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 Pioneer Exploration Inc. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the period ending May 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Warren Robb,
President, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and a member of the Board of
Directors, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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 the Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Company.




















/s/
Warren Robb


Warren
Robb


Chief
Executive Officer






July 14,
2008








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 Pioneer Exploration Inc. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the period ending May 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Warren Robb, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company and a member of the Board of Directors,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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 the Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Company.




















/s/
Warren Robb


Warren
Robb


Chief
Financial Officer






July 14,
2008
#### REJSENHOFF v. COLONIAL NAV. CO.

District Court, S. D. New York.

Aug. 9, 1940.

Edward Kuntz, of New York City, for plaintiff.

Hatch & Wolfe, of New York City, for defendant.

HULBERT, District Judge.

Rule 26, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, provides: “By leave of Court after jurisdiction has been obtained over any defendant * * * or without such leave after an answer has been served, the testimony of any person, whether party or not, may be taken * *

This action was commenced on or about January 30, 1940 and issue was joined by the service of the defendant’s answer on June 21, 1940, which set up, as a separate defense, plaintiff’s incapacity to sue. Plaintiff moved to strike out this defense and defendant countered with a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which was granted and the complaint dismissed, with leave to amend within 30 days.

No amended complaint has been served, but plaintiff has given notice of the taking of the deposition of C. C. Dunbaugh, the Treasurer of defendant and the Captain, Chief Engineer, second Assistant Engineer or any other employee upon defendant’s vessel, the S. S. Comet, of whose crew plaintiff’s intestate was a member and for whose death she seeks to recover damages. Whether the purpose of this examination is to enable plaintiff to ascertain information to enable her to frame an amended complaint does not appear. The status of the case is that an action is pending without pleadings and the examination of witnesses cannot be had without an order as required by Rule 26.

Motion granted. Submit order.

In view of defendant’s motion to vacate plaintiff’s notice of taking depositions and disposition thereof the interrogatories filed are premature and will be regarded as withdrawn.
#### Tercida Martinez, Respondent, v Goldrose Management, Inc., Appellant.

[853 NYS2d 558]

The order resolving against defendant the issue of notice was unwarranted. Plaintiff did not show that defendant’s delay in complying with her demand for the last known home address of one of defendant’s former employees, who had already been deposed by plaintiff while still in defendant’s employ, was part of a pattern of deliberate, contumacious delay *(see Tsai v Hernandez,*284 AD2d 116, 117 [2001]). The second order on appeal does not affect a substantial right and is not otherwise appeal-able as of right (see *Marriott Intl. v Lonny’s Hacking Corp.,*262 AD2d 10, 11 [1999]). Concur—Friedman, J.P., Gonzalez, McGuire and Moskowitz, JJ.
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed 

February 25, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-13-01110-CV

SHEILA VOGEL, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIEND OF SARA 

VOGEL, A MINOR, Appellant

V.

DARREN MILLER AND CHLOE MILLER, Appellees

On Appeal from the 190th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2011-01297

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a judgment signed September 20, 2013. On February 

6, 2014, appellant filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. 

The motion is granted. 

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Jamison and Wise.
Case 2:10-cr-00831-DRD Document 4 Filed 05/05/11 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 20
Case 2:10-cr-00831-DRD Document 4 Filed 05/05/11 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 21
Case 2:10-cr-00831-DRD Document 4 Filed 05/05/11 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 22
Case 2:10-cv-03984-FSH -PS   Document 17    Filed 09/11/10   Page 1 of 2 PageID: 163

Case 2:10-cv-03984-FSH -PS   Document 17    Filed 09/11/10   Page 2 of 2 PageID: 164
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 50597 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

JERRY UR BINA, also known as “Jerry Boy ” , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:13

- CR

- 800

- 5

Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jerry Urbina, federal prisoner # 15373

- 380 , is serving a 180

- month prison sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A)(ii), and 846 . He appeals the district court’ s denial of his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 782

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 3, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-50597 Document: 00514456380 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/03/2018No. 17

- 50597

2 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which lowered the base offense levels in the drug quantit y table of U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c). In his sole issue on ap peal, Urbina argues that the district court erred by determining that he was not eligible for a § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction where the sentence was imposed pursuant to a binding plea agreement under Federal Rule of Cri minal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C). A sen tence imposed pursuant to a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement may be reduced under § 3582(c)(2) only if “the agreement itself employs the particular Guidelines sentencing range applicable to the charged offenses in establishing the term of imprisonment.”
Fr eeman v. United States , 564 U.S. 522, 540 (2011) (Sotomayor, J., concurring). That condition is not satisfied unless the plea agreement: (i) calls “for the defendant to be sentenced within a particular Guidelines sentencing range;” (ii) provides “for a specific term of imprisonment

— such as a number of months

— but also make[s] clear that the basis for the specified term is a Guidelines sentencing range applicable to the offense to which the defendant pleaded guilty;” or (iii) “explicitly employs a particul ar Guidelines sentencing range to establish the term of imprisonment.”
United States v. Benitez , 822 F.3d 807, 811 (5th Cir. 2016) (quoting Freeman , 564 U.S. at 538

- 40 (Sotomayor, J., concurring)). In this case, the 180

- month sentence agreed to in the Rul e 11(c)(1)(C) agreement was not expressly tied to the Guidelines. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Case: 17-50597 Document: 00514456380 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/03/2018
#### Peck *against*The Executrix of Peck.

NEW-YORK,

May, 1817.

Where, after a i^máde’andsetwhole right it is to make up the case must serve a copy of jt, as sett,e«l; *m*V1® a^the'time’aR ¡.°ngedtbfJr c”°^b for arguments and if the opposite party also notices the case for argument, sad has not been so served with a copy of the case as settled, lie may take judgment.

BALDWIN, for the defendant, moved that the rule for a new trial, which had been granted at the last term, on the motion of the plaintiff, should be vacated. From the affidavits read, it appeared, that the cause was tried at the last *Ononda&a*circuit, 11 *°*when a verdict was found for the defendant. The plaintifPs attorney wishing to move to set aside the verdict, as against evidence, made a case, a copy of which he served on the defendant’s *220attorney on the 22d day of *June,*(having obtained an order for enlarging the time,) to which the defendant’s attorney proposed amendments; and on the 27th of *June*notice was given to the defendant’s attorney, that the case would be settled before Mr. Justice *Yates,*before whom the cause was tried. Both parties noticed the case for argument at the *August*term, but it was not called on; and it was noticed again for argument, by both parties, at the last *January*term ; and the defendant’s attorney asked the plaintiff’s attorney for a copy of the case as settled by the judge, but he said the papers were with the judge who tried the cause, and that he did not know that the case was settled; in consequence of which the defendant’s attorney, on his notice, did not put the case on the calendar of causes for argument. The case had, in fact, been settled, and was in the hands of the partner of the plaintiff’s attorney, at the time. In *January*term, the cause was called on the part of the plaintiff, and no counsel appearing for the defendant, a rule was entered, by default, for a new trial.

*Goodenow,*contra.

*Per Curiam.*

The rule entered at the last term for a new trial must be set aside, without costs. The defendant’s attorney was entitled to a copy of the case as settled. Where, after verdict, a case is made and settled by the judge, the party whose right it is to make up the case must serve a copy of the case, as settled, on the opposite party, at or before the time of giving notice of the argument; and if the opposite party also gives notice of argument, anda copy of the case has not been served on him as early, at least, as the time allowed for giving notices of argument, he will be entitled to judgment.

Rule granted.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION**

     In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MedPro Safety Products, Inc. (the “Company”) for the annual period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, Marc T. Ray, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, in accordance with 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), as applicable, 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. |
|                    |

|                | MEDPRO SAFETY PRODUCTS, INC. |
|---------------------|------------------------------|
|                |
|                |
| Dated: May 15, 2008 | By:                          | /s/Marc T. Ray |
|                |                         |  |
|                |                         | Marc T. Ray |
|                |                         |  Chief Financial Officer |

26

----
EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 Maple Mountain Explorations Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending July 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Marvin
Wosk, 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 result of operations of
          the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
13th day of September, 2007.


/s/ Marvin Wosk
------------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
<Page>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, James K. Hunt, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of Abington
Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section.1350), that:

1.  the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended
    December 31, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
    Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
    Section.78m or 78o(d)); and

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

<Table>
<S>                                                    <C>
Dated: May 13, 2003

                                                       /s/ JAMES K. HUNT
                                                       ---------------------------------------------
                                                       James K. Hunt
                                                       Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
</Table>
EXHIBIT 32.1

                                  Certification
                Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
         of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of
                          Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of section 1350,  chapter 63 of title 18,  United States Code),  each of the
undersigned  officers of Excelsior  Venture  Partners III, LLC (the  "Company"),
does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

The Annual  Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended  October 31, 2004 (the
"Form 10-K") of the Company 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 Form 10-K  fairly  presents,  in all  material  respects,  the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


                                /s/ Daniel Baker
Date: March 31, 2005           -------------------
                               Name: Daniel Baker
                               Title: Chief Executive Officer

                               /s/ James Marshall
Date: March 31, 2005          --------------------
                              Name: James Marshall
                              Title: Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter
63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of a separate
disclosure document.
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 Helix Wind, Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, 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 to the best of my knowledge:




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




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






Date: May 14, 2010
/s/ Kevin ClaudioKevin Claudio, Chief Financial Officer(Principal Accounting Officer)
Case 2:11-cr-00102-JLL Document 9 Filed 02/17/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 33
```

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 127 (Monday, July 6, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31938-31939]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15733]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13417-000]

Western Technical College; Notice of Preliminary Permit 
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comment; Motions To 
Intervene, and Competing Applications

June 25, 2009.
    On March 30, 2009, Western Technical College filed an application, 
pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study 
the feasibility of the Angelo Dam Project, to be located on the La 
Crosse River in Monroe County, Wisconsin, and near the town of Sparta, 
Wisconsin.
    The proposed project would consist of: (1) The existing Angelo dam 
consisting of a 124-foot-long right earth embankment, a 91.5-foot-long, 
20-foot-high concrete gravity spillway structure, and a 405-foot-long 
left earth embankment; (2) an existing 52-acre impoundment with 140 
acre-feet of usable storage; (3) a proposed 9-foot-diameter intake 
structure on the right side of the spillway; (4) a proposed forebay; 
(5) a proposed 20 by 40 by 28-foot powerhouse containing one generating 
unit with a capacity of 205 kilowatts; and (5) a 1,540-foot-long, 600 
volt transmission line. The project would have an estimated average 
annual generation of 948,500 kilowatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Stephen C. Doret, Mill Road Engineering, 23 
Mill Rd., Westborough, MA 01581, phone (508) 366-5833.
    FERC Contact: Michael Spencer, (202) 502-6093.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing 
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file 
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. 
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing 
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site 
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically, 
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight 
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For 
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to 
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-comments.asp.
    More information about this project can be viewed or printed on the

[[Page 31939]]

``eLibrary'' link of the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-13417) in the 
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, call toll-
free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-15733 Filed 7-2-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
```
#### Jorge LOPEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 12-20497

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 4, 2012.

Jorge Lopez, Elizabeth, NJ, pro se.

Jeffrey C. Londa, Flyn Lee Flesher, Ogletree Deakins, P.C., Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before WIENER, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jorge Lopez, proceeding *pro se,*appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment on his age-discrimination, disability-discrimination, and breach-of-contract claims against his former employer, Continental Airlines, Inc. (“Continental”). We AFFIRM.

Upon the magistrate judge’s recommendation, the district court determined that: (1) Lopez could not recover under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act because he failed to exhaust administrative remedies; (2) Lopez could not recover under the Americans with Disabilities Act because he failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact that (a) he was disabled, and (b) Continental’s reason for his termination was pretextual; and (3) Lopez could not recover for breach of contract because he was an at-will employee. For these reasons, it granted summary judgment on all of Lopez’s claims.

Although we “liberally construe” the filings of *pro se*litigants and “apply less stringent standards to parties proceeding *pro se*than to parties represented by counsel,” *pro se*appellants “must still brief the issues and reasonably comply with the standards of Rule 28.” *Grant v. Cuellar,*59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir.1995). The appellant’s brief must include an argument that contains his “contentions and reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which appellant relies.” Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(9). Arguments not adequately argued in the body of the brief are deemed abandoned. *See Yohey*v. *Collins,*985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir.1993). This court may, however, consider a noncompliant brief when doing so does not prejudice the opposing party. *364*Price v. Digital Equip. Corp.,*846 F.2d 1026, 1028 (5th Cir.1988).

Lopez’s generally incoherent appellate brief does not comply with Rule 28; nevertheless, Continental addresses the relevant issues on appeal. Thus, we find no prejudice and perform a *de novo*review of the district court’s summary judgment. *See Holt v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.,*627 F.3d 188, 191 (5th Cir.2010) (noting that “we review a district court’s grant of summary judgment *de novo*”). After consideration of the record on appeal, we agree with the district court that Lopez fails to present a genuine issue of material fact on all of his claims. For essentially the reasons stated by the district court, the summary judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
#### In the Matter of Roberto Vasquez, Appellant, v Ivelis Medina, Respondent.

[851 NYS2d 889]

The determination of visitation is within the sound discretion of the trial court based upon the best interests of the child, and its determination will not be set aside unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record *(see Cashel v Cashel,*46 AD3d 501 [2007]). Here, the Family Court’s determination has a sound and substantial basis in the record to promote the best interests of the child by denying the father visitation. Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Angiolillo and Garni, JJ., concur.