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



Exhibit 12.1
 Certification
Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002
Rule 13a-14(a) or Rule 15d-14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Grupo Aeroportuario del Centro
Norte, S.A.B. de C.V.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented
in this report;4.
    
    The companys other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) for the company and have:
 (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the company, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;(b)
    
    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 report based on such evaluation; and(c)
    
    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
 
 1




---



##### 



5.
    
    The companys other certifying officer(s) 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
functions):
 (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the companys ability to record, process, summarize
and report financial information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the companys internal control
over financial reporting.
 Dated: July 2, 2007
    By:
    /s/ Víctor Humberto Bravo MartínName:
    Víctor Humberto Bravo MartínTitle:
    Chief Financial Officer 2
#### Joseph M. ANTHONY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Attorney General, State of Florida, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 15-12784 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(July 7, 2017)

Joseph Anthony, Pro Se

Mitchell A. Egber, Pam Bondi, Attorney General’s Office, West Palm Beach, FL, for Respondents-Appellees

Before HULL, WILSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Joseph Anthony, a Florida state prisoner proceeding *pro se,*appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 federal habeas corpus petition as an unauthorized second or successive collateral attack. Anthony asserts the district court failed to liberally construe his instant § 2254 petition and entertain it under any proceeding it deemed proper. He also contends the state sentencing court improperly failed to consider a presentence investigation report in sentencing him.

“We review *de novo*whether a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is second or successive.” *Patterson v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr.,*849 F.3d 1321, 1324 (11th Cir. 2017) *(en banc).*We have held a district court’s order dismissing a habeas petition for lack of jurisdiction as second or successive is not “a final order in a habeas corpus proceeding,” such that no certificate of ap-pealability is required to appeal. *Hubbard v. Campbell,*379 F.3d 1245, 1247 (11th Cir. 2004); 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A).

With respect to jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) requires a state prisoner who wishes to file a “second or successive habe-as corpus application” to move the court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider such an application. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). If a petitioner has not obtained an order authorizing the district court to consider a second or successive § 2254 petition, the district court must dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. *Tompkins v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr.,*557 F.3d 1257, 1259 (11th Cir. 2009).

The district court did not err in dismissing Anthony’s instant § 2254 petition based on its determination that the petition was successive. Anthony filed an original § 2254 petition in 2007, which was *985denied, and the Supreme Court denied a petition for writ of *certiorari*in 2009. Thus, Anthony’s instant § 2254 petition, in which he sought to attack the same judgment as the one challenged in his 2007 § 2254 petition, was successive, but he did not obtain this Court’s authorization to file a successive petition. Thus, the district court was required to dismiss Anthony’s petition for lack of jurisdiction, and liberally construing the petition would not have affected the court’s obligation to dismiss it. *See Tompkins,*557 F.3d at 1259. Additionally, to the extent Anthony argues the merits of his underlying claims in his appellate brief, we need not consider them because the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider those claims in his successive petition. Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.
IIB 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6810 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 4, 2024 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 518 North Ridgewood Drive in Sebring, Florida, as the ‘‘U.S. Army Air Corps Major Thomas B. 

McGuire Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

HR 6810 RFS

1 SECTION 1. U.S. ARMY AIR CORPS MAJOR THOMAS B. 

2 MCGUIRE POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 518 North Ridgewood Drive in 

5 Sebring, Florida, shall be known and designated as the 

6 ‘‘U.S. Army Air Corps Major Thomas B. McGuire Post 

7 Office Building’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

10 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

11 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘U.S. Army Air Corps 

12 Major Thomas B. McGuire Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 3, 2024. 

Attest: KEVIN F. MCCUMBER, 

Clerk. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Gensym
Corporation. (the Company) for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Stephen D. Allison, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of 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.



|                       |  |                                           
|---------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------
|Dated: August 16, 2004 |  | /s/ Stephen D. Allison                    
|                       |  | Stephen D. Allison Chief Financial Officer
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6750 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

501 Mercer Street Southwest in Wilson, North Carolina, as the ‘‘Milton 

F. Fitch, Sr. Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 13, 2023 

Mr. DAVIS of North Carolina (for himself, Mr. MURPHY, Ms. ADAMS, Mr. 

ROUZER, Ms. ROSS, Mr. HUDSON, Mr. JACKSON of North Carolina, Ms. 

FOXX, Mr. NICKEL, Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina, Ms. MANNING, Mr. 

MCHENRY, Mrs. FOUSHEE, and Mr. EDWARDS) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 501 Mercer Street Southwest in Wilson, North 

Carolina, as the ‘‘Milton F. Fitch, Sr. Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. MILTON F. FITCH, SR. POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 501 Mercer Street Southwest in 

2 

•HR 6750 IH

1 Wilson, North Carolina, shall be known and designated 

2 as the ‘‘Milton F. Fitch, Sr. Post Office Building’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

6 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Milton F. Fitch, Sr. 

7 Post Office Building’’. 

Æ
Exhibit 23.1


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 No. 333-141827 and Form S-8 No. 333-185892), pertaining to the Triangle Capital Corporation Amended and Restated 2007 Equity Incentive Plan, of our reports dated March 2, 2015 , with respect to the consolidated financial statements and financial highlights and Schedule 12-14 of Triangle Capital Corporation and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Triangle Capital Corporation, included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2014 .








/s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Raleigh, North Carolina


March 2, 2015
#### Joel David JOSEPH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee, and Apotex Corporation, Defendant.

No. 16-55370

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2017 *

Filed May 31, 2017

Joel David Joseph, Pro Se

Cheryl Stephanie Chang, Esquire, Blank Rome LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Trenton H. Norris, Esquire, Attorney, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Joel David Joseph appeals pro se from district court’s summary judgment in his diversity action alleging claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) in connection with the labeling of a prescription drug. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Daniel v. Ford Motor Co.,*806 F.3d 1217, 1221 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Joseph’s UCL claims because Joseph failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he relied on the absence of a country of origin marking before purchasing atorvastatin from defendant Costco. *See*Cal. Bus. *&*Prof. Code § 17204 (standing under the UCL requires plaintiffs injury to occur “as a result of’ defendant’s misconduct); *Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court,*51 Cal.4th 310, 120 Cal.Rptr.3d 741, 246 P.3d 877, 885-88 (2011) (to bring a claim under the UCL, a plaintiff must have economic injury caused by the defendant’s unfair business practice); *see also Daniel,*806 F.3d at 1225 (“To prove reliance on an omission, a plaintiff must show that the defendant’s nondisclosure was an immediate cause of the plaintiffs injury-producing conduct.”).

We do not consider documents and facts not presented to the district court. *See United States v. Elias,*921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This 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. Andrew Charles JACKSON, a/k/a William Benbow, a/k/a Ricky Antonio Bady, a/k/a Sway, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6980

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 16, 2017

Decided: November 21, 2017

Andrew Charles Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Thomas Camilletti, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Andrew Charles Jackson seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certifícate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jackson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
Exhibit 35.1



  [LOGO]
HOME LOAN
 SERVICES

Financial Assets Securities Corp. as Depositor
Attention: Legal
600 Steamboat Road
Greenwich, CT 06830

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee
Attention: Trust Administration - FFMLT 2006-FF16
1761 East Andrew Flace
Santa Ana, CA 92705-4934

                    FORM OF ANNUAL STATEMENT AS TO COMPLIANCE
                            FFMLT, SERIES 2006-FF16

            I, Steven A. Baranet, hereby certify that I am a duly appointed Vice
President of Home Loan Services, Inc., f/k/a National City Home Loan Services
(the "Servicer"), and further certify as follows:

            1. This certification is being made pursuant to the terms of the
Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of November 1, 2006 (the "Agreement"),
among Financial Asset Securities Corp., as depositor, the Servicer, and Deutsche
Bank National Trust Company, as trustee.

            2. I have reviewed the activities of the Servicer during the
preceding year and the Servicer's performance under the Agreement and to the
best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of
its obligations under the Agreement throughout the year.

            Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein have the meanings set
forth in the Agreements.


            IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as
of March 1, 2007.

Loan Services
P.O. Box 1838
Pittsburgh, PA 15230-1838

[LOGO] Merrill Lynch
Home Loan Services is a subsidiary
of Merrill Lynch Bank and Trust Co., FSB

                                                                       [LOGO]
                                                                   EQUAL HOUSING
                                                                       LENDER

<PAGE>

                                HOME LOAN SERVICES, INC.,
                                f/k/a NATIONAL CITY HOME LOAN SERVICES, INC.


                                          By:    /s/ Steven A. Baranet
                                                 -------------------------------
                                          Name:  Steven A. Baranet
                                          Title: Vice President

            I, Bruce E. Barron a Director of the Servicer, hereby certifies that
Steven A. Baranet is a duly elected, qualified, and acting Vice President of the
Servicer and that the signature appearing above is his genuine signature.

            IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as
of March 1, 2007.


                                          By:    /s/ Bruce E. Barron
                                                 -------------------------------
                                          Name:  Bruce E. Barron
                                          Title: Director
|                              |
|------------------------------|
|                              |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|                         |    |   | For the YearEndedDecember 31,2010 |   | For the YearEndedDecember 31,2011 |   | For the YearEndedDecember 31,2012 |   | For the YearEndedDecember 31,2013 |   | For the YearEndedDecember 31,2014 |   |
| Earnings to Fixed Charges(1) |    |    |   | 4.14 |    |   | 6.22 |    |   | 4.52 |    |   | 4.96 |    |   | 2.49 |  |    |

|     |                                                                                                                                                         |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (1) | Earnings include net realized and unrealized gains or losses. Net realized and unrealized gains or losses can vary substantially from period to period. |

|         |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               |
|---------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| • | Excluding net unrealized gains or losses, the earnings to fixed charges ratio would be 2.80 for the year ended December 31, 2010, 5.64 for the year ended December 31, 2011, 4.68 for the year ended December 31, 2012, 4.85 for the year ended December 31, 2013 and 4.57 for the year ended December 31, 2014. |

|         |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|---------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| • | Excluding net realized and unrealized gains or losses, the earnings to fixed charges ratio would be 3.47 for the year ended December 31, 2010, 4.65 for the year ended December 31, 2011, 4.30 for the year ended December 31, 2012, 3.96 for the year ended December 31, 2013 and 3.93 for the year ended December 31, 2014. |
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Richard James WHITE, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-20810 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed November 13, 2017

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

Lance C. Hamm, Lance C. Hamm, Attorney, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Richard James White appeals his conditional guilty plea conviction of possession with intent to distribute 50 kilograms or more of marijuana for which he was sentenced to 18 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. He appeals the denial of his motion to suppress the marijuana discovered by law enforcement at an immigration checkpoint.

The district court did not err in denying White’s motion to suppress. *See United States v. Jaime,*473 F.3d 178, 181 (5th Cir. 2006). White’s detention in the primary inspection lane was within the permissible duration of an immigration checkpoint stop. *See United States v. Machuca-Barrera,*261 F.3d 425, 431-35 (5th Cir. 2001). The dog’s alerts provided probable cause for a warrantless search of the tractor-trailer’s spare tire. *See United States v. Dovali-Avila,*895 F.2d 206, 207-09 (5th Cir. 1990). Accordingly, we do not need to address White’s alternative argument that the search of the spare tire exceeded the scope of his consent.

The judgment of the district court 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.
#### Michael B. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Arcelia CASTANEDA, Psychiatric Technician, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-17263

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*639Submitted March 8, 2017 *

Filed March 21, 2017

Michael B. Williams, Pro Se

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 ***

Michael B. Williams, a pre-trial civil detainee under California’s Sexually Violent Predators Act, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(ii), *Huftile v. Miccio-Fonseca,*410 F.3d 1136, 1138 (9th Cir. 2005), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Williams’s action because Williams failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim. *See Hebbe v. Pliler,*627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim); *Rhodes v. Robinson,*408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (elements of retaliation claim in prison context); *Portman v. County of Santa Clara,*995 F.2d 898 (9th Cir. 1993) (elements of procedural due process claim).

We reject as without merit Williams’s contentions that he was held to a higher pleading standard.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

***

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