alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 99.02**

**ZAMBA CORPORATION**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIALOFFICER PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)**

 

Each of the undersigned,Norman D. Smith and Michael H. Carrel, the Chief Executive Officer and theChief Financial Officer, respectively, of Zamba Corporation (the “Company”),individually and not jointly has executed this Certification in connection withthe filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Company’s QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2002 (the “Report”).

 

Each of the undersignedhereby certifies that:

 

•      theReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

•      the information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each ofthe undersigned has executed this Certification as of the 14th day of August, 2002.
|   |   |   |   | /s/ Norm Smith                             |
|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------|
|   |   |   |   | Norman D. Smith  Chief Executive Officer   |
|   |   |   |   |                                       |
|   |   |   |   | /s/ Michael H. Carrel                      |
|   |   |   |   | Michael H. Carrel  Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT MAY 9, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1382 8

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 04-80132 CV -W PD COMM ODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISS ION, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us CHA RL ES I. FRE MER , JAYSON S. KLINE, et al ., D ef en dants -Appe llants .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ ( May 9, 200 5) Be fo re A N D E RS O N , H U L L a nd G IB SO N *, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: W e decline to address the applicabilityof Regulation § 32 .9, because that

____ ____ ____ ____ ___ * Honora ble J ohn R. Gibson, United States Circuit J udg e for the Eig hth Circuit, sit ting by desig nation .2

issue was not raised in the district court. Appellants m ay request that the district co ur t ad dr es s t he is su e o n re m an d. W ith respect to the m erits, we have car efully considered the several ar gum en ts o f ap pe llants , both inbr ie f an d a t or al a rg um en t. H ow ev er , w e re ad ily co nc lud e that the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a buse it s di sc re tio n ingr an tin g th e pr el im inary

inj unc tio n. A cc or din gly , the j udgm en t of the dis tr ic t c ourt i s AFFIRMED.
#### John E. BURGESS, Plaintiff-counterclaim-defendant-Appellant, v. Dennis MINENI, Defendant-counter-claimant-plaintiff-Appellee, *588United States of America, Counter-defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-16770

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 14, 2017 *

Filed February 27, 2017

John E. Burgess, Pro Se

Dennis Mineni, Pro Se

Nathaniel S. Pollock, Attorney, Thomas J. Clark, Supervisory Attorney, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division/Appellate Section, Washington, DC, for Counter-defendant-Appellee

Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App, P, 34(a)(2),

MEMORANDUM ***

John E. Burgess appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment for the United States in his breach of contract action against Mineni. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

In his opening brief, Burgess fails to address how the district court erred in granting summary judgment and, thus, this issue is waived. *See Wilcox v. Comm’r,*848 F.2d 1007, 1008 n.2 (9th Cir. 1988) (arguments not raised on appeal by pro se litigant deemed abandoned); *see also Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle,*7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1993) (issues not supported by argument in pro se appellant’s- opening brief are waived).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

***

 -phis disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Randy Arlan MAINWARING, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-30084

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2017 *

Filed March 14, 2017

Amy Potter, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eugene, OR, Kelly A. Zusman, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-USAO, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Bear Wilner-Nugent, Esquire, Attorney, Bear Wilner-Nugent, Counselor & Attorney at Law LLC, Portland, OR, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Randy Arlan Mainwaring appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 28-month sentence imposed *550upon his third revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Mainwaring contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Mainwaring’s sentence. *See Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The above-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Mainwaring’s repeated breaches of the court’s trust and his unsuitability for supervised release. *See Gall, 552*U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586; *United States v. Simtob,*485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
EXHIBIT NO. 32.1





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 Greenworld Development, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Leo Heinl, 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the  financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date: March 31, 2011
By:
/s/ Leo HeinlLeo HeinlChief Executive OfficerChief Financial Officer





_________________________


A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been provided  to  Echo Resources,  Inc.  and  will  be  retained  by  Echo Resources,  Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1493 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1493

   To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 to modify a 
            provision relating to acquisition of beach fill.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 2, 2021

 Mr. Diaz-Balart introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
           the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 to modify a 
            provision relating to acquisition of beach fill.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Sand Acquisition, Nourishment, and 
Development Act'' or the ``SAND Act''.

SEC. 2. ACQUISITION OF BEACH FILL.

    Section 935 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 
U.S.C. 2299) is amended by striking ``if such materials are not 
available from domestic sources for environmental or economic 
reasons''.
                                 <all>
```
BY ELIZABE A BROWN CLE F R E No. 82187 

# FILED SEP 1 2021

DEPUTY CLERK

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 1(1) 1947A Pickering IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA SHAD COTTELLI, Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE JACQUELINE M. BLUTH, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and CHIEH-SHENG LIN, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION This original petition for a writ of prohibition challenges a district court order denying without an evidentiary hearing a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Having considered the petition and its supporting documentation, we are not persuaded on this record that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted at this time. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (observing that the party seeking writ relief bears the burden of showing such relief is warranted); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991) (recognizing that writ relief is an extraordinary remedy and that this court has sole discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ petition). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

Cadish
, J.

4 ' 4 5 • , •‘" (k • Herndon

' 

## - 

## 2

,cc: Hon. Jacqueline M. Bluth, District Judge Garg Golden Law Firm Anderson McPharlin & Conners LLP/Las Vegas Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 2 I 947A

• -•
•
#### APPISTRY, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant v. AMAZON.COM, INC., Amazon Web Services, Inc., Defendants-Appellees

2016-2417

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

February 10, 2017

*1009Anthony G. Simon, The Simon Law Firm, P.C., St. Louis, MO, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by Timothy David Krieger, Benjamin R. Askew, Michael P. Kella.

Alan M. Fisch, Fisch Sigler, LLP, Washington, DC, argued for defendants-appellees. Also represented by Roy William Sigler, Jennifer Robinson, Jeffrey Matthew Saltman; David M. Saunders, San Jose, GA.

(Lourie, Hughes, and Stoll, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
**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 Tasker Capital Corp. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Lanny
      Dacus, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Stathis Kouninis, Chief
      Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
      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 as of and for
      the periods presented in the Report.





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.


April
              2,
              2007
            
            /s/ Lanny
              DacusLanny
              DacusChief
              Executive Officer




April
              2,
              2007
            
            /s/ Stathis
              KouninisStathis
              KouninisChief
              Financial Officer
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.40




ASSURED GUARANTY LTD.


DESCRIPTION OF 2019 EXECUTIVE OFFICER CASH COMPENSATION


Set forth below are the 2019 annual salaries of the Executive Officers to be named in the compensation tables in Assured Guaranty’s 2019 proxy statement, which will be filed with the SEC not later than 120 days after the close of the fiscal year pursuant to regulation 14A, and who serve as Executive Officers as of the date of this filing. 




 
	
		
	Executive Officer
	Salary

	

Dominic J. Frederico
President and Chief Executive Officer
	$1,250,000

	

Robert A. Bailenson
Chief Financial Officer
	$700,000

	

Russell B. Brewer II
Chief Surveillance Officer
	$525,000

	

Ling Chow
General Counsel and Secretary
	$525,000

	

Bruce E. Stern
Executive Officer
	$500,000






The named executive officers will also be eligible for the following:


	
		
	 
	 

	•
	To be considered to receive equity and non-equity incentive compensation for 2019 performance.






	
		
	 
	 

	•
	To receive other annual compensation and benefits, including employer contributions to retirement plans.
Javarious THOMAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D16-4689

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 2, 2018

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, Carrie McMullen, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee; Kevin Robert Alvarez of Law Office of Kevin Alvarez, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Julian E. Markham, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Roberts, Rowe, and Winokur, JJ., concur.
#### Laurence KAPLAN, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SAINT PETER’S HEALTHCARE SYSTEM; Ronald C. Rak; Susan Ballestero, an individual; Garrick Stoldt, an individual; John and Jane Does 1-20 Saint Peter’s Healthcare System, Ronald C. Rak, Susan Ballestero, Garrick Stoldt, Appellants

No. 15-1172

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

On Remand from the Supreme Court of the United States on July 7, 2017

Submitted on Remand July 7, 2017

Dated: July 13, 2017

Monya M. Bunch, Esq., Karen L. Han-dorf, Esq., Matthew A. Smith, Esq., Daniel S. Sommers, Esq., Michelle C. Yau, Esq., Cohen Milstein, Washington, DC, Ron Kil-gard, Esq., Keller Rohrback, Phoenix, AZ, Lynn L. Sarko, Esq., Havila C. Unrein, Esq., Keller Rohrback, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Jeffrey J. Greenbaum, Esq., James M. Hirsehhorn, Esq., Sills Cummis & Gross, Newark, NJ, Katherine M. Lieb, Esq., Sills Cummis & Gross, New York, NY, for Defendants-Appellants

Patrick C. Elliott, Esq., Freedom from' Religion Foundation, Madison,. WI, for Amicus Appellee Freedom From Religion Foundation Inc

Richard B. Katskee, Esq., Americans United for Separation of Church & State, Washington, DC, Daniel Mach, Esq., American Civil Liberties Union, Washington, DC, for Amicus Appellee Americans United for Separation of Church and State

Mark E. Chopko, Esq., Stradley Ronon Stevens *&*Young, Washington, DC, for Amicus Appellant Catholic Health Association of the United States

Daniel Mach, Esq., American Civil Liberties Union, Washington, DC, for Amicus Appellees American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

Jeremy P. Blumenfeld, Esq., Melissa D. Hill, Esq., Morgan Lewis *&*Bockius, Philadelphia, PA, for Amicus Appellant Catholic Health East

Jared M. Haynie, Esq., Chipman Glas-ser, Denver, CO, James A. Sonne, Esq., Stanford Law School, Religious Liberty Clinic, Stanford, CA, for Amicus Appellant Becket Fund for Religious Liberty

Mary E. Signorille, Esq., AARP Foundation Litigation, Washington, DC, for Amicus Appellee AARP

Hugh S. Balsam, Esq., Locke Lord, Chicago, IL, for Amicus Appellant Guidestone Financial Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention

Roberta L. Steele, Esq., National Employment Lawyers Association, Oakland, *99CA, for Amicus Appellee National Employment Lawyers Association

Richard H. Frankel, Esq., Drexel University, Thomas R. Kline School of Law, Philadelphia, PA, for Amicus Appellee Pension Rights Center

Present: McKEE, AMBRO, and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges

ORDER

Thomas L. Ambro, Circuit Judge

By opinion and judgment dated June 5, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States ordered the judgment of this Court entered December'29, 2015 be reversed. *Advocate Health Care Network, et al. v. Stapleton, et al.,*— U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 1652, 198 L.Ed.2d 96 (2017).

In accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court, the opinion and judgment of this Court are hereby vacated. It is further ADJUDGED AND ORDERED that the judgment of the District Court dated March 31, 2014 is hereby reversed. Costs are taxed in favor of the Appellants.
#### Gloria Maria MONTOYA DE SOTO, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 13-70564

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2017 *

Filed March 15, 2017

Vikram Badrinath, Esquire, Attorney, Vikram Badrinath, PC, Tucson, AZ, for Petitioner

Lynda Do, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice,. Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R, App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Gloria Maria Montoya de Soto, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying adjustment of status. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. *Garfias-Rodriguez v. Holder,*702 F.3d 504, 512 n.6 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). We grant the petition for review and remand.

At the time the BIA determined that *Matter of Briones,*24 I. & N. Dec. 355 (BIA 2007), applied retroactively to render Montoya de Soto ineligible to adjust status, the BIA did not have the benefit of this court’s decision in *Acosta-Olivarria v. Lynch,*799 F.3d 1271, 1274-77 (9th Cir. 2015). Like the petitioner in *Acosta-Olivarria,*Montoya de Soto applied for adjustment of status during the 21-month window between *Acosta v. Gonzales,*439 F.3d 550 (9th Cir. 2006) (permitting adjustment of status for an alien inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(I)), and *Briones,*when' it was reasonable for Montoya de Soto to rely on our decision in *Acosta. See Acosta-Olivarria,*799 F.3d at 1274-77. As there is no significant factual basis to distinguish Montoya de Soto’s situation from the one presented in *Acosta-Olivarria,*we *553remand to the agency to reconsider her contention in light of *Acosta-Olivarria.*

In light of this disposition, we do not reach Montoya de Soto’s remaining contentions.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
EXHIBIT 11

                              THE FINOVA GROUP INC.
                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                  (Dollars in Thousands, except per share data)


                                                   Three Months Ended March 31,
                                                  -----------------------------
                                                                       1998
                                                      1999           restated
                                                  ------------     ------------
BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE COMPUTATION:

Net income                                        $     50,057     $     39,741
                                                  ============     ============

Weighted average shares outstanding                 56,545,000       56,414,000
Contingently issued shares                            (251,000)        (276,000)
                                                  ------------     ------------
Adjusted weighted average shares                    56,294,000       56,138,000
                                                  ============     ============

Basic Earnings per share                          $       0.89     $       0.71
                                                  ============     ============

DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE COMPUTATION:

Net income                                        $     50,057     $     39,741
Preferred dividends, net of tax                            946              946
                                                  ------------     ------------
Income before preferred dividends                 $     51,003     $     40,687
                                                  ============     ============

Weighted average shares outstanding                 56,545,000       56,414,000
Contingently issued shares                            (167,000)        (135,000)
Incremental shares from assumed conversions:
Stock options                                        2,002,000        1,862,000
Convertible preferred securities                     2,938,000        2,938,000
                                                  ------------     ------------
Total potential dilutive common shares               4,940,000        4,800,000
                                                  ------------     ------------
Adjusted weighted average shares                    61,318,000       61,079,000
                                                  ============     ============

Diluted earnings per share                        $       0.83     $       0.67
                                                  ============     ============
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

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

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Zamba Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael H. Carrel, ExecutiveVice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1)              The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

2)              The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed thisCertification as of the 12th day of November 2003.
|   | /s/ Michael H. Carrel                                  |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Michael H. Carrel                                      |
|   | Executive Vice  President and Chief Financial  Officer |

 

----