensor") and Martha Stewart
Living Omnimedia, Inc. (the "Company").

     This letter will confirm the agreement of Licensor and the Company
that, notwithstanding the changes in Licensor's positions and
responsibilities with respect to the Company on or after June 4, 2003,
Licensor shall be deemed to be in "Control" (as such term is used in the IP
License Agreement) for the purposes of clause (x) of the definition thereof
(1) until such time as Licensor has been released from imprisonment in
connection with her conviction prior to the Effective Date and (2)
following her release from imprisonment so long as either (A) Licensor is
serving as Chairman of the Board of Directors (the "Board") of the Company
or (B) (i) Licensor shall not have made a request to the Board to be
appointed Chairman of the Board or (ii) if Licensor shall have made the
request referred to in clause (i), the Board has failed to appoint Licensor
as its Chairman and a period of less than 10 days has elapsed since the
date of receipt by the Board of such request or (C) Licensor shall be
unable to serve as Chairman of the Board by reason of any legal restraint
imposed by a governmental entity.

     If you are in agreement with the aforementioned, please indicate your
acceptance by signing where indicated below.


                                       Very truly yours,


                                       MARTHA STEWART LIVING OMNIMEDIA, INC.


                                       By:   /s/ Sharon L. Patrick
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Name:  Sharon L. Patrick
                                          Title: President and Chief
                                                 Executive Officer


Agreed to and Accepted as
of the date above written:

/s/ Martha Stewart
------------------------------------
Martha Stewart
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6709
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KENNETH PIERRE FORD, a/k/a K-9, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at A lexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-91-429, CA-97-102-AM) Submitted: August 28, 1997 Decided: September 17, 1997 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenneth Ford, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Clifford Chesnut, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion andfind no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Ford , Nos. CR-91-429; CA-97-102-AM (E.D. Va. Apr. 10, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 32.2





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 Veracity Management Global, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2011 (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Marc L. Baker, Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 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.




Date: October 13, 2011
By:
/s/ Marc L. BakerMarc L. BakerActing Chief Financial Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Veracity Management Global, Inc. and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.