alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gregory Jos, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 453]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Budd G. Goodman, J.), rendered on or about April 8, 2003, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833 [1976]). We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 460.20, defendant may apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that Court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that Court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within 30 days after service of a copy of this order, with notice of entry.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the judge or justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other judge or justice. Concur— Buckley, BJ., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Sullivan and Gonzalez, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 131 (Friday, July 10, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 33219]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16345]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army


Publication of Revision and Consolidation of Military Freight 
Traffic Rules Publications (MFTRP) 1C-R (Motor), 10 (Rail), 30 (Barge), 
6A (Pipeline), 4A (Tank Truck), Military Standard Tender Instruction 
Publication (MSTIP) 364D, SpotBid Business Rules, and SDDC Military 
Class Rate Publication No. 100A to a Consolidation of Procurement 
Requirements for the Purchase of Commercial Transportation Services 
Into the Military Freight Traffic Unified Rules Publication (MFTURP) 
No. 1

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The notice published in the Federal Register on June 9, 2009 
(74 FR 27294), indicated a July 9, 2009 effective date. The effective 
date for this publication will not be July 9, 2009. The effective date 
will be determined and published at a later date. All publications 
listed above will remain in effect until further notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Dora J. Elias, (757) 878-5379.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: None.

Brenda S. Bowen,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. E9-16345 Filed 7-9-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-P
#### In the Matter of Richard Reyes, Petitioner, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Correctional Services, Respondent.

[851 NYS2d 889]

When reviewing a prison disciplinary decision, this Court must decide only whether the determination was supported by substantial evidence *(see*CPLR 7803 [4]; *Matter of Lahey v Kelly,*71 NY2d 135, 140 [1987]; *Matter of Igartua v Selsky,*41 AD3d 717 [2007]; *Matter of De La Cruz v Selsky,*36 AD3d 907 [2007]; *Matter of Ramsey v Phillips,*11 AD3d 470 [2004]; *Matter of Glover v Goord,*262 AD2d 483, 484 [1999]). Substantial evidence “means such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact” *(300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights,*45 NY2d 176, 180 [1978]).

Here, a review of the record, including the misbehavior report, the “unusual incident” report, and the hearing testimony, reveals that there was substantial evidence to support the respondent’s determination that the petitioner violated prison rules. Credibility issues were resolved by the hearing officer, as the trier of fact, and we find no basis to disturb the determination *(see Matter of Gilzene v McGinnis,*300 AD2d 658, 659 [2002]; *Matter of Ramos v Goord,*286 AD2d 392 [2001]; *Matter of Rivera v Selsky,*266 AD2d 295 [1999]).

There is no evidence in the record to support the petitioner’s contention that the hearing officer was biased *(see Matter of Hughes v Suffolk County Dept. of Civ. Serv.,*74 NY2d 833, 834 [1989]; *Matter of Galdamez v Davis,*11 AD3d 535, 536 [2004]). Moreover, the hearing was timely concluded pursuant to valid extensions granted for the purpose of obtaining the testimony of witnesses requested by the petitioner *(see Matter of Johnson v Goord,*297 AD2d 881, 882 [2002]; *Matter of Mason v Goord,*271 AD2d 779, 780 [2000]; *Matter of Stokes v Goord,*254 AD2d 558 [1998]).

*547The petitioner’s remaining contentions are not properly before us since they were not raised before the hearing officer. Rivera, J.P., Miller, Dillon and Belen, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We have issued our reports dated June 13, 2008, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements, financial statement schedule, and internal control over financial reporting in the Annual Report of Salary.com, Inc. and subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2008. We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration Statement of Salary.com, Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-141204, effective March 9, 2007).



|                        
|------------------------
|                        
|/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP  
|                        
|Boston, MA June 13, 2008
* 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 December 17, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-50831 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JESUS MANUEL SALAZAR-MONTES, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:04-CR-69-ALL-FM

-------------------- Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Jesus Manuel Salazar-Montes raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Quarterly report of China Pharma Holdings, Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-KSB for the period ended  December 31, 2007 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Zhilin Li,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the  Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 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 and 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.

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


                              Date: March 28, 2008

                                By: /s/ Zhilin Li
                                    Zhilin Li
                             Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.1



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

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), the undersigned officer of Cleartronic, Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2015 of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                        |  |    |  |                                                            
|----------------------- |  | -- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------
|                        |  |    |  |                                                            
|Date: February 22, 2016 |  |    |  |                                                            
|                        |  | By |  | /s/Larry M. Reid                                           
|                        |  |    |  | Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
APPENDIX A 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 444-1 Filed 02/21/18 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 20289
BASF’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ REMAINING OBJECTIONS

February 21, 2018

NO. TESTIMONY PLAINTIFFS’

RENEWED 

OBJECTION

BASF’S RESPONSE

1. Q: And what was the nature of that communication?

MR. COREN: To the extent that it was a counsel 

meeting, I'm going to instruct her not to answer on the 

basis of attorney-client privilege.

Q: Did you speak to Mr. Bevan on Tuesday about the 

Williams case or something else?

A· I couldn't speak to what we spoke of because it's 

under attorney-client privilege.

Q: Did you discuss with Mr. Bevan your deposition 

today?

A: Again, anything we discussed would be attorneyclient privilege.

Q: So you can't tell me whether you discussed 

preparation for your deposition with Mr. Bevan?

MR. COREN: She's just asserted her attorney-client 

privilege, Peter. I don't understand the difference 

between the first and second question.

Attorney-Client 

Privilege

Plaintiffs have waived their 

privilege over conversations 

with Mr. Bevan.

5. Q: At that meeting with Mr. Bevan and Mr. Coren, 

was that when you first learned about the allegations 

that are in the Williams complaint?

MR. COREN: Objection. Privilege.

A: That would be privileged information. I’m 

choosing not to answer.

Attorney-Client 

Privilege

Plaintiffs have waived their 

privilege over conversations 

with Mr. Bevan.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 444-1 Filed 02/21/18 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 20290
2

9. Q: Do you know of any [of your attorneys] who has 

[researched other cases or complaints that have been 

filed against BASF or Engelhard in the past]?

MR. COREN: Objection. Now you’re getting back --

once again, it’s work product. Now you’re getting 

into attorney-client communication. So I’m 

instructing her not to answer.

Attorney-Client 

Privilege

Plaintiffs have waived their 

privilege over conversations

with Mr. Bevan.

22. Q: Did the Cohen Placitella firm ask you for a copy of 

the Bevan firm’s opposition to BASF’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment?

MR. COREN: Objection. Don’t answer. Privilege.

Attorney-Client 

Privilege

Plaintiffs have waived their 

privilege over conversations 

with the Bevan Firm. 

Moreover, the status of 

documents in plaintiffs’ 

possession is not privileged.

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 444-1 Filed 02/21/18 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 20291
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 134 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.134

                     One Hundred Sixteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday,
            the third day of January, two thousand and twenty

                                 An Act

 
     To amend title 18, United States Code, with regard to stalking.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
    This Act may be cited as the ``Combat Online Predators Act''.
SEC. 2. ENHANCED PENALTY FOR STALKERS OF CHILDREN.
    (a) In General.--Chapter 110A of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended by inserting after section 2261A the following:
``Sec. 2261B. Enhanced penalty for stalkers of children
    ``(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), if the 
victim of an offense under section 2261A is under the age of 18 years, 
the maximum imprisonment for the offense is 5 years greater than the 
maximum term of imprisonment otherwise provided for that offense in 
section 2261.
    ``(b) Limitation.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to a person who 
violates section 2261A if--
        ``(1) the person is subject to a sentence under section 
    2261(b)(5); and
        ``(2)(A) the person is under the age of 18 at the time the 
    offense occurred; or
        ``(B) the victim of the offense is not less than 15 nor more 
    than 17 years of age and not more than 3 years younger than the 
    person who committed the offense at the time the offense 
    occurred.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
chapter 110A of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
after the item relating to section 2261A the following new item:

``2261B. Enhanced penalty for stalkers of children.''.

    (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 2261A of title 18, United States 
Code, is amended by striking ``section 2261(b) of this title'' and 
inserting ``section 2261(b) or section 2261B, as the case may be''.
SEC. 3. REPORT ON BEST PRACTICES REGARDING ENFORCEMENT OF ANTI-STALKING 
LAWS.
    Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
the Attorney General shall submit a report to Congress, which shall--
        (1) include an evaluation of Federal, Tribal, State, and local 
    efforts to enforce laws relating to stalking; and
        (2) identify and describe those elements of such efforts that 
    constitute the best practices for the enforcement of such laws.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Disaster Declaration #11778 and #11779]

# AGENCY:

U.S. Small Business Administration.

# ACTION:

Amendment 1.

# SUMMARY:

This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Alaska (FEMA-1843-DR), dated 06/11/2009 .

*Incident:*                         Flooding and ice jams.                    

*Incident Period:*                         04/28/2009 through 05/31/2009.                    

*Effective Date:*                         05/31/2009.                    

*Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         08/10/2009.                    

*Economic Injury (EIDL)**Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         03/11/2010.                    

# ADDRESSES:

Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

A Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of Alaska, dated 06/11/2009, is hereby amended to establish the incident period for this disaster as beginning 04/28/2009 and continuing through 05/31/2009.

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

James E. Rivera,

Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-16404 Filed 7-10-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection
with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of Velocity Portfolio Group,
Inc. for the period ended December 31, 2008, I, John C. Kleinert, President and
Chief Executive Officer, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. Such Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008, 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2008, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Velocity Portfolio Group, Inc.

Dated: April
22, 2009

| |                                        
| | ---------------------------------------
| | /s/ John C.
  Kleinert                 
| |                                        
| | John C.
  Kleinert                     
| | President
  and Chief Executive Officer

---
#### KERTING et al. v. RIDDLE et al.

Civ. A. No. 26546.

United States District Court N. D. Ohio, E. D.

Dec. 13, 1949.

James P. McArdle, Pittsburgh, Pa., Miller & Hornbeck, Cleveland, Ohio, for plaintiff.

Paul Clarke, Conners & Clarke, Cleveland, Ohio, for defendant.

JONES, Chief Judge.

This is an action for personal injury arising out of a collision between an automobile in which plaintiffs were riding and an automobile owned by one defendant and driven by the other defendant’s husband.

A motion to strike has been entered by defendants which asks that the clause in Paragraph 5(j) of the complaint which states “in otherwise failing to exercise due care and caution under the circumstances,” be stricken from the complaint as too indefinite and general to require an answer.

No brief in opposition to this motion has been filed by plaintiffs.

Ordinarily motions to strike are not favored. However, since plaintiffs raise no opposition to this motion and since there is some authority to sustain a motion to strike taken on these grounds, United States v. General Motors Corp., D.C., 2 F.R.D. 346, the motion will be sustained.
EXHIBIT 32.1

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 on Form 10-Q of ZZLL Information Technology Inc. (the Company) for the period ended March 31, 2019, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned do 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 best of knowledge and belief:



(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 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.



Date: May 20,  2019

By :

/s/Sean Webster



Sean Webster



Chief Executive Officer and



Chief Financial Officer





-40-
Exhibit 32.1

STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350

The undersigned, Michael J. Thorell is the acting President and Chief Executive Officer of Silver State Bancorp (the
Company).

This statement is being furnished in connection with the filing by the Company of the Companys Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 (the Report).

By execution of this statement, I certify that:



| | (A) | 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. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (B) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the
periods covered by the Report.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                |  |                          
|--------------- |  | -------------------------
|August 14, 2008 |  | /s/    Michael J. Thorell
|Dated           |  | Michael J. Thorell
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.15

                                             [AIRSPAN LOGO APPEARS HERE]

                                             AirSpan Networks Inc.

                                             13450 West Sunrise Blvd., Suite 430
                                             Sunrise Florida 33323, USA

                                             Tel: 001 954 851 1660
                                             Fax: 001 954 851 1661
                                             http://www.airspan.com

22 August 2002

Private and Confidential

Peter Aronstam
Chief Financial Officer
Airspan Networks Inc.


Dear Peter

Following your discussions with Eric Stonestrom, I would like to confirm the
following changes to your contract of employment:

Salary

Effective from 1 October 2002 your base salary will be reduced to $200,000 per
annum. Your next salary review will take place on 1 April 2003.

Sales Bonus

For Q4/02 and Q1/03 if we reach $2M on America's booked quarterly revenues, you
will be paid a bonus of $20,000 for each quarter that we achieve this revenue.
This bonus will be payable 15 days after the filing of the 10Q. After this
period the revenue target will be reviewed and agreed by the 15th day of each
subsequent quarter.

This sales bonus will be in addition to any other bonus scheme implemented for
company officers. Any other bonus scheme will take trailing 12 months salary +
sales bonus as the reference level.

Employment Security

With reference to Paragraph 5, Employment Security of your original contract of
employment, any severance pay would be calculated on either your current 12
month trailing salary + sales bonus or your base salary at the start of your
employment, whichever is the greater.

<PAGE>

All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

Yours sincerely,

/s/ Barbara Sheard
--------------------------
Barbara Sheard
Director, Human Resources



I acknowledge receipt of the original copy of the above letter and confirm that
I accept this change to my employment contract.


Signed:       Peter Aronstam            Date:   September 30, 2002
        ---------------------------           ----------------------
             (Peter Aronstam)

  Please sign both copies of this letter and return one to Human Resources at
                                    Uxbridge