alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 32****CERTIFICATION**Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of Vitran CorporationInc., that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report of Vitran Corporation Inc. on Form 10-Q for thethree months ended June 30, 2006, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents,in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of Vitran CorporationInc.              Date: July 19, 2006 By: /s/ RICHARD E. GAETZ             Richard E. Gaetz      President and      Chief Executive Officer           By:  /s/ SEAN P. WASHCHUK             Sean P. Washchuk      Vice President Finance and         Chief Financial Officer  
26
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-20080 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MANUEL D. GUZMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-95-CR-178-3

- - - - - - - - - - December 4, 1996 Before KING, DAVIS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Manuel Guzman argues that the district court erred in increasing his offense level for obstruction of justice and in denying him a reduction in his offense level for the acceptance of responsibility. The record supports the district court’s determination that Guzman provided materially false testimony at the sentencingNo. 96-20080 - 2 - hearing. Thus, the district court did not clearly err in applying the upward adjustment to Guzman’s offense level based on an obstruction of justice. See United States v. Montan-Silva , 15 F.3d 52 (5th Cir. 1994); U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. The district court did not err in denying Guzman a reduction of his offense level for the acceptance of responsibility because Guzman denied the commission of relevant conduct and attempted to minimize his role in the offense. See United States v. Smith , 13 F.3d 860, 866 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 114 S. Ct. 2151 (1994); United States v. Rivas , 85 F.2d 193, 195 (1996). Further, Guzman has not demonstrated extraordinary circumstances that justify an adjustment for the obstruction of justice and for the acceptance of responsibility. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, comment (n.4).
AFFIRMED.
15-3228 (Con) 

Nat’l Football League Mgmt. Council v. Nat’l Football League Players Ass’n

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO SUMMARY

ORDERS FILED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY THIS COURT’S

LOCAL RULE 32.1.1 AND FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1. WHEN CITING A

SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE

FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY

ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT

REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the

Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 25th 2

3 day of April, two thousand sixteen.

4 PRESENT:

5 ROBERT A. KATZMANN,

6 Chief Judge,

7 BARRINGTON D. PARKER,

8 DENNY CHIN,

9 Circuit Judges.

10 ______________________________________

11 National Football League Management Council,

12 Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant,

13 and

14 National Football League,

15 Defendant-Appellant,

16

17 -v.- No. 15-3228 (Con)

18 SUMMARY ORDER

19 National Football League Players Association, 

20 on its own behalf and on behalf of Tom Brady,

21 Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellee,

22 and

23 Tom Brady,

24 Counter-Claimant-Appellee,
1 and

2 Michelle McGuirk,

3 Appellant.

4 ______________________________________

5 FOR APPELLANT: Michelle L. McGuirk, pro se, New York,

6 N.Y.

7

8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND

9 DECREED that the district court’s order is AFFIRMED.

10 Appellant Michelle McGuirk moved in the district court to intervene in National Football

11 League Management Council, et al. v. National Football League Players Association, et al., Nos.

12 15-2801, 15-2805. The motion was denied. The parties’ appeal to this Court was resolved in an

13 opinion filed simultaneously with this summary order. Because McGuirk has failed to identify any

14 adequate legal basis for her intervention, the district court’s order is affirmed. 

15 For the Court:

16 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

17

-2-
# C_2021182EN.01004401.xml

| 10.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/44

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Budai Központi Kerületi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 2 March 2021 — Criminal proceedings against KI

(Case C-131/21)

(2021/C 182/58)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Budai Központi Kerületi Bíróság

Party to the main proceedings

KI

Question referred

Is it contrary to Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — interpreted in the light of Article 4 of the Additional Protocol No 7 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) of 1950, and the relevant case-law of the European Court of Human Rights — to initiate a criminal prosecution which is based, in part, on facts in respect of which the defendant has already, in administrative proceedings leading to sanctions and by a final decision, been given an on-the-spot fine which, as a result of non-payment, was converted by means of a court decision into a custodial sentence?

---
EXHIBIT 12.2

                         SARBANES-OXLEY CFO CERTIFICATION

I, Brian Richardson, Chief Financial Officer of DynaMotive Energy Systems
Corporation, certify that:

1.     I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 20-F of DynaMotive Energy
Systems 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 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 change in the Registrant's internal
      control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered
      by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably
      likely to materially affect, the Registrant's internal control over
      financial reporting; and

5.     The Registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of the 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:   May 30, 2005

        /s/ Brian Richardson
        --------------------

By:     Brian Richardson

Title:  Chief Financial Officer

??

??

??

??

- 2 -
#### Sophie R. C. Roedmann, Appellant, *v.*Philip Hertel, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,

October, 1912.)

Municipal Courts — equitable jurisdiction — summary proceedings. Landlord and tenant — lease — summary proceedings.

Municipal Courts have no equitable jurisdiction, except in the matter of equitable defenses, to dispossess proceedings.

Where the day after an unsigned lease was given to defendant, he paid a deposit and received a receipt reciting a five-year lease, and entered into possession and made permanent improvements, the grantee of the premises under a deed reciting said lease takes the title subject to all equities, and cannot maintain summary proceedings to dispossess the defendant upon a claim that there could be no such lease as it was not in writing signed by the party to be bound thereby.

Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of Hew York rendered in favor of defendant.

Jacob H. Denenholz, for appellant.

Benjamin Kohn, for respondent.

Crane, J.

This is a summary proceeding which was dismissed in the Municipal Court and the landlord appeals.

The defendant claims to have a lease for five years, or until 1915. A formal lease was prepared by the former owners and given to him unsigned. The next day he paid a deposit and received a receipt reciting a five years’ lease. The plaintiff purchased the property and received a deed reciting a five years’ lease to the defendant, but now claims there can be no such lease as it is not in writing signed by the party to be bound thereby. The plaintiff took title subject to all equities as the tenant was in possession and the deed recited the supposed lease.

That a court of equity would afford the defendant relief *56and compel specific performance by requiring the plaintiff or his grantors to execute a lease is quite certain. The defendant entered into possession and spent considerable money in permanent improvements.

While sections 242 and 259 of the Real Property Law require leases and contracts for leases to be in writing, section 270 preserves to equity the power to require specific performance of agreements in case of part performance.,

Muucipal Courts have no equitable jurisdiction except in this one instance — equitable "defenses — to dispossess proceedings. Section 2 of the Municipal Court Act permits a defendant to set up an equitable defense to summary proceedings. Rodgers v. Earle, 5 Misc. Rep. 164.

The judgment of dismissal is affirmed.

Aspinall and Putnam, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed.
House Calendar No. 8

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 59

[H. Report No. 103–11]

RESOLUTION

Providing for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 2)

for Federal elections, and for other purposes.to establish national voter registration procedures

FEBRUARY 3, 1993

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
IV

House Calendar No. 8

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 59

[H. Report No. 103–11]

Providing for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 2) to establish national

voter registration procedures for Federal elections, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 3, 1993

Mr. FROST, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution;

which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

RESOLUTION

1 Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this

2 resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of

3 rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee

4 of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consider5 ation of the bill (H.R. 2) to establish national voter reg6 istration procedures for Federal elections, and for other

7 purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed

8 with. All points of order against consideration of the bill

9 for failure to comply with clause 2(l)(6) of rule XI are

10 waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
2

HRES 59 RH

1 shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled

2 by the chairman and ranking minority member of the

3 Committee on House Administration. After general debate

4 the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five5 minute rule. The amendments recommended by the Com6 mittee on House Administration now printed in the bill

7 and the amendment printed in part 1 of the report of the

8 Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be

9 considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee

10 of the Whole. The bill as so amended shall be considered

11 as read. No further amendment shall be in order except

12 an amendment printed in part 2 of the report of the Com13 mittee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Such

14 amendment may be offered only by the named proponent

15 or a designee, shall be considered as read, shall be debat16 able for one hour equally divided and controlled by the

17 proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to

18 amendment. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill

19 for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the

20 bill to the House with such amendment as may have been

21 adopted. The previous question shall be considered as

22 ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final pas23 sage without intervening motion except one motion to

24 recommit.
Exhibit 3.1



Certificate of Amendment

(PURSUANT TO NRS 78.385 and 78.390)



Certificate of Amendment to Articles of Incorporation

For Nevada Profit Corporations



(Pursuant to NRS 78.385 and 78.390  After Issuance
of Stock)



|1. | Name of corporation:            GlycoGenesys, Inc.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------



|2. | The articles have been amended as follows (provide article numbers, if available):
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



That the first paragraph of Section 4 be removed in its entirety and the following be inserted in lieu thereof:



The maximum number of shares of all classes which the corporation
is authorized to have outstanding is eighty million (80,000,000) shares, consisting of seventy five million (75,000,000) shares of Common Stock, par value $.01 per share, and five million (5,000,000) shares of Preferred Stock, par value $.01 per
share. The holders of preferred (See ANNEX A)



|3. | The vote by which the stockholders holding shares in the corporation entitling them to exercise at least a majority of the voting power, or such greater proportion of the voting
power as may be required in the case of a vote by classes or series, or as may be required by the provisions of the articles of incorporation have voted in favor of the amendment is:    8,021,718 For, 760,352
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Against, 72,033 Abstain



|4. | Effective date of filing
(optional):
|-- | ------------------------------------

(must not be later than 90 days after the certificate is filed)



|                                      |  |                                  |  | 
|------------------------------------- |  | -------------------------------- |  | 
|5.      Officer Signature (required): |  | /s/ Bradley J. Carver, President |  | 



*If any proposed amendment would
alter or change any preference or any relative or other right given to any class or series of outstanding shares, then the amendment must be approved by the vote. In addition to the affirmative vote otherwise required, of the holders of shares
representing a majority of the voting power of each class or series affected by the amendment regardless of limitations or restrictions on the voting power thereof.



---

ANNEX A



stock shall have such rights, preferences and privileges as may be determined, prior to issuance of such shares, by the Board of Directors.
#### William Ernest BARNES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-1050.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 11, 1978.

Jack 0. Johnson, Public Defender, and Paul C. Helm, Asst. Public Defender, Bar-tow, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and William I. Munsey, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment appealed is affirmed. We agree, however, with appellant that there is an imperfection in his sentence. The phrase “at hard labor” is improper. *Brooks v. State,*349 So.2d 794 (Fla.2d DCA 1977). We remand the case for correction of sentence and the appellant need not be present at resentencing.

BOARDMAN, C. J., and OTT and DAN-AHY, JJ., concur.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, December 22, 2020.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, December 22, 2020

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A21I0093. LG CHEM, LTD. v. CAMERON LEMMERMAN.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of 

this order. The Clerk of State Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record 

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

19A4162
### NUMBER 13 - 14 - 00143 - CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
Victor Xavier Snell , Appellant ,
v. The State of Texas , Appellee.

On appeal from the 275th District Court of Hidalgo County , Texas.



## O R D E R
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Perkes and Longoria Order Per Curia m
Appellant, Victor Xavier Snell, has filed a notice of appeal with this Court from his conviction in trial court cause number CR

- 2198

- 13

- E . The trial court’s certification of the defend ant’s right to appeal shows that the defendant does not have the right to appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(a)(2). The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that an appeal must be dismissed if a certification showing that a defendant has a right of

a ppeal is not made a part of the record. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(d); see T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 37.1, 44.3, 44.4.2

Within thirty days of receipt of this notice, appellant’s lead appellate counsel, Rolando Garza , is hereby ORDERED to: 1) re view the record; 2) determi ne whether appellant has a right to appeal; and 3) forward to this Court, by letter, counsel’s findings as to whether appellant has a right to appeal and/or advise this Court as to the existence of any amended certification. If appellant’s counsel determi nes that appellant has a right to appeal, counsel is further ORDERED to file a motion with this Court within thirty days of receipt of this notice, identifying and explaining substantive reasons why appellant has a right to appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 44. 3, 44.4; see also, e.g., Carroll v. State, No. 04

- 03

- 00473

- CR, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 7317 (San Antonio 2003, no pet.) (designated for publication) (certification form provided in appendix to appellate rules may be modified to reflect that defendant has righ t of appeal under circumstances not addressed by the form). The motion must include an analysis of the applicable case law, and any factual allegations therein must be true and supported by the record. Cf. Woods v. State, 108 S.W.3d 314, 316 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (construing former appellate rule 25.2(b)(3) and holding that recitations in the notice of appeal must be true and supported by the record). Copies of record documents necessary to evaluate the alleged error in the certification affecting appel lant’s right to appeal shall be attached to the motion. See
T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 10.1, 10.2. PER CURIAM Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2( b). Delivered and filed the 26th day of June 2014

.
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. 08-40541

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

AARON ILLINOIS ARMSTRONG

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:07-CR-58-ALL

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Aaron Illinois

Armstrong has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Armstrong has not filed a

response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no

nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to

withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein,

and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 18, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
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

I, Masakazu Kurushima, in my capacity as the President and Chief Executive Officer of California Steel Industries, Inc., for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certify that:

the annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ending December 31, 2007, filed by California Steel Industries, Inc., on March 25, 2008 complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and the information contained
in such annual report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of California Steel Industries, Inc.

Dated: March 25, 2008



By:

/s/ MASAKAZU KURUSHIMAMasakazu KurushimaPresident and Chief Executive Officer