alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.6



CERTIFICATION



PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002



The undersigned, as the President and Chief Executive
Officer of Cardiol Therapeutics Inc. certifies that, to the best of his knowledge and belief, the annual report on Form 40-F for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, which accompanies this certification, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in the annual report on Form 40-F
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of Cardiol Therapeutics Inc. at the dates and for the periods indicated. The foregoing certification is made pursuant to § 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350) and shall not be relied upon for any other purpose. The undersigned expressly disclaims
any obligation to update the foregoing certification except as required by law.



|Date: March 23, 2022                  | 
|------------------------------------- | 
|                                      | 
|/s/
David Elsley                      | 
|David Elsley                          | 
|President and Chief Executive Officer | 
|(principal executive officer)         |
NUMBER 13-18-00527-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN THE INTEREST OF A.M.L.M., T.W.M., AND S.L.M., 

CHILDREN

On appeal from the 24th District Court

of Victoria County, Texas.

ORDER OF ABATEMENT

Before Justices Rodriguez, Longoria, and Hinojosa

Order Per Curiam

This is an appeal of a final order terminating parental rights. This cause is currently 

before this Court because appellant L.A.M.’s counsel, the Honorable Mark A. Davis, has 

failed to timely file appellant’s brief in this matter and is currently suspended from the 

practice of law.1 Accordingly, as further discussed herein, we abate and remand this 

 1See https://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Find_A_Lawyer&template=/Custom

source/MemberDirectory/MemberDirectoryDetail.cfm&ContactID=201542. 
2

appeal to the trial court for the appointment of new counsel.

Appeals in parental termination and child protection cases are governed by the rules 

of appellate procedure for accelerated appeals and include additional expedited deadlines 

and procedures. See TEX. R. APP. P. 28.4; TEX. R. JUD. ADMIN. 6.2(a), reprinted in TEX.

GOV’T CODE ANN., tit.2, subtit. F app. (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.). The 

appellant's brief is due within twenty days after the later of the date the clerk's record was 

filed or the date the reporter's record was filed, and appellee's brief is due within twenty 

days after the date the appellant's brief was filed. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a), (b). The 

intermediate appellate courts are directed to ensure "as far as reasonably possible" that 

appeals are brought to final disposition within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is 

filed. TEX. R. JUD. ADMIN. 6.2(a). In accordance with the limited time for consideration of 

these appeals, it is the policy of this Court to limit extensions of time to file a brief to one 

ten-day extension of time absent truly extraordinary circumstances. See TEX. R. APP. P.

38.6(d).

L.A.M.’s counsel has failed to timely file appellant’s brief and is currently suspended 

from the practice of law. Over 74 days of the total 180 days in which this type of appeal 

is to be disposed have already passed. See TEX. R. JUD. ADMIN. 6.2(a). 

We now ABATE this appeal and REMAND the cause to the trial court for 

appointment of new counsel. The trial court SHALL appoint new counsel within seven 

days of the date of this order. The trial court must inform newly appointed counsel that 

the appellant’s brief is due to be filed within fourteen days after counsel is appointed. We 

respectfully request the trial court to impress upon the new counsel the necessity of acting 

expeditiously in this case. The trial court shall forward the order appointing new counsel,

along with counsel’s full name, mailing address, telephone number, fax number, email 
3

address, and State Bar of Texas identification number to this Court in the form of a 

supplemental clerk’s record within seven days from the date of this order.

It is so ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

3rd day of December, 2018
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Chile National Day

# 									Chile National Day							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

September 18, 2023

On behalf of the United States of America and the American people, I send our best wishes to the people of Chile as they celebrate 213 years of independence.

I also send heartfelt gratitude for the close and productive partnership that our two countries have shared for more than two centuries. Our shared commitment to human rights, democracy, transparency, and free markets have helped our two nations overcome the many domestic, regional, and global challenges that we have confronted, and set the stage for our deep and abiding friendship.

As we commemorate this shared history between the Chilean and American people, it is my honor to wish a happy Independence Day to all Chileans.

Tags

Bureau of Western Hemisphere AffairsChileOffice of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of State

Back to Top
#### § 566.704 Administrative collection; referral to United States Department of Justice.

In the event that the violator does not pay the penalty imposed pursuant to this part or make payment arrangements acceptable to OFAC, the matter may be referred for administrative collection measures by the Department of the Treasury or to the United States Department of Justice for appropriate action to recover the penalty in a civil suit in a federal district court.
#### JEHU V. CHASE v. THE UNITED STATES.

[No. 32974.

Decided January 8, 1917.]

Per Curiam :

This is a case in which a lieutenant commander was ordered by the commander of the United States Atlantic Fleet to duty with the command of the Third Squadron of the United States Pacific Fleet for such duty as he might assign him, and he was assigned to duty as flag secretary, and claims additional pay as aid to a rear admiral of the Navy.

This case is governed by the case of *Knox*v. *United States, ante,*p. 22, in which it was decided that the commander of a fleet had no power to appoint an aid for a rear admiral; and, moreover, this officer being a lieutenant commander was not eligible to the appointment of aid.

The petition of the plaintiff is therefore dismissed.
#### § 525.402 Effect of amendment.

Unless otherwise specifically provided, any amendment, modification, or revocation of any provision in or appendix to this part or chapter or of any order, regulation, ruling, instruction, or license issued by OFAC does not affect any act done or omitted, or any civil or criminal proceeding commenced or pending, prior to such amendment, modification, or revocation. All penalties, forfeitures, and liabilities under any such order, regulation, ruling, instruction, or license continue and may be enforced as if such amendment, modification, or revocation had not been made.
Opinion issued April 8, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 13
- 003 82
- CR

——————————— RONALD LEE LAYMAN , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee
On Appeal from the 239 th District Court Brazoria County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 68809

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Ronald Lee Layman , pleaded guilty to the felony offense of driving while intoxicated

— third or more

. 1 The trial court found Layman guilty and, in accordance with the terms of h is plea bargain agreement with the State,

1 See T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN
. § 49.09(b)(2) (West 2011)

.2

sentenced h im to four years of community supervision and assessed a $500 fine. Acting pro se , Layman filed a notice of appeal

. The State has filed a motion to dis miss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. We grant the State’s motion and dismiss the appeal. In a plea bargain case, a defendant may only appeal those matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial or after getting the trial

c ourt’s permission to appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(a)(2). An appeal must be dismissed if a certification showing that the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(d). Here, the trial court’s certif ication is included in the record on appeal. See id

. The trial court’s certification states that this is a plea bargain case and that the defendant has no right of appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(a)(2). Appellant did not appeal any pre

- trial matters, and the trial court did not give permission for appellant to appeal. The record supports the trial court’s certification. See Dears v. State , 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Because appellant has no right of appeal, we must dismiss this appeal. S ee Chavez v. State , 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (“A court of appeals, while having jurisdiction to ascertain whether an appellant who plea

- bargained is permitted to appeal by Rule 25.2(a)(2), must dismiss a prohibited appeal without further action, regardless of the basis for the appeal.”).3

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. We dismiss any pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justice s Keyes, Bland, and Brown

. Do not publish. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2(b).
HomeDiplomatic Security Service Memorial...Robert  McMaugh

# 				Robert McMaugh			

				U.S. Military–Marine Security Guard			

Deceased				April 18, 1983			

Cpl. Robert V. McMaugh, Marine Security Guard, died on April 18, 1983, in Beirut, Lebanon. He was killed during a terrorist bombing of U.S. Embassy Beirut.

**Private collection image**

Back to DSS Memorial

Tags

Diplomatic Security Service MemorialLebanon

Back to Top
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Bulgaria National Day

# 									Bulgaria National Day							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

March 3, 2021

On behalf of the Government of the United States of America, I congratulate all Bulgarians on the occasion of your National Day.

As enduring friends, Allies, and partners, the United States and Bulgaria share a commitment to freedom, human rights, democratic and accountable institutions, security, and a market economy.  Upholding these hard-earned values is not easy, but we all must strive to do so – for ourselves and for future generations.  We look forward to working together as you lead the Three Seas Initiative this year, and as we recover from the global pandemic, revive our economies, strengthen our institutions, address shared regional and global challenges, and further develop our strategic partnership.

I extend best wishes for a peaceful, healthy, and prosperous year ahead, and I look forward to continued friendship and ever closer cooperation.

Tags

BulgariaBureau of European and Eurasian AffairsOffice of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of State

Back to Top
#### Platt Estate

*568Before Klein, P. J., Bolger, Hunter, Lefever, Saylor and Shoyer, JJ.

*576*William H. S. Wells,*of *Saul, Ewing, Remick & Saul,*for accountant.

*Sidney L. Wickenhaver,*of *Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads,*for exceptants.

*Phillip A. Bregy, Mark Willcox*and *MacCoy, Evans & Lewis,*contra.

*577October 29, 1954.

Bolger, J.,

In passing upon the correctness of the adjudication, we confirm its correctness for the reasons so clearly stated and so fully documented in the learned auditing judge’s adjudication.

The language in dispute is “after the death of Mary E. Platt and Clara G. Canby and her children and the consequent termination of this trust, then the entire estate shall be divided among the lawful issue of such children of Clara G. Canby. . . .” “Issue” may have different connotations according to the particular context, heirs, descendents, children or grandchildren, but here any connotation would apply to the exceptants, the children of the children of Clara G. Canby. In Mayhew’s Estate, 307 Pa. 84, where the court construed “issue”, the question involved the right of living children to share with their parents. In the instant case the children are all of the same generation. We find nothing inherent in “issue” that requires a stirpital distribution, particularly where those entitled are of the same generation.

This gift, as in Rosengarten Estate, 349 Pa. 32, is a grant in words of a definite and technical meaning to the lawful issue of Clara G. Canby per capita. The exceptants have not overcome the burden of altering or changing this distribution. There is, therefore, no oc^J casion to comment on the subject of broad testamentary intent. In Rosengarten’s Estate, supra, not only were all of the incidents of the instant case present, but there were others much more persuasive, but all of them were rejected as being insufficient to overcome the conclusion that testator intended per capita distribution.

Most of the citations advanced by exceptants are inapt. In Conner’s Estate (No. 2), 318 Pa. 150, the language involved a substitutionary gift in remainder. The court held that since the primary gift in remainder *578was expressly per stirpes, it necessarily followed that testator intended the same devolution of the gift in dispute and not on “ *‘a*basis or scheme of distribution distinct from the one already established’ ”: Conner’s Estate, 318 Pa. 150,155.

The rationale of this will is clear and intelligent. There is no doubt of testator’s intention to distribute income per stirpes and principal per capita, both of which are respectively fair and equal. As pointed out so clearly in the adjudication, the construction sought by the exceptants would play havoc with this intention which is clearly expressed in the will.

The exceptions are dismissed and the adjudication is confirmed absolutely.
#### Albert Higgins, Jr., et al., appellants, *v.*Richard Linstra et al., executors, &c., respondents.

[Decided October 14th, 1929.]

*Messrs. J.*W. *& E. A. De*Toe, for the appellants.

*Messrs. Feder & Rmzler,*for the respondents.

Per Curiam.

The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed in the court below by Vme-Chancellor Lewis, and reported in *104 N. J. Eq. 355.*

*For affirmance*— The Chief-Justice, Trenchard, Parker, Kalisch, Black, Campbell, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, White, Van Buskiek, McGlennon, Kays, Heteield, Dear, JJ. 15.

*For reversal*— None.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Commission on Civil Rights

# AGENCY:

United States Commission on Civil Rights.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# Date and Time:

 Thursday, September 3, 2009; 11:30 a.m. EDT.

# Place:

 Via Teleconference, Public Dial In—1-800-597-7623, Conference ID # 26317162.

## Meeting Agenda

This meeting is open to the public.

## I. Approval of Agenda

## II. Staff Director's Report

    - Update on Building Improvements.       ( print page 42852)      

## III. State Advisory Committee Issues

    - Arizona SAC;
    - Hawaii SAC;
    - Michigan SAC;
    - Utah SAC;
    - Indiana SAC;
    - Nebraska SAC;
    - South Dakota SAC.

## IV. Program Planning

    - Update on National Civil Rights Conference.

## V. Adjourn

# Contact Person For Further Information:

Lenore Ostrowsky, Acting Chief, Public Affairs Unit (202) 376-8582. TDD: (202) 376-8116.

Persons with a disability requiring special services, such as an interpreter for the hearing impaired, should contact Pamela Dunston at least seven days prior to the meeting at 202-376-8105. TDD: (202) 376-8116.

Dated: August 21, 2009.

David Blackwood,

General Counsel.

[FR Doc. E9-20613 Filed 8-21-09; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,191,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,847,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  3,719,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,906,000
<PP&E>                                       3,475,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              (1,451,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              16,555,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,965,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  1,494,000
<COMMON>                                    33,706,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 (25,220,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                16,555,000
<SALES>                                      4,265,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              4,302,00
<CGS>                                        1,748,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,948,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                354,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (17,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            337,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   337,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     $.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     $.03
        

</TABLE>
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

December 28, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 132108 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 132108 COA: 266590 Saginaw CC: 02-022079-FC SHAWN CEDRIC GUERRERO, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 7, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing en titlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

d1218 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 28, 2006

Clerk
#### Clayton H. CONARD and Dennis Harman Friel, Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 80-272.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

April 1, 1981.

James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Brent A. Woolbright, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellants.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Evelyn D. Golden, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dayto-na Beach, for appellee.

COBB, Judge.

This is a timely appeal from the judgments and sentences entered after appellants were convicted after trial by jury of nine counts of selling unregistered securities, nine counts of fraudulently selling securities, and one count of scheming to defraud each, in violations of sections 517.07, 517.302, 517.301, 817.035(2), Florida Statutes (1977). According to appellants, the total terms of the sentences are unclear from the record on appeal. The charges and convictions arose from a worm farm scam.

The defendants were sentenced in the following manner:

> 

Defendants moved for correction or reduction of sentence on the grounds that they were in doubt as to the intent of the court and were of the understanding that the court intended to impose a total sentence of 10 years. This motion was denied. The trial judge’s notes, dated February 7, 1980, show Counts 7, 10, and 19 as consecutive, and show all the other counts as concurrent; while a second note dated February 27, 1980, does not refer to the specific counts by number and does not shed any light on the issue.

The Department of Corrections has interpreted the above sentences as an aggregate of twenty years. The appellants contend it is no more than fifteen years. The state conceded, on oral argument, that the wording of the sentences is ambiguous and should be clarified by the trial court. *1159The appellants point out, *inter alia,*that there is no logical way for the five years imposed for Count I to run concurrently with the sentences for all of the other; counts, three of which (Counts 7,10 and 19)' were designated as *consecutive*sentences.

The appellants' remaining point on appeal, the claim that the trial judge erred in denying a mistrial motion,1 is patently without merit.

Accordingly, we affirm the convictions but remand to the trial court for entry of clarified and logically consistent sentencés. It shall not be necessary for the appellants to be present at resentencing. *See Campbell*v. *State,*379 So.2d 1011 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).

ORFINGER and SHARP, JJ., concur.

1

. In reading the 19-count information to the sworn panel, the trial judge paused after Count Ten and said: “Ten down, and nine to go,” before reading on. Defense counsel moved for a mistrial, but refused the trial court’s offer of a corrective instruction to the jury to ignore the comment.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darryl Lamonte HERNDON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-6648.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 13, 2002.

Decided June 19, 2002.

Darryl Lamonte Herndon, Appellant Pro Se. Craig Jon Jacobsen, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Darryl Lamonte Herndon seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *See United States v. Hern*
      *674
      *don,*Nos. CR-99-58; CA-01-148-7 (W.D.Va. Mar. 15, 2002). 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.*
HomeBiographies...Jeffrey D. Johnson

# 				Jeffrey D. Johnson			

															Deputy Chief Information Officer for Business   Management and Planning						Bureau of Information Resource Management												

				May 22, 2020 -									Present							

Tags

Bureau of Information Resource ManagementState Department Official

Back to Top