alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Certification of Chief Executive Officer 
Pursuant to 18U.S.C.1350 
(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) In connection with the Quarterly Report of Star Gold Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the six months ended October 31, 2010,  as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Lindsay Gorrill, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U,S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that: (I) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section l3(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.   /s/Lindsay Gorrill ________________________________________ Lindsay Gorrill Chief Executive Officer December 15, 2010   This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of  2002 and shall not be deemed to beincorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except tothe extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference. 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.    Certification of Principal Accounting Officer 
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 
(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) In connection with the Quarterly Report of Star Gold Corp. (the "Company'') on Form 10-Q for six months ended October 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report''), I, Lindsay Gorrill, Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of  2002, that: (I) 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/Kelly Stopher _________________________________________ Kelly Stopher Principal Accounting Officer December 15, 2010 This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall 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. Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 31.1**Chief Executive Officer Certification**I, John G. Duffy, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of KBW, Inc. (the “Registrant”); 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial 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 misleadingwith respect to the period 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 financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report; 4. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to theRegistrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities,particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared;  b) [Intentionally omitted.]  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of theRegistrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the periodcovered by this annual report based onsuch evaluation; and  d) Disclosed in this report any change inthe Registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurredduring the Registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the Registrant’sinternal control over financialreporting; and5. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of Registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control overfinancial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affectthe Registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material,that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant rolein the Registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting.Date: March 30, 2007   /s/ John G. Duffy   John G. Duffy  Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 202 (Friday, October 18, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 83929]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-24038]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: October 18, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
October 9, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] Contract 
382 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-46, K2025-45.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-24038 Filed 10-17-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Supreme Court of Florida

____________

No. SC17-1324

____________

MARBEL MENDOZA, 

Appellant,

vs.

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee.

[January 30, 2018]

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Marbel Mendoza’s appeal of the circuit court’s order 

denying Mendoza’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 

3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. 

Mendoza’s motion sought relief pursuant to the United States Supreme 

Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), and our decision on 

remand in Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 

2161 (2017). This Court stayed Mendoza’s appeal pending the disposition of 

Hitchcock v. State, 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017). 
- 2 -

After this Court decided Hitchcock, Mendoza responded to this Court’s order to 

show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.

After reviewing Mendoza’s response to the order to show cause, as well as 

the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Mendoza is not entitled to relief. 

Mendoza was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a 

vote of seven to five. Mendoza v. State, 700 So. 2d 670, 673 (Fla. 1997). 

Mendoza’s sentence of death became final in 1998. Mendoza v. Florida, 525 U.S. 

839 (1998). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Mendoza’s sentence of 

death. See Hitchcock, 226 So. 3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of 

Mendoza’s motion.

The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Mendoza, we 

caution that any rehearing motion containing reargument will be stricken. It is so 

ordered.

LABARGA, C.J., and QUINCE, POLSTON, and LAWSON, JJ., concur.

PARIENTE, J., concurs in result with an opinion.

LEWIS and CANADY, JJ., concur in result.

PARIENTE, J., concurring in result.

I concur in result because I recognize that this Court’s opinion in Hitchcock 

v. State, 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017), is now 

final. However, I continue to adhere to the views expressed in my dissenting 

opinion in Hitchcock.
- 3 -

An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Dade County, 

Dava J. Tunis, Judge - Case No. 131992CF009940C000XX

Neal Dupree, Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Bryan E. Martinez, Staff 

Attorney, and Rachel L. Day, Assistant Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, 

Southern Region, Fort Lauderdale, Florida,

for Appellant

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, and Melissa J. Roca,

Assistant Attorney General, Miami, Florida,

for Appellee
#### Martha Neese v. F. E. Furry et al. F. E. Furry, Appellant, v. M. A. Neese, Appellee.

No. 39854.

November 21, 1929.

Rehearing Denied February 14, 1930.

*Peisen & Soper,*for appellant.

*Baker & Doran, O. G. Clause,*and *Bryson <& Bryson,*for appellee.

*855De Graee, J.

Plaintiff, Martha Neese, who was the wife of M. A. Neese, commenced this action on August 5, 1927, for personal injury alleged to have resulted from an automobile collision. The Neese ear was owned by M. A. Neese, the husband, and the other car in the collision was owned by F. E. Furry (defendant), and at the time of the collision, his wife, Mrs. F. E. Furry (codefendant), was riding with him. On September 10, 1927, the defendant F. E. Furry filed a cross-petition against the plaintiff’s husband, M. A. Neese. We therefore have this situation as to parties on this appeal: to wit, F. E. Furry, cross-petitioner and appellant, and M. A. Neese, defendant to cross-petition, and appellee.

To the cross-petition of F. E. Furry, the defendant-appellee, M. A. Neese, filed a demurrer. The trial court sustained generally the demurrer, and from this ruling the cross-petitioner, F. E. Furry, appeals. We deem it unnecessary, by reason of the dismissal of the appeal, to recite the allegations of the cross-petition or set out the grounds upon which the demurrer thereto was predicated.

The abstract of record discloses that, on February 7, 1929, the district court of Hardin County, Iowa, sustained the said demurrer, and gave to the cross-petitioner, F. E. Furry, an exception. The record contains no other showing, except that, on the 14th day of February, 1929, an appeal was taken, and service had in due form and manner, and that the notice of appeal was at said time deposited and filed in the office of the clerk of said court. It does not appear that the cross-petitioner elected to stand upon his pleadings, or suffered judgment to be entered against him. Had judgment for costs been entered against him when the demurrer was sustained, the cross-petitioner had a right to elect to stand on his pleadings, and appeal. He also had the right, prior to judgment, to elect to amend his pleadings, tailing the chance that further challenge would be made by the adverse parties. *Swartzendruber v. Polke,*205 Iowa 382.

An appeal does not lie from a ruling which sustains a demurrer unless the defeated party does one of two things: to wit, (1) elects to stand on his pleadings, or (2) suffers final judgment to be entered against him. *Devoe v. Dusey,*205 Iowa 1262.

Wherefore, the appeal *is*— Dismissed.

Albert, C. J., and Evans, Faville, and Kindig, JJ., concur.
#### NYCTL 1997-1 Trust et al., Respondents, v Oneg Shabbos, Inc., et al., Defendants, and Square Funding Corp., Appellant.

[772 NYS2d 848]

In an action to foreclose tax liens, the defendant Square Funding Corp. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), dated March 11, 2003, which denied its motion to cancel the notice of pendency filed in the action on the ground that a prior notice of pendency filed in the action had lapsed.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Administrative Code of City of NY § 11-335 provides that actions to foreclose tax liens shall be governed by the “rules of practice applicable to actions to foreclose mortgages on real property.” A new notice of pendency may be filed in a mortgage foreclosure action despite the cancellation of a previous notice of pendency *(see Horowitz v Griggs,*2 AD3d 404 [2003]; *Campbell v Smith,*309 AD2d 581 [2003]; *Slutsky v Blooming Grove Inn,*147 AD2d 208 [1989]). Smith, J.P., Goldstein, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.
#### Hughes, Administrator, Appellant, vs. Fetter and another, Respondents.

*September 28, 1951.*

The following was filed September 28, 1951:

Per Curiam.

On the second of May, 1950, this cause was heard here on appeal from the judgment of the circuit court for Milwaukee county. After argument by counsel, we ruled “that the judgment of the circuit court for Milwaukee county in this cause be and the same is hereby affirmed with costs against the said appellants, taxed at the sum of $104.50.” The case is reported in 257 Wis. 35, 42 N. W. (2d) 452.

On June 4, 1951, in proceedings on appeal to the United States supreme court our decision was overruled, and it was there ordered “that the said appellant, Corbin D. Hughes, administrator of the estate of Harold G. Hughes, recover from the respondents $320.93 for his costs herein expended and have execution therefor.” And it was further ordered “that this cause be and the same is hereby remanded to the supreme court of Wisconsin for proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion of this court.” *Hughes v. Fetter,*341 U. S. 609, 71 Sup. Ct. 980, 95 L. Ed. 1212.

*412After the filing of the mandate of the United States supreme court in this court on July 7, 1951, a stipulation was entered into between the parties and filed in this court on the 24th day of September, 1951, in which it was provided that this court enter an order:

> “1. Vacating, setting aside, and holding for naught the judgment of this court dated May 2, 1950, which affirmed the judgment of the circuit court for Milwaukee county granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissing plaintiff’s complaint on the merits.

> “2. Reversing the judgment of the circuit court for Milwaukee county, with directions to reinstate the above-entitled action, and for further proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion of the United States supreme court.”

It is accordingly ordered that our original mandate be set aside, and that the following mandate be entered:

The judgment of the circuit court for Milwaukee county is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to reinstate the above-entitled action and for further proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion of the United States supreme court.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    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

    In connection with the Quarterly Report of Yellow Hill Energy Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending October 31, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Craig Lindsay, Chief Executive 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 result of operations of
          the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
6th day of December, 2007.


/s/ Craig Lindsay
----------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
Dor- 6fcr-ZD©4 - WB A 

AIRLINE S 

September 13,2010 

Dennis J. DeVany 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

US Department of Transportation 

400 Seventh Street, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

SkyWest Airlines Essential Air Service Proposal for Pendleton, Oregon. 

Dear Mr. DeVany: 

Attached is the SkyWest Airlines proposal for service to Pendleton, Oregon. Our 

proposal is to provide 12 round trips per week to Portland, Oregon with no intermediate 

stops or aircraft flow from other cities. The service pattern will include two direct round 

trips per day on weekdays and one per day on weekends. Service will be provided with 

the Embraer Brasilia (EMB-120) 30-seat turboprop aircraft. The proposal period is for 

January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2012. 

These flights will be operated as United Express, pursuant to a code-sharing agreement 

with United Airlines, and will provide connections in Portland to the national 

transportation system. 

SkyWest welcomes the opportunity to provide reliable service if selected. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

Sincerely, 

fc 

Michael Thompson 

Vice President - Market Development 

SkyWest Airlines 
SkyWest Airlines 

Pendleton 

10-Sep-lO 

2011-2012 

Pendleton 

Portland 

Number of round-trips per week 

Aircraft Type - Embraer Brasilia 

Passenger Revenue 

Passengers 

Average Fare 

Revenue 

Block Time 

Trip block time - Minutes 

Total scheduled block time 

Total completed block time 

RPMS 

Passengers 

Stage Length 

ASMS 

Scheduled Departures 

Competed Departures 

Stage length 

Available Seats 

12 

98% 

$ 

$ 

9,500 

90.00 

855,000 

70 

1,456 

1,427 

9,500 

182 

98% 

1,729,000 

1,248 

1,223 

182 

30 

6,814,080 

Revenue 855,000 

Direct Operating Expenses 

Flight attendant 

RPM related 

Departure related 

ASM related 

Operating income (loss) 

5% profit margin 

Subsidy requirement 

SkyWest effective rates per unit 

Per trip 

Per passenger 

SkyWest cost per block hour 

Effective Subsidy rate per unit 

Per trip 

Per passenger 

SkyWest cost per block hour 

Load factor 

Average fuel cost per gallon 

BIkHr 

BIkHr 

RPMS 

Departures 

ASMS 

$ 

S 

S 

s $ 

1,153.19 

34.49 

0.01 

408.46 

0.04 

$ 

S 

$ 

S 

$ 

$ 

s 

$ 

1,645,460 

49,212 

21,843 

499,568 

263,097 

2,479,181 

(1,624,181) 

123,959 

1,748,140 

2,027 

261 

1,737 

1,429 

184 

1,737 

25% 

2.75
^` la C. yuvit 61 c, ..

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

PR 21-0004

IN RE PETITION OF DAN STUSEK FOR

REINSTATEMENT TO ACTIVE STATUS IN

THE BAR OF MONTANA

JUN 0 1 2721

Bovv,,r.

Clerk of Suprern, -- Court

State of Montana

ORDER

Dan Stusek has petitioned this Court for reinstatement to active status in the State

Bar of Montana. Stusek voluntarily took inactive bar membership on April 1, 2020. The

Petition states that Stusek is not currently subject to disciplinary proceedings, has not

committed any acts or omissions sanctionable under the Rules of Professional Conduct,

been charged with a criminal offense, accrued delinquent debt or filed for bankruptcy, or

failed to fulfill the obligations of a public office or professional license other than as an

attorney, while not on active status. Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition of Dan Stusek for reinstatement to

active status in the State Bar of Montana is GRANTED. Petitioner shall pay all dues, fees

and taxes owing to the State Bar, and shall submit to the Board of Continuing Legal

Education, P.O. Box 577, Helena, MT 59624, proof of attendance at fifteen (15) hours of

approved Continuing Legal Education to be credited to the time Petitioner was on inactive

status.

The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this order to the Petitioner and the State

Bar of Montana.

DATED this l day of June, 2021.

Chief Justice

/

06/01/2021

Case Number: PR 21-0004
Jf. or...44 3

/94 Al „al,.

Justices
|   | (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. |
|--------|-----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  |   | March      31, 2009                                                                                                                          |   |        /s/ Frederick L. Hickman |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------|
|   |   |        Frederick L. Hickman                                                                                                             |
|   |   |        President and Chief Executive Officer       (Principal Executive Officer and        Acting Principal FinancialOfficer) |

----
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

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

In connection withthe report of Prospect Medical Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the period ended September 30, 2005 (the “Report”), I, Mike Heather,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 Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)   The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.
| December 21, 2005 |   | /s/ MIKE HEATHER          |
|------------------------|--------|---------------------------|
|                   |   | Mike Heather              |
|                   |   | *Chief Financial Officer* |

 

----