alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 13.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANESOXLEY ACT OF
2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the annual report on Form 20-F of Yanzhou Coal Mining Company Limited (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof, I, ZHANG Yingmin, General Manager of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:



|(1) | The annual report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | The information contained in the annual report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: April 29, 2013



By:

/s/    Zhang
YingminName:

Zhang YingminTitle:

General Manager


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as
part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
#### Milton Maurer, an Infant, by Isidor Maurer, His Guardian ad Litem, and Isidor Maurer, Appellants, v. Board of Education of the City of New York, Respondent.

*1013Present—Close, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Taylor and Lewis, JJ.”
GAO-01-1094R Women’s Army Corps Veterans’ Association

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, DC 20548

August 21, 2001

The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary

House of Representatives

Subject: Federally Chartered Corporation: Review of the Financial Statement Audit

 Report for the Women’s Army Corps Veterans’ Association for Fiscal Year

 2000

Dear Mr. Chairman:

As requested, we reviewed the audit report covering the financial statements of the

Women’s Army Corps Veterans’ Association, a federally chartered corporation, for

the fiscal year ended June 30, 2000. The corporation promotes the general welfare of

all veterans, especially women veterans, who have served or are serving in the United

States Army, the Army Reserve, and the Army National Guard. The corporation

recognizes outstanding women in college ROTC units and provides services and

support to patients in medical facilities of the Department of Veterans Affairs

throughout the United States.

Federally chartered corporations are required under 36 U.S.C. 10101 to

! present the corporation’s assets and liabilities and reasonable detail on the

corporation’s income and expenses in annual financial statements,

! obtain an annual financial audit by an independent public accountant, and

! submit the auditors’ report and the corporation’s financial statements to the

Congress.

The objective of our review was to determine whether the audit report complied with

the financial reporting requirements of the law. In carrying out our work, we

reviewed the corporation’s financial statements and the accompanying notes,

performed certain analytical procedures related to information presented in the
Page 2 GAO-01-1094R Women’s Army Corps Veterans’ Association

financial statements, reviewed the auditors’ report, and made inquiries to corporation

officials or the auditors as we deemed necessary. We did not review the auditors’

working papers. Our review disclosed no reportable instances of noncompliance.

The audit report included the auditors’ opinion that the financial statements of the

corporation were presented fairly in accordance with generally accepted accounting

principles. We are returning the audit report you sent with your letter.

Sincerely yours,

Jeffrey C. Steinhoff

Managing Director

Financial Management and Assurance

w/o Enclosure
Page 3 GAO-01-1094R Women’s Army Corps Veterans’ Association

(194068)
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1696

To repeal the provision of law that provides automatic pay adjustments 

for Members of Congress. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 9, 2003

Mr. OSE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on House Administration, and in addition to the Committee on Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, 

in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL

To repeal the provision of law that provides automatic pay 

adjustments for Members of Congress.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. ELIMINATION OF AUTOMATIC PAY ADJUST4 MENTS FOR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (2) of section 601(a) 

6 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 

7 31) is repealed. 

8 (b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—

9 Section 601(a)(1) of such Act is amended—
2

•HR 1696 IH 

1 (1) by striking ‘‘(a)(1)’’ and inserting ‘‘(a)’’; 

2 (2) by redesignating subparagraphs (A), (B), 

3 and (C) as paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), respectively; 

4 and 

5 (3) by striking ‘‘as adjusted by paragraph (2) 

6 of this subsection’’ and inserting ‘‘adjusted as pro7 vided by law’’. 

8 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall take effect 

9 on February 1, 2005.

Æ
### §59p. Kenduskeag Stream, Penobscot County, Maine

The Kenduskeag Stream, a minor tributary of the Penobscot River, located in Penobscot County, in the State of Maine, be, and the same is hereby, declared to be a nonnavigable waterway within the meaning of the Constitution and laws of the United States of America.

The right of Congress to alter, amend, or repeal this section is hereby expressly reserved.

(July 11, 1947, ch. 236, 61 Stat. 316.)
**EXHIBIT 23.2**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-81698, No. 333-99005and No. 333-110744, respectively) and Form S-8 (No. 333-70478, No. 333-96563 and No. 333-104227, respectively) of Anworth Mortgage Asset Corporation of our report dated January 18, 2003 relating to the financial statements, which appears in theAnnual Report to Shareholders, which is incorporated in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. 

 

/s/    PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

Los Angeles, CA 

March15, 2005
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CLARENCE EUGENE HOWARD,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

J. NUNLEY, C.O.; W. J. SULLIVAN,

Warden,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 10-17493

D.C. No. 1:06-cv-00191-NVW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Neil V. Wake, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 19, 2011** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

Clarence Eugene Howard, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from

the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging

violations of his constitutional rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

FILED

JAN 09 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-17493

§ 1291. We review de novo. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir.

2003) (exhaustion of administrative remedies); Clement v. Gomez, 298 F.3d 898,

901 (9th Cir. 2002) (qualified immunity). We affirm. 

The district court properly granted summary judgment to defendant Nunley

on Howard’s Eighth Amendment claim regarding the use of pepper spray on the

basis of qualified immunity, because it is uncontested that Howard disobeyed an

order to stop pounding on his cell door after he also received a warning that failure

to comply would result in the use of pepper spray. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555

U.S. 223, 232 (2009) (“Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s

conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.”); see also Whitley v.

Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 320 (1986) (no constitutional violation if force is applied in a

“‘good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline’” (citation omitted)).

The district court properly concluded that Howard failed to exhaust his

administrative remedies on his claim regarding the conditions of his confinement

in a “management status” cell. See Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 n. 6

(2001) (inmate must exhaust administrative remedies “irrespective of the forms of

relief sought and offered through administrative avenues”). 

Howard’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 8.1





Subsidiaries





|                                       |  |                        |  |                         |  |               
|-------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------- |  | ----------------------- |  | --------------
|Legal Name                             |  | Place of incorporation |  | Doing Business as       |  | Ownership %(1)
|                                       |  |                        | 
|LanChile Cargo S.A.                    |  | Chile                  |  | Lan Chile Cargo         |  | 99.85%        
|Aircraft International Leasing Limited |  | Bahamas                |  | AILL                    |  | 99.98%        
|Trasnporte Aéreo S.A.                  |  | Chile                  |  | LanExpress              |  | 99.9%         
|Seagull Leasing LLC                    |  | Delaware, USA          |  | Seagull                 |  | 100%          
|Southflorida Air Cargo                 |  | Florida, USA           |  | Southflorida            |  | 100%          
|Bluebird Leasing LLC                   |  | Delaware, USA          |  | Bluebird                |  | 100%          
|Lanlogistics Corp.                     |  | Delaware, USA          |  | Lanlogistics            |  | 100%          
|Lan Cargo Overseas Services Limited    |  | Bahamas                |  | Lan Cargo Overseas      |  | 100%          
|Cóndor Leasing LLC                     |  | Delaware, USA          |  | Cóndor                  |  | 100%          
|Lan Perú S.A.                          |  | Peru                   |  | Lan Perú                |  | 49%           
|Eagle Leasing LLC                      |  | Delaware, USA          |  | Eagle                   |  | 100%          
|Inversiones Lan S.A.                   |  | Chile                  |  | Inverlan                |  | 99.7%         
|Inmobiliaria Aeronáutica S.A.          |  | Chile                  |  | InmobiliariaAeronautica |  | 99.01%        

---

|(1) | Ownership percentage of direct owner of each significant subsidiary of LanChile.
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<Page>

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Post-Effective
Amendment No. 19 to the registration statement on Form N-4 (No. 33-37577) of our
report dated February 15, 2002, relating to the financial statements of Fortis
Benefits Insurance Company, which appears in the Statement of Additional
Information constituting part of Post-Effective Amendment No. 17 to such
registration statement. We also consent to the incorporation by reference of our
report dated April 6, 2001, relating to the financial statements of Fortis
Benefits Insurance Company Variable Account D, which appears in such Statement
of Additional Information. We also consent to the reference to us under the
heading "Independent Public Accountants" in such Statement of Additional
Information.

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
Minneapolis, Minnesota
January 21, 2003
DENIED and Opinion Filed February 13, 2024

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05 - 23 - 01219 - CV IN RE EXXON MOBIL CO RPORATION , Relator Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 3

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC
- 21 - 04071 - C MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Pedersen, III, Nowell, and Miskel

Opinion by Justice Nowell Before the Court is relator’s January 30, 2024 amended petition for writ of mandamus. Relator challenges respondent Honora ble Sally Montgomery’s February 7, 2023 Order denying relator’s Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens and November 20, 2023 Order denying relator’s Motion to Vacate Order Denying Its Motion to Dismiss f or Forum Non Conveniens and to Reconsider and Continue the Stay. Relator also appears to challenge an Order dated Ma y 26, 2023 wherein the Honorable Martin Hoffman denied relator’s m otion to r ecuse Judge Montgomery.– 2

–

Entitlement to mandamus relief requires relator to show that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that relator lacks an adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. , 148 S.W.3d 124, 135

– 36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding)

. To the extent relator seeks mandamus relief aga inst Judge Montgomery, after reviewing relator’s amended petition and the record before us, we conclude relator has failed to demonstrate entitlement to mandamus relief. To the extent relator seeks mandamus relief against Judge Hoffman, relator’s amended petition does comply with rule 52.3(a), (d), (f), (h), or (i). Thus, relator’s amended petition does not meet the requirements of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure for consideration of mandamus relief. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 52.2, 52.3(a), (d), (f), (h), (i); see also In re Jones , No s . 05

- 23

- 00492

- CV, 05

- 23

- 00493

- CV, 2023 WL 4101 4 40, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Dallas June 21, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). Even if we review the amended petition and record before us , we conclude that relator failed to demonstrate entitlement to mandamus relief against Judge Hoffman. Accordingly, we deny relator’s amended petition for writ of mandamus. T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 52.8(a).– 3

–

Also before the Court is relator’s January 18, 2024 Verified Motion for Temporary Relief and to Stay the Case Pending Resolution of the Pending Mandamus Petition. We deny the motion as moot.

231219f.p05 /Erin A. Nowell/ / ERIN A. NOWELL JUSTICE
---

Exhibit 13.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 on Form 20-F of Oromin Explorations Ltd. (the Company) for the year ended February 29, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I hereby certify, 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 my knowledge that:

1. The annual 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 annual report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|Date: September 16, 2008
|------------------------
|                        
|(signed):Ian Brown    



|Ian BrownChief Financial Officer
|--------------------------------

---
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Nancy J. Baker,certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewedthis quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Cymer, Inc.;

 

2.               Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.               Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin 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.               The registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a)               designed suchdisclosure 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)             evaluated theeffectiveness 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)              disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.               The registrant’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a)              all significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information.

 

b)             any fraud, whetheror not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date:  November 7, 2003

 

 
|                                        | /s/ NANCY J. BAKER |   |
|---------------------------------------------|--------------------|--------|
| Nancy J. Baker                              |
| Sr. Vice President, Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**
MEMORANDUM OPINION

N o. 04

- 19

- 00575

- CV
IN THE ESTATE of Carlos AGUILAR , Deceased
From the County Court at Law No

. 2 , Webb County, Texas Trial Court No. 2012

- PB4

- 000048

- L2 Honorable Victor Villarreal , Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Lori I. Valenzuela , Justice
Delivered and Filed: June 23, 2021
APPEAL DISMISSED On March 29, 2021, this court abated this appeal and remanded the cause to the trial court to effectuate the parties’ settlement agreement . On June 10, 2021, t he parties filed a “Joint M otion

to Di smiss A ppeal

. ” We reinstate this cause on the docket of this court, grant the joint motion , and dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1).
PER CURIAM
# Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas

January 9, 2019

No. 04

- 18

- 00623

- CR

Matthew SERNA, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 218th Judicial District Court, Atascosa County, Texas

Trial Court No. 16

- 05

- 0186

- CRA Honorable Russell Wilson, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The reporter’s record was originally due on October 2, 2018

. On January 3, 2019

, court reporter Leticia Escamilla filed a FOURTH notification of late reporter ’ s record. Ms. Escamilla
is ORDERED to file the reporter’s record with this court no later than February 1, 2019

. See

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 40.2 (“the court of appeals must hear and determine a criminal appeal at the earliest possible time”).

A ny requests for additional time to file the record will be di sfavored and must be accompanied by a signed, writt en status report. The report must comply with the following requirements:

• d escribe the transcript by day with the date, description, page counts , and remarks for each day ;

• list t he page counts for the total number of pages, the number of pages edited, proofread, and formatted into the required electron ic form (including bookmarks);
and

• describe any problems the court reporter reasonably believes may delay the completion of the record beyond the requeste d date.In addition, if the record is not received by February 1, 2019 , a show cause order may

issue directing Ms. Escamilla to appear on a day certain and show cause why she should not be held in contempt for failing to file the record.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 9th day of January, 2019

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
§ 1820.2 Requirements for making FOIA requests. ( a ) *Submission of requests.* ( 1 ) A request for OSC records under the FOIA must be made in writing. The request must be sent: ( i ) *By email to: foiarequest@osc.gov* or other electronic means described on the FOIA page of OSC's website (*https://osc.gov/FOIA*);
( ii ) *Electronically to:* The National FOIA Portal for the entire federal government at *www.foia.gov ;* or
( iii ) *By mail to:* U.S. Office of Special Counsel, FOIA Officer, 1730 M Street NW, Suite 218, Washington, DC 20036-4505.
( 2 ) Both the request letter and envelope or email subject line should be clearly marked “FOIA Request.”
( 3 ) A FOIA request will not be considered to have been received by OSC until it reaches the FOIA Officer.
( b ) *Description of records sought.* Requests must state in the letter, email, or other prescribed electronic method the words “FOIA Request” or “FOIA/Privacy Request.” The request must also describe the records sought in enough detail for them to be located with a reasonable amount of effort. When requesting records about an OSC case file, the case file number, name, and type (for example, prohibited personnel practice (PPP), Hatch Act, USERRA, Hatch Act advisory opinion, or whistleblower disclosure) should be provided, if known. Whenever possible, requests should describe any particular record sought, such as the date, title or name, author, recipient, and subject matter. OSC requires proof of identification from requestors seeking their own case files. OSC requires a signed release of information from requestors seeking another individual's case file.
( c ) *Agreement to pay fees.* By making a FOIA request the requestor agrees to pay all applicable fees chargeable under § 1820.7 unless the Special Counsel waives fees, the requestor is exempt, or the requestor otherwise qualifies for a waiver of fees.
### §3003. Authorized number on the active list

#### (a) Annual strength on active list

The annual strength of the commissioned corps in officers on the lineal list of active duty officers of the corps shall be prescribed by law.

#### (b) Lineal list

The Secretary shall maintain a list, known as the "lineal list", of officers on active duty. Officers shall be carried on the lineal list by grade and, within grade, by seniority in grade.

(Pub. L. 107–372, title II, §213, Dec. 19, 2002, 116 Stat. 3083.)