alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NAME OF ORGANIZATION
    
    JURISDICTIONATG Global, Inc.
    
    MassachusettsArt Technology Group B.V.
    
    NetherlandsArt Technology Group, S.A.R.L.
    
    FranceArt Technology Group (Europe) Limited
    
    United KingdomATG (Northern Ireland) Limited
    
    Northern IrelandArt Technology Group GmbH
    
    GermanyArt Technology Group (Canada) Inc.
    
    CanadaPrimus Knowledge Solutions, Inc.
    
    WashingtoneStara Inc.
    
    MarylandeStara E
    
    FranceArt Technology Group Asia Pte. Ltd.
    
    SingaporeeShopperTools.com, Inc.
    
    Oregon
Exhibit 13.1

 

MICROMEM TECHNOLOGIES INC.

CERTIFICATION OF JOSEPH FUDA, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OFMICROMEM TECHNOLOGIES INC., PURSUANT TO SECTION 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 Micromem Technologies Inc. (the"Company") on Form 20-F/A for the period ending October 31, 2004, as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), theundersigned hereby certifies that to the best of his knowledge: 

1.    The Report fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and 
2.     The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company. 

 
    Date:    June 22, 2005      /s/ JOSEPH FUDA  Name:Joseph Fuda  Title:Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit
23.1





CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS





We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement No.
333-124568 on Form S-8 of our report dated April 15, 2009, relating to the
financial statements of Hemiwedge Industries, Inc., which appear in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K of Hemiwedge Industries, Inc. for the year ended December
31, 2008.





/s/
Malone & Bailey, PC





Malone
& Bailey, PC


www.malone-bailey.com


Houston,
Texas





April 15,
2009
Porfirio RIVERA, DOC# 721446, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3627

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 20, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Adams, Kevin (OST) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Cc: 

Subject: 

Kevin/DennisSinick, Marshall S. < Marshaii.Sinick@squiresanders.com> 

Thursday, November 08, 2012 11:47 AM 

Adams, Kevin (OST) 

Devany, Dennis (OST) 

EAS--SE Alaska RFP--Request for Extension of Time ..... ) 

~ §i~ a~~ ~ c5 :=;:J rn:::nr:F; -o ~>!z :::--.:::=!--1 

~·ro(::> r;:J ,_J"""-'··-n 

r-.J ~33 .c-_ 

On behalf of Alaska Airlines, I am requesting an extension of the current propgsal submission 

date from Nov 26 until Jan 8. This request is occasioned by a combination of the intervening 

holiday/vacation period and the much greater than usual level of activity by Alaska's planning 

and analysis groups. The same individuals who will be considering and preparing Alaska's EAS 

proposal are also heavily involved with a number of other pressing matters. 

We appreciate that the requested extension is somewhat longer than the typical extension 

request. We, however, believe that favorable consideration of the request is warranted for the 

reasons expressed. 

We would also be pleased to answer any questions you might have. 

Sincerely, 

Sandy Sinick 

Sandy Sinick 

Partner 

marshall.sinick@squiresanders.com 

T +1 202 626 6651 

0 +1 202 626 6600 

F +1 202 626 6780 

M +1 301 325 7839 

Squire Sanders (US) LLP 

1200 19th Street, NW 

Suite 300 

Washington, DC 20036 

www.squiresanders.com 

37 Offices in 18.Countries 

This message is confidential and may be legally privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are 

1
#### Cesar Mendez ZOLANO, AKA Ubaldo Cabrera-Diaz, AKA Cesar Mendez-Zolano, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-73099

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2017 *

Filed March 16, 2017

Cesar Mendez Zolano, Pro Se

J. Oscar Shaw, Esquire, Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioner

Sabatino F. Leo, Trial Attorney, 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 **

Cesar Mendez Zolano, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying cancellation of removal and voluntary departure. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual findings for substantial evidence, *Ramos v. I.N.S.,*246 F.3d 1264, 1266 (9th Cir. 2001), and review de novo questions of law, *Kumar v. Holder,*728 F.3d 993, 998 (9th Cir. 2013). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Mendez Zolano is statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal based on a lack of good moral character where he provided false testimony under oath and did not recant until he had been in proceedings for more than two years. *See*8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(f)(6) (barring a finding of good moral character for any person who has given false testimony for the purpose of obtaining any immigration benefit); 1229b(b)(l)(B); *Valadez-Munoz v. Holder,*623 F.3d 1304, 1310 (9th Cir. 2010) (“recantation must be voluntary and without delay” (citation and quotation marks omitted)).

The BIA did not err in rejecting Mendez Zolano’s contention that his false testimony was caused by ineffective assistance of *612counsel, where Mendez Zolano failed to comply with *Matter of Lozada,*19 I. *&*N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), and the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel was not plain on the face of the record.

The agency did not violate due process in pretermitting without a further hearing Mendez Zolano’s applications for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure based on failure to show good moral character, where Mendez Zolano was afforded the opportunity to brief his eligibility, and has not established that he was prejudiced by the denial of further hearings in his case. *See Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (an alien must show error and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
EXHIBIT 23.1

[KPMG logo]

| | KPMG  LLP
Chartered Accountants
Box 10426, 777 Dunsmuir Street
Vancouver BC V7Y 1K3 
Canada | Telephone (604) 691-3000
Telefax   (604) 691-3031
www.kpmg.ca
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------

# Independent
Auditors Consent

The Board of Directors
Moving Bytes Inc.

We consent to the incorporation by
reference to the registration statements (Registration Number 333-10826, 333-12078 and
333-12916) on Form S-8 of Moving Bytes Inc. (formerly, E*Comnetrix Inc.) of our report
dated February 25, 2003 with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Moving Bytes
Inc. as at December 31, 2002 and 2001, and the related consolidated statements of
operations and deficit and cash flows for the years then ended, which report appears in
the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Moving Bytes Inc.

Our report dated February 25, 2003
refers to a change in the method of accounting for goodwill. In addition, our report dated
February 25, 2003 contains an explanatory paragraph that states that the Company has
suffered recurring losses from operations which raise substantial doubt about its ability
to continue as a going concern. The consolidated financial statements do not include any
adjustments that might result from the outcome of that uncertainty.

s/s KPMG LLP


Vancouver, Canada
March 26, 2003

KPMG LLP, a Canadian owned limited liability partnership established
under the laws of Ontario, is a member firm of
KPMG International, a Swiss association.
#### The Inhabitants of Taunton *versus*The Inhabitants of Plymouth.

A male pauper, being married while under age, was not thereby so emancipated as to acquire a settlement by a year’s residence without warning out, prior to the provincial act of 7 *Geo.*3, c. 3.

Assumpsit for the support of *Susannah Tisdale,*a pauper, deriving her settlement from her father, *Abraham Tisdale.*The said *Abraham*was bom in *Taunton,*in June, 1745, and, when seventeen or eighteen years of age, he went to *Plymouth*to work. On the 7th of November, 1765, he was married in *Plymouth,*having been duly published, his father consenting to the marriage, and he being then twenty years and four months old. He continued to reside in *Plymouth*from the time he first went there until after the tenth of April, 1767; and his father used to take part of his wages, before and after he was married, until he came of age.

If the time of his minority, after his marriage, was to be accounted part of the residence of one year, prior to the 10th of April, 1767, within the meaning of the provincial act of 7 *Geo.*3, c. 3, the defendants were to be defaulted, and an auditor, to be appointed by the Court, was to assess the plaintiffs’ damages; otherwise, the plaintiffs were to become nonsuit

*J. M. Williams*for the plaintiffs.

*W. Baylies*and *N. M. Davis*for the defendants

Parker, C. J.

The pauper for whose support the action is brought had no settlement in *Plymouth,*unless her father acquired one there by his residence for a year before the 10th of April, 1767. But, to acquire a settlement by such residence, the party *190must be of full age during the term of his residence: it is agreed he was not of full age ; but as he was married at *Plymouth*with the assent of his father, it * is supposed that he became emancipated, so as to be capable of gaining a settlement by himself.

Our laws, however, know of no such emancipation; or, at least, do not recognize such consequences of it. The marriage, in this case, may have removed the pauper’s father, *Abraham Tisdale,*from the control of his father, and perhaps have given him a right, as against his father, to apply all his earnings to the support of his family. But it did not give him a capacity to make binding contracts, beyond other infants; or any political or municipal rights, which do not belong by law to minors.

We are all clear, therefore, that, by his residence in *Plymouth*for the time mentioned, without being warned out, although married, he did not gain a settlement in that town ; so that the present action cannot be maintained, *(a)*

*Plaintiffs nonsuit.*

(a)

**Vide *Charlestown*vs. *Boston,*13 *Mass.*Rep. 469
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (A) THE
AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH (B) FORM 10-K.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          88,778
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,633
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,362
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               110,655
<PP&E>                                         237,194
<DEPRECIATION>                                  31,291
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 344,309
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           35,877
<BONDS>                                         20,279
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           615
<OTHER-SE>                                     289,574
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   344,309
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                59,786
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   31,406
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 4,266
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,094
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (69,838)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,839
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (64,999)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (64,999)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (1.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.19)


</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
    This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of
the Registrant under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether
made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q ), irrespective of any general incorporation language
contained in such filing.
 Date: August 14, 2006
    
    /s/ Thomas G. WiggansThomas G. WiggansChairman of the Board
and Chief Executive Officer
#### Dorman W. CHANDLER and W. Fred Dryden, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 22706.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 27, 1966.

Harold L. Murphy, Howe & Murphy, Tallapoosa, Ga., for appellants.

Allen L. Chancey, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Charles L. Goodson, U. S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., for appellee.

*153Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, and BROWN and GODBOLD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. We conclude that the trial court did not err in refusing to permit the appellants to compel the- Government witness to state whether a person, prominently identified in the reported activities of appellants, but not called as a witness in the case, was a Government informer.

The judgment is, therefore, affirmed.