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 Digerati Technologies,
Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 31 2012 (the “Report”), I, Arthur Smith,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby 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), as applicable, 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: December 24, 2012 | /s/ Arthur Smith                                             
|----------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------
|                        | Arthur Smith                                                 
|                        | Chief Executive Officer
        (Principal Executive Officer)



A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed from within the
electronic version of this written statement 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

             CERTIFICATION OF PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                         PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In  connection  with  the  Quarterly Report of ATSI Communications, Inc. on Form
10-QA/2  for  the period ending April 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof, I, Arthur L. Smith, President and Chief
Executive  Officer  of  the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C, ss. 1350, as
adopted  pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that,

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

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

By /s/ Arthur L. Smith
Arthur L. Smith
President and
Chief Executive Officer
March 1, 2004


<PAGE>
Employment Agreement - Harold M. Messmer, Jr.



 Exhibit 10.2 
 Seventeenth Amendment to Employment Agreement 
 This Seventeenth Amendment
to Employment Agreement (the “Amendment”) is made and entered into as of February 9, 2011, by and between Robert Half International Inc. (formerly Boothe Financial Corporation), a Delaware corporation, (“Corporation”) and
Harold M. Messmer, Jr. (the “Officer”). 
 WHEREAS, Corporation and Officer have entered into an employment agreement,
dated as of October 2, 1985, which has been amended previously (the “Employment Agreement”). 
 WHEREAS,
Corporation and Officer also wish to make certain amendments to the Employment Agreement. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Corporation and
Officer agree that the Employment Agreement is further amended as follows: 
 1. Section 2.1(d) of the Employment Agreement is hereby
amended by deleting “July 29, 2008, (‘Option Plan’)” and inserting “the date hereof and as such plan may be subsequently amended” in its place. 
 2. Section 4.5 of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended by deleting “or by virtue of Officer’s exercise of a Limited Right under the Option Plan upon a Change in Control.”

 3. In all other respects, the Employment Agreement as previously amended is hereby ratified and confirmed and shall remain in full force and
effect. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Corporation and Officer hereto have executed this Amendment effective as of the date first
written above. 
  

									
	ROBERT HALF INTERNATIONAL INC.	 		 	HAROLD M. MESSMER, JR.
				
	By:	 	 	 		 	  

		 	M. Keith Waddell	 		 		 	
		 	Vice Chairman and President
### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCUIT

No. 12-30089 Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. HECTOR BARRAGAN-ESPINO, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 5:08-CR-121-1
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender ap p o i nted to represent Hector BarraganEspino has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Barragan-Espino has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well

as Barragan-Espino’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Janu ary25 , 20 13 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 , the court hasd ete rm inedthat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 12-30089 Document: 00512124352 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/25/2013No. 12-30089

counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, c o u nsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, Barragan-Espino’s motion for a p p o i ntment of substitute counsel is DENIED, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 T H C I R
. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 12-30089 Document: 00512124352 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/25/2013
#### Brown, Executor of Lambert, *against*Lambert.

A&ninistva801' tors, plaintiffs,. on ajuagment, as in case of proceeding to trial, must pay costs.

JUDGMENT as in case *of nonsuit,*having been obtained agajnst the plaintiff, for not proceeding to the trial of this ° **■ ' x*° cause, at the *West Chester*circuit, pursuant to notice, the defendant had the costs taxed.

*Silliman,*for the plaintiff, now moved to set aside the taxation, on the ground, that the plaintiff, being an *executor,*was not liable for the costs. He cited 23 *Hen.*VIII. ch. 15. s. 1. 4 *Jac.*I. c. 3. 14 *Geo.*II. c. 22. *Toilers L. of Exec.*439. 441. *TiddPs Pr.*628. *Barnes,*119. 1 *Johns. Cases,*102. 2 *Johns. Cases,*209. 8 *Johns. Rep.*379. 3 *Johns. Rep.*249. 1 JV. *R. L.*344. 521.

*J.*Smith, contra.

*Per Curiam.*

An executor or administrator, on a judgment of *nonpros,*must pay costs; (4 *Johns. Rep.*190.;) and we have put a judgment *as in case of nonsuit*against executors, for not proceeding to trial, on the same footing. Executors or administrators must pay costs in the one case, ' as well as in the other. The affidavits offered, to show the excuse of the plaintiff, for not proceeding to trial, cannot be received on this motion.

Motion denied, with costs.
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before

publication in the New York Reports.

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

No. 100 

The People &c.,

 Respondent,

 v.

Ross Campbell, 

 Appellant.

Abigail Everett, for appellant.

Ramandeep Singh, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM:

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Under both federal and state constitutional standards,

defendant "bears the burden of establishing his claim[s] that

counsel's performance is constitutionally deficient" (People v

Nicholson, 26 NY3d 813, 831 [2016]). Defendant "must demonstrate

- 1 -
- 2 - No. 100 

the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations for

counsel's alleged failure" (id.). On this record, defendant has

not met that burden.

Defendant presents ineffective assistance of counsel

claims that are "of the type where 'it . . . [is] essential[]

that an appellate attack on the effectiveness of counsel be

bottomed on an evidentiary exploration by collateral or postconviction proceeding brought under CPL 440.10'" (People v

Henderson, 28 NY3d 63, 66 [2016], quoting People v Brown, 45 NY2d

852, 854 [1978]). 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Order affirmed, in a memorandum. Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges

Rivera, Stein, Fahey, Garcia, Wilson and Feinman concur.

Decided October 12, 2017

- 2 -
#### Atlantic Giant Powder Co. *v.*Dittmar Powder Manuf’g Co. and others.

*(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.*

September 27, 1881.)

1. Injunction — Contempt of Court.

Disobedience to an injunction is none the less a contempt of court because the act is done in good faith, as not prohibited by the order, or under advice to that effect.

2. Clukodine.

Grlukodine is a mechanical mixture, not a new chemical compound

*Gifford & Gifford,*for plaintiff.

*Lexon é Huldane,*for defendants.

Blatchford, C. J.

This is a motion for an attachment against the defendants, the Dittmar Powder Manufacturing Company and Carl Dittmar, for violating the preliminary injunction issued and served herein, by making and selling a blasting powder called “glukodine powder.” I am of the opinion, from the testimony, that what the defendants call glukodine is a compound made by a mechanical *317mixture of nitro-glycerine with nitro-saccharose, (or nitrated sugar,) and is not a new chemical compound; that the constituent nitroglycerine is shown to be separable, as such, from the constituent nitro-saccharose; and that the nitro-glycerine used is so combined with absorbents of it as to make a dry powder, safe to handle, transport, and use. The nitro-glycerine is so availed of as to produce practically the same effect as if it were not mixed with any nitrosaccharose. It is the explosive element in the powder. It is combined with a solid absorbent substance, “whereby,” in the language of the specification of No. 5,799, “the condition of the nitro-glycerine is so modified as to render the resulting explosive compound more practically useful and effective as an explosive, and far more safe and convenient for handling, storage, and transportation, than nitro-glycerine in its ordinary condition as a liquid.” The absorbent substance is, in the language of said specification, “free from any quality which will cause it to decompose, destroy, or injure the nitro-glycerine,” and the absorbent absorbs and retains “a sufficient amount of nitro-glycerine to form an efficient explosive.” The matter seems to be so free from doubt as not to fall within the cases where a new suit has been required to reach the article complained of. The absorbent is, in its use, an equivalent of the absorbent of the patent, and I see no doubt on the question of infringement. Disobedience to an injunction is a contempt of court. Rev. St. § 725. The injunction in this case forbade the making, using, or selling certain powders described in it, and any powder substantially like any of said designated powders, and any infringement of said patent. What the defendants did they did not do accidentally or unintentionally, but knowing fully what they did. They were, therefore, guilty of contempt. What they did is not the less legally a contempt boeause they did not think they were infringing, or were advised that they were not. Any question of *animus*can bear only on the extent of punishment. The patent is still in life. *De Florez*v. *Raynolds,*17 Blatchf. 436.

The powders now passed upon are those known as No. 2, No. 3, No. 4, and No. 5. As to them an attachment must be issued.
NOTE : This order is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ DIANE MIDYETT, substituted for F. Allan Midyett, Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent

______________________
2023

- 1268

______________________ Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in No. DA

- 3330

- 15

- 0309

- I

- 1

.

______________________ O R D E R

The petitioner having failed to file a motion to substitute pursuant to the court’s January 23, 2024 order, it is Case: 23-1268 Document: 56 Page: 1 Filed: 04/09/2024ORDERED that the petition for review be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in accordance with the rules and pursuant to the court’s January 23, 2024 order

.

FOR THE COURT

April 9, 2024 Da te

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: April 9, 2024 Case: 23-1268 Document: 56 Page: 2 Filed: 04/09/2024
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                        
<ARTICLE>                     5
                                                    
<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                      JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                        MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                              1,177,227
<SECURITIES>                          125,550
<RECEIVABLES>                       3,321,006
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                         3,469,110
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    9,181,078
<PP&E>                              2,140,265
<DEPRECIATION>                      1,192,754
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     20,095,542
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               5,288,132
<BONDS>                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                           298,534
<COMMON>                               37,782
<OTHER-SE>                          4,790,247
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       20,095,542
<SALES>                             1,996,589
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    1,996,589
<CGS>                               1,355,537
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         756,086
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      6,639
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       (79,786)
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   (79,786)
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                          (79,786)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                           (0.03)
        
 

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

KEVIN JONES, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 403 MAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 22nd day of December, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal is DENIED.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, September 14, 2018.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, September 14, 2018

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A18A1372. SLF IV, - GA SINCLAIR, LLC v. PATRICK DUNCAN et al..

Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW 

THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion is hereby GRANTED.
### The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, Chief Judge, United State s 1 

### District Court for the District of Minnesota. _____________ No. 95-3686

_____________ Curtis Minter, Jr., * *

Plaintiff-Appellant, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * District of Minnesota. * Ford Motor Company, * [UNPUBLISHED] *

Defendant-Appellee. *

_____________ Submitted: June 12, 1996 Filed: June 19, 1996

_____________ Before LOKEN, JOHN R. GIBSON, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM. Curtis Minter, Jr. filed this action alleging claims of employmen t disability discrimination, in violation of the A mericans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 121 01-12213; and retaliation, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3. The dist rict court granted summary judgment to Ford Motor Company , 1 concluding that all of Minter's claims fail as a matter of law and that no genuine issues of material fact exist. Minter appeals. We have carefully reviewed the recor d and the arguments presented on appeal. We find no e rror of law in the district court's grant of summary judgment to Ford Motor Company, and an

### 2

opinion would have no precedential value. Accordingly, we affirm th e judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
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 Charles & Colvard, Ltd. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, James R. Braun, Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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/ James R. Braun                                   
|James R. Braun                                       
|Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer
|August 8, 2008
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 of BioScrip, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard M. Smith, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 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: November 8, 2012








/s/ Richard M. Smith


Richard M. Smith, President, Chief Executive Officer


and Principal Executive Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0513

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

TERRANCE ANTHONY ROBERTS,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including January 20, 2023, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 14 2022

11/14/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0513
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2509 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2509

To improve upon certain provisions of the Truth in Lending Act related 
  to the compensation of mortgage originators, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 13, 2011

 Mr. Gary G. Miller of California introduced the following bill; which 
          was referred to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To improve upon certain provisions of the Truth in Lending Act related 
  to the compensation of mortgage originators, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Preserving Consumers' Mortgage 
Origination Choices Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. COMPENSATION OF MORTGAGE ORIGINATORS BY MORTGAGE BROKERS.

    Subsection (c)(4) of section 129B of the Truth in Lending Act (as 
added by Public Law 111-203) is amended by adding at the end the 
following new subparagraph:
                    ``(E) prohibiting a mortgage broker from 
                compensating a mortgage originator based on the 
                principal amount of the loan, when compensation is paid 
                directly or indirectly to the mortgage broker by the 
                consumer in connection with such transaction.''.

SEC. 3. LIMITED REDUCTION IN MORTGAGE ORIGINATOR COMPENSATION.

    Section 129B of such Act is amended--
            (1) by redesigning subsections (d), (e), and (f) as 
        subsections (e), (f), and (g), respectively; and
            (2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following new 
        subsection:
    ``(d) Limited Reduction in Mortgage Originator Compensation.--When 
producing a mortgage, a mortgage originator, when requested by a 
borrower, may forfeit or contribute toward bona fide third party 
expenses or origination fees no more than 30 percent of earned 
compensation to avoid making a high-cost mortgage to a consumer, to 
make technical corrections, or for any other reason that results in a 
lower cost to the consumer than if such forfeiture or contribution did 
not take place.''.
                                 <all>
```
November 16, 2017



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

IN THE INTEREST OF B .F., P.M.F. AKA P.F. , CHILDREN
NO. 14

- 17

- 00421

- CV

________________________________ This cause, an appeal from a judgment terminating parental rights signed May 2, 2017, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find no error in the judgment. We order the judgment of the court below AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. We further order that mandate be issued immediately.