alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT



I, Carlton Parfitt, Chief Financial Officer of Avalon Energy Corporation Ltd. a Nevada Corporation (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes- Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



1.      I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2007 of Avalon Energy Corporation;



2.      Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 annual report;



3.      Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;



4.      The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a - 14 and 15d - 14) for the registrant and we have:



a.      designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly report is being prepared;



b.      evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within September 30, 2006 prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and



c.      presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;



5.      The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



a.      All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and



b.      Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6.      The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.



Date: May 15, 2007



/s/ Carlton Parfitt

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

Carlton Parfitt

Director and Chief Financial Officer
----

Commission inquiry in the gas and electricity sector

(2005/C 144/07)

On 13 June 2005 the Commission decided to open inquiries under Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (cases COMP/39172 and COMP/ 39173) into the following sectors of the economy: electricity and gas. The Advisory Committee gave its favourable opinion. For information purposes the text of the decision is made available on the official website of Directorate General for Competition.

----
Exhibit 32.0

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the
Annual Report of Ocean Shore Holding Co. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §1350, as added by § 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 as of and for the
period covered by the Report.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/    STEVEN E. BRADYSteven E. BradyPresident and Chief Executive Officer/s/    DONALD F. MORGENWECKDonald F. MorgenweckSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


March 25, 2010
In the INTEREST OF: M.D.F.

ED 107074

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FOUR.

Filed: June 18, 2019

Steven W. Neimeyer, 1034 S. Brentwood Blvd. Ste. 1480, St. Louis, MO 63117, For Appellant.

Krista Peyton, Jesus A. Martinez-Reyes, 105 S. Central Ave., Clayton, MO 63105, For Respondent.

Rene E. Lusser, 400 N. 4th. St. Ste. 2410, St. Louis, MO 63102, For Juvenile.

Laura Sidel, 4542 W. Pine Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63108, For Natural Mother.

Before: Kurt S. Odenwald, P.J., Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., J., and Colleen Dolan, J.

***ORDER***

PER CURIAM.

*180J. F. appeals the trial court's judgment terminating his parental rights to his minor child, M.D.F. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. An opinion would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
Exhibit
32.1








CERTIFICATION
OF


CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350




In
connection with this Annual Report of National Golf Emporium, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ending September 30, 2009, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Bryan Sawarynski, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:




1.
            Such Annual
      Report on Form 10-K for the year ending September 30, 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 year
      ending September 30, 2009, fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of National Golf
      Emporium, Inc.




Date:
      November 13, 2009




By:
                /s/
      Bryan SawarynskiBryan
      SawarynskiChief
      Executive Officer,
CHARLESTON.

#### Adkins, Sheriff *v.*Stephens, *et al.*

Submitted June 22, 1893.

Decided December 2, 1893.

Same as points 1 and 2 of the syllabus in *Adkins*v. *Fn/, supra, p.*— (18 R. It. Rep. 787.)

Campbell & Holt, for plaintiffs in error.

Simms & Ensloiv, for defendant in error.

English, Piíesident :

The facts in this case are almost identical with the case of *Adkins*v. *Fry*(18 S. E. Rep. 737). In fact, the cases are *558so similar .that counsel have argued them both in the same brief. This was an action of debt by the same plaintiff, who was sheriff of Wayne county, against the sureties of A. F. Clark, who was one of his deputies, to recover from said sureties the amount of several judgments, which had been recovered from said sheriff by reason of the default of his deputy aforesaid. The action of debt was brought on the 24th day of October, 1890. The judgment set forth in the declaration were recovered against said sheriff as follows : On the 4th day of ¡September, 1886; the 14th day of February, 1889; and the 10th day of September, 1889 — and were paid by said sheriff. The default of said deputy occurred in the months of January and March, 1875, and in December, 1876. The plea of the statute of limitations was interposed by the defendants ; and we hold, as we held in the above case, that the action was not barred at the time it was brought, and affirm the judgment with costs and damages for.the reasons stated in the above case of *Adkins*v. *Fry.*
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

September 10, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
133981 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 133981 COA: 274884 Oakland CC: 2005-202815-FH 2005-203186-FC JAMES ALVIN SLOTKOWSKI, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the March 28, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND these cases to the Oakland Circuit Court for correction of the judgments of se ntence to reflect that the re stitution ordered shall be joint and several with the codefendant. In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remain ing questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

K ELLY
, J., would grant leave to appeal for th e reasons stated in her dissent in People v Conway , 474 Mich 1140 (2006).

p0830 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 10, 2007

Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>   5
       
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                            43558
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     46519
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                      208629
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 313687
<PP&E>                                           330636
<DEPRECIATION>                                   310458
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   345738
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            146646
<BONDS>                                               0
<COMMON>                                        4472042
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                      400000
<OTHER-SE>                                            0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     345738
<SALES>                                          251008
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 251008
<CGS>                                            187754
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    187754
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 2170
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (34627)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (34627)
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (34627)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      0.00
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 544 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 544

  Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the 
   relationship between certain obligations under the North Atlantic 
       Treaty and constitutional declarations of war by Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 22, 2023

 Mr. Roy (for himself, Mr. Davidson, Mr. Bishop of North Carolina, Mr. 
Nehls, Ms. Hageman, Mr. Gosar, Mr. Biggs, Mr. Clyde, Mr. Rosendale, Ms. 
   Greene of Georgia, Mr. Weber of Texas, and Mr. Good of Virginia) 
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 
                           on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the 
   relationship between certain obligations under the North Atlantic 
       Treaty and constitutional declarations of war by Congress.

    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives 
that, pursuant to article 11 of the North Atlantic Treaty, done at 
Washington, District of Columbia, on April 4, 1949 (63 Stat. 2241; 34 
U.N.T.S. 243), if the President determines it is necessary to engage 
United States forces in hostilities in order to restore or maintain the 
security of the North Atlantic area as stated in article 5 of such 
treaty, such action does not supersede the constitutional requirement 
that Congress declare war or authorize the use of military force prior 
to the United States engaging in hostilities.
                                 <all>
```
|   | 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 China Dredging Group Co., Ltd. |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: December 15, 2011   | By:    | /s/ Xinrong Zhuo              |   |
|-------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|--------|
|                                |   | Xinrong Zhuo                  |   |
|                                |   | Chief Executive Officer       |   |
|                                |   | (Principal Executive Officer) |   |

----
Exhibit 13.1(b)

Certification

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsection (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsection (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18,
United States Code), the undersigned officer of KB Financial Group Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of the Republic of Korea (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

The annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2010 (the Form 20-F) fully complies with the requirements
of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.



|                     |  |                        
|-------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: June 20, 2011 |  | /s/ Jong Kyoo Yoon     
|                     |  | Jong Kyoo Yoon         
|                     |  | Deputy President and   
|                     |  | Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to KB Financial Group Inc. and will be retained by KB Financial Group Inc. and
furnished to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
CHARLESTON.

#### State *v.*Walter J. Chase

(No. 6248)

Submitted November 20, 1928.

Decided November 27, 1928.

*Lazzelle & Glasscock,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Howard B. Lee,*Attorney General, and *R. A. Blessing,*Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

*415Woods, Judge:

The defendant was convicted in the circuit court of Monon-galia county on an indictment drawn under section 31, Chapter 32-A, Code, charging him with bringing into the state and transporting from one place to another within the state a certain quantity of intoxicating liquor. From an order entering judgment, he prosecutes this writ.

As the defendant did not file a brief on this hearing we have only a bare summary of the assignments of error as set out in the petition to guide us. The one instruction given at the instance of the State is predicated on the section of the Code hereinbefore referred to, and we believe correctly applied the law to the case. The objection to the admission of evidence fails to point out any particular evidence or reasons for the same. While certain evidence, sought to be brought out on defendant’s cross-examination, but excluded on motion of the State, was incorporated in a separate bill of exception, inasmuch as it was not relied on as a ground of error in the petition, the same must be treated as waived.

The one question left for our consideration is: Does the evidence support the verdict? The two officers making the search were acting under a search warrant issued by a justice of the peace of Monongalia county. Their testimony shows that the defendant was apprehended while driving on a highway in Monongalia county. In his car, which corresponded with that of the description in the warrant, was found fifty-one gallons of intoxicating liquor. Defendant offered no evidence at the trial. We are of opinion that the testimony of the officers justified the verdict and is supported by the law, and that we would not be warranted in setting it aside for lack of supporting evidence.

Perceiving no error in the record, we affirm the judgment.

*Affirmed.*
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

In Re: Reginald Reece

No. 06-14-00144-CR

Original Mandamus Proceeding

Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice 

Carter, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice 

Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that Relator is not entitled to the 

relief sought. Therefore, we deny the petition.

RENDERED AUGUST 29, 2014

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
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)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Dividend Capital
Trust Inc., a Maryland corporation (the Company), does hereby certify with respect to the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report) 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: May 10, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/    EVAN H.
ZUCKER
|                   |  |  |  |                       |  | Evan H. Zucker Chief Executive Officer and President
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6375

AHOTO TAYSIR MULAZIM,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department

of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District

Judge. (CA-02-643-2)

Submitted: June 12, 2003 Decided: June 17, 2003

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ahoto Taysir Mulazim, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Ahoto Taysir Mulazim seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An

appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000).

A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable

jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and

that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are

also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 123 S. Ct.

1029, 1040 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S.

941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that Mulazim has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability, dismiss the appeal and deny

Mulazim’s motion for copies of transcripts and other documents. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
Terry STRICKLAND, et al., Appellants, v. Charles STATHAM, et al., Respondents.

WD 82098

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Order filed: July 23, 2019

Nicky McNeil, Co-counsel for Appellants

David A. Gellis, Kansas City, for Respondents

Before Division Three: Gary D. Witt, Presiding Judge, Edward R. Ardini, Jr., Judge and Tom N. Chapman, Judge

***ORDER***

PER CURIAM:

Terry and Angela Strickland appeal an order of the Circuit Court of Jackson County granting summary judgment in favor of Charles and Carol Statham. Finding no error, we affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, *318a memorandum of law has been provided to the parties. Rule 84.16(b).
SAT Report

PMN Number: P-15-0276

SAT Date: 2/20/2015

Print Date: 7/7/2015

Related cases: Yes

Health related cases: 

Ecotox related cases: 

Concern levels:

Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments

Level of Concern: 2 1

 Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments

3 11

Exposure Based Review:

Health:

Ecotox: No

Routes of exposure: Health: Dermal Inhalation 

Ecotox: No releases to water

Fate: ;

Keywords:

 Keywords: LUNG; ONCO; IMMUNOTOX; MUTA (UNCERT)

Summary of Assessment:

 Fate:

Fate Summary: P-15-0276

FATE: 

S < 0.001 mg/L at 25 °C (E)

VP < 1.0E-6 torr at 25 °C (E)

BP > 400 °C (E)

H < 1.00E-8 (E)

POTW removal (%) = 0-90 via sorption

Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg > mo

Sorption to soils/sediments = low - v.strong

PBT Potential: P3B1

 SAT Chair: 

 Fate assessor: Ecotox assessor: Health assessor: