alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.2 

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

Gregory J. Wilson, as Treasurer and Controller (PrincipalFinancial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer) of NetLojix Communications,Inc. (the "Company"), certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

(1) the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") fully complies with therequirements 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 ofthe Company. 

/s/  GREGORY J. WILSON---------------------------------Gregory J. WilsonTreasurer and Controller (Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)

November 13, 2002
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Justin MULLINAX, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6894

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 30, 2017

Decided: December 15, 2017

Justin Mullinax, Appellant Pro Se. Anne Hunter Young, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia,- South Carolina; William Jacob Watkins, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,' Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Justin Mullinax appeals the district court’s order denying his “Sentence Correction Request,” best construed as a 28 U.S.C, § 2241 (2012) petition because Mul-linax sought to challenge the execution of his sentence, *See Fontanez v. O’Brien,*807 F.3d 84, 86 (4th Cir. 2015) (explaining that a prisoner generally challenges the execution of a sentence under § 2241), The sentence at issue was imposed in the District of South Carolina, but Mullinax filed his petition while incarcerated in the Middle District of North Carolina, Jurisdiction over a § 2241 petition “lies only in one district: the district of confinement.” *Rumsfeld v, Padilla,*542 U.S. 426, 443, 124 S.Ct. 2711, 169 L.Ed.2d 513 (2004). Therefore, the District Court for the District of South Carolina did not have jurisdiction over Mullinax’s petition.

When a petitioner files a § 2241 petition in a court lacking jurisdiction, “the court shall, if it is in the interest of justice, transfer such action” to a court in which the petitioner could have properly filed the petition. 28 U.S.C. § 1631 (2012).. Typically, “‘transfer will be in the interest of justice because normally dismissal of an action that could be brought elsewhere is time-consuming and justice-defeating.’ ” *Hendrickson v. United States,*791 F.3d 354, 363 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting *Miller v, Hambrick,*905 F.2d 259, 262 (9th Cir. 1990)). We conclude that transfer upon remand is in the interest of justice in this case.

*135Accordingly, we vacate the dismissal order and remand to the district court so that the action may be transferred to the Middle District of North Carolina.* 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.

*VACATED AND REMANDED*

*

 We express no opinion about the merits of the petition.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001006028
<NAME>                        Innovative Medical Services

<S>                                       <C>                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              3-MOS              9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1998        JUL-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1999        AUG-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1999        APR-30-1999
<CASH>                                         260,376            260,376
<SECURITIES>                                         0                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,287,874          1,287,874
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (17,850)           (17,850)
<INVENTORY>                                    359,777            359,777
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,110,981          2,110,981
<PP&E>                                       1,089,922          1,089,920
<DEPRECIATION>                                (355,749)          (355,749)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,082,359          4,082,359
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,083,525          1,083,525
<BONDS>                                              0                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                  0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                  0
<COMMON>                                     6,500,955          6,500,955
<OTHER-SE>                                  (3,502,121)        (3,502,121)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,082,359          4,082,359
<SALES>                                      1,169,903          2,733,401
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,169,903          2,733,401
<CGS>                                          496,960          1,050,880
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  479,142          1,199,558
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                196,516            491,059
<INCOME-TAX>                                       200                600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            196,316            490,459
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                  0
<CHANGES>                                            0                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                   196,316            490,459
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.05               0.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.03               0.07



</TABLE>
#### HOAI THANH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HIEN T. NGO, Defendant-Appellee. *308Hoai Thanh, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Hien T. Ngo, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-1391, No. 16-1397

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 24, 2017

Decided: April 6, 2017

Laurence A. Elgin, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Joseph Daniel Gallagher, GILL, SIPPEL *&*GALLAGHER, Rock-ville, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before AGEE, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

*In*these consolidated appeals, Hoai Thanh appeals the district court’s orders: (1) denying his motions to reconsider a prior order granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendant in the underlying defamation action, and (2) denying his motions to reconsider the dismissal of his independent complaint asserting fraud upon the court, Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d). We have reviewed the record included on appeal, as well as the district court’s opinions, and havé found no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Hoai Thanh v. Hien Ngo, Nos. 8:11-cv-01992-PJM; 8:15-cv-03441-PJM (D. Md. Feb. 5, 2016; May 17, 2016). 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.

*AFFIRMED*
EXHIBIT 10.1





INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the  incorporation  by reference  in  Registration  Statement  No.
333-12530 of Uniglobe.com Inc. on Form S-8 of our report dated February 8, 2002,
appearing in the Annual  Report on Form 20-F of  Uniglobe.com  Inc. for the year
ended December 31, 2001.



/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Chartered Accountants
Vancouver, Canada
June 24, 2002
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 209 (Tuesday, October 29, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64403-64404]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-25592]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 312

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-0513; FRL-9902-22-OSWER]

Amendment to Standards and Practices for All Appropriate 
Inquiries

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Because EPA received adverse comment, we are withdrawing the 
direct final rule for the Amendment to Standards and Practices for All 
Appropriate Inquiries published on August 15, 2013.

DATES: Effective October 29, 2013, EPA withdraws the direct final rule 
published at 78 FR 49690, on August 15 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rachel Lentz, Office of Brownfields 
and Land Revitalization (5105-T), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0002; telephone 
number: 202-566-2745; fax number: 202-566-

[[Page 64404]]

1476; email address: lentz.rachel@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Because EPA received adverse comment, we are 
withdrawing the direct final rule for the Amendment to Standards and 
Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries published on August 15, 2013 
(78 FR 49690). We stated in that direct final rule that if we received 
adverse comment by September 16, 2013, the direct final rule would not 
take effect and we would publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal 
Register. We subsequently received adverse comment on that direct final 
rule. We will address the comments received in any subsequent final 
action. As stated in the direct final rule and the parallel proposed 
rule, we will not institute a second comment period on the parallel 
proposed rule published on August 15, 2013 (78 FR 49714).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 312

    Administrative practice and procedure, Hazardous substances.

    Dated: October 22, 2013.
Mathy Stanislaus,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.

    Accordingly, EPA withdraws the amendments to 40 CFR 312.11(c), 
published in the Federal Register on August 15, 2013 (78 FR 49690), as 
of October 29, 2013.

[FR Doc. 2013-25592 Filed 10-28-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
III

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 36

Directing the Secretary of the Senate to make technical corrections in the

enrollment of S. 1060.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

DECEMBER 13, 1995

Mr. LEVIN submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was

considered and passed

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Directing the Secretary of the Senate to make technical

corrections in the enrollment of S. 1060.

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That in the enrollment of the bill S. 1060,

3 to provide for the disclosure of lobbying activities to influ4 ence the Federal Government, and for other purposes, the

5 Secretary of the Senate shall make the following correc6 tions:

7 (1) In section 6(8), strike ‘‘6’’ and insert ‘‘7’’

8 (2) In section 9(7), insert ‘‘and’’ after the semi9 colon, in section 9(8), strike ‘‘; and’’ and insert a pe10 riod, and strike paragraph (9) of section 9.
2

SCON 36 CPS

1 (3) In section 12(c), strike ‘‘7’’ and insert ‘‘6’’.

2 (4) In section 15(a)(2), strike ‘‘8’’ and insert

3 ‘‘7’’.

4 (5) In section 15(b)(1), strike ‘‘, 5(a)(2),’’ and

5 in section 15(b)(2), strike ‘‘8’’ and insert ‘‘7’’.

6 (6) In section 24(b), strike ‘‘13, 14, 15, and

7 16’’ and insert ‘‘9, 10, 11, and 12’’.

8 (7) In section 12(b)(1), strike ‘‘7’’ and insert in

9 lieu thereof ‘‘6’’.

Æ
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.18

                                 PROMISSORY NOTE

$110,000                                                  Chatsworth, California
                                                          April 2, 2001

         SonicPort, Inc., a Nevada corporation ("Debtor"), hereby promises to
pay to the order of ____________ ("LENDER"), in lawful money of the United
States of America, the principal sum of One Hundred Ten Thousand Dollars
($110,000), with interest on the unpaid principal balance from time to time
outstanding at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum (the "INTEREST RATE")
until paid, commencing on the date hereof. Principal arid interest under this
Promissory Note shall be due at such time as Debtor has raised on a cumulative
basis gross proceeds from financings (debt and/or equity) after the date hereof
of an aggregate of $5,000,000; provided, however, that if such amount has not
been raised by the second anniversary of the date hereof, no payment shall be
due under this Promissory Note.

         The Interest Rate shall be calculated on the basis of a 365-day year
and the actual number of days elapsed. If any interest is determined to be in
excess of the then legal maximum rate, then that portion of each interest
payment representing an amount in excess of the then legal maximum rate shall be
deemed a payment of principal and applied against the principal of the
obligations evidenced by this Promissory Note.

         Debtor hereby waives presentment, demand, notice of dishonor, protest,
notice of protest and all other demands, protests and notices in connection with
the execution, delivery, performance, collection and enforcement of this
Promissory Note. The Debtor shall pay all costs of collection when incurred,
including reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses.

         This Promissory Note is being delivered in, is intended to be performed
in, shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with, and be governed by
the internal laws of, the State of California, without regard to principles of
conflict of laws.

         This Promissory Note may only be amended, modified or terminated by an
agreement in writing signed by the party to be charged. This Promissory Note
shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and
assigns of the Debtor and inure to the benefit of Lender and its permitted
successors, endorsees and assigns. This Promissory Note shall not be transferred
without the express written consent of Lender, provided that if Lender consents
to any such transfer or if notwithstanding the foregoing such a transfer occurs,
then the provisions of this Promissory Note shall inure to the benefit of and be
binding upon any successor to Debtor and shall be extended to any holder
thereof.

                                        SONICPORT, INC., a Nevada corporation


                                        By:
                                           ------------------------------------
                                             Name:
                                             Title:
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 of FFD Financial Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert R. Gerber, the Senior Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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 result of operations of the Company.


|                                                             | 
|------------------------------------------------------------ | 
|/s/Robert R. Gerber                                          | 
|Robert R. Gerber                                             | 
|Senior Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer | 
|November 16, 2009                                            |
P. 1 

# OAR Box 1867 Prepped by Ollie Stewart

Document

Number: 

# 35 ) ll-B-8 9 Docket Number: 

# A-90-1 9

Printed 12/2/20086:27:21 AM

Sheet 35of 95_E2 _ 

## A-90-1 9 ll-B-8 9 

## PENDING CONFIDENTIAL

Th e following informatio n i s locate d i n th e confidentia l file s o f th e Director , Emissio n Standard s Division , Offic e , of Ai r Qualit yPlanning an d Standards , U . S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Researc hTriangl e Park , Nort hCarolin a 27711 . Thi s informatio n i s confidentia l pending fina l determinatio n b yth e Administrato r an

d i s no t availabl e fo r publi c inspection . W . Floyd , Radia n Corporation , t o Process"Vent s Docke t A-90-19 , January1991 , HO NNESHAP : Industry Characteristics/Methy l Isocyanate . 2 1 pages . CB I Documen t Contro l No . 86/23 , PPS-89 .
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 669 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to extend the period of 

time for which a conditional permit to land temporarily may be granted 

to an alien crewman. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 3, 2015 

Mr. FARENTHOLD introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to extend 

the period of time for which a conditional permit to 

land temporarily may be granted to an alien crewman. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Landing Pass Exten5 sion Act of 2015’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PERIOD OF TIME FOR A CONDITIONAL PERMIT TO 

7 LAND TEMPORARILY EXTENDED. 

8 Section 252(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality 

9 Act (8 U.S.C. 1282(a)(1)) is amended by striking ‘‘(not 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 669 IH

1 exceeding twenty-nine days)’’ and inserting ‘‘(not exceed2 ing 90 days)’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6539

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANDREW COMO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CR-95-495, CA-97-3477-7-20) Submitted: July 30, 1998 Decided: August 26, 1998 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Andrew Como, Appellant Pro Se. Harold Watson Gowdy, III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Andrew Como seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion andfind no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Como’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Como , Nos. CR-95-495; CA-97-3477-7-20 (D.S.C. Mar. 4, 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
<Page>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.35


                          THE ST. PAUL COMPANIES, INC.
                              385 Washington Street
                            St. Paul, Minnesota 55102




                                        June 14, 2002



Mr. Steven H. Newman
24342 La Masina
Calabasas, CA  91302


Dear Steve:

            Reference is made to that certain letter agreement dated March 1,
2002 between The St. Paul Companies, Inc. (the "Company") and you (the
"Agreement"). Section 2 of the Agreement sets forth the following sentence:

                  Upon an IPO, you will be entitled to receive a stock option
            grant to purchase 1.5% of the outstanding common stock of Bermuda
            Newco immediately following the IPO on a fully diluted basis at a
            price not greater than the initial offering price under the IPO and
            having a term of ten years (the "IPO Grant").

Such sentence is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:

                  Upon an IPO, you will be entitled to receive a stock option
            grant to purchase 975,000 shares of common stock of Bermuda Newco at
            the initial offering price under the IPO and having a term of ten
            years (the "IPO Grant").

            This amendment to the Agreement is intended to be a binding
obligation upon the Company and yourself. If this amendment to the Agreement
correctly reflects


<Page>

Mr. Steven H. Newman
June 14, 2002
Page 2


your understanding, please sign and return one copy to John MacColl for the
Company's records.

                                    THE ST. PAUL COMPANIES, INC.



                                    By:
                                         -------------------------
                                         Jay S. Fishman
                                         Chief Executive Officer




The above amendment to the Agreement correctly reflects our understanding, and I
hereby confirm my agreement to the same as of the date first above written.



-----------------------------------
         Steven H. Newman
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Heather Lynn GANTT, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-51283 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed November 30, 2017

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Heather Lynn Gantt, Pro'Se

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit'Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Defendant-Appellant Heather Lynn Gantt, federal prisoner # 00535-380, appeals the denial of her motion for concurrent sentencing. Her claims pertain to the manner in which her federal sentence was calculated and is being enforced, so they arise under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. *See Pack v. Yusuff,*218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000). Gantt is not incarcerated in the Western District of Texas, so the district court lacked jurisdiction over any of her § 2241 claims. *See id.*The district court’s order 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.