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

Exhibit 6

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OFTHE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with this Annual Report on Form 40-F of Pacific
Rim Mining Corp. for the period ended April 30, 2006, I, Thomas Shrake, Chief
Executive Officer of the issuer, certify that:

1.          
The annual 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 annual report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
issuer.

|Date: July 31, 2006 | By: | /s/
      Thomas Shrake              
|------------------- | --- | -------------------------------------
|                    |     | Thomas Shrake                        
|                    |     | President and Chief Executive Officer

This certification accompanies the annual report pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the
extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the issuer
for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

---
CL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0586

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

JACOB CHRISTIAN PALMER,

Defendant and Appellant.

GRANT OF EXTENSION

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30-day extension of time,

and good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is granted an extension of time to

and including May 28, 2023, within which to prepare, serve, and file the State’s

response brief.

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

April 19 2023

04/19/2023

Case Number: DA 21-0586
EXHIBIT 31.1



CERTIFICATIONS



I, Jo S. Major, Jr., certify that:



1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Avanex Corporation;



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



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



4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



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



b) Evaluated the
effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on
such evaluation; and



c) Disclosed in this
report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over
financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant
role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



Date: September 13, 2004



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/    JO S. MAJOR,
JR.              
|Jo S. Major, Jr.                     
|President and Chief Executive Officer
# C_2014223EN.01006601.xml

| 14.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/66

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 16 January 2014 — Guinet v EIB

(Case F-107/12) (1)

1

((Civil Service - Staff of the EIB - Pension scheme - Transfer of pension rights - Compensation for the disadvantages resulting from the delay in the transfer of the pension rights - Condition of effective transfer of pension rights acquired in a scheme other than that of the EIB - Principle of equal treatment))

2014/C 223/67

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Philippe Guinet (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: T. Gilliams, G. Nuvoli, acting as Agents, and D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application to annul the EIB’s implied decision to reject the applicant’s request to recalculate his years of pensionable service and an application for damages

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Guinet to bear his own costs and to pay three-quarters of the costs incurred by the European Investment Bank; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Guinet to bear his own costs and to pay three-quarters of the costs incurred by the European Investment Bank;

| 3. | Orders the European Investment Bank to bear a quarter of its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Investment Bank to bear a quarter of its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 366, 14.11.2012, p. 41.

1

---
Case No. 13,384.

#### The STETTIN.

[Blatchf. Pr. Cas. 665.] 1

Circuit Court, S. D. New York.

Nov. 14, 1863.2

Prize — Violation of Blockade.

Decree of the district court, condemning vessel and cargo for an attempt to violate the blockade, affirmed.

[Appeal from the district court of the United States for the Southern district of New York.]

In admiralty.

2

 [Affirming Case No. 13,383.]

NELSON, Circuit Justice.

This steamer, with a cargo consisting of tea, coffee, brandies, lead, shoes, etc., was captured on the 24th of May, 1862, while attempting to break the blockade of the port of Charleston, South Carolina, by the United States steamer Bien-ville.

The proofs are full that the vessel was not only near the mouth of the harbor of Charleston at the time of her capture, but that she was intending to enter it, with full knowledge of the blockade. The vessel has been appraised and delivered to the government, and most of the cargo has been sold. The court below decrees a condemnation of the vessel and cargo. The decree of the court below is affirmed. [Case No. 13,383.]
EXHIBIT 32.2



TWL CORPORATION



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 Trinity Learning Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Patrick R Quinn, 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, to the best of my knowledge:



1.

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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:

May 22, 2007



/s/ Patrick R. Quinn



Patrick R Quinn



Chief Financial Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to TWL Corporation and will be retained by it and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v GRAHAM R. KEENE, Airman First Class, U. S. Air Force, Appellant

7 USCMA 690, 23 CMR 154

No. 9420

Decided April 5, 1957

*Major Marcos E. Kinevan*argued the cause for Appellant, Accused. With him on the brief were *Lieutenant Colonel Stanley S. Butt*and *Major Dwight R. Rowland.*

*Captain Lawrence J. Gross*argued the cause for Appellee, United States. With him on the brief was *Lieutenant Colonel Francis P. Murray.*

*691Opinion of the Court

Robert E. Quinn, Chief Judge:

A board of review affirmed the accused’s conviction of two specifications similar to those before us in United States v Lightfoot, 7 USCMA 686, 23 CMR 154, decided this date. We granted the accused’s petition for review.

For the reasons set out in the Light-foot case, the decision of the board of review is reversed. The findings of guilty of specifications 1 and 2 of Charge I are hereby set aside, and ordered dismissed. The record of trial is returned to The Judge Advocate General of the Air Force for submission to the board of review for reassessment of an appropriate sentence on the basis of the remaining findings of guilty on the other charges.

Judges Latimer and Ferguson concur.
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 14.2


                  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the incorporation by reference into the Registration Statement on
Form S-8 dated October 21, 2002, of Pacific Rim Mining Corp. (the "Company"), of
our report dated May 16, 2003, relating to the consolidated financial statements
of the Company which appear in the Annual Report on Form 20-F filed for the
fiscal year ended April 30, 2003.




STALEY, OKADA & PARTNERS

Chartered Accountants

"STALEY, OKADA & PARTNERS"

Surrey, British Columbia, Canada

August 27, 2003
Exhibit 31.2

I, Paul Bailey, the chief financial officer of Iroquois Gas Transmission
System, L.P., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Iroquois Gas
Transmission System, L.P.;

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

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

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and
have:

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

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any changes in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial
reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting.

DATE: November 14, 2005

/S/ PAUL BAILEY
---------------------
PAUL BAILEY
VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
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.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

          - [RIN 0648-XA17]

# AGENCY:

                        National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and                               ( print page 27542)                            Atmospheric Administration, Commerce.                    

# ACTION:

Notice; issuance of permit.

# SUMMARY:

This notice advises the public that an incidental take permit has been issued to the Grants Pass Irrigation District for the continued operation and maintenance of Savage Rapids Dam at Grants Pass, Oregon, and that the decision documents are available upon request.

# DATES:

Permit 1607 was issued on May 7, 2007, subject to certain conditions set forth therein, and took effect on May 7, 2007. The permit expires on November 1, 2009.

# ADDRESSES:

                        Requests for copies of the decision documents or any of the other associated documents should be directed to the Habitat Conservation Division, NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service, 2900 NW Stewart Parkway, Roseburg, OR 97470. The documents are also available on the Internet at                         *www.nwr.noaa.gov*.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Ken Phippen, at phone number: (541) 957-3385, e-mail:                         *ken.phippen@noaa.gov*.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This notice is relevant to the following species:

                    Coho salmon (                    *Oncorhynchus kisutch*): threatened Southern Oregon and Northern California Coasts evolutionarily significant unit.                

Dated: May 10, 2007.

Angela Somma,

Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. E7-9423 Filed 5-15-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-22-S
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

ELRADER BROWNING, Jr.,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-50644

D.C. No. 2:87-cr-00571-SVW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 10, 2015** 

Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges. 

Elrader Browning, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying

his motion for correction of an illegal sentence under Federal Rule of Criminal

Procedure 35. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. 

FILED

MAR 17 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Browning first contends that he is entitled to relief under Rule 35 because

the district court did not use the phrase “continuing series of violations” in its jury

instruction on the continuing criminal enterprise count at trial. We review for

abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of the Rule 35 motion. See United

States v. Stump, 914 F.2d 170, 172 (9th Cir. 1990). Browning’s allegation of an

erroneous jury instruction is not a cognizable claim under the prior version of Rule

35, which the parties agree applies here. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a) (1987); United

States v. Montalvo, 581 F.3d 1147, 1151-52 (9th Cir. 2009) (Rule 35 only allows

for correction of an illegal sentence and is not meant to permit reexamination of

trial errors.). 

Browning next contends that his sentence violates the Double Jeopardy

Clause because he was sentenced for both engaging in a continuing criminal

enterprise and the predicate drug trafficking offenses. Even assuming that such a

claim is cognizable under Rule 35(a), Browning’s argument is foreclosed by

Garrett v. United States, 471 U.S. 773, 793-95 (1985).

Browning last contends that his life sentence on Count 37 exceeded the

statutory maximum because the judge, not the jury, determined the drug quantity.

Browning’s contention is untimely under Rule 35(a) because he did not bring this

claim within 120 days of the imposition of his sentence. See Montalvo, 581 F.3d at

2 13-50644
1153-54. Even if Rule 35’s filing deadline is subject to equitable tolling, as

Browning argues, he has not shown that he is entitled to the more than 20 years of

tolling needed to render his claim timely. 

AFFIRMED.

3 13-50644
Case 3STo. 8,656.

#### McALISTER et al. v. BARRY et al.

[Brunner, Col. Cas. 24;1 2 Hayw. (N. C.) 290.]

Circuit Court, D. North Carolina.

Dec. Term, 1803.

Equity —Fraud as Ground por Setting Aside Conveyance — Allowanoe for Improvements.

Misrepresentations and obtaining a bargain, in consequence thereof, disadvantageous to the party complaining, is a ground in equity for setting aside a conveyance, although the party imposed on were of sound understanding, and had time enough to detect the falsehood before he made the contract. But the grantee shall be allowed for improvements made on the estate.

In equity.

PER CURIAM.

Misrepresentations, and obtaining a bargain in consequence thereof, disadvantageous to the party deceived by them, is a ground in equity for setting aside the conveyance, although the party imposed on were of sound understanding, and had time enough to detect the falsehood before he made the contract. In this case the debts due from the testator were represented to his Regatees to be very large, and likely to fall upon the estate in remainder devised to them; and it was concealed from them that a fund was provided by the testator for payment of his debts. The conveyance must be set aside, but the grantee shall be allowed for the improvements made on the estate.

See Boyce v. Grundy, 3 Pet [28 U. S.] 210; [Thigpen v. Balfour, 2 Murph. 242].3

3

 [From 2 Hayw. (N. C.) 290.]
Before the Third Division,

May 22, 1951

No. 55570.

#### Air Clearance Assn., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 166223-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of live birds similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Alfred Mazer*v. *United States*(25 Cust. Ct. 67, C. D. 1265), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
#### Peter LARANGERA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 97-1987.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 19, 1999.

*516Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Ian Seldin, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Elaine L. Thompson, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

KLEIN, J.

In a prior appeal by this appellant we reversed an order revoking his probation, and remanded for further proceedings. *Larangera v. State,*686 So.2d 697 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). In that appeal we concluded there was no violation of one of the conditions and remanded for the trial court to reconsider the others. The trial court again revoked his probation on the remaining grounds, and we now conclude that there were no grounds for revocation.

As our earlier opinion reflects, the two remaining grounds were: (1) appellant failed to notify his probation officer of an involuntary change in address forced by a restraining order obtained by appellant’s wife, and (2) appellant traveled to New Jersey where he was offered employment without obtaining prior consent from his probation officer.

We now conclude that the change of address, which was, as we noted in our prior opinion “involuntary,” was not a willful violation. Appellant’s probation should therefore not have been violated on that ground. *Anderson v. State,*711 So.2d 106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).

As to the trip to New Jersey, appellant testified that after being ordered to leave the marital home he lost his job. He was thus without a place to live and the means to get one. At that point his brother in New Jersey offered him work up there, and he went for a short period, returning one day before he was to contact his probation officer.

Appellant’s probation officer testified that he had previously allowed appellant to go outside Broward County in the past in order to work, without obtaining prior consent. Although in the past appellant had not gone outside the state of Florida for employment, his probation officer’s testimony was unqualifiedly that appellant was “allowed to go where he’s employed.” We conclude that under these circumstances appellant’s brief trip to New Jersey for purposes of employment did not constitute a violation. We therefore reverse the order of revocation.

POLEN and FARMER, JJ., concur.
#### In the matter of the application for probate of the last will and testament of Michael Allen, deceased.

[Decided May 3d, 1918.]

On appeal from a decree of the prerogative court advised by Vice-Ordinary Learning, whose opinion is reported in *88 N. J. Eq. 291.*

*Mr. Huntley S. Beckett*and *Mr. Lewis Starr,*for the petitioner-appellant.

*Mr. David O. Watkins*and *Mr. Austin H.*Swackhamer, for the defendants-respondents.

Per Curta 3i.

The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion hied in the court below by Vice-Ordinary Learning.

*For affirmance*— The Chief-Justice, Swayze, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Kalisch, Black, White, Heppenheimer, Williams, Taylor, Gardner-13.

*For reversal*— None.