alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, William Whittle, Vice President and Treasurer of Big Bear Gold Corporation, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Big Bear Gold 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 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)	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

(c)	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 most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) 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 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: November 9, 2004

/s/ William WhittleWilliam Whittle
Vice President and Treasurer
(Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

DONALD J. BOYER
,
Defendant Below
, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE
,
Plaintiff Below
, Appellee. § § No. 288, 2017 § § Court Below : Superior Court § of the State of Delaware § § C.A. No. N17M

- 06

- 327 § Cr. ID No. 86010533DI (N) § § §

Submitted: October 11, 2017 Decided: November 8 , 2017

Before STRINE
, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN
, Justices.

O R D E R

This 8 th day of November 2017 , upon consideration of the appellant’s opening
brief, the appellee’s motion to affirm
, and the record below, it appears to the Court

that:
(1) The appellant, Donald J. Boyer , filed this appeal from the Superior
Court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The State of Delaware has
filed a motion to affirm the judgment below on the ground that it is manifest on the

face of Shelley’s opening brief that his appeal is without merit. We agree and affirm.
(2) On April 2, 1980 , a Superior Court jury found Boyer guilt y of multiple
crimes, including Attempted Murder in the First Degree . Boyer was sentenced to
life imprisonment for Attempted Mur der in the First Degree, plus fourteen years for2

his other convictions

. This Court affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment on direct
appeal 1 as well as the Superior Court’s denial of Boyer’s motions for postconviction

relief

. 2

(3) On June 29, 2017
, Boyer filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in
the Superior Court. On July 5 , 2017, the Superior Court denied the petition

. The
Superior Court found Boyer was legally detained . This appeal followed. In his
opening brief
, Boyer argues that he has been illegally detained since 1996 because
the Department of Correction records show a 1996 release date for his sentences

. (4) In Delaware, the writ of habeas corpus provides relief on a very limited

basis. 3 Habeas corpus only “provides an opportunity for one illegally confined or
incarcerated to obtain judicial review of the jurisdiction of the court ordering the

commitment

. ” 4 Whe re the commitment is regular on its face and the court clearly
had jurisdiction over the subject matter, habeas corpus does not afford a remedy to
the petitioner. 5

(5) Boyer has offered no evidence that the Superior Court lacked
jurisdiction to sentence him or that the commitment was irregular on its face. The

1 Boyer v. State , 436 A.2d 1118 (Del. 1981). 2 See, e.g., Boyer v. State , 2014 WL 1512802 , at *1 (Del. Apr. 15, 2014) (affirming denial of Boyer’s fourth motion for postconviction relief)

. 3 Hall v. Carr , 692 A.2d 888, 891 (Del. 1997). 4 Id.

5 Jones v. Anderson , 183 A.2d 177, 178 (Del. 1962); Curran v. Woolley , 104 A.2d 771, 773 (Del. 1954).3

sentencing order and Department of Correction records reflect Boyer was sentenced
to life imprisonment for Attempted Murder in the First Degree

. The Superior Court
did not err in denying Boyer’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus

. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Affirm is

GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s / Karen L. Valihura Justice
Exhibit 99.3

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

The undersigned hereby certifies that the Form 10-K Annual Report of Mandalay Resort Group (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2002 filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission, as amended by Amendment #1 on Form 10-K/A filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, (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(a) or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

|Date: March 28, 2003 |  | /s/GLENN SCHAEFFERGlenn Schaeffer
President, Chief Financial Officer and
Treasurer of Mandalay Resort Group
|-------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 369

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 6, 1995

Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

AN ACT

To designate the Federal Courthouse in Decatur, Alabama,

as the ‘‘Seybourn H. Lynne Federal Courthouse’’, and

for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

S 369 RFH

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

2 The Federal Courthouse in Decatur, Alabama, is des3 ignated as the ‘‘Seybourn H. Lynne Federal Courthouse’’.

4 SEC. 2. LEGAL REFERENCES.

5 Any reference in any law, regulation, document,

6 record, map, or other paper of the United States to the

7 building referred to in section 1 is deemed to be a ref8 erence to the Seybourn H. Lynne Federal Courthouse.

Passed the Senate August 9 (legislative day, July

10), 1995.

Attest: KELLY D. JOHNSTON,

Secretary.
#### Edward A. NICHOLAS, Appellant, v. Luther THOMAS, Warden, Kentucky State Penitentiary, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Oct. 2, 1964.

*872Edward A. Nicholas, pro se.

Robert Matthews, Atty. Gen., Martin Glazer, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PALMORE, Judge.

Proceeding in forma pauperis, Edward A. Nicholas appeals from a judgment of the Lyon Circuit Court dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus against the warden of the state penitentiary, to which institution appellant has been committed to serve a 5-year sentence pursuant to conviction in the Kenton Circuit Court under an indictment charging him with a violation of KRS 218.170 (fraud or deceit in obtaining or attempting to obtain narcotic drugs).

The ground on which he contends he is entitled to a release via habeas corpus is that because the indictment on which he was convicted had not been signed by the foreman of the grand jury as required by RCr 6.06 the proceedings were unconstitutional and the judgment void.

The petition was properly dismissed for lack of a showing that an RCr 11.42 motion would not have been an adequate procedural avenue. Ayers v. Davis, Ky., *377*S.W.2d 154 (1964). However, in order to obviate further litigation we have considered the merits and are of the opinion that the signing of an indictment, formerly required by statute (Criminal Code of Practice, § 119) and now' by rule of court (RCr 6.06), is not a matter of constitutional right, state or federal.

RCr 6.06 provides specifically as follows :

> “No objection to an indictment or information on the ground that it was not signed as herein required may be made after a plea to the merits has been filed or entered.”

As we view it, the foreman’s signature is a procedural safeguard rather than a substantive requisite of an indictment. The indictment is an accusation made in behalf of the people. It is formed by the concurrence of nine or more grand jurors (Const. § 248) in proper session and is completed by a return or delivery to the court. Without these it cannot be an indictment, but with them, if it charges the defendant with a crime over which the circuit court has jurisdiction, it is.

> “We are of the opinion that the signature of the foreman of the grand jury is required only as a matter of direction to the clerk and for the information of the court; that its presence or absence does not materially affect any substantial right of the defendant; and that it neither assures to him nor prevents him from having a fair trial.” People ex rel. Merrill v. Hazard, 361 Ill. 60, 196 N.E. 827, 829 (1935).

The judgment is affirmed.
OFFICE OF THE AtTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

I 

. . .
# STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

In the matter of The State ofConnecticut and Middletown Power LLC ) ) ) 

### ) ) Trading Agreement and Order No. 8214A Modification No.3

Whereas, the Commissioner ofEnvironmental Protection ("Commissioner") and Middletown Power LLC (Rcspondent) having agreed to the terms and conditions set forth in Trading Agreement and Order No. 8214A and all previous modification thereto, do now, by mutual agreement, further modify said modified Trading Agreement and Order as follows: I. All references to May 1, 2009 with respect to the authorization to use emissions reduction credit trading and/or emission reduction credits and NOx allowances to comply with the emissions limits ofSubsections 22a-174-22(d)(l) through 22a-174- 22(d)(2)(A) ofthe Regulations ofConnecticut State Agencies (Regulations) are hereby replaced with May 1,2010. 2. Any references to October 1st with respect to the date by which the Respondents shall estimate and acquire Discrete Emission Reduction Credits (VEReS) and/or allowances for the non-ozone season shall now include October 1,2009. 3. Any references to May 31, 2007 and May 31, 2008 with respect to calculation and retirement ofnon-ozone season DERCs shall now include May 31, 2009 and May 31, 2010. 4. All references to September 1,2008 with respect to the submission ofFuture Compliance Reports are hereby replaced with September 1,2009. 5. No later than May 1,2010, with respect to the emission units identified in Trading Agreement and Order No. 8214A and/or its subsequent modifications, the Respondent shall comply with the requirements ofSections 22a-174-22(d)(l) and 22a-174- 22(d)(2)(A) ofthe Regulations. 6. All other terms and conditions ofTrading Agreement and Order No. 8214A, as modified, shall remain in effect.

(Printed on Recycled Paper) 79 Elm Street • Hartford. cr 06106 - 5127 http://www.ct.gov/dcp All Equal OpporlllJlity Employer.' 

## . 

# .. .**~.** 

# .

',

.. '.-, 

## ... - . 

# .•

,

...**~.** "
. 

### . Date 

### 2

Issued as a modification ofa Trading Agreement and ·Order. Middletown Power LLC

Title: 

### 't' I
... " -\- \A(l..') ....

### 21l!N' Date: 

### !--I

-

# 'Ie

-0'1 The Respondent hereby consents to the entry ofthis modificAtionWthe T,radii'igAgreetnent and Order without further notiCe.
Signature: })..",:)

## Jo..!Q.c.~'-J;t2....l::..l.~--~-----c,--­ Narne: 

## :t>".>,"J ::i. 

### MIAb.w>.S

# a~ zJ. 

# La.
Director Engineering and Enforcement Division Bureau ofAir Management Middletown Power LLC
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-19-00690-CV

Beatriz CARVALHO and AJ Lopez Trucking,

Appellants

v.

Cynthia DEHOYOS,

Appellee

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019CI04017

Honorable Mary Lou Alvarez, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: January 22, 2020

DISMISSED

Appellants have filed an unopposed motion to dismiss this appeal, stating that the parties 

have reach an agreement in the underlying lawsuit. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a). Costs of appeal are taxed against the party incurring same. See id.

42.1(d).

PER CURIAM
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16
- 1871

THESIS PAINTING, INC. , Petitioner ,

v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD , Respondent

.

No. 16
- 2031

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD , Petitioner ,

v. THESIS PAINTING, INC. , Respondent

.

On Petition for Review and Cross

- application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. ( 05

- CA

- 172905)

Submitted: March 16, 2017 Dec ided: April 7, 20172 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, THACKER , Circuit Judge , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.

No. 16

- 1871 petition for review denied ; No. 16

- 2031 cross
- application for enforcement granted by un published per curiam opinion

.
Maurice Baskin, LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Richard F. Griffin, Jr., General Counsel, Jennifer Abruzzo, Deputy General Counsel, John H. Ferguson, Associate General Counsel, Linda Dreeben, Deputy Associate General Counsel, Usha Dheenan, Molly Sykes, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Wa shington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Thesis Painting, Inc. (Thesis) petitions for review of a National Labor Relations Board (Board) order granting summary judgment on its complaint alleging Thesis violated the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 151

- 169 (2012) (NLRA) , when it refused to recognize and bargain with the Internatio nal Union of Painters and Allied Trades, AFL

- CIO, District Council 51 (Union) after the Board certified the Union as the representative of Thesis’ employees. The Board’s order
directed Thesis to bargain with the Union upon request. The Board has cross

- pe tition ed , asking this court to enforce its order.
We conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board’s factual findings, and find that the Board’s legal interpretations of the NLRA are rational and consistent with
the Act. See 29 U.S.C. § 160(e) ( 2012) ; NLRB v. Air Contact Transp. Inc. , 403 F.3d 206, 210 (4th Cir. 2005). Accordingly , we deny Thesis’ petition and grant the Board’s cross

petition for enforcement

. W e dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

16

- 18 7 1 PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED; 16

- 2031 CROSS

- APPLICATION FOR ENFORCEMENT GRANTED
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 Park Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 28, 2008 (the Report), I, David A. Remijas, President and 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 Sections 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ David A. RemijasDavid A. RemijasPresident and Chief Executive OfficerMarch 28, 2008
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7603

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

HOSAM MOHAMMED ZAKARIA,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, District

Judge. (CR-91-181-A)

Submitted: February 12, 1998 Decided: February 24, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Hosam Mohammed Zakaria, Appellant Pro Se. Avi Samuel Garbow, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, 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 Appellant's motion for production of documents. 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. United States v. Zakaria, No. CR-91-181-A (E.D. Va. Sept.

11, 1996). We deny Appellant's motion for general relief. 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
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1992 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1992

 To recognize the significance of the AIDS Memorial Grove, located in 
   Golden Gate Park in San Francisco, California, and to direct the 
  Secretary of the Interior to designate the AIDS Memorial Grove as a 
                           national memorial.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 25, 1996

Mrs. Feinstein introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To recognize the significance of the AIDS Memorial Grove, located in 
   Golden Gate Park in San Francisco, California, and to direct the 
  Secretary of the Interior to designate the AIDS Memorial Grove as a 
                           national memorial.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``AIDS Memorial Grove Act of 1996''.

SEC. 2. RECOGNITION AND DESIGNATION OF THE AIDS MEMORIAL GROVE AS 
              NATIONAL MEMORIAL.

    (a) Recognition of Significance of the AIDS Memorial Grove.--The 
Congress hereby recognizes the significance of the AIDS Memorial Grove, 
located in Golden Gate Park in San Francisco, California, as a 
memorial--
            (1) dedicated to individuals who have died as a result of 
        acquired immune deficiency syndrome; and
            (2) in support of individuals who are living with acquired 
        immune deficiency syndrome and their loved ones and caregivers.
    (b) Designation as National Memorial.--Not later than 90 days after 
the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall 
designate the AIDS Memorial Grove as a national memorial.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Quarterly Report of instaCare Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Keith Berman, Principal Executive Officer and Chief Financial 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.   /s/ Keith Berman  Keith Berman  Principal Executive Officer and  Chief Financial Officer  August 14, 2008