alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Kamelia Wong, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Rolling Thunder Exploration Ltd.;

2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this 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-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)

designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)

evaluated the effectiveness of the 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 the 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 control 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 30, 2006

|                                      |  |                 
|------------------------------------- |  | ----------------
|By:                                   |  | /s/ Kamelia Wong
|                                      |  |                 
|Kamelia Wong,
Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 15**

May 15, 2007 

PC Connection, Inc. 

730 MilfordRoad 

Merrimack, NH 03054 

We have reviewed, in accordancewith the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the unaudited interim financial information of PC Connection, Inc. and subsidiaries for the three-month periods ended March 31, 2007 and 2006, as indicated inour report dated May 15, 2007, because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information. 

We are aware that our reportreferred to above, which is included in your Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2007, is incorporated by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-40172, 333-50845, 333-50847, 333-66450, 333-69981, 333-83943,333-91584, 333-106652, and 333-130389 on Form S-8. 

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of1933, is not considered a part of the Registration Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act. 

Deloitte & Touche LLP 

Boston, Massachusetts
1The Honorable D. Brook Bartlett, Chief United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-2957

___________

Frank Adipietro, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Western

United States of America, * District of Missouri.

*

Appellee. * [UNPUBLISHED]

___________

Submitted: September 16, 1999

Filed: October 5, 1999

___________

Before BOWMAN, LAY, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In a motion made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, Frank Adipietro challenged his

sentence of 190 months' imprisonment for conspiring to distribute, and to possess with

intent to distribute, marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), § 846. The district

court1 denied the motion and Mr. Adipietro appealed. Mr. Adipietro asserts that the

district court erred in determining the amount of marijuana properly attributable to him

for sentencing purposes. Mr. Adipietro's specific complaint is that the relevant record
-2–

does not support a finding that he conspired to acquire over 1,000 kilograms of

marijuana.

Despite Mr. Adipietro's vigorous argument to the contrary, we find that he is

estopped from making this contention because it was raised and rejected on direct

appeal. See United States v. Adipietro, 983 F.2d 1468, 1472 (8th Cir. 1993).

Mr. Adipietro admits that he challenged the district court's drug calculation on appeal,

but maintains that his objection was to the inclusion of promised, future deliveries, not

to the quantities promised in those future deliveries. That point, he says, was not

raised, and his counsel was ineffective for not doing so.

Mr. Adipietro's brief on direct appeal from his sentence belies his contention.

The brief specifically maintains that the district court erred "as a matter of fact by

determining that [future negotiated deliveries] amounted to a negotiation for over 1,000

kilograms of marijuana," and the brief argues, among other things, that the court

"utilized inaccurate facts (amounts and numbers of deliveries) to determine the amount

of marijuana." Mr. Adipietro makes the exact same argument in the instant case, and

thus his § 2255 petition is an abuse of the writ. See Thompson v. United States, 7 F.3d

1377, 1379 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1010, 1038 (1994).

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
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 Virage Logic Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
period ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Christine Russell, Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such officers knowledge:

(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 result of operations of the Company as of and for the dates presented.



|                                                                    
|--------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Christine Russell                                               
|Christine Russell                                                   
|Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
|May 9, 2007
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

mnlteb ~tate~ (!Court of ~peaI~

for tbe jfeberaI <!CIrcuit

APELDYN CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION AND

AU OPTRONICSCORPORATION AMERICA,

Defendants-Appellees,

AND

CHI MEl OPTOELECTRONICS CORPORATION

AND CHI MEl OPTOELECTRONICS USA INC.,

Defendants-Appellees,

AND

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. AND

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,

Defendants.

2012-1172

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

District of Delaware in case no. 08-CV-0568, Judge Sue L.

Robinson.
APELDYN CORP v. AU OPTRONICS

ON MOTION

Before SCHALL, Circuit Judge.

ORDER

2

Eidos, LLC and Eidos IV, LLC (collectively "Eidos")

move for leave to intervene in the appeal. Apeldyn Corporation opposes.

This appeal stems from a patent infringement action

brought by Apeldyn against AU Optronics and other

defendants. Apeldyn and Eidos entered into an agreement in which Eidos financially supported Apeldyn's

patent infringement actions in exchange for an interest in

the proceeds from the actions and/or licensing efforts. In

April, Apeldyn filed a complaint against Eidos in the

United States District Court for the District of Oregon,

alleging that the agreement expired and was no longer in

force. That action remains pending in that district court.

Eidos now urges that it has an interest in the appeal

because Apeldyn no longer represents Eidos's interests.

Eidos argues that their agreement requires Apeldyn and

Eidos to agree on counsel, but Apeldyn is now represented

in the appeal by the counsel who is adverse to Eidos in

the Oregon action.

Eidos was not a party in the district court infringement action and made no effort to intervene. Under such

circumstances, "[a] court of appeals may, but only in an

exceptional case for imperative reasons, permit intervention where none was sought in the district court."

McKenna v. Pan Am. Petroleum Corp., 303 F.2d 778,779

(5th Cir. 1962). Eidos presents no position relating to the

substance of the appeal in which its interest is adverse to

Apeldyn's. Its unsupported assertion that its interests
3 APELDYN CORP v. AU OPTRONICS

will not be adequately represented by the appellants do

not meet the burden to obtain permission to intervene on

the side of appellants in these circumstances. Moreover,

Eidos's concerns regarding the applicability of its agreement with Apeldyn are before the Oregon district court.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT Is ORDERED THAT:

The motion is denied.

FOR THE COURT

NOV 022012

Date

cc: Scott G. Seidman, Esq.

Terrence Duane Garnett, Esq.

Donald R. McPhail, Esq.

Bernard J. DiMuro, Esq.

s24

/s/ Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly

Clerk

u.s. COUftf~~EALS FOR

THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

NOV 02 ~Ul~

JANHORBALY

ClERK
Exhibit 32.2

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


         In connection with the Annual Report of MailTec, Inc.., on Form 10-KSB
for the period ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, James Anderson,
Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the
Company.






Date: July 13, 2007       /s/Jeff A. Hanks
                          ----------------
                          Jeff A. Hanks
                          Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting
                           Officer







<PAGE>
# Victoria Salinas

**Resilience**
Senior Official Performing the Duties of Deputy Administrator (SOPDO)

Victoria Salinas has worked with communities across the United States and internationally to build resilience and recover after major disasters. Passionate about driving social impact centered in partnership and community resilience, she has a steadfast focus on ensuring equitable outcomes for all.

Ms. Salinas is an appointee in the Biden-Harris Administration and currently serves at the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as the Associate Administrator for Resilience. FEMA Resilience aims to help communities across the United States equitably adapt, survive, recover and thrive in the face of natural disasters, climate change, and security threats, through a variety of programs that aim to help communities better understand their risk; transfer risk through insurance; and build the capacity to prepare, protect, respond, and recover from disasters.

Previously serving as the Chief Resilience Officer and Deputy City Administrator for Oakland, California, Ms. Salinas spearheaded planning, policy, and legislative efforts to address climate, disaster, and socio-economic vulnerability. At the World Bank, the United Nations, and in her previous experience at FEMA, she worked alongside officials at all levels of government to plan recovery efforts following major disasters. She started her career in public service following Hurricane Katrina, as a Presidential Management Fellow at FEMA, where she helped lead federal interagency efforts to develop new policies and programs that now guide disaster recovery in the U.S. 

Most recently, Ms. Salinas served as the Vice President for Programs and Communication at the non-profit FUSE Corps, where she focused on strengthening the capacity of local government to address pressing community challenges. She partnered with government leaders from 35 cities and counties, ranging from Los Angeles County to the City of Birmingham, Alabama to embed and support FUSE Executive Fellows tackling projects related to climate change, justice reform, affordable housing, inclusive economic development, and equitable access to government services. Ms. Salinas also led the development of FUSE’s racial equity programming, the creation of results measurement systems for all projects, and a solutions-based journalism initiative that lifts up promising practices in local government.

Ms. Salinas has a master’s degree in public policy from Harvard Kennedy School and a bachelor’s degree from the Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. She is a Chilean American who grew up in Austin, Texas and considers Oakland, California her second home. She has two sons and is married to a serial entrepreneur.

Last updated November 22, 2023

Return to top
No. 52161.

protest 132035-K (New York).

#### Cosmos Shipping Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

From an examination of the papers the court was unable to find any evidence sufficient to overcome the action of the collector, which was presumptively correct. The protest was therefore overruled.
IA

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 40

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating

to the budgetary treatment of the Federal programs currently known

as the old-age, survivors, and disability insurance program and the hospital insurance program.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 16, 1999

Mr. TRAFICANT introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred

to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States relating to the budgetary treatment of the Federal

programs currently known as the old-age, survivors, and

disability insurance program and the hospital insurance

program.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two3 thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several
2

•HJ 40 IH

1 States within seven years after the date of its submission

2 for ratification:

3 ‘‘ARTICLE —

4 ‘‘The moneys of the United States held for purposes

5 of the old-age, survivors, and disability insurance program

6 and the hospital insurance program maintained under the

7 Social Security Act and related laws of the United States

8 as in effect on or after the date of the ratification of this

9 article, or any other similar programs subsequently main10 tained under the laws of the United States, shall be held

11 in separate and independent trust funds and shall be seg12 regated from all other moneys of the United States. The

13 receipts and disbursements of such programs (including

14 revenues dedicated to such programs) shall not be in15 cluded in any budget totals set forth in the budget of the

16 United States Government as prepared by the President

17 or any budget prepared by the Congress. The Congress

18 may make no law authorizing the use of such trust funds

19 for any purpose other than for providing for the prompt

20 and effective payment of benefits, payment of administra21 tive expenses, and payment of such amounts as may be

22 necessary and appropriate to correct prior incorrect pay23 ments. No agency or instrumentality of the United States,

24 or any officer or employee thereof, may use or authorize

25 the use of such trust funds for any purpose other than
3

•HJ 40 IH

1 as authorized by the Congress in accordance with this

2 article.’’.

Æ
From: Foss, Ian
To: Vicki Shipley Subject: RE: Reaffirmation Form - NCHER Comments
Date: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 1:35:00 PM Attachments: 1845-XXXX_REA_20150408_Clean.docx ED-2015-ICCD-0007-0006-A1.doc

Hi Vicki,

Thanks for your comments! Please see attached. We accepted almost all of your comments.

Ian Foss

From: Vicki Shipley [mailto:vshipley@ncher.us] Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 10:20 PM To: Foss, Ian Subject: Reaffirmation Form - NCHER Comments Importance: High



### Hi and TGIF! Thanks again for making sure we’re in the loop with all the “forms stuff” – it is much appreciated! Here’s an advance copy of our comments – as I mentioned earlier, we do believe it makes sense for the FFEL program folks to use the same form We do have some suggested edits that we believe help with the flow......take a look and I’ll be curious if you think we improved it or otherwise!? Have a great weekend!

************************************ A ttached:

· the draft form as released by ED (1845-XXXX REA 20141222)

· the workgroup’s comments (Reaffirmation Agreement Comment form FINAL DRAFT 03022015)

· a marked up form that reflects the comments (1845-XXXX REA 20141222 REVISED 03022015), and

· a clean copy of the form ((1845-XXXX REA 20141222 REVISED CLEAN COPY 03022015).
Please note that our comments reflect (1) a workflow that begins with the school, and (2) the use of this form for FFELP loan holders as well as FSA servicers.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-10062

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE GUADALUPE NAVA-GARCIA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:13-CR-124-1

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Guadalupe 

Nava-Garcia has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in 

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States 

v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Nava-Garcia has not filed a response. 

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record 

reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal 

* 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

April 2, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-10062 Document: 00512991528 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/02/2015
No. 14-10062

presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s 

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further 

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

 Case: 14-10062 Document: 00512991528 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/02/2015
# [PROTECTIVE LIFE AND
ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY LETTERHEAD]

# EXHIBIT 32(a)

# CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly
Report of Protective Life and Annuity Insurance Company (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Wayne E. Stuenkel, President of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

| | (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 result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

/s/ Wayne E. Stuenkel President(Principal Executive
Officer) May 17, 2004

This certification accompanies the
Report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to
the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Case No. 6,641.

#### HOLMES v. LISSBERGER.

[See Case No. 6,632a.]