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

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Paolo De Luca, 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/ Paolo De Luca*                                                   |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   | Paolo De Luca

Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer) |

----
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

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), I, William W.
Burnham, Chairman of the Board, President, Chief Executive Officer, and Acting
Chief Financial Officer, of Trudy Corporation do hereby certify, to the best of
my knowledge that:

     1)   The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended
          June 30, 2004 being filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
          (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.

This Certification accompanies this Form 10-QSB as an exhibit, but shall not be
deemed as having been filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 or as a separate disclosure document of the Company or the
certifying officer.


                                               /s/ William W. Burnham
                                               ---------------------------------
Date: November 12, 2004                        William W. Burnham
                                               Chairman of the Board, President,
                                               Chief Executive Officer, and
                                               Acting Chief Financial Officer
#### Rick A. SLORP, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LERNER, SAMPSON & ROTHFUSS, et al., Defendants-Appellees;

No. 16-3936

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Filed June 28, 2017

Troy John Doucet, Doucet *&*Associates, Dublin, OH, for Plaintiff-Appellant

. Rick D. DeBlasis, Lerner, Sampson & Rothfuss, Cincinnati, OH, for Defendants-Appellees Lerner, Sampson *&*Rothfuss, Shellie Hill

Bryan T. Kostura, James W. Sandy, McGlinchey Stafford, Cleveland, OH, for Defendant-Appellee Bank of America, N.A.

David Arthur Wallace, Carpenter, Lipps *&*Leland, Columbus, OH, for Defendant-Appellee Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.

BEFORE: MOORE, GIBBONS, and SUTTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff-appellant Rick Slorp appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment for defendants. Slorp filed a complaint against defendants Lerner, Sampson & Rothfuss (a law firm), Bank of America, and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, claiming that defendants attempted to fraudulently foreclose on his home. Previously, after dismissing much of Slorp’s *906complaint, we remanded this matter to the district court for consideration of one remaining count — namely, a civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act claim, predicated on allegations of mail and wire fraud. *Slorp v. Lerner, Sampson & Rothfuss,*587 Fed.Appx. 249, 264-66 (6th Cir. 2014). We cautioned, however, that Slorp’s claim would “vanish” if defendant Bank of America was found to be a legitimate mortgagee. *Id.*at 264. The district court found Bank of America was a legitimate mortgagee, and we agree with its reasoning and result. For the reasons set forth in the district court’s opinion, we affirm the grant of summary judgment for defendants.
No. 11-10860.

No. 12-5053.

#### In re Daniels; and In re Shove.

Motions of petitioners for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*denied, and petitions for writs of habeas corpus dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8.
,--^fi^itMT OF 

July 25, 2011 

Aloha Ley 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE, W86-310 

Washington, DC 20590 

Dear Ms. Ley: 

I support the City of Abilene's request for a Small Community Air Service 

Development Grant to improve air service at Abilene Regional Airport. 

As an under-served airport, ABI is requesting funding to subsidize new 

service with an additional airline. 

Your approval of the grant proposal, resulting in additional air service 

for our region, would provide: 

• Increased customer choices by adding non-stop service from 

ABI to an additional airline hub airport 

• Increased route opportunities and capacity 

• Reduced average fares paid by passengers using ABI 

• Reduced leakage to other airports in the region 

I respectfully request your favorable action on Abilene Regional 

Airport's grant application. 

Sincerely, 

Rick Correll 

President, Tige Boats, Inc. 

Ii'^e Boats. Inc. 1801 Highway 36 Abilene TX 79602 fnl .3?S 676 7777 I f M ? R fi 7 7 n •:! K r.. , 1 
July 25, 2011 

11 Glen Abbey Ct. 

Abilene, Texas 79606 

Aloha Ley 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE, W86-310 

Washington, DC 20590 

Dear Ms. Ley: 

I support the City of Abilene's request for a Small Community Air Service 

Development Grant to improve air service at Abilene Regional Airport. 

As an under-served airport, ABI is requesting funding to subsidize new service 

with an additional airline. 

Your approval of the grant proposal, resulting in additional air service for our 

region, would provide: 

• Increased customer choices by adding non-stop service from ABI to an additional 

airline hub airport 

• Increased route opportunities and capacity 

• Reduced average fares paid by passengers using ABI 

• Reduced leakage to other airports in the region 

I respectfully request your favorable action on Abilene Regional Airport's grant 

application. 

As a newly divorced family, my teenagers now travel to visit their father who lives 

out of state. In fact, they departed from ABI today to travel to Atlanta. Additional 

airline options will help provide cost-effective choices in travel plans. Your 

consideration is appreciated. 

Sincerely, " 

Luci English
#### Steven BROUSSARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JEFFERSON COUNTY; G. Mitch Woods, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Sheriff of Jefferson County, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-40411

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed February 12, 2018

Alfonso Kennard, Jr., Esq., Senior Counsel, Ronald Edward Dupree, Jr., Esq., Kennard Richard, P.C., Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Frank David Calvert, Frederick Blair Clarke, Esq., Calvert Eaves Clarke *&*Stelly, L.L.P., Beaumont, TX, for Defendants-Appellees

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Steven Broussard, a former corrections officer, sued his previous employer, Jefferson County, Texas, and its sheriff under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights in stating criticisms regarding the operation of the county government. Based on the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, Broussard was allowed to amend to cure deficiencies in his complaint. The magistrate judge then issued a second, thorough recommendation that the defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted, agreeing with the defendants that “Broussard’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against Woods are barred by qualified immunity, and that [the] claim against Jefferson County fails to identify an official policy or custom ... that violated Broussard’s constitutional rights.”

The district court agreed, observing that the magistrate judge had carefully divided Broussard’s statements into those made as a citizen and those made in his capacity as a government employee. The court noted that the statements as an employee were not actionable and that Broussard had not. *235pleaded facts that plausibly suggest that the sheriff was even aware of statements Broussard had made as a citizen.

We have examined the briefs, the applicable law, and pertinent parts of the record and have heard the arguments of counsel. The district court was correct to rule that Broussard failed to state a claim. We therefore need not explore the question of qualified immunity. The judgment of dismissal is AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons carefully set forth by the magistrate judge and the district court.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Exhibit 10.9


 


November 8, 2017


 


	Attn:	Dr. Tsontcho lanchulev
	Re:	Letter of Engagement and Potential Offer of Employment


 


Dr. lanchulev:


 


The purpose of this letter
is to clarify and correct some language in your Letter of Engagement and Potential Offer of Employment (the "Offer Letter")
dated July 7, 2017 with the Eyenovia, Inc. (the
"Company").


 


Your annual salary is $384,996,
payable in monthly (or bi-weekly) installments of $32,083.
The Offer Letter inaccurately stated $32,083 as
your annual salary.


 


The plan referred to in
your Offer Letter under which you stock options have been issued is the 2014
Equity Incentive Plan not the 2013 Stock
Plan.


 


If you have any questions,
please feel fee to contact me. We look forward to continuing to work with you.


 


	 	Sincerely,
	 	 	 
	 	Eyenovia, Inc.
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Fred Eshelman
	 	Fred Eshelman, Chairman of the Board
EXHIBIT
        32.1





CERTIFICATION


OF CHIEF
        EXECUTIVE OFFICER


AND CHIEF
        FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
        TO 18 U.S.C. 1350,


AS
        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I,
        Tony
        Tong, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
        906 of
        the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A#1
        of
        PacificNet Inc. for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 fully complies with the
        requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
        1934
        and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A#1
        fairly
        presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
        operations of PacificNet Inc.





I,
        Joseph
        Levinson, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
        906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form
        10-Q/A#1 of PacificNet Inc. for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 fully complies
        with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
        Act
        of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A#1
        fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
        of operations of PacificNet Inc.





By:  /s/ Tony Tong
 Tony Tong
 Chairman
                  and Chief Executive Officer
 (Principal
                  Executive Officer)


Date:
          November 3, 2006
 
 By:  
          /s/ Joseph Levinson
 Joseph
          Levinson
 Chief
          Financial Officer
 (Principal
          Financial Officer)
  Date:
          November 3, 2006
III

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 185

To express the sense of the Senate regarding repayment of loans to Mexico.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 19 (legislative day, OCTOBER 18), 1995

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

Committee on Foreign Relations

RESOLUTION

To express the sense of the Senate regarding repayment

of loans to Mexico.

Whereas the United States has provided Mexico with approximately $12,500,000,000 in loans to Mexico;

Whereas these loans were not authorized by the United

States Congress;

Whereas the taxpayers of the United States should not be responsible for any losses incurred from these loans; and

Whereas certain loans to Mexico will become due and payable

on October 30, 1995: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That, it is the sense of the Senate that no

2 further loans should be made to Mexico without specific

3 authorization from the United States Congress, that all

4 loans made to Mexico should be repaid in full and on time,
2

•SRES 185 IS

1 and that such debts should not be extended, rescheduled,

2 or reduced in any manner.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 299 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 299

 Extending the provisions of Senate Resolution 149 of the One Hundred 
  Third Congress, First Session, relating to the Senate Arms Control 
                            Observer Group.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 24, 1996

    Mr. Lott (for himself and Mr. Daschle) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Extending the provisions of Senate Resolution 149 of the One Hundred 
  Third Congress, First Session, relating to the Senate Arms Control 
                            Observer Group.

    Resolved, That subsection (a) of the first section of Senate 
Resolution 149, agreed to October 5, 1993 (103d Congress, 1st Session), 
is amended by striking ``until December 31, 1996'' and inserting 
``until December 31, 1998''.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 60 (Tuesday, March 29, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 17950]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06670]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 1


Income Taxes

CFR Correction

    This rule is being published by the Office of the Federal Register 
to correct an editorial or technical error that appeared in the most 
recent annual revision of the Code of Federal Regulations.

0
In Title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1 (Sec. Sec.  
1.301 to 1.400), revised as of April 1, 2021, in Sec.  1.362-4, revise 
paragraph (j) to read as follows:


Sec.  1.362-4   Basis of loss duplication property.

* * * * *
    (j) Effective/applicability date. This section applies to 
transactions occurring after September 3, 2013, unless effected 
pursuant to a binding agreement that was in effect prior to September 
3, 2013, and at all times thereafter. In addition, taxpayers may apply 
these regulations to transactions occurring after October 22, 2004. The 
introductory text and Example 11 of paragraph (h) of this section apply 
with respect to transactions occurring on or after March 28, 2016, and 
also with respect to transactions occurring before such date as a 
result of an entity classification election under Sec.  301.7701-3 of 
this chapter filed on or after March 28, 2016, unless such transaction 
is pursuant to a binding agreement that was in effect prior to March 
28, 2016 and at all times thereafter. In addition, taxpayers may apply 
such provisions to any transaction occurring after October 22, 2004.

[FR Doc. 2022-06670 Filed 3-28-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 0099-10-D
#### Kevin SCHAAP, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KENTUCKY HIGHER EDUCATION STUDENT LOAN CORPORATION; Kentucky Higher Education Assistance Agency; Equifax Information Services; Experian Information Services; Transunion, LLC, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-2169

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 22, 2018

Decided: February 26, 2018

Kevin Schaap, Appellant Pro Se. Russell M. Racine, Virginia Marie Wooten, CRAN-FILL, SUMNER *&*HARTZOG, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina; Rita Bolt Barker, WYCHE, P.A., Greenville, South Carolina; John Anthony Love, KING & SPALDING, LLP, Atlanta, Georgia; Lyn-dey Ritz Zwingelberg, ADAMS & REESE, LLP, Columbia, South Carolina; Stephen Lynwood Brown, Russell Grainger Hines, Wilbur Eugene Johnson, YOUNG CLEMENT RIVERS, LLP, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kevin Schaap appeals the district court’s amended order granting Defendants’ joint motion to dismiss Schaap’s civil action as a sanction for Schaap’s failure to comply with discovery requirements and a court order, attend his properly noticed deposition, and prosecute his claims against Defendants, and dismissing with prejudice Schaap’s civil action. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that the motion to dismiss be granted and advised Schaap that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is *306necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. *Wright v. Collins,*766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); *see also Thomas v. Arn,*474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Schaap has waived appellate review by-failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.* Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s amended judgment. We deny Schaap’s motion for an extension of time to file a formal appellate brief.

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*

*

 Schaap contends, for the first time on appeal, that his failure to object to the magistrate judge’s report should be excused because he did not receive the report. However, the record reveals both that Schaap had ample opportunity to raise this issue in the district court, but did not, and Schaap’s penchant for ignoring court orders and discovery demands. Accordingly, we reject Schaap’s proffered excuse for failing to object to the report,
105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 224

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Urging international cooperation in recovering chilother countries. dren abducted in the United States and taken to
105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 224

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas many children in the United States have been abducted by family members who are foreign nationals and

living in foreign countries;

Whereas children who have been abducted by an estranged

father are very rarely returned, through legal remedies,

from countries that only recognize the custody rights of

the father;
2

•HCON 224 EH

Whereas there are at least 140 cases that need to be resolved

in which children have been abducted by family members

and taken to foreign countries;

Whereas, although the Convention on the Civil Aspects of

International Child Abduction, done at the Hague on October 25, 1980, has made progress in aiding the return

of abducted children, the Convention does not address the

criminal aspects of child abduction, and there is a need

to reach agreements regarding child abduction with countries that are not parties to the Convention; and

Whereas decisions on awarding custody of children should be

made in the children’s best interest, and persons who violate laws of the United States by abducting their children

should not be rewarded by being granted custody of those

children: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the Congress urges international co3 operation in working to resolve those cases in which chil4 dren in the United States are abducted by family members

5 who are foreign nationals and taken to foreign countries,

6 and in seeing that justice is served by holding accountable

7 the abductors for violations of criminal law.

Passed the House of Representatives September 14,

1998.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Macario VIEZCA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-2581

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted December 8, 2017 *

Decided January 3, 2018

Debra Riggs Bonamici, Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Carol A. Brook, Attorney, William H. Theis, Attorney, Office of the Federal Defender Program, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellant

Before WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge, FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge, MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

*

 After examining the briefs and record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus the appeal is submitted on the briefs and record. *See*Fed. R. App, P, 34(a)(2).

ORDER

The judgment is affirmed for the reasons given in *Hill v. United States,*877 F.3d 717 (7th Cir. 2017).
No. 11-1254.

#### Young *v.*California ex rel. Parker, City Attorney, City of Oakland, California.

Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.