alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.2certification pursuant to 18 u.s.c. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of thesarbanes-oxley act of 2002The undersigned officer of Veridien Corporation (the “Company”) hereby certifies to my knowledgethat the Company’s annual report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the“Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission the on date hereof, fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. This certification isprovided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed to be part of the Report or “filed” for anypurpose whatsoever.       Date: March 30, 2007 Name: /s/ Russell Van Zandt Russell Van Zandt    Title: Chief Financial Officer
#### Gratiot State Bank, Respondent, vs. Martin and others, Appellants.

*January 11*

February *9, 1943.*

*255
      *H. J. Beardsley*of Darlington, attorney, and *Elton S. Karrmann*of Platteville of counsel, for the appellants.

For the respondent there was a brief by *McDaniel, McDaniel & Reinoehl*of Darlington, and oral argument by *C. F. McDaniel.*

RoseNberry, C. J.

The question presented by this record is whether this court should now abandon the rule which has obtained here for many years that an offer or agreement to advance a bid upon a resale which is made before the sale is confirmed, not accompanied by a showing of mistake, misapprehension, or inadvertence, is insufficient to sustain an order setting aside the sale *(Adams v. Haskell*(1859), 10 Wis. *123; *Kneeland v. Smith*(1861), 13 Wis. *591; *Griswold v. Barden*(1911), 146 Wis. 35, 130 N. W. 952; *A. J. Straus Paying Agency v. Jensen*(1938), 226 Wis. 462, *277*N. W. 105) ; or whether we shall adopt the minority rule which is that the entire matter of confirmation rests in the discretion of the court. (See 11 A. L. R. pp. 399, 417.) In this case the plaintiff makes no claim that there was any mistake, misapprehension, or inadvertence on its part.

The plaintiff contends that because it consented to the setting aside of the first sale, it is. now entitled to have the defendants consent to the setting aside of the second sale. It says that such a procedure would be no more than fair. The trouble with plaintiff’s position is that the defendants do *256not give their consent and no authorities support it. A mere expectation of favor, even if it were well founded, is not a mistake, a misapprehension, or an inadvertence.

It is considered that the long-established rule should be adhered to.

*By the Court.*— The order appealed from is reversed, and cause remanded with directions to confirm the sale.
Exhibit 12.1
 Mediacom LLC
 Schedule of Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
  For the Years ended December 31,2008
    
    
    2007
    
    
    2006
    
    
    2005
    
    
    2004Earnings:(Loss) income before income taxes
    
    $
    7,389
    
    
    $
    (14,626
    )
    
    $
    (19,419
    )
    
    $
    (4,294
    )
    
    $
    8,976Interest expense, net
    
    
    99,639
    
    
    
    118,386
    
    
    
    112,895
    
    
    
    102,000
    
    
    
    97,790Amortization of capitalized interest
    
    
    1,706
    
    
    
    1,939
    
    
    
    1,702
    
    
    
    1,525
    
    
    
    1,356Amortization of debt issuance costs
    
    
    2,039
    
    
    
    2,225
    
    
    
    2,427
    
    
    
    3,009
    
    
    
    5,642Interest component of rent expense(1)
    
    
    3,133
    
    
    
    2,617
    
    
    
    2,716
    
    
    
    2,776
    
    
    
    2,623Earnings available for fixed charges
    
    $
    113,906
    
    
    $
    110,541
    
    
    $
    100,321
    
    
    $
    105,016
    
    
    $
    116,387Fixed Charges:Interest expense, net
    
    $
    99,639
    
    
    $
    118,386
    
    
    $
    112,895
    
    
    $
    102,000
    
    
    $
    97,790Capitalized interest
    
    
    2,131
    
    
    
    1,729
    
    
    
    1,893
    
    
    
    2,106
    
    
    
    1,545Amortization of debt issuance cost
    
    
    2,039
    
    
    
    2,225
    
    
    
    2,427
    
    
    
    3,009
    
    
    
    5,642Interest component of rent expense(1)
    
    
    3,133
    
    
    
    2,617
    
    
    
    2,716
    
    
    
    2,776
    
    
    
    2,623Total fixed charges
    
    $
    106,942
    
    
    $
    124,957
    
    
    $
    119,931
    
    
    $
    109,891
    
    
    $
    107,600Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    
    
    1.07
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    1.08Deficiency of earnings over fixed charges
    
    $
    
    
    
    $
    (14,416
    )
    
    $
    (19,610
    )
    
    $
    (4,875
    )
    
    $
    
 
 (1)
    
    A reasonable approximation (one-third) is deemed to be the interest
factor included in rental expense.
*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except

under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and

collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation

of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may

be cited under the terms and conditions 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 4/18/96

TENTH CIRCUIT

ALLEN JAMES STARKS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

PATRICK WHALEN, Warden,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 95-1376

(D.C. No. 95-K-375)

(Dist. Colo.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, McKAY and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not

materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.

App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore

ordered submitted without oral argument.

Mr. Allen James Starks filed this pro se petition for writ

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, alleging federal

prison officials denied him due process when they found him

guilty of prison regulation charges. The district court adopted
-2-

the magistrate’s recommendation to dismiss the petition on the

grounds that Mr. Starks did not have a protected liberty interest

in remaining free from disciplinary segregation or in being

confined in any particular institution. Mr. Starks appeals, and

we affirm.

We review a district court’s order denying a petition for

issuance of a writ of habeas corpus de novo. Bowser v. Boggs, 20

F.3d 1060, 1062 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 313 (1994). 

The Due Process Clause requires Mr. Starks to first assert the

infringement of a protected liberty interest. Kentucky Dep’t. of

Corrections v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454, 460 (1989). A protected

liberty interest may arise from either the Due Process Clause

itself or from the laws of a State. Id. Disciplinary

segregation does not implicate a protected liberty interest under

the Due Process Clause itself. Sandin v. Conner, 115 S. Ct.

2293, 2302 (1995). Nor does the Due Process Clause itself create

a protected liberty interest in Mr. Starks’ being “placed in any

particular prison.” Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 225 (1976). 

Moreover, the Supreme Court has held that generally a prisoner’s

“discipline in segregated confinement [does] not present the type

of atypical, significant deprivation in which a state might

conceivably create a liberty interest.” Sandin, 115 S. Ct. at

2300-01. 

Mr. Starks raises additional factual and legal issues for
-3-

the first time on appeal which we decline to consider. See Oyler

v. Allenbrand, 23 F.3d 292, 299 n.8 (10th Cir. 1994). 

Accordingly, we AFFIRM substantially for the reasons given

by the magistrate and adopted by the district court. The mandate

shall issue forthwith.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Stephanie K. Seymour

Chief Judge
EXHIBIT 12.1SECTION 302 OFFICER CERTIFICATIONI, Raúl Enrique Cisneros Matusita, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Satelites Mexicanos, S.A. de C.V.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial            informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presentedin this report;  4. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the company and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the company, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annualreport that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the company’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The company’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our            mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company’s auditorsand the audit committee of the company’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent function): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the company’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the company’s internal control overfinancial reporting.Date: July 16, 2007       By: /s/ RAÚL ENRIQUE CISNEROS MATUSITA       Name: Raúl Enrique Cisneros Matusita  Title: Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 99.1

                            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 Ameritrans Capital Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2002, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Gary C. Granoff, President, Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
ss. 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/ Gary C. Granoff
------------------------------------
Gary C. Granoff
President, Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Financial Officer

September 30, 2002
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION OF INTERIM CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


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 on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2010 of Vitacost.com, Inc. (the “Company”) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Stephen E. Markert, Jr., Interim 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/ Stephen E. Markert, Jr.Stephen E. Markert, Jr.Interim Chief Financial OfficerDate: June 16, 2011
Exhibit 32


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 SUNBURST ACQUISITIONS V, INC.
(the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the period ending April 30, 2003, (the "Report"), I, Jay
Lutsky, Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial and Accounting 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 requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of
operations.


July 28, 2005

	/s/ Jay Lutsky
	Chief Executive Officer and
	Chief Financial and
	Accounting Officer
Exhibit 99.10

CONSENT OF ENGINEER

Ladies and
Gentlemen:

The undersigned hereby consents to (1) the references to the undersigneds name included or incorporated by reference in the Annual
Report on Form 40-F of Denison Mines Corp. in connection with (a) the report entitled Technical Report on the Denison Mines Inc. Uranium Properties, Saskatchewan, Canada dated November 21, 2005, as amended on February 16,
2006, (b) the report entitled Technical Report on the Mineral Resource Estimate for the McClean North Uranium Deposits, Saskatchewan dated January 31, 2007, (c) the report entitled Technical Report on the Sue D
Uranium Deposit Mineral Resource Estimate, Saskatchewan, Canada dated March 31, 2006, (d) the report entitled Technical Report on the Midwest Uranium Deposit Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve Estimates, Saskatchewan,
Canada dated June 1, 2005, as amended on February 14, 2006, and (2) all other references to the undersigned included or incorporated by reference in the Annual Report on Form 40-F of Denison Mines Corp.

Dated: March 30, 2017



|                                    |  |                         
|----------------------------------- |  | ------------------------
|                                    | 
|By:                                 |  | /s/ Richard E. Routledge
|Richard E. Routledge, M.Sc., P.Geo.
|Roscoe Postle Associates Inc.
Order filed January 14, 2020 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-19-00848-CV

____________

CRYSTAL MOORE, Appellant

V.

COPPERTREE VILLAGE HOLDINGS LLC D/B/A COPPERTREE 

VILLAGE, Appellee

On Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No. 4

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1140337

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was due December 23, 2019. No brief or motion for 

extension of time has been filed. Unless appellant files a brief with this court on or 

before February 13, 2020, the court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Jewell, and Poissant.
2015 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of A

ppe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

9-30-2015 

# U S A v . M a r k L a w r e nce

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w
. v i l l a no v a
. e du/thir dc ir c uit_2015

Thi s S e pt e mbe r i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of A

ppe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2015 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w
. v i l l a no v a
. e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" U SA v . M a rk L a w r e nc e " (2015). 2015 D e cisio n s

. P a pe r 1040. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w
. v i l l a no v a
. e du/thir dc ir c uit_2015/1040

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________
No. 13

- 4315

_____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.
MARK LAWRENCE,
Appellant

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ( No . 2

- 06

- cr

- 00083

- 001 ) District Judge: Hon. Cynthia M. Rufe

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

June 26 , 2015

Before: CHAGARES, KRAUSE , and BARRY
, Circuit Judges

.

____________ ______
JUDGMENT ORDER

________ _______ ____ This cause came to be considered on the record from the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and w as submitted pursuant to Third

C ircuit LAR 34.1(a) on June 26, 2015.

While on appeal, the Government made cer tain concessions in its briefing for the
first time. The District Court was, thus, unable to consider these concessions in rendering
its decision. We hold that the District Court should have the opportunity to consider the

### Government's concessions in the first instance. For that reason, it is now hereby

ORDERED and ADJUDGED by this Court that the District Court's order dated
September 30, 2013 is VACATED and REMANDED.

BY THE COURT,

s/ Michael A. Chagares Circuit Judge

ATTEST :

s/Marcia M. Waldron Clerk

Dated: September 30, 2015
#### Frank G. Mogler, Appellee, v. Esther L. Nelson, Appellant.

No. 40776.

March 17, 1931.

*Balter, Doran & Boone,*for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

Per Curiam.

Action upon two promissory notes, and one other cause of action joined therewith, aided by attachment. Verdict and judgment on defendant’s counterclaim, against the plaintiff, the sureties not being made parties, on the attachment bond for both actual and exemplary damages.

The appeal is by defendant from the ruling of the court denying her application for the taxation of reasonable attorney fees in the action. The recovery was on the bond, and the application should have been sustained, and a reasonable attorney fee allowed as a part of the costs in the case. Section 12090, Code, 1927; *Peters v. Snavely-Ashton,*144 Iowa *147; Thielen v. Schechinger, 211*Iowa 470.

The cause will be reversed and remanded to the court below, *1289with directions to allow appellant a reasonable sum as attorney’s fees, and to tax the same against the plaintiff as a part of the *costs.*— Reversed *and remanded.*
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. Section 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report ofLake Victoria Mining Company, Inc.(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period end ofDecember 31, 2007as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I,David Gamache, Chief 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
|     | condition and results of operations of the Company.                                              
|    
|     | Dated this 13thday of February, 2008.                                                            

DAVID GAMACHEDavid GamacheChief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer


















---
II

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2760

To clarify the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture to establish performance standards for the reduction of microbiological pathogens in meat

and poultry.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 21, 2000

Mr. HARKIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

A BILL

To clarify the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture to

establish performance standards for the reduction of

microbiological pathogens in meat and poultry.

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 ‘‘Microbiological Per5 formance Standards Clarification Act of 2000’’.
2

•S 2760 IS

1 SEC. 2. MICROBIOLOGICAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

2 FOR MEAT AND POULTRY.

3 (a) MEAT AND MEAT PRODUCTS.—The Federal Meat

4 Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) is amended by in5 serting after section 8 (21 U.S.C. 608) the following:

6 ‘‘SEC. 8A. MICROBIOLOGICAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.

7 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—In order to protect the public

8 health and promote food safety, the Secretary may by reg9 ulation prescribe performance standards for the reduction

10 of microbiological pathogens in meat and meat products

11 processed by each establishment receiving inspection serv12 ices under this Act.

13 ‘‘(b) ENFORCEMENT.—If the Secretary determines

14 that an establishment fails to meet a standard established

15 under subsection (a), the Secretary shall refuse to allow

16 any meat or meat product subject to the standard and

17 processed by the establishment to be labeled, marked,

18 stamped, or tagged as ‘inspected and passed’.’’.

19 (b) POULTRY AND POULTRY PRODUCTS.—The Poul20 try Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.) is

21 amended by inserting after section 7 (21 U.S.C. 456) the

22 following:

23 ‘‘SEC. 7A. MICROBIOLOGICAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.

24 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—In order to protect the public

25 health and promote food safety, the Secretary may by reg26 ulation prescribe performance standards for the reduction
3

•S 2760 IS

1 of microbiological pathogens in poultry and poultry prod2 ucts processed by each establishment receiving inspection

3 services under this Act.

4 ‘‘(b) ENFORCEMENT.—If the Secretary determines

5 that an establishment fails to meet a standard established

6 under subsection (a), the Secretary shall refuse to allow

7 any poultry or poultry product subject to the standard and

8 processed by the establishment to be labeled, marked,

9 stamped, or tagged as ‘inspected and passed’.’’.

10 (c) EFFECTIVENESS OF CURRENT REGULATIONS.—

11 Consistent with section 553 of title 5, United States Code,

12 the Secretary of Agriculture shall have the authority to

13 enforce the microbiological performance standards of the

14 Secretary in effect on May 24, 2000.

Æ