alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**ESCO,
      INC. 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 ESCO, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
      10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William T. Foley,
      President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




/s/ William T. FoleyWilliam
              T. FoleyPresident and Chief Financial
              OfficerNovember 12, 2007


A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      ESCO, Inc. and will be retained by ESCO, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### FRENCH v. ZALSTEM-ZALESSKY et al.

District Court, S. D. New York.

March 21, *1940.*

Simpson, Brady & Noonan, of New York City, for plaintiff.

Christensen *&*Eberlein, of New York City, for defendants.

HULBERT, District Judge.

Service of process was made upon the defendants within this District and they have appeared and answered the complaint. It is not essential to secure their presence that they should be served ■with a subpoena pursuant to Rule 45, Rules of *Civil*Procedure for *District*Courts, *28*U.S.C.A. following section 723c. This applies to witnesses. Parties over whom the court has acquired jurisdiction and who fail to respond to a notice for examination pursuant to Rule 26 et seq. may be penalized by striking out the pleading.

The defendants did not make such a showing as is required by Rule 30(b) and the motion will be denied as to them, without prejudice, however, to an application pursuant to Rule 30(d).

In view of the absence of the defendants from the United States at the present time, the date of the examination may be fixed in the order to be entered for any day during the month of June next upon which counsel may agree.

It will be just as inconvenient for counsel to go to the defendants’ claimed place of residence in Connecticut as it will be for the defendants to come to New York.

So far as the motion made on behalf of the Insurance Company is con*241cerned, that, too, will be denied, without prejudice. Of course the insurance carrier will not be required to disclose any information which is privileged. But that cannot be left to its own determination. The objection must be made and presented pursuant to Rule 30(d). Submit order.
Abatement Order filed July 21, 2015

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-15-00473-CR

____________

LAJUAN KENDELL WARD, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 232nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1423997

ABATEMENT ORDER

The trial court failed to submit findings of fact and conclusions of law on the 

voluntariness of appellant’s statement. Article 38.22, section 6 of the Texas Code 

of Criminal Procedure requires the trial court to make written fact findings and 

conclusions of law as to whether a challenged statement was made voluntarily, 

even if appellant did not request them or object to their absence. Tex. Code Crim. 

Proc. art. 38.22 ' 6; Urias v. State, 155 S.W.3d 141, 142 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). 
The statute is mandatory and the proper procedure to correct the error is to abate 

the appeal and direct the trial court to make the required findings and conclusions. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 44.4; Wicker v. State, 740 S.W.2d 779, 784 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1987). 

Accordingly, the trial court is directed to reduce to writing its findings of 

fact and conclusions of law on the voluntariness of appellant’s statement and have 

a supplemental clerk’s record containing those findings filed with the clerk of this 

Court on or before August 21, 2015.

The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this Court’s 

active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this Court’s active docket when the 

trial court’s findings and recommendations are filed in this Court. The Court will 

also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by either party. 

It is so ORDERED.

PER CURIAM
SCWC-14-0001218

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

_________________________________________________________________

RICHARD BLAISDELL, Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v.

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Respondent/Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-14-0001218; CIV. NO. 11-1-2008-09)

ORDER DISMISSING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Upon consideration of Petitioner/Petitioner-Appellant

Richard Blaisdell’s Application for Writ of Certiorari filed on

June 8, 2015, and the record, it appears that Blaisdell seeks

certiorari review of an order denying his motion for

reconsideration, which is not allowed under Hawai#i Revised

Statutes (“HRS”) § 602-59. See HRS § 602-59(a) (“After issuance

of the intermediate appellate court’s judgment or dismissal

order, a party may seek review of the intermediate appellate

court’s decision and judgment or dismissal order only by

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-14-0001218

23-JUL-2015

11:20 AM
application to the supreme court for a writ of certiorari 

. . . .”) (emphasis added). Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the application for writ of

certiorari is dismissed. 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, July 23, 2015.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson 

2
@article{1206906,
  author = {Diego Perez Morelo and Mingkang Wang and Venkatesh Madhaven and Mogana Sathisivan and Charlie Tay and Vladimir Aksyuk},
  title = {Integrated photonic optomechanical atomic force microscopy probes batch fabricated using deep UV photolithography},
  year = {2023},
  number = {32},
  month = {2023-06-03 04:06:00},
  publisher = {IEEE Journal of Microelectromechanical Systems},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=935730},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.1109/JMEMS.2023.3247300},
  language = {en},
}
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Appellate case name: Guillermo Olmos Munoz v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-13-00810-CR

Trial court case number: 13CR0151

Trial court: 122nd District Court of Galveston County

The Court directs the Galveston County District Clerk to supplement the record filed in 

the above-referenced appeal with the following omitted exhibits, which the trial court admitted 

into the evidence at trial and appellant designated for inclusion in the appellate record:

1. State’s Exhibit No. 1 (CD–911 call)

2. State’s Exhibit No. 2 (CD–Store surveillance)

See TEX. R. APP P. 34.6(b)(1), 35.3. 

The exhibits must be filed in this Court no later than 10 days from the date of this 

order.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Terry Jennings

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: November 7, 2014
AIMEE WALKER

Official Court Reporter

277th District Court

405 Martin Luther King, Box 6

Georgetown, Texas 78626

Phone (512) 943-1288

Fax (512) 943-1276

WalkerReporting@aol.com

July 21, 2015 Sent via email 3rdclerksandreporters@txcourts.gov

Mr. Jeffrey D. Kyle, Clerk

Court of Appeals

Third District of Texas

P. O. Box 12547

Austin, Texas 78701

NOTICE OF LATE RECORD

RE: No. 03-15-00382-CV; Trial Court Cause No. 13-0631-C277, Deutsche Bank National Trust 

Company vs. Steven Armbruster; in the 277th District Court, Williamson County, Texas

Dear Mr. Kyle,

The Reporter’s Record in this case is due July 21, 2015. It has not been prepared because 

payment has not been made, nor have payment arrangements been made. 

Sincerely,

Aimee Walker

CSR 7501

cc: Mr. David Rogers via email firm@darogerslaw.com

 Mr. Peter Smart via email psmart@craincaton.com
# table177_q16.8_size
No. 04-15-00435-CV

* * *

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

* * *

AUGLLE, L.L.CV., WRAP IT UP, L.L.C., JAMES A. MCVEY, JR., Individually 

and VALDIS KARLIS GRAVIS KRUMINS, Individually,

Appellants,

v.

DAVID A. MONROE, E-WATCH CORPORATION, E-WATCH, INC., and THE 

TELESIS GROUP, INC., each individually and as Member of POWER 

SURVEILLANCE CORPORATION, L.L.C.,

Appellees.

* * *

On Appeal from the 225th Court of Bexar County, Texas

* * * 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

* * *

Notice is hereby given of the entry of the undersigned as co-counsel for David 

A. Monroe, e-Watch Corporation, e-Watch, Inc. and The Telesis Group, Inc., each 

Individually and as Member of Power Surveillance Corporation, LLC, Appellees

in the above-entitled action. All further notice and copies of pleadings, filings, 

papers and other material relevant to this action should be directed to and served 

upon:

ACCEPTED

04-15-00435-CV

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

7/24/2015 4:17:26 PM

KEITH HOTTLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 07/24/2015 4:17:26 PM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk
2

Mark A.J. Fassold

State Bar No. 24012609

WATTS GUERRA LLP

4 Dominion Drive

Bldg. 3, Ste. 100

San Antonio, Texas 78257

Telephone: (210) 447-0500

Facsimile: (210) 447-0501

Email: mfassold@wattsguerra.com

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Mark A.J. Fassold

Mark A. J. Fassold

State Bar No. 24012609

Francisco Guerra, IV

State Bar No. 00796684

Mikal C. Watts

State Bar No. 20981820

Jorge L. Mares

State Bar No. 24087973

WATTS GUERRA LLP

4 Dominion Drive

Bldg. 3, Ste. 100

San Antonio, Texas 78257

Telephone: (210) 447-0500

Facsimile: (210) 447-0501

Email: fguerra@wattsguerra.com

 mcwatts@wattsguerra.com

jmares@wattsguerra.com

 mfassold@wattsguerra.com
3

Louis A. Vetrano, Jr.

2502 Huebner Park

San Antonio, Texas 78248

Telephone: (210) 862-5786

Email: lvetrano@flash.net

 ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has 

been delivered by electronic service to counsel of record for Appellants in this 

proceeding as follows:

Karen S. Precella

HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP

301 Commerce Street, Suite 2600

Ft. Worth, Texas 76102

Email: Karen.Precella@haynesboone.com

William B. Nash

HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP

112 East Pecan Street, Suite 1200

San Antonio, Texas 78205

Email: Bill.Nash@haynesboone.com

Ben L. Mesches

Ryan Paulsen

HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP

2323 Victory Avenue, Suite 700

Dallas, Texas 75219

Email: Ben.Mesches@haynesboone.com

 Ryan.Paulsen@haynesboone.com

and
4

Carlo Garcia

OLIVA, SAKS, GARCIA & CURIEL, LLP

The OSGC Building

14255 Blanco Road

San Antonio, Texas 78216

Email: cglaw@osgclaw.com

By: /s/ Mark A.J. Fassold

 Mark A.J. Fassold
#### Kevin Kaiser, Appellant, v Raoul’s Restaurant Corporation et al., Respondents.

[976 NYS2d 59]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis B. York, J.), *427entered May 29, 2012, which granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on plaintiffs age-based discrimination claim under the New York City Human Rights Law (Administrative Code of City of NY § 8-107). There is no dispute that plaintiff bookkeeper was a member of a protected class, was qualified for the job, and that he was terminated. However, defendants articulated legitimate, non-pretextual reasons for firing him. Following an investigation, which included two audits, defendants formed a good-faith belief that plaintiff kept inaccurate payroll records and embezzled funds. Plaintiffs attempt to conflate the purported falsity of the embezzlement accusation with the legitimacy of defendants’ belief in the accusation, is not availing *(see Bennett v Health Mgt. Sys., Inc.,*92 AD3d 29 [1st Dept 2011], *lv denied*18 NY3d 811 [2012]; *Melman u Montefiore Med. Ctr.,*98 AD3d 107, 121 [1st Dept 2012]; *Kelderhouse v St. Cabrini Home,*259 AD2d 938, 939 [3d Dept 1999]). Accordingly, defendants shifted the burden back to plaintiff to show that the reasons proffered were a pretext for discrimination.

Plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact with respect thereto. His admission that he altered the payroll records and kept two sets of books tends to support the legitimacy of defendants’ reasons for terminating him, even if he did not actually embezzle funds.

The court also properly determined that plaintiff’s age-discrimination claim should be dismissed under the mixed-motive framework *(see Sandiford v City of New York Dept. of Educ.,*94 AD3d 593, 596 [1st Dept 2012], *affd*22 NY3d 914 [2013]; *Bennett v Health Mgt. Sys., Inc., 92*AD3d at 40-41, 45). Plaintiff’s argument that defendants sought to “change the face” of defendant restaurant by replacing older employees with younger ones is belied by the record. Defendants proffered evidence that two of their maitre d’s and at least one waitress, all of whom were older than plaintiff, had worked at the restaurant for decades, and continued to do so after plaintiff was fired.

Plaintiff’s defamation claim as against defendant Cindy Smith, the restaurant’s general manager, was also properly dismissed. Smith shared a common interest in plaintiffs fitness and competence with nonparty Dutch Flowerline Inc., because they both employed plaintiff as a bookkeeper *(see Liberman v Gelstein,*80 NY2d 429, 437-439 [1992]), and plaintiff’s claim that the subject statements were spoken with malice is based on *428speculation *(see Constantine v Teachers Coll.,*93 AD3d 493 [1st Dept 2012]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Acosta, Moskowitz, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2012 NY Slip Op 31416(U).j
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 24.1

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY


      KNOWN ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that each individual whose signature
appears below constitutes and appoints Richard Siskind and Neil Fox, and each of
them, his true and lawful attorneys-in-fact and agents with full power of
substitution, for him and in his name, place and stead in any and all
capacities, to sign the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Stage II Apparel Corp. for
the year ended December 31, 2000 (the "Report") and any amendments thereto, and
to file same, with all exhibits thereto, and all documents in connection
therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, granting unto said
attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each of them, full power and authority to do
and perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done to
comply with the provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and all
requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission, hereby ratifying and
confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact and agents or any of them, or their
or his substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue thereof.


Dated:  March 28, 2001


                                       /s/ RICHARD SISKIND
                                       ----------------------------------------
                                       Richard Siskind


                                       /s/ ROBERT GREENBERG
                                       ----------------------------------------
                                       Robert Greenberg


                                       /s/ BARRY FERTEL
                                       ----------------------------------------
                                       Barry Fertel


                                       /s/ BEVERLY ROSEMAN
                                       ----------------------------------------
                                       Beverly Roseman


                                       /s/ JON SISKIND
                                       ----------------------------------------
                                       Jon Siskind


                                       /s/ NEIL FOX
                                       ----------------------------------------
                                       Neil Fox
**Exhibit 32.01**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

 

In connection with the Quarterly Reportof Focus Gold Corporation. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the Period ending August 31, 2012 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Grant White, Chief Executive Officer and Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

 

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

 

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 

 

/s/ Gordon F. Lee

By: Gordon F. Lee

Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

 

Dated: October 15, 2012

 

A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typedform within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Companyand furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit
      32.1**








**CERTIFICATION
      OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





In
        connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended
        December 31, 2005 (the “Report”) of Patient Safety Technologies, Inc. (the
“Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
        hereof, I, William B. Horne, as the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant,
        pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the
        Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge,
        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
      Registrant.





Dated: June
                1, 2007
              By:
              /s/
                  William B. HorneWilliam
                  B. HorneChief
                Executive Officer








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

MANDATE

TO THE 8TH DISTRICT COURT OF FRANKLIN COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 7th 

day of November, A.D. 2014, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your Judgment was 

determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

Clint Weldon Wilson, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

No. 06-14-00021-CR

Trial Court No. F8775

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Clint Weldon Wilson, has adequately indicated his inability to 

pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in this 

behalf, and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Josh R. Morriss, III, Chief Justice of our said Court of Appeals, with 

the seal thereof annexed, at the City of Texarkana, this the 24th day of July, A.D. 2015.

DEBRA K. AUTREY, Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 947 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 947

Expressing support for the designation of May 7, 2020, as a ``National 
Day of Reason'' and recognizing the central importance of reason in the 
                        betterment of humanity.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 1, 2020

  Mr. Raskin (for himself, Mr. Huffman, Ms. Norton, and Mr. McNerney) 
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 
                        on Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Expressing support for the designation of May 7, 2020, as a ``National 
Day of Reason'' and recognizing the central importance of reason in the 
                        betterment of humanity.

Whereas the application of reason has been the essential precondition for 
        humanity's extraordinary scientific, medical, technological, and social 
        progress since the modern Enlightenment;
Whereas reason provides vital hope today for confronting the environmental 
        crises of our day, including the civilizational emergency of climate 
        change, and for cultivating the rule of law, democratic institutions, 
        justice, and peace among nations;
Whereas irrationality, magical thinking, and superstition have undermined the 
        national effort to combat the COVID-19 pandemic, and reason is 
        fundamental to creating an effective coordinated response to beat the 
        virus involving the Federal Government, the States, and the scientific 
        and medical communities;
Whereas America's Founders insisted upon the primacy of reason and knowledge in 
        public life, and drafted the Constitution to prevent official 
        establishment of religion and to protect freedom of thought, speech, and 
        inquiry in civil society;
Whereas James Madison, author of the First Amendment and fourth President of the 
        United States, stated that ``The advancement and diffusion of knowledge 
        is the only guardian of true liberty'', and ``Knowledge will forever 
        govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own governors, must 
        arm themselves with the power knowledge gives''; and
Whereas, May 7, 2020, would be an appropriate date to designate as a ``National 
        Day of Reason'': Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) supports the designation of a ``National Day of 
        Reason''; and
            (2) encourages all citizens, residents, and visitors to 
        join in observing this day and focusing on the central 
        importance of reason, critical thought, the scientific method, 
        and free inquiry to resolving social problems and promoting the 
        welfare of humankind.
                                 <all>
```