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

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.3

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

     The undersigned, J. Peter Lloyd, Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting
Officer of Keystone Property Trust, (the "Registrant"), does hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based upon a review of our 2003 Annual Report
on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 of the Registrant, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report").

          (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
     or 15(d) 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
     Registrant.

                                          /s/ J. PETER LLOYD
                                          Senior Vice President and Chief
                                          Accounting Officer

Date: March 10, 2004
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-2405

ERNEST G. PORTERFIELD; ALICE PORTERFIELD

THORN; WILLARD R. MEADOWS,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

ROBERT F. HODGES, Lawyer for Mary Mood Northern, Incorporated; BRIAN SCHEID, Lawyer for

Mary Moody Northern, Incorporated; THE HONORABLE J. COLIN CAMPBELL; THE HONORABLE HARRY L.

CARRICO, Chief Justice, State Supreme Court,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District

Judge. (MISC-97-49)

Submitted: April 29, 1998 Decided: May 13, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ernest G. Porterfield, Alice Porterfield Thorn, Willard R. Meadows,

Appellants Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellants appeal from the district court's orders dismissing

their action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e)(2) (West

Supp. 1998), and denying their motion for reconsideration. We have

reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find that

this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the

reasoning of the district court. Porterfield v. Hodges, No. MISC97-49 (W.D. Va. Oct. 6, 1997). See 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e)(2). 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
Rev o lutionary Unmanned Systems, LLC

– A DDENDUM TO ADD ALL APPROVED UA S

- 1 of 1

3/10/2016
U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Docket Operations West Building Ground Floor, Room w12

- 140 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590
Submitted Electronically via the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS)

Dear Sir or Madam :
On behalf of J o hn Santry, Owner of R evolutionary Unmanned Serv ices , LLC (RevUS)

. I , Eric Andelin , President of Vertical Information Services, Inc., (VERTX) a consulting firm with over 50 approved exemptions h a ve prepared the following a ddendum to Exemption No. 13648 Regulatory Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 1714
This a ddendum adds any aircraft identified on the List of Approved Unmanned Aerial Sys tems (UAS) under Section 333 at regulatory docket FAA

– 2007

– 3330 at www.regulatio ns.gov , ( which is updated regularly ) when weighing less than 55 pounds including payload. Allowing th e use of any aircraft on the List of Approved Unmanned Systems (UAS) has been use d recently in exemptions:

 Exemption No. 15233 Regulatory Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 5418

 Exemption No. 15234 Regulatory Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 5360

 Exemption No. 15235 Regulatory Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 5272

 Exemption No. 15236 Regulatory Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 5253

 Exemption No. 15237 Reg ulatory Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 5236
The exemptions referenced above are identica l in nature to VERTX ’s prior approved client exemptions, including R ev US ’ s exemption and th erefore no new precedent would be set by extending the same List to Rev US

. This a ddendum makes no other changes to the currently approved E xemption No 13648 , rea sons for exemption request, and/or operating parameters. Please direct any ques tion or comment regarding this addendum to myself t he Consultant for the Applicant. Consultant for Applicant Applicant
Mr. Eric Andelin Mr. John Santry President Owner V e rtical Information Services, Inc. Revolution ary Unmanned Systems, LLC. 301 W Platt St #654 1608 Indi a Street #505 Tampa, FL 33606 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 813.992.6612 E mail : eric@vertisx.com
**Exhibit 12.2**

**302 CERTIFICATION**

I, Daniel González, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of YPF S.A.; 

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 underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, 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 company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The company’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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the company 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 company,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) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding thereliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; 

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, asof the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the company’sinternal 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 company’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the company’s auditors and the audit committee of the company’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 company’s abilityto record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the company’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: April 26, 2013.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DOUGLAS B. LEUSCHEN, )

)

Petitioner, )

) Civil Action No. 05-157 Erie

v. )

)

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, )

)

Respondent. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

This habeas corpus action was received by the Clerk of Court on May 20, 2005,

and was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter for report

and recommendation in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1),

and Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrates. 

The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 18], filed on

August 23, 2006, recommended that Petitioner’s Petition be dismissed as untimely and

that a certificate of appealability be denied. The parties were allowed ten (10) days

from the date of service to file objections. Service was made on Petitioner by certified

mail and on Respondent. Objections were filed by Petitioner on September 11, 2006

[Doc. No. 20]. After de novo review of the petition and documents in the case, together

with the Report and Recommendation and objections thereto, the following order is

entered:

AND NOW, this 12th day of September, 2006; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus is DISMISSED as untimely and a certificate of appealability is DENIED. 

The Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 18] of Magistrate Judge Baxter, filed

on August 23, 2006, is adopted as the opinion of the Court.

 s/ Sean J. McLaughlin

United States District Judge

cm: All parties of record

Susan Paradise Baxter, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 1:05-cv-00157-SJM-SPB Document 21 Filed 09/12/06 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION



I, Robert Tarini, the Chief Executive Officer of Technest Holdings, Inc., certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Technest Holdings, Inc.;



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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.

The small business 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 small business 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 small business 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;



(b) [intentionally omitted];



(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business 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 small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's first fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

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



Date: February
21, 2006

/s/ Robert Tarini



Robert Tarini

Chief Executive Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CLARISSA SARAYENS CORADOMEJIA,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 12-72607

Agency No. A098-896-170

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 18, 2014** 

Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

Clarissa Sarayens Corado-Mejia, a native and citizen of El Salvador,

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order

dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her

application for asylum and withholding of removal and denying her request for a

FILED

FEB 24 2014

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).
remand. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of

discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to remand, Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d

1095, 1098 (9th Cir. 2005), and review for substantial evidence the agency’s

factual findings regarding eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal,

Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the

petition for review.

With respect to Corado-Mejia’s FMLN claim, substantial evidence supports

the agency’s determination that Corado-Mejia failed to establish past persecution

because the threats she and her family received did not rise to the level of

persecution. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003)

(unfulfilled threats constituted harassment rather than persecution). In light of this

conclusion, Corado-Mejia’s contention that she is entitled to a presumption of

future persecution necessarily fails. See Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089,

1096 (9th Cir. 2002). Further, substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding

that Corado-Mejia did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution. See

Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[a]n applicant’s claim of

persecution upon return is weakened, even undercut, when similarly-situated

family members continue to live in the country without incident”). Accordingly,

her asylum claim fails.

2 12-72607
Because Corado-Mejia failed to meet the lower standard of proof for asylum,

her claim for withholding of removal necessarily fails. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at

1190.

Finally, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in declining to consider CoradoMejia’s gender-based claim. See Eide-Kahayon v. INS, 86 F.3d 147, 149 (9th Cir.

1996) (court reviews for abuse of discretion and will not disturb the BIA’s ruling

unless it acted “arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law”). We reject CoradoMejia’s contention that the BIA erred in not considering the State Department’s

2011 country report.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 12-72607
259 La. 57

#### NATIONAL SURETY CORPORATION v. William Alexander COLQUITT et al.

No. 51459.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 21, 1971.

In re; Berg Mechanical, Inc., Central Wholesale Company, Inc., Dixieaire Air Conditioning Company, Inc., Stephenson Floor Covering Company, Inc., and Industrial Roofing and Sheet Metal Works applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Caddo. 246 So.2d 890.

Application denied. The judgment is correct.
EXHIBIT 32: Rule 13a-14(b) Certification




Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Smooth Global (China) Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) certifies that:




1.           The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2010 (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. 78m or 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.







Date: August 12, 2010
By: /s/ Zheng ShuyingZheng Shuying, Chief Executive Officerand Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.3

                                                 [LETTERHEAD OF ARTHUR ANDERSEN]


                       REPORT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
                       ---------------------------------

To BANK ONE CORPORATION:

We have examined the accompanying management's assertion about Bank One, Texas,
N.A.'s (the "Servicer"), compliance with the covenants and conditions of the
Banc One Auto Grantor Trust 1997 - A Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of
May 31, 1997 (the "Agreement") between the Servicer and The Bankers Trust
Company (as Trustee for the various Certficateholders and Enhancement Providers)
during the twelve months ended December 31, 1999.  Management is responsible for
the Servicer's compliance with the Agreement.  Our responsibility is to express
an opinion on management's assertion about the Servicer's compliance based on
our examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included
examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Servicer's compliance with those
requirements and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in
the circumstances.  We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis
for our opinion.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Servicer complied with the
covenants and conditions of the Agreement for the twelve months ended December
31, 1999 is fairly stated, in all material respects.


                                         /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP

Chicago, Illinois
March 10, 2000
<PAGE>

                      Assertion by Bank One, Texas, N.A.


Bank One, Texas, N.A., services the motor vehicle retail installment sale
contracts for the Banc One Auto Grantor Trust 1997-A.  As of and for the year
ended December 31, 1999, Bank One, Texas, N.A. had complied, in all material
respects, with the Banc One Auto Grantor Trust 1997-A Pooling and Servicing
Agreement.



/s/Doug James                           /s/Tracie H. Klein
------------------------------------    ------------------------------------
Doug James                              Tracie H. Klein
Chief Financial Officer                 Vice President
Banc One Credit Company                 Bank One, Texas N.A.
(Subsidiary of BANK ONE CORPORATION)    (Subsidiary of BANK ONE CORPORATION)
#### Bertha WITHERSPOON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 76-2238.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 19, 1978.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Beth C. Weitzner, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Joel D. Rosenblatt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON, HENDRY and KE-HOE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on the authority of *State v. Holmes,*360 So.2d 380 (Fla., filed April 27, 1978) (petition for rehearing denied July 13, 1978).
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6703
FAYAZ ANJUM, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Herbert N. Maletz, Senior Judge, sitting by designation. (CR-92-96, CA-95-3288-HNM) Submitted: February 26, 1998 Decided: March 18, 1998 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Fayaz Anjum, Appellant Pro Se. Lynne Ann Battaglia, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994) (current version at 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997)). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Anjum v. United States , Nos. CR-92-96; CA-95-3288-HNM (D. Md. Apr. 22, 1997). See Lindh v. Murphy , 521 U.S. ___, 1997 WL 338568 (U.S. June 23, 1997) (No. 96-6298). 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.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 32.1


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


        In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of RPM Advantage.
(the "Registrant") for the period ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, David R. Pressler, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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, 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:   July 15, 2011


By:

/s/ DAVID R. PRESSLER


David R. Pressler
Chief Executive Officer
(principal executive officer)
**Exhibit 32.2**




**Certification of Principal Financial Officer**


**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350**


**(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003)**





I, Andrew P. Kaplan, Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President, Finance and Administration (principal financial officer) of Audible, Inc. (the "Registrant"), certify that to the best of my knowledge, based upon review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 of the Registrant (the "Report"):





| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) [15(d)] 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 Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




August 13, 2004
By:
/s/ Andrew P. KaplanName:
Andrew P. Kaplan
Proposal # Project Name Approved Lead Agency Total Project Costs 

ID-FY21-15 Lakeshore Drive Surface and Drainage Improvements - Final Phase WFLHD $6,382,223 

ID-FY21-17 Moon Pass Road Tunnels & Bridges LHTAC $9,304,100 ID-FY21-19 Westside Road - Myrtle Creek Bridge Replacement WFLHD $5,558,905 

ID-FY21-23 Dingle East Shore Road Phase 2 Corridor Planning WFLHD $215,000 ID-FY21-25 Castle Creek Camp Ground to Meadow Creek Camp Ground WFLHD $5,616,327 

2021 Idaho FLAP Call for Projects

PDC Approved Proposal Selections