alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 13.2 SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002*  In connection with the annual report of North American Nickel Inc. (formerly Widescope Resources Inc.) (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2016 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Alex Dann, Chief Financial Officer 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:  1. the Report containing the financial statements of the Company 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date: April 18, 2017  /s/ Alex Dann Alex Dann Chief Financial Officer  * A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

)

INDEPENDENT PARTY OF )

FLORIDA and PARTY FOR )

SOCIALISM AND LIBERATION, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) Case No. 4:20-cv-00110-MW-CAS

)

LAUREL M. LEE, Florida )

Secretary of State, in her official )

capacity, )

)

Defendant. )

)

DECLARATION OF RICHARD WINGER

I, Richard Winger, hereby declare that:

1. I make this declaration based on my own personal knowledge. I 

am competent to testify to the matters stated herein.

2. The quotation attributed to me on page 10 of Laurel M. Lee’s 

Opposition paper was miscontrued in the Ninth Circuit’s Opinion. I was 

deposed in the district court case that ultimately went up on appeal, 

and I was quoted in the opinion at De La Fuente v. Padilla, 930 F.3d 

1101, 1105-06 (9th Cir. 2019). The Opinion took a quote where I had 

Case 4:20-cv-00110-MW-MAF Document 35-1 Filed 05/29/20 Page 1 of 3
2

said “there’s almost nobody left to petition,” and used that quote to hold 

that Mr. De La Fuente’s ballot access case could appropriately be 

denied because voters already had a sufficient choice among the 

partisan candidates.

3. Mr. De La Fuente was running as an independent candidate after 

failing to obtain the Democratic nomination in 2016. Id. at 1104.

4. I made the above-referenced comment regarding the 1996 and 

2000 presidential elections in California. In those particular elections 

(and no other presidential elections) California had eight ballotqualified parties. All significant presidential candidates running in 

those two years were on the ballot in California. My generalization did 

not apply to other presidential election years in California. Many times, 

significant presidential candidates were not able to get on the ballot in 

California, including Eugene McCarthy in 1976, Ralph Nader in 2004, 

and Evan McMullin in 2016.

5. Regarding the Kendrick Meek candidacy in 2010 referred to on in 

Lee’s Opposition Brief at page 11, that candidate did not run on a minor 

party ticket. Rather, Mr. Meek was a Democratic candidate for Senate.

Case 4:20-cv-00110-MW-MAF Document 35-1 Filed 05/29/20 Page 2 of 3
Case 4:20-cv-00110-MW-MAF Document 35-1 Filed 05/29/20 Page 3 of 3
98-1124.

#### Clement v. Grant Mut. Cas. Co.

Medina App. No. 2698-M. Discretionary appeal allowed; *sua sponte,*cause consolidated with 98-1185, *infra,*and held for the decision in 98-772, *Csulik v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.,*Stark App. No. 197CA00283; briefing schedule stayed.

Moyer, C.J., and Lundberg Stratton, J., dissent.
98-1952.

#### State v. Arnold.

Cuyahoga App. No. 72803. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion granted.

Douglas, Resnick and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., dissent.
#### § 28.188 Fee amounts.

The provisions of §§ 28.116 through 28.119 relating to fees shall apply to services performed with respect to foreign-growth cotton.

[81 FR 7031, Feb. 10, 2016]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

  <ARTICLE> 5
  <LEGEND>
  THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM FINANCIAL
  STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE MOST RECENT ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM
10-K OF RESEARCH
  FRONTIERS INCORPORATED FOR THE YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2000 AND IS
QUALIFIED
  IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
  </LEGEND>

  <S>                             <C>
  <PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
  <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
  <PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-2000
  <CASH>                                       3,806,172
  <SECURITIES>                                11,311,658
  <RECEIVABLES>                                        0
  <ALLOWANCES>                                         0
  <INVENTORY>                                          0
  <CURRENT-ASSETS>                            15,358,819
  <PP&E>                                         347,703
  <DEPRECIATION>                                       0
  <TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,729,127
  <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          991,210
  <BONDS>                                              0
  <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
  <PREFERRED>                                          0
  <COMMON>                                    12,103,683
  <OTHER-SE>                                           0
  <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                15,729,127
  <SALES>                                        333,652
  <TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,212,170
  <CGS>                                                0
  <TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,779,970
  <OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
  <LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
  <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
  <INCOME-PRETAX>                             (7,567,800)
  <INCOME-TAX>                                         0
  <INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
  <DISCONTINUED>                                       0
  <EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
  <CHANGES>                                            0
  <NET-INCOME>                                (7,567,800)
  <EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.63)
  <EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.63)


</TABLE>
#### LINDEBERG et al. v. HODGENS.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.

June 18, 1914.)

Contracts (§ 322*)—Performance—Admissibility of Evidence—Remoteness.

In an action by architects for services rendered, where the defense was that the plaintiffs permitted improper and inferior materials to be used, evidence of the condition of the house about two years after its completion, accompanied by evidence tending to show that its condition was the same then as when plaintiff certified that it was completed, was not too remote, and was improperly excluded.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Contracts, Cent. Dig. §§ 1306, 1307, 1339, 1347, 1348, 1465, 1492, 1534-1542, 1754, 1768, 1772, 1801, 1802, 1804-1808, 1815, 1816; Dec. Dig. § 322.*]

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Ninth District.

*154Action by Harrie T. Eindeberg and another against Thomas M. Hodgens. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals.

Reversed, and new trial ordered.

Argued June term, 1914, before SEABURY, PAGE, and BIJUR, JJ.

Blair & Rudd, of New York City (Arthur B. King, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.

C. H. & J. A. Young, of New York City, for respondents.

*

For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep'r Indexes

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiffs are architects, and sued the defendant for a balance due them for services in drawing plans, making estimates and superintending alterations of a dwelling house owned by the defendant at Greenwich, Conn. The defense in substance is that the plaintiffs negligently supervised the alterations, and permitted and allowed improper and inferior materials to' be used, and permitted the work to be done in an improper and an unworkmanlike manner.

Upon the trial the defendant attempted to show the then condition of the house, which was about two years after its completion. Evidence of this nature was excluded by the court upon plaintiffs’ objection as being too remote, and evidence tending to show that the condition of the house was the same at the time of the trial as it was when plaintiffs certified that it was completed was also excluded. This was manifestly error.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.
#### § 1738.350 OMB control number.

The information collection requirements in this part are approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB control number 0572-0154.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**Section 906 Certification**

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.Section 1350), the undersigned officer of Centennial Bank Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies that the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 (the“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

Dated: August 11, 2006 

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
§ 249.11 Financial management system. ( a ) *Disclosure of expenditures.* The State agency must maintain a financial management system that provides accurate, current and complete disclosure of the financial status of the SFMNP. This must include an accounting for all property and other assets and all SFMNP funds received and expended each fiscal year.
( b ) *Internal controls.* The State agency shall maintain effective controls over and accountability for all SFMNP funds. The State agency must have effective internal controls to ensure that expenditures financed with SFMNP funds are authorized and properly chargeable to the SFMNP.
( c ) *Record of expenditures.* The State agency must maintain records that adequately identify the source and use of funds expended for SFMNP activities. These records must contain, but are not limited to, information pertaining to authorization, receipt of funds, obligations, unobligated balances, assets, liabilities, outlays, and income.
( d ) *Payment of costs.* The State agency must implement procedures that ensure prompt and accurate payment of allowable costs, and ensure the allowability and allocability of costs in accordance with the cost principles and standard provisions of this part, 2 CFR part 200, subpart E, and USDA implementing regulations 2 CFR parts 400 and 415, and FNS guidelines and Instructions.
( e ) *Identification of obligated funds.* The State agency must implement procedures that accurately identify obligated SFMNP funds at the time the obligations are made.
( f ) *Resolution of audit findings.* The State agency shall implement procedures that ensure timely and appropriate resolution of claims and other matters resulting from audit findings and recommendations.
( g ) *Reconciliation of food instruments.* The State agency must reconcile SFMNP coupons in accordance with § 249.10(h).
( h ) *Transfer of cash.* The State agency must establish the timing and amounts of its cash draws against its Letter of Credit in accordance with 31 CFR part 205.
[71 FR 74630, Dec. 12, 2006, as amended at 83 FR 14174, Apr. 3, 2018]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. Case No. 3:97cr128-02/RV

ERIC DARNEL TAYLOR

 /

ORDER

On October 3, 2008, I reduced defendant Taylor’s sentence of imprisonment

from 336 months to 270 months. The reduced sentence was within the guideline range

as revised downward by the two-level reduction in the offense level authorized by

Amendment 706. Such a reduction in sentence is only permissible when the

Sentencing Commission has provided for retroactive application of the lowered

sentencing range, and only in accordance with Title 18, United States Code, Section

3582(c)(2).

Having fully considered all of the factors set out in Title 18, United States Code,

Section 3553(a) [see United States v. Eggersdorf, 126 F.3d 1318, 1322 (11th Cir. 1997)],

any public safety concerns, the defendant’s post-sentencing conduct, and all the

matters in the record (both at the original sentencing and for the re-sentencing), the

vacated 270-months sentence imposed on October 3, 2008, is hereby re-imposed.

In all other respects, the original sentence of April 21, 1998, remains in full force

and effect.

DONE AND ORDERED this 17th day of June, 2009.

/s/ Roger Vinson 

Roger Vinson

Senior United States District Judge

Case 3:97-cr-00128-RV Document 256 Filed 06/17/09 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. Case Nos. 3:96cr80/LAC/CJK

 3:13cv452/LAC/CJK

STEVEN ANTHONY GRAHAM

 /

ORDER

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s Report and

Recommendation dated August 13, 2013 (doc. 282). Defendant has been furnished a copy of the

Report and Recommendation and has been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to

Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de novo determination of the timely

filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and the objections thereto timely filed,

I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. Defendant’s motion to vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (doc. 281) is

SUMMARILYDISMISSED, as this court lacks jurisdiction to consider a successive motion absent

authorization from the Eleventh Circuit.

2. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 23 day of September, 2013. rd

s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
#### Richmond County Savings Bank, Respondent, v Roccisano Contracting Corp. et al., Defendants, and Burt Millwork Corporation, Appellant. (And Two Similar Titles.)

In three actions to foreclose building loan mortgages on three Staten Island properties, defendant Burt Millwork Corporation appeals from three orders of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, all entered August 14, 1979, each of which as to each action (1) converted plaintiffs motion to dismiss appellant’s counterclaims pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd [a], par 7) and to strike appellant’s affirmative defenses pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd [b]) into a motion for summary judgment under CPLR 3211 (subd [c]), and granted same; (2) dismissed appellant’s counterclaims and struck appellant’s answer and affirmative defenses; and (3) denied appellant’s cross motion for leave to serve an amended answer pursuant to CPLR 3025 (subd [b]). Orders modified by deleting the first decretal paragraph of each order and by deleting from the second decretal paragraph of each order the words "answer and”. As so modified, orders affirmed, without costs or disbursements. We find that Special Term correctly dismissed appellant’s counterclaims, and correctly struck appellant’s affirmative defenses as nonmeritorious. Said counterclaims and defenses were founded on an incorrect interpretation of subdivisions (2) and (3) of section 13 of the Lien Law, and they amounted to mere conclusory allegations, insufficient under the minimal notice pleading requirement of CPLR 3013, or under the slightly more stringent requirement with respect to particularizing the material elements of an alleged fraud under CPLR 3016 (subd [b]). We further find that Special Term did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant’s motion for leave to amend its answer, since the proposed new matter, which largely recapitulates what was in the original answer, is without prima facie merit. However, Special Term improperly deemed plaintiff’s motions to be motions for summary judgment because the court failed to comply with the notice requirements of CPLR 3211 (subd [c]). The procedural condition precedent for such a conversion, i.e., adequate bilateral notice of same, was necessary to provide the requisite notice of prospective summary judgment treatment to plaintiff and appellant. Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, Titone and Mangano, JJ., concur.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 20

- 10732 Summary Calendar

**Paul D. Timms,**

Plaintiff

— Appellant **,**

versus

**Christian Douthit,** Medical Doctor **,** Defendant

— Appellee

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:20

- CV

- 67

Before **Higginbotham, Graves,**  and **Ho,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *
Paul D. Timms, Texas prisoner # 1564883, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 proceeding. We review the district court’s denial of IFP status for an
abuse of discretion. See Flowers v. Turbine Support Div ., 507 F.2d 1242, 1244

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  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 cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED November 4, 2022
Ly le W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-10732 Document: 00516533895 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/04/2022No. 20

- 10732

2 (5th Cir. 1975 ) , superseded on other grounds by statute as recognized in Thompson v. Drewry , 138 F.3d 984, 98 5

- 8 6 (5th Cir. 1998).

The district court ’ s determination that Timms was financially ineligible to pr oceed IFP was not based on arbitrary or erroneous grounds

. See Flowers , 507 F.2d at 1244

. Given the deposits and balances in Timms’s inmate trust account during the months preceding the initiation of his § 1983 action, the district court’s ruling does no t represent an abuse of discretion.
See id.

**AFFIRMED.** Case: 20-10732 Document: 00516533895 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/04/2022
Document No. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 3:98cr47 LAC

THOMAS BRELAND, III

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge Lacey Collier on July 9 , 2008 

Motion/Pleadings: REQUEST FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO SUPPLEMENT MOTION FOR 

REDUCTION OF SENTENCE WITH EDUCATION DATA TRANSCRIPT 

Filed by DEFENDANT PRO SE on7/7/08 Doc.# 201

RESPONSES:

on Doc.#

on Doc.#

Stipulated Joint Pldg.

Unopposed Consented

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

s/Mary Maloy

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Mary Maloy

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 10

th day of

July, 2008, that:

(a) The relief requested is DENIED. MOOT.

(b) See doc. 200. 

 s/L.A. Collier

LACEY A. COLLIER

Senior United States District Judge

Entered On Docket: By: 

Rules 58 & 79(a) FRCP or 32(d)(1) & 55 FRCRP

Copies sent to:

Case 3:98-cr-00047-LC-MD Document 202 Filed 07/10/08 Page 1 of 1
#### § 29.3001 Definitions.

As used in these standards, the words and phrases hereinafter defined shall have the indicated meanings so assigned.
Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 1-15 Filed 03/11/20 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 1-15 Filed 03/11/20 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

MICHAEL T. MARCUM,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 4:20-cv-134-AW-GRJ

MARK INCH, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

I have considered the magistrate judge’s Second Report and 

Recommendation, ECF No. 28, to which no objections have been filed. The Report 

and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated into this order. I further note that 

the Plaintiff’s earlier filing (ECF No. 18) indicated he is in protective custody, which 

is what he sought in filing the lawsuit. Moreover, it appears that Plaintiff, who did 

not respond to the motion to dismiss, has abandoned the litigation. 

The motion to dismiss, ECF No. 26, is GRANTED. The clerk will enter a 

judgment that says, “This case is dismissed as moot.” The clerk will then close the 

file. 

SO ORDERED on December 7, 2020. 

s/ Allen Winsor

United States District Judge

Case 4:20-cv-00134-AW-MAF Document 29 Filed 12/07/20 Page 1 of 1
##### 



EXHIBIT 12.1 RULE 13A-14(A) CERTIFICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Edward Dolejsi, President and CEO of International Gemini Technology Inc. (the Company),
certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of the Company; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or
omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations
and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The Companys other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining
disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for
the Company and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to
the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Companys disclosure controls and procedures and presented in
this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as
of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Companys internal control over financial reporting
that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the Companys internal control over financial reporting;
and 5. The Companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation
of internal control over financial reporting, to the Companys auditors and the audit committee of
the Companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal
control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Companys
ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a
significant role in the Companys internal control over financial reporting. Date: June 29, 2005 /s/ Edward DolejsiEdward DolejsiPresident and CEO