alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 13.2
CERTIFICATION PURSUANTTO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
     In connection with the report of Claxson Interactive Group Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 20-F as furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), I, José Antonio Ituarte, Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adoptedpursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and result ofoperations of the Company.
Dated: July 15, 2004         By:                                           /s/ José Antonio Ituarte    Name:  José Antonio Ituarte    Title:  Chief Financial Officer
C.J.P., a Child,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-1279

_____________________________/

Opinion filed November 1, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Nassau County.

Robert M. Foster, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Lori A. Willner, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Heather Flanagan Ross, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WINOKUR, JAY, and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.
No. 82-1066.

#### United States *v.*Ptasynski et al.

Appeal from D. C. Wyo. Probable jurisdiction noted.
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-13-00200-CV 

ESTATE OF WILLIAM L. HASTINGS, DECEASED 

 

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 

Potter County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 28,773-1, Honorable W. F. (Corky) Roberts, Presiding 

 

October 30, 2013 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. 

Appellant Laura Ponder has filed a motion seeking voluntary dismissal of this 

appeal. The Court finds the motion complies with the requirements of Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 42.1(a)(1) and that granting the motion will not prevent any party from 

seeking relief to which it would otherwise be entitled.

Accordingly, and as no decision of the Court has been delivered to date, we 

grant appellant's motion to dismiss the appeal. The appeal is dismissed. No motion for 

rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith. See Tex. R. App. P. 
2

42.1(a)(1). The parties have not presented an agreement for taxation of costs. 

Therefore, costs are taxed against appellant. Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d).

James T. Campbell

 Justice
Appendix 1 to IAI Document 4412/CERT/004











Appendix 3 to IAI Document 4412/CERT/004
**1** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA SUPREME COURT CAUSE NO. DA 21
- 0051 STATE OF MONTANA, ) ) Pl aint iff/Appellees, ) ) **ORDER FOR** vs. ) **ADDITIONAL TIME FOR** ) **FILING OPENING BRIEF** MICHAEL BONACORSI, ) ) Defendant/Appellant. ) Upon review of the Defendant /Appellant First Motion for Addit io nal Ti me fo r Filing Opening Brief

, and good cause therefrom; It i s her eby

ORDERED that the Defendant /Appellant shall h ave an addi

ti onal thi rt y ( 3 0 ) day s fro m th e ori ginal due date to file thei

r Opening Brief. Defendant /Appellant Opening Brief will be due May 17 th , 2021
.

cc: Jami Rebso m Attorney General

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 16 2021

04/16/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0051
No. 90-593.

#### Kaiser *v.*United States Postal Service et al.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
# Official Journal C 177/9 Ju

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 177 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 479 July 2004 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 177

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 479 July 2004

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Commission |
| 2004/C 177/1 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2004/C 177/2 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case No COMP/M.3465 — Syngenta CP / Advanta) (1) | 2 |
| 2004/C 177/3 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case No COMP/M.3497 — Pfizer / Campto) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1) | 3 |
| 2004/C 177/4 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case No COMP/M.3414 — APAX/CAPMAN/SOLID) (1) | 4 |
| 2004/C 177/5 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case No COMP/M.3411 — UGC / NOOS) (1) | 4 |
| 2004/C 177/6 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case No COMP/M.3382 — IBERIA / COBRA INSTALACIONES / SERPISTA JV) (1) | 5 |
| 2004/C 177/7 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case No COMP/M.3460 — CHARTERHOUSE / AUTOBAR) (1) | 5 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Commission

2004/C 177/1

Euro exchange rates

1

2004/C 177/2

Prior notification of a concentration (Case No COMP/M.3465 — Syngenta CP / Advanta) (1)

2

2004/C 177/3

Prior notification of a concentration (Case No COMP/M.3497 — Pfizer / Campto) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1)

3

2004/C 177/4

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case No COMP/M.3414 — APAX/CAPMAN/SOLID) (1)

4

2004/C 177/5

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case No COMP/M.3411 — UGC / NOOS) (1)

4

2004/C 177/6

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case No COMP/M.3382 — IBERIA / COBRA INSTALACIONES / SERPISTA JV) (1)

5

2004/C 177/7

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case No COMP/M.3460 — CHARTERHOUSE / AUTOBAR) (1)

5

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
#### S. B. ALEXANDER and others v. WILLIAM JOHNSTON and others.

The successor of a former Clerk and Master, who received bonds given for the purchase of certain lands sold by the former, collected the same and misapplied the proceeds, is liable therefor on his official bond, although thére was no order for the former Clerk and Master to hand over such bonds to him.

Civil actioN, tried before Moore, J!, at the July (Special) Term, 1873, of MeceleNbubg Superior Court,

*296The defendants demurred to the complaint of the plaintiffs, apon the grounds stated in the opinion of the Court. His Honor overruled the demurrer, and the defendants appealed.

All the facts pertinent to the point decided, are set out in the opinion of the Court.

*McCorMe <£>■ Bailey,*for appellants.

*Jones do*Johnston, contra.

Settle, J.

One Dunlap, as Clerk and Master of the Court of Equity for Mecklenburg county, sold under an order of the-Court; certain lands for partition among the plaintiffs, and took bonds for the payment of the- purchase money. The sale was confirmed by the Court, and the Clerk and Master was ordered to collect the purchase money and make title.

These bonds then passed into the hands of Dunlap’s successor, A. C. Williamson, who collected' the money due thereon and misapplied the same by converting-it to his own use. This-action is brought against the- sureties on the official bond of Williamson for the recovery of the money thus misapplied, and comes before us by appeal from the order of his Honor overruling the demurrer to the complaint, and directing the defendants to- answer.

The principal cause of demurrer-assigned is, “that it appears from the complaint that the order of sale was made prior to-the appointment of said Williamson as Clerk and Master, and it does not appear that there was any order made directing-Dunlap, the former Clerk and Master, to- turn over the said notes to said Williamson to collect the purchase money,” &c-.

It appears that there was an order for the Clerk *&*Master to collect; and it is too clear for argument that Williamson received the bonds and also the money due upon them in bis official capacity, and that the plaintiffs have a right to> look to his bond for indemnity.

The judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed.

Let this be certified.

Pee CuRiAM. Judgment affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
No. 85204 

# FILE SEP 09 2022 LEIDIANNE L. BAUTISTA;AND CONSTANTINE S. NACAR, Appellants, VS. NEVADAASSOCIATION SERVICES, INC., A NEVADA CORPORATION;AND SATICOY BAY LLC SERIES 10449 FORKED RUN, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Resiondents. ELIZABETHA. BROWN CLERK aF S 1PREMECOURT BY DEPUTYCLERK

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA CLERK'S ORDER (0) 1947 ORDER DISMISSINGAPPEAL This appealwas docketed onAugust 23, 2022, without payment ofthe requisite filing fee. See NRAP 3(e). That same day, this court issued a notice directing appellants to pay the required filing fee or demonstrate compliance with NRAP 24 within 7 days. The notice advised that failure to comply would result in the dismissal of this appeal. To date, appellants have not paid the filing fee or otherwise responded to this court's notice. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. See NRAP 

### 3(0(2).

It is so ORDERED.

CLERKOFTHE SUPREME COURT ELIZABETH A. BROWN

cc: Hon. Adriana Escobar, District Judge Senior Counsel, LLC Brandon E. Wood Roger P. Croteau & Associates, Ltd. Eighth District Court Clerk
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURUSANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002







In connection with the Quarterly Report of PhytoMedical Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2009 (the “Report”), I, Raymond Krauss, 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.








Date:  May 14, 2009
/s/ Raymond KraussRaymond KraussChief Financial Officer
[Cite as State ex rel. Whitt v. Coshocton Common Pleas Court, 2013-Ohio-3550.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

COSHOCTON COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO, ex rel., STEPHEN H. 

WHITT 

 Relator 

-vsCOSHOCTON COMMON PLEAS 

COURT 

 Respondent 

JUDGES: 

Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P. J. 

Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J. 

Hon. John W. Wise, J. 

Case No. 2013CA0011 

O P I N I O N 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Petition for Writ of Mandamus 

JUDGMENT: Dismissed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: August 15, 2013 

APPEARANCES: 

For Relator For Respondent 

STEPHEN H. WHITT JASON W. GIVEN 

L. E. C. I. PROSECUTING ATTORNEY 

Post Office Box 56 318 Chestnut Street 

Lebanon, Ohio 45036 Coshocton, Ohio 43812 
Coshocton County, Case No. 2013CA0011 2

Wise, J. 

{¶1} Relator, Stephen H. Whitt, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus. 

Although it is not entirely clear what relief Relator seeks, the Court believes Relator is 

requesting the Respondent be ordered to cause certain people to be arrested on 

kidnapping charges. 

{¶2} Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss essentially arguing Relator has 

no clear legal right to the relief requested. 

{¶3} We find it unnecessary to address the claim raised in the Petition because 

we find Relator has failed to comply with the procedural requirements for a mandamus 

complaint. 

{¶4} Relator has failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25 by failing to file an affidavit 

detailing his prior civil filings. The Supreme Court has held, “[t]he requirements of R.C. 

2969.25 are mandatory, and failure to comply with them subjects an inmate's action to 

dismissal.” State ex rel. White v. Bechtel, 99 Ohio St.3d 11, 2003–Ohio–2262, 788 

N.E.2d 634, ¶ 5. Noncompliance with R.C. 2969.25 warrants dismissal. State ex rel. 

Graham v. Niemeyer (2005), 106 Ohio St.3d 466, 106–467, 835 N.E.2d 1250, 1251. 

 
Coshocton County, Case No. 2012CA0011 3

{¶5} Relator's failure to include the affidavit requires dismissal of this case. For 

this reason, the Petition for Writ of Mandamus is dismissed. 

By: Wise, J. 

Gwin, P. J., and 

Farmer, J., concur. 

 ___________________________________ 

 HON. JOHN W. WISE 

 ___________________________________ 

 HON. W. SCOTT GWIN 

 ___________________________________ 

 HON. SHEILA G. FARMER 

JWW/d 0722 
Coshocton County, Case No. 2013CA0011 4

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR COSHOCTON COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO, ex rel., STEPHEN H. : 

WHITT : 

 : 

 Relator : 

 : 

-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY 

 : 

COSHOCTON COMMON PLEAS COURT : 

 : 

 Respondent : Case No. 2013CA0011 

 For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the Petition 

for Writ of Mandamus filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Coshocton County, Ohio, is 

dismissed. 

 Costs assessed to Relator. 

 ___________________________________ 

 HON. JOHN W. WISE 

 ___________________________________ 

 HON. W. SCOTT GWIN 

 ___________________________________ 

 HON. SHEILA G. FARMER
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent ofIndependent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consent to thereference to our firm under the caption “Selected Consolidated Financial Data”and to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement(Form S-8, No. 333-138541) pertaining to the Amended andRestated 2000 Equity Incentive Plan, the 2006 Equity Incentive Plan and the2006 Director Option Plan of Acme Packet, Inc., of our report datedMarch 7, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financial statements ofAcme Packet, Inc., included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K)for the year ended December 31, 2006.
|                                            | /s/ Ernst & Young LLP |
|--------------------------------------------|---------------------------|
| Boston, Massachusetts  March 13, 2007 |                      |

 

----
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

# Readout of Assistant Secretary of Defense Ely Ratner's Call with Mongolia Vice Minister of Defense Bayarmagnai

DoD Release

WASHINGTON -- Assistant Secretary of Defense for Indo-Pacific Security Affairs, Dr. Ely Ratner, held a telephone call with his Mongolian counterpart, Vice Minister of Defense B. Bayarmagnai to commemorate the 35th anniversary of U.S.-Mongolia diplomatic relations, 27 January 2022.Dr. Ratner highlighted the importance of the U.S.-Mongolia defense relationship and reiterated the United States’ commitment to strengthening defense cooperation moving forward. Dr. Ratner also thanked Mongolia for its contributions alongside U.S. and coalition partners in Afghanistan, and for Mongolian contributions to peacekeeping operations around the world. 

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More
Exhibit 99.6



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350,

AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Stantec Inc. (the Company) is filing its annual report on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 (the
Report) with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.

I, Robert J. Gomes, President and Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as enacted 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; 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:  February 26, 2014 |  |  |  | /s/ Robert J. Gomes                 |  | 
|                         |  |  |  | ROBERT J. GOMES, P. ENG             |  | 
|                         |  |  |  | President & Chief Executive Officer |  |
July 15, 2014

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

RICHARD POWELL, Appellant

NO. 14-14-00323-CV V.

YOEN NAVARETTE CARDENAS, Appellee

________________________________

Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the 

judgment signed by the court below on January 27, 2014. Having considered the 

motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

appellant, Richard Powell.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
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 Quarterly Report of Westell Technologies, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, E. Van Cullens, 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 based on his knowledge:

                  (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 as of and for the periods covered in the
         Report.



/s/ E. Van Cullens
E. Van Cullens
Chief Executive Officer
November 14, 2002
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

36 38 40 

### ★
▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 06/17 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 17 Jun 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.92 N 77.01 WMeters AGL
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-93,141-01

EX PARTE EVER RICARDO MARTINEZ, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. W366-84380-2019-HC IN THE 366TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM COLLIN COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Applicant was convicted of continuous sexual abuse of a child and sentenced to forty-five

years’ imprisonment. He filed this application for a writ of habeas corpus in the county of

conviction, and the district clerk forwarded it to this Court. SeeTEX.CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07.

Applicant contends that he was denied his right to an appeal because counsel failed to timely

file a notice of appeal. The trial court has found that Applicant was denied his right to appeal

through no fault of his own. This finding is supported by the record, which shows that trial counsel

failed to file an appeal on Applicant’s behalf, despite Applicant expressly requesting them to do so.

Relief is granted. Ex parte Axel, 757 S.W.2d 369 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988); Jones v. State,

98 S.W.3d 700 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). Applicant may file an out-of-time appeal of his conviction
2

in cause number 366-84380-2019 from the 366th District Court of Collin County. Within ten days

from the date of this Court’s mandate, the trial court shall determine whether Applicant is indigent. 

If Applicant is indigent and wants to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall appoint counsel

to represent him on direct appeal. Should Applicant decide to appeal, he must file a written notice

of appeal in the trial court within thirty days from the date of this Court’s mandate.

Copies ofthis opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–Correctional

Institutions Division and the Board of Pardons and Paroles. 

Delivered: November 3, 2021

Do not publish
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7000
ANTHONY MCQUEEN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus CLINTON E. FLOYD, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-98-323-5-BR) Submitted: February 25, 1999 Decided: March 8, 1999 Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony McQueen, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Anthony McQueen seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we denya certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See McQueen v. Floyd , No. CA-98-323- 5-BR (E.D.N.C. June 16, 1998). 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