alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
906 Certification C.E.O




 Exhibit 10.1 
  
 STATEMENT REQUIRED BY 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 
  
 In connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Stora Enso Corporation (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jukka Härmälä, Chief Executive 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; and 

  

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

  
 Date: June 25, 2003 
  

	 
		
	 	 	 /s/    JUKKA
HÄRMÄLÄ    


	 	 	 Jukka Härmälä
 Chief Executive Officer



  
 A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS
WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO STORA ENSO CORPORATION AND WILL BE RETAINED BY STORA ENSO CORPORATION AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST. 
  

 1
34.810(2). Appellant's petition was procedurally barred absent a 

demonstration of good cause and actual prejudice. See NRS 34.726(1); 

NRS 34.810(1)(b); NRS 34.810(3). 

First, appellant claimed he had good cause pursuant to Lafler 

v. Cooper, 566 U.S. , 132 S. Ct. 1376 (2012), and Missouri v. Frye, 566 

U.S. , 132 S. Ct. 1399 (2012), because counsel was ineffective in 

advising him to reject a plea offer from the State. Appellant's good cause 

argument was without merit because this claim of ineffective assistance of 

counsel was always available to be raised and appellant failed to 

demonstrate why he waited more than 10 years to raise it. Further, 

because his case was final when Lafler and Frye were decided, he failed to 

demonstrate that the cases would apply retroactively to him. Even if 

Lafler and Frye announced new rules of constitutional law, he failed to 

allege facts that meet either exception to the general principle that such 

rules do not apply retroactively to cases which were already final when the 

new rules were announced. See Colwell v. State, 118 Nev. 807, 816-17, 59 

P.3d 463, 469-70 (2002). Therefore, the district court did not err in 

denying this claim. 

Next, relying in part on Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. , 132 S. 

Ct. 1309 (2012), appellant argued that he had good cause because he was 

not appointed counsel in the first post-conviction proceedings. We 

conclude that this argument lacked merit. The appointment of counsel 

was discretionary in the first post-conviction proceedings, see NRS 

34.750(1), and appellant failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion. 

Further, this court has recently held that Martinez does not apply to 

Nevada's statutory post-conviction procedures. See Brown v. McDaniel, 

Nev. P.3d (Adv. Op. No. 60, August 7, 2014). Thus, the 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A 94104, 
J. 

Douglas 

a] 

Cherry 

failure to appoint post-conviction counsel and the decision in Martinez 

would not provide good cause for this late and successive petition. 

Therefore, the district court did not err in denying the petition as 

procedurally barred, and we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

41.10.AveaAtin J. 

Hardesty 

cc: Hon. Michelle Leavitt, District Judge 

William Edward French 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

(0) 1947A
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 81 (Tuesday, April 28, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 23295]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-11254]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 
Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases 
Special Emphasis Panel meeting:

    Name of SEP: ZDK1 GRB B C2.
    Date: May 11, 1998.
    Time: 1:00 pm.
    Place: Room 6AS-25S, Natcher Building, NIH, (Telephone 
Conference Call).
    Contact: Ned Feder, M.D., Scientific Review Administrator, 
Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, Natcher Building, Room 6AS-25S, National 
Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20892-6600, Phone: (301) 
594-8890.
    Purpose/Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications'.
    This meeting will be closed in accordance with the provisions 
set forth in secs. 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C. 
Applications and/or proposals and the discussions could reveal 
confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable 
material and personal information concerning individuals associated 
with the applications and/or proposals, the disclosure of which 
would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personnel 
privacy.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.847-849, 
Diabetes, Endocrine and Metabolic Diseases; Digestive Diseases and 
Nutrition; and Kidney Diseases, Urology and Hematology Research, 
National Institutes of Health)

    Dated: April 21, 1998.
LaVeen Ponds,
Policy Analyst, NIH/CMO.
[FR Doc. 98-11254 Filed 4-27-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 20

- 30294 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,**
Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus
**Johnnie Sims,**
Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:05

- CR

- 297

- 3

Before **Haynes, Willett,** and **Ho,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** * Johnnie Sims has appealed the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to Section 404 of the First Step Act of 2018. He asserts that the district court misapplied this court’s decision in United States v. Hegwood , 934 F.3d 414 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 140 S. Ct. 285

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  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 cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 7, 2021 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-30294 Document: 00515811517 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/07/2021No. 20

- 30294

2 (2019) , failed to properly consider all of the statutory sentencing factors , and failed to conduct an indiv idualized assessment of his unique circumstances. Sims fails to demonstrate an abuse of discretion. See U nited States v. Batiste , 980 F.3d 466, 477

– 79 (5th Cir. 2020). Sims also asserts that the district court’s decision was substantively unreasonable. As he now concedes, this question is foreclosed. See id. at 479

– 80. The district court’s order is
**AFFIRMED**

. Case: 20-30294 Document: 00515811517 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/07/2021
|                                                                                               
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                               
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                 
|View History: Annual                                                                           
|View History: Annual                                                                           
|View History:                                                                                  
|                                                                                               
|Connecticut Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals All Operators  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                               
|                                                                                               
|Connecticut Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals All Operators  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                               

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1970's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        | -242   | 501    | 1,271  |        |        |        |       
|1990's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        | 0      | 0      |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 5/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 6/28/2024
#### State v. May

107,729

08/30/13

Denied. ...

Unpublished
200P16-2

#### North Carolina State Bar v. Dianne Michele Carter El Bey v. State, et al.

Def’s *Pro Se*Motion for Responsive Pleading Regarding Dismissal

Dismissed

Ervin, J., recused
#### State v. Wheeler

111,245

10/07/2015

Denied

Unpublished
Exhibit 33.1

                            DEPOSITORS CERTIFICATION

I, Todd Wallace, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports
      on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered
      by this report on Form 10-K of GE-WMC Mortgage Securities, L.L.C.,
      Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-1 (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 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 as of the last day of the period covered by this
      annual report;

3.    Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing or other
      information required to be provided under Form 10-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 statement required
      in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and, except as
      disclosed in the Exchange Act Periodic Reports, the servicer has
      fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all
      material respects; and

5.    All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria
      for asset-backed securities and their related attestation 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 an exhibit 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:  Litton Loan Servicing
LP and The Bank of New York.

Date: March 29, 2007

/s/ Todd Wallace
By: Todd Wallace
Title: President
#### TEMPAY INC., Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., and Preferred Staffing of America, Inc., Appellees.

Case No. 2D16-2497

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 3, 2017

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinel-las County; Walter L. Schafer Jr., Judge.

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 73 (Wednesday, April 16, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 18631]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-9754]


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

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION


Federal Acquisition Policy Division, FAR Secretariat; 
Cancellation of Standard Forms

AGENCY: General Services Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Since 48 CFR 52.215-41 and 42 give agencies more flexible 
procedures in requesting exceptions for submitting certified cost and 
pricing data, the following Standard Forms are canceled:

    SF 1412, Request For Exemption From Submission Of Certified Cost 
Or Pricing Data.
    SF 1412A, Request For Exemption From Submission Of Certified 
Cost Or Pricing Data--Continuation.

DATES: Effective April 16, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Barbara Williams, General Services Administration, (202) 501-0581.

    Dated: March 19, 1997.
Barbara M. Williams,
Deputy Standard and Optional Forms Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-9754 Filed 4-15-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-34-M
# C_2019024EN.01002101.xml

| 21.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/21

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.9197 — Hanon Systems / Magna International (Rotor business))

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2019/C 24/10)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | Hanon Systems (‘Hanon’) (South Korea), controlled by Hahn & Co. LLC (‘Hahn & Co’) (South Korea), |
| --- | --- |

—

Hanon Systems (‘Hanon’) (South Korea), controlled by Hahn & Co. LLC (‘Hahn & Co’) (South Korea),

| — | Magna International Inc. (‘Magna’) (Canada) Rotor business. |
| --- | --- |

—

Magna International Inc. (‘Magna’) (Canada) Rotor business.

Hanon acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of part of Magna’s fluid pressure and controls business (‘Rotor’).

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares and assets.

2.

| — | Hanon is mainly engaged in the manufacture and supply of automotive thermal management systems worldwide (also known as climate control systems). Hahn & Co is a private equity investment firm, |
| --- | --- |

—

Hanon is mainly engaged in the manufacture and supply of automotive thermal management systems worldwide (also known as climate control systems). Hahn & Co is a private equity investment firm,

| — | Rotor provides car manufacturers (original equipment manufacturers (‘OEMs’)) with cooling and pump technology to support OEM emission reduction and thermal management needs. Magna is a global automotive manufacturer. |
| --- | --- |

—

Rotor provides car manufacturers (original equipment manufacturers (‘OEMs’)) with cooling and pump technology to support OEM emission reduction and thermal management needs. Magna is a global automotive manufacturer.

3.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.9197 — Hanon Systems / Magna International (Rotor business)

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

| Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu |
| --- |
| Fax +32 22964301 |
| Postal address: |
| European Commission |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

1

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.

2

---
|                                                                                 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                 
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                   
|View History: Annual                                                             
|View History: Annual                                                             
|View History:                                                                    
|                                                                                 
|Maryland Natural Gas Number of Gas and Gas Condensate Wells  (Number of Elements)
|                                                                                 
|                                                                                 
|Maryland Natural Gas Number of Gas and Gas Condensate Wells  (Number of Elements)
|                                                                                 

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 8     
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 7      | 7      | 9      | 7      | 7      | 7      | 8      | 8      | 8      | 8     
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 7      | 7      | 5      | 7      | 7      | 7      | 7      | 7      | 7      | 7     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 7      | 7      | 7      | 7      | 5      | 5      | 5      | 1      | NA     | NA    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | NA     |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

August 4, 2005 

 

Mercury General Corporation 

Los Angeles, California 

 

Re: Registration Statement No. 333-62228, 333-01583 and 333-125460 

 

With respect to the subject registration statements, we acknowledge our awareness of the usetherein of our report dated August 4, 2005 related to our reviews of interim financial information. 

 

Pursuant to Rule 436 under the Securities Act of 1933 (the Act), such report is not considered part of a registration statement prepared or certified by an independent registered public accounting firm, or a reportprepared or certified by an independent registered public accounting firm within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act. 

 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

 

Los Angeles, California
063P15-2

#### State v. Isidro Garcia Hernandez

1. Def’s *Pro Se*Motion for PDR

2. Def’s *Pro Se*Motion for Subpoena *Duces Tecum*

1. Dismissed

2. Dismissed

Ervin, J., recused
## United States Court of Appeals **For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________ No. 20

- 1626

___________________________ United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee

v. Jason Michael Schumacher, also known as Daniel David Schumacher, also known as Jonathan Groom
Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Eastern

____________ Submitted: April 1 9 , 2021 Filed: May 5 , 2021 [Unpu blished]

____________ Before COLLOTON, BENTON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Jason Michael Schumacher appeals after the district court denied the motion to compel that he filed in his closed criminal case. Having jurisdiction, this court vacates the order and remands for dismissal of the motion.-2- Schumacher ’ s appointed counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and filed a brief stat ing that this court previously adjudicated an appeal from the criminal judgme nt. In a pro se brief, Schumacher requests that plea counsel provide him his client file.

This court affirmed the appeal of Schumacher’s conviction and his criminal case was closed. United States v. Schumacher , 772 Fed. Appx. 412 (8th Cir. 2019 ). The district court lacked jurisdiction to consider his motion to compel because there was no case pending, and the motion should have been dismissed

. See United States v. Gleason , 753 F.2d 83, 85 (8th Cir. 1985) ; U nited States v. Woods , No. 15

- 3304, 201 6 WL 3457754, at *3 (10th Cir. 2016)

.
The district court’s order is vacated, and the case remanded for dismissal of the motion. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

______________________________
283P16

#### In re Alexander White

Def s *Pro Se*Petition for *Writ of Mandamus*

Denied