alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Annual Report of ETFS Platinum Trust (the Trust) on Form
10-K for the period ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Graham Tuckwell,
principal executive officer of ETF Securities USA LLC, the Sponsor of the
Trust, 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; and

(2)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Trust.

|                                       |  
|-------------------------------------- | -
|/s/ Graham
 Tuckwell                   | *
|                                       |  
|Graham
 Tuckwell**                     |  
|Chief Executive
 Officer and President |  
|(principal
 executive officer)         |  

Date: March 28,
2011

|   |                                                                                                                                                         
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|*  | The
 originally executed copy of this Certification will be maintained at the
 Sponsors offices and will be made available for inspection upon request.
|   |                                                                                                                                                         
|** | The Registrant
 is a trust and Mr. Tuckwell is signing in his capacity as an officer of ETF
 Securities USA LLC, the sponsor of the Trust.              

---
Exhibit 31.2

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Greg Holsted, hereby certify that:

(1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2007 (the “report”) of Environmental Energy Services, Inc.;

(2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

(3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

(4) The small business issuer's other certifying officers 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)) for the small business issuer and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) [Omitted]

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

(5) The small business issuer's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.
**SECTION      906 CERTIFICATION**

| 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 result of operations of the                company. |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                 November 13, 2007 | /s/                Joe V. Olree                                  |
|----------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                         | Joe                V. Olree                                      |
|                                         | Senior                Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|                                         | Landmark                Land Company, Inc.                       |
ALD
- 115 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 23

- 1183

___________ IN RE: PETER DIPIETRO , Petitioner

____________________________________ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey

____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. March 30, 2023 Before: HARDIMAN, RESTREPO, and BIBAS, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed : May 26, 2023 )

_________ OPINION *

_________ PER CURIAM Pro se petitioner Peter DiPietro seek s a writ of mandamus. Because DiPietro has not demonstrated that he is entitled to such relief, we will deny his petition. DiPietro’s mandamus petition appears to seek this Court’s assistance with a state court criminal matter. He has attached a motion that he filed in that case, as well as a

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.2 decision denying his motion. He appears to request an “accounting” and “subrogation from [an] implied trust to [an] expressed trust.” See Mandamus Pet. at 1. DiPietro takes issue with “repudiation/dishonor” by a state court judge. Id. DiPietro has also attached filings from a state court eviction proceeding involving a cottage in a recreational resort community. DiPietro does not identify any pending fed eral action in his petition. A writ of mandamus is a “drastic remedy” that may be granted “only in extraordinary circumstances in response to an act amounting to a judicial usurpation of power.” In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig. , 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). Although DiPietro’s requests are difficult to decipher, to the extent that he seeks this Court’s intervention in a pending or completed state court action, we lack authority to grant such relief

. See In re Richards , 213 F.3d 773, 781 (3d Cir. 2000) (“[I]n the ordinary course of events, federal courts (except for the Supreme Court) lack appellate jurisdiction over their state counterparts, thus making writs of mandamus generally inappropriate.”); White v. Ward , 145 F.3d 1139, 1140 (10th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (explaining that a federal court “lack[s] jurisdiction to direct a state court to perform its duty”). We also generally do not interfere with state criminal prosecutions.
See Younger v. Harris , 401 U.S. 37, 45 (1971) . Accordingly, because DiPietro has not shown a clear and indisputable right to mandamus relief, and that no other means exist to attain the relief he desires, we will deny his petition. See Hollingsworth v. Perry , 558 U.S. 183, 190 (2010) (per curi am)

.
D.B., Mother of D.N.S., JR., and A.A.S., Minor Children, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.

CASE NO. 1D17-3639

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Opinion filed December 13, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Ramond L. WALKER, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-1616

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed October 18, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit
      32.1





MAXUS
      REALTY TRUST, INC.





CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 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 Maxus Realty Trust, Inc. (the “Trust”)
      on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David L. Johnson,
      Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Trust, certify, pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act
      of 2002, that to my knowledge:





(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 Trust as of March
      31,
      2007 (the last date of the period covered by the Report).








/s/
      David L. Johnson


David
      L.
      Johnson


Chairman
      of the Board,


President,


Chief
      Executive Officer


Date: March
      14, 2007
EX PARTE R.D.T.

1160115 (2150646)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

December 9, 2016

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.
**Exhibit 99.12**

** **
|                                                           | **Roscoe Postle Associates Inc.** |
|-----------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
| Suite 501, 55 University Avenue, Toronto, ON M5J 2H7 |
| **T** (416) 947-0907 **F** (416) 947-0395                 |
| **www.rpacan.com**                                        |
|                                                      |

 

**CONSENT OF****KATHLEEN ANN ALTMAN**

 

In connection with the filing of the annual report on Form 40-F of Franco-Nevada Corporation, I consent to references to my name and to the use of the technical report entitled “Technical Report on the Goldstrike Mine, Eureka and Elko Counties, State of Nevada, USA” and dated March 16, 2012 (the “Report”) in the 2011 Annual Information Form of Franco-Nevada Corporation dated March 26, 2012 (the “AIF”), which is filed as an exhibit to, and incorporated in, the Form 40-F.

 

I also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-176856) and on Form F-10 (No. 333-176722) of the references to my name and the use of the Report. I also consent to reference to me under the heading “Experts” in the AIF which is filed as an exhibit to, and incorporated by reference in, this Annual Report on Form 40-F which is incorporated by reference in such Registration Statements.

 

 
| DATED:   March 29, 2012 |                               |   |
|------------------------------|------------------------------------|--------|
|                         |                               |   |
| /s/ Kathleen Ann Altman      |                               |   |
|                         |                               |   |
| Name:                        | Kathleen   Ann Altman, Ph.D., P.E. |   |   |
|                         | Principal   Metallurgist           |   |   |
|                         | Roscoe   Postle Associates Inc.    |   |   |

 

----
ROME TRUST HOLDINGS, LLC, as Trustee Under and Trust Agreement and Known as Trust No. 12214, Dated July 10, 2013, Appellant, v. U.S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Successor Trustee to Bank of America, N.A., as Successor to Lasalle Bank, N.A., as Trustee for the Merrill Lynch First Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust, Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2007-4, and Georgia R. Kurtz, Appellees.

Case No. 2D16-5518

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed October 20, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

DANIEL MARK BUTCHER, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 22-50247 

D.C. No. 3:21-cr-00698-TWR-1 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Todd W. Robinson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 17, 2023**

Before: CLIFTON, R. NELSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Daniel Mark Butcher appeals from the district court’s judgment and 

challenges the 12-month sentence imposed upon the revocation of his supervised 

release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Butcher’s sole contention on appeal is that the district court reversibly erred 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

FILED

APR 26 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 22-50247 

by failing to provide the government an opportunity to make a sentencing 

argument. Butcher’s general objection to “all the procedural and substantive 

deficits in his sentence” was insufficient to preserve this claim. See United States 

v. Grissom, 525 F.3d 691, 694 (9th Cir. 2008). We therefore review for plain 

error. See United States v. Waknine, 543 F.3d 546, 551 (9th Cir. 2008). Although 

the district court may have erred by failing to solicit the government’s sentencing 

position, see United States v. Urrutia-Contreras, 782 F.3d 1110, 1114 (9th Cir. 

2015), Butcher has not shown that the error affected his substantial rights. 

Butcher’s speculation that the government would have recommended a lesser 

sentence had it been given an opportunity to speak, and that the court would have 

been persuaded by such a recommendation despite rejecting probation’s argument 

for a lesser sentence, is insufficient to establish a reasonable probability that he 

would have received a different sentence absent the error. See United States v. 

Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir. 2008); see also Waknine, 543 F.3d at 553-54 

(defendant did not show that the district court plainly erred in failing to give the 

government an opportunity to speak at sentencing because he did not show that the 

government’s remarks would have changed the court’s conclusion as to the 

sentence).

AFFIRMED.
Carmen SEMIDEY, individually, and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Florencio Semidey, Appellant, v. MULTISTATE TILE DISTRIBUTORS, INC., f/k/a International Wholesale Tile, Inc., a Florida corporation, Incopisos Industria E. Comercio De Pisos, LTDA., a foreign corporation, Mediterranean Shipping Company, USA, Inc., a Florida corporation, and General Noli USA, Inc., a foreign corporation, Appellees.

No. 4D17-1624

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 1, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
Diane S. DEMOS and James P. Demos, P.A., Appellants, v. James M. HOFFER and Chansophonnair O. Hoffer, Appellees.

No. 4D16-3950

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[January 25, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Robert SCHAEFFER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-1915

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed October 18, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Miguel NAVA, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-0662

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

October 06, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Teresa Ann BRACK, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-40951.

Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Ch-cuit.

DECIDED: May 20, 2004.

Barry A. Bryant, Texarkana, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Teresa Ann Brack, Bryan, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before SMITH, DEMOSS and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Counsel appointed to represent Teresa Ann Brack in this direct criminal appeal has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Brack responded to counsel’s motion, arguing that the Government breached the plea agreement by failing to move for a downward departure at sentencing in order that she would receive a 40-month sentence, as she was promised. She also maintains that she has a valid ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Accordingly, Brack requests the appointment of substitute appellate counsel.

This court generally does not review ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims on direct appeal; this case presents no exception. *See United States v. Valuck,*286 F.3d 221, 229 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*537 U.S. 1000, 123 S.Ct. 513, 154 L.Ed.2d 394 (2002). Brack’s motion for appointment of substitute counsel is DENIED.

Our independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and Brack’s response shows that there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and this appeal is DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

785 

KA 13-01142 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, AND SCONIERS, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

KEVIN C. JOHNSON, ALSO KNOWN AS KEVIN JOHNSON, 

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (NICHOLAS P. DIFONZO OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

LAWRENCE FRIEDMAN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BATAVIA (WILLIAM G. ZICKL OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Genesee County Court (Robert C.

Noonan, J.), rendered May 21, 2013. The judgment convicted defendant,

upon his plea of guilty, of failure to register a change of internet

accounts. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him

upon his plea of guilty of failure to register a change of internet

accounts (Correction Law § 168-f [4]). Contrary to defendant’s

contention, the record establishes that he knowingly, voluntarily and

intelligently waived the right to appeal (see generally People v

Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256), and that valid waiver forecloses any

challenge by defendant to the severity of the sentence (see id. at

255; see generally People v Lococo, 92 NY2d 825, 827; People v

Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737).

Entered: July 3, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
EX PARTE Willie BROOKS

1151332 (CR-15-1077)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

October 14, 2016

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.
William DAVIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-1868

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[February 8, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
www.group3aviation.com

 

16425 Hart Street

Van Nuys, CA 91406

United States

 

PHONE 818 994 9376 FAX 818 994 9384 EMAIL: group3@group3aviation.com

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Aerospace Medicine

Attention: Kevin Kearns, AAM-850

15000 Aviation Blvd., Room 5012

Lawndale, CA 90261

November 11, 2011

Dear Inspector Kearns,

Group 3 Aviation would like to petition the Federal Aviation Administration for exemption from 14 CFR 

Part 120. Group 3 Aviation requests an exemption from having to maintain two separate Anti-Drug and 

Alcohol programs. 

Currently Group 3 Aviation maintains Anti-Drug and Alcohol programs for two separate operations

 Part 135 On-Demand Air Charter 

 Part 91.147 Passenger Carrying Scenic Flight Tour Operations.

At this time we have pilots and a Maintenance Director that are enrolled in each program. The 

redundancy of testing is costly to us as a small business, both in testing fees and monthly maintenance 

costs through our consortium. 

We believe that having one program for all pilots and our maintenance director will streamline operations 

for our Anti-drug and Alcohol program managers making the management and implementation more 

efficient.

The benefit to our company will come in the form of decreased costs and more efficient use of employee 

time. Public safety shall not be compromised; the program will not change as all safety sensitive 

employees will continue to be enrolled and subject to the same program rules as they currently are. 

Benefits to public will be to eliminate redundancy therefore decreasing costs to the American taxpayer, by 

utilizing the same FAA Anti-Drug and Alcohol Abatement teams on a single visit annually. 

If you require further details please contact me at 818-994-9376.

Regards,

Claudia Herrera

President
Exhibit
32.2
  CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, the undersigned officer of Global Clean Energy Holdings, Inc. (the
“Company”) hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:
  (i)
  The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended
March 31, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended; and
  (ii)
  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
 
 Date:
      May 20, 2009
                      By:
                      /s/
      Bruce K. NelsonBruce
      Nelson
                        Chief
      Financial Officer