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









Certification of Principal Executive Officer
and Principal Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Suresh Venkatesan, the Chief Executive Officer of POET Technologies Inc. (the "Company"),
hereby certify, that, to my knowledge:



1. The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended
2016 (the "Report") of the Company 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The foregoing certification is provided solely for purposes of complying
with the provisions of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not intended to be used or relied upon for any other
purpose.





Date: April 17, 2017







/s/ Suresh Venkatesan

_____________________

Name: Suresh Venkatesan

Title: Chief Executive
Officer
June 11, 2015



### JUDGMENT


## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

ANTHONY OBI OGBO A/K /A INTERNATIONAL GUA RDIAN NEWSPAPER

, Appellant

NO. 14

- 14

- 00570

- CV V.

PIUS OKAFOR AND JOHN OKAFOR , Appellee s

________________________________ Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment signed by the court below on April 17, 2014. Having considered the motion and found it meritorious, we ord er the appeal DISMISSED

. We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by appellant, Anthony Obi Ogbo a/k/a International Guardian Newspaper.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION

POWERNOTES (SM)

With Maturities of 9 months or more from Date of Issue

 

Registration No.  333-97047

Filed Pursuant to Rule 424 (b) (3)

PRICING SUPPLEMENT NO.  231				Trade Date: 11/07/02
(To Prospectus Supplement dated August 15, 2002 & 

  Prospectus dated August 8,2002)					Issue Date:  11/13/02
The Date of this Pricing Supplement November 11, 2002
SUBJECT TO REDEMPTION OR REPAYMENT

  CUSIP									Date and terms of redemption or

     or	Stated				             Interest			repayment (including any

Common	Interest		  Price to	 Discounts &         Payment	Survivors		applicable regular or special

  Code	Rate (1)	Maturity	Public (2)	Commissions       Frequency	  Option	Yes/No	record dates)

14911QKQ3  2.75%	11/15/05	     100%	        0.6%                Monthly	     YES	    NO	

Principal						1st Payment	Day	

Amount		Proceeds		Dealer		      Date		Count

$1,302,000.00	$1,294,188.00	ABN AMRO Inc.	   12/15/02		30/360	
 

Original Issue Discount Note:					Total Amount of OID:

____  Yes	  X   No						N/A

 

 
- The interest rates on the PowerNotes (SM) may be changed by Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation from time to time, but any such change will not affect the interest rate on any PowerNotes (SM) offered prior to the effective date of the change.   Prior to the date of this Pricing Supplement, $14.104 mm principal amount of the PowerNotes (SM) were sold at interest rates then in effect.  Subsequent offerings of PowerNotes (SM) will be made under the Prospectus Supplement and Prospectus dated August 8, 2002.
- Expressed as a percentage of aggregate principal amount.  Actual Price to Public may be less, and will be determined by prevailing market prices at the time of purchase as set forth in the confirmation sheet.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Order Continuing Trial Date /SLOAN— 1

CR05-378JLR

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220

Seattle, Washington 98101-1271

(206) 553-7970

Judge Robart

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

) NO. CR05-378JLR

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL DATE

)

AARON SLOAN, ) 

)

Defendant. ) 

_________________________________)

ORDER

The Court having reviewed the records and files herein and considered the

government’s motion, enters the following order:

1. On December 14, 2006, the defendant was found not competent to stand

trial. Following that finding the defendant initially refused to participate in a competency

evaluation and was resistant to taking the recommended medication. 

2. On May 11, 2006, after receiving a report from Dr. Cynthia Low, this Court

found the defendant mentally competent to proceed to trial. 

3. Given the unpredictable nature of when the defendant would become

competent and the government’s involvement in another trial which is expected to last

into the week of May 22, 2006, and possibly until the trial date in this matter of May 24,

2006, this Court finds that the government is in need of additional time to prepare for

trial. 

Case 2:05-cr-00378-MJP Document 32 Filed 05/18/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Order Continuing Trial Date /SLOAN— 2

CR05-378JLR

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220

Seattle, Washington 98101-1271

(206) 553-7970

4. This Court finds that the ends of justice outweigh the best interest of the

public and the defendant in a speedy trial. That failure to grant a continuance based upon

the change of circumstances would result in a miscarriage of justice in that the

government would not have adequate time to prepare the matter for trial. 

5. The Court finds that the failure to grant a continuance under these

circumstances would unreasonably deny the Government both continuity of counsel and

the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise

of due diligence. The Court therefore concludes that a continuance is justified under 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv). 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the trial date is continued from May 24, 2006 to 

June 19, 2006. .

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Title 18, United States Code,

Section 3161(h), the period of time from the date of this order to the new trial date is

excluded in the computation of time under the Speedy Trial Act.

 DONE this 18th day of May, 2006.

A 

JAMES L. ROBART

United States District Judge

Presented by:

s/ Bruce F. Miyake 

BRUCE F. MIYAKE

Assistant United States Attorney

Case 2:05-cr-00378-MJP Document 32 Filed 05/18/06 Page 2 of 2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

TODD & WAKEFIELD 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

1700 CENTURY SQUARE 

1501 FOURTH AVENUE 

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3660 

(206) 622-3585 FAX (206) 583-8980 

ORDER ON PARTIES' STIPULATED MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF 

FRCP 26(f) CONFERENCE, ETC. - 1 

(Case No. C05-5633)

01579/06 Nov 06 Shea C05-5633 OrderStipMotContFRCP26(f)Discl..doc 

 THE HONORABLE FRANKLIN D. BURGESS 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

AT TACOMA 

In the Matter of the Complaint of Kerry W. 

Shea and Jennifer R. Shea, Individually and as 

a Marital Community, as owners of the M/V 

SATISFACTION, Hull Identification No. 

26B05413, for Exoneration from or Limitation 

of Liability. 

IN ADMIRALTY 

NO. CV05-5633 

ORDER ON PARTIES' SECOND 

STIPULATED MOTION FOR 

CONTINUANCE OF FRCP 26(f) 

CONFERENCE, INITIAL 

DISCLOSURES PURSUANT TO 

FRCP 26(a) AND JOINT STATUS 

REPORT/DISCOVERY PLAN 

DEADLINES 

NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR: 

November 3, 2006

The Court having considered the second stipulated motion of counsel for all the 

parties in this matter to continue for a period of six months the deadlines for the parties to 

conduct their FRCP 26(f) conference, provide their Initial Disclosures Pursuant to FRCP 

26(a) and provide the Court with a combined Joint Status Report and Discovery Plan is 

hereby granted: 

Case 3:05-cv-05633-RJB Document 70 Filed 11/06/06 Page 1 of 2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

TODD & WAKEFIELD 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

1700 CENTURY SQUARE 

1501 FOURTH AVENUE 

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3660 

(206) 622-3585 FAX (206) 583-8980 

ORDER ON PARTIES' STIPULATED MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF 

FRCP 26(f) CONFERENCE, ETC. - 2 

(Case No. C05-5633)

01579/06 Nov 06 Shea C05-5633 OrderStipMotContFRCP26(f)Discl..doc 

• The deadline for FRCP 26(f) conference is now continued to May 9, 

2007; 

• The due date for the parties to provide their Initial Disclosures 

Pursuant to FRCP 26(a) is continued to May 28, 2007; and, 

• The deadline for the parties to submit their Joint Status Report and 

Discovery Plan is continued to June 5, 2007. 

 DATED this 6th day of November 2006. 

FRANKLIN D. BURGESS 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

A

Presented by: 

TODD & WAKEFIELD 

By /s/ 

 Scott C. Wakefield 

 WSBA #11222 

 Attorneys For Matthew Flateland d/b/a 

 Puget Sound Mobile Marine Repair 

Case 3:05-cv-05633-RJB Document 70 Filed 11/06/06 Page 2 of 2
EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT AMENDMENT


 


THIS
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT (the “Amendment”) is entered into effective as of January I, 2018 (the “Effective
Date”), is between Rhino GP LLC (“Employer”) and William L. Tnorto (“Employee”).


 


WITNESSETH


 


WHEREAS, Employee
is currently employed by Employer pursuant to an Employment Agreement dated December 30, 2016 (the “Prior
Agreement”).


 


WHEREAS,
Employer and Employee now desire to amend the Prior Agreement, and have executed this Amendment to evidence the terms of their
agreement.


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, the parties agree as follows:


 


1.
Section 3 of the Prior Agreement is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety with the following language:


 


“Base
Salarv. The Employer shall pay Executive a base salary (the “Base Salary”)at the initial annual rate of $435,000
per year, which Base Salary shall be evaluated annually for potential increase, payable in regular installments in accordance
with the usual executive payroll practices of Employer. “


 


2.
All other terms and conditions in the Prior Agreement shall remain unchanged except to the extent specifically modified herein.


 


[SIGNATURE
PAGE TO FOLLOW]


 






    	 



    	 



    

 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed and delivered this Agreement as of the day and year first above written.


 


	 	EMPLOYEE:
	 	 	 
	 	 	/s/
    William L. Tuorto
	 	Name:	William
L. Tuorto
	 	 	 
	 	EMPLOYER:

                                                                     

	 	 
	 	RHINO GPLLC:
	 	 
	 	By:
    	/s/
    Richard A. Boone
	 	Title:	Richard
A. Boone
	 	Name:	President
and Chief Executive Officer
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

WILLIAM D. BURKETT,

Petitioner,

v.

MAGGIE MILLER-STOUT,

Respondent.

Case No. C05-5612FDB

ORDER REFUSING TO SERVE

PETITION AND DIRECTING

PETITIONER TO SHOW CAUSE

The Court, having reviewed the record, does hereby find and ORDER:

(1) The matter before the court is construed as a motion for collateral relief from a state

conviction. Accordingly, the court treats this matter as a § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus.

The Court will not order a response to the petition because the petition does not indicate that

petitioner's grounds for federal relief have been properly exhausted in state court. Specifically, the petition

does not show that his claims for federal relief have been presented to the Washington State Supreme

Court.

The exhaustion of state court remedies is a prerequisite to the granting of a petition for writ of

habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). If exhaustion is to be waived, it must be waived explicitly by

respondent. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(3). A waiver of exhaustion, thus, may not be implied or inferred. A

petition can satisfy the exhaustion requirement by providing the highest state court with a full and fair

opportunity to consider all claims before presenting them to the federal court. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S.

270, 276 (1971); Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1021 (1986). 

Case 3:05-cv-05612-FDB Document 8 Filed 09/28/2005 Page 1 of 2

Burkett v. Miller-Stout Doc. 8

Dockets.Justia.com
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 2

Full and fair presentation of claims to the state court requires “full factual development” of the claims in

that forum. Kenney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1, 8 (1992).

(2) Petitioner is directed to file his petition on the appropriate court form used for § 2254

petitions and should show cause by October 26, 2005, why the petition should not be dismissed for lack of

exhaustion. 

(3) The Clerk is directed to send a blank copy of a § 2254 petition for Mr. Burkett to review

and submit to the court, along with copies of this Order and the General Order to petitioner.

DATED this 28th day of September, 2005.

_/s/ J. Kelley Arnold J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate

Case 3:05-cv-05612-FDB Document 8 Filed 09/28/2005 Page 2 of 2
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research Committee.                    

*Date:*                         October 17-18, 2023.                    

*Time:*                         10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G51A, Rockville, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Thomas F. Conway, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G51A, Bethesda, MD 20892, 240-507-9685,                         *thomas.conway@nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: September 21, 2023. 

Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2023-20978 Filed 9-26-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
No. 58246.

protest 217527-K (Los Angeles).

#### Acrow, Incorporated, and Frank P. Dow Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of building shores the same in all material respects as those involved in Abstract 57727, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 63835.

protests 100068-K, etc. (New York).

#### Edw. & John Burke, Ltd., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C.C.P.A. 130, C.A.D. 508), and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C.D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 200 9-0 819

DCN: SE00613A5

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS I NFORMATION

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

PAGE -1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

KRASNIQI BEQIR,

Petitioner,

v.

A. NEIL CLARK, et al.,

Respondents.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. C05-1587-RSM-JPD

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL

The Court, having considered petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel, and the

balance of the record, does hereby find and ORDER as follows:

(1) Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. #5) is DENIED. There is no

right to have counsel appointed in a habeas proceeding unless an evidentiary hearing is required.

See Terravona v. Kincheloe , 852 F.2d 424, 429 (9th Cir. 1988); Brown v. Vasquez, 952 F.2d

1164, 1168 (9th Cir. 1992). The Court may exercise its discretion to appoint counsel for a

financially eligible individual where the “interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A. 

Petitioner fails to demonstrate that the interests of justice are best served by appointment

of counsel in this matter. Moreover, this Court has concluded that no evidentiary hearing is

required in order to resolve petitioner’s claims.

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:05-cv-01587-RSM Document 9 Filed 10/19/05 Page 1 of 2
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

PAGE -2

(2) The Clerk shall direct copies of this Order to petitioner, to counsel for respondents,

and to the Honorable Ricardo S. Martinez.

DATED this 19th day of October, 2005.

AJAMES P. DONOHUE

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:05-cv-01587-RSM Document 9 Filed 10/19/05 Page 2 of 2
From: jack_abbott@ntm.org

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:38:59 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Jack Abbott

Sanford, FL 32771
From: dwatson56@cfl.rr.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 10:14:04 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

David Watson

New Smyrna Beach, FL 32168