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

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Greg Engel, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 40-F of Organigram Holdings Inc.;

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 issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.  The issuer'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)) [*omitted pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(a*)] for the issuer 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 issuer, 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) [*omitted pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(a)*];

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the issuer'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

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the issuer'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 issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.  The issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the issuer'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 issuer'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 issuer's internal control over financial reporting.

Date: November 26, 2019
|   | By:    | */s/ Greg Engel*                                                   |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   | Greg Engel

Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer) |

----
-1- 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

COURT OF APPEALS 

CITIZENS FOR A BETTER ALGONAC 

COMMUNITY SCHOOLS and HEIDI 

CAMPBELL, 

 Plaintiffs-Appellants/CrossAppellees, 

FOR PUBLICATION 

September 8, 2016 

v No. 326583 

St. Clair Circuit Court 

ALGONAC COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, LC No. 14-001371-CZ 

 Defendant-Appellee/CrossAppellant. 

Before: WILDER, P.J., and MURPHY and O’CONNELL, JJ. 

O’CONNELL, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part). 

 Plaintiffs, Citizens for a Better Algonac Community Schools and Heidi Campbell, appeal 

as of right the trial court’s order declaring that defendant, Algonac Community Schools, violated 

the Open Meetings Act (OMA), MCL 15.261 et seq, but denying injunctive relief and attorney 

fees. I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that the trial court may not grant 

declaratory relief under the OMA. In all other respects, I concur in the majority’s opinion. 

Because I conclude that the trial court may grant declaratory relief under the OMA, I would 

affirm. 

 The majority ably states the factual background of this case and the legal background of 

the OMA. I agree with the majority that Speicher v Columbia Twp Bd of Trustees, 497 Mich 

125; 860 NW2d 51 (2014), should be given retroactive effect, and that plaintiffs were not 

entitled to injunctive relief in this case. Where my analysis diverges is whether Speicher

prohibits the trial court from granting declaratory relief. 

 While a party is only entitled to attorney fees and costs under MCL 15.271(4), MCL 

15.271(1) provides that a party “may commence a civil action to compel compliance or to enjoin 

further noncompliance with this act.” (Emphasis added). The disjunctive word “or” indicates 

that enjoining future compliance is only one possible form of relief. See Paris Meadows, LLC v 

City of Kentwood, 287 Mich App 136, 148; 783 NW2d 133 (2010). The Speicher Court 

considered a similar circumstance. In that case, the plaintiff obtained declaratory relief under the 

Open Meetings Act. Speicher, 497 Mich at 128. The Michigan Supreme Court did not reverse 
-2- 

the trial court for granting declaratory relief: it merely refused to allow attorney fees and costs 

unless the plaintiff attained injunctive relief. Id. at 144.1

 I would conclude that the trial court 

validly granted the Citizens declaratory relief, but that they were not entitled to attorney fees 

because they did not obtain injunctive relief. 

 I would affirm. 

/s/ Peter D. O’Connell 

 

1

 Specifically, our Supreme Court stated, “[a]lthough the Court of Appeals concluded that the 

plaintiff was nevertheless entitled to declaratory relief for defendants’ notice violation, he is not 

entitled to receive court costs and actual attorney fees because he did not succeed in obtaining 

injunctive relief in the action, as MCL 15.271(4) requires.” Speicher, 497 Mich at 144.
##### 



Exhibit 10.02
 REPLACEMENT SECURED PROMISSORY NOTE
 $8,000,000.00
    
    Phoenix, Arizona
June 27, 2007
 MATRIXX INITIATIVES, INC., Matrixx ZICAM, LLC, Zicam Makers Payee
 Note
 provided, however,
 plus
 th Late Payment Fee th
  1




---



##### 



Agreement Note
    THE PARTIES AGREE THAT ALL ACTIONS OR PROCEEDINGS ARISING IN CONNECTION WITH THIS NOTE
SHALL BE TRIED AND LITIGATED ONLY IN THE STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS LOCATED IN THE COUNTY OF
MARICOPA, STATE OF ARIZONA; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT ANY SUIT SEEKING ENFORCEMENT AGAINST ANY
COLLATERAL OR OTHER PROPERTY MAY BE BROUGHT, AT PAYEES OPTION, IN THE COURTS
 2




---



##### 



OF ANY JURISDICTION WHERE SUCH COLLATERAL OR OTHER PROPERTY MAY BE FOUND. MAKERS AND PAYEE WAIVE,
TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED UNDER APPLICABLE LAW, ANY RIGHT EACH MAY HAVE TO ASSERT THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NOW CONVENIENS OR TO OBJECT TO VENUE TO THE EXTENT ANY PROCEEDING IS BROUGHT IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THIS SECTION 11.
 MAKERS AND PAYEE HEREBY WAIVE THEIR RESPECTIVE RIGHTS TO A JURY TRIAL OF ANY CLAIM OR
CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON OR ARISING OUT OF THIS NOTE OR ANY OF THE TRANSACTIONS CONTEMPLATED
HEREIN, INCLUDING CONTRACT CLAIMS, TORT CLAIMS, BREACH OF DUTY CLAIMS, AND ALL OTHER COMMON LAW OR
STATUTORY CLAIMS. MAKERS AND PAYEE REPRESENT THAT EACH HAS REVIEWED THIS WAIVER AND EACH KNOWINGLY
AND VOLUNTARILY WAIVES ITS JURY TRIAL RIGHTS FOLLOWING CONSULTATION WITH LEGAL COUNSEL. IN THE
EVENT OF LITIGATION, A COPY OF THIS AGREEMENT MAY BE FILED AS A WRITTEN CONSENT TO A TRIAL BY THE
COURT.
 Prior
Note
  3




---



##### 



MATRIXX INITIATIVES, INC., a Delaware corporationBy:
    
    /s/ William J. HemeltName:
    
    WILLIAM J. HEMELTTitle:
    
    CFO/EVPZICAM, LLC, an Arizona limited liability companyBy:
    
    /s/ William J. HemeltName:
    
    WILLIAM J. HEMELTTitle:
    
    MANAGER/CFOBy:Name:Title:
  S-1
**Exhibit 32.1**

**18 U.S.C. Section 1350 CERTIFICATION**

In connection with this annual report on Form 10-K of 1st Pacific Bancorp (the “Company”) for the periodended December 31, 2006 (this “Report”), A. Vincent Siciliano, Presidentand Chief Executive Officer of the Company and James H. Burgess, Executive VicePresident and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certifypursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.             This Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.             The informationcontained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the registrant.

Date:  March 22,2007
|        | By:    | /s/ A. Vincent Siciliano |
|--------|--------|--------------------------|
|   |   |                     | A. Vincent Siciliano |
|   |   |                     | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|   |   |                     |   |
|   | By:    | /s/ James H. Burgess     |
|   |   |                     | James H. Burgess |
|   |   |                     | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kieron Matthew WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-7196

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: January 31, 2018

Decided: February 12, 2018

*146Kieron Matthew Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Corey Sullivan,- Assistant United States Attorney, James G. Warwick, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kieron Matthew Williams appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to proceed pro se in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. Although such an order is not final, for the reasons stated by the majority of our sister courts that have addressed the issue, we proceed under the assumption that an order denying a civil litigant’s right to self-representation is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine. *See, e.g., Devine v. Indian River Cty. Sck Bd.,*121 F.3d 576, 579 (11th Cir. 1997) (collecting cases), *abrogated in part on other grounds by Winkelman ex rel. Winkelman v. Parma City Sch. Dist.,*550 U.S. 516, 127 S.Ct. 1994, 167 L.Ed.2d 904 (2007). The district court offered no explanation for denying Williams’ motion to proceed pro se. Because, on the current record, we are unable to discern any independent rationale supporting the district court’s order, we cannot assess the propriety of the court’s ruling.

Consequently, we vacate the district court’s order and remand to allow the district court to explain or reassess its ruling. 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*
#### Fernando YATES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WEST CONTRA COSTA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-16776

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 18, 2017 *

Filed December 28, 2017

Fernando Yates, Pro Se

Timothy P. Murphy, James H. Ly, Edr-ington, Schirmer, & Murphy LLP, Pleasant Hill, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM ***

Fernando Yates appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his *419employment action alleging disability discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Kaplan v. City of N. Las Vegas,*323 F.3d 1226, 1229 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Yates’ disability discrimination claim because Yates failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether his hearing loss constituted a disability. *See id.*at 1231 (discussing definition of “disability” under the ADA, including being “regarded as” having a disability); *see also Walton v. U.S. Marshals Serv.,*492 F.3d 998, 1006 (9th Cir. 2007) (explaining that in order to show that plaintiff is “regarded as” having a disability, the plaintiff “must show that [his] employer regards [him] as substantially limited in a major life activity and not just unable to meet a particular job performance standard”).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Yates’ retaliation claim because Yates failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether his employer’s legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for its actions were pretextual. *See Brown v. City of Tucson,*336 F.3d 1181, 1187-88 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining application of burden-shifting analysis to ADA retaliation claims and requirements for establishing pretext).

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

We reject as without merit Yates’ contention regarding the district court’s alleged bias.

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
(logo) CWCapitalASSET MANAGEMENT  **Annual Statement as to Compliance****For the Period of January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015**  **WFRBS 2014-C22**  In accordance with Item 1123 of Regulation AB and with the requirements detailed in §11.12 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the “Agreement”) for the above-mentioned CMBS pool, (the “CMBS Pool”), CWCapital Asset Management LLC (“CWCAM”), in its capacity as Special Servicer, is providing this Officer’s Certificate with respect to the following: (A) a review of CWCAM’s activities during the preceding calendar year or portion thereof (the “Reporting Period”) and of CWCAM’s performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer’s supervision and; (B) to the best of such officer’s knowledge, based on such review, CWCAM has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.  Sincerely,CWCapital Asset Management LLC  /s/ David B IannaroneDavid B. IannaronePresident  7501 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 500 West, Bethesda, MD 20814 www.cwcapital.com
`[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 17 Referred in Senate (RFS)]







105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 17


_______________________________________________________________________


                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 6, 1997

      Received and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION


 
  Congratulating the people of Guatemala on the success of the recent 
        negotiations to establish a peace process for Guatemala.

Whereas on December 29, 1996, the Government of Guatemala and the 
        representatives of the Unidad Revolucionaria Nacional Guatemala signed 
        an historic peace accord ending 36 years of armed confrontation;
Whereas the peace accord includes the creation of a commission to implement a 
        wide range of reforms to the political, economic, social, and judicial 
        systems of Guatemala,

including an enhanced respect for human rights and the rule of law, 
improved health and education services, attention to the needs of refugees 
and displaced persons, and the role of the military in a democratic 
society;

Whereas the peace accord represents the completion of a long and important 
        negotiation process with the goal of achieving lasting peace, national 
        reconciliation, political stability, and renewed economic growth in 
        Guatemala; and
Whereas lasting peace, political stability, and economic development in 
        Guatemala is in the best interest of all nations of the Western 
        Hemisphere, including the United States: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That the Congress--
            (1) congratulates the Guatemalan Government of President 
        Alvaro Arzu for its extraordinary accomplishments in 
        negotiating an end to hostilities and beginning the process of 
        national reconciliation and reconstruction;
            (2) recognizes the commitment of the Unidad Revolucionaria 
        Nacional Guatemala in Guatemala to agree to end the devastating 
        warfare and to resolve their differences in a peaceful manner 
        within a democratic political arena;
            (3) commends all of the people of Guatemala for their 
        determination to achieve a lasting peace and encourages their 
        strong commitment to democratic principles and social justice 
        for all; and
            (4) affirms the commitment of the United States to help 
        support a sustainable peace and development of strong 
        democratic institutions in Guatemala.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 5, 1997.

            Attest:

                                                ROBIN H. CARLE,

                                                                 Clerk.`
No. 11-10099.

#### Snelling *v.*Pawloski et al.

C. A. 8th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*denied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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

The undersigned, Ben Yan, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Sino Fibre Communications, Inc. hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A (Amendment No. 1) of Sino Fibre Communications, Inc., for the year ended December 31, 2007, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A (Amendment No. 1) fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Sino Fibre Communications, Inc.

Date:  April 22, 2008

/s/ Ben Yan
Ben Yan
President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer and
Principal Accounting Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Sino Fibre Communications, Inc. and will be retained by Sino Fibre Communications, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
BUEHLER ASSOCIATES 

---ATTORNEYS--------------------

J.C. Buehler· 

L. Craig Turner· , 

Jill S. McGinnis 

Of Counsel 

Jeffrey. A. Doty 

Carolyn E. Leeman 

John Cloutier' * Registered Civil Mediator; also admitted Illinois 

*'also admitted Mississippi 

t admitted Illinois, Florida 

Not A Partnership 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

RECEIVED 

JAN 2 9 2014 

HEARING DOCKET 

ATrN: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Bldg- Suite 2Wl 000 

Re: Solutions Air Charter, LLC, Case No. 2011SW910191 

REQUEST FOR HEARING 

777 East 86th Street 

Box 40924 

Indianapolis, Indiana 46240-0924 

(317) 253-8686 

(317) 253-9371 Fax 

Email: 

jcb @buehlerlaw.com 

cturner@ buehlerlaw.com 

jmcginnis@ buehlerlaw.com 

Dorothy Simone, Manager/Paralegal 

In accordance with 14 C.F.R. 13.16, Solution Air Charter, LLC, requests a hearing on the 

agency's Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty, received January 21, 2014. 

J.c>Buehler 

Attorney for Solutions Air Charter, LLC 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

A copy of this Request for Hearing, with attachments, was forwarded by First Class U.S. Mail to Nicholas R. Milliard, Esq. at the FAA 

Office ofChiefCounsel, on Janua1y 22, 2014.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 318 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 318

     To commend the exemplary leadership of the Democratic leader.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 3, 1996

 Mr. Lott submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 
                               agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
     To commend the exemplary leadership of the Democratic leader.

    Resolved, That the thanks of the Senate are hereby tendered to the 
distinguished Democratic leader, the Senator from South Dakota, the 
Honorable Thomas A. Daschle, for his exemplary leadership and the 
cooperative and dedicated manner in which he has performed his 
leadership responsibilities in the conduct of the Senate business 
during the second session of the 104th Congress.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
ACCOMPANYING CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET OF PENSKE MOTORSPORTS, INC. AS
OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND THE RELATED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME
FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           3,864
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,198
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      3,360
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                15,673
<PP&E>                                         241,634
<DEPRECIATION>                                  20,318
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 284,211
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           30,829
<BONDS>                                         49,739
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           141
<OTHER-SE>                                     190,675
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   284,211
<SALES>                                         10,250
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                43,974
<CGS>                                            6,009
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   28,679
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   727
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 766
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,802
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,957
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,845
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,845
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .63
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .63
        

</TABLE>