alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Larry Delano COLEMAN, Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Appellee.

No. 10-2546.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: July 14, 2011.

Filed: July 19, 2011.

Larry Delano Coleman, Kansas City, MO, pro se.

Thomas J. Clark, John A. Dicicco, Richard Farber, Robert William Metzler, Supervisory, Curtis Clarence Pett, Gilbert Steven Rothenberg, Deputy, U.S. Department of Justice, William Wilkins, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC, Dennis Onnen, U.S. Internal Revenue Service, Kansas City, MO, for Appellee.

Before MURPHY, ARNOLD, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

*664PER CURIAM.

Larry Coleman appeals the tax court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his action challenging a Notice of Determination issued by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Office of Appeals.

After carefully reviewing the record de novo, *see Nestle Purina Petcare Co. v. Comm’r,*594 F.3d 968, 969 (8th Cir.), *cert. denied*— U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 86, 178 L.Ed.2d 241 (2010), we conclude that summary judgment was appropriate for the reasons stated by the tax court, and we find no merit to Coleman’s arguments on appeal. We also decline to consider Coleman’s request for relief based on changed circumstances. *See*26 U.S.C. § 6330(d)(2) (IRS Office of Appeals shall retain jurisdiction with respect to determination, including subsequent hearings, on issues regarding change in circumstances which affects such determination).

Accordingly, we affirm the tax court’s decision. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Robert N. Armen, Jr., United States Tax Court Judge.
EXHIBIT 32





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Payment Data Systems, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:



The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 (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 the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



| |     |                                                                    
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------
| |     |                                                                    
| | By: | /s/ Michael R. Long                                                
| |     | Michael R. Long
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
| |    

Date:  May 14, 2008
Amendment No. 2 to Consulting Agreement



 EXHIBIT 10.1 
 Amendment No. 2 to 
 Consulting Agreement 
 This Amendment No. 2 (this “Amendment No. 2”) to that certain Consulting Agreement dated June 20, 2006, as amended on
December 20, 2006 (as so amended, the “Consulting Agreement”), by and among BioLargo, Inc. (the “Company”, formerly known as NuWay Medical, Inc.) and Kenneth Reay Code (“Code”). Capitalized terms used herein
without definitions shall have the same meanings as defined in the Consulting Agreement. 
 1. The Parties agree that the termination of the
Consulting Agreement shall be extended from March 31, 2007 the first to occur of (i) June 30, 2007 or (ii) the date Code and IOWC Technologies, Inc. consummate their sale to the Company, or to any person or entity owning, owned
by, controlled by or under control with the Company, of certain assets, including two U.S. patents and related intellectual property. 
 2.
Except as further modified by this Amendment No. 2, the Consulting Agreement is, and remains, in full force and effect in accordance with its terms. 
 In Witness Whereof, the Parties have executed this Amendment No. 2 as of March 30, 2007. 
  

									
	BIOLARGO, INC.	 		 	CONSULTANT
					
	By:	 	 /s/ Dennis Calvert
	 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Kenneth Reay Code

		 	Dennis Calvert, President	 		 		 	Kenneth Reay Code
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Omar Francisco RODRIGUEZ-JIMENEZ, a.k.a. Omar Francisco Rodriguez, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-10153.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 16, 2011.

Liza M. Granoff, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Joseph A. Duarte, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDAZ-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Omar Francisco Rodriguez-Jimenez appeals from the 51-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Rodriguez-Jimenez contends that his sentence was substantively unreasonable and failed to give adequate consideration to the all of the relevant circumstances, including the fact that he returned to the United States only to be present for the birth of his second child. In light *of the*totality of the circumstances, including Rodriguez-Jimenez’s criminal and disciplinary history, the 51-month sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range was substantively reasonable. *See Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); *United States v. Carty,*520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 10.6


 


Liability Acknowledgment Agreement


 


THIS LIABILITY ACKNOWLEDGMENT AGREEMENT
(this “Agreement”), is entered into on October 31, 2014, by and between Steve Geary (“Creditor”) and Valuesetters,
Inc., a Utah corporation, (the “Company”).


 


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


 


1.                 
Creditor is owed an aggregate of $31,679.51 for varies loans made to the Company and unpaid
expense reports (the “Payables”). 


 


2.                 
Creditor and Company wish to acknowledge the Payables, which are recorded on the Companies
books, and the terms of the Payables. 


 


3.                 
Company hereby acknowledges it owes Creditor $31,679.51.


 


4.                 
Creditor hereby acknowledges that the Payables are not in default, are not interest bearing
and that the Company may pay cash for them or settle them in another matter when the Company has the appropriate resources to do
so. 


 


5.                 
This Agreement may not be modified or changed except by an instrument or instruments in
writing executed by the parties hereto.


 


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto
have caused this Agreement to be duly executed.


 


 


	
        Steve Geary, an individual

         

         

        By: /s/ Steve Geary

         

        Name:  Steve Geary

         

         
	
        Valuesetters, Inc.

         

         

        By: /s/ Manuel Teixeira

         

        Name: __Manuel Teixeira

         

        Title: CEO
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.2

Inability to obtain consent of prior year auditor

There may be risks and stockholders' recovery may be limited as a result of the
Company's prior use of Arthur Andersen LLP as the Company's independent public
accounting firm. On June 15, 2002, Arthur Andersen LLP was convicted for
obstruction of justice charges. Arthur Andersen LLP audited the Company's
financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2002 and 2000. On August
2, 2002, Arthur Andersen LLP was dismissed as the Company's independent public
accountants and on August 2, 2002, Deloitte & Touche LLP was hired as the
Company's independent auditors for the 2002 fiscal year. Because the former
audit partner and manager have left Arthur Andersen LLP, the Company was not
able to obtain the written consent of Arthur Anderson LLP as required by Section
7 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the Securities Act). Accordingly, investors
will not be able to sue Arthur Andersen LLP pursuant to Section 11(a)(4) of the
Securities Act and therefore, may have their recovery limited as a result of the
lack of consent.
EXHIBIT 31.2**CERTIFICATIONS**I, Frank Zhao, Chief Financial Officer and Company Secretary of Sun New Media, Inc., certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB/A of Sun New Media, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15 (e)and 15d-15 (e)) for the registrant and we have: (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report was being prepared;  (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter inthe case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction): (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.   /s/ Frank Zhao Frank Zhao, Chief Financial Officer  Date:August 11, 2006
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Adedayo Ilori, Appellant.

[861 NYS2d 620]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene R. Silverman, J.), rendered *420May 21, 2007, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of three counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 2V2 to 5 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims are unreviewable on direct appeal because they primarily involve matters outside the record concerning trial counsel’s investigation, preparation and strategy *(see People v Rivera,*71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]; *People v Love,*57 NY2d 998 [1982]). On the existing record, to the extent it permits review, we find that defendant received effective assistance under the state and federal standards *(see People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; *see also Strickland v Washington,*466 US 668 [1984]).

Defendant’s challenges to the court’s preliminary jury instructions, and to its overall conduct of the trial, are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that neither claim warrants reversal. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Tom, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.
#### Vincent John BAZEMORE, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Deen ABBOTT, F.B.I.—Dallas, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 10-11032

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 21, 2011.

*399Vincent John Bazemore, Jr., Anthony, NM, pro se.

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Vincent Bazemore, Jr., federal prisoner # 37160-177, seeks leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*(“IFP”) in his appeal of the dismissal of his *Bivens*
      *1*
      **action as malicious pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(l). The motion is construed as a challenge to the district court’s certification that the appeal is not taken in good faith. *See Baugh v. Taylor,*117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.1997).

Bazemore challenges the dismissal of his case as malicious, arguing that the claims here are not duplicative of those in prior case No. 3:10-CV-720. He has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing his case as malicious, because both cases involve “the same series of events” and contain allegations of “many of the same facts.” *Bailey v. Johnson,*846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988); *see Pittman v. Moore,*980 F.2d 994, 994-95 (5th Cir.1993). Bazemore contended in both actions that Deen Abbott failed to give him proper notice of the seizure of property listed in No. 3:09-MJ-203 as required by 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(1)(F). Furthermore, the remaining claims in both cases challenge the execution of the same seizure warrants in Nos. 3:09-MJ-200, 3:09-MJ-201, 3:09-MJ-202, and 3:09-MJ-203.

This appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous. *See Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983). Accordingly, Bazemore’s request for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED. *See Baugh,*117 F.3d at202 & n. 24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2. This dismissal and the dismissal of Bazemore’s complaint as malicious count as two strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). *See*§ 1915(g); *Adepegba v. Hammons,*103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir.1996). Bazemore also has accumulated one additional strike. *See Bazemore v. Buie,*No. 10-11186. Because he has now received three strikes under § 1915(g), he is barred under that statute from proceeding IFP in any civil action or appeal while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.

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.

. *Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,*403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971).
#### Leon W. SHAPIRO, Claimant-Appellant, v. Eric K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 2010-7029.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

May 25, 2011.

*969Kathy A. Lieberman, Lieberman & Mark, Washington, DC, for Claimant-Appellant.

Before RADER, Chief Judge, LOURIE and O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges.

ON MOTION

RADER, Chief Judge.

ORDER

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs moves without opposition to vacate the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and to remand for further proceedings.

The appellant filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Veterans Claims more than 120 days after the Board of Veterans’ Appeals mailed its decision in his case. That court dismissed the appeal as untimely, concluding that the 120-day appeal period established by 38 U.S.C. § 7266(a) for seeking review of Board of Veterans’ Appeals decisions is jurisdictional and not subject to equitable tolling. The appellant sought this court’s review.

This court stayed the briefing schedule in this appeal pending the United States Supreme Court’s review of our decision in *Henderson v. Shinseki,*589 F.3d 1201 (Fed.Cir.2009) (en banc) (affirming Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims determination that period to appeal to that court is not subject to equitable tolling). In *Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki,*— U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1197, 179 L.Ed.2d 159 (2011), the Supreme Court reversed this court’s decision and concluded that the 120-day deadline for filing an appeal with the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims does not have jurisdictional consequences. Because the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims erred in concluding that the appeal deadline established by § 7266(a) is jurisdictional, we vacate the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims’ judgment and remand for further proceedings.

Accordingly,

It Is Ordered That:

(1) The motion is granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

(2) All sides shall bear their own costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the August
31, 1999 Form 10-KSB and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   31,916
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  4,260,949
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,378,477
<PP&E>                                      33,604,088
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,853,142
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              32,519,546
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,993,244
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,627,880
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                32,519,546
<SALES>                                     18,998,096
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            18,998,096
<CGS>                                       15,219,495
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               17,345,174
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (114,132)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,452,393
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                182,251
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            182,251
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   182,251
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3223 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3223

  To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the Department of 
 Veterans Affairs contracting goals and preferences for small business 
               concerns owned and controlled by veterans.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 15, 2009

Mr. Buyer (for himself and Mr. Boozman) introduced the following bill; 
        which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the Department of 
 Veterans Affairs contracting goals and preferences for small business 
               concerns owned and controlled by veterans.

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

SECTION 1. IMPROVEMENT OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS CONTRACTING 
              GOALS AND PREFERENCES FOR SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS OWNED 
              AND CONTROLLED BY VETERANS.

    (a) In General.--Section 8127 of title 38, United States Code, is 
amended--
            (1) in subsection (c), by striking ``may'' and inserting 
        ``shall'';
            (2) in subsection (f), by adding at the end the following 
        new paragraph:
    ``(7) Ownership and control by a veteran or veterans of more than 
one small business concern shall not be grounds for disqualification of 
any of such concerns from inclusion in the database under this 
subsection.''; and
            (3) in subsection (l), by adding at the end the following 
        new paragraph:
            ``(3) The term `control of management and daily business 
        operations' with respect to a business concern means the 
        authority to make final decisions affecting financial, 
        operational, management policy, and employment issues, 
        irrespective of the number of hours worked by the individual 
        with such authority or the location of such individual with 
        respect to the business concern.''.
    (b) Deadline for Interim Policy Guidance.--By not later than 30 
days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
Veterans Affairs shall issue interim policy guidance to carry out the 
amendments made by this Act.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.2





OFFICER’S CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C. 1350)


(Amendment No. 1)





In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1) of TELETOUCH COMMUNICATIONS, INC. (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),  the undersigned, Douglas E. Sloan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to the best of his knowledge:





1.
The Report is in full compliance 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 operation of the Company.





/s/ Douglas E. SloanDouglas E. SloanChief Financial OfficerSeptember 28, 2011