alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1  Section 302 Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Dethrone Royalty 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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. I am 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 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) Designed such internal controls over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability 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 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  (d) 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 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and  5. 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.     Dated: December 17, 2012  /s/ Toby McBride Toby McBride Title: Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-09-00679- CV

In re Tony Cervante s

ORI GINAL P ROCEEDI NG F ROM MI LAM CO UNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Tony Cervante s seeks a writ order ing the district c lerk to provide him with twenty

five categ ories of documents from his previous trial in which he was convicted of indece ncy with

a child by contac t. He was sentenc ed to twenty -five y ear s as a habitual felon. Cervante s asser ts that he wishes to use these documents to assi s t h i m i n p re p aring a petition for writ of habea s corpus. Be cause we conclude that Cervante s has not shown that the district clerk h as failed to perf orm a minist eria l duty , we de ny the petition.
W e have no jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus ag ainst a district clerk unless such i s nece ssary to enfor ce our jurisdict i o n , s uch as order ing the cler k to file or forwa

rd a notice of appea l. See In re W ashington , 7 S.W .3d 181, 182 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, orig

. proceeding ); In re Coronado , 980 S.W .2d 691, 692 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, orig

. proce eding ). I n order for mandamus to issue, the party seeking mandamus must show that there is no other adequate reme dy available and that the act soug ht to be mandated is minist eria l. W hitsit t

v. Ramsay , 719 S.W .2d 333, 335 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (orig

. proce edin g). Be fo re mandamus relief may issue, the petitioner must e stablish that the district court (1) had a le g al duty to perfor ma non-discre tionary ac t , (2 ) wa s asked to perf orm the act, and (3) failed or ref used to do so. O’Connor v. First Court of Appeals , 837 S.W .2d 94, 97 (Tex. 1992).

Cervante s demands a broad rang e of documents. He wants such document s as the motion to withdraw by his attorney as well as the order on that ruling , lab repor ts and rape kits, and his a ttorney ’s pretria l r ecor ds such as phone logs. These documents do not a ppear to be nece ssary
to dete rm i n e wh ether this Court has jurisdiction over an appea l or orig inal proce eding

. Fur ther, althoug h he cla ims he has requested a number of documents from the clerk’s office, it is not clear from his petition that they are the same documents he reque sts in his petition. I t is also not clea r that either the cler

k or t he repor

ter has such documents as phone logs. We do not appea r to have jurisdiction to provide the relief Cervante s reque sts and he has not shown that he has reque sted that the di strict cler

k perf orm a mi nisterial du t y an d failed to do so. Cervante s has not shown himself entitled to mandamus relief

. The pe tition for writ of mandamus is denied.

G. Alan Waldrop, Just ice
Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Waldrop and He nson Filed: January

8, 2010

2
EXHIBIT 21.1



SUBSIDIARIES OF PEMSTAR INC.



|                                          |  |                         
|----------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------
|Subsidiary                                |  | Country of Incorporation
|Pemstar Luxembourg S.a.r.l.               |  | Luxembourg              
|                                          | 
|Pemstar Singapore Pte Ltd                 |  | Singapore               
|                                          | 
|Pemstar Netherlands Holding B.V.          |  | The Netherlands         
|                                          | 
|Pemstar B.V.                              |  | The Netherlands         
|                                          | 
|Pemstar Romania Holding B.V.              |  | The Netherlands         
|                                          | 
|Pemstar Thailand Limited                  |  | Thailand                
|                                          | 
|Pemstar (Tianjin) Enterprise Company Ltd. |  | Republic of China       
|                                          | 
|Pemstar de Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V.     |  | Mexico                  
|                                          | 
|Pemstar Ireland Ltd.                      |  | Ireland                 
|                                          | 
|Pemstar Romania Srl                       |  | Romania                 
|                                          | 
|Pemstar Brasil Ltda.                      |  | Brazil                  
|                                          | 
|Pemstar Japan KK                          |  | Japan                   
|                                          | 
|Pemstar Israel Ltd.                       |  | Israel                  
|                                          | 
|Pemstar (Beihai) Enterprises Co. Ltd      |  | Republic of China
**Exhibit 32.2**

** **

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

 

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ClubCorp Club Operations, Inc. (the “Company”) for the fiscal quarter ended June 14, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Curtis D. McClellan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, that:

 

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

 

(2)          The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods presented. 

 
|   | By:    | /s/ Curtis D. McClellan                                                                   |
|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   | Curtis D. McClellan                                                                       |
|   |   | *Chief Financial Officer   and Treasurer**(Principal Financial And Accounting   Officer)* |

 

Date: July 25, 2011

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to ClubCorp Club Operations, Inc. and will be retained by ClubCorp Club Operations, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

This Certification is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the registrant under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Report), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

 

----
EX-4.2



 Exhibit 4.2 

CONSENT OF EXPERT 
 We are a firm of
independent petroleum engineering consultants of Calgary, Alberta having prepared reports (“Reports”) evaluating Suncor Energy Inc.’s reserves as at December 31, 2014, as described in the Annual Report of Suncor Energy Inc. on Form
40-F for the year ended December 31, 2014. We refer to the registration statement on Form F-80 of Suncor Energy Inc., dated February 22, 2016 and hereby consent to the reference to our firm under the heading “Auditors, Reserves and Resources
Evaluators, Transfer Agent and Registrar” in the Circular that forms a part of the registration statement and to the inclusion and incorporation by reference of references to and information derived from the Reports. 

 

					
	Yours truly,
	
	   SPROULE ASSOCIATES LIMITED

  SPROULE UNCONVENTIONAL LIMITED
   AND
SPROULE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

		
	  By      	 	   /s/ Scott Pennell

		 	Name:      	 	Scott Pennell, P.Eng.
		 	Title:	 	Vice President, Engineering and Director


 Dated: February 22, 2016 

Calgary, Alberta 
 CANADA
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________
No. 15

- 11351

________________________
D.C. Docket No. 5:13

- cv

- 00528

- JSM

- PRL

MARIE HENRY, as guardian, parent, next of kin, and for and on behalf of M.E. Henry

- Robinson, a minor,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

versus

CITY OF MT. DORA, a municipal corporation and poli tical subdivision of the State of Florida, BRETT LIVINGSTON, individually and in his official capacity, L. SEVERANCE, individu a lly and in her official capacity,

Defendants

- Appellees.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida

________________________ (May 31, 2017 ) Case: 15-11351 Date Filed: 05/31/2017 Page: 1 of 22 Before HULL, JULIE CARNES, and BARKSDALE, * Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM :

Plaintiff Marie Henry sued the City of Mt. Dora and police officers Brett

Livingston and L. Severance on behalf of her minor daughter pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. Among other things, p laintiff alleged that these officers had arrested her

minor daughter without probable cause in violation of the latter’s constitutional

rights. The officers moved to dismiss these false arrest claims, and the district

court granted the motion. Plaintiff has appealed the district court’s judgment

dismissing these false arrest claims.

Having heard oral argument and carefully reviewed the record, we find no

reversible error in the district court’s order dismissing plaintiff’s § 1983 false arrest

claims against the above officers

. We therefore AFFIRM the district co urt’s order

of dismissal

.

* Honorable Rhesa H. Barksdale, United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit, sitting by designation. Case: 15-11351 Date Filed: 05/31/2017 Page: 2 of 2
EXHIBIT
32.1



CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO

18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In
connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Point Capital, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended September
30, 2017 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Eric Weisblum, Chief Executive 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 Exchange Act of 1934; and



2.
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations
of the Company.



Date:
November 14, 2017



|By:    | /s/
    Eric Weisblum                                                                 | 
|------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|Name:  | Eric
Weisblum                                                                         | 
|Title: | Chairman,
    Chief Executive Officer and Director 
    (principal executive officer) | 



A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Barbara A. EVERETT, Petitioner, v. Scott L. KING and Carolyn C. King, Respondents.

No. 89SC364.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

Sept. 5, 1989.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari DENIED.

Justice ROVIRA

would grant on the following issue:

Whether the court of appeals erred in finding that the trial court’s award of exemplary damages in a breach of contract action was an erroneous judgment rather than a void judgment.
#### Peter CAPARRO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KONINKLIJKE NEDERLANDSCHE STOOMBOOT MAATSCHAPPIJ, N.V., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 22, Docket 74-1359.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued Sept. 25, 1974.

Decided Oct. 9, 1974.

Martin M. Baxter, New York City (Zimmerman & Zimmerman, New York City, on the brief), for plaintiff-appellant.

William M. Kimball, New York City (Burlingham, Underwood & Lord, New York City, on the brief), for defendant-appellee.

Before LUMBARD, FEINBERG and OAKES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Peter Caparro, a longshoreman, appeals from a judgment for defendant Koninklijke Nederlandsche Stoomboot Maatschappij, N.V., owner of the vessel upon which plaintiff allegedly sustained injury in September 1971. Plaintiff brought this suit, claiming negligence and unseaworthiness,1 a year later in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. After a separate trial on liability, Judge Harold R. Tyler, Jr., directed a verdict for defendant on the negligence claim2 but submitted the unseaworthiness issue to the jury. After a verdict for plaintiff, the judge granted defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. We affirm the judgment of the district court.

Upon the most liberal view of the evidence, plaintiff showed only that an accident occurred when a carton weighing over 250 pounds was placed by plaintiff’s hatch boss upon the top of other cartons and almost immediately fell down. However difficult it may sometimes be to draw the line between a pre-existing unseaworthy “condition” *1054and the isolated, personal unforeseeable negligent act of a fellow longshoreman, see Usner v. Luckenbach Overseas Corp., 400 U.S. 494, 500, 91 S.Ct. 514, 27 L.Ed.2d 562 (1971); cf. Siderewicz v. Enso-Gutzeit O/Y, 453 F.2d 1094 (2d Cir. 1972), we have no such problem here. There was simply no evidence that the supporting cartons were less than normally sturdy or that the stowage was unsafe before the very heavy carton was placed on the top. The accident occurred as part of a continuous, perhaps negligent, operation which never gave rise to an unseaworthy “condition.”

Judgment affirmed.

1

. One of the 1972 amendments of the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. § 905(b), now prevents a claim of unseaworthiness by a longshoreman, but does not apply to this claim.

2

. Plaintiff does not contest this aspect of the judgment,
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 635 

To amend the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act to provide an exception to the annual 

written privacy notice requirement. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 21, 2013 

Mr. BROWN (for himself, Mr. MORAN, Mr. TESTER, Mr. JOHANNS, Mr. WARNER, Ms. HEITKAMP, Mr. TOOMEY, and Mr. BLUNT) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act to provide an 

exception to the annual written privacy notice requirement. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Privacy Notice Mod5 ernization Act of 2013’’. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 635 IS

1 SEC. 2. EXCEPTION TO ANNUAL WRITTEN PRIVACY NOTICE 

2 REQUIREMENT UNDER THE GRAMM-LEACH3 BLILEY ACT. 

4 Section 503 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 

5 U.S.C. 6803) is amended by adding at the end the fol6 lowing: 

7 ‘‘(f) EXCEPTION TO ANNUAL WRITTEN NOTICE RE8 QUIREMENT.—A financial institution that— 

9 ‘‘(1) provides nonpublic personal information in 

10 accordance with the provisions of subsection (b)(2) 

11 or (e) of section 502 or regulations prescribed under 

12 section 504(b); 

13 ‘‘(2) has not changed its policies and practices 

14 with respect to disclosing nonpublic personal infor15 mation from the policies and practices that were dis16 closed in the most recent disclosure sent to con17 sumers in accordance with this section; and 

18 ‘‘(3) otherwise provides customers access to 

19 such most recent disclosure in electronic or other 

20 form permitted by regulations prescribed under sec21 tion 504, 

22 shall not be required to provide an annual written disclo23 sure under this section, until such time as the financial 

24 institution fails to comply with paragraph (1), (2), or 

25 (3).’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Thunderclap
Entertainment, Inc.

(A Development Stage Enterprise)



Exhibit 32.2



Certification
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as ENACTED pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-oxley act of 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Thunderclap
Entertainment, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2012, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (“Report”), I, Gary L. Blum, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as enacted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



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



4.			The information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





|Dated: November 19, 2012 | /s/ Gary L. Blum                                             
|------------------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------
|                         | Gary L. Blum                                                 
|                         | Chief Financial Officer
        (Principal Financial Officer)
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-3 Nos. 333-38605, 333-34691, 333-30773 and 333-86807) and in the
Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-32773 and 33-65259) of our report
dated February 2, 2000, with respect to the consolidated financial statements
and schedule of The Times Mirror Company included in its Annual Report (Form
10-K/A) for the year ended December 31, 1999.

                                          ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Los Angeles, California
March 28, 2000
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



     As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation
of our reports included in this Form 10-K/A into the Company's previously filed
registration statements File No. 333-06821 on Form S-8, File No. 333-28323 on
Form S-3, File No. 333-32447 on Form S-3, File No. 333-32448 on Form S-8 File
No. 333-45973 on Form S-3, File No. 333-60041 on Form S-8, File No. 333-61013 on
Form S-3 and File No. 333-64937 on Form S-3.


                                                      /s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


Boston, Massachusetts
April 2, 1999
----

|                               | **KPMG LLP** | Telephone                         | (514) 840-2100 |
|-------------------------------|--------------|-----------------------------------|----------------|
| **Chartered Accountants**     | Fax          | (514) 840-2187                    |
| 600 de Maisonneuve Blvd. West | Internet     | www.kpmg.ca                       |
|                          |         | Suite 1500                        |           |   |
|                          |         | Montréal Québec H3A 03A |           |   |

ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT 

The Board of Directors Tembec Industries Inc. 

We consent to the use of our report on the consolidated financial statementsdated November 15, 2006, except as to note 22 (b), which is as of December 5,2006, included in this annual report on Form 40-F. We also consent to the use ofour report dated November 15, 2006 on the Reconciliation to United States GAAPincluded in this annual report on Form 40-F. 

Montréal, Canada December 21, 2006 

KPMG, a Canadian limited liability partnership is the Canadianmember firm of KPMG International, a Swiss cooperative. 

----
#### Joseph Mirisola, Appellant, v Habsburg Feldman, S.A., et al., Respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (David Edwards, J.), entered on March 21, 1990, which granted defendants’ motion pursuant to General Obligations Law § 5-701 (a) (10) and CPLR 3211 (a) (5) to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff, a professional art dealer, commenced the underlying action against defendants Habsburg Feldman, S.A., a major international auction house located in Geneva, Switzerland, and New York, and Dr. Geza Von Habsburg, an officer and representative of Habsburg Feldman, S.A., seeking to *307recover a 5% commission in excess of $50,000 to which plaintiff alleges he was entitled by reason of his successful efforts to induce prospective sellers to consign objects of art to defendant Habsburg Feldman, S.A. for sale at auction.

Upon examination of the record, we find that the IAS Court, in dismissing the complaint, properly determined that a June 2, 1987 letter relied upon by the plaintiff for the alleged commissions, which was signed by defendant Geza Von Habsburg and addressed to a non-party, Robert Fitzgerald, was not ambiguous and did not satisfy General Obligations Law § 5-701 (a) (10), which requires a written agreement or memorandum in an action for a brokerage or finder’s fee *(Haskins v Loeb Rhoades & Co.,*52 NY2d 523). Concur—Carro, J. P., Milonas, Ellerin, Smith and Rubin, JJ.