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





The undersigned, Robert Hemmerling, Chief Executive Officer and Devinder Randhawa, Chief Financial Officer, of Eye Catching Marketing Corporation, 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 quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Eye Catching Marketing Corporation for the period ended December 31, 2005 (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 Eye Catching Marketing Corporation.









Dated February 10, 2006

/s/ Robert Hemmerling

Robert Hemmerling,

Chief Executive Officer





Dated February 10, 2006

/s/ Devinder Randhawa

Devinder Randhawa,

Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 32.2****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**In connection with the Annual Report of Asia Premium Television Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries(the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the transition period from April 1, 2007 to December 30, 2007 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, HongmeiZhang, Finance Manager of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company.Date: December 31, 2007          /s/ Hongmei Zhang   Hongmei Zhang  Finance Manager
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7083

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

BROOKS JAMES TERRELL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District

Judge. (CR-99-610-HMH; CA-05-1379-HMH)

Submitted: September 29, 2005 Decided: October 11, 2005

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brooks James Terrell, Appellant Pro Se. David Calhoun Stephens,

Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Brooks James Terrell seeks to appeal the district court

order dismissing his motion for relief from indictment as a

successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate

of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone,

369 F.3d 363, 370 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner

satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists

would find that the district court’s assessment of his

constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Terrell has not made the requisite

showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal. 

Additionally, we construe Terrell’s notice of appeal and

informal brief as an application to file a second or successive

motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. United States v. Winestock, 340

F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to

file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims
- 3 -

based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously

unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on

collateral review, or (2) newly discovered evidence, not previously

discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to

establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for

constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the

movant guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2), 2255

(2000). Terrell’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria.

Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255

motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Unassociated Document


Exhibit 10.2


MINUTES OF SETTLEMENT







MTM S.r.l., headquartered in Cherasco, via La Morra, 1 (CF 00525960043), in the person of Mariano Costamagna (hereinafter: "MTM")


 


&


 


ROBERTO OLIVO, born in Torino on August 15, 1954, and resident in Torino, Via Palladio 12 (CF LVORRT54M15L219L) (hereinafter "Olivo")


 


On condition


 



	
  

	
3⁄4

	
That Mr. Olivo is employed with the title of "officer" by MTM, Ltd. since January 1, 2009;







 



	
  

	
3⁄4

	
That the parties have agreed to come to consensual termination of the employment relationship, and, in order to prevent any possible disputes that may arise from such termination agreement and the pre-existing employment relationship, have decided to define amicably any possible request of Mr. Olivo,







 


Now therefore it is agreed


 



	
  

	
1.

	
The aforementioned employment contract shall be deemed terminated by mutual consent with effect as of December 31, 2014.







 



	
  

	
2.

	
In view of the agreed termination of the employment relationship, MTM will pay to Mr. Olivo, by way of retirement incentives and integration to severance pay, the total gross amount of € 160,000 (one hundred thousand). This sum will be paid within the term of ten days from the formalization of this agreement in front of the competent Local Labor Authority by bank transfer to the already known bank account.







 




  





  











  






 



	
  

	
3.

	
In order to prevent and resolve any possible disputes that may arise from such termination, such as, but not limited to, notice compensation, wage differences of any kind, contractual and/or tort damages, additions to severance pay, allowances or compensation of any nature and type, MTM will pay to Mr. Olivo an additional sum of € 11,000 gross as a general settlement. This amount will be paid to Mr. Olivo within ten days from the formalization of this agreement in front of the competent Local Labor Authority by bank transfer to the already known bank account.







 



	
  

	
4.

	
With the fulfillment of the provisions in the preceding articles .2 and .3 of this agreement, Mr. Olivo hereby declares he expects nothing else from MTM in any way, and thus he gives up all rights and demands, for any reason, that may arise from such termination agreement and the pre-existing employment relationship, with the only exception of severance pay that will be paid in accordance with Italian law.







 



	
  

	
5.

	
Being understood the immediate termination of the employment relationship of which in article .1 of this agreement, the effectiveness of the obligations set out in articles .2 and .3 above is subject to the formalization of this agreement in front of the competent Local Labor Authority.







 


 


Cherasco, .......... 2014


 


 



	
MTM Srl

	
 Roberto Olivo
_________________________________________ 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

November 18, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

127383-84 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. JAMES SCHENDEN and CAROLYN 

Stephen J. Markman, SCHENDEN, Justices Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

v SC: 127383-84 

 COA: 244389, 245805 

Oakland CC: 01-028622-AA 

ADDISON TOWNSHIP and ADDISON 

TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, 

Defendants-Appellants. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Chief Justice, a stipulation signed by counsel for the parties 

agreeing to the dismissal of the application for leave to appeal is considered, and the 

application is DISMISSED with prejudice and without costs. 

t1114 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

November 18, 2005 

Clerk
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 25 , 2018

.

In The


## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14- 18 -00606- CV

ALEXIS RAY, ZSACOYA RAY & JACQUELINE RAY, Appellants

V.

YELLOWSTONE BOULEVARD I, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the Co Civil Ct at Law No 2

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1113117

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

This is an appeal from a judgment signed July 17 , 2018 . The clerk’s record

was filed July 27 , 2018

. No reporter’s record was filed. No brief was filed.

On August 16 , 2018 , this court issued an order stating that unless appellant s

filed a brief on or before September 17 , 2018 , the court would dismiss the a ppeal for

want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P . 42.3(b).2

Appellant s filed no brief or other response. Accordingly, the appeal is ordered

dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Boyce and Busby.
#### Joseph L. JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant v. LOUISIANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION; Thomas Vilsack, Secretary of Agriculture; Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality; United States Department of Agriculture; Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-31166

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 5, 2011.

Joseph L. Jones, Opelousas, LA, pro se.

Eve Kahao Gonzalez, Esq., Amanda Hurt Smith, Louisiana Public Service Commission, Dwana Christy King, Esq., Ted R. Broyles, II, Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality Legal Department, Neal Risley Elliott, Jr., Esq., Department of Health & Hospitals, Baton Rouge, LA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before KING, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appellant Joseph L. Jones (Jones) brought suit against the Defendants-Ap-pellees herein. His complaint generally alleged what he described as “various actions, inactions, findings and decisions” of the Louisiana Public Service Commission, Thomas Vilsack, the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, the United States Department of Agriculture, and the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals.

Jones seeks to appeal from interlocutory orders of the district court: which (1) denied Jones’s motion to quash the warrant for his arrest issued by the state district courts in Louisiana; and (2) denied Jones’s request for appointment of counsel. Neither of the two orders complained of are appealable orders. The district court’s orders “clearly had the effect of disposing of ‘one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties’ ... involved.” *Pettinelli v. Danzig,*644 F.2d 1160, 1161 (5th Cir.1981 Unit B) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b)). Because there is no Rule 54(b) certification or certification for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), we have *354no jurisdiction to hear this appeal. This appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. *Id.*Appellant’s motion for appointment of counsel is dismissed.

DISMISSED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### Michael Jacobi, Appellant, v Melanie Jacobi, Respondent.

[988 NYS2d 339]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Patrick H. NeMoyer, J.), entered September 11, 2013. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied that part of plaintiff s motion seeking summary judgment determining that he is entitled to $143,000 as his separate property upon the sale of the marital residence in Indiana and granted that part of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment determining that the proceeds of the sale of the marital residence in Indiana are to be divided equally between the parties.

It is hereby ordered that the order insofar as appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, that part of the motion seeking summary judgment determining that plaintiff is entitled to $143,000 as his separate property upon the sale of the marital residence in Indiana is granted and that part of the cross motion seeking summary judgment determining that the proceeds of the sale of the marital residence in Indiana are to be divided equally between the parties is denied.

Memorandum: The parties were married in New York shortly after they entered into a prenuptial agreement (agreement). They subsequently relocated to Indiana, and defendant initiated a divorce action there. During the pendency of the divorce action, plaintiff commenced this action seeking, among other things, a determination of his separate property and the parties’ marital property pursuant to the terms of the agreement. As limited by his brief, plaintiff appeals from an order insofar as it denied that part of his motion seeking summary judgment determining that he is entitled to $143,000 as his separate property upon the sale of the marital residence in Indiana and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment to the extent that it sought summary judgment determining that the marital residence constitutes marital property in its entirety pursuant to the agreement, and that the equity or proceeds of the sale of the marital residence are to be divided equally between the parties. Although the agreement states that “distribution of all marital property will not be governed by Section *1286236 of the New York Domestic Relations Law,” it otherwise provides that it “shall be interpreted in accordance with New York law.” Under New York law, “ £[i]t is well settled that a spouse is entitled to a credit for his or her contribution of separate property toward the purchase of the marital residence, including any contributions that are directly traceable to separate property’ . . . , even where, as here, the parties held joint title to the marital residence” *(Pelcher v Czebatol,*98 AD3d 1258, 1259 [2012]). Plaintiff established that he contributed $143,000 to the purchase of the marital residence that was directly traceable to property defined in the agreement as separate property. We therefore reverse the order insofar , as appealed from.

Present—Scudder, RJ., Centra, Carni, Sconiers and Whalen, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This Schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated financial statements and notes included in this Form 10-K and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           2,262
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       56
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,318
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,681
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               29
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          6
<COMMON>                                            50
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,596
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,681
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   183
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      653
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 192
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (470)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (470)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (470)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.14)


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 199 (Tuesday, October 17, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 48212]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22490]


========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
appearing in this section.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 / 
Notices

[[Page 48212]]



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Research Service


Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive License

AGENCY: Agricultural Research Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, intends to grant to the 
CALIFORNIA TABLE GRAPE COMMISSION of FRESNO, CALIFORNIA, an exclusive 
license to the variety of table grape described in U.S. Plant Patent 
Application Serial No. 15/731,420, ``GRAPEVINE NAMED `SOLBRIO,' '' 
filed on JUNE 6, 2017.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 16, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to: USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, 
5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Rm. 4-1174, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-5131.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian T. Nakanishi of the Office of 
Technology Transfer at the Beltsville address given above; telephone: 
301-504-5989.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Government's patent rights in 
THIS PLANT VARIETY are assigned to the United States of America, as 
represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. The prospective exclusive 
license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and 
conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive 
license may be granted unless, within thirty (30) days from the date of 
this published Notice, the Agricultural Research Service receives 
written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the 
license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 
and 37 CFR 404.7.

Mojdeh Bahar,
Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2017-22490 Filed 10-16-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3410-03-P
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 198 (Monday, October 16, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48080-48081]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22290]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION


Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the 
Receivership of 10401--Blue Ridge Savings Bank, Inc.; Asheville, North 
Carolina

    Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance 
Corporation (FDIC) as Receiver for Blue Ridge Savings Bank, Inc., 
Asheville, North Carolina (``the Receiver'') intends to terminate its 
receivership for said institution. The FDIC was appointed Receiver of 
Blue Ridge Savings Bank, Inc. on October 14, 2011. The liquidation of 
the receivership assets has been completed. To the extent permitted by 
available funds and in accordance with law, the receiver will be making 
a final dividend payment to proven creditors.
    Based upon the foregoing, the receiver has determined that the 
continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. 
Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be 
terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date 
of this

[[Page 48081]]

notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of 
the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within 
thirty days of the date of this notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance 
Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: 
Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 
75201.
    No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be 
considered which are not sent within this time frame.

    Dated: October 11, 2017.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Robert E. Feldman,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-22290 Filed 10-13-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
----

Exhibit 32.1   
CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER  
REQUIRED BY RULE 13A - 14(B) OR RULE 15D - 14(B) AND 18 U.S.C. 1350In connection with the Quarterly Report of Inova Technology Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission  on  the date hereof (the "Report" ), I, Adam Radly, Chief Executive  Officer of  the  Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, 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.      By: /s/ Adam Radly                         Adam Radly  Chief Executive Officer    December 20, 2010