alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-99.3
       CONFIRMATION OF PROVISIONAL PATENT APPLICATION

             UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE


Bryan Haddox
10260 Washington St. #1818
Thornton, CO 80229

Receipt is acknowledged of this provisional Patent Application. It
will not be examined for patentability and will become abandoned not
later than twelve months after its filing date.  Be sure to provide
the US. APPLICATION NUMBER, FILING DATE, NAME OF APPLICANT, and TITLE
OF INVENTION when inquiring about this application.  Fees transmitted
by check or draft are subject to collection.  Please verify the
accuracy of the data presented on this receipt.  If an error is noted
on this Filing Receipt, please write to the Office of Initial Patent
Examination's Filing Receipt Corrections, facsimile number 703-
746~9195.  Please provide a copy of this Filing Receipt with the
changes noted thereon.  If you received a "Notice to File Missing
Parts" for this application, please submit any corrections to this
Filing Receipt with your reply to the Notice.  When the USPTO
processes the reply to the Notice, the USPTO will generate another
Filing Receipt incorporating the requested corrections (if appropriate).

Applicant(s)

Bryan W. Haddox, Thornton, CO.
Roy F. Bishop, Lafayette, CO.

Power of Attorney: None

If Required, Foreign Filing License Granted: 09/02/2004

The number of your priority application, to be used for filing abroad
under the Paris Convention is: US60/530,705

Projected Publication Date: None.  Application is not eligible for
pre-grant publication.

Non-Publication Request: No

Early Publication Request: No
Exhibit 31.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



CERTIFICATION



I, Sushil Dhiman, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this report on Form 10K/A of SMTC Corporation;
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Date: April 28, 2014



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Sushil Dhiman                    
|Sushil Dhiman                        
|                                     
|President and Chief Executive Officer
Case 3:10-cr-00571-PGS Document 27 Filed 02/25/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 68
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         989,625
<SECURITIES>                                   557,727
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,079,625
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    706,459
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       9,441,364
<DEPRECIATION>                               7,625,487
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,298,605
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,207,762
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        5,736,124
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           714
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,298,605
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,314,377
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,525,435
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              96,880
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,279,686)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,279,686)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.21)


</TABLE>
Table 21. Average weekly hours at work in all industries and in 

nonagricultural industries by sex, 1976-2007 annual averages 

All industries Nonagricultural industries

Total Women Men Total Women Men

1976....... 38.7 34.1 41.7 38.4 34.1 41.4

1977....... 38.8 34.2 41.9 38.5 34.2 41.6

1978 1

...... 39.0 34.5 42.1 38.7 34.4 41.8

1979......... 38.9 34.5 42.0 38.6 34.4 41.7

1980....... 38.5 34.5 41.5 38.3 34.4 41.2

1981....... 38.1 34.1 41.1 37.9 34.1 40.7

1982......... 38.0 34.1 40.9 37.7 34.0 40.6

1983....... 38.3 34.5 41.2 38.1 34.4 41.0

1984......... 38.8 34.9 41.8 38.6 34.9 41.5

1985......... 39.0 35.2 42.0 38.9 35.2 41.8

1986 1...... 39.1 35.4 42.1 38.9 35.3 41.9

1987....... 39.0 35.3 42.0 38.8 35.3 41.8

1988....... 39.4 35.7 42.4 39.3 35.7 42.2

1989......... 39.6 35.8 42.6 39.4 35.8 42.4

1990 1

...... 39.4 35.8 42.3 39.3 35.8 42.1

1991......... 39.2 35.8 42.0 39.1 35.8 41.9

1992....... 38.9 35.6 41.7 38.8 35.6 41.6

1993......... 39.4 36.0 42.2 39.3 36.0 42.1

1994 1...... 39.2 35.5 42.2 39.1 35.6 42.1

1995....... 39.3 35.6 42.3 39.2 35.7 42.2

1996......... 39.3 35.7 42.3 39.2 35.7 42.2

1997 1...... 39.5 36.0 42.4 39.4 36.0 42.3

1998 1...... 39.3 35.8 42.2 39.2 35.9 42.2

1999 1

...... 39.6 36.2 42.4 39.5 36.2 42.4

2000 1

...... 39.7 36.4 42.5 39.6 36.4 42.4

2001......... 39.2 36.1 41.9 39.2 36.1 41.8

2002....... 39.2 36.0 41.8 39.1 36.1 41.7

2003 1

...... 39.0 35.9 41.7 39.0 35.9 41.6

2004....... 39.0 35.9 41.7 39.0 35.9 41.6

2005....... 39.2 36.1 41.8 39.1 36.1 41.7

2006......... 39.2 36.2 41.8 39.2 36.2 41.7

2007......... 39.2 36.1 41.7 39.1 36.1 41.6

 

Year

1 The comparability of historical data has been affected at various times by

methodological and conceptual changes in the Current Population Survey

(CPS). For an explanation, see the Historical Comparability documentation

provided at http://www.bls.gov/cps/eetech_methods.pdf.

SOURCE: Current Population Survey, U.S. Department of Labor, U.S. Bureau

of Labor Statistics. 

73
Dionisio G. Torres d/b/a

Torres Design & Construction,

Torres Design & Construction,

Inc., and Torres

ConstructionAppellant/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 20, 2014

No. 04-12-00522-CV

Dionisio G. TORRES d/b/a Torres Design & Construction, Torres Design & Construction, Inc.,

and Torres Construction,

Appellants

v.

Leticia HAYNES,

Appellee

From the 49th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011CVF001094-D1

Honorable Jose A. Lopez, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

The appellant’s “Motion for Leave to File Motion for Sanctions and A Reply to

Appellee’s Response” is GRANTED. The appellant’s motion for sanctions is DENIED.

lec

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

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

court on this 20th day of February, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court

FILE COPY
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KELIIHULUHULU, AKA Alfred 

Napahuelua Spinney, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

ELIZABETH ANN STRANCE; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-16515 

D.C. No. 1:16-cv-00240-DKWRLP 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Hawaii

Derrick Kahala Watson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 24, 2017**

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON,

Circuit Judges.

Keliihuluhulu, a.k.a. Alfred Napahuelua Spinney, appeals pro se from the 

district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various 

federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUN 5 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-16515 

review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with a court 

order. Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004). We 

affirm.

Because the record shows that Keliihuluhulu stood on his complaint, the 

district court abused its discretion in converting its dismissal with leave to amend 

into a sanction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failing to comply 

with a court order. See Edwards, 356 F.3d at 1064-65 (dismissal under Rule 41(b) 

is not appropriate where the plaintiff makes an affirmative choice not to amend the 

complaint).

Nevertheless, the district court properly dismissed Keliihuluhulu’s action as 

barred by judicial immunity. See Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1133 

(9th Cir. 2001) (judges are generally immune from suit for money damages). 

Because we affirm on the basis of judicial immunity, we do not consider

Keliihuluhulu’s contention regarding the district court’s application of the RookerFeldman doctrine.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Keliihuluhulu leave 

to amend his claims to the extent that they were barred by judicial immunity 

because amendment would have been futile. See Reddy v. Litton Indus., Inc., 912 

F.2d 291, 296 (9th Cir. 1990) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that 

leave to amend can be denied where amendment would be futile).
3 16-16515 

We reject as without merit Keliihuluhulu’s contentions that he is not subject 

to the laws of the United States or the state of Hawaii.

We do not consider the supplemental evidence that Keliihuluhulu has filed 

because the submitted evidence was submitted for the first time on appeal.

AFFIRMED.
NOTE: Earnings are median usual weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers. 

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Chart 5-8. Women's earnings have increased substantially as 

a percent of men's

60

65

70

75

80

85

1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003

Women's earnings as a percent of men's

Chart 5-8. Women's earnings have increased substantially as 

a percent of men's

• The ratio of women's to men's earnings, at 81 percent in 2005, has risen sharply 

since 1979, when it stood at about 63 percent.

• In 2005, black women earned 89 percent of what black men did; among 

Hispanics, the earnings ratio was 88 percent. In contrast, white women’s 

earnings were 80 percent of white men’s and Asian women’s earnings were 81 

percent of Asian men’s.

• This simple comparison of earnings for men and women who worked full time 

does not control for many factors that can be significant in explaining earnings 

differences, such as educational attainment, occupation, hours of work, job 

tenure, and other factors.
## State of N ew York Su p reme Cou rt, A p p ellate Division Third J u dicial Dep artment Decided and Entered: November 13, 2014 517928

________________________________ In the Matter of MARTIN SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT BRIAN FISCHER, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

________________________________ Calendar Date: September 16, 2014 Before: Lahtinen, J.P., Garry, Rose, Lynch and Clark, JJ.

__________ Martin Sanchez, Coxsackie, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Martin A. Hotvet of counsel), for respondent.

__________ Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules. Determination confirmed. No opinion. Lahtinen, J.P., Garry, Rose, Lynch and Clark, JJ., concur.-2- 517928

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
----

**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 Annual Report of WiFiMed Holdings Company, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

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

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

| Date:  April 15, 2007 | By:          */s/Jeffrey Simon                   * |
|----------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                       | Name:     Jeffrey Simon                                                                                                                                                    |
|                       | Title:       Chief Executive Officer                                                                                                                             |

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to United Companies Corporation and will be retained by United Companies Corporation and furnished to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 72 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 72

  To prohibit a State from imposing a discriminatory commuter tax on 
                 nonresidents, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 7, 2003

    Mr. Frelinghuysen (for himself, Mr. Ferguson, Mr. Holt, and Mr. 
   Pallone) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To prohibit a State from imposing a discriminatory commuter tax on 
                 nonresidents, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON IMPOSING DISCRIMINATORY COMMUTER TAX ON 
              NONRESIDENTS.

    (a) Prohibition.--A State may not impose a tax on the income earned 
in the State by nonresidents unless the tax is of substantial equality 
of treatment for the citizens of the State and the nonresidents so 
commuting.
    (b) State.--For purposes of subsection (a), the term ``State'' 
includes the District of Columbia and any political subdivision of a 
State.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.0

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Veraz Networks, Inc. (the
Company) for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 (the Report) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of
Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. §1350).

Douglas A. Sabella, the Chief Executive Officer, and
Albert J. Wood, the Chief Financial Officer of Veraz Networks, Inc., each hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:

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

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

IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the undersigned have set their hands hereto as of the 16th day of August, 2010.



|                      |  |  |  |        |  |                                                   
|--------------------- |  |  |  | ------ |  | --------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 16, 2010 |  |  |  | By:    |  | /s/ Douglas A. Sabella                            
|                      |  |  |  | Name:  |  | Douglas A. Sabella                                
|                      |  |  |  | Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer                           
|                      |  |  |  |        |  | (Principal Executive Officer)                     
|                      |  |  | 
|                      |  |  |  | By:    |  | /s/ Albert J. Wood                                
|                      |  |  |  | Name:  |  | Albert J. Wood                                    
|                      |  |  |  | Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer                           
|                      |  |  |  |        |  | (Principal Financial and Chief Accounting Officer)

This
certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Veraz Networks, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
Exhibit 99.1


                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 filing of Rushmore  Financial  Group,  Inc., and
Subsidiaries  ("the  Company")  Quarterly  Report on Form  10-QSB for the period
ending June 30, 2002 with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date
hereof ("the Report"),  I, Dewey M. Moore,  Jr., Chief Executive  Officer of the
Company,  certify,  pursuant to the 18 U.S.C.  (SS) 1350, as adapted 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 Act of 1934;
                           and

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



/s/ Dewey M. Moore, Jr.
-----------------------
Dewey M. Moore, Jr.
Chief Executive Officer


August 19, 2002
EXHIBIT 32.2


                  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) and
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


     In  connection  with the filing by  Rushmore  Financial  Group,  Inc.  (the
"Company") of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30,
2003 (the "Report"), I, Randy Rutledge,  Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
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)
               and 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
               operation of the Company.




                                               /s/ Randy Rutledge
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Randy Rutledge
                                               Chief Financial Officer


Dated:  November 14, 2003











                                       30
Affirmed and Memo randum Opinion filed November 29 , 2011

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 1 0

- 00 668

- CR NO. 14

- 10

- 00669

- CR

____________ WILLIAM DAVID GOLDEN , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 176th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . 1165978 & 1165979



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

After a bench trial, appellant was convicted of the offens e s of possession of cocain e , and possession of heroin , and sentenced to 25 years’ confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice

. Appellant appealed to this court.2

On July 7, 2011 , this court ordered a hearing to determine why appellant had not
filed a brief in these appeal s . On August 2, 2011 , the trial court conducted the hearing. The record of the hearing was filed in this court on August 19, 2011

. The trial court found appell ant is indigent and wants to represent himself. The trial court warned appellant of the dangers of representing himself, but appellant declined appointed counsel

. Appellant requested
, and this court granted
, extensions of time for appellant to file his br ief. Still, appellant failed to file a brief in this court. On the basis of the trial court’s findings, this court has considered the appeal s without brief s

. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b).

We find no fundamental error.
Accordingly, the judgment s of the trial court are affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Frost, Seymore, and Jamison

. Do Not Publish

C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).