alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1

            Certification of Chief Executive and Financial Officer of
               Monument Resources, Inc. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350


     I, A.G. Foust, certify that:

     In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Monument
Resources, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, A.G. Foust, Chief Executive and Financial Officer of the Company, certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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/  A.G. Foust
                                               --------------------------------
                                            Name:     A.G. Foust
                                            Title:    Chief Executive and
                                                      Financial Officer


                                            Date:    February 13, 2004
U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

633 3rd St. NW, Suite 200

Washington, DC 20001

EAC | Helping America Vote EAC.gov page 1 of 1

How a Voting System Becomes EAC Certified:

Overview of the EAC Certification Process

The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002 created the U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

(EAC), an independent, bipartisan commission charged with adopting voluntary voting system 

guidelines, accrediting testing laboratories, and certifying voting systems, among other important 

responsibilities. In furtherance of this mission, the EAC established a Testing and Certification 

Program which assists state and local election officials by providing voting machine testing and 

certification. This Overview of the EAC Certification Process provides the basic steps taken by a 

voting system to receive EAC certification.

1. The EAC Adopts Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG)

The Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG) are a set of requirements that voting systems 

must meet in order to receive a certification from the EAC. VVSG 2.0, the most recent version of 

the guidelines, was adopted by the EAC in February 2021. Voting systems may be tested to any 

version of the VVSG, in accordance with the EAC’s VVSG Lifecycle Policy, adopted in April 

2022. 

2. NIST Recommends and the EAC Accredits Voting System Test Laboratories

The EAC accredits independent voting system test laboratories (VSTLs) that evaluate voting 

systems against the VVSG to determine if they conform to all applicable program requirements. 

52 U.S. Code § 20971(b) covers laboratory accreditation, which begins with the Director of the 

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) providing a recommendation to the EAC 

on laboratories to accredit following an evaluation. Chapter 5 of the Voting System Test 

Laboratory Manual (Version 2.0) describes the EAC VSTL accreditation revocation process. 

The VSTL Certificate of Accreditation that is issued after the EAC performs a VSTL audit and 

the expiration date listed on the certificate relates to the EAC program requirement to reassess 

VSTLs periodically to ensure conformance to the requirements of the testing and certification 

program for a VSTL. Failure to issue an updated VSTL Certificate of Accreditation does not 

indicate the lab is no longer accredited, which can only occur by a vote of the Commission 

pursuant to 52 U.S. Code § 20971(c)(2). During periods where the Commission lacked quorum, 

accreditation certificates were not issued. 

3. A Voting System Meets Requirements of the VVSG 

A voting system receives EAC certification when the system has been tested by a federally 

accredited voting system test laboratory (VSTL) and has successfully met the requirements of 

the VVSG and any other claims made by the voting system manufacturer. 

4. The EAC Certifies the Voting System

The EAC issues a certification once all steps required by the program have been completed. EAC 

certification of a voting system does not expire, and a system can only lose its certification if the 

EAC formally decertifies it.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                                          0000818674
<NAME>                                         Intellicall, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                     1
<CASH>                                          4,991
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   2,173
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,068)
<INVENTORY>                                     2,664
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                9,161
<PP&E>                                          8,405
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (7,665)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 11,027
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           3,569
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                          131
<OTHER-SE>                                      5,319
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   11,027
<SALES>                                         1,100
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                1,100
<CGS>                                           1,049
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   1,049
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                2,032
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 (340)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (374)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 7,928
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             7,928
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   (97)
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                    7,831
<EPS-BASIC>                                       .60
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .60


</TABLE>
# C_2023179EN.01004102.xml

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/41

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — celotec v EUIPO — Decotec Printing (DECOTEC)

(Case T-308/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark DECOTEC - Absolute ground for invalidity - Lack of descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2023/C 179/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: celotec GmbH & Co. KG (Sendenhorst, Germany) (represented by: E. Warnke and J. Römelt, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: R. Raponi, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Decotec Printing, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: K. Guridi Sedlak, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 21 March 2022 (Case R 1025/2021-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders celotec GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders celotec GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 266, 11.7.2022.

---
<PAGE>
 
                                   EXHIBIT 21

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF AMAX GOLD INC.
                  (All 100% owned unless otherwise indicated)



    Name of Subsidiary                 Jurisdiction of Incorporation
    ------------------                 -----------------------------

AGI Chile Credit Corp., Inc.                    Delaware
AGI Chile Finance Corp.                         Delaware
Amax Gold de Chile Ltda.                        Chile
Amax Gold Exploration, Inc.                     Delaware
Amax Gold Refugio, Inc.                         Delaware
Amax Precious Metals, Inc.                      Delaware
Compania Minera Amax Guanaco*                   Chile
Compania Minera Maricunga**                     Chile
Cyprus Magadan Gold Corporation                 Delaware
Omolon Gold Mining Company**                    Russia
Fairbanks Gold Ltd.                             British Columbia
Fairbanks Gold Mining, Inc.                     Delaware
Guanaco Mining Company, Inc.                    Delaware
Haile Mining Company, Inc.                      Delaware
Lancaster Mining Company, Inc.                  Delaware
Lassen Gold Mining, Inc.                        Delaware
Melba Creek Mining, Inc.                        Alaska
Nevada Gold Mining, Inc.                        Delaware
Wind Mountain Mining, Inc.                      Delaware


-------------------
*  90% owned.
** 50% owned.
Exhibit 32.1


                  Certification of Chief Executive and Financial Officer of
                    Monument Resources, Inc. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350


     I, A.G. Foust, certify that:

     In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Monument
Resources, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, A.G. Foust, Chief Executive and Financial Officer of the Company, certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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/ A.G. Foust
                                                        ---------------------
                                                   Name:  A.G. Foust
                                                   Title: Chief Executive and
                                                          Financial Officer
                                                   Date:  February 9, 2006
Skip to main content
				  About Us
Contact Us
FAQs
					Language Assistance
						English
							español
							中文: 繁體版
							Việt-ngữ
							한국어
							Tagalog
							Русский


U.S. Department of Education
Search for: Toggle navigation
		  U.S. Department of Education
	  Student Loans
Grants
Laws
Data Secretary Cardona to Deliver Virtual Commencement Address at the University of Connecticut
                                                          Archived InformationSecretary Cardona to Deliver Virtual Commencement Address at the University of Connecticut
**Contact:** Press Office, (202) 401-1576, press@ed.gov
**Event Date 1 :**May 8, 2021 - 1:00pm
On Saturday, May 8, U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona will deliver the commencement address virtually at the University of Connecticut graduation ceremony for the Class of 2021.

The virtual commencement ceremony for the graduates will be streamed live at 1 p.m. EDT,  via YouTube, to bring the entire class together at once and officially confer degrees.
Event 1
                  Who :
                 U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona,  University of Connecticut  President Dr. Thomas C. KatsouleasWhat :
                 Deliver Virtual Commencement Address at the University of ConnecticutWhen :

                 Saturday, May 8, 2021 @1 P.M. ETWhere :
                 University of Connecticut
Tags:    Media Advisories
		How Do I Find...?
    
  
  Student loans, forgiveness
Higher Education Rulemaking
College accreditation
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
FERPA
FAFSA
1098, tax forms
More...
Information About...
    
  
  Elevating Teaching
Early Learning
Engage Every Student
Unlocking Career Success
Cybersecurity
Search media advisories
  
			  Search for:
Find By Month
    
  
  February 2024
      January 2024
      December 2023
      November 2023
      October 2023
      September 2023
      August 2023
      July 2023
      June 2023
      May 2023
      April 2023
      March 2023
  
  
  
  
      All Media Advisories




*Our mission* is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.
		Student Loans
Repaying Loans
Defaulted Loans
Loan Forgiveness
Loan ServicersGrants & Programs
Apply for Pell Grants
Grants Forecast
Apply for a Grant
		
		Laws & Guidance
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
FERPA
Civil Rights
IDEA WebsiteData & Research
Education Statistics
Postsecondary Education Data
ED Data Express
Nation's Report Card
What Works Clearinghouse
Open Data Platform
COVID Relief Data
		About Us
Contact Us
ED Offices
Jobs
Press Releases
FAQs
Recursos en español
Budget, Performance
Privacy Program
Homeroom Blog
	Notices
FOIA
Privacy Policy
Accessibility
Security
Information Quality
Inspector General
Whitehouse.gov
USA.gov
Benefits.gov
Regulations.gov
#### Alexa Nita RUSSELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, a Texas limited partnership; John and Mary Does, 1-100, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 13-15169

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*645Submitted February 13, 2018 *

Filed February 23, 2018

Alexa Nita Russell, Pro Se

Andrew James Lautenbach, Esquire, Attorney, Sharon Valentine Lovejoy, Esquire, Attorney, Starn O’Toole Marcus *&*Fisher, Honolulu, HI, Kasey Curtis, Reed Smith LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Elena 0. Gekker, Reed Smith LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Alexa Nita Russell appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her action alleging federal and state law claims arising from a pending foreclosure of real property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). *Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.,*656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Russell’s action because Russell failed to allege facts sufficient to “state a claim that is plausible on its face.” *Ashcroft v. Iqbal,*556 U.S. 662, 677-78, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (explaining that “a pleading that offers labels and conclusions” or “naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement” is insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss (citation, internal quotation marks, and alterations omitted)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Russell leave to include previously abandoned claims in the third amended complaint because amendment would have been futile. *See Chodos v. West Publ’g Co.,*292 F.3d 992, 1003 (9th Cir. 2002) (district court’s discretion to deny leave to amend is particularly broad when it afforded plaintiff one or more opportunities to amend).

The district court properly denied Russell’s motion to remand the action to state court because the district court had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C, §§ 1331 and 1367, and the action was properly removed under 28 U.S.C. § 1441. *See D-Beam Ltd. P’ship v. Roller Derby Skates, Inc.,*366 F.3d 972, 974 n.2 (9th Cir 2004) (denial of a motion to remand a removed case is reviewed de novo).

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

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



I, Susan E. Basting, certify that:



(1) I have reviewed this quarter report on Form 10-Q of National Housing Trust Limited Partnership;



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



(4) The registrant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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant 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 registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being
prepared;



(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the
registrant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



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



|                     |  |    |  |                                           
|-------------------- |  | -- |  | ------------------------------------------
|Date August 23, 2004 |  | By |  | /s/ Susan E. Basting                      
|                     |  |    |  | Susan E. Basting,                         
|                     |  |    |  | Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer     
|                     |  |    |  | NHT, Inc., General Partner for            
|                     |  |    |  | National Housing Trust Limited Partnership
ex10a.htm












Exhibit 10(a)

















Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm












We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Post-Effective Amendment No. 51 to the 1933 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-18419) pertaining to Lincoln National Variable Annuity Account H, which is incorporated by reference into Post-Effective Amendment No. 47 to the 1933 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-61592) and Amendment No. 351 to the 1940 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-05721), and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) April 1, 2014, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company and (b) April 1, 2014, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln National Variable Annuity Account H for the registration of interests in a separate account under individual flexible payment deferred variable annuity contracts.


















/s/ Ernst & Young LLP












Philadelphia, Pennsylvania


April 1, 2014
# C_2022237EN.01002501.xml

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/25

---

Appeal brought on 13 February 2022 by KY against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 1 December 2021 in Case T-433/20 KY v Court of Justice of the European Union

(Case C-100/22 P)

(2022/C 237/33)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: KY (represented by: N. Maes, J.-N. Louis, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: Court of Justice of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant submits that the Court of Justice should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of 1 December 2021 in Case T-433/20; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 1 December 2021 in Case T-433/20;

| — | giving judgement itself: |
| --- | --- |

—

giving judgement itself:

| — | declare the application admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the application admissible and well founded;

| — | annul the decision to reject the appellant’s request for repayment; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision to reject the appellant’s request for repayment;

| — | order the respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant claims that, in examining its action for annulment, the General Court made a number of errors of law, arising mainly from confusion between an action for unjust enrichment and a hypothetical challenge of rules as regards the award of pension rights.

The first ground of appeal alleges an error of law, in that the General Court found the existence of a legal basis for unjust enrichment, as well as a lack of reasoning for the contested decision.

The ground of appeal alleges an error of law on the part of the General Court as regards the application of the minimum subsistence figure rule.

The third ground of appeal alleges an error of law in that the General Court found an absence of impoverishment.

The fourth ground of appeal alleges infringement of EU law, the General Court having failed to take account of the case-law arising from the judgment of 18 September 2018, Barroso Truta and Others v Court of Justice of the European Union (T-702/16 P, EU:T:2018:557, paragraphs 104 to 106).

---