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

Exhibit 13.1

|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 Micromem Technologies
Inc. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the Fiscal Year Ended October 31, 2017
(the Report), I, Joseph Fuda, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, based on my knowledge, 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.

|Date: March 12, 2018 | /s/
      Joseph Fuda        
|-------------------- | -----------------------------
|                     | Joseph Fuda                  
|                     | Chief Executive Officer      
|                     | (Principal executive officer)

---
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Lorna E. Nagler, ChiefExecutive Officer of Christopher & Banks Corporation (the “Company”)certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.  The Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-Q/Ato the quarterly report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended November 29,2008 as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”)fully 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.

 

 
| Date: February 26,  2009 |   |                                     |
|-------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------|
|                          |   |                                     |
|                          | By:    | /s/ Lorna E. Nagler                      |
|                          |   | Lorna E. Nagler                          |
|                          |   | *President and Chief Executive  Officer* |

 

----
##### 



Exhibit 21.01
 Subsidiaries of Move, Inc.
 State or Jurisdictionof Incorporation orFull Name of Entity
    
    Other Legal Names
    
    Legal Status of Entity
    
    Organization3041776 Nova Scotia 
Company
    
    None
    
    Nova Scotia, Canada ULL
corporation
    
    Nova ScotiaHomeBuilder.com
(Delaware), Inc.
    
    None
    
    Corporation
    
    DelawareHomestore Europe 
Corporation
    
    None
    
    British Virgin Islands Co.
    
    British Virgin IslandsHomestore International 
Limited (BVI)
    
    None
    
    British Virgin Islands Co.
    
    British Virgin IslandsMove Sales, Inc.
    
    Move Sales, Inc. 

dba Move

 Los Angeles / Ventura County

 Minnesota
    
    Corporation
    
    DelawareMove Sales, Inc. 

dba Rentnet
 Los Angeles County, CAMove Sales, Inc. 

dba Homestore.com

 Los Angeles County, CAMove Sales, Inc. 

dba Homestore Apartments and
Rentals

 Los Angeles County, CAMoving.com, Inc.
    
    None
    
    Corporation
    
    DelawareImmoclick Online S.A.
    
    None
    
    Spanish Company
    
    SpainNational New Homes
Co., Inc.
    
    None
    
    Corporation
    
    DelawareRealSelect, Inc.
    
    RealSelect, Inc., dba REALTOR.com®

 Los Angeles County, CA
    
    Corporation
    
    DelawareThe Enterprise of
America, Ltd.
    
    None
    
    Corporation
    
    WisconsinHomestore, Inc.
    
    None
    
    Corporation
    
    DelawareTop Producer Systems 
Company
    
    None
    
    Nova Scotia, Canada ULL
corporation
    
    Nova ScotiaTouchTech Corporation
    
    None
    
    Ontario, Canada
corporation
    
    OntarioVT Canada Inc.
    
    None
    
    Corporation
    
    Ontario, CanadaWelcome Wagon
International Inc.
    
    None
    
    Corporation
    
    New York
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michelle R. FREYTAG, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-20646

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed May 22, 2017

*383Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Michelle R. Freytag, Pro Se

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

Summary Calendar

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Michelle R. Freytag has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed briefs in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Freytag has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Freytag’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claims without prejudice to collateral review. *See United States v. Isgar,*739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014); *United States v. Corbett,*742 F.2d 173, 177 (5th Cir. 1984) (per curiam).

We have reviewed counsel’s briefs and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Freytag’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, Freytag’s motion for appointment of new counsel, to strike the briefs, and to remand the case to the district court for resentencing is DENIED, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under *384the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5,4.
# United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

No. 17-2068

LAURA LEMUS; MANUEL M. LEMUS,

Petitioners,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

**ERRATA SHEET**

The opinion of this Court, issued on August 14, 2018, is amended as follows:

On page 5, line 7, replace "Lemuses" with "Lemuses'".
Christa G. HARTLEY, Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., as successor by merger to BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., Appellee.

No. 1D16-3826

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 5, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### Kevin Przemyslaw PAWLIK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles MAIORANA, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-30088 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 26, 2017

Kevin Przemyslaw Pawlik, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

While in custody of the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) as federal prisoner # 10028-023, Kevin Pawlik filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, claiming that the BOP incorrectly applied a Sex Offender Public Safety Factor (“PSF”) to his prison classification based on allegedly erroneous statements in his presentence report (“PSR”) indicating that he had had sexual con-tact with a minor. Pawlik asserted that the PSF adversely affected his confinement by precluding him from incarceration in a minimum-security prison and from entry into a halfway-house program.

Pawlik appeals the dismissal, for want of jurisdiction, of the § 2241 petition. The *422district court reasoned that § 2241 was not the proper vehicle for Pawlik’s claim because he was challenging the inclusion of allegedly incorrect information in his PSR, an issue under the purview of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 because it related to matters that occurred at or before sentencing. Pawlik contends that the district court had jurisdiction to consider his § 2241 claim because the incorrect application of the PSF adversely affected conditions of confinement.

We review a dismissal of a § 2241 petition *de novo. Pack v. Yusuff,*218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000). Although Pawlik tries to reframe his argument as being directed at the execution of his sentence, his challenge to the correctness of factual findings in his PSR is directed at an error that allegedly occurred at or before sentencing. A challenge to errors occurring at or before sentencing falls under the purview of § 2255. *Pack,*218 F.3d at 451; *Cox v. Warden, Fed. Det. Ctr.,*911 F.2d 1111, 1113 (5th Cir. 1990).

Pawlik does not brief any argument challenging the district court’s determination that he did not meet the requirements of the savings clause under § 2255(e) and that any claim he sought to assert under *Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,*403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), would fail to state a claim because his BOP classification did not implicate a protected liberty or property interest. He has thus waived any such contentions. *See Yohey v. Collins,*985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993).

Pawlik has not shown that the district court erred in dismissing for lack of jurisdiction. *See Pack,*218 F.3d at 451. Accordingly, the judgment of dismissal is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
EXHIBIT 23.1CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERSAs independent petroleum engineers, we hereby consent to the incorporation by reference inRegistration Statements Nos. 333-114496, 333-121039, and 333-128547 on Form S-3, and Nos.333-116014 and 333-122716 on Form S-8 of Gasco Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) of all references toNetherland, Sewell & Associates, Inc., independent petroleum engineers, and the reports prepared bysuch independent petroleum engineers appearing in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K/A forthe year ended December 31, 2006, to be filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission onApril 5, 2007.NETHERLAND, SEWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.By: /s/ Frederic D. Sewell, P.E.Frederic D. Sewell, P.E.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Carlos Arturo CATANOS-MATOS, also known as Carlos Arturo Catano-Garcia, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-41496 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 24, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Carlos Arturo Catanos-Matos, Pro Se

Before KING, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Carlos Arturo Catanos-Matos has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Cata-nos-Matos has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.1 Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.

1

. In his pro se notice of appeal, Catanos-Matos complained that the probation officer had wrongly assigned him a criminal history category of IV rather than III, In preparing the presentence report, the probation officer correctly determined that Catanos-Matos had eight criminal history points, which resulted in a criminal history category of IV; however, when setting forth the sentencing options, the probation officer wrongly stated that Catanos-Matos had a criminal history category of III. At sentencing, the parties, the probation officer, and the court noted the error and the correct category of IV, but the district court ultimately sentenced Catanos-Matos below the applicable guidelines range to a sentence that would have been within the range if the criminal history category had been III. No non-frivolous error arises from the determination of the criminal history category.
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, *v.*Isaac Brown, Respondent.

Argued April 12, 1943;

decided May 27, 1943.

*831
      *Elbert T. Gallagher, District Attorney (John J. Dillon*of counsel), for appellant.

*Mortimer C. O’Brien*and *Morton Sokol*for respondent.

Order affirmed; no opinion.

Concur: Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, J J. Taking no part: Lehman, Ch. J., and Finch, J.
EXHIBIT 10.71
 MOVE, INC.
RESTRICTED STOCK AWARD AGREEMENT
    Grant of Shares
 Definitions
      Restrictions
 Expiration and Termination of Restrictions




---



##### 



Delivery of Shares
 Voting and Dividend Rights
 Changes in Capital Structure
 No Right of Continued Employment
 Payment of Taxes
 - 2 -




---



##### 



Successors
 Severability
 Notice
 Arbitration
 Amendment and Modification
 Governing Law
  - 3 -




---



##### 



MOVE, INC.:
    
    GRANTEE:By: /s/ James S. Caulfield

Name: James S. Caulfield
    
    /s/ Robert J. Krolik

Robert J. KrolikTitle: EVP, General Counsel
& Secretary
 - 4 -
#### Henry S. Burger et al., Respondents, *v.*Charles Devlin, Appellant.

(Argued April 11, 1872;

decided April 23, 1872.)

*D. C. Colvin*for the appellant.

*H. Sheldon*for the respondents.

Decided upon the facts in the case.

Allen, J., reads for affirmance.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.
Marques JONES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3196

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 1, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          20,643
<SECURITIES>                                         0<F1>
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,656
<ALLOWANCES>                                       300
<INVENTORY>                                      1,846
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                27,485
<PP&E>                                           2,247
<DEPRECIATION>                                     681
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  42,016
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,327
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            71
<OTHER-SE>                                      39,618
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    42,016
<SALES>                                         14,287
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,287
<CGS>                                            4,982
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,811
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,989
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,306
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,683
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,683
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.51
<FN>
<F1>AMOUNTS INAPPLICABLE OR NOT DISCLOSED AS A SEPARATE LINE ON THE CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS OR CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
ARE REPORTED AS 0 HEREIN.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
----

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Joseph Fuda, certify that: 

1.

 I havereviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Micromem Technologies Inc.; 

2. 

Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report; 

3. 

Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report; 

4. 

The registrant'sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

a. 

Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared; 

b. 

Paragraph omittedin accordance with SEC transition instructions contained in SEC release34-47986; 

c. 

Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and 

d. 

Disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant'sinternal control over financial reporting; and 

5. 

The registrant'sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant'sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions): 

a. 

All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and 

b. 

Any fraud, whetheror not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

| Date: February 29,    2008 | /s/ Joseph Fuda                  |   |
|----------------------------|----------------------------------|--------|
|                       | Joseph    Fuda                   |
|                       | Chief    Executive Officer       |
|                       | (Principal    executive officer) |
|                       |                             |

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Pedrito Mendez, Appellant.

[770 NYS2d 853]

*459Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel FitzGerald, J.), rendered June 20, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of five years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490 [1987]). The evidence warranted the conclusion that the object which defendant threw into a car was the large package of drugs recovered by the police.

The record does not establish that defendant’s sentence was based on any improper criteria and we perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Ellerin and Gonzalez, JJ.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jossue AGRUETA-VASQUEZ, also known as Jose Argueta-Vasquez, also known as Jose V. Argueta, also known as Jose Argueta, Defendant-Appellant

No. 15-41132 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed September 22, 2017

John Richard Berry, Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Michael Lance Herman, Evan Gray Howze, Scott Andrew Martin, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jossue Agrueta-Vasquez appeals his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry into the United States. He contends that the judgment erroneously indicates that he was convicted and sentenced under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2), which applies when the defendant was previously removed subsequent to a conviction for an aggravated felony. Although Agrueta-Vasquez has completed his federal sentence and has been deported, his challenge is not moot because an erroneous conviction under § 1326(b)(2) could have collateral consequences for him, including rendering him permanently inadmissible to the United States. *See United States v. Ovalle-Garcia,*868 F.3d 313, 314 (5th Cir. 2017).

According to Agrueta-Vasquez, the district court erred in determining that his 1996 Virginia conviction for petit larceny constituted an aggravated felony for purposes of § 1326(b)(2) because, unlike the generic definition of theft, larceny in Virginia can be committed based on the acquisi*420tion of property through fraudulently obtained consent. Because Agrueta-Vasquez presents this argument for the first time on appeal, plain error review applies. *See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago,*564 F.3d 357, 368 (5th Cir. 2009).

To satisfy the plain error standard, “the legal error must be clear or obvious, rather than subject to reasonable dispute.” *Puckett v. United States,*556 U.S. 129, 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009). As Agrueta-Vasquez concedes, he cannot demonstrate plain error in light of the decision in *United States v. Rodriguez-Salazar,*768 F.3d 437, 438 (5th Cir. 2014).

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.