alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
      10.3













Mr.
      Adam
      Cegielski


President


Konigsberg
      Corporation


70
      East
      Beaver Creek Rd. Suite 30


Richmond,
      Ontario


L4B
      3B2





By
      Email: A.Cegielski@KonigsbergCorp.com





January
      29, 2007





To
      Whom
      It May Concern:





As
      of
      todays date the Yoquivo Option Agreement between West Timmins Mining Inc. and
      Konigsberg Corporation remains in good standing.





To
      date
      Konigsberg has funded slightly more than $200,000 U.S. in eligible exploration
      expenditures on the project. As project operator West Timmins has experienced
      certain delays in implementing work programs in the field and has hereby granted
      Konigsberg a 3 month extension (to February 31, 2007) to reach the cumulative
      exploration expenditure level of $250,000 U.S. contemplated under section
      1.1.3.A of the Yoquivo Property Option Agreement.





A
      detailed exploration expenditure report is currently being prepared and will
      be
      provided within the next few days along with an original copy of this letter.





Sincerely;





/s/
      Darin
      Wagner





Darin
      Wagner


President,


West
      Timmins Mining Inc.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

IN RE: ADOPTION OF N.R.J., A MINOR

PETITION OF: L.W., NATURAL FATHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 327 WAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 14th day of August, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
#### § 3430.1008 Sun Grant Information Analysis Center.

The Centers and Subcenter shall maintain, at the North-Central Center, a Sun Grant Information Analysis Center to provide the Centers and Subcenter with analysis and data management support. Each Center and Subcenter shall allocate a portion of the funds available for administrative or indirect costs under § 3430.1005 to maintain the Sun Grant Information Analysis Center.
Adams, Kevin (OST) 

From: Mary Nelson <adakmary_@yahoo.com> 

Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2012 6:54 PM · 

To: Adams, Kevin (OST) 1: OL! 

Subject: EAS Alaska Airlines 

Dear Sir 

I have lived on Adak Island for 16 years,My Husband and myself are a couple of the Senior Citzens that lives 

here on Adak Island and 

the trip tp Anchorage is very long and hard for me even on Alaska Airlines planes and I have seen the Different 

Airlines come and go here 

I believe Alaska Airlines has done the best job of all filling our needs and I hope you accept their bid to keep 

flying here as it would be a great lose to the Community if they were to not come here anymore 

Thank you 

Mary Nelson 

1
# 6.302 Circumstances permitting other than full and open competition.

The following statutory authorities (including applications and limitations) permit *contracting* without providing for *full and open competition*. Requirements for justifications to support the use of these authorities are in 6.303.

- 6.302-1 Only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements. 
- 6.302-2 Unusual and compelling urgency. 
- 6.302-3 Industrial mobilization; engineering, developmental, or research capability; or expert services. 
- 6.302-4 International agreement. 
- 6.302-5 Authorized or required by statute. 
- 6.302-6 National security. 
- 6.302-7 Public interest. 

**Parent topic:**Subpart 6.3 - Other Than Full and Open Competition
Subpart 4.20 Prohibition on Contracting for

Hardware, Software, and Services Developed

or Provided by Kaspersky Lab

Parent topic: Part 4 - Administrative and Information Matters

4.2001 Definitions.

As used in this subpart—

Kaspersky Lab covered article means any hardware, software, or service that–

(1) Is developed or provided by a Kaspersky Lab covered entity

(2) Includes any hardware, software, or service developed or provided in whole or in part by a

Kaspersky Lab covered entity; or

(3) Contains components using any hardware or software developed in whole or in part by a

Kaspersky Lab covered entity.

Kaspersky Lab covered entity means–

(1) Kaspersky Lab;

(2) Any successor entity to Kaspersky Lab, including any change in name, e.g., “Kaspersky”;

(3) Any entity that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with Kaspersky Lab; or

(4) Any entity of which Kaspersky Lab has a majority ownership.

4.2002 Prohibition.

Section 1634 of Division A of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Pub. L.

115-91) prohibits Government use on or after October 1, 2018, of any hardware, software, or

services developed or provided, in whole or in part, by a covered entity. Contractors are prohibited

from—

(a) Providing any Kaspersky Lab covered article that the Government will use on or after October 1,

2018; and

(b) Using any Kaspersky Lab covered article on or after October 1, 2018, in the development of data

or deliverables first produced in the performance of the contract.
4.2003 Notification.

When a contractor provides notification pursuant to 52.204-23, follow agency procedures.

4.2004 Contract clause.

The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.204-23, Prohibition on Contracting for

Hardware, Software, and Services Developed or Provided by Kaspersky Lab Covered Entities, in all

solicitations and contracts.
#### § 3565.354 Fair housing accommodations.

The lender must ensure that the borrower is in compliance with the applicable fair housing laws in the development of the property, the selection of applicants for housing, and ongoing management. See subpart A of this part.
----

----

Fox Petroleum Inc. 10-Q/A

| (1)   | Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended May 31, 2011, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended May 31, 2011, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                 |   |                                                                   |   |
|--------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Date: September 29, 2011   | By:    | /s/ William Lieberman                                                  |   |
|                                 |   | William Lieberman                                                      |   |
|                                 |   | Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)Fox Petroleum Inc. |   |
|                                 |   |                                                                   |   |
§ 301.32-8 Attachment and disposition of certificates and limited permits. ( a ) A certificate or limited permit required for the interstate movement of a regulated article must, at all times during the interstate movement, be: ( 1 ) Attached to the outside of the container containing the regulated article; or
( 2 ) Attached to the regulated article itself if not in a container; or
( 3 ) Attached to the consignee's copy of the accompanying waybill: Provided, however, that if the certificate or limited permit is attached to the consignee's copy of the waybill, the regulated article must be sufficiently described on the certificate or limited permit and on the waybill to identify the regulated article.
( b ) The certificate or limited permit for the interstate movement of a regulated article must be furnished by the carrier to the consignee listed on the certificate or limited permit upon arrival at the location provided on the certificate or limited permit.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0579-0088)
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE

.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA , Respondent ,

v. JOSE MANUEL PINZON , Petitioner

. No. 1 CA

- CR 16

- 0720 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Yavapai County

No. P1300CR2010 00868 The Honorable Tina R. Ainley , Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELI EF DENIED

COUNSEL Yavapai County Attorney’s Office , Prescott By Dana E. Owens Counsel for Respondent
Jose Manuel Pinzon, Globe Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop, Judge Diane M. Johnsen, and Judge Maria Elena Cruz delivered the decision of the Court

. FILED 10-12-2017STATE v. PINZON Decision of the Court

2 PER CURIAM : ¶1 Petitioner Jose Manuel Pinzon seeks review of the superior court’s order denying his petition for post

- convicti on relief, filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is petitioner’s second successive petition. ¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post

- conviction

r elief. State v. Gutierrez , 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012). It is petitioner’s burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petition for post

- conviction relief. See State v. Poblete , 227 Ariz. 537, ¶ 1 (App. 2011) (petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of discretion on review). ¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior court’s order denying the petition for post

- conviction relief, and the petition for review. W e find that petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion. ¶4 We grant review and deny relief.
Exhibit 32.2





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 Keyuan Petrochemicals, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report’), I, Aichun Li, 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 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.








Date:  November 15, 2010





/s/ Aichun Li


Aichun Li


Chief Financial Officer
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 8, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-50142

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MARIO PEREZ-BENITEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:05-CR-1865

--------------------

Before KING, GARWOOD, and JOLLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Mario PerezBenitez 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.
EXHIBIT
32





CASCADE
TECHNOLOGIES CORP.





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 on Form 10-Q of Cascade Technologies Corp.
(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending May 31, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Jacqueline Danforth, as Principal Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
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 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:
      July 16, 2009
              By:
              /s/Jacqueline
      DanforthName:
      Jacqueline DanforthTitle:
      Principal Financial Officer


A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 1350 of Title 18 of the
United States Code 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.





The
foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Report pursuant
to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United
States Code and, accordingly, is not being filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission as part of the Report and is not to be incorporated by
reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933 or the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date of the
Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such
filing.)
3.1105 Violations.

If the contracting officer suspects violation by the contractor of a requirement of paragraph (b),

(c)(3), or (d) of the clause at 52.203-16, Preventing Personal Conflicts of Interest, the contracting

officer shall contact the agency legal counsel for advice and/or recommendations on a course of

action.

Parent topic: Subpart 3.11 - Preventing Personal Conflicts of Interest for Contractor Employees

Performing Acquisition Functions
#### § 3570.282 [Reserved]
#### § 30.15 Cigar binder.

A portion of a tobacco leaf rolled around the filler of a cigar to bind or hold it together and form the first covering. Cigar-binder tobacco is tobacco of the kind and quality commonly used for cigar binders. Cigar-binder types are those which produce chiefly tobacco suitable for cigar-binder purposes.
4.802 Contract files.

(a) A contract file should generally consist of-

(1) The contracting office contract file that documents the basis for the acquisition and the award,

the assignment of contract administration (including payment responsibilities), and any subsequent

actions taken by the contracting office;

(2) The contract administration office contract file that documents actions reflecting the basis for

and the performance of contract administration responsibilities; and

(3) The paying office contract file that documents actions prerequisite to, substantiating, and

reflecting contract payments.

(b) Normally, each file should be kept separately; however, if appropriate, any or all of the files may

be combined; e.g., if all functions or any combination of the functions are performed by the same

office.

(c) Files must be maintained at organizational levels that ensure-

(1) Effective documentation of contract actions;

(2) Ready accessibility to principal users;

(3) Minimal establishment of duplicate and working files;

(4) The safeguarding of classified documents; and

(5) Conformance with agency regulations for file location and maintenance.

(d) If the contract files or file segments are decentralized (e.g., by type or function) to various

organizational elements or to other outside offices, responsibility for their maintenance must be

assigned. A central control and, if needed, a locator system should be established to ensure the

ability to locate promptly any contract files.

(e) Contents of contract files that are contractor bid or proposal information or source selection

information as defined in 2.101 must be protected from disclosure to unauthorized persons (see

3.104-4).

(f) Agencies may retain contract files in any medium (paper, electronic, microfilm, etc.) or any

combination of media, as long as the requirements of this subpart are satisfied.

Parent topic: Subpart 4.8 - Government Contract Files
#### Mohn Supply Company, Inc., Appellant, v Sisters of St. Joseph of Rochester, Inc., Respondent.

(Appeal No. 2.)

Appeal unanimously dismissed as moot. (Appeal from order of Monroe Supreme Court — discovery.) Present — Cardamone, J. P., Simons, Doerr and Witmer, JJ.
147 So.2d 211

#### STATE ex rel. Taylor COUSIN v. LOUISIANA STATE BOARD OF HEALTH, through its President Dr. W. J. REIN.

No. 46147.

Dec. 10, 1962.

*775Sam Monk Zelden, Max Zelden, New Orleans, for relator.

Philip C. Ciaccio, Metairil, Ingard O. Johanncsen, New Orleans, for respondent.

FOURNET, Chief Justice.

After granting a writ of certiorari on the application of the relator, Taylor Cousin, Jr., in order to review the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit,1 reversing the judgment of the trial court in favor of the relator, granting him a writ of mandamus ordering the respondent, the Louisiana State Board of Health, to issue to him a delayed birth certificate and also a corrected birth certificate to his sister Beatrice Cousin Bonnecarre, as prayed for, the respondent filed a motion to dismiss2 these proceedings on the ground that the matter had become moot as the relator had died during the pendency of the action here.

The general rule is that “proceedings for mandamus being in the nature of a personal action, * * * abate on the death of the person in whose behalf they have been instituted, and cannot be prosecuted by the personal representatives of the relator after his death.”3

Under the-laws of this state, “An action does not abate on the death of a party. *777*The only exception to this rule is an action to enforce a right or obligation which is strictly*personalArt. 428, C.C.P. “An obligation is strictly personal, when none but the obligee can enforce the performance, or when it can be enforced only against the obligor.” Art. 1997, R.C.C. of 1870 (Emphasis supplied)

Clearly this action is not heritable 4 as it is strictly personal to the relator and therefore abates with his death, thereby rendering the matter before us moot.

For the reasons assigned, the writ is recalled. Relator is to pay all costs.

1

. The Court of Appeal holding (a) that there was no right or interest in the relator to demand the change in the registration of the birth of his sister, to that extent dismissed his suit, and (b) that the relator had “ * * * not established beyond any possible doubt that he is a white person. * * * ” dismissed the suit as to. him as of nonsuit.. See, 138 So.2d 829.

2

. On the day set for oral argument, counsel for the relator endeavored to substitute as parties plaintiff the widow of relator, Beverly Cousin, and their eight children, Arlett Cousin, Constant Cousin, Barry Cousin, Larry Cousin, Beverly Cousin, Sandra Cousin, June Francis Cousin and Roger Cousin.

3

. 18 R.C.L., Sec. 287, p. 335.

4

. *it** * * it [an obligation] is heritable when the heirs and assigns of the one party may enforce the performance against the heirs of the other. * * ** ”*Art. 1997, R.C.C. of 1870.
EXHIBIT 31.1



CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION



I, Denise Smith, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Silver Pearl Enterprises, Inc.



2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;



4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we 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 registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;



b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant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 registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant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 registrants internal control over financial reporting.





Date: November 16, 2006











|/s/ | Denise Smith                          | 
|--- | ------------------------------------- | 
|    | President and Chief Executive Officer |
Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 1-9 Filed 03/11/20 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 1-9 Filed 03/11/20 Page 2 of 2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Felipe Rivera, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered on August 6, 1976, unanimously affirmed. Application by appellant’s former assigned counsel, David H. Shapiro, Esq., to withdraw as such counsel is granted. (See *Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s former assigned counsel that there are not meritorious points which could be raised on this appeal. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Sandler, Sullivan, Bloom and Markewich, JJ.