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

EXHIBIT 13.1

CERTIFICATION OF

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Ronald W. Thiessen, Chief Executive Officer of Amarc
Resources Ltd. (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, to the best of my knowledge:

(i)          
the Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the fiscal year ended March
31, 2011 (the Annual Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(ii)          the
information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date:    September 23, 2011

/s/
Ronald
Thiessen              _________________________________________________By:       
Ronald W. ThiessenTitle:     Chief Executive Officer

This written statement is being furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Companys Annual Report on Form
20-F. A signed original of this statement 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.

This certification accompanies this Annual Report on Form
20-F pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not,
except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
"Exchange Act"). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it
by reference.

---
**EXHIBIT
      32.02**





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b) OF THE


SECURITIES
      EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended
      September 29, 2007 of Deer Valley Corporation (the “Company”), as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Charles
      G. Masters, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to Rule
      13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, 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, 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/Charles
      G. Masters*


Charles
      G. Masters


Acting
      Chief Financial Officer





Date:
                November 5, 2007




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.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5642 

To suspend temporarily the duty on mixtures containing Fenazaquin. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 8, 2012 

Mr. GOSAR introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on mixtures containing 

Fenazaquin. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MIXTURES CONTAINING FENAZAQUIN. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Mixtures containing 4-[2- 

(4-tertButylphenyl)ethoxy]quinazoline 

(Fenazaquin) (CAS No. 

120928–09–8) (provided 

for in subheading 

3808.91.25) ....................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5642 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5622 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5622

               To suspend temporarily the duty on Captan.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 8, 2012

  Mr. Latham introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
               To suspend temporarily the duty on Captan.

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

SECTION 1. CAPTAN.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00        N-                  Free            No change      No change      On or before     ''.
                          ((Trichloromethyl                                                 12/31/2015
                          )thio)-4-
                          cyclohexene-1,2-
                          dicarboximide
                          (Captan) (CAS No.
                          133-06-2) and
                          formulations
                          thereof (provided
                          for in
                          subheadings
                          2930.90.43 and
                          3808.92.15)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5721 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain electric cooktops. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 10, 2012 

Mr. COHEN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain electric cooktops. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN ELECTRIC COOKTOPS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5721 IH

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Electric cooktops each 

measuring approximately 

66 cm or more but not 

over 91.44 cm in width, 

weighing approximately 

10.3 kg or more but not 

more than 20.9 kg, having 

either a coil electric cooking element or smooth 

cooking surface with incorporated element with either 

4 or 5 burners (provided 

for in subheading 

8516.60.60) ....................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**954 CA 15-00280**  PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, VALENTINO, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF EXCELSIOR, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ASSESSOR, TOWN OF AMHERST, ET AL., RESPONDENTS, AND AMHERST CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, INTERVENOR-RESPONDENT.

WOLFGANG & WEINMANN, LLP, BUFFALO (PETER ALLEN WEINMANN OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.

HODGSON RUSS LLP, BUFFALO (JOSHUA FEINSTEIN OF COUNSEL), FOR INTERVENOR-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Timothy J. Walker, A.J.), entered April 17, 2014 in a proceeding pursuant to RPTL article 7. The order, among other things, denied the petition.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Erie County, for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: We agree with petitioner that Supreme Court failed to comply with RPTL 720 (2) by failing “to set forth the essential facts upon which it relied in arriving at its determination of the fair value of the property during the tax year[] in question” ( Matter of Zacher v Assessor of Town of Hamburg , 217 AD2d 945, 945; see Matter of South Slope Holding Corp. v Board of Assessment Review of Town of Jerusalem , 254 AD2d 684, 686). Consequently, the order must be reversed and the matter remitted to Supreme Court to comply with RPTL 720 (2). We note, however, that the court may not set an assessment in excess of the total assessment on the tax roll ( see Matter of Shubert Org. v Tax Commn. of City of N.Y. , 60 NY2d 93, 95).

Entered: October 9, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
<PAGE>
                                  EXHIBIT 99(b)

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

        Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Nautica Enterprises, Inc.
(the "Company") hereby certifies that:

        (i) The accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for
the quarterly period ended May 31, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and

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

        A signed original of this statement 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.



                                          By: /s/ Harvey Sanders
                                             ---------------------------------
                                              Harvey Sanders
                                              Chief Executive Officer

Date:  July 15, 2003
       -------------

        The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a
separate disclosure document.
Exhibit 31.1

# CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

# CERTIFICATION

I,
Tony Frudakis, President and Chief Financial Officer of Sun City Industries, Inc. certify
that:

1.
I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Sun City Industries, Inc.

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 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 report;

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me
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
as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this report (the Evaluation
Date); and

c) presented in this report conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. 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 functions):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which
could adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial data and have identified for the registrants auditors any material
weaknesses in internal controls; 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; and

6. I have indicated in this report whether there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent
to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: August 19, 2004/s/ Tony FrudakisTony Frudakis Principal Executive
Officer andPrincipal Financial Officer
Lend Lease

Asset Management, L.P.

 

Management Assertion

 

 

As of and for the year ended December 31, 2002, Lend Lease Asset Management L.P. (the Partnership) complied in all material respects with the minimum servicing standards set forth in the Mortgage Bankers Association of America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers set forth in Appendix A, to the extent such standards were applicable to the special servicing performed by the Partnership. A list of portfolios covered by this assertion is included in Appendix B. As of and for this same period, the Partnership had in effect a fidelity bond and errors and omissions policy in the amount of $25,000,000.

 

 

David Altshuler		                 	 	Elaine K. Miller			 
David Altshuler						Elaine K. Miller

Principal, Accounting					Principal, Asset Management

 

 

February 3, 2003
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-2263

STEVEN MEDOWS, a/k/a Steven Edward Medows, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. CITY OF CAYCE; NFN KENLEY, Detective with the Cayce Police Department, Defendants - Appellees,

and

LEXINGTON COUNTY SOLICITOR’S OFFICE; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (3:07-cv-00409-HFF)

Submitted: February 26, 2009 Decided: March 3, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steven Medows, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel C. Plyler, DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.PER CURIAM: Steven Medows seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion to extend the appeal period in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Medows’ motion to extend the appeal period and his notice of appeal were not timely filed. Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of

Corr. , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v.

Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)); see Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, __, 127 S. Ct. 2360, 2366 (2007). The district court’s order denying Medows’ § 1983 action was entered on the docket on June 25, 2008. Per Medows’ request, the District Court clerk again sent him notice of the final judgment against him, which Medows received on August 19, 2008. Medows filed a motion to extend the time to appeal on September 16, 2008, and his notice of appeal was filed on November 5, 2008. Because Medows failed to file a timely notice of appeal or timely obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, the appeal is untimely. Accordingly, we grant

23 the Appellees’ motion to dismiss the appeal as untimely. 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 31.2****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Kenneth L. Rice, Jr., certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Boston Life Sciences, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  (b) [Not Applicable];  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand 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 financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe 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 havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        DATE: May 15, 2007 /s/ Kenneth L. Rice, Jr.   **Kenneth L. Rice, Jr.**   **Executive Vice President Finance and Administration andChief Financial Officer**
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

EARL BRADLEY,

Defendant Below,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

Plaintiff Below,

Appellee.

§

§

§ No. 221, 2017

§

§ Court Below—Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§ 

§ Cr. ID No. 0912011155 (S) 

§

§

§

 

Submitted: December 1, 2017

Decided: January 16, 2018

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

O R D E R

This 16th day of January 2018, after careful consideration of the parties’ 

briefs, the record below, and the appellant’s motion for decision en banc, we first 

conclude that the motion for decision en banc should be denied. None of the criteria 

set forth in Supreme Court Internal Operating Procedure X for determination en banc

apply here.1 We next conclude that the Superior Court’s summary dismissal of the 

appellant’s second motion for postconviction relief and denial of the appellant’s 

 

1 Supreme Court Internal Operating Procedure X provides the Chief Justice may order any matter 

for determination en banc upon the briefs or oral argument. Determination en banc is required in 

the following circumstances: (i) direct appeals and motions for postconviction relief in death 

penalty cases; (ii) when a panel of the Court indicates possible disagreement; (iii) when there is a 

reasonable likelihood a previous decision of the Court may be modified or overruled; (iv) when 

approved by two justices; and (v) when required by Court rule or by two-thirds vote of the General 

Assembly.
2

motion for judicial recusal should be affirmed on the basis of, and for the reasons in,

the Superior Court’s well-reasoned order dated May 18, 2017.

2

 Contrary to the 

appellant’s contentions, his ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel claims 

were subject to the requirements of Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(d)(2).

3

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that motion for decision en banc is 

DENIED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.

Chief Justice 

 

2

State v. Bradley, 2017 WL 2209896 (Del. May 18, 2017).

3

See Durham v. State, 2017 WL 5450746, at *2 (Del. Nov. 13, 2017) (holding the appellant had

to satisfy the requirements of Rule 61(d)(2) to avoid summary dismissal of his second 

postconviction motion, even if he did not have a previous opportunity to raise his ineffective 

assistance of postconviction counsel claims).
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2727 

To amend the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 to provide 

that not less than 40 percent of amounts available from the fund under 

that Act shall be available for the Land and Water Conservation Fund 

State Assistance Program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 18, 2013 

Mr. MCKINLEY (for himself, Mrs. LUMMIS, Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas, and 

Mr. LOWENTHAL) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 

1965 to provide that not less than 40 percent of amounts 

available from the fund under that Act shall be available 

for the Land and Water Conservation Fund State Assistance Program. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ALLOCATION OF FUNDS FOR THE LAND AND 

4 WATER CONSERVATION FUND STATE ASSIST5 ANCE PROGRAM. 

6 Section 5 of the Land and Water Conservation Fund 

7 Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l–7) is amended by inserting 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2727 IH

1 ‘‘and not less than 40 per centum of such appropriations 

2 shall be available for the Land and Water Conservation 

3 Fund State Assistance Program’’ after ‘‘Not less than 40 

4 per centum of such appropriations shall be available for 

5 Federal purposes’’. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS