alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit32**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

The certification setforth below is being submitted in connection with AES Ironwood, L.L.C.’s annualreport on Form 10-K (the “Report”) for the purpose of complying with Section13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “ExchangeAct”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002..

 

A. W. Bergeron, thePresident and Michael Carlson, the Chief Financial Officer of AES Ironwood,L.L.C., each certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:

 

1.the Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act;and

 

2.the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of AES Ironwood, L.L.C.

 

Date:  March 24, 2005

 

 
|   |   /s/  **A.W. Bergeron**                            |   |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Name: A.W. Bergeron                                                     |
|   | President                                                                    |
|   |                                                                         |
|   |                                                                         |
|   |   /s/      Michael Carlson** ** |   |
|   | Name: Michael Carlson                                                   |
|   | Chief Financial Officer                                                      |

 

----
#### McELIGOT & CHENOWETH COMPANY ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. THE TOWN OF NUTLEY, IN THE COUNTY OF ESSEX, RESPONDENT.

Argued November 29, 1918

Decided March 3, 1919.

On appeal from the Supreme Court,, whose opinion is reported in 92 *N. J. L.*120.

For the appellants, *Reed & Reynolds.*

For the respondent, *J. Harry Hull.*

Per Curiam.

] The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Kalisch in the Supreme Court.

*637*For affirmance*— The Chancellor, Chief .Justice, Swayze, Trenchard, Parker, Heppenheimer, Williams, Gardner, JJ. 8.

*For reversal*— Minturn, White, JJ. 2.
No. 49754.

#### Protests 957790-G, etc., of B. R. Anderson & Co. (Seattle).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same as that involved in *Mutual Supply Co.*v. *United States*(12 Cust. Ct. 136, C. D. 842). The claim at 25 percent under paragraph 775 as modified was therefore sustained as to this item.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER OF ABATEMENT

Appellate case name: William Douglas Law v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-12-00694-CR

Trial court case number: 1354133

Trial court: 180th District Court of Harris County

The trial court permitted appellant’s appointed counsel to withdraw, but did not appoint 

appellate counsel for appellant.

Accordingly, we abate the appeal and remove it from this Court’s active docket. We 

direct the trial court to enter a written order appointing appellant counsel on appeal, containing 

counsel’s name, state bar number, address, and phone number. The order must be a separate 

written order, and not a docket sheet, because a docket sheet may not be considered by this 

Court. See Rush v. Barrios, 56 S.W.3d 88, 95 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, pet. 

denied) (an appellate court may not consider docket entries since they are only made for the 

clerk’s convenience and are usually unreliable).

The written order of the trial court appointing counsel on appeal shall be included in a 

supplemental clerk’s record and sent to this Court within 15 days of the date of this order. 

The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this Court’s active 

docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this Court’s active docket when the supplemental 

clerk’s record containing the trial court’s written order appointing counsel is filed in this Court. 

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Justice Rebeca Huddle

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: September 28, 2012
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.                  

###### Nuclear Regulatory Commission

The ACRS Subcommittee on Digital Instrumentation and Control Systems will hold a meeting on April 18, 2007, Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. 

The entire meeting will be open to public attendance. 

The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows: 

#### Wednesday, April 18, 2007—8:30 a.m. Until the Conclusion of Business 

The Subcommittee will (1) review DL-1151, Risk-Informed Digital System Reviews and (2) discuss issues related to the SRM assignment on digital systems. The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee. 

                    Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, Mr. Charles G. Hammer, (                    *Telephone:*                     301-415-7363) five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings will be permitted.                 

Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by contacting the Designated Federal Official between 6:45 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact the above named individual at least two working days prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes to the agenda. 

Dated: March 22, 2007. 

Michael Junge, 

Acting Branch Chief, ACRS.

[FR Doc. E7-5660 Filed 3-27-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
* Local Rule 47.5.1 provides: "The publication of

opinions that merely decide particular cases on the basis of

well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the

public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that

Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-50466

Conference Calendar

__________________

ARDELL NELSON,

 Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

WAYNE SCOTT, Director,

Texas Department of Criminal Justice,

Institutional Division;

DAN MORALES, Attorney General,

 Respondents-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. A-94-CV-794

- - - - - - - - - -

December 20, 1995

Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ardell Nelson filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

challenging his conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a

child. For the first time on appeal, Nelson asserts that the

prosecutor argued that the jury should convict him in order to

protect the community. Nelson has not shown that not considering

this claim would result in manifest injustice. Varnado v.

Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991). 
No. 95-50466

-2-

Nelson's bare assertion that his counsel had been

ineffective because he failed to impeach the credibility of state

witnesses is not sufficient to show that his counsel's

performance was deficient or that his defense was prejudiced by

counsel's alleged deficient performance. See Strickland v.

Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). 

The trial court's decision to permit the 10-year-old

victim's school counselor to testify that the victim was telling

the truth was clearly error. See Duckett v. State, 797 S.W.2d

906, 920 (Tex.Crim.App. 1990). However, this court reviews state

court evidentiary rulings in a habeas petition only if the error

"is of such magnitude as to constitute a denial of fundamental

fairness under the due process clause." Skillern v. Estelle, 720

F.2d 839, 852 (5th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 873 (1984)

(internal citation omitted). Although the admission of the

counselor's testimony may have caused some prejudice to the

appellant, a careful review of the trial record leads us to

conclude that the error did not rise to the level of

constitutional magnitude necessary to justify habeas corpus

relief. 

Nelson's argument that the prosecutor improperly argued that

the victim was truthful demonstrates no error of constitutional

magnitude. Edwards v. Scroggy, 849 F.2d 204, 210 (5th Cir.

1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1059 (1989); see United States v.

Washington, 44 F.3d 1271, 1279 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S.

Ct. 2011 (1995). 

AFFIRMED.
Mire Petroleum Consultants – Verde Bio Holdings Picture 1  June 1, 2022  Sadler Gibb & Associates, LLC. 344 W 13800 S, Suite 250 Draper, UT 84020  ATTN: MR. Kirk Gibb Mr. Gibb,  Verde Bio Holdings, Inc. (VBH) requested that we provide you with data concerning our independent reserve report for the period ending April 30, 2022.  Qualifications of Mire Petroleum Consultants (MPC): Kurt Mire supervised or performed all the relevant technical work during the creation of the above referenced reserve report for Verde Bio Holdings, Inc. He is a registered professional engineer and officer of Mire & Associates, Inc. (DBA Mire Petroleum Consultants), a Texas company. Kurt Mire has a B.S. degree in Petroleum Engineering from the University of Louisiana at Lafayette. He has more than 35 years of experience in creating reserve reports and completing reserves analysis for conventional and unconventional fields in the United States.  Financial Relationships: There are no financial relationships between Verde Bio Holdings, Inc. and Mire Petroleum Consultants other than the duty of VBH to pay for petroleum consulting services provided by MPC. Mire Petroleum Consultants has no ownership in Verde Bio Holdings, Inc. and we do not participate in any joint ventures with VBH.  Limitations and/or restrictions: There were no limitations or restrictions placed upon MPC by any official of VBH during our evaluation of the mineral reserves of VBH. MPC has evaluated the reserves of VBH according to accepted industry practices using our best judgment and technical knowledge of the areas being evaluated.  Subsequent information: We have received no information after our report of May 31, 2022, which would cause us to question or revise the amounts and classifications of reserves reported upon.  1   Mire Petroleum Consultants – Verde Bio Holdings  Fees: Our consulting fees are based on hourly charges or on a turnkey project cost. They are not contingent on the results of the work or reserves volumes.  Outstanding Fees: As of June 1, 2022, there are no outstanding fees.   Additional Services: MPC has performed reserves updates as of March 1, 2022 and November 1, 2021.   Data Supplied: Verde Bio Holdings, Inc. supplied wells lists, lease assignments, division orders, ownership and revenue data. We used public data sources to obtain production data, but we did not independently verify the lease or well ownership data. VBH did not supply any internal reserves estimates.  Reasonableness of estimates: For the reserve estimates as of May 1, 2022, we used generally accepted petroleum engineering and evaluation principles. We feel our reserve estimates are reasonable based on the data available at the time of the evaluation.  Picture 30  2
================================================================================
                                   EXHIBIT 32

                TIRE INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS INC.

                           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 Tire International Environmental
Solutions Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KA for the year ending September 30,
2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Martin Sergi, as Principal Financial Officer of the Company,
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 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 this Report fairly presents, in all
           material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
           of the Company.



Date: August 18, 2011                          By:     /s/ Martin Sergi
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Name: Martin Sergi
                                               Title:Principal Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 1350 of Title 18
of the United States Code 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 certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Report
pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 1350 of Title 18 of
the United States Code and, accordingly, is not being filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission as part of the Report and is not to be incorporated by
reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933 or the
Securities Exchange  Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date of the
Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such
filing.)






























                                       25
================================================================================
<page>
AMENDMENT NO. 1
                 TO THE INTERNATIONAL PLASTIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
                        1998 STOCK OPTION AND GRANT PLAN

     The International  Plastic  Technologies,  Inc. 1998 Stock Option and Grant
Plan (the "Plan") was duly  adopted by the Board of  Directors of  International
Plastic Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") as of March 17, 1998.

     Pursuant to Section 17 of the Plan,  the Board of Directors  duly adopted a
resolution to amend the Plan as follows:

          Paragraph 1 of the Plan is hereby amended by deleting the reference to
          "International  Plastic  Technologies,  Inc." appearing in the second,
          third,  tenth and eleventh lines of said paragraph and substituting in
          its place and stead, "ChinaB2BSourcing.com, Inc."

     Pursuant to Section 17 of the Plan, at the Annual  Meeting of  Stockholders
of the Company held on June 15, 2000,  the following  amendment was approved and
ratified:

          Paragraph 3(a) of the Plan is hereby amended to increase the number of
          option  shares  which the Plan is  authorized  to grant  from  300,000
          shares to 800,000 shares.

     Except as specifically  amended above, the terms and conditions of the Plan
are hereby ratified and confirmed and remain in full force and effect.
[Cite as State ex rel. Jefferson v. Goulding, 2022-Ohio-344.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

LUCAS COUNTY 

State, ex rel. Tanelle Jefferson Court of Appeals No. L-21-1225 

 

 Relator 

 

v. 

 

Judge Michael Goulding DECISION AND JUDGMENT

Respondent Decided: February 1, 2022 

* * * * * 

 Tanelle Jefferson, Pro se. 

 Julia R. Bates, Lucas Count Prosecuting Attorney, and 

 Evy M. Jarrett, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Repondent.

* * * * * 

OSOWIK, J. 

{¶ 1} This matter is before the court on respondent Hon. Judge Michael 

Goulding’s January 10, 2022 motion to dismiss relator Tanelle Jefferson’s petition for 

writ of procedendo. In his petition, relator asked this court to order respondent to rule on 
2. 

his previously-filed motion for judicial release. Relator alleges that respondent failed to 

rule on his motion within time period prescribed in R.C. 2929.20. On December 30, 

2021, we granted an alternative writ ordering respondent to either rule on appellant’s 

motion, or show cause why he has no clear duty to do so by filing either an answer to 

relator’s complaint or a motion to dismiss. 

{¶ 2} On January 10, 2022, respondent filed a motion to dismiss, pursuant to 

Civ.R. 12(B)(6), arguing that no relief could be granted because he had already 

performed the requested action—that is, he denied relator’s motion. Respondent 

included a copy of the order resolving relator’s motion for judicial release to his motion 

to dismiss. 

{¶ 3} “Procedendo will not compel the performance of a duty that has already 

been performed.” State ex rel. Bechtel v. Cornachio, 164 Ohio St.3d 579, 2021-Ohio1121, 174 N.E.3d 744, ¶ 9, citing State ex rel. Roberts v. Marsh, 159 Ohio St.3d 457, 

2020-Ohio-1540, 151 N.E.3d 625, ¶ 6. Where respondent performs the action requested 

in a petition for writ of procedendo, the petition is subject to dismissal as moot. State ex 

rel. Ames v. Pokorny, 164 Ohio St.3d 538, 2021-Ohio-2070, 173 N.E.3d 1208, ¶ 7. Here, 

respondent’s motion to dismiss includes the order showing that the relief relator requests 

in his petition has been provided. As a result, this action has been rendered moot. 

{¶ 4} IT IS THEREFORE 
3. 

{¶ 5} ORDERED that respondent’s motion to dismiss is hereby granted; it is 

further 

{¶ 6} ORDERED that relator’s petition for writ of procedendo is hereby 

dismissed as moot; and it is further 

{¶ 7} ORDERED that the costs of this action are assessed to respondent. 

{¶ 8} The clerk is directed to immediately serve upon the parties, within three 

days, a copy of this decision in a manner prescribed by Civ.R. 5(B). 

{¶ 9} It is so ordered. 

Writ denied. 

Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. ____________________________ 

 JUDGE 

Thomas J. Osowik, J. 

____________________________ 

Gene A. Zmuda, J. JUDGE 

CONCUR. 

____________________________ 

JUDGE 

This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of 

Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported 

version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at: 

http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of DirectorsSchrödinger, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333-236297) on Form S-8 of Schrödinger, Inc. of our report dated March 16, 2020, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Schrödinger, Inc. as of December 31, 2019 and 2018, the related consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive loss, convertible preferred stock and stockholders’ deficit, and cash flows for the years then ended, and the related notes, which report appears in the December 31, 2019 annual report on Form 10-K of Schrödinger, Inc.

Our report on the consolidated financial statements refers to a change in the method of accounting for leases in 2019 due to the adoption of Accounting Standards Codification Topic 842, Leases. 

 

/s/ KPMG LLP

Portland, OregonMarch 16, 2020
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-11-0000594

23-DEC-2015

08:22 AM
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 19-20453

Conference Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Claudia Piedra, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:18-CR-258-1

Before Graves, Willett, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The attorney appointed to represent Claudia Piedra 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). 

Piedra has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 29, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-20453 Document: 00515918505 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/29/2021
No. 19-20453

2

relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s 

assessment that the appeal 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.

Case: 19-20453 Document: 00515918505 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/29/2021
Exhibit 99.7



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002



The Cash Store Financial Services
Inc. (the “Company”) is filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, its annual report
on Form 40-F/A for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2012 (the “Report”).



I, Craig Warnock, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as enacted pursuant to section 906 of the U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:



(i) the Report fully complies
with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(ii) the information contained
in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



| | By:    | /s/ Craig Warnock       | 
| | ------ | ----------------------- | 
| | Name:  | Craig Warnock           | 
| | Title: | Chief Financial Officer | 
| | Date:  | May 24, 2013            |