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



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER







PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with this Annual Report of Gold Standard Mining Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Pantelis Zachos, the Chief Executive Officer and Director of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



1.   Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009, 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2010, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Dated:  April 14, 2010



/s/ Pantelis Zachos

Pantelis Zachos

Chief Executive Officer, and Director
1

Gurdoglanyan, Nicole

From: Kurt Reedy [kreedy@convio.com]

Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 3:48 PM

To: GovernmentAffairs

Subject: Re: Docket No. DOT-OST-2012-0029

Dear Secretary LaHood:

I am writing today to express my strong support for JetBlue’s application to offer new beyond‐perimeter

service at Reagan National and link the nation’s capital to two other important capital cities: San Juan, Puerto

Rico (connecting onward to St. Thomas, the capital of the U.S. Virgin Islands) and Austin, Texas.

JetBlue’s application will provide much‐needed low‐fare, high‐quality service from the capital’s downtown

airport to the capital of our closest territory, and to the capital of the largest of the contiguous 48 states. Both

San Juan and Austin are crying out for new JetBlue service to DCA, being two of the ten largest markets

without nonstop air service to the airport. Their application will bring tremendous public benefit and much‐

needed low‐fare competition to DCA.

Please join me in offering your support for JetBlue’s application.

Kurt Reedy | Account Executive

mobile 512.750.6161 | office 512.807.3821 | kreedy@convio.com  

Connect with us. Convio.com | Connection Cafe | Facebook | Twitter: @Convio

    An integrated solution to do more for your mission.

3Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________ 

Case No. 5D23-0162 

LT Case No. 16-2019-CF-009351

_____________________________

AMANDA BETH BUTLER, 

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. 

London M. Kite, Judge. 

Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Ross S. Haine, II, Special 

Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant. 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Kristie Regan, Assistant

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee. 

April 9, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. 

WALLIS, LAMBERT, and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur. 
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
Chad R. BARBEE, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. ED 106132

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.

FILED: September 11, 2018 Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied October 15, 2018 Application for Transfer Denied December 18, 2018

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: Lisa M. Stroup, Office of the State Public Defender, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101.

ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT: Joshua D. Hawley, Attorney General, Shaun J. Mackelprang, Assistant Attorney General, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102.

Before Philip M. Hess, P.J., Robert G. Dowd, Jr., J., and Mary K. Hoff, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM

Chad R. Barbee ("Movant") appeals from the motion court's "Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Judgment" ("Judgment") denying Movant's "Amended Motion to Vacate, Correct or Set Aside the Judgment or Sentence," which alleged a sentence in excess of the maximum authorized by law and ineffective assistance of counsel, without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential or precedential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the Judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
Order filed September 16 , 2014.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 14

- 00084

- CR

____________ RICKY MOLINA, Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 174th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1307050



### ORDER

Appellant is represented by appointed counsel, Patti Sedita . Appellant ’ s brief was originally due April 24, 2014

. We granted a total of more than 90 days extension of time to file appellant ’ s brief until August 25, 2014. When we granted the last extension, we noted that no further extensions would be granted absent exceptional circumstances. No brief was filed. On August 26, 2014 , counsel filed afurther request for another 60 day

- extension of time to file appellant ’ s brief.

Counsel did not allege any exceptional circumstances in the request.
We deny the request for extension and issue the following order.
Accordingly, we order Patti Sedita to fil e a brief with the clerk of this Court within 30 days of the date of this order . If counsel does not timely file appellant’s brief as ordered, the Court will issue an order abating the appeal and directing the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine the reason for the failure to file the brief and the consideration of sanctions, appointment of new counsel, or other appropriate relief.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices McCally, Brown and Wise.
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: -AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Inspection 1.0 $ 85.00 $0 $ 85.00 851 $72,335.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance: 0

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $72,335

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $0

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
#### Casimiro Espinal, Respondent, v City of New York, Defendant, and Brooklyn Union Gas Company, Appellant. (Action No. 1.) Maximo Espinal, Respondent, v City of New York, Defendant, and Brooklyn Union Gas Company, Appellant. (Action No. 2.)

[720 NYS2d 351]

In two related actions to recover damages for personal injuries, which were joined for trial, Brooklyn Union Gas Company, a defendant in both actions, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated February 22, 2000, which denied its motion to vacate the plaintiffs’ notes of issue filed in each action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the motion to vacate the plaintiffs’ notes of issue *(see, Mitchell v New York*Hosp., 61 NY2d 208, 214; *DeSilva v Rosenberg,*261 AD2d 503; *City of Mount Vernon v Lexington Ins. Co.,*232 AD2d 358). Ritter, J. P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.
---

Exhibit 3.4


***090201***
 **ROSS MILLER****Secretary of State****204 North Carson Street, Suite 1****Carson City, Nevada 89701-4520****(775) 684-5708****Website: www.nvsos.gov**
  Certificate of Amendment
(PURSUANT TO NRS 78.385 AND 78.390)
     
     Filed in the office of
Ross Miller
Secretary of State
State of Nevada
     Document Number**20100751419-90**Filing Date and Time**10/05/2010 12:30PM**Entity Number**E0191422007-1**
  **USE BLACK INK ONLY - DO NOT HIGHLIGHT**
     **ABOVE SPACES FOR OFFICE USE ONLY**
  Certificate of Amendment to Articles of IncorporationFor Nevada Profit Corporations**(Pursuant to NRS 78.385 and 78.390 - After Issuance of Stock)** 1. Name of corporation: NexairaWireless Inc. 2. The articles have been amended as follows: (provide article numbers. if available) Article 3 The aggregate number of shares that the corporation is authorized to issue is 700,000,000, of which 600,000,000 shares are common stock, with a par value of $0.001 per share, and 100,000,000 shares are preferred stock, with a par value of $0.001 per share. The board of directors is authorized to prescribe the series and the number of the shares of each series of preferred stock and the voting powers, designations, preferences, limitations, restrictions and relative rights of the shares of each series of preferred stock. 3. The vote by which the stockholders holding shares in the corporation entitling them to exercise a least a majority of the voting power, or such greater proportion of the voting power as may be required in the case of a vote by classes or series, or as may be required by the provisions of the articles of incorporation* have voted in favor of the amendment is: 53% 4. Effective date of filing: (optional) (must not be later than 90 days after the certificate is filed) 5. Signature: (required) X /s/ signedSignature of Officer *If any proposed amendment would alter or change any preference or any relative or other right given to any class or series of outstanding shares, then the amendment must be approved by the vote, in addition to the affirmative vote otherwise required, of the holders of shares representing a majority of the voting power of each class or series affected by the amendment regardless to limitations or restrictions on the voting power thereof. IMPORTANT: Failure to include any of the above information and submit with the proper fees may cause this filing to be rejected. This form must be accompanied by appropriate fees.
     Nevada Secretary of State Amend Profit-After
 Revised: 3-6-09


---
Randall E. ARNOLD, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

WD 81379

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

ORDER FILED: February 5, 2019

Susan Hogan, Kansas City, MO, Counsel for Appellant.

Robert Bartholomew, Jr., Jefferson City, MO, Counsel for Respondent.

Before Division One: Cynthia L. Martin, P.J., Victor C. Howard, and Thomas H. Newton, JJ.

**ORDER**

Per Curiam:

Mr. Randall Arnold appeals a Saline County Circuit Court judgment denying his 24.035 post-conviction motion without an evidentiary hearing. Mr. Arnold pleaded guilty in October 2015 to one count of possession of a controlled substance in violation of section 195.202, RSMo Cum. Supp. 2013. For reasons stated in the memorandum provided to the parties, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
#### Estate of Andre Jervis, Deceased, et al., Appellants, v Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association et al., Respondents.

[720 NYS2d 21]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered August 13, 1999, which, in an action for, *inter alia,*employment discrimination due to disability, insofar as appealed from, granted defendant-respondent employers’ motion pursuant to CPLR 306-b to dismiss the action for failure to make timely service as required by CPLR 306-b, and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about January 14, 2000, which, to the extent appealable, denied plaintiffs motion to renew, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs decedent’s employment was terminated on June 30, 1995; he died of the cancer that allegedly motivated his alleged wrongful termination on September 1, 1997; and it is undisputed that the Statute of Limitations on his employment discrimination claims expired on September 1, 1998 (CPLR 210 [a]). While the summons and complaint were timely filed on May 26, 1998, it was not until after the expiration of both the Statute of Limitations, on September 1, 1998, and the CPLR 306-b 120-day period for making service, on September 25, 1998, that plaintiffs attorney learned that his process server had never served the employer defendants. Claiming that he was unaware that CPLR 306-b had been amended as of January 1, 1998 to eliminate the right to recommence, within 120 days, an action deemed automatically dismissed for failure to make service within 120 days of filing, plaintiff commenced a second action by filing an identical summons and complaint on November 13, 1998, which were served on defendants on November 20, 1998. Defendants moved to dismiss the second action on January 20, 1999 as barred by the Statute of Limitations, at which time plaintiffs attorney learned of the amendment to CPLR 306-b. On March 22, 1999, plaintiffs attorney caused the summons and complaint in the first action to be served on defendants, and, on April 5, 1999, moved to have such service validated nunc pro tunc. On April 9, 1999, defendants moved to dismiss the first action for failure to make timely service as required by CPLR 306-b. The motion court *368dismissed both actions, the first for failure to make timely service, and the second as barred by the Statute of Limitations.

Plaintiff fails to show “good cause” within the meaning of CPLR 306-b for her failure to serve the summons and complaint in the first action by the September 25, 1998 deadline. The 120-day period under the original statute should not be extended in the interest of justice, as also permitted by current CPLR 306-b, where there was an unacceptably protracted delay measured from the expiration of the 120-day period *(compare, Busler v Corbett,*259 AD2d 13, 17).

In view of the foregoing, the affidavit of merits that plaintiff sought to have considered on her motion to renew is unavailing. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Tom, Ellerin and Friedman, JJ.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Southern Community Bancshares, Inc. (the Company)
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Gary McGaha, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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; and2.
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. /s/ Gary McGahaGary McGaha, President and Chief Executive Officer May 16, 2005
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

** **

**FORM 10-QSB**

** **

**Section 1350 Certification**

 

# **Quarter ended September 30, 2004**

# ** **

I, Thomas E. Fox, President anChief Financial Officer of Southwest Casino Corporation (the “Company”)certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)                                  TheQuarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the third quarter endedSeptember 30, 2004 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (15. U.S.C.78m or 78o(d)); and

 

(2)                                  Theinformation in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operation of the Company.

 
| Dated:  November 15, 2004 |                     |
|---------------------------|--------------------------|
|                      |                     |
|                      | /s/ Thomas  E. Fox       |   |
|                      | Thomas E.  Fox           |
|                      | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
MEMORANDUM 

DATE: July 14, 2014

TO: Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR–2013-0602

FROM: Anna Phillips, EPA/OITA

SUBJECT: July 7, 2014 Meeting Regarding Proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power 

Plants

SUMMARY

A meeting was held between EPA and the attendees listed below on July 7, 2014 to 

discuss the proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants. The Carbon Power Plan for 

Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014.

ATTENDEES

Peter Taksoe-Jensen

Danish Ambassador to the U.S.

Anna Louise Henrichsen, 

Advisor, Danish Embassy
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

XAVIER FRANKLIN, a.k.a. Zaybo,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 10-50616

D.C. No. 2:08-cr-00559-VBF

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Valerie Baker Fairbank, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 17, 2012** 

Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

Xavier Franklin appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 

240-month sentence for distribution of cocaine base in the form of crack cocaine,

in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(iii). Pursuant to Anders v.

FILED

APR 25 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-50616

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Franklin’s counsel has filed a brief stating there

are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. 

We have provided Franklin the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No

pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Franklin waived his right to appeal his sentence with the exception of the

court’s calculation of his criminal history category and the imposition of conditions

of supervised release. Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v.

Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80-81 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief as to

Franklin’s conviction and indicates that the appeal waiver is operative. 

Accordingly, we affirm Franklin’s conviction and dismiss the appeal of the

sentence in part. See United States v. Nguyen, 235 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.

2000). With regard to the court’s calculation of the criminal history category and

its imposition of conditions of supervised release, our independent review of the

record discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal, and we affirm.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

The conviction is AFFIRMED, and the appeal of the sentence is

DISMISSED in part and AFFIRMED in part.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 53 (Friday, March 20, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 11964]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-5995]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Nursing Research; 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 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Nursing Research, 
Special Emphasis Panel, NINR Loan Repayment Program Review (L30/
L40).
    Date: April 16, 2009.
    Time: 10 a.m. to 3 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, One Democracy Plaza, 6701 
Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892. (Telephone Conference 
Call).
    Contact Person: Yujing Liu, PhD, MD, Chief, Office of Review, 
Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Nursing 
Research, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Blvd., Ste 
710, Bethesda, MD 20892. (301) 451-5152. <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3d44485754535a625154487d535455135a524b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8cf5f9e6e5e2ebd3e0e5f9cce2e5e4a2ebe3fa">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Any interested person may file written comments with the 
committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed 
on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, 
telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional 
affiliation of the interested person.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.361, 
Nursing Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: March 10, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-5995 Filed 3-19-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>