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





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sentry Petroleum Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended November 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Arne Raabe, 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; and

(2)

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







Dated this 6th day of January, 2010.

| |     |                                                   
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------
| |     |                                                   
| | BY: | ARNE RAABEArne Raabe, 
Principal Financial Officer
Dismissal and Opinion Filed July 13, 2015 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00069-CV 

STEVEN BASHAM, Appellant 

V. 

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2005-2, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 116th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-14-07490 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Lang-Miers, and Justice Stoddart 

Opinion by Chief Justice Wright 

The filing fee, docketing statement, and clerk’s record in this case are past due. By 

postcard dated January 16, 2015, we notified appellant the $195 filing fee was due. We directed 

appellant to remit the filing fee within ten days and expressly cautioned appellant that failure to 

do so would result in dismissal of the appeal. Also by postcard dated January 16, 2015, we 

notified appellant the docketing statement had not been filed in this case. We directed appellant 

to file the docketing statement within ten days. We cautioned appellant that failure to do so 

might result in dismissal of the appeal. By letter dated March 25, 2015, we informed appellant 

the clerk’s record had not been filed because appellant had not paid for or made arrangements to 

pay for the clerk’s record. We directed appellant to provide verification of payment or 

arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record or written documentation that appellant had been 
 –2– 

found to be entitled to proceed without payment of costs. We cautioned appellant that failure to 

do so would result in the dismissal of this appeal without further notice. To date, appellant has 

not paid the filing fee, filed the docketing statement, or provided written documentation that he 

has been found entitled to proceed without payment of costs in the trial court. 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5; 37.3(b); 42.3(b), (c). 

150069F.P05 

 

/Carolyn Wright/ 

CAROLYN WRIGHT 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

STEVEN BASHAM, Appellant 

No. 05-15-00069-CV V. 

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT 

LOAN TRUST 2005-2, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 116th Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-14-07490. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. 

Justices Lang-Miers and Stoddart 

participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED. 

Judgment entered July 13, 2015.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED FEBRUARY 12, 2015

NO. 03-12-00808-CR

Andre Demar Gipson, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 331ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PEMBERTON, GOODWIN, AND FIELD

MODIFIED AND, AS MODIFIED, AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE FIELD

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction rendered by the trial court. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the 

court’s judgment of conviction but that there was error requiring correction. Therefore, the 

Court modifies the trial court’s judgment as follows: to change the phrase “29.03 Health and 

Safety Code” to “29.03 Penal Code;” and to reflect that appellant pleaded true to an enhancement 

allegation. The judgment, as modified, is affirmed. Because appellant is indigent and unable to 

pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

In the matter of the Estate of * From the County Court at Law

Terry Glenn Arnold, deceased, No. 2 of Ector County,

Trial Court No. 20598-11.

No. 11-13-00147-CV * July 16, 2015

* Memorandum Opinion by Chew

(Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., 

Bailey, J., and Chew, sitting by 

assignment)

(Willson, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is 

no error in the order below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, 

the order of the trial court is in all things affirmed. The costs incurred by reason 

of this appeal are taxed against G. Brad Carter.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David O. Neil, Appellant.

[977 NYS2d 519]

Appeal from a judgment of the Steuben County Court (Marianne Furfure, A.J.), rendered September 26, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his guilty plea, of attempted arson in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting *1336him, upon his guilty plea, of attempted arson in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 150.15). Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant’s challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution has been preserved for our review *(see generally People v Lopez,*71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]), we conclude that defendant’s challenge lacks merit. Defendant “pleaded guilty to a crime lesser than that charged in the indictment,” and thus no factual colloquy was required *(People v Richards,*93 AD3d 1240, 1240 [2012], *lv denied*20 NY3d 1014 [2013]). Defendant further contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because defense counsel did not explore or address a possible defense of intoxication. Although defendant’s contention “survives his guilty plea ... to the extent that [he] contends that his plea was infected by the alleged ineffective assistance,” we conclude that defendant received meaningful representation inasmuch as he received “an advantageous plea and nothing in the record casts doubt on the apparent effectiveness of counsel” *(People v Nieves,*299 AD2d 888, 889 [2002], *lv denied*99 NY2d 631 [2003] [internal quotation marks omitted]; *see People v Campbell,*106 AD3d 1507, 1508 [2013], *lv denied*21 NY3d 1002 [2013]). Present — Smith, J.P., Fahey, Garni, Valentino and Whalen, JJ.
NINDS | 2021-2026

# Strategic Plan

Investing in the Future of Neuroscience
    Download Short Summary (PDF, 818 KB)      Download Full Plan (PDF, 1.4 MB)  

## Our Mission

**National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS)**

## Message from the Directors & Overview 

A joint message from the NINDS Director and Deputy Director describing advances supported by NINDS and highlighting the new strategic framework for investing in the future of neuroscience research. 
          Read about Message from the Directors & Overview        

## Neuroscience Research 

NINDS supports and performs a broad array of rigorous and important neuroscience research from fundamental studies of basic nervous system function to studies to improve treatments and prevent neurological disorders.
          Read about Neuroscience Research        

## Cross-cutting Strategies 

Several core strategies are important across all NINDS scientific goals and will be essential to implementation of the Strategic Plan.
          Read about Cross-cutting Strategies        

## Training and Workforce Diversity 

NINDS funds and conducts neuroscience research training and career development programs to ensure a vibrant, talented, and diverse neuroscience workforce. 
          Read about Training and Workforce Diversity        

## Communications 

NINDS promotes dynamic communication and diverse stakeholder engagement to accelerate scientific progress and reduce the burden of neurological disorders.
          Read about Communications        

## Workforce Culture 

NINDS aspires to create and sustain a supportive work culture for the Institute’s workforce that becomes the model for biomedical research and the neuroscience community. 
          Read about Workforce Culture        

## Stewardship 

Effective and efficient stewardship across all programs, together with thoughtful priority setting, planning, evaluation, and continuous data-driven improvement, is integral to all NINDS policies and programs.
          Read about Stewardship        

## Process 

The strategic planning effort charged taskforces to assess the current NINDS landscape and sought input from a wide variety of stakeholders to help inform the Strategic Plan. 
          Read about Process        

## Trans-NIH Initiatives

      NINDS-wide strategic planning guides activities supported and conducted across the Institute, including research, research training and career development, and communication.    

The BRAIN Initiative®

Helping to End Addiction Long-termSM Initiative

Alzheimer's Disease-Related Dementias

Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery Initiative
# Sjögren's Syndrome

> 
The National Institute on Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS), a component of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), is a leading federal funder of research on Sjögren's syndrome. 

## What is Sjögren's syndrome?

Sjögren's (pronounced show-grins) syndrome is an autoimmune disorder in which the system that normally fights infection and disease in the body mistakenly attacks its own healthy tissues. In Sjögren's syndrome, the immune system attacks and destroys the glands that make tears and saliva. The main symptoms of Sjögren's syndrome are:
              - Dry mouth
              - Dry eyes
              - Musculoskeletal pain
              - Fatigue

It can also cause dryness in the skin, nose, sinuses, throat, ears, and in females, the vagina. The disorder can affect the nervous system, muscles, joints, kidneys, lungs, blood vessels, liver, and pancreas. 

Sjögren's syndrome is a long-lasting disorder that affects females more often than men. It is often diagnosed in females during middle age or after menopause, but it can affect anyone at any age (including children).

Currently, there is no cure for Sjögren's syndrome. Treatment may include drugs to reduce the effect on the immune system and relieve other symptoms.

file-medical

## How can I or my loved one improve care for someone with Sjögren's syndrome?

Consider participating in a clinical trial so clinicians and scientists can learn more about Sjögren's syndrome and related disorders. Clinical research uses human volunteers to help researchers learn more about a disorder and perhaps find better ways to safely detect, treat, or prevent disease. 

All types of volunteers are needed—those who are healthy or may have an illness or disease—of all different ages, sexes, races, and ethnicities to ensure that study results apply to as many people as possible, and that treatments will be safe and effective for everyone who will use them. 

For information about participating in clinical research visit NIH Clinical Research Trials and You. Learn about clinical trials currently looking for people with Sjögren's syndrome at Clinicaltrials.gov.
> Where can I find more information about Sjögren's syndrome?
Information may be available from the following resources:

MedlinePlus

National Institute on Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS)Phone: 301-496-8190 or 877-226-4267

Sjögren's FoundationPhone: 301-530-4420

book-open
#### CONSOLIDATED FISHERIES CO. v. FAIRBANKS MORSE & CO.

Civ. A. No. 9435.

United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania.

Dec. 30, 1949.

Leonard J. Schwartz, for Fox, Rothschild, O’Brien & Frankel, of Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

Hayward H. Coburn and Philip Wallis, for Drinker,- Biddle & Reath, of Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.

BARD, District Judge.

This case is before me on plaintiff’s motion for an order directing trial by jury on the issues raised by the amended complaint and the answer thereto.

The plaintiff’s amended complaint was filed on May 21, 1949. The defendant’s answer and counterclaims were filed on July *54022, 1949. The plaintiff’s reply to the counterclaims was filed on August 5, 1949. On August 10, 1949 the plaintiff requested a jury trial of all issues. On or about August 11, 1949 the defendant ordered a nonjury trial on the issue raised by the amended complaint and answer. On August 19, 1949 the plaintiff filed this motion pursuant to Rule 39(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., appealing to the Court’s discretion for a jury trial on this issue.

The plaintiff’s original request for a jury trial was not made in time for a jury trial on the issues raised by the amended complaint and answer, but was filed in time for the issue raised by the counterclaims and reply. Rule 38(b).

The defendant, in arguing against the motion, concedes that the Court has discretion to order a jury trial under Rule 39(b), but says that the Court should stick to the strict letter of Rule 38(b) (d) and deny a jury trial. If the Court accepts this as a standard, ■ the 'Court would be obligated to deny a jury trial on the issue raised by the amended complaint and answer and would at the same time be obligated to grant a jury trial on the issue raised by the counterclaim and reply.

The issues raised by the counterclaims and reply arise out of the same transaction or occurrence which is the subject matter of the amended complaint. If two trials are necessary, much of the evidence would be the same in each trial.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were not meant to be applied so that the work of the ‘Court would be duplicated. There is no need to have two trials where one will suffice.

I think both issues should be decided in one trial by the same fact-finding body, and the Court should use its discretion to adopt that tribunal which will best serve the ends of justice. Since the plaintiff is entitled to a jury trial on the issue raised by the counterclaims and reply, justice will best be served by having a jury trial on all of the issues. Campbell v. American Fabrics Co. et al., D.C., 1 F.R.D. 502; Paper Stylists, Inc. v. Fitchburg Paper Co., D.C., 9 F.R.D. 4; Gunther v. H. W. Gossard Co.,. D.C., 27 F.Supp. 995.

The plaintiff’s motion for a jury trial on all of the issues raised by the pleadings in this case is granted
#### LIPSHITZ v. BLEYHL.

Civil Action No. 6631.

District Court, E. D. New York.

April 12, 1946.

Milton H. Goldstricker, of New York City, for plaintiff.

James H. Brassel, of New York City, for defendant.

MOSCOWITZ, District Judge.

By this application, made pursuant to Rule 35(b) (1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, plaintiff seeks to obtain from the defendant a copy of a medical report made by a physician who examined plaintiff for and on behalf of defendant.

Rule 35 provides as follows:

> “(a) Order for Examination. In an action in which the mental or physical condition of a party is in controversy, the court in which the action is pending may order him to submit to a physical or mental examination by a physician. * * *

> “(b) Report of Findings. (1) If requested by the person examined,- the party causing the examination to be made shall deliver to him a copy of a detailed written report of the examining physician setting out his findings and conclusions. * * * if a physician fails or refuses to make such a report the court may exclude his testimony if offered at the trial.”

*226Defendant opposes the relief sought upon the ground that subdivision (b) of Rule 35 entitles the person examined to a written copy of the physician’s report only in those cases where the court has ordered an examination pursuant to application made to it for such order under subdivision (a). Here plaintiff submitted voluntarily to the examination without the necessity of defendant procuring a court order.

It is true that a literal reading of the terms of Rule 35 leads to the conclusion advanced by defendant but such a rigid application would contravene the liberal spirit in which the rules have been administered since their adoption. Plaintiff had the right to resist an examination until compelled by order of the Court to submit to one and if he had done so, there is no doubt but that he would have been entitled to a copy of the physician’s report; if the physician would refuse to make a report, his testimony could be excluded at the trial. Certainly the plaintiff is not to be penalized because he waived his right to insist upon an application to the court and submitted to the examination voluntarily. It would appear to the Court that he is thereby aiding in the expedition of justice. He does not thereby waive his right to the report provided for in the Rule. See Kelleher v. Cohoes Trucking Co., D.C.N.Y.1938, 25 F.Supp. 965.

There has been no denial by the defendant that a written report of Dr. Spaulding is in his possession. If in fact such a written report does exist and is in defendant’s control, plaintiff would be entitled to its production and inspection under Rule 34. That such a report would or might contain evidence material to a matter involved in the action is obvious.

The motion is granted. Settle order on notice.
ASA STEWART

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 13

- 2449

____________ _________________/

Opinion filed November 4, 2014.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County

. Mary Day Coker , Judge

.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Nada M. Carey, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee , for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Trisha Meggs Pate , Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

BENTON

, CLARK

, and OSTERHAUS

, J J

. , CONCUR.
**CERTIFICATION      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**AND      PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

| 1.   | Such                Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31,                2007, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for                the period ending March 31, 2007, fairly presents, in all                material respects, the financial condition and results of operations                of                United Nations Securities Associations,                Inc. |
|----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                                                                                    |   |   |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| */s/              Lord Dr.              Masaaki Ikawa*                                                                  |   |   |        |
| Lord              Dr. Masaaki IkawaChief                Executive Officer andPrincipal                Financial Officer |   |   |        |

----
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 15, 2015

No. 04-15-00329-CV

Michael E. GEIGER,

Appellant

v.

Paul A. HAMPEL,

Appellee

From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-CI-13615

Honorable Renee Yanta, Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with the court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT 

OF JURISDICTION.

We order that no costs be assessed against appellant Michael E. Geiger because he is 

indigent. 

It is so ORDERED on July 15, 2015.

_____________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 15th day of July, 2015.

_____________________________

Keith E. Hottle, Clerk
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 Quarterly Report of Orient Paper, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011,  as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Winston C. Yen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 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; and
 
 (2)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 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.
 
 The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
 
 
 Date: May 10, 2011
By:
/s/ Winston C. YenWinston C. Yen

Chief Financial Officer

(principal financial and accounting officer)
#### Troy Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, LLC, Doing Business as The Springs Nursing & Rehabilitation Centre, Respondent, v Ernest Naylor, Defendant, and Diana Gaetano, Individually and as Responsible Party and Attorney-in-Fact for Ernest Naylor, Appellant.

Submitted June 11, 2012;

decided October 18, 2012

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that timely substitution has not been made (see CPLR 1021).