alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Gregor Rotelli, 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
Annual Report on Form 10-K/A-2 of Razor Resources Inc. for the year ended April 30, 2010 (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 Razor Resources Inc.
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: June 7, 2011

| | /s/ Gregory Rotelli                               
| | --------------------------------------------------
| | Gregory Rotelli                                   
| | President, Secretary and Director                 
| | (Principal Executive Officer, Principal Accounting
| | Officer and Principal Financial Officer)          
| | Razor Resources Inc.                              



A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed
form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Razor Resources Inc.
and will be retained by Razor Resources Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 17, 2019

t1010 

# Order

Clerk October 17, 2019

158259 & (61)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 158259

COA: 336187

Allegan CC: 14

- 018862

- FC

ANTHONY RAY McFARLANE, JR.,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for leave to file br ief amicus curiae is

GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the August 7, 2018 judgment of the

Court of Appeals is considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral argument on the

application. MCR 7.305(H)(1).

The appellant shall file a suppleme ntal brief within 42 days of the date of this

order addressing: (1) whether the prosecution’s medical expert invaded the province of

the jury by using phrases like “abusive head trauma” and “definite pediatric physical

abuse” to label her diagnosis; and ( 2) if so, whether the defendant has satisfied the plain

error standard set forth in People v Carines , 460 Mich 750, 763 (1999). In addition to the

brief, the appellant shall electronically file an appendix conforming to MCR 7.312(D)(2).

In the brief, cit ations to the record must provide the appendix page numbers as required

by MCR 7.312(B)(1). The appellee shall file a supplemental brief within 21 days of

being served with the appellant’s brief. The appellee shall also electronically file an

appendix or , in the alternative, stipulate to the use of the appendix filed by the appellant.

A reply, if any, must be filed by the appellant within 14 days of being served with the

appellee’s brief. The parties should not submit mere restatements of their applicat ion

papers.

The Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan, the Innocence Network, and the

Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan are invited to file briefs amicus curiae.

Other persons or groups interested in the determination of the issues presented in this

case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                                 SPINCYCLE, INC.
                  COMPUTATION OF HISTORICAL NET LOSS PER SHARE
                              (ALL AMOUNTS ACTUAL)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                     Historical Net Loss per Share (1)
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Fiscal Year Ended                        Fiscal Quarter Ended
                                            December 31,         December          December        March 31,         March 22,
                                                1995             31, 1996          28, 1997           1997             1998
                                         ------------------- ----------------  ---------------- ---------------- -----------------
<S>                                      <C>                 <C>               <C>              <C>              <C>         
Net loss applicable to holders of              ($5,451)       ($3,893,923)      ($15,737,387)     ($2,463,963)     ($3,751,973)
common stock (2)

Weighted average number of
common shares outstanding                            4             33,162             38,127           37,038           33,553

Weighted average number of
common equivalent shares
outstanding (3)                                     --                 --                 --               --               --
                                         ------------------- ----------------  ---------------- ---------------- -----------------
Weighted average number of
common and common equivalent
shares outstanding                                   4             33,162             38,127           37,038           33,553
                                         =================== ================  ================ ================ =================
Basic and diluted net loss per share        ($1,362.75)          ($117.42)          ($412.76)         ($66.53)        ($111.82)
                                         =================== ================  ================ ================ =================
</TABLE>

(1)      See discussion of computation of historical net loss per share in Note
         2 to Consolidated Financial Statements.

(2)      The Company's 1995 fiscal year is for the period from October 10, 1995
         (inception) through December 31, 1995.

(3)      Due to the Company's net losses to date, inclusion of common equivalent
         shares in the computation of diluted net loss per share would be
         antidilutive and therefore is not presented.
A90A0056.

#### ROSS v. THE STATE.

(391 SE2d 653)

Birdsong, Judge.

Alphonso E. Ross appeals his conviction for two counts of aggravated child molestation. On appeal he complains that the trial court advised the jury it would hear the testimony of the two children to “make a determination whether . . . their testimony should be submitted to you. . . . [I]n cases like this, I have to make the first determination whether or not I think that you should be allowed to receive the evidence.”

Appellant complains this statement amounted to a comment on the credibility of the child witnesses and tended to influence the judgment of the jury on that point. *Held:*

Appellant misrepresents the statement made to the jury by the trial court, by omitting most of it. Having said what we quoted above, the trial court then immediately said: “But I want to make it clear that you, in the last analysis, determine what weight and credit to give to the testimony of any witness, whether it’s the girls or whether it’s some other witness for the prosecution; whether it’s a defendant or a defendant’s witnesses; in other words, you determine what weight and credit in the final analysis to give to a witness’ testimony. But in cases like this, I have to make the first determination whether or not I think that you should be allowed to receive the evidence. But as I say, that’s not a decision as to weight and credit. Weight and credit will be determined by you. You can believe a witness in whole or in part or not believe them. I’ll give you that [c]harge later on, so you don’t *697have to worry about it right now, but that’s what we’re going to do right now, and I wanted to explain to you why you are being held up a little bit.”

Decided February 7, 1990

Rehearing denied March 5, 1990.

*John D. McCord III,*for appellant.

*Robert E. Wilson, District Attorney, Barbara B. Conroy, J. Thomas Morgan, Assistant District Attorneys,*for appellee.

Examining the trial court’s comments in toto, we find therefore the trial court did not in the first place inappropriately make a comment on the witnesses’ credibility misleading or influencing the jury. This case is distinguishable from *Dean v. State,*168 Ga. App. 172, 174 (308 SE2d 434), cited by appellant. Moreover, if there was any chance for misunderstanding, the trial court removed it by the further instructions given to the jury regarding their function in determining evidentiary weight and witness credibility. Appellant has failed to carry his burden to show error by the record. *Sanders v. State,*188 Ga. App. 774 (374 SE2d 542). The explanation itself generally was not error. *Harper v. State,*171 Ga. App. 57 (318 SE2d 787).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Banke, P. J., and Cooper, J., concur.*
<PAGE>   1



                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

         We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-45573) pertaining to the 1988 and 1990 Stock Option
Plans, in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-88590) pertaining to the
1992 Stock Option Plan, in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-311419)
pertaining to the 1995 Stock Option Plan, and in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 33-333647) pertaining to the 1996 Stock Option Plan of Medicis
Pharmaceutical Corporation of our report dated August 1, 1997 with respect to
the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Medicis Pharmaceutical
Corporation included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended June
30, 1997.

                                             /s/ ERNST & YOUNG, LLP

Phoenix, Arizona
September 26, 1997
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-28-1996
<CASH>                                         256,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,443,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   139,000
<INVENTORY>                                  3,190,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,059,000
<PP&E>                                      16,848,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               9,330,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,127,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       10,185,000
<BONDS>                                        576,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        5,460,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        38,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 (3,072,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,127,000
<SALES>                                     43,940,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                       21,719,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            21,173,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               139,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             216,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                832,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                    30,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            802,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   802,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .13


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 10.20**

**ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT**

THIS ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT (this“Agreement”) is entered into as of April 16, 2008 (the “Effective Date”), by and between Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe IX, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (“Assignor”), LocalInsight Regatta Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Assignee”), and Local Insight Media, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Consultant”). Assignor, Assignee and Consultant are each individually referred to hereinas a “Party,” and collectively referred to as the “Parties.” 

**RECITALS**

WHEREAS, Assignor desires to assign to Assignee, and Assignee desires to assume, all Assignor’s rights and obligations under that certain ConsultingAgreement (the “Consulting Agreement”) dated as of January 3, 2007, by and between Assignor and Consultant; 

WHEREAS,the Consulting Agreement permits Assignor to assign its rights and obligations under the Consulting Agreement with Consultant’s prior written consent; and 

WHEREAS, Consultant is prepared to consent to Assignor’s assignment of its rights and obligations under the Consulting Agreement to Assignee; 

NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows: 

 

1.1Assignor hereby assigns, transfers and sets over to Assignee, and Assignee hereby assumes, all Assignor’s right, title, interest, powers, privileges, remedies, duties, liabilities and obligations under the Consulting Agreement. As of theEffective Date, Assignee shall become entitled to all such right, title, interest, powers, privileges and remedies of Assignor and subject to all such duties, liabilities and obligations of Assignor, in each case as if Assignee were the originalparty to the Consulting Agreement. 

1.2 Consultant hereby consents to the assignment and assumption described inSection 1.1. 

 

2.1 This Agreementshall be governed by and construed and interpreted in accordance with the substantive laws of the State of Delaware, without regard to conflicts of law provisions. 

2.2 This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which when executed and delivered shall be deemed an original andany or all of which shall constitute one and the same agreement. 

2.3 This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement amongthe Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. This Agreement shall not be altered, amended, modified or otherwise changed by any oral communications of any kind or character, or by any written communication, unless signed by a dulyauthorized representative of each of the Parties. 

**IN WITNESS WHEREOF**, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be duly executed as of the datefirst written above. 

 
**WELSH CARSON, ANDERSON & STOWE IX, L.P.**By: WCAS IX Associates LLCIts: General PartnerBy: /s/ John Almeida, Jr. John Almeida, Jr. Managing Member**LOCAL INSIGHT REGATTA HOLDINGS, INC.**By: /s/ John S. Fischer Name: John S. Fischer Title: General Counsel and Secretary**LOCAL INSIGHT MEDIA, INC.**By: /s/ John S. Fischer Name: John S. Fischer Title: General Counsel and Secretary
No. 57527.

Suit 4759.

#### United States *v.*Inter-Maritime Forwarding Company, Inc.

C. D. 1456 reversed June 24, 1953. C. A. D. 537.
**EXHIBIT 21****LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT**Triple Crown Media, LLC, a Delaware limited liability companyGray Publishing, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and a subsidiary of Triple Crown Media, LLCGrayLink, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and a subsidiary of Gray Publishing, LLCPorta-Phone Paging Licensee Corp., a Delaware corporation and a subsidiary of GrayLink, LLCBR Acquisition Corp., a Georgia corporationBR Holding, Inc., a Georgia corporation and a subsidiary of BR Acquisition Corp.Host Communications, Inc., a Kentucky corporation and a subsidiary of BR Holding, Inc.Hoop-It-Up International, Inc. (DE), a Delaware corporation and a subsidiary of
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 203 (Monday, October 23, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72802-72803]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-23347]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[License No. 02/02-0641]


Cephas Capital Partners II, L.P.; Surrender of License of Small 
Business Investment Company

    Pursuant to the authority granted to the United States Small 
Business Administration under the Small Business Investment Act of 
1958, as amended, under section 309 of the Act and Code of Federal 
Regulations under 13 CFR 107.1900 to function as a small business 
investment company under the Small Business Investment Company License 
No. 02/02-0641 issued to

[[Page 72803]]

Cephas Capital Partners II, L.P., said license is hereby declared null 
and void.

Bailey Devries,
Associate Administrator, Office of Investment and Innovation, United 
States Small Business Administration.
[FR Doc. 2023-23347 Filed 10-20-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE
Before the First Division,

February 3, 1954

No. 57832.

protests 97517-K, etc. (San Francisco).

#### S. H. Kress & Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of celluloid reindeer and celluloid sleds similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 56902, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JESUS MANUEL MORAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

THOMAS E. HIGGINS, Attorney,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 19

- 17503

D.C. No. 4:17

- cv

- 00613

- JGZ

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona Jennifer G. Zipps, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 2 , 2020 * *

Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Jesus Manuel Moran appeals pro se from the district court’s summary

judgment in his diversity action alleging state law claims against his former

attorney. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the

district court’s decision on cross

- mo tions for summary judgment

. JL Beverage

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

DEC 9 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 17503

Co., LLC v. Jim Beam Brands Co. , 828 F.3d 1098, 1104 (9th Cir. 2016). We

affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant because

Moran failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant’s

conduct was the proximate cause of any injury

. See Glaze v. Larsen , 83 P.3d 26,

29 (Ariz. 2004) (en banc) (elements of a legal malpractice claim) ; KB Home

Tucson, Inc. v. Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co. , 340 P.3d 405 , 412 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014)

(elements of a fraud claim) ; Trustmark Ins. Co. v. Bank One, Ariz

. , NA , 48 P.3d

485, 491 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002) (elements of an unjust enrichment claim); Baines v.

Superior Court , 688 P.2d 1 037, 1041 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984) (elements of a claim

under Arizona’s racketeering statute ) ; see also Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13

- 23 14.04(A)

(permitting private cause of action for racketeering claim)

.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to deny defendant’s

cross motion for summary judgment on the basis of defendant’s failure to adhere to

the local rules. See Bias v. Moynihan , 508 F.3d 1212, 1223 (9th Cir. 2007 )

(standard of review for district court’s compliance with its local rules).

W e do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal

. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
US.Oeponoo M ol of T~aiiOn 

QHice 01 me sectetory ot Trau()()lronon 

Chief. Documentary Ser\rices Div. 

Department of Transponation 

Washington. D.C. 20590 

DESIGNATION OF AGENT FOR 

SERVICE OF NOTICE. PROCESS. ORDERS 

DECISIONS AND REQUIREMENTS 

ATTENTION: DOCKET SECTION, C-55 

EJME (Portugal) Aircraft Management, Lda . having its principal 

office at 

(Name of Company. please print) 

Rua Calvet de Magalhaes, 245, Bloco B 

2774-550 Pa9o de Arcos 

PORTUGAL (Address) 

he reby designates. pursuant to section 1005(b) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, the person named below as its Agent 

upon whom service of all notices and process, and all orders, decisions, and requirements of the Department of Transponation may be made for and on behalf of said carrier: hereby canceling all previous designations of agents made by it to the DOT: 

NameofAgent _____ J_am __ e_s_F_. __ t~k_i_n_s __ --------------------------------------------­ Net Jets Services, I nc . (Please Print) 41 11 Bridgeway Avenue 

Columbus, OH 43219 

Ad~ess --------~T~e~l~·-+~1~5~0~1~4~4~8_2~3~7~4~;~F~ax=-~+1~5~0~1~4~4~8-2~3~7~5 ;--wa~t-kins_®n __ e_t~j-e_t_s_.c_o_m ______ __ 

The Agent so designated has written his name and also his initials in the following space : 

Name _:S_A __ M __ 'C __ S ___ i __ - __ . __ W_A __ :\ __ K_l )..)-~----- (Initials) __,~c...r- --'?g/~""'-- -- (/ 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, ___ E_JME ____ cP_o_r u~g_a_l_> _A_J._· r_c_r_a_f_t_M_a_n_a_g_e_m_e_n_t _, _L_d_a ___________ has caused these 

(Name of Company) 

presents to be signed in its name by ..!fi__!.._A-_11.. _ 1 o ____:S::....:..f'_I_.N'_o_L_A________ , President 

(Please Print) 

of said company. and to be attested under its corporate seal by 

I ' 11+- on this ___ '1 ______ day of March 

EJME ·(Portugal) Aircraft Management, lda. 

NIF: 510 878 822 

Rua Calvet Magalhlies, nl! 245, Bloco B 

2774-SSO PA~O DE ARCOS - PORTUGAL 

ATTEST: 

fh LJ~ (Secretary, or other officer) 

OST F 1010.5 (7-85) 

(Secretary, or other Title) 

• ~ 2015 J 

: ') 

(Portugal) Aircraft ~~qement, (N..,. of tt:"y) 

:yv 

EJME 

By: 

Lda