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

EXHIBIT 32.**1**
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Gryphon GoldCorporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31,2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the "Report"), I, Anthony D.J. Ker, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

(1)           The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

(2)           The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Date: February 14, 2007 
 By:   /s/ Anthony D.J. Ker            Anthony D.J. Ker         Chief Executive Officer
No. 49268.

#### Protests 91362-K, etc., of Ernst Furth et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8757 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8757

To prohibit the use of Federal funds to support cell-cultured meat, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 14, 2024

   Mr. Davidson (for himself, Mr. Massie, Ms. Hageman, Mr. Hern, Mr. 
 Steube, Mr. Baird, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Jackson of Texas, and Mr. Self) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                              Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit the use of Federal funds to support cell-cultured meat, and 
                          for other purposes.

    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 ``Right to Eat Authentic and 
Legitimate Meat Act of 2024'' or the ``REAL Meat Act of 2024''.

SEC. 2. NO FEDERAL FUNDS SUPPORTING CELL-CULTURED MEAT.

    (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), no Federal funds may be 
used to support, directly or indirectly, the production, advancement, 
or enhancement of cell-cultured meat, including through--
            (1) conducting or supporting research on cell-cultured 
        meat;
            (2) supporting meatpacking plants, organizations, or groups 
        relating to cell-cultured meat;
            (3) allowing for the receipt of any assistance or other 
        benefit under a program administered by the Secretary of 
        Agriculture for any product that includes as an ingredient 
        cell-cultured meat; and
            (4) the promotion and advertisement of cell-cultured meat.
    (b) NASA Exemption.--The prohibition described in subsection (a) 
shall not apply to Federal funds of the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration used to support, directly or indirectly, the production, 
advancement, or enhancement of cell-cultured meat that is intended for 
off-planet consumption.
    (c) Cell-Cultured Meat Defined.--In this section, the term ``cell-
cultured meat'' means meat sourced from cells of animals and 
artificially produced in a laboratory.
                                 <all>
```
No. 47979.

#### Protest 554985-G of Tientsin Trading Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the hats in question are similar to those involved in *Caradine*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 69, C. D. 664) some of them were held dutiable at 25 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1504 (b) (5) and others entered or withdrawn for consumption subsequent to the effective date of the Netherlands Trade Agreement (T. D. 48075) were held dutiable at *12%*percent under said paragraph 1504 (b) (5).
#### Robert C. Lowry, Respondent, *v.*James Gault, *Defendant, Impleaded, etc.*

— Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Davis, P. J.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Robert J. Zatta, certify that:

 

1.             I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q of Rockwood Specialties Group, Inc.;

 

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, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.             Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.             The registrant’s othercertifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-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)           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

 

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

 

5.             The registrant’sother certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent 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: August 12, 2005                         |   |
|----------------------------------------------------|--------|
| /s/ ROBERT J. ZATTA                                |   |
| Robert J. Zatta                                    |
| Senior Vice President and  Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF

UNIVERSAL CITY DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, LTD.

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the quarterly report of Universal City Development Partners, Ltd. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 28, 2008 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John R. Sprouls certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: November 7, 2008



By:

/s/ John R. SproulsJohn R. Sprouls Principal Executive Officer
* 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.

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 of

the 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.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard Harry REEH, Arlington Douglas Sprecher, Theodore Duane Jorden and Michael Ryan, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 82-6024.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Feb. 24, 1984.

Carlton & Carlton, Philip Carlton, Jr., Thomas A. Wells, University of Miami, School of Law, Miami, Fla., for Reeh, Sprecher, Jorden and Ryan.

Stanley Marcus, U.S. Atty., James G. Adams, III, Joseph R. Buchanan, Paul A. DiPaolo, Asst. U.S. Atty., Miami, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before GODBOLD, Chief Judge, TJO-FLAT and HENDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

In this marijuana case the district court denied a motion to suppress as evidence the seized marijuana. In the subsequent bench trial defendants were found guilty. After a notice of appeal was filed, defendants filed what the district court deemed a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence. The district judge certified to this court that he was disposed to grant the motion should this court remand the case in accordance with the procedure approved in *U.S. v. Fuentes-Lozano,*580 F.2d 724, 725-26 (5th Cir.1978) (per curiam).

The case is REMANDED to the district court for its ruling on the motion for new trial.
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Professional Health Imaging, P.C., as Assignee of Alaur Abdalla, Appellant,<br><br>against<br><br>State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Gary Tsirelman, P.C. (Irena Golodkeyer, Esq.), for appellant.Rivkin Radler, LLP (Stuart M. Bodoff, Esq.), for respondent.</p><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Devin P. Cohen, J.), entered August 8, 2014. The order granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, to strike defendant's answer and to compel defendant to respond to discovery demands.</p><p>ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath. Plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment or, in the alternative, to strike defendant's answer and to compel defendant to respond to discovery demands. Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court granting defendant's motion and denying plaintiff's cross motion.</p><p>For the reasons stated in <a href="../2016/2016_50698.htm" target="_blank"><i>Professional Health Imaging, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.</i> (51 Misc 3d 143</a>[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 50698[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2016]), the order is affirmed.</p><br>PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ., concur.<br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: October 27, 2017<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
Exhibit 35.1

SERVICING COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2010-1 for the fiscal year ending
December 31, 2014 (the Report), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Santander Consumer USA Inc. (the Servicer), does hereby certify and represent that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities and performance of the Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of May 26, 2010, among Santander Drive Auto Receivables LLC, Santander Consumer USA Inc., Santander Drive
Auto Receivables Trust 2010-1 and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (the Agreement) during the period that is the subject of the Report has been made under my supervision.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the period that is the subject of the Report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC./s/ Jason KulasName:

Jason KulasTitle:

President and Chief Financial OfficerDate:

March 23, 2015/s/ Jennifer M. PoppName:

Jennifer M. PoppTitle:

Chief Accounting OfficerDate:

March 23, 2015
Exhibit 31.8**CERTIFICATION**I, Craig D. Abolt, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MSW Energy Finance Co. II, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, 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 light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand 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 financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe 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 havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: August 3, 2006         By:             /s/ Craig D. Abolt    Craig D. Abolt    Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer  
52
#### Michael Levine et al., Appellants, v Chemical Bank, as Successor in Interest to Manufacturers Hanover Trust Company, Inc., Respondent, et al., Defendants.

[633 NYS2d 296]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lorraine Miller, J.), entered on or about August 10, 1994, which granted defendant bank’s motion to dismiss the complaint against it for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In an action for wrongful death and pain and suffering, the decedent, an off-duty police officer, was shot and killed when he tried to apprehend one of the perpetrators of an assault on a customer at an ATM machine. Insofar as the action against defendant bank is based on common-law negligence for failure to provide adequate security, it was properly dismissed on the ground that recovery is precluded by the so-called "fireman’s rule” as applied to police officers *(Santangelo v City of New York,*71 NY2d 393; *Cooper v City of New York,*81 NY2d 584), and more specifically to off-duty police officers attempting to apprehend a suspect *(Campbell v Lorenzo’s Pizza Parlor,*172 AD2d 478, *lv denied*78 NY2d 863). Nor can there be recovery under General Municipal Law § 205-e because any violation by the bank of the statutes relied upon would not have increased the risk faced by the decedent in his pursuit of the perpetrators *(St. Jacques v City of New York,*215 AD2d 75). Further, any such violation could not have been the proximate cause of the decedent’s death *(Dyer v Norstar Bank,*186 AD2d 1083, *lv denied*81 NY2d 703). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Rubin and Williams, JJ.
No. 56544.

protests 774945-G, etc. (Seattle).

#### The American Import Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

The protests were dismissed.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 4.3.2
                                 AMENDMENT NO. 4

                                       TO

                                K2 DIGITAL, INC.

                            1997 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN

         Section 4.1 of the K2 Digital, Inc. 1997 Stock Incentive Plan (the
"Plan") is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:

                  "4.1 Number of Shares. Subject to the provisions of this
         Article IV, the maximum number of shares of Common Stock with respect
         to which Awards may be granted during the term of the Plan shall be
         3,000,000 shares. Shares of Common Stock will be made available from
         the authorized but unissued shares of the Company. The shares of Common
         Stock subject to (i) any Award granted under the Plan that shall
         expire, terminate or be annulled for any reason without having been
         exercised (or considered to have been exercised as provided in Section
         7) and (ii) any Award of Restricted Shares that shall be forfeited
         prior to becoming vested (provided that the holder received no benefits
         of ownership of such Restricted Shares other than voting rights and the
         accumulation of Retained Distributions and unpaid Dividend Equivalents
         that are likewise forfeited), shall again be available for purpose of
         the Plan."


                                       1
**EXHIBIT 13.1**

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

In connection with the annual report of Mirae Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the year ending December 31, 2005, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Soon Do Kwon, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 U.S. Securities Exchange Act of1934; and 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company. 

Date: June 30, 2006 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been providedto Mirae Corporation, and will be retained by Mirae Corporation and furnished to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. 

This certification will not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. This certification will notbe deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 or the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 even if the document with which it is submitted to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is soincorporated by reference.
No. 58125.

protest 194990-K/3706 (Chicago).

#### Naumes Forwarding Service *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is similar in all material respects to that the subject of Abstract 57300, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.