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

I, Thomas Kirchner, certify that: 

  1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of INverso Corp.;  

  2) Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;  

  3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly 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 we 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 quarterly 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 upon such evaluation; and  

  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controls 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) The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):  

  a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls 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 controls over financial reporting.  

Date: October 15, 2005 

By:   /s/   Thomas Kirchner 

    Thomas Kirchner

    Chief Executive Officer
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 the Annual Report of Signal
Hill Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Jonathan Bond, Chief Executive Officer of 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:



| | 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 operation of the Company.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |    |                                                                                                                                                    
| |    | Date: March 30, 2022                                                                                                                               



| | /s/ Jonathan Bond            
| | -----------------------------
| | Jonathan Bond                
| | Chief Executive Officer      
| | (Principal executive officer)
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

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

The Honorable Robert S. Lasnik, Chief United States District Judge **

for the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.

-1-

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

J. B. SCOTT,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

AGRICULTURE; UNITED STATES

FOREST SERVICE,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 09-35222

D.C. No. 1:08-cv-00138-BLW

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Idaho

B. Lynn Winmill, Chief District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted February 4, 2010

Seattle, Washington

Before: W. FLETCHER and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and LASNIK, ** 

Chief District Judge.

FILED

FEB 22 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
-2-

J.B. Scott (Scott) appeals the District Court’s entry of summary judgment in

favor of the Forest Service, which had previously denied Scott’s request for a

permit to land his helicopter on Forest Service lands.

The Forest Service’s denial of Scott’s request “may only be set aside under

the [Administrative Procedure Act] if it was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of

discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” Siskiyou Reg’l Educ. Project

v. U.S. Forest Service, 565 F.3d 545, 554 (9th Cir. 2009) (citations and internal

quotation marks omitted). Because the Forest Service’s 2003 closure order

required that Scott obtain a permit to land a helicopter in the forest, and because

the reasoning of the Forest Service can be discerned from its decision, its denial of

Scott’s request was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See McFarland v.

Kempthorne, 545 F.3d 1106, 1113 (9th Cir. 2008).

Scott failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to any NEPA

challenge to the 2003 closure order. See Great Basin Mine Watch v. Hankins, 456

F.3d 955, 967 (9th Cir. 2006). Because we resolve this case pursuant to the 2003

closure order, we need not, and do not, address whether Scott’s proposed use of his

helicopter constituted a non-commercial recreational activity.

AFFIRMED.
* 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. 00-40634

Conference Calendar

 

TOMMY E. SANDERS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

J. E. ALFORD, Warden; PATRICIA

ADAMS, Property Room Supervisor, 

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 9:99-CV-194

- - - - - - - - - -

December 13, 2000

Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Tommy E. Sanders, a Texas prisoner (# 744097), appeals from

the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 civil rights complaint as frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2). Sanders alleged that the defendants confiscated

from him an $8.95 “multi-outlet plug” he had purchased at the

commissary of his previous prison. The district court did not

abuse its discretion in concluding that Sanders had failed to

state a cognizable constitutional claim regarding the deprivation
No. 00-40634

-2-

of his property because Texas provides an adequate

postdeprivation remedy. See Berry v. Brady, 192 F.3d 504, 507

(5th Cir. 1999); Murphy v. Collins, 26 F.3d 541, 543 (5th Cir.

1994). 

Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See

Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR.

R. 42.2. 

 The dismissal of this appeal and the dismissal as frivolous

by the district court each count as a “strike” for purposes of 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88

(5th Cir. 1996). We caution Sanders that once he accumulates

three strikes, he may not proceed in forma pauperis in any civil

action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in

any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious

physical injury. See § 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). 

 APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 21, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-11213 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus

PATRICK RYNARD BANKS, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:98-CR-298-2-D

-------------------- Before JOLLY, JONES, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Court-appointed counsel for Patrick Rynard Banks has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Banks has received a copy of counsel’s motion and brief, but has filed no response. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
PCA : 12-3J14-24-B-0300 

PURCHASE AWARD DESCRIPTION 

March 27, 2024 12:15:00 

CHICKEN PRODUCTS (CANNED), SOLICITATION PCA: 2000009966 (12-3J14-24-B-0300) 

The USDA/Agricultural Marketing Service/Commodity Procurement Program (CPP) hereby announces the award 

of Solicitation 2000009966 (12-3J14-24-B-0300). The following commodities were purchased in support of 

Child Nutrition and other related Domestic Food Distribution Programs. 

Deliveries are to be made from May 1, 2024 through June 30, 2024. 

The Contracting Officer will not consider any additional or further offers under solicitation 2000009966 

(12-3J14-24-B-0300). CPP extends our appreciation to all bidders for showing an interest in supplying 

agricultural commodities for USDA/Domestic Programs. 

Further information can be obtained from the Commodity Procurement Program, Agricultural Marketing 

Service, USDA, Room 3522 South Building, Washington, DC 20250, telephone (202) 720-4517 or the website 

at http://www.ams.usda.gov/selling-food. 

Number of Offers/Quotes(Vendor Responses) received: 1 

PURCHASE SUMMARY 

Material Total Qty UOM Price Range Total Dollars 

CHICKEN BONED CAN-24/12.5 OZ 168,750.000 LB $2.4263 - $2.4263 $ 

409,438.13 

TOTAL 168,750.000 LB $ 409,438.13 

PURCHASE DETAILS 

Contractor/ Material Plant Bid Inv. Destination Quantity UOM Price 

Contract Number Location Item 

CRIDER, INC. 

P.O. BOX 398 

STILLMORE, GA 

30464-0398 

12-3J14-24-C-1316 STILLMORE, GA 

4100029654 

CHICKEN BONED CAN-24/12.5 OZ 

40 

40 

50 

60 

70 

Subtotal 

Contract Total 

Kansas City, 

MO 

Kansas City, 

MO 

Kansas City, 

MO 

Kansas City, 

MO 

Kansas City, 

MO 

 33,750.000LB $ 

2.4263 

 33,750.000LB $ 

2.4263 

 33,750.000LB $ 

2.4263 

 33,750.000LB $ 

2.4263 

 33,750.000LB $ 

2.4263 

 168,750.000LB

 168,750.000LB $ 409,438.15 
 Page 2 / 2 

Contractor/ Material Plant Bid Inv. Destination Quantity UOM Price 

Contract Number Location Item 

Contractor Total 168,750.000 LB $ 409,438.15
**Certifications**

I, Richard Simpson, certifythat:

 

1.            I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D requiredto be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K ofCitigroup Commercial Mortgage Trust 2022-GC48 (the “Exchange Act periodicreports”);

 

2.            Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, donot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.            Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other informationrequired to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this reportis included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4.            Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required in thisreport under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in theExchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligationsunder the servicing agreements in all material respects; and

 

5.            All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria forasset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment ofcompliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to beincluded in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB andExchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to thisreport, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any materialinstances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed inthis report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving the certificationsabove, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the followingunaffiliated parties: Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, NationalAssociation; Greystone Servicing Company LLC; Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC;Park Bridge Lender Services LLC; Computershare Trust Company, NationalAssociation; Wilmington Trust, National Association; KeyBank NationalAssociation; and LNR Partners, LLC.

 

Date:       March 29, 2024

 

/s/ Richard SimpsonRichard SimpsonPresident, Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc.(senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 22

- 00277

- CV

Juan Enriquez , Appellant

v.

The University of Texas System Board of Regents, James B. Milliken,

and Dr. Erin Jones , Appellee s

FROM THE 126TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY
NO. D

- 1

- GN

- 22

- 001835 , THE HONORABLE MAYA GUERRA GAMBLE , JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant ’s brief was due on August 24, 2022

. On September 6, 2022 , this C ourt

sent a notice to appellant informing him t ha t his brief was overdue and that a failure to file a

satisfactory response by September 16, 20 22, would result in the dismissal of this appeal for

want of p rosecution. To date, appellant has not filed a brief or a motion for extension of time.

Accordin gl y , we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

_______________________________________ ___ Thomas J. Baker , Justice

Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Kelly

Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

Filed: September 2 7. 2 022
FILED: September 2, 1998

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6487

(CR-91-312)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

BYRON KEITH COLLINS,

Defendant - Appellant.

ORDER

Appellant has filed a petition for rehearing. The

government has filed a response indicating no objection.

The Court grants the petition for rehearing, vacates the

prior decision, and remands for further proceedings.

Entered at the direction of Judge Hamilton with the

concurrence of Judge Wilkins and Senior Judge Phillips.

For the Court

/s/ Patricia S. Connor

Clerk
2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6487

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

BYRON KEITH COLLINS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CR-91-312, CA-96-686-3-6)

Submitted: April 16, 1998 Decided: April 28, 1998

Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joyce Farr Cheeks, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. David

Jarlath Slattery, Assistant United States Attorney, Robert Claude

Jendron, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

Rehearing granted, September 2, 1998 for limited purpose of amending opinion
3

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

his motion filed under 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 deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. United States v. Collins, Nos. CR-91-312; CA-96-686-3-6

(D.S.C. Feb. 27, 1997). 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
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 the Quarterly Report of Lease Equity Appreciation Fund II,
      L.P.
      (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2005 as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Crit S. DeMent, 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:





(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.








November
      14, 2005   /s/
      Crit S. DeMent


Crit
      S.
      DeMent


Chief
      Executive Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0497

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

RICHARD JAMES SORIA,

Defendant and Appellant.

GRANT

Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the 

Appellant is given an extension of time until January 20, 2021, to 

prepare, file, and serve the Appellant’s opening brief. 

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

December 17 2020

12/17/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0497
Hon. D. W. Burkhalter 

Acting County Attorney 

Box 953 

Tbroekmorton, Texas 

Dear Sir: 

Opillloll 180. o-6692 

Re: Is the clause in a contract for 

collection of delinquent taxes 

permitting the eontract or six 

months after the temlnation of 

the oontract to prosecute anlts 

filed to fFna1 judgments valid? 

And a related gueation. 

You have requested our opinion upon the following 

questions: 

1. Is the clause In a delinquent tax contract 

permitting the contractor six months after tbs t8rminatlon 

of the eontraot to posecute suits to final jud&ments valid, 

and is the tax attorney entitled to his oommlaslons on all 

taxes so collected during this six months period? 

2. Is the delinquent tax attorney entitled to 

collect the costs that have been paid in to the collector, 

when he has not done anything except file suit? If not, 

who 1s entitled to such costs? 

This department la opinion Ro. 0-237A, a copy of 

which is enclosed, held that under contra&s similar to the 

one in which you are interested, suits for delinquent taxes 

flied by the tax attorney during the contract ,period and 

settled by h%m within SIX months after th6 terminati.on date 

are clearly contemplated by the contract, and that the 

commission to be received by the attorney applies without 

question. We therefore answer your first question in the 

affirmative. 
Hon. D. W. Burkhalter, page 2 (O-6692) 

Article 7332, V. A. C. S., provides the fees 

certain officials reoelve In suits for collection of dellnquent taxes, and being a later statute than Articles 7335 

and 7335a, controls' over any provisions contrary thereto. 

ArtIdle 7333 provides that the fees mentioned in Article 

7332 are taxed as costs in delinquent tax sul.ts. We call 

your attentton to that portion of Article 7332 wherein It 

is provided that where delinquent taxes are collected under 

contracts between the commissioners court and others for 

the oollectlon of such taxes, the fees provided for county 

and district attorneys are not assessed or collected. 

Therefore, In your case, there are no fees which the county 

attorney or tax attorney could claim. If any such fees 

were assessed and collected, they should be returned to the 

taxpayer. 

Under the delinquent tax contract pertinent to 

this opinion, the tax attorney receives lC$ of the amount 

of all delinquent taxes, penalty and interest actually 

collected and paid to the tax collector durFng the term of 

the aontract, which the tax attorney was instrumental in 

collecting. If the filing of the suits by the tax attorney 

was instrumental in collecting the taxes, he Fs entitled 

to his commissions; if they were not, he is not entFtled 

to his oommissions. This Is a question of fact depending 

upon each separate case* 

Yours very 

ATTORNEYGENERAL 

BY 

truly 

OFTEKAS 

0. Koch 

0. Koch 

ROK:AMM:mjs 

Enclosure 

APPROVED AUG 10, 1945 

/&y;~;,~;~w 

ATTCREEY GRNRRAL' 

Assistant 

APPROVED OPINION COMMITTEE 

BY /s/BWB CHAIRMAN
391 A.2d 711

#### Patterson, Appellant, et al. v. Patterson.

Argued June 15, 1977.

Miles Warner, with him Warner & Huntington, for appellant; No appearance entered nor brief submitted for appellee.

Order affirmed.

HOFFMAN, J., dissented.

WATKINS, former P. J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1088

STEFANIE A. RODEN; JAMES D. HABURN,

Plaintiffs – Appellants,

v.

BHULA DIAH; LINDA KNIGHT; STUART COHEN; JAYANT PATEL; PRAKRUTI HOSPITALITY, LLC; TERRY NEILL GRIMES,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (7:07-cv-00252-gec-mfu)

Submitted: May 21, 2009 Decided: May 28, 2009

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stefanie A. Roden; James D. Haburn, Appellants Pro Se. Terry Neill Grimes, Melvin Edward Williams, GRIMES & WILLIAMS, P.C., Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Stefanie A. Roden and James D. Haburn appeal the

district court’s order dismissing their numerous federal and

state law claims against Defendants. We have reviewed the

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the

district court’s order. See Roden v. Diah , No. 7:07-cv-00252-

gec-mfu (W.D. Va. Dec. 19, 2008). 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
TS-EMLA10/20/30

Attachment #8

Pt. 2, Sec. B, End

Worker/Occupational Exposure and Envi ronmental Release I nformation on the

New Chemical Substance at Industr ial Sites Controlled by Others