alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
(PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER)
PURSUANT TO 
TITLE 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 40-F of MDS Inc. (the "Company") for the year ending October 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John A. Rogers, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. s.1350, as adopted pursuant to s.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), as applicable, of the Securities 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:  March 4, 2004 | /s/ John A. Rogers(John A. Rogers)President & Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
|-------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

June 20, 2019

No. 04

- 19

- 00244

- CR

Christopher KINES

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 81st Judicial District Court, Wilson County, Texas

Trial Court No. 16

- 07

- 153

- CRW

Honorable Lynn Ellison, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Julie Verastegui ’ s Notification of Late Reporter ’ s Record is hereby GRANTED. The

Reporter ’ s Record is due July 15, 2019.

It is so ORDERED on June 20, 2019

.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: _______________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT
      32.1





**STATEMENT
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTIONS 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**


**OF
      THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





I,
      Winston Johnson, Chief Executive Officer (principal Executive Officer and
      principal Financial Officer) of Winsonic Digital Media Group, Ltd. (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:





(a)
      The
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended September
      30, 2006, to which this certification accompanies (the "Annual Report"), fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934; and





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




January 2, 2007
            
            /S/
                Winston JohnsonWinston
                Johnson, Chief Executive Officer
              (Principal
                Executive Officer and Principal Financial
                Officer)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

JAMES A. PRATT,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 17

- 35887

D.C. No. 1:16

- cv

- 00108

- DCN

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Idaho David C. Nye, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 18, 2019 **

Before: FARRIS, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

James A. Pratt appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in

this foreclosure action brought by the United States to enforce liens on Pratt’s

property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo,

Berezovsky v. Moniz , 869 F.3d 923, 927 (9th Cir. 2017) , an d we affirm

.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

SEP 26 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 35887

The district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the United

States because Pratt failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether

the Farm Service Agency own ed the debt secured by a deed of trust on Pratt’s

property and whether Pratt was in default on that debt. See Anderson v. Liberty

Lobby, Inc ., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986) (“Only disputes over facts that might affect

the outcome of the suit under the governing l aw will properly preclude the entry of

summary judgment.”) ; United States v. Kimbell Foods, Inc. , 440 U.S. 715, 7 26

- 729

(1979) ( explaining that “federal law governs questions involving the rights of the

United States arising under nationwide federal progra m s, ” but state law provides

the content where a national rule is unnecessary to protect federal interest); U.S.

Bank Nat ’l Ass ’ n N.D. v. CitiMortgage, Inc ., 337 P.3d 605, 610 ( Idaho 2014)

( Idaho foreclosure requirements for a loan secured by a deed of trust)

.

The district court judge did not plainly err in declining to recus e himself sua

sponte under 28 U.S.C

. § 455 because Pratt failed to demonstrate any grounds for

recusal

. See 28 U.S.C. § 455 (listing circumstances req uiring recusal); United

States v. Holland , 519 F.3d 909, 911

- 1 3 (9th Cir. 2008) ( setting forth standard of

review and explaining that § 455 “ asks whether a reasonable person perceives a

significant risk that the judge will resolve the case on a basis other than the

merits;” “the reasonable person is not someone who is hypersensitive or unduly

suspicious, but rather is a well

- informed, thoughtful observer ” (citation and3 17

- 35887

internal quotation marks omitted)).

We do not consider matters not specifically a nd distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raise d for the first time on

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

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.
Page 1 of 1 

EPA’s Planned Proposed Rulemaking to Address the Process for Tribes to Obtain 

Treatment in a Similar Manner as States for the Clean Water Act Impaired Water Listing 

and Total Maximum Daily Load Program – Meeting with the National Tribal Caucus 

(NTC) of the EPA National Tribal Operations Committee (NTOC)

 Wednesday, June 24, 2015 

Meeting Summary 

EPA Presenters: Betsy Southerland, Director, EPA Office of Science and Technology 

 James Havard, EPA Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds 

Participants: Approximately 20 members of the Caucus 

The planned proposed rulemaking to address the process for tribes to obtain treatment in a 

similar manner as states for the Clean Water Act Impaired Water Listing and Total Maximum 

Daily Load Program was one of several on the agenda. A planned proposed rulemaking fact 

sheet (May 2015) of the same name was provided to invitees in advance of the meeting and is 

available in docket EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0622. 

Betsy Southerland and James Havard provided a brief overview of the planned proposed rule. 

Several participants expressed their support for the action. Participants raised no questions or 

issues.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Land and Maritime associate named to Ohio Veterans Hall of Fame

By Kristin MolinaroDLA Land and Maritime Public Affairs

                COLUMBUS, Ohio  –              
The Ohio Department of Veterans Services announced the 2019 Ohio Veterans Hall of Fame class in a statement Sept. 26. Army Col. John Dreska is among 20 inductees who will be inducted in November for their post-military service and accomplishments. In addition to his military service, Dreska works for the Defense Logistics Agency Land and Maritime as the division chief for batteries, tires and engines. 

Now in its 28th year, the Ohio Veterans Hall of Fame was established in 1992 by former Gov. George Voinovich to recognize the achievements of outstanding Ohio veterans, according to a release. Honorees over the years include former U.S. presidents, astronauts, community volunteers, safety officers, veteran advocates and government officials. 

The Class of 2019 induction is scheduled for Nov. 7. For more information, visit OhioVets.org.

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

Community L&MDLA L&MMilitary L&MPersonal Development L&MMedia Release L&M
S04 Version 3.0 

www.move.va.gov

How Do I Get Started With 

Changing My Eating Habits 

• Set short-term goals and write them down. 

• Make one or two changes at a time and start with 

something easy. 

• Tell yourself to eat until you are satisfied, not until 

you are stuffed. 

• Take your time, eat slowly, and enjoy your food. 

• Keep a food record to help you see where changes can be made. 

• Consider some of the following to get started: 

o Eat more fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and low fat dairy products. 

These are good for you and help to fill you up. 

o Drink a glass of water before eating. 

o Drink water, diet sodas or artificially sweetened drinks instead of 

sugar-sweetened beverages. 

o Get rid of snack foods high in calories, fat, and sugar. If you don’t 

have these foods available, you won’t be as tempted. 

o Have healthy snacks easily available. 

o Broil, bake, steam or grill your food instead of frying it. 

o Choose lean cuts of meat; cut off visible fat. 

o Plan snacks and meals ahead of time. 

o Avoid alcohol.
Exhibit 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)


         In connection with the accompanying Annual Report of Summit
Environmental Corporation, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period
ended December 31, 2003 (the "Report"), I, B. Keith Parker, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, hereby certify 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 (15 U.S.C. ss.78m or ss.78o(d));
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:  April 14, 2004

                                            /s/ B. Keith Parker
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            B. Keith Parker
                                            Chairman and Chief Executive Officer


         The above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss.1350) and is not being filed as
part of the Form 10-KSB or as a separate disclosure document.



                                                                    Exhibit 32.1
                                                                Page 1 of 1 Page
# C_2014112EN.01002001.xml

| 14.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/20

---

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Ferenc Weigl v Nemzeti Innovációs Hivatal

(Case C-332/13) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 30 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - No implementation of European Union law - Court manifestly lacking jurisdiction))

2014/C 112/24

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ferenc Weigl

Applicant:

Defendant: Nemzeti Innovációs Hivatal

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Kúria — Interpretation of Article 6 TEU and of Articles 30 and 51 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Protection in the event of unjustified dismissal — Dismissal without any reason given — Official of a body of the public authorities having been dismissed on the basis of a provision of the national legislation laying down the civil service code.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly lacks jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Kúria (Hungary), by decision of 5 June 2013, as supplemented by an additional decision of 18 July 2013.

---

(1)  OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.

1

---
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 21



                          SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

         The following table sets forth all subsidiaries of Smith
International, Inc., other than inactive and insignificant subsidiaries that,
considered in the aggregate, would not constitute a significant subsidiary,
indicating the percentage of issued and outstanding voting securities
beneficially owned by it:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                             % of Direct
                                  Where                                      and Indirect
Name of Subsidiary                Incorporated                                Ownership  
------------------                ------------                               ------------
<S>                               <C>                                        <C>
Smith Internacional,
 S.A. de C.V.                     Mexico                                     l00%
Omega II Insurance Ltd.           Bermuda                                    l00%
S.I. Nederland B.V.               Netherlands                                l00%
Smith International
 Acquisition Corp.                Delaware                                   100%
Smith International
 Australia (Pty) Ltd.             Australia                                  l00%
Smith International
 Canada Ltd.                      Canada                                     l00%
Smith International
 do Brasil Ltda.                  Brazil                                     l00%
Smith International
 Deutschland GmbH                 Germany                                    l00%
Smith International
 Gulf Services Ltd.*              U.A.E.                                      49%
Smith International
 France, S.A.R.L.                 France                                     l00%
Smith International
 Italia, S.p.A.                   Italy                                      l00%
Smith International
 (North Sea) Ltd.                 Scotland                                   l00%
Smith Internacional
 de Venezuela, C.A.               Venezuela                                  l00%
__________________________________________________________________________________
</TABLE>


*        Not consolidated; accounted for on the equity method of
         accounting.

Except as indicated, all of the above subsidiaries are included in the
Company's consolidated financial statements.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

RICHARD GOMEZ,

 Appellant,

v.

THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF TEXAS,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

 § 

No. 08-08-00294-CV

Appeal from the

383rd Judicial District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 2002CM7903)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Richard Gomez attempts to appeal from the trial court’s ruling holding him in contempt

of court, and sentencing him to 90 days imprisonment. Finding that the trial court has not

entered a final, appealable order in this case, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The trial court held Mr. Gomez in contempt on September 23, 2008. Mr. Gomez filed a

notice of appeal on October 2, 2008. There is no record that a final, appealable order has been

entered by the trial court.

Appellate courts generally have jurisdiction over final judgments, and such interlocutory

orders as the Legislature deems appealable. See TEX.CIV.PRAC.&REM.CODE ANN. § 51.012 and

§ 51.014 (Vernon 2008); Ruiz v. Ruiz, 946 S.W.2d 123, 124 (Tex.App.--El Paso 1997, no pet.). 

This Court lacks jurisdiction to consider a contempt order on direct appeal. See Vernon v.

Vernon, 225 S.W.3d 179, 180 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2005, no pet.). Given the absence of a final,

appealable order in this case, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
-2-

November 6, 2008

DAVID WELLINGTON CHEW, Chief Justice

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Carr, JJ.
#### Carmen REOGAS, et al., petitioners, v. Jimmy GRAY, et al.

No. 97-1988.

Supreme Court of the United States.

June 21, 1999.

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated and ease remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit for further consideration in light of *Faragher v. City of Boca Raton,*524 U.S. 775, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998), and 11 U.S.C. Sec. 362. Justice SCALIA would grant the petition for a writ of certiorari, and vacate the judgment below. Costs under Rule 43.2 are not allowed.
#### EMPLOYERS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Steven TAVERNARO and Tiffany Tavernaro d/b/a Joseph’s Corner, Defendant.

No. 2:95CV00110 ERW.

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Northern Division.

May 29, 1998.

Robert W. Cockerham, Brown & James, P.C., St. Louis, MO, for plaintiff.

H. Kent Desselle, Desselle Law Office, P.C., Independence, MO, for defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

WEBBER, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs motion to recover fees and expenses [document # 55].

On March 26, 1998, the Court granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and entered judgment against defendants. Plaintiff now requests the Court order defendants to pay plaintiff $46,537.50 in attorneys’ fees; $13,255.89 in expenses; and $4,409.08 in costs. On May 29, 1998, a hearing by telephone was held regarding this motion.

§ 527.100 RSMo provides that costs may be awarded in a declaratory judgment action. § 527.100 RSMo (“court may make such award of costs as may seem equitable and just”); *Washington University v. Royal Crown Bottling Company of St. Louis,*
      *1040801 S.W.2d 458, 468 (Mo.App.1990). However, whether or not these costs include attorney’s fees depends upon whether the circumstances of the ease invoke the “Bernheimer exception” found in *Bernheimer v. First National Bank of Kansas City,*359 Mo. 1119, 225 S.W.2d 745 (1949). *Id.*This exception limits the instances where attorney’s fees are awarded pursuant to § 527.100 to those of “special circumstances.” *Id.*One situation which the Missouri Supreme Court has recognized as sufficient to warrant an award of attorney’s fees is fraud. *See Miller v. Higgins,*452 S.W.2d 121, 125 (Mo.1970) (“A defrauded party may recover special damages necessarily incurred solely by reason of the fraud. Such expenditures may properly include the professional aid of an attorney to mitigate damages and avoid future losses”). In the Court’s March 26, 1998 Order, the Court held that the policy at issue was void due to Steve Tavernaro’s misrepresentations. The Court did not find Tiffany Tavernaro to be guilty of committing any fraud. Therefore, upon review of the record, and the arguments of counsel, the Court now makes the following rulings.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant Steve Tavernaro pay plaintiff Employers Mutual Casualty Company $46,537.50 in attorney’s fees.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant Steve Tavernaro pay plaintiff Employers Mutual Casualty Company $13,255.89 in expenses.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that costs in the amount of $4,409.08 be taxed against defendants Steve and Tiffany Tavernaro.
On the letterhead of Soutex Inc.
 
 
 SOUTEX INC.
 Mineral and Metallurgical Processing Consultants
 357 Jackson, Quebec,
 Quebec, Canada
 G1N 4C4
  Phone:  1-418-871-2455
  www.soutex.ca
     To the Board of Directors of Rubicon Minerals Corporation (the “Company”)
    I, Pierre Roy, on behalf of Soutex Inc., hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this annual report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2013 of the amended and restated technical report titled, “Preliminary Economic Assessment for the F2 Gold System, Phoenix Gold Project, Red Lake, Ontario” prepared by SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc. dated effective June 25, 2013 and filed on SEDAR on February 28, 2014 (the “Technical Report”) and to extracts from, or a summary of, the Technical Report in the written disclosure contained in the Company’s annual information form for the financial year ended December 31, 2013, dated March 26, 2014.
  We also consent to the incorporation by reference of the above report into Rubicon Minerals Corporation’s Registration Statement (No. 333-194076) on Form F-10.
    Dated as of this 26th day of March, 2014
   Original signed by:
   SOUTEX INC.
 By:
  /s/ “Pierre Roy”
 __________________
 Pierre Roy, P.Eng
 Senior Metallurgist, Mineral Processing Specialist