alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 12.1

Certification by the Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002

I, Lawrence Ho, Chief Executive Officer of Melco PBL Entertainment (Macau) Limited (the Company), certify
that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F, as amended by this Amendment No.1 on Form 20F/A, of the Company;

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 we 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 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

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 Companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

(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.

Date: April 4, 2007



|       |  |                        
|------ |  | -----------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ Lawrence Ho        
|Name:  |  | Lawrence Ho            
|Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tony Curtis SPIVEY, a/k/a Tony-Red, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-7335

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 21, 2017

Decided: December 28, 2017

*201Tony Curtis Spivey, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Bradenham, II, Megan Marina Cowles, Dee Mullarkey Sterling, Assistant United States Attorneys, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Tony Curtis Spivey seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate 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 Spivey 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*
III

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 140

To authorize the production of records by the Select Committee on

Intelligence.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 21 (legislative day, JUNE 19), 1995

Mr. DOLE (for himself and Mr. DASCHLE) submitted the following resolution;

which was considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

To authorize the production of records by the Select

Committee on Intelligence.

Whereas the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Justice has requested that the Select Committee

on Intelligence provide it with copies of committee

records relevant to the Office’s pending review of matters

related to the Aldrich Ames case;

Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States

and rule XI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the possession of the Senate can, by administrative or judicial process, be taken

from such control or possession but by permission of the

Senate;

Whereas, when it appears that documents, papers, and

records under the control or in the possession of the Sen-
2

SRES 140 ATS

ate may promote the administration of justice, the Senate

will take such action as will promote the ends of justice

consistently with the privileges of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the Chairman and Vice Chairman of

2 the Select Committee on Intelligence, acting jointly, are

3 authorized to provide to the Office of Inspector General

4 of the Department of Justice, under appropriate security

5 procedures, copies of records that the Office has requested

6 for use in connection with its pending review into matters

7 related to the Aldrich Ames case.

Æ
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Gerardo MADRID, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-50404 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed January 8, 2018

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

Judy Fulmer Madewell, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Maureen Scott Franco, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Gerardo Madrid appeals the 30-month above-guidelines sentence and three-year term of supervised release imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry into the United States. He argues that his sentence violates due process because it exceeds the statutory maximum sentence provided in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Madrid concedes that the issue whether his eligibility for a sentencing enhancement under § 1326(b) must be alleged in the indictment and proved to a jury is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). However, he seeks to preserve the issue for possible Supreme Court review because, he argues, subsequent Supreme Court decisions indicate that the Court may reconsider this issue.

In *Almendarez-Torres,*523 U.S. at 239-47, 118 S.Ct. 1219, the Supreme Court held that for purposes of a statutory sentencing enhancement, a prior conviction is not a fact that must be alleged in an indictment or found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Subsequent Supreme Court decisions have not overruled *Almendarez-Torres. See United States v. Wallace,*759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014) (considering the effect of *Alleyne v. United States,*570 U.S. 99, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013)); *United States v. Pineda-Arrellano,*492 F.3d 624, 625-26 (5th Cir. 2007) (considering the effect of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000)). Thus, Madrid’s argument is foreclosed.

Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DE*199NIED, and 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.
<TABLE>

                                                                                                                        Exhibit 11.1

                                                        FORTE SOFTWARE, INC.
                                               COMPUTATION OF INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE
                                                (in thousands, except per share data)
<CAPTION>

                                                       Three Months Ended                       Six Months Ended
                                                          September 30,                          September 30,
                                                      1995              1996                1995               1996
                                                  -----------        ----------         -----------         ----------
<S>                                               <C>                <C>                <C>                 <C>       
Computation of weighted average common 
and common equivalent shares outstanding:

Weighted average common shares outstanding           3,994,347        18,339,126           3,839,386         18,330,608

Weighted average common shares attributable
to stock options and warrants                           73,186         2,739,315             159,082          2,776,732
Stock related to SAB 83                                                                    1,696,530
                                                     1,696,530                 -                                      -
Total common and SAB 83 weighted average
shares outstanding                                   5,764,063        21,078,441           5,694,998         21,107,340

Net income (loss)                                 $(1,415,000)        $1,445,000        $(3,288,000)         $1,738,000
                                                  ============       ===========        ============         ==========

Net income (loss) per share                            $(0.25)             $0.07             $(0.58)              $0.08
                                                       =======            ======             =======              =====

</TABLE>

                                                                              22
EPA Review of HC Refrigerant Recovery and Re-Charge

Gosselin, Pete 

to:

Monica Shimamura

03/13/2009 11:43 AM

Cc:

"Gerrard, Alan", "Mark Konop"

Show Details

Follow Up: 

Normal Priority. 

History: This message has been replied to.

Hello Monica,

I am sorry it has been a while since we talked on this topic, but several "ice cream emergencies" have kept me 

occupied for most of January and February. In December '08 we made some tentative plans to do a physical 

review of the venting/recovery and re-charge process for HC ice cream cabinets. I would like to follow through on 

our goal of presenting a demonstration of these processes.

I was wondering if the key EPA representatives would be available on Thursday, March 26 to review this process 

at our area distributor's facility (Berliner's) in Hyattsville, MD. Could you check with the relevant folks and get 

back in touch with me?

I will be in DC on the 27th but have other meetings. I was hoping to be able to coordinate our demonstration 

around my other appointments.

Talk with you soon,

Pete Gosselin

Ben & Jerry's Homemade, Inc.

30 Community Dr.

South Burlington, VT 05403

802 846 1543 x7636

802 345 5858 - Mobile

Page 1 of 1

file://C:\Documents and Settings\jarling\Local Settings\Temp\notesB53680\~web3868.htm 4/2/2010
III

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 275

To express the sense of the Senate concerning Afghanistan.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 28 1996

Mr. BROWN submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Foreign Relations

JULY 24, 1996

Reported by Mr. HELMS, with an amendment

SEPTEMBER 24, 1996

Considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

To express the sense of the Senate concerning Afghanistan.

Whereas, prior to 1979, Afghanistan was a peaceful, united

country;

Whereas the successful fight of brave men and women of Afghanistan resisting the Soviet invasion and occupation of

1979–1989 was a significant element in the dissolution of

the Soviet empire;

Whereas the dissolution of the Soviet empire brought freedom

to the nations of central and eastern Europe as well as

to the nations of central Asia;
2

SRES 275 ATS

Whereas although many years after the Soviet Union withdrawal, Afghanistan does not enjoy the peace it has

earned;

Whereas the United Nations can play a unique and important

role in bringing an end to the conflict in Afghanistan;

and

Whereas recent meetings between Members of Congress and

the representatives of the major Afghan factions indicate

a significant desire on the part of all parties to achieve

a peaceful resolution to the conflict in Afghanistan and

the establishment of an effective government that represents the interests of the Afghan people: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that—

2 (1) the courageous people of Afghanistan have

3 earned the world’s respect and support for their epic

4 struggle against the forces of communism;

5 (2) resolving the continuing conflict in Afghani6 stan and alleviating the accompanying humanitarian

7 distress of the Afghan people should be a top prior8 ity of the United States;

9 (3) outside interference and the provision of

10 arms and military supplies to the warring parties

11 should be halted;

12 (4) a unique moment in Afghan civil war exists

13 where all major factions are searching for a peaceful

14 solution to the conflict;
3

SRES 275 ATS

1 (5) urges the United Nations Security Council

2 to impose an international arms embargo on Af3 ghanistan to halt the resupply of arms and ammuni4 tion to the warring factions;

5 (6) the United States welcomes the appoint6 ment by the United Nations of a new special envoy

7 to Afghanistan and urges him to aggressively assist

8 the Afghans to achieve a solution to the conflict ac9 ceptable to the Afghan people; and

10 (7) the United Nations should work to create

11 the conditions for a continuing dialogue among the

12 Afghan factions.

Æ
**Exhibit 31**

** **

**WAMU ASSET ACCEPTANCE CORP.**

** **

**OFFICER’S CERTIFICATE**

 

I, Thomas G. Lehmann, certify that:

 

1.         I have reviewed this report on Form 10–K and all reports on Form 10–D required to be filed in respect of theperiod covered by this report on Form 10–K of Washington Mutual Asset-Backed Certificates, WMABS Series 2006-HE5 Trust (the ‘‘Exchange Act periodic reports’’);

 

2.         Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement ofa  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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form10–D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4.         Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB,and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement(s) in all material respects; and

 

5.         All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their relatedattestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a–18 and 15d–18 have been included as anexhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10–K. 

 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:  LaSalle BankNational Association.

Date:  March 15, 2007

 

  /s/ Thomas G. Lehmann_________Name:  Thomas G. LehmannTitle:    President
From: Jensen, Michael [ mailto:Michael.Jensen@hq.doe.gov ]

Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 3:06 PM

To: Erbesfeld, Michael

Subject: RE: EERE-2009-BT-BC-0021

Mike,

We just received the e

‐ mail below regarding the manufactured housing rulemaking. Our response at

this time should be as follows:

Thank you for your request for information regarding the status of the proposed rule for energy

efficiency standards for manufactured housing. DOE currently is in the process of preparing a notice of

proposed rulemaking to implement section 413 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. If

promulgated, this rulemaking would establish energy efficiency standards based on the energy

efficiency provisions contained in the most recent version of the International Energy Conservation Code

(IECC) and any supplements to that document, except where DOE finds that the IECC is not cost

‐

effective or where a more stringent standard would be more cost

‐ effective, based on the impact of the

IECC on the purchase price of manufactured housing and on total life

‐ cycle construction and operating

costs. DOE issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking on February 10, 2010, in which we sought

public input on the relationship between the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

(HUD) manufactured housing regulations and on any potential DOE manufactured housing standards.

Because this rulemaking is still in the process of internal agency development, however, it is premature

at this time to provide additional information on the contents of the proposed rule. Thank you again for

your interest in the Department’s efforts in this regard,

Note: Communications in this email providing legal advice are considered privileged and confidential

communications and may be subject to other restrictions on release.
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                    ------------

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Wireless Xcessories Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report"), I
Stephen Rade, Chief Executive 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, to the best of 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, as amended; and

     (2)  The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.


By /s/ Stephen Rade
   ---------------------
   Stephen Rade
   Chief Executive Officer
   November 14, 2007
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert R. SOLOMON III, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-10042

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted October 23, 2017 *

Filed October 27, 2017

Owen Roth, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USSAC—Office of the US Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Carolyn M. Wiggin, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDCA—Federal Public Defender’s Office (Sacramento) Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: LEAVY, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Robert R. Solomon III appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 37-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Solomon contends that the district court improperly determined that his prior assault conviction under California Penal Code § 245(a)(4) was a “crime of violence” under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) and, therefore, improperly determined his base offense level. He acknowledges that this claim is foreclosed by our holding in *United States*v. *Grajeda,*581 F.3d 1186, 1197 (9th Cir. 2009) (violation of section 245 “is categorically a crime of violence” under the elements clause). However, he argues that this holding has been undermined by *Johnson v. United States,*— U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015). We disagree. *Johnson*held that the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii), was unconstitutionally vague, and did not address the elements clause. *See Johnson,*135 S.Ct. at 2563. Moreover, *Johnson’s*holding had no effect on the advisory Guidelines. *See Beckles v. United States,*— U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 886, 895, 197 L.Ed.2d 145 (2017). Finally, contrary to Solomon’s contention, our decision in *Grajeda*is not “clearly irreconcilable” with *Descamps v. United States,*570 U.S. 254, 133 S.Ct. 2276, 186 L.Ed.2d 438 (2013), or *Mathis v. United States,*— U.S. —, 136 S.Ct. 2243, 195 L.Ed.2d 604 (2016). *See Miller v. Gammie,*335 F.3d 889, 900 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.

**

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