alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit
32.1**
 
 **CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**
 **UNDER**
 **SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT**
 
 
 COLLECTORS
UNIVERSE, INC.
 
 Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q
 for the
Quarter ended March 31, 2005
 
 The
undersigned, Michael R. Haynes, who is the Chief Executive Officer of Collectors
Universe, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies that (i) the Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005, as filed by the Company with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Quarterly Report”), to which this
Certification is an Exhibit, fully complies with the applicable requirements of
Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and (ii) the information contained
in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 
 
 
 Date:May
      13, 2005
    
    /s/
      MICHAELR.
      HAYNESMichaelR.
      HaynesChiefExecutive
      OfficerA
      signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
      provided to Collectors Universe, Inc. and will be retained by Collectors
      Universe, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
      its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                          0
<SECURITIES>                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   0
<ALLOWANCES>                    0
<INVENTORY>                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                0
<PP&E>                          0
<DEPRECIATION>                  0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           1,000
<BONDS>                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<COMMON>                        79
<OTHER-SE>                      (1,079)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    0
<SALES>                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                0
<CGS>                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                4,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (4,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (4,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    (4,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                     (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                   (0.00)



</TABLE>
<PAGE>



                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION
                                     BY THE
               CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

         Each of Thomas J. Mazzarisi, Chief Executive Officer, and Stephen J.
Schoepfer, Chief Financial Officer, of JAG Media Holdings, Inc., a Nevada
corporation (the "Company") hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
added by ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (1) The Company's periodic report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended
April 30, 2005 ("Form 10-QSB") fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

         (2) The information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
Company.

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER                        CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


/s/ Thomas J. Mazzarisi                        /s/ Stephen J. Schoepfer
-----------------------                        ------------------------
Name: Thomas J. Mazzarisi                      Name: Stephen J. Schoepfer

Date: June 20, 2005
Exhibit 10.2


FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE


AMENDED AND RESTATED

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT, INCLUDING AGREEMENT TO

ARBITRATE, NONCOMPETITION AGREEMENT AND

NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT


THIS FIRST AMENDMENT (this “Amendment”), executed on
April 11, 2007 (effective as of January 1, 2007 (the “Effective Date”)), is
entered into between Michael G. Staffaroni (“Employee”) and Heeling Sports
Limited, a Texas limited partnership (the “Company”).


WHEREAS, Employee and the Company desire to amend
Exhibit 1 to that certain Amended and Restated Employment Agreement, Including
Agreement to Arbitrate, Noncompetition Agreement and Nondisclosure Agreement
dated as of September 18, 2006 between Employee and Company (the “Agreement”),
as herein provided;


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


1.             Defined Terms.   Capitalized terms used but not otherwise
defined in this Amendment shall have the respective meanings assigned to such
terms in the Agreement.


2.             Amendment.   Exhibit 1 to the Agreement is hereby
amended and restated in its entirety as of the Effective Date as set forth on Exhibit
1 attached hereto.


3.             Relationship to Agreement.   The
terms and provisions of the Agreement, as amended hereby, are hereby ratified,
confirmed, and approved in all respects, and shall continue in full force and
effect.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment is adopted as of the Effective Date.


	
  HEELING SPORTS LIMITED

  	
   

  	
  EMPLOYEE

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By:  

  	
  HEELING
  MANAGEMENT CORP., 

  its sole general partner 

  	
   

  	
  /s/ Michael G. Staffaroni

  	
   

  
	
  Michael G. Staffaroni

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Patrick F. Hamner

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
  Chairman of the Board

  	
   

  	
   

  
								



 











Exhibit 1


Salary and Benefits


Reference Section 4, part a.


1.               Salary to be $33,333.33 month - $400,000 per
year.


2.               Bonus Plan:    An Annual Bonus amount as determined by the
Company’s Compensation Committee and for purposes of such Bonus Plan, Employee’s
“Target” amount is 75% of Employee’s then current base salary.


Reference Section 4, part b.


1.               Employee to receive four weeks paid vacation
each calendar year.


2.               Employee to receive life, medical and dental
insurance through the plan adopted by the Company for its full time employees.


3.               Employee shall be entitled to participate in
a 401(k) plan adopted by the Company for its full time employees, including any
matching arrangements in effect from time to time.
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit 

No. 22-40221 

Summary Calendar 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Daniel Morales Hinojosa, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 5:20-CR-786-4 

Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The attorney appointed to represent Daniel Morales Hinojosa 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). Morales Hinojosa has filed an untimely response, in which 

*

 Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

April 21, 2023 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 22-40221 Document: 00516722176 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/21/2023
No. 22-40221 

2 

he asks this court to remove appointed counsel, strike counsel’s pleadings 

and motions, and allow him to proceed pro se. A judge of this court 

previously ordered Morales Hinojosa to notify this court clearly and 

unequivocally whether he wished to proceed pro se on appeal. Morales 

Hinojosa has not filed a response or otherwise complied with that order. To 

the extent that Morales Hinojosa requests leave to file an out-of-time 

response, his motion is GRANTED. His motions to proceed pro se, 

remove appointed counsel, and strike counsel’s pleadings are DENIED. 

See Fifth Circuit Plan Under the Criminal Justice Act

§ 5(B); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(c). 

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the 

record reflected therein, as well as Morales Hinojosa’s response. The record 

is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Morales 

Hinojosa’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline 

to consider the claims without prejudice to collateral review. See United 

States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014). We concur with counsel’s 

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate 

review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is 

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and 

the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. 

Case: 22-40221 Document: 00516722176 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/21/2023
Exhibit
10.1


Executive
Officer Compensation


The
annual base salaries for our executive officers for 2007 are as follows:


	
  Name

  	
   

  	
  Title

  	
   

  	
  Annual

  Base Salary

  	
   

  
	
  Randall
  A. Lipps(1)

  	
   

  	
  Chairman, President and
  Chief Executive Officer

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  407,000

  	
   

  
	
  Robin
  G. Seim

  	
   

  	
  Vice President, Finance
  and Chief Financial Officer

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  242,000

  	
   

  
	
  J.
  Christopher Drew

  	
   

  	
  Executive Vice
  President, Operations

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  294,000

  	
   

  
	
  Dan
  S. Johnston

  	
   

  	
  Senior Vice President
  and General Counsel

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  225,000

  	
   

  
	
  Renee
  A. Luhr

  	
   

  	
  Vice President, Sales

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  220,000

  	
   

  
	
  John
  G. Choma

  	
   

  	
  Senior Vice President,
  Human Resources, Employee Learning and Performance

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  182,000

  	
   

  
	
  Brian R. Rodli

  	
   

  	
  Vice President, Marketing and Chief Strategy Officer

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  208,000

  	
   

  







(1)             Mr.
Lipps 2007 annual base salary is unchanged from 2006.
#### John WITHEROW, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jack PALMER; et al., Respondents—Appellees.

No. 07-16328.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*650Submitted April 22, 2008.*

Filed May 2, 2008.

John Witherow, NSPC — Nevada State Prison Carson City, Carson City, NV, pro se.

Erik A. Levin, Esq., AGNV — Office of the Nevada Attorney General, Carson City, NY, for Respondents-Appellees.

Before: GRABER, FISHER, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

John Witherow, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se the denial of his habeas corpus petition brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He contends that the Nevada Board of Parole Commissioners denied him due process by failing to release him two years after his parole had been revoked. As stated by the district court, the parole board provided only for review, not release, after two years.

Therefore, Witherow had no due process liberty interest in release after two years. *See Kelch v. Director, Nev. Dep’t of Prisons,*10 F.3d 684, 687 (9th Cir.1993) (stating that protectible right requires legitimate claim of entitlement). We reject appellees’ argument that a certificate of appealability is required because in Nevada parole board decisions are quasi-judicial functions. *See Rosas v. Nielsen,*428 F.3d 1229, 1231-32 (9th Cir.2005).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Judith SCHAEFER-CONDULMARI, Appellant v. US AIRWAYS GROUP LLC d/b/a U.S. Airways.

No. 13-1651.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) on November 7, 2013.

Opinion filed: Dec. 13, 2013.

Before: GREENAWAY, JR., VANASKIE and ROTH, Circuit Judges.

ROTH, Circuit Judge:

Judith Schaefer-Condulmari, who went into anaphylactic shock after eating a meal provided to her on a flight operated by U.S. Airways Group, LLC, appeals the jury’s verdict that she failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence her claim under the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, Done at Montreal, May 28, 1999, S. Treaty Doc. No. 106-45, 1999 WL 33292734. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm.

I. Background1

On September 8, 2008, Condulmari booked a U.S. Airways flight from Philadelphia to Rome, Italy, for the following day. At trial, Condulmari testified that she requested a gluten-free meal, as she had done on eight previous flights, because of a wheat allergy. US Airways’s booking records and flight manifest, however, indicated she requested a vegetarian meal. The booking system also indicated she had ordered a vegetarian meal on two previous flights. Condulmari further testified that, on the flight, she told the flight attendant that she had ordered a gluten-free meal and the flight attendant confirmed Condulmari’s meal was gluten free. The flight attendant, however, testified that she told Condulmari that her meal was vegetarian.

The jury found for U.S. Airways. Condulmari appealed.

I. Discussion2

We exercise plenary review of a court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law. *124*Pitts v. Delaware,*646 F.3d 151, 155 (3d Cir.2011). We construe all evidence in the light most favorable to the party that prevailed at trial, and draw all reasonable inferences in its favor, to determine whether a jury could reasonably have reached its verdict. *Id.*

Condulmari’s sole argument is that, because the undisputed evidence shows she ordered a gluten-free meal on eight out of ten flights, the jury unreasonably concluded that a preponderance of the evidence showed that she did not order such a meal for her eleventh flight. Her argument is meritless: the jury heard evidence that Condulmari ordered a vegetarian meal for her September 9 flight, had ordered such a meal twice before, and was told on the flight that her meal was vegetarian. It was reasonable for the jury to conclude based on this evidence that U.S. Airways had not “served her a different meal than she ordered or misstated the type of meal she was served.” Therefore, we will not disturb the jury’s verdict. *See, e.g., Pitts,*646 F.3d at 158-59.3

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.

1

. Because we write primarily for the parties, we only note facts necessary to our analysis.

2

. The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

3

. We need not decide whether Condulmari waived her right to appeal this issue.
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 Viva International, Inc. (the “Company”)
      on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), the undersigned certifies, pursuant to
      18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, to the best of the undersigned’s knowledge, 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.






Dated:
                May 18, 2007
            By:
            /s/
                Calvin Humphrey
              Calvin
                Humphrey,
              Chief
                Executive Officer
              (Principal
                Executive Officer)Dated:
                May 18, 2007
            By:
            /s/
                Robert J. Scott
              Robert
                J. Scott,
              Chief
                Financial Officer
              (Principal
                Financial Officer)
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-14-0001135 30-OCT-2018 08:27 AM
# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604

September 12, 2014



### Before

F RANK H. E ASTERBROOK , Circuit Judge

D IANE S. S YKES , Circuit Judge

J OHN D ANIEL T INDER , Circuit Judge

No s. 14

- 2058 and 14

- 2059

R UTHELLE F RANK , et al

. , Plaintiffs

- Appellees

,

v.

S COTT W ALKER , in his official capacity as Governor of State of Wisconsin

, et al

. , Defendants

- Appellants

. Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin

.

No s

. 11

- CV

- 01128 and 12

- CV

- 00185 Lynn Adelman

, Judge

.

L EAGUE OF U NITED L ATIN A MERICAN C ITIZENS

OF W ISCONSIN , et al

. , Plaintiffs

- Appellees

,

v.

D AVID G. D EININGER , et al

. , Defendants

- Appellants

.Nos. 14

- 2058 and 14

- 2059 Page 2

Order

On August 21, 2014, this court issued an order providing that the motion for a stay would be considered by the panel assigned to decide the case on the merits. This order further provided that the state was free, in the interim, to implement the changes to the procedures for obtaining (or excusing reliance on) birth certificates, and similar documents, that the Supreme Court of Wisconsin adopted in Milwaukee Branch of NAACP v. Walker , 2014 WI 98 (July 31, 2014).

Having read the briefs and heard oral argum ent, this court now stays the injunction issued by the district court. The State of Wisconsin may, if it wishes (and if it is appropriate under rules of state law), enforce the photo ID requirement in this November’s elections.

The district court held th e state law invalid, and enjoined its implementation, even though it is materially identical to Indiana’s photo ID statute, which the Supreme Court held valid in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board , 553 U.S. 181 (2008). It did this based on findings t hat it thought showed that Wisconsin did not need this law to promote an important governmental interest, and that persons of lower income (disproportionately minorities) are less likely to have driver’s licenses, other acceptable photo ID, or the birth

ce rtificates needed to obtain them, which led the court to hold that the statute violates §2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §1973.

After the district court’s decision, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin revised the procedures to make it easier for persons who have difficulty affording any fees to obtain the birth certificates or other documentation needed under the law, or to have the need for documentation waived. Milwaukee Branch of NAACP v. Walker , 2014 WI 98 (July 31, 2014). This reduces the likelihood of irreparable injury, and it also changes the balance of equities and thus the propriety of federal injunctive relief. The panel has concluded that the state’s probability of success on the merits of this appeal is sufficiently great that the state shoul d be allowed to implement its law, pending further order of this court.

The appeals remain under advisement, and an opinion on the merits will issue in due course.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-24-00093-CR

___________________________

On Appeal from the 211th District Court

Denton County, Texas

Trial Court No. F-2003-0427-C

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Walker, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker

Ex parte David Duran
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

David Duran, proceeding pro se, attempts to appeal the trial court’s 

February 12, 2024 order which concludes that Duran is abusing the writ process and 

recommends that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals take no action on his twentysecond Article 11.07 application for a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus.

1

 See

Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07. We will dismiss Duran’s attempted appeal 

because we do not have jurisdiction over appeals related to Article 11.07 writ

applications. See Duran v. State, No. 02-22-00228-CR, 2022 WL 17687417, at *1 (Tex. 

App.—Fort Worth Dec. 15, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication)

(dismissing a previously attempted Article 11.07 appeal by Duran for lack of 

jurisdiction). 

We have no jurisdiction over post-conviction applications under Article 11.07. 

See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07; Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 

241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (orig. proceeding) (stating that the Court of Criminal 

Appeals is the “only court with jurisdiction in final post-conviction felony 

proceedings”); Duran, 2022 WL 17687417, at *1.

We notified Duran of our concern that we lack jurisdiction over his appeal and 

stated that unless he filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal, we

1The record shows that Duran’s attempted appeal concerns his final conviction 

for felony aggravated sexual assault, for which he was sentenced on September 10, 

2003. 
3

would dismiss it. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.3. Duran responded and stated that he 

would “like to appeal” the trial court’s order for the following reasons:

• He has a right to obtain a writ under Article I of the Texas Constitution

and the Open Courts Act;

• “Writ shall never be ‘suspended’ unless Rebellion or Invasion time”;

• The “Anti-Terrorism Act [] does not meet the requirement as Rebellion

or invasion, only [the] Civil War 1860 was Rebellion or Invasion time 

and Death penalty Act does not meet it either”;

• New legal or factual bases exist; and

• The State violated his constitutional rights under Article I, Section 13 of 

the Texas Constitution. 

None of these reasons provide us with a basis to assert jurisdiction over his 

Article 11.07 appeal. For this reason, we dismiss his attempted appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).

/s/ Brian Walker

Brian Walker

Justice

Do Not Publish

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

Delivered: April 11, 2024
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel Lewis POWELL, a/k/a Midnight Rider, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-8028.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

May 6, 2011.

David A. Kubiehek, Esq., Office of the United States Attorney, Casper, WY, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

O. Dean Sanderford, Jill M. Wichlens, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Denver, CO, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before GORSUCH, HOLLOWAY and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

NEIL M. GORSUCH, Circuit Judge.

Daniel Powell appeals his sentence for two drug crimes. He charges that the district court erred in: failing to give him *752an opportunity to allocute before it pronounced sentence; determining the drug quantity for which he should be held responsible; and applying a gun enhancement to his sentence. The government concedes that the district court plainly erred on the first two scores, contests only the last question, and admits that resentencing will be required. Because the one contested gun enhancement issue may or may not remain relevant after resentencing, we need not decide it at this time.

Mr. Powell’s sentence is vacated and this matter is remanded for resentencing.

*

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.