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



Exhibit 32
 Certification pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (1)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 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.
  August 14, 2006
    
    /s/ John S. CooperDate
    
    John S. Cooper, President and Chief Executive OfficerAugust 14, 2006
    
    /s/ John N. PesarsickDate
    
    John N. Pesarsick, Chief Financial Officer
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 Gryphon Gold Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period
ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Thomas Sitar, Chief Financial Officer 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:

| | (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.
| | --- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:   February 10, 2006

| | By:  /s/ Thomas Sitar
       Thomas Sitar
       Chief Financial Officer
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------

---
#### FREDERICK PHILLIPS, *ET AL.,*PETITIONERS-PETITIONERS, v. WILLIAM S. RANDOLPH, *ET AL.,*DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

*Mr. Nicholas S. Schloeder*for the petitioners.

*Messrs. Pollaclc & Patras*for the respondents.

April 18, 1967.

Denied.
#### The People of the State of New York, *Respondents, v.*Mahlon J. Lord, *Appellant.*

— Same as in case of Trumble.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8733 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8733

  To amend the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act to direct the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services to include data on animal abuse 
 in the national clearinghouse for information relating to child abuse 
                              and neglect.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 13, 2024

  Ms. Kuster (for herself and Mr. Van Drew) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the 
                               Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act to direct the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services to include data on animal abuse 
 in the national clearinghouse for information relating to child abuse 
                              and neglect.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Child and Animal Abuse Detection and 
Reporting Act''.

SEC. 2. INCLUSION OF DATA ON ANIMAL ABUSE IN NATIONAL CLEARINGHOUSE FOR 
              INFORMATION RELATING TO CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT.

    Section 103(b)(6) of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act 
(42 U.S.C. 5104(b)(6)) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' at the end;
            (2) in subparagraph (C), by adding ``and'' at the end; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(D) the incidence of any such cases related to 
                animal abuse (including any act or failure to act, 
                which results in undue pain, suffering, or death to any 
                animal, without regard to whether such act or failure 
                to act is a violation of State or local cruelty 
                law);''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 35.1





AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORPORATION


ANNUAL COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE


PURSUANT TO SECTION 3.11(a) OF THE


SALE AND SERVICING AGREEMENT AND


ITEM 1123 OF REGULATION AB








I, Paul C. Honda, do hereby certify that I am the Vice President, Assistant Secretary and Compliance Officer of American Honda Finance Corporation, a California corporation (the "Company"), and further certify on behalf of the Company in its capacity as servicer (the "Servicer" and "Sponsor") under the Sale and Servicing Agreement (the "Agreement") dated as of May 1, 2010 among the Servicer and Sponsor, American Honda Receivables LLC, as successor to American Honda Receivables Corp., as Seller, and Honda Auto Receivables 2010-2 Owner Trust as follows:





(i)
A review of the activities of the Servicer during the reporting period ended March 31, 2011, and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under my supervision.




(ii)
To the best of my knowledge and information, based upon such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such period in all material respects.







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 14thday of June, 2011.








/s/ Paul C. Honda_________Paul C. HondaVice President, Assistant Secretary, andCompliance Officer(senior officer in charge of the servicing function)
CHINACAST EDUCATION CORPORATION
 INSIDER TRADING POLICY
and Guidelines with Respect to
Certain Transactions in Company Securities
  Applicability of Policy
   Compliance Officer
  Statement of Policy
 General Policy
  Specific Policies
 1. Trading on Material Nonpublic Information




---



##### 



2. Tipping
 3. Confidentiality of Nonpublic Information
 4. Blackout Period
 5. Prohibition Against Margining of Company Securities
 6. Prohibition Against Short Sales
 2




---



##### 



7. Prohibition Against Trading in Derivative Securities
 8. Prohibition Against Internet Disclosure
 Potential Criminal and Civil Liability and/or Disciplinary Action
 1. Liability for Insider Trading
 2. Liability for Tipping
 3




---



##### 



3. Possible Disciplinary Actions
 Trading Guidelines and Requirements
 1. Recommended Trading Window
  2. Blackout Period and Trading Window
   4




---



##### 



3. Pre-clearance of Trades
 4. Individual Responsibility
 Applicability of Policy to Inside Information Regarding Other Companies
  Definition of Material Nonpublic Information
  5




---



##### 



Financial Related Events
 ·  ·  ·  ·  ·  ·
 Corporate Developments
 ·  ·  ·  ·  ·
 Product Development Related Events
 ·  ·  ·
  Certain Exceptions
  Additional Information  Directors and Officers
  6




---



##### 



Inquiries
  7




---



##### 



Attachment B
(to Insider Trading Compliance Program)
DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS SUBJECT TO SECTION 16
 1. Directors:
      2. Officers:
 Name
    
    PositionRon Chan Tze Ngon
    
    Chief Executive OfficerAntonio Sena
    
    Chief Financial Officer and SecretaryMichael Santos
    
    Chief Marketing OfficerJim Ma
    
    Chief Accounting OfficerLi Wei
    
    Chief Operating OfficerJiang Xiang Yuen
    
    Vice President




---



##### 



Attachment C
(to Insider Trading Compliance Program)
DESIGNATED INSIDERS
 Name
    
    Position
#### ANNA PARENTINI, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. S. KLEIN DEPARTMENT STORES, INC., DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

See same case below: 94 *N. J. Super.*452.

*Messrs. Simon & Kaufman*for the petitioner.

*Mr. Francis Sorin*for the respondent.

May 29, 1967.

Denied.
* 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

August 20, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-41701

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE LUIS VILLALOBOS-REYES,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. L-02-CR-724-ALL

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

Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Luis Villalobos-Reyes (“Villalobos-Reyes”) appeals his

guilty plea conviction and sentence for illegal reentry into the

United States following deportation. Villalobos-Reyes argues

that the sentencing provisions in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) & (b)(2)

are unconstitutional based on Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S.

466 (2000). He also argues that a FED. R. CRIM. P. 11 guilty plea

colloquy should not be statutorily or constitutionally delegated

to a non-Article III magistrate judge. Villalobos-Reyes concedes
No. 02-41701

-2-

that his arguments are foreclosed, but he nevertheless seeks to

preserve them for Supreme Court review.

Villalobos-Reyes’ contention that the enhancement provisions

in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) & (b)(2) are unconstitutional lacks

merit because Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres v.

United States, 523 U.S. 24 (1998). See Apprendi, 530 U.S. at

489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir.

2000). 

Villalobos-Reyes’ contention that a magistrate judge should

not be statutorily or constitutionally delegated to conduct a

FED. R. CRIM. P. 11 plea colloquy is foreclosed by our decision in

United States v. Dees, 125 F.3d 261, 264-68 (5th Cir. 1997). 

For the foregoing reasons, Villalobos-Reyes’ sentence is

AFFIRMED.
No. 65608.

#### Daniel F. Young, Inc., and M. Adler’s Son, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 60/25269(A) (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

The protest was dismissed.
#### Archibald D. O’Neil, *Receiver, etc., Respondent, v.*John Waller, *Appellant.*

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion - by Learned, P. J., and by Westbrook, J., dissenting.
1 

# Memo

To: Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0472 From: Joseph McDonald, U.S. EPA-OTAQ-ASD CC: Ed Nam, U.S. EPA-OTAQ-ASD Date: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 Re: March 30, 2009 Automotive News Article – “Mazda: Don’t believe hota air being emitted by hybrid hype”
A hard copy of the March 30, 2009 Automotive News Article entitled “Mazda: Don’t believe hota air being emitted by hybrid hype” is ava ilable within EPA’s Docket Center. This document has been copyrighted and is not available in the electronic docket. Parties that wish to view a hard copy of this document can do so at the at the EPA Docket Center: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, EPA/DC, EPA We st, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566- 1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742. The article quotes Seita Kanai, Director, Research and Development, Mazda Motor Corp., regarding Mazda’s plans for reducing vehicle curb weigh by 100 kg for each new vehicle undergoing redesign via re-engineering of vehicle structures.
#### Robert P. Van Voorhis, Sr., et al., Appellants *v.*Peters Creek Sanitary Authority, Appellee.

Argued May 5, 1981,

before President Judge Critmlish and Judges Mencer, Blatt, Craig and MaoPhail. Judges Rogers, Williams, Jr. and Palladino did not participate.

*52
      *Peter M. Suwak,*for appellants.

*Milton D. Rosenberg,*with him *Edward G. M. Morascysk, Rosenberg, Sewak & Pissi,*for appellee.

June 16, 1981:

Opinion by

President Judge Crumlish,

This is an appeal from an order entered by the Washington County Common Pleas Court, sitting en banc, which dismissed the exceptions filed by the appellants to the order of Thomas J. Tebputac, Judge, which dismissed appellants’ complaint in equity. The appellants sought to enjoin Peters Creek Sanitary Authority from collecting sewer hook-up tapping fees assessed against them. The lower court found that the use of tapping fees was a proper means of securing financing for the overall construction of the sewer project. The court further found that the tapping fee was not a tax within the meaning of Article 3, Section 31 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Lastly, the court found that the tapping fee was reasonable and properly related to the value of service rendered.

Having examined the record and relevant law, we hereby affirm and adopt as our own the able opinion of Judge Tebputac, entered at No. 7368, In Equity, Book No. 43, Page 251.

*53Order

The Order of the Washington County Court of Common Pleas dated December 14, 1979 (No. 7368 In Equity, Book No. 43, Page 251), is hereby affirmed.

Date: June 16,1981
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6903

UGANDA WILSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.

(4:05-cv-03231)

Submitted: February 19, 2008 Decided: July 2, 2008

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Uganda Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III,

Donald John Zelenka, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH

CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Uganda Wilson seeks to appeal the district court’s orders

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition, and denying his

motion for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). The orders

are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Wilson has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion for a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 99.4



CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Dana Sean Landry, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 40-F of DHX Media
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 issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The issuer’s other certifying officer(s) 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 issuer 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 issuer, 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;



c. Evaluated the effectiveness of the issuer’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



d. Disclosed in this report any change
in the issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that
has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the issuer’s internal control over financial reporting;
and



5. The issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the issuer’s auditors and
the audit committee of the issuer’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 issuer’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 issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.



Date: September 28, 2015



|/s/ Dana Sean Landry          | 
|----------------------------- | 
|Dana Sean Landry              | 
|Chief Executive Officer       | 
|(principal executive officer) |
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

TODD ELLIS CARTER JR.,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 100 WAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 14th day of November, 2023

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein, 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.

 April 28, 2015

t0420

Order 

Clerk

April 28, 2015

148994

DAVID A. CHERRY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 148994

COA: 319071 

Genesee CC: 13-100137-CZ

RICHMOND M. RIGGS,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 14, 2014 

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

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 2 2 - 07 03 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. KEITH POPE,

Defendant and Appellant .

**G RANT**  Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the Appellant is given an extension of time until March 2 7 , 2023 , to prepare, file, and serve the Appellant’s opening brief.

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court February 14 2023

02/14/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0703
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Timothy G. Healy,certify that:

1. I have reviewed this AmendmentNo. 1 to quarterly report on Form 10-Q of EnerNOC, Inc.;

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

3. Based on my knowledge,the financial statements, and other financial information included in thisreport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;

4. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant 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 registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Reserved;

c) Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented 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

d) Disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

a) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date: October 29, 2007
|   |   |   | By:    | /s/ Timothy G.  Healy     |
|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------------------------------|
|   |   |   |   | Timothy G. Healy               |
|   |   |   |   | Chief Executive Officer        |
|   |   |   |   | (principal executive  officer) |

 

----