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

**EXHIBIT 12.1**

**SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION**

I, Daniel Clozza, certify that:

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F/A of Forum
National Investments Ltd.;

Based on my knowledge, this annual 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
annual report;

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this annual 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 annual
report;

The company's other certifying officers and I am responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

Evaluated the effectiveness of the company'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 annual report based on such evaluations; and

Disclosed in this report any change in the companys internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the
annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the companys internal control over financial reporting:
and

The company's other certifying officers and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the company's auditors and the audit committee of the company's
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

All significant deficiencies and material weakness in the
design or operation of internal control of financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
controls over financial reporting.



|Date: January 14, 2010 | /s/
      Daniel Clozza                                  
|---------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------
|                       | Daniel Clozza, Chief Executive Officer and
      Director

---
#### STATE v. B. JOHNSTON.

*Comments of Govmsel*— Larceny.

“If the defendant did not make the tracks, who did? ' If he did not make them, and they were made by another, the defendant ought to show it” ; *Held,*that these remarks of the solicitor in his argument to the jury on a trial for larceny, where there was proof that the tracks about the premises corresponded with those made by the defendant at another time and place, were not objectionable, especially when the exception is taken after verdict.

*624INDICTMENT for larceny tried at Fall Term, 1882, of Mecjk-denbueg- Superior court, before *Graves, J.*

There was a verdict of guilty, and a motion for a new trial. The motion was overruled and sentence pronounced by the court, from which the defendant appealed.

*Attorney-General,*for the State.

*Messrs. Jones & Johnston,*for defendant.

Ashe, J.

Besides other evidence offered on the part of the prosecution tending to show the guilt of the defendant, the state made proof that tracks were found on the outside of the house in a bank of ashes just under the window, which had been opened; that the tracks came from and led back to the house of the defendant; that they were peculiar, one being longer than the other, one shoe square-toed and the other round, and in one of the shoes the big toe protruded and made an impression on the ground; that the tracks corresponded, in size and in detail, with the tracks made by the defendant in the field where he was ploughing the next day. The defendant offered no evidence.

The solicitor in his argument said, “if the defendant did not make the tracks, who did? If the defendant did not make them, if they were made by another, the defendant ought to show it.”

There was no exception taken at the time to these remarks, but after verdict they were made the ground for the motion for a new trial, the defendant contending that the solicitor had gone beyond his duty, and violated the provision of law, which forbids conuneut on the fact that the prisoner does not offer himself as a witness.

We do not appreciate the force of the exception. W’e are unable to see how the remarks of the solicitor are obnoxious to the objection made by the defendant. If the tracks were in fact made by any other person than the defendant, it was quite as competent for him to prove that fact by other witnesses who were acquainted with the tracks of that other person, as by himself. *625There was nothing in the remarks which necessarily lead to the conclusion that the tracks, if made by another, must be proved by the witness himself.

We are of the opinion the remarks of the solicitor were unobjectionable, and that there is no- ground for a *venire de novo.*There is no error. Let this be certified, &c.

No error. Affirmed. ,
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         134,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,652,000
<ALLOWANCES>                               (1,860,000)
<INVENTORY>                                 12,562,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            18,774,000
<PP&E>                                       4,643,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             (3,423,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              25,096,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,691,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        47,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  14,944,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                25,096,000
<SALES>                                     23,520,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            23,520,000
<CGS>                                       14,158,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,170,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             333,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,859,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                    65,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,794,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .82
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .80
        

</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

APOLINAR HERNANDEZ-CRUZ, AKA 

Apolinar Cruz, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 19-73015 

Agency No. A200-248-408 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 14, 2020**

Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

Apolinar Hernandez-Cruz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for 

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an 

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of 

removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUL 23 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 19-73015 

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process 

violations in immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th 

Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.

Hernandez-Cruz does not challenge the agency’s denial of asylum, 

withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 

1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a 

party’s opening brief are waived). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to 

Hernandez-Cruz’s asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims. 

Hernandez-Cruz’s claim that the use of a Spanish interpreter in his removal 

proceedings violated his due process rights fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 

1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (a petitioner must show error and prejudice to prevail on a 

due process claim); see also Bartolome v. Sessions, 904 F.3d 803, 811 n.8 (9th Cir. 

2018) (rejecting due process claim based on translation issues where a review of 

the transcript did not evince translation issues). 

Hernandez-Cruz’s motion for a stay of removal (Docket Entry No. 1) is 

denied as moot. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
No. 47—2317.

#### Albert Hurzfield et al. v. David Cohen.

As the court finds no support in the record for any of the points raised on behalf of appellants, the judgment is affirmed.

Judge below, John G. Rogers.

Attorneys, for appellants, Messrs. Flower, Remy & Gregory and Mr. Fred. L. Brooks ;

for appellee, Messrs. Byam, Wein-SOHENK & GrIESBURG.

Opinion Per Curiam.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 14, 2019

No. 04-18-00968-CV

In the Estate of Patricia M. Ripley, Deceased,

Appellant-s

From the Probate Court No 2, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018-PC-1990

Honorable Tom Rickhoff, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice 

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice 

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

The Appellant’s Motion to Extend Time to File Motion for rehearing is hereby 

GRANTED. 

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 14th day of October, 2019.

___________________________________

LUZ ESTRADA,

Chief Deputy Clerk
### -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

36 38 40 

## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 

### 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 06/26 

## NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

# Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 26 Jun 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 39.56 N 76.20 WMeters AGL 

## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■



## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■ 

## ★ ● ● ● ●



## ★ ● ● ● ●
EXHIBIT 32.2

                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 Falcon Ridge
Development, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31,
2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Quarterly Report"), I, Karen Y. Duran, 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 Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
          13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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


                                               /s/ Karen Y. Duran
                                               --------------------------------
                                               Name:    Karen Y. Duran
                                               Title:   Chief Financial Officer
                                               Date:    May 2, 2006
```

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 160 (Thursday, October 2, 2008)]
[House]
[Page H10645]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                                 PRAYER

  Rev. Dr. Barry C. Black, Chaplain, United States Senate, offered the 
following prayer:
  Almighty God, guide our lawmakers through this day with Your higher 
wisdom. May faith replace fear, truth arise over falsehood, justice 
triumph over greed, love prevail over hate, and peace conquer strife.
  Guide us, O God of power and strength. We are weak, but You are 
mighty. Lead us with Your powerful hand.
  Strong Deliverer, intervene in these crisis circumstances and give us 
Your peace. Make the Members of this body part of Your answer for the 
problems of our time. Show them what You want them to do, and may they 
leave the results to You. You are Lord and Savior. Amen.

                          ____________________
```
Exhibit
23






Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm




We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-136638) pertaining to the American Community Properties Trust
Employees' share incentive plan and to American Community Properties Trust
Trustees’ share incentive plan, of our report dated March 13, 2008, with respect
to the consolidated financial statements and schedules of American Community
Properties Trust, incorporated by reference in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for
the year ended December 31, 2007.






/s/
Ernst & Young LLP






McLean,
Virginia


March 13,
2008
EXHIBIT 10.10



                                 January 1, 2003


Dr. Arol I. Buntzman
35 E. Grassy Sprain Road
Suite 200
Yonkers, NY 10710

Dear Arol:

         This will confirm our agreement regarding the shares of capital stock
of EVCI Career Colleges Incorporated owned by us. Until December 31, 2005 all of
such shares shall be voted as you direct on any matter requiring the vote or
consent of shareholders.


                                               Sincerely yours,


                                               /S/ DR. JOHN J. MCGRATH
                                               --------------------------
                                               Dr. John J. McGrath




AGREED:

/S/ DR. AROL I. BUNTZMAN
---------------------------
Dr. Arol I. Buntzman
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 460 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 460

To designate the United States courthouse located at 401 South Michigan 
  Street in South Bend, Indiana, as the ``Robert K. Rodibaugh United 
                    States Bankruptcy Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 24, 1999

   Mr. Lugar introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To designate the United States courthouse located at 401 South Michigan 
  Street in South Bend, Indiana, as the ``Robert K. Rodibaugh United 
                    States Bankruptcy Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF ROBERT K. RODIBAUGH UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY 
              COURTHOUSE.

    The United States courthouse located at 401 South Michigan Street 
in South Bend, Indiana, shall be known and designated as the ``Robert 
K. Rodibaugh United States Bankruptcy Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States courthouse referred to 
in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Robert K. 
Rodibaugh United States Bankruptcy Courthouse''.
                                 <all>
```
#### In re Will *of*Middleton.

1. Will: peobatb: notice. No other or further notice than that contemplated by § 2341 of the Code is necessary to give the circuit court jurisdiction proceedings for the probate of a will.

2. -:-: review: remedy. The proper method to review an order for the probate of a will is by appeal therefrom, or by an original action, (Code, § 2353; *Leighton v. Orr,*44 Iowa, 679,) and not by motion to set aside.

3.-:-: other orders to protect Ricuras. Upon the probate of a will, the court may make such other orders as may he necessary to protect the rights of the parties.

*425*Appeal from Wapello Circuit Court.*

Thursday, October 6.

The defendants filed a motion in tbe circuit court to set aside the probate of the will involved in this case. The motion was overruled. Defendants appeal.

*Williams <&*Jaques, for appellant.

*McNett*& Tisdale, for appellee.

Beck, J.

I. The will involved in the case disposes of personal property, and is nuncupative. It was admitted to probate upon a notice by publication, required by Code, § 2341. Soon after, the defendants filed a motion to set aside the order of probate, on the grounds that no notice was served upon the defendants, — one of them being the administrator of the estate; that the value of the property bequeathed exceeds $300; and that “the order covers more than the mere probate of the will.” The motion was overruled.

II. The notice of the presentation' of the will for probate was by publication, and conforms to the requirements of section 2341 of the Code. No other, or further notice was required to give the circuit court jurisdiction in the proceed ings for the probate of the will. *Farrell v. Leighton,*49 Iowa, 174.

III. The record does not contain the evidence submitted to the circuit court in the probate proceedings. We cannot, therefore, consider the objection made by defendants, to the effect that the value of the property exceeded $300, the limit of the disposition of personal property by nuncupative wills. (Code, § 2324.) Affidavits were filed, in support of the motion, tending to show that the value -of the property covered by the will exceeded $300. These affidavits were *ex*parte, and filed in support of a motion not authorized by the statute; there being no provision under which the order for the probate of a will may be assailed in that way. *426Defendants’ remedy to review tbe order is by appeal therefrom, or by an original action. Code, § 2353; *Leighton v.*Orr, 44 Iowa, 679.

IV. The last ground of the motion, we presume, is based upon the fact that by the order of probate the personal property bequeathed was required to be held for the use of the testator’s widow, and at her death to go to plaintiff. • The will, as established by the order of probate, gave the widow the use of the property during her life-time, and at her death directs that the property shall go to plaintiff. The court’s order was correct, as the rights of the parties could not have been protected in any other way.

The judgment of the circuit court is

Aebtemed.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-50231

Summary Calendar

DAVID R. SALINAS,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

CHARLEY VALDEZ, Director/Supervisor of Classification and Records / In his 

Individual Capacity; JONI WHITE, Director/Supervisor of Classification and 

Records / In his Individual Capacity,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:13-CV-10

Before REAVLEY, JONES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

David R. Salinas, Texas prisoner # 1700761, appeals the district court’s 

dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous and for failure to state 

a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B). We review the 

district court’s dismissal de novo. See Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 373 (5th 

Cir. 2005). 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 6, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-50231 Document: 00512524932 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/06/2014
No. 13-50231

If his brief is liberally construed, Salinas asserts that the district court’s 

dismissal was error, urging that he stated a cognizable due-process claim 

regarding the denial of credit for time served in federal custody and that Heck

v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), does not bar the claim. He additionally 

contends that the district court’s dismissal of his suit violated his 

constitutional right to a jury trial.

Salinas briefs no argument challenging the district court’s dismissal of 

his claims regarding the denial of good-conduct and work time, the denial of 

release to mandatory supervision, or retaliation, nor does he otherwise renew 

those claims or his Eighth Amendment claim; these claims are therefore 

abandoned. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); 

Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 

1987).

Salinas fails to demonstrate any error on the district court’s part in 

dismissing his lawsuit. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A. Accordingly, 

the district court’s judgment is affirmed. 

AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 13-50231 Document: 00512524932 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/06/2014
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 quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Flexpoint Sensor Systems, Inc. (the Company) for the period ending June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), we, Clark M. Mower, Chief Executive Officer, and Thomas N. Strong, Chief Financial Officer of our 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 result of operations of the Company.  Dated: August  14, 2009 /s/Clark M. Mower Clark M. Mower Chief Executive Officer   Dated: August 14, 2009 /s/Thomas N. Strong Thomas N. Strong Chief Financial Officer