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 annual report of Newtown Lane Marketing, Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Kirk M. Warshaw, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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, as amended; and





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





Dated: June 16, 2011





/s/ Kirk M. WarshawKirk M. WarshawChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)





A signed original of this certification 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.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Jesus Martinezv. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-15-00993-CR

Trial court case number: 1442094

Trial court: 178th District Court

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw with a brief 

concluding that the above-referenced appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 

U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). Although counsel’s motion to withdraw 

states that she sent to the appellant a copy of the brief and appellate record, counsel has 

not, however, filed a copy of the letter she wrote, or otherwise certified that she has 

written a letter, in accordance with Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2014), “to (1) notify h[er] client of the motion to withdraw and the accompanying Anders

brief, providing him with a copy of each, (2) inform him of his right to file a pro se

response and of his right to review the record preparatory to filing that response, [] (3) 

inform him of his pro se right to seek discretionary review should the court of appeals 

declare his appeal frivolous,” and (4) “notify h[er] client that, should he wish to exercise 

his right to review the appellate record in preparing to file a response to the Anders brief, 

he should immediately file a motion for pro se access to the appellate record with the 

applicable court of appeals,” which letter includes “a form motion . . ., lacking only the 

appellant’s signature and the date, . . . inform[ing] the appellant that, in order to 

effectuate his right to review the appellate record pro se, should he choose to invoke it, he 

must sign and date the motion and send it on to the court of appeals within ten days of the 

date of the letter from appellate counsel.” 436 S.W.3d at 319–20.

Accordingly, we order appellant’s appointed counsel, Melissa Martin, to send a 

letter to the appellant in accordance with Kelly. 436 S.W.3d at 319–20. We further order 

appellant’s appointed counsel to notify us in writing “that [s]he has (1) informed the 

appellant of the motion to withdraw and attendant Anders brief, (2) provided the 

appellant with the requisite copies while notifying him of his various pro se rights, and 
2

(3) supplied him with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record.” Id. at 320. 

Because the Clerk of this Court already mailed appellant a form pro se motion for access 

to the appellate record after counsel filed her motion to withdraw, counsel does not need 

to send the form motion to her client, but should notify her client as provided above.

Counsel shall send the required Kelly letter to her client and shall file the required 

notice with the Clerk of this Court within 10 days of the date of this order.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura Carter Higley

  Acting individually 

Date: July 28, 2016
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Applicants July 18, 2022","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"LUP3g4Qblz\"><a href=\"\/oti\/applicants-july-18-2022\/\">Applicants July 18, 2022<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/oti\/applicants-july-18-2022\/embed\/#?secret=LUP3g4Qblz\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Applicants July 18, 2022” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"LUP3g4Qblz\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6277

MANOLO ALEGRIA-SANCHEZ,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

J. HAYNES,

Respondent – Appellee,

and

GARY LOCKLEAR, Judge,

Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III,

District Judge. (5:08-hc-02133-D)

Submitted: May 21, 2010 Decided: July 16, 2010

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Manolo Alegria-Sanchez, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis, 

Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Manolo Alegria-Sanchez seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). A 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the 

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district 

court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 

U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We 

have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Alegria-Sanchez has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. 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
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                       OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Amazon Biotech, Inc., a Utah
corporation, (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending April 30,
2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Angelo Chinnici, M.D., Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify the following pursuant to Section 18, U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:

      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/ Angelo Chinnici, M.D.
-------------------------
Angelo Chinnici, M.D., Chief Executive Officer
June 17, 2004
**IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 24-0428**  IN RE THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF THOMAS GEORGE BENNETT, Deceased.

**___________________________________________________________________ ORDER** 

___________________________________________________________________ Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time to and including November 9, 2024, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellee’s response brief on appeal. (Electronically signed and dated below )

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 5 2024

10/07/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0428
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Keith Donnell MASSENBURG, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-7071.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 14, 2016.

Decided: Jan. 19, 2016.

Keith Donnell Massenburg, Appellant Pro Se. Henry Brandis Marsh, Jr., Special *204Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Keith Donnell Massenburg seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Massenburg has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with' oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE 

CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING 

EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR. 

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

In The Supreme Court 

The State, Respondent, 

v. 

Larry T. Chestnut, Appellant. 

Appellate Case No. 2012-212800 

Appeal from Horry County 

Steven H. John, Circuit Court Judge 

Memorandum Opinion No. 2015-MO-002 

Heard September 24, 2014 – Filed January 14, 2015 

AFFIRMED 

Jeremy A. Thompson, of Columbia, for Appellant. 

Attorney General Alan Wilson and Senior Assistant 

Deputy Attorney General Deborah R.J. Shupe, both of 

Columbia, for Respondent. 

PER CURIAM: Appellant Larry T. Chestnut appeals his conviction and sentence 

for voluntary manslaughter, challenging the rule that where a defendant in a joint 

trial introduces evidence, the State is entitled to the final argument. State v. 

Huckie, 22 S.C. 298, 300 (1885). In this case, however, neither Appellant nor his 
codefendant presented evidence, and as a result, Appellant and his codefendant had 

the final argument. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the 

following authorities: State v. Freiburger, 366 S.C. 125, 135, 620 S.E.2d 737, 742 

(2005) ("The rule is well established that if asserted errors are not presented to the 

lower Court, the question cannot be raised for the first time on appeal." (citation 

omitted)); State v. Schmidt, 288 S.C. 301, 303, 342 S.E.2d 401, 402–03 (1986) 

("Ordinarily, this Court will not review alleged error of the exclusion of testimony 

unless a proffer of testimony is properly made on the record." (citation omitted)); 

Dillon Cnty. v. Maryland Cas. Co., 217 S.C. 66, 76, 59 S.E.2d 640, 644 (1950) 

("No one can obtain a decision as to the invalidity of a law on the ground that it 

impairs the rights of others, for one attacking the constitutionality of a statute is not 

the champion of any rights except his own." (citation and quotations omitted)). 

AFFIRMED. 

TOAL, C.J., PLEICONES, BEATTY, KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ., 

concur.
Exhibit 21.1

List of Volcano Corporation Subsidiaries



|                                                   |  |             
|-------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------
|Name                                               |  | Jurisdiction
|1. Axsun Technologies, Inc.                        |  | Delaware    
|2. CardioSpectra, Inc.                             |  | Texas       
|3. Volcano Europe, S.A./N.V.                       |  | Belgium     
|4. Volcano Japan Co., Ltd.                         |  | Japan       
|5. Volcano Netherlands Holdings, B.V.              |  | Netherlands 
|6. Volcarica, Socieded de Responsabilidad Limitada |  | Costa Rica  
|7. Fluid Medical, Inc.                             |  | Delaware
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED May 2, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-51702 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus CARLOS MONTES-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:06-CR-1473-ALL

-------------------- Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Carlos MontesGarcia raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tymond J. PRESTON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-10511.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Aug. 14, 2013.

Michael Thomas Morrissey, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Keith Swisher, Phoenix School of Law, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendanb-Appellant.

ORDER

KOZINSKI, Chief Judge:

Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35(a) and Circuit Rule 35-3. The three judge panel opinion shall not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit.

Judge MURGUIA did not participate in the deliberations or vote in this case.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

*CERTIFICATIONS*

 

I, Ytzhak Edelman, certify that:

 

1.     Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Ness Technologies, Inc.;

 

2.     Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.     Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a)     Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b)    Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

c)     Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a)     Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

b)    Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

 
| Date:  November  11, 2005 |   | /s/ YTZHAK EDELMAN      |   |
|-------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|                                |   | Ytzhak Edelman          |
|                                |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Applicants – September 1, 2017","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"WgT5T1nuah\"><a href=\"\/oti\/applicants-september-1-2017\/\">Applicants – September 1, 2017<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/oti\/applicants-september-1-2017\/embed\/#?secret=WgT5T1nuah\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Applicants – September 1, 2017” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"WgT5T1nuah\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}