alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR.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. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-11116 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. ERIC DEVON MATHIS Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:07-CR-117-ALL Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Eric Devon Mathis has moved for leave towithdrawand has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Mathis has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Mathis’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; such clai ms generally “cannot be resolved on direct appeal when [they have] not been raised before the district court since no United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D August 20, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-11116

2 opportunity existed to develop the record on the merits of the allegations.” United Statesv. Cantwell , 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir. 2006)(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Our independent review of the record, counsel’s brief , and Mathis’s response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Acc ordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR. R. 42.2.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 888 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 888

To authorize the disinterment from the Luxembourg American Cemetery and 
  Memorial in Luxembourg of the remains of Private Ray A. Morgan, who 
   died in combat in January 1945 in the Battle of the Bulge, and to 
  authorize the transfer of his remains to the custody of his next of 
                                  kin.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 25, 2003

   Mr. Johnson of Illinois introduced the following bill; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the disinterment from the Luxembourg American Cemetery and 
  Memorial in Luxembourg of the remains of Private Ray A. Morgan, who 
   died in combat in January 1945 in the Battle of the Bulge, and to 
  authorize the transfer of his remains to the custody of his next of 
                                  kin.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF DISINTERMENT AND TRANSFER OF CUSTODY.

    (a) Disinterment.--The Secretary of the Army and the American 
Battle Monuments Commission shall take such steps as are necessary to 
authorize Robert Morgan of Paris, Illinois, the next of kin of the late 
Ray A. Morgan, to disinter from the Luxembourg American Cemetery and 
Memorial in Luxembourg the remains of Ray A. Morgan, located in Plot H, 
Row 12, Grave 76, who died in the Battle of the Bulge on January 18, 
1945, while a private serving in the 83rd Reconnaissance Battalion, 3rd 
Armored Division, United States Army.
    (b) Transfer of Custody.--The Secretary of the Army and the 
American Battle Monuments Commission shall take such steps as are 
necessary to authorize the transfer of the remains of Ray A. Morgan to 
the custody of Robert Morgan.
    (c) Transfer of Authority.--In the event of the incapacitation or 
death of Robert Morgan, the subsequent next of kin of Ray A. Morgan may 
carry out the disinterment and receive custody of the remains of Ray A. 
Morgan, as authorized by this section.
    (d) No Expenditure of Federal Funds.-- No Federal funds may be 
expended for the disinterment and transfer of custody authorized by 
this section.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 99.1
                                                                 ------------

                                 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 Synaptic  Pharmaceutical  Corporation,  a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"),  does hereby certify, to such officer's  knowledge,
that:

     The Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2002
(the "Form 10-Q") 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.


November 14, 2002                          /s/ Kathleen P. Mullinix
                                           -----------------------------------
                                           Name: Kathleen P. Mullinix
                                           Title: President and
                                                   Chief Executive Officer

November 14, 2002                          /s/ Edmund M. Caviasco
                                           -----------------------------------
                                           Name: Edmund M. Caviasco
                                           Title: Controller and
                                                   Principal Accounting Officer

     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).
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Matritech, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with the SEC on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard A. Sandberg, Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Matritech, Inc. and will be retained by Matritech, Inc. and
furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.

/s/ Richard A. Sandberg

Richard A. Sandberg
Chief Financial Officer
November 13, 2003
# 19SUMM2_13

# image1.png
[908 NYS2d 802]

#### Neil E. Hirschfeld, Respondent, v Ivette De La Cruz, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

August 9, 2010

*24APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Ivette De La Cruz,*appellant pro se. *Neil E. Hirschfeld,*respondent pro se.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Order, entered February 5, 2009, reversed, without costs, and the complaint dismissed without prejudice to an application by plaintiff for legal fees in Surrogate’s Court, New York County.

Plaintiff, an attorney, was retained by defendant to perform certain legal work in a proceeding in Surrogate’s Court, New York County. During plaintiffs final appearance on the matter, the Surrogate, on the record, directed plaintiff to make an application to the Surrogate if plaintiff wished to recover any additional legal fees from defendant for work plaintiff performed on the Surrogate’s Court matter. Rather than comply with this directive (or seek to appeal from or move to vacate it), plaintiff commenced an action in Civil Court to recover legal fees for work he performed in the Surrogate’s Court matter. Defendant notified Civil Court of the Surrogate’s directive that plaintiff make any application for additional legal fees to Surrogate’s Court, but Civil Court nevertheless adjudicated plaintiff’s claims, finding that defendant was liable for certain legal fees.

The Surrogate has jurisdiction to “fix and determine” the amount of attorneys’ fees for “services rendered [in a Surrogate’s Court matter] to a . . . devisee, legatee, distributee or any person interested” in the administration of an estate (SCPA 2110 [1]; *see Leder v Spiegel,*31 AD3d 266 [2006], *affd*9 NY3d 836 [2007], *cert denied*552 US 1257 [2008]), and the Surrogate here acted pursuant to that authority. In light of both the undisturbed Surrogate’s Court directive and the reality that the Surrogate is in the best position to determine the amount of compensation to which an attorney is entitled for work performed in Surrogate’s Court *(see Matter of Tarka,*293 AD2d 396 [2002]; *Rosenman & Colin v Winston,*205 AD2d 451 [1994]), the order on appeal cannot stand. Nor should we sanction plaintiff’s course of action, since to do so would encourage forum shopping and obstruct the orderly administration of justice *(see Matter of Tabler,*55 AD2d 207, 210 [1976]). Thus, we reverse and dismiss the complaint *25without prejudice to an application before Surrogate’s Court, New York County, for the legal fees sought herein.

McKeon, EJ., and Hunter, Jr., J., concur.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.19

                               INDEMNITY AGREEMENT

         This AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") made this 28th day of September, 2000,
by and between Rushmore Securities Corporation, a Texas corporation (hereinafter
called "Rushmore"), Pioneer Futures, Inc., a New York corporation (hereinafter,
"Pioneer"), Andover Brokerage LLC, a New York limited liability company
(hereinafter, "Andover"), Vincent Viola, an individual, and Michael Picozzi III,
an individual.

         WHEREAS, Rushmore and MV Technologies, LLC (hereinafter "MV
Technologies") have entered into that certain Software Assignment and License
Agreement of even date herewith (hereinafter "Software Assignment"); and

         WHEREAS, as an inducement to entering into that Software Assignment,
Rushmore desires certain indemnities related to that Software Assignment; and

         WHEREAS, Mr. Viola and Mr. Picozzi III are principals in MV
Technologies, Andover and/or Pioneer; and

         WHEREAS, Andover and Pioneer derive a benefit from the Software
Assignment because of business relationships with MV Technologies.

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and other good and
valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby
acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:

         1. Indemnification. Pioneer, Andover, Vincent Viola, and Michael
Picozzi III fully indemnify and hold harmless Rushmore for any cause of action
or litigation, including attorneys' fees and damages, from Blackwood Securities
LLC, Blackwood Trading LLC, or any other third party regarding the transfer of
ownership in the Work (as such term is defined in the Software Agreement) from
Rushmore to MV Technologies or from any transfer of rights from Rushmore to
Mercury Securities LLC. Rushmore shall promptly notify such parties upon its
receipt of any notice of any such cause of action or litigation.

         2. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more original
or facsimile counterparts.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF and intended to be legally bound by, the parties
have hereunder set their hands, the day and year first written above.

                             /s/ RUSHMORE SECURITIES CORPORATION

                             /s/ PIONEER FUTURES, INC.

                             /s/ ANDOVER BROKERAGE LLC

                             /s/ VINCENT VIOLA

                             /s/ MICHAEL PICOZZI III
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 13.2



                           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 Annual Report of PetroChina Company Limited (the
"Company") on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Wang Guoliang, hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge:

          1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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: June 28, 2004

                                          /s/ Wang Guoliang
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Name:  Wang Guoliang
                                          Title: Chief Financial Officer
IIB 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 925

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 11, 2003

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT

To redesignate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1859 South Ashland Avenue in Chicago, 

Illinois, as the ‘‘Cesar Chavez Post Office’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 925 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION. 

2 The facility of the United States Postal Service lo3 cated at 1859 South Ashland Avenue in Chicago, Illinois, 

4 and known as the Pilsen Post Office, shall be known and 

5 designated as the ‘‘Cesar Chavez Post Office’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

9 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference 

10 to the ‘‘Cesar Chavez Post Office’’.

Passed the House of Representatives June 10, 2003. 

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk.
CERTIFICATION





I, Andrew D. Hyder, certify that:





1.         I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Subjex Corporation(the “Registrant”);





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;





3.         Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;





4.I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) 15d-15(e)) and internal controls over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the Registrant and have:





(a)    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Registrant is made known to me by others, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;





(b)    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under my supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;





(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and





(d)    Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the Registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and





5.     I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and the Registrant’s board of directors:





(a)         All significant deficiencies and material weaknessesin the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and





(b)    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.











Date: April 27, 2010
By:
/s/ Andrew D. HyderAndrew D. HyderPresident & Chief Executive Officer
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 Annual Report of Public Media Works, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending February 28, 2010 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, 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 his 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 10, 2010 |  | /s/ Mark Smith                     
|                   |  | Mark Smith, Chief Financial
Officer
|                   |  | (Principal Accounting Officer)
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS UNDER SECTION 906

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 Orchid Cellmark Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), does hereby
certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

The Annual Report for the year ended December 31, 2010 (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.



|                      |  |                                                                                                       
|--------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: March 15, 2011 |  | /S/    THOMAS A.
BOLOGNA                                                                              
|                      |  | Thomas A. Bologna President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive
Officer)                 
|                      | 
|Dated: March 15, 2011 |  | /S/     JAMES F.
SMITH                                                                                
|                      |  | James F. Smith Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and
Accounting Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND THE 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 Annual Report of iPCS, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|/s/TIMOTHY M. YAGERTimothy M. Yager, President and Chief Executive Officer                                |  | 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/STEBBINS B. CHANDOR, JR.Stebbins B. Chandor, Jr., Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer |  | 

---



QuickLinks
#### Carl edward WILEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gregory A. NEWMAN, Individually and in their Official Capacity; Nathan C. Ramsey, Individually and in their Official Capacity, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 12-7477.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 20, 2012.

Decided: Dec. 27, 2012.

Carl Edward Wiley, Appellant Pro Se.

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Carl Edward Wiley appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Wiley’s motion to schedule oral argument and affirm the ap*313peal for the reasons stated by the district court. *Wiley v. Newman,*2012 WL 3202935 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 6, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*