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

EXHIBIT 31.1 

CERTIFICATION 

I, Anthony D.J. Ker, Chief Executive Officer of Gryphon Gold Corporation,certify that: 

1. 

I have reviewed this report onForm 10-QSB of Gryphon Gold Corporation; 

2. 

Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report; 

3. 

Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer asof, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. 

The small businessissuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: 

(a) 

designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared; 

(b) 

evaluated theeffectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and 

(c) 

disclosed in thisreport any change in the small business issuer’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registration’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting;and 

5. 

The small businessissuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small businessissuer's auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

(a) 

all significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and 

(b) 

any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the small business issuer's internal controls over financial reporting.

Date: November 14, 2007 

|   | By:    | /s/ Anthony D.J.      Ker    |
|--------|--------|------------------------------|
|   |   | Anthony D. J. Ker            |
|   |   | Chief Executive      Officer |

----
EXHIBIT 15




CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We  consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements Nos. 333-121901, 333-12064, 333-88172, 333-112755 and 333-149657 on Form S-8 and Nos. 333-104147, 333-13806 , 333-145431 and 333-152119 on Form F-3, of our report, dated [ ?  ], 2011, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Metalink Ltd. (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2010, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2010.





Brightman Almagor Zohar & Co.


Certified Public Accountants


A member of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu





Tel Aviv, Israel


July 15, 2011
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANTHONY DEAN JACKSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

COUNTY OF MARICOPA; MARICOPA 

COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, named as: 

Maricopa Superior Court,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-15061

D.C. No. 2:14-cv-01293-ESW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Eileen S. Willett, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**

Submitted September 13, 2016***

Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. 

Anthony Dean Jackson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 

U.S.C. § 636(c).

*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

SEP 19 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-15061 

dismissing his action alleging claims arising from defendants’ allegedly wrongful 

conduct leading to his 1996 criminal conviction and defendants’ continued

recognition of that conviction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We 

review de novo the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

Crum v. Circus Circus Enters., 231 F.3d 1129, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Jackson’s action for lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction, because Jackson failed to allege facts sufficient to show that 

diversity jurisdiction exists. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1); Kuntz v. Lamar Corp., 

385 F.3d 1177, 1181-83 (9th Cir. 2004) (addressing diversity of citizenship under 

§ 1332). Further, to the extent that Jackson alleged claims arising from

constitutional errors by the Maricopa County Superior Court during his criminal 

prosecution, these claims are barred under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because 

they constitute a “de facto appeal” of the criminal conviction or are “inextricably 

intertwined” with that conviction. See Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154-57 (9th 

Cir. 2003) (discussing Rooker-Feldman doctrine); see also Henrichs v. Valley View 

Dev., 474 F.3d 609, 616 (9th Cir. 2007) (Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred 

plaintiff’s claim because the relief sought “would require the district court to 

determine the state court’s decision was wrong and thus void”). 
3 15-15061 

We do not consider any claims that Jackson did not properly raise before the 

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

Jackson’s motion for appointment of counsel, filed on December 18, 2015, 

and motions to dismiss, filed on March 11, 2016, and August 26, 2016, are denied. 

We lack jurisdiction to consider Jackson’s motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(3), 

filed on April 21, 2016. See 28 U.S.C. § 1257. 

AFFIRMED.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-60886

CESAR CERVANTES-RIVERA, Petitioner,

versus JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.

-------------------- Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A36-727-710

-------------------- March 7, 2002 Before REAVLEY, WIENER, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Cesar Cervantes-Rivera petitions for review of an order ofthe Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) holding that CervantesRivera’s state conviction for felony driving while intoxicated was an aggravated felony warranting his removal from this country. The respondent has moved to dismiss the petition for review and to remand the case to the BIA for reconsideration in light of United States v. Chapa-Garza , 243 F.3d 921, 927 (5th Cir. 2001). Cervantes-Rivera has not replied to the respondent’s motion to remand.No. 00-60886 -2- Cervantes-Rivera’s petition for review is GRANTED. The order of the BIA is VACATED, and this case is REMANDED to the BIA for disposition consistent with Chapa-Garza , 243 F.3d at 927. All other outstanding motions are DENIED.
No. 54147.

#### Knickerbocker Mills Co. *v.*United States,

protest 152405-K (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of laurel leaves similar to those the subject of *The Levy & Levis Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(23 Cust. Ct. 8, C. D. 1180), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Consumer Federation of America • 1620 Eye St, NW, Suite 200 • Washington, DC 20006 • (202) 387

- 6121 www.consumerfed.org March 3, 2015

Chairman Elliot Kaye Sent via email

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
4330 East West Highway
Bethesda, Maryland 20814

Dear C hairman Kaye,

I am writing to clarify statements that I made in response to questions at the C onsumer P roduct Safety Commission’s Recreational Off

- Highway Vehicle Hearing on January 7, 2015.

During the question and answer period, I was asked about the process through which the

Recreational Off

- Highway Vehicle Association ( ROHVA ) standard for recreational off

- highway

veh icles (ROVs) is written. I was asked about whether I saw the negative comments that individuals may have filed in response to an open comment period. I stand by my testimony that

I had not seen those comments. I now understand that t hese comments are available through a portal that I have used in the past to submit my comments regarding the standard

. Most importantly, however, this entire discussion unfortunately misses the main point of the dialogue at the hearing.

At the hearing, I further stated t hat while ROHVA’s standard complies with ANSI’s rules, it is problematic in numerous ways. That is the important point that I was making then , and is the point that I would like to reiterate now.

The standards process for the ROHVA standard is neither transparent nor collaborative. The

draft sta n dard is written by ROHVA , through a process that I am not familiar with and then

shared with a canvass list ROHVA compiles. There are no meetings and no phone calls to discuss the standard, and there i s no meaningful opportunity for involvement before the draft

standard is shared , as far as I am aware

. Essentially the process provides “a take it or leave it” opportunity for the canvass participants. I have been filing comments for years. I receive

re sponse s that essentially object to my comments and request that I withdraw my negative

comments . This process, including this canvass method, also does not encourage consumer participation

. Instead

, it reinforces a sense of futility with th e process and results in standards that fail to address key hazards.

I believe that if the voluntary standards process for ROVs w ere more collaborative and more
transparent then the resulting standard would better address the hazards posed by ROVs t o operators and passengers.

Sincerely,Consumer Federation of America • 1620 Eye St, NW, Suite 200 • Washington, DC 20006 • (202) 387

- 6121 www.consumerfed.org Rachel Weintraub Legislative Director and General Counsel

Consumer Federation of America
Motion Granted and Order filed February 28, 2017 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-16-01022-CV

____________

IN THE INTEREST OF K.L., CHILD

On Appeal from the 257th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2015-37805

ORDER

The clerk’s record was filed on February 9, 2017. On February 14, 2017, 

appellant, the State of Texas, filed a motion for this court to instruct the district clerk 

to file a legible version of the clerk’s record because many of the pages are illegible 

or difficult to read. According to the motion, another method for preparing the record 

exists that would produce clearer pages. The motion is GRANTED.

Accordingly, we ORDER the Harris County District Clerk to prepare, certify, 

and file in this court a legible version of the complete clerk’s record at no additional 

cost to the parties. The new version of the clerk’s record must be filed by March 20, 

2017.

PER CURIAM
No. 64245.

protests 40722-K, 42705-K, and79933-K (Boston).

#### S. S. Pierce Company *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 plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Medley Capital Corporation, (the “Company”) for the annual period ended September 30, 2020, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Brook Taube and Richard T. Allorto, Jr., Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to our 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 results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.





Dated: December 11, 2020


By/s/ Brook TaubeBrook TaubeChief Executive Officer


By/s/ Richard T. Allorto, Jr.Richard T. Allorto, Jr.Chief Financial Officer
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

December 28, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

134806 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 134806 

 COA: 267374 

Ingham CC: 05-000330-FC

MICHAEL FREDERICK CHRISTLE,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 31, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t1217 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

December 28, 2007 

 Clerk
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. DANIEL N. MATHIS, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

*Mr. Norman J. Abrams*for the petitioner.

*Mr. Leo Kaplowitz*and *Mr. Anthony Luongo*for the respondent.

March 14, 1967.

Denied.
Before the First Divison,

October 5, 1949

No. 53597.

petition 6703-R (Laredo).

#### La Casa Mexicana *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cole, J.

From the record presented it was held that the entry of the merchandise at a value less than that found on final appraisement was without intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.
| **Army      Familie****s*******A      Project of the Army Family Liaison Office*** 
**Army****Families**is      a quarterly publication bulk shipped worldwide to commissaries, post      exchange stores, ACS offices, medical and dental facilities, recruiting      brigades and National Guard and Reserve centers.       Statements and opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the      Department of the Army.  Address      correspondence to Army Family Liaison Office**,**Asst Chief of Staff Installation Mgmt, 600 Army Pentagon, Washington,      DC  20310-0600.       Telephone:  toll-free 1      800-833-6622, commercial (703) 697-4604, DSN 227-4604; FAX (703) 693-2587;      or E-mail:  **[email protected]**

Assistant      Chief of Staff for Installation Management . . . . . . . . . . . MG R.L.      VanAntwerpChief,      Family Liaison Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      . . . . .Mr. David G. WhiteEditor,      Army Families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      . . . . . . Mr. Joe Wasserman
 
 
Summer        2000
Spring        2000 
Winter        1999Fall        1999Summer        1999Spring        1999 Winter        1998Fall        1998Summer        1998Spring        1998   ** |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

BRAHEEN ALPHONSO ACRES,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 276 WAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 18th day of April, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
#### George R. Conklin, *Respondent, v.*Elizabeth Gignoux, *Appellant.*

— Judgment of County Court affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Dykman, J.
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 10.31


                                AMENDMENT TO THE

                          1999 LONG TERM INCENTIVE PLAN

         The 1999 Long Term Incentive Plan is amended by deleting Section 4(a)
in its entirety and replacing said section with the following:

         (a) AMOUNT OF STOCK RESERVED. The total amount of Stock that may be
subject to outstanding Awards, determined immediately after the grant of any
Award, shall not exceed 11,325,000 shares of the total number of shares of Stock
outstanding. Shares subject to ISOs, Restricted Stock or Deferred Stock Awards
shall not be deemed delivered if such Awards are forfeited, expire or otherwise
terminate without delivery of shares to the Participant. If an Award valued by
reference to Stock may be only be settled in cash, the number of shares to which
such Award relates shall be deemed to be Stock subject to such Award for
purposes of this Section 4(a). Any shares of Stock delivered pursuant to an
Award may consist, in whole or in part, of authorized and unissued shares or
treasury shares.

         This Amendment is executed as of March 6, 2001.

         NX NETWORKS, INC.


         By:/s/  John DuBois
            ___________________________
             John DuBois,
             Chief Executive Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jose Velez Vega, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 402]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kohm, J.), rendered December 1, 1993, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the *light*most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt *(see, People v Herring,*83 NY2d 780; *People v Manini,*79 NY2d 561; *People v Lam Lek Chong,*45 NY2d 64; *People v Dean,*200 AD2d 582). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of *577guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

It was not error for the court to deny the defendant’s request to charge the jury on the agency defense since there was no reasonable view of the evidence which warranted such charge *(see, People v Herring,*83 NY2d 780, *supra; People v Argibay,*45 NY2d 45; *People v Roche,*45 NY2d 78, *cert denied*439 US 958).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Thompson, J. P., Altman, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
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

         In  connection  with the Annual Report of Calypso  Financial  Services,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for  the period ending December 31, 2006, as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"), I, Edward F. Cowle, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,
pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.  Sec.  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to Sec.  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.


/s/   EDWARD F. COWLE
-----------------------------
Edward F. Cowle
Chief Executive Officer
February 14, 2007



     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 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
     the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange  Commission or its
     staff upon  request.  The foregoing  certifications  are  accompanying  the
     Company's Form 10-KSB solely pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
     Act of 2002  (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,  chapter 63 of title
     18,  United  States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-KSB
     or as a separate disclosure document.