alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


      The undersigned  hereby  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
undersigned's  best knowledge and belief,  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the Geodyne Energy Income  Limited  Partnership  II-F  ("Issuer") for the period
ending  September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"):

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

      Dated this 8th day of January, 2003.

                                   GEODYNE ENERGY INCOME LIMITED
                                   PARTNERSHIP II-F
                                   ("Issuer")

                                    //s// Dennis R. Neill
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Dennis R. Neill
                                    President (Chief Executive Officer)

                                    //s// Craig D. Loseke
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Craig D. Loseke
                                    Chief Accounting Officer
                                    (Chief Financial Officer)
97-76.

#### Pauline v. United Church Homes.

In Quo Warranto. On motion to dismiss. Motion to dismiss sustained. Cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton. JJ., concur.
##### **  Archived Content

The National Institute of Mental Health archives materials that are over 4 years old and no longer being updated. The content on this page is provided for historical reference purposes only and may not reflect current knowledge or information.

# Mental Health Minute: Eating Disorders

April 13, 2020

## Transcript

NARRATOR: Got 60 seconds? Take a mental health minute to learn about eating disorders.

Eating disorders are serious—and sometimes even fatal—illnesses.

Eating disorders affect all types of people. People with eating disorder may appear healthy even when they are very ill.

The most common eating disorders are anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, and binge eating.

People with anorexia see themselves as overweight, even when they are dangerously underweight.

People with bulimia have recurring, frequent episodes of eating unusually large amounts of food. They follow these episodes with unhealthy behaviors to compensate for the overeating.

People with binge eating disorders feel a lack of control over eating large amounts of food, but don’t purge, fast, or over-exercise. As a result, they often are overweight or obese.

The earlier treatment is started, the more effective it can be. Talk to a professional health care provider.

Treatment is individualized and a person may need more than one type of treatment.

Learn more about eating disorders through the NIMH website. And spread the word to help someone else.
BAGDAD CHASE MINING COMPANY
Home Savings Building
Broadway at Eighth Street
Los Angeles, California

April 5, 1968

Mr. C. W. Turner
General Manager
Gold Ore Mining Company P. O. Box 568
Arcadia, California

Dear Mr. Turner:

This corporation is interested in acquiring your assets, particularly the
Golden Anchor Mine, Idaho County, Idaho (which we understand is committed
under a lease and option agreement to Gold & Idaho Metals Co.,
Boise Idaho).

Accordingly the following qualified proposal to purchase such assets is
hereby respectfully submitted for your consideration.

(1)The Bagdad Chase Mining Company is now in the process of changing its
corporate name to Bagdad Chase Inc. In addition it is reducing the total
of $1 million, $1. 00 par value, Bagdad Chase Mining Company shares
presently outstanding to two hundred fifty thousand, $1. 00 par value
share s of the renamed corporation, Bagdad Chase Inc.

(2) In consideration for all the as sets of The Gold are Mining Company,
devoid of any and all liens, claims or liabilities of whatsoever nature
that may in any manner be identified with such assets, Bagdad Chase Inc.
will pay to The Gold. Ore Mining Company 790,040 shares of its capital
stock.

The shares of the Bagdad Chase Mining Company have had no market value
for years, nor do they now have a market value. It is expected that
this condition will continue to exist with the shares of Bagdad Chase
Inc. into the future until ore reserves that are now marginal become
valuable thru price increase of their mineral content.

Due to the necessity of completing the formal corporate action, in
revising our corporate set up - which will be finalized May 4, 1968

Mr. C. W. Turner
Gold Ore Mining Company Arcadia, California

This proposal must be considered by you as an expression of intent at
this time.

Yours very truly,

BAGDAD CHASE MINING COMPANY
Secretary
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                           5
<CIK>                               0000826345
<NAME>                              GEODYNE ENERGY INCOME LIMITED PTSP II-B

<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                      JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                        JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                   163,540
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                            403,368
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         566,908
<PP&E>                                21,445,704
<DEPRECIATION>                        19,080,694
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         3,111,751
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     85,257
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                             2,927,813
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           3,111,751
<SALES>                                1,085,725
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       1,088,109
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            905,362
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          182,747
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      182,747
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                             182,747
<EPS-BASIC>                               0.46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
**Exhibit No. 32**

 

BarnwellIndustries, Inc.

 

Certification ofChief Executive Officer and

Chief FinancialOfficer Pursuant To

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

As AdoptedPursuant To

Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

Pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and(b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) eachof the undersigned officers of Barnwell Industries, Inc. (the “Company”),does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge that:

 

The Annual Report on Form 10-Kfor the year ended September 30, 2007 of the Company fully complies withthe requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-K fairlypresents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition as of September 30,2007 and consolidated results of operations for the year ended September 30,2007 of the Company and its subsidiaries.

 

 
| Dated: | December 21, 2007          |   | /s/ Morton H.  Kinzler  |   |
|--------|---------------------------------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   | Name: MORTON H. KINZLER         |
|   | Title: Chief Executive  Officer |
|   |                            |
| Dated: | December 21, 2007          |   | /s/ Russell M.  Gifford |   |
|   | Name:  RUSSELL M. GIFFORD       |
|   | Title: Chief Financial  Officer |

 

 

The foregoing certification is beingfurnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K oras a separate disclosure document.

 

A signed original of the writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company andwill be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

----
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 13

- 00572

- CR

Armando Agusitin Hernandez

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From Criminal District Court No. 2

o f Tarrant County (1289389D )

July 3, 2014

Opinion by Justice Gabriel

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

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

there was error in the trial court’s judgment . The judgme nt is modified to reflect

that a ppellant Armando Agusitin Hernandez was convicted of injury to a child by

knowingly causing serious bodily injury . It is ordered that the judgment of the trial

court is affirmed as modified.

SECOND DIS TRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Lee Gabriel

_________________ Justice Lee Gabrie l
#### Gregory BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EASTERN LOUISIANA MENTAL HEALTH SYSTEM, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 04-30398.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided June 21, 2006.

Gregory Brown, Kinder, LA, pro se.

Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Gregory Brown, Louisiana prisoner # 103764, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (IFP), appeals the dismissal of his civil rights suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court dismissed Brown’s § 1983 complaint without prejudice finding that it was barred by *Heck v. Humphrey,*512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). The district court further concluded that Brown’s complaint could not be construed as a habeas petition because it was not filed in the right district as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).

On appeal, Brown does not challenge the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights complaint as barred by *Heck.*Rather, he argues the merits of his claim that he was unconstitutionally confined in a state men*484tal facility. Although pro se briefs are afforded liberal construction, even pro se litigants must brief arguments in order to preserve them. *See Yohey v. Collins,*985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993). By failing to identify any error in the district court’s judgment, Brown has abandoned the issue on appeal. *Id.*at 225.

Brown’s appeal is without arguable merit and is dismissed as frivolous. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2; *Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983). The dismissal of the instant appeal as frivolous counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). *See Adepegba v. Hammons,*103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir.1996). Brown is cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes under § 1915(g), he will not be able to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. *See*§ 1915(g).

APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-1499

ADRIENNE MALLARD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Deputy Commissioner of Operations, Social Security 

Administration,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. 

Deborah Lynn Boardman, Magistrate Judge. (8:18-cv-03627-DLB)

Submitted: August 30, 2021 Decided: September 10, 2021

Before NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Adrienne Mallard, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Adrienne Mallard appeals the magistrate judge’s order upholding the 

Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) denial of Mallard’s application for disability insurance 

benefits. “In social security proceedings, a court of appeals applies the same standard of 

review as does the district court. That is, a reviewing court must uphold the determination 

when an ALJ has applied correct legal standards and the ALJ’s factual findings are 

supported by substantial evidence.” Brown v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 873 F.3d 251, 

267 (4th Cir. 2017) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “Substantial evidence 

is that which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. It 

consists of more than a mere scintilla of evidence but may be less than a preponderance.” 

Pearson v. Colvin, 810 F.3d 204, 207 (4th Cir. 2015) (citation and internal quotation 

marks omitted). “In reviewing for substantial evidence, we do not undertake to reweigh 

conflicting evidence, make credibility determinations, or substitute our judgment for that 

of the ALJ. Where conflicting evidence allows reasonable minds to differ as to whether a 

claimant is disabled, the responsibility for that decision falls on the ALJ.” Hancock v. 

Astrue, 667 F.3d 470, 472 (4th Cir. 2012) (brackets, citation, and internal quotation marks 

omitted).

We have reviewed the record and perceive no reversible error. The ALJ applied the 

correct legal standards in evaluating Mallard’s claim for benefits, and the ALJ’s factual 

findings are supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we affirm the magistrate 

judge’s decision upholding the denial of benefits. Mallard v. Berryhill, No. 8:18-cv03627-DLB (D. Md. Mar. 23, 2020). We dispense with oral argument because the facts 
3

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# In the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

══════════ No. WR

- 93 , 5 72

- 0 1

══════════

EX PARTE JOSE CONCEPCION SIFUENTES , Applicant

═══════════════════════════════════════ On Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Cause No. W12

- 00771

- H(A) in the Criminal District Court No. 1 of Dallas County

═══════════════════════════════════════

J UDGE Y EARY filed a concurring opinion

. Applicant pled guilty in 2013 to murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. He did not appeal his conviction. In January 2022, Applicant filed an application for writ of habeas corpus in the county of conviction. In his application, he alleges that he was denied counsel at crucial stages of the proceedings, and he was denied the right to file a motion for new trial and/or notice of appeal

. T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC . art.SIFUENTES

– 2

11.07. Today, the Court remands this application to the trial court to further develop the record. I join the Court’s remand order. But I write separately to address my thoughts concerning the doctrine of laches and
i ts possible application to this case. See Ex parte Smith , 444 S.W.3d 661 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (holding a trial court has the authority to sua sponte consider the doctrine of laches); Ex parte Bazille , ___ S.W.3d ___,
No. WR

- 89,851

- 02, 2022 WL 108348 (Tex . Crim. App. Jan. 12, 2022) (Yeary, J., concurring). The doctrine of laches ought to be considered in a case like this one. Applicant’s trial occurred in 2013 , but this writ application was not filed until nearly nine years later. The record is also silent regarding circumstances that may excuse Applicant’s delay, and at least some explanation for the long delay in filing should be provided. Consistent with this Court’s precedent, the trial court may, sua sponte , give Applicant the opportunity to explain th e reasons for the delay. It may also give the State’s prosecutors and/or former counsel for Applicant an opportunity to state whether Applicant’s delay has caused any prejudice to their ability to defend against Applicant’s claims. 1 And ultimately, the tr ial court may include findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning the doctrine of laches in its response to this Court’s remand order.

1 “Our revised approach will permit courts to more broadly consider the diminished memories of trial participants and the diminished availability of the State ’ s evidence, both of which may often be said to occur beyond five years after a conviction becomes final.” Ex parte Perez , 398 S.W.3d 206, 216 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (citing Ex parte Steptoe , 132 S.W.3d 434, 437

– 39 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (Cochran, J., dissenting)).SIFUENTES

– 3

With these additional thoughts, I join the Court’s order.

FILED : March 30, 2022 DO NOT PUBLISH
<PAGE>

                             BASE TEN SYSTEMS, INC.
                                   EXHIBIT 21

SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT


The following are wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Registrant:


                                                  STATE OR JURISDICTION
                  NAME                            OR ORGANIZATION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Base Ten Aerospace and Communications, Inc.       New Jersey (a)

Base Ten Software, Inc.                           New Jersey (a)

Base Ten Systems, Ltd.                            United Kingdom (a)

Base Ten of Canada, Ltd.                          Canada (b)

Base Ten Investment, Co.                          Delaware (b)

Base Ten International Sales, Ltd.                Jamaica (a)

Base Ten Software, Ltd.                           Ireland (a)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(a)  Financial statements included in Consolidated Financial Statements of
     Registrant
(b)  Dormant
#### Town of Oyster Bay, Appellant, v Lizza Industries, Inc., Respondent. (And Other Actions.)

Submitted June 3, 2013;

decided June 25, 2013

Motion by County of Suffolk for leave to appear amicus curiae on the appeals herein granted only to the extent that the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Three copies of the brief must be served and an original and nine copies filed within seven days.
EXHIBIT 32.1


                                  CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO SECTION 13A-14(B) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
                           AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Peak Entertainment Holdings, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date therein
specified (the "Report"), the undersigned, Wilfred Shorrocks, as Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
that:

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

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



/S/ WILFRED SHORROCKS
-----------------------
Wilfred Shorrocks
Chief Executive Officer
Date: May 18, 2004


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

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OFTHE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of mPhase Technologies,
Inc., a New Jersey corporation (the "Company"), on Amendment No. 9 to Form 10Q/A for the quarter
ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the "Report"), I, Ronald A. Durando, Chief Executive Officer of the Company
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18U.S.C.
Section 1350), that to 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/ Ronald A.
DurandoRonald A. Durando Chief Executive Officer

March 22, 2011

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-65,747]

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on April 3, 2009 in response to a petition filed on behalf of workers at Parker Hannifin Corporation, Nichols Portland Division, Portland, Maine. The workers at the subject facility produce gerotors.

The petitioners have requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

Signed in Washington, DC, this 18th day of May 2009.

Richard Church,

Certifying Officer, Division of  Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-13899 Filed 6-12-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P