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


      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF TEHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Thomas Mathew, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual
Report of Sterling Equity Holdings, Inc. on Form 10-KSB for the year ended
December 31, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such
Form 10-KSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and
results of operations of Sterling Equity Holdings, Inc.


                                   By:  /s/ Thomas Mathew
                                   Name: Thomas Mathew
                                   Title: Chief Executive Officer and
                                          Chief Financial Officer
                                   Dated: October 8, 2004

<PAGE>
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search:  Meteor Crater

Filters

              - (-)science_science(4)
              - products_data(3)
              - products_maps(1)
              - products_publications(17)
              - multimedia_image(5)
              - multimedia_image-141769(2)
              - multimedia_image-141771(1)
              - multimedia_image-141776(1)
              - multimedia_image-204460(1)
              - multimedia_video(5)
              - multimedia_video-149194(2)
              - multimedia_video-149195(3)
              - documents_file(2)
              - documents_file-149203(2)
              - news_news-149246(1)
              - news_other_news(1)
              - other_basic-43(1)

## By Location

              - arizona(4)
              - tennessee(1)

## By Year

Program        September 26, 2018        Meteor Crater Sample Collection

Program        September 26, 2018        Meteor Crater Drill Cores

Research        October 7, 2022        Planetary Defense

Topic        July 31, 2019        Terrestrial Analog Sample Collections
Order entered June 20, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 18
- 00985
- CV ALAA MOHAMAMD WEISS, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the County Criminal Court of Appeals No. 2

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. M0474358



### O RDER
Th is is an appeal from the trial court’s “O rder dated July 26, 2018

. ” That order denied appellant’s motion for reconsideration of the trial court’s denial of appel lant’s petition for non

disclosure. Both the clerk’s and reporter’s record s have been filed , triggering the deadline for appellant to file his brief on the merits. Before the Court is appellant’s June 18, 2019 motion for
extension of time to file his bri ef. We note, however, that it appears we may not have jurisdiction over the appeal. By letter dated June 6, 2019 and filed in an amended supplemental clerk’s record, Dallas County Clerk John F. Warren has informed us no order on the petition for non

- d isclosure has been signed. Because appellate jurisdiction is invoked upon the timely filing of a notice of appeal from a signed final judgment or order that is being appealed , we ORDER appellant tofile, no later than July 1, 2019, a letter brief addressi ng the Court’s jurisdiction

. See Lehman v.

Har

- Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); Farmer v. Ben E. Keith Co. , 907 S.W.2d 495, 496 (Tex. 1995). Appellee may file any response within ten days of the filing of appellant’s letter brief. If any party relies on information not included in the record before the Court, that party shall have filed a supplemental clerk’s record.
We DENY appellant’s extension motion as premature and SUSPEND the briefing deadline. Should we determine we have jurisdiction o ver the appeal, we will set a new deadline for appellant to file his brief. Should we determine we lack jurisdiction, we will dismiss the appeal without further notice. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.3(a). We may also dismiss the appeal should appellant fail to file the requested letter brief. See id. 42.3(a),(c).

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL JUSTICE
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 127 (Thursday, July 2, 1998)]
[Corrections]
[Page 36295]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X98-10702]


      

Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 127 / Thursday, July 2, 1998 / 
Corrections

[[Page 36295]]



DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. GT98-56-000]


Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.; Notice of GRI Refunds

Correction

    In notice document 98-17192, appearing on page 35212, in the issue 
of Monday, June 29, 1998, make the following correction:
    On page 35212, in the first column, the docket number is corrected 
to read as set forth above.
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
Exhibit 23

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (FormS-4 No. 333-110584) of IMC Global Inc. and in the related Prospectus of ourreport, dated January 30, 2004, except for Note 13, as to which the date isMarch 1, 2004, with respect to the consolidated financialstatements of IMC Phosphates Company included in this Annual Report  (Form10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2003.

 Ernst & Young LLP

Chicago, IllinoisMarch 12, 2004

*Return to IMC Phosphates CompanyForm 10-K*
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-2424

JONATHAN H. GAILLARD,

Petitioner,

versus

RYAN-WALSH STEVEDORING, INCORPORATED; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS,

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board.

(95-1199)

Submitted: November 6, 1997 Decided: November 18, 1997

Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jonathan H. Gaillard, Petitioner Pro Se. William Chad Stelly,

MCQUAIG & SOLOMON, Metairie, Louisiana, for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* The Board issued no opinion in this case, but affirmed the

ALJ's decision automatically under the provisions of the Omnibus

Consolidated Recessions and Appropriations Act of 1996, Pub. L. No.

104-134, § 101(d), 110 Stat. 1321-218 (1996), by failing to act on

the appeal within one year.

2

PER CURIAM:

Jonathan Gaillard petitions for review of the Benefits Review

Board ("Board") decision summarily affirming by operation of law*

the administrative law judge's ("ALJ") denial of his application

for benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation

Act ("LHWCA"), 33 U.S.C. §§ 901-950 (1994). Our review of the record discloses that the Board's decision is based upon substantial

evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on

the reasoning of the ALJ. Gaillard v. Ryan-Walsh Stevedoring, Inc.,

No. 93-LHCA-3425 (A.L.J. Feb. 28, 1995). 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.

AFFIRMED
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 21

- 00585

- CV

John Bookman , Appellant

v.

Cross Creek North Realty, LLC , Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. C

- 1

- CV

- 20

- 000746 , THE HONORABLE TODD T. WONG , JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant ’s brief was originally due on February 9, 2022

. On March 3, 2022 , this

C our t sent a notice to appellant informing him that his brief was overdue and that a failure to file

a satisfactory response by March 14, 2022

, would result in the dismissal of this appeal for want

of p rosecution. To date, appellant has not filed a brief or a motion for extension of time.

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. Se e Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

__________________________________________ Gi sela D. Triana, Justice

Before Justices Good win, Baker, and Triana

Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

Filed: April 8, 2022
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains editorial corrections of previously

published Presidential, Rule, Proposed Rule,

and Notice documents. These corrections are

prepared by the Office of the Federal

Register. Agency prepared corrections are

issued as signed documents and appear in

the appropriate document categories

elsewhere in the issue.

Corrections Federal Register

55918

Vol. 63, No. 201

Monday, October 19, 1998

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. RP98-432-000]

Crossroads Pipeline Company; Notice

of Compliance Filing

Correction

In notice document 98–27129,

appearing on page 54463 in the issue of

Friday, October 9, 1998, the docket

number is corrected to read as set forth

above.

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. CP98-806-000]

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company;

Notice of Request Under Blanket

Authorization

Correction

In notice document 98–27126

beginning on page 54470, in the issue of

Friday, October 9, 1998, the docket

number was omitted and the heading is

corrected to read as set forth above.

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 98-ANE-27-AD; Amendment 39-

10713; AD98-17-11]

RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Textron

Lycoming and Teledyne Continental

Motors Reciprocating Engines

Correction

In rule document 98–22240 beginning

on page 44545 in the issue of Thursday,

August 20, 1998, make the following

corrections:

§ 39.19 [Corrected]

1. On page 44547, in the second

column, in § 39.13, in the airworthiness

directive, in the 7th line, ‘‘O–360A1A’’

should read ‘‘O–360–A1A’’.

2. On page 44548, in the fourth

column of table 1, in the same section,

in the 6th entry, ‘‘L–160015–15’’ should

read ‘‘L–16005–15’’.

3. On the same page, in the third

column of table 1, in the same section,

in the 35th entry, ‘‘5/13/95’’ should read

‘‘5/3/95’’.

4. On the same page, in the same

column, in the same section, in the 38th

entry, ‘‘1/8/95’’ should read ‘‘1/8/96’’.

5. On the same page, in the same

column, in the same section, in the 13th

entry from the bottom, ‘‘3/1/06’’ should

read ‘‘3/1/96’’.

6. On page 44549, in the third

column, in the same section, in the 15th

entry from the bottom, ‘‘2/27/96’’

should read ‘‘2/7/96’’.

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 1

[REG–106177–97]

RIN 1545–AV18

Qualified State Tuition Programs

Correction

In proposed rule document 98–22465

beginning on page 45019 in the issue of

Monday, August 24, 1998, make the

following correction:

§ 1.529–1 [Corrected]

On page 45026, in the second column,

in § 1.529–1(c), in definition paragraph

(2)(i), in the eighth line, ‘‘20 U.S.C.

108711’’ should read ‘‘20 U.S.C.

1087ll’’.

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

MIAMI DIVISION 

www.flsb.uscourts.gov

In re: CASE NO: 21-18842 BKC LMI 

ILIET BERBIL CHAPTER 13 

XXX-XX-6076 

 Debtor / 

OBJECTION TO CLAIM ON SHORTENED NOTICE

IMPORTANT NOTICE TO CREDITOR: THIS IS AN OBJECTION 

TO YOUR CLAIM

This objection seeks either to disallow or reduce the amount or change the 

priority status of the claim filed by you or on your behalf. Please read this objection 

carefully to identify which claim is objected to and what disposition of your claim is 

recommended. Upon the filing of this objection an expedited hearing on this 

objection will be scheduled on the date already scheduled for the confirmation 

hearing in accordance with Local Rule 3007-1(B)(2).

Pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 3007 and Local Rule 3007-1(B)(2), the debtor object to 

the following claim filed in this case: 

PROOF OF CLAIM #9 OF TRUIST BANK , AS THE CREDITOR DID NOT RECORD A 

JUDGMENT LIEN CERTIFICATE WITH THE STATE OF FLORIDA’S DEPARTMENT OF 

STATE, THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT WAS NOT A SECURITY AGREEMENT, AND THE 

CREDITOR CAN NOT HAVE A LIEN ON THE DEBTOR’S HOMESTEAD PROPERTY, AND 

THEREFORE THE DEBTOR SEEKS TO RECLASSIFY THE CLAIM TO BE WHOLLY 

UNSECURED.

The undersigned acknowledges that this objection and the notice of hearing for this 

objection will be served on the claimant and the debtor at least 14 days prior to the 

confirmation hearing date and that a certificate of service conforming to Local Rule 2002- 

1(F) must be filed with the court when the objection and notice of hearing are served. 

DATED: 01/25/2022 The Law Offices of Christian Paul Larriviere, P.A. 

 Counsel for the Debtor 

4340 Sheridan Street, Suite 102 

Hollywood, Florida 33021 

P: (954) 239-7150 

F: (954) 874-6110 

E: Christian@cpllaw.com 

By: ____/s___________________________ 

Christian Paul Larriviere, Esq. 

Florida Bar No: 571156

Case 21-18842-LMI Doc 39 Filed 01/25/22 Page 1 of 1
Thomas LESHER, DOC #D11313, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2808

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 2, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Eric Troy MONROE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-547

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[July 26, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Mary E. Higgins, certify that:

 

1.       I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of HerbstGaming, Inc., a Nevada corporation;

 

2.       Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;

 

3.       Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this annual report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.       The registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:

 

(a)       Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b)      Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

(c)       Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.       The registrant’s other certifying officer and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control andreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a)       Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

(b)      Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 
| Date:  | March 15, 2004 |   | /s/ MARY E. HIGGINS                       |
|--------|----------------|--------|-------------------------------------------|
|   |           |   | Mary E. Higgins, Chief Financial  Officer |

 

----
Jon J. RAPPAPORT, et al., Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. Joel Beth NAVRATIK, et al., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D18-0426

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

APRIL 9, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
Exhibit 4.4 and 10.5

                      MEZZANINE INVESTMENT CORPORATION
                            STOCK ISSUANCE FORM

     This Stock Issuance Form is furnished to the designated participant in
the stock issuance program of the Stock Option/Stock Issuance Plan of
Mezzanine Investment Corporation, a Nevada corporation (the "Corporation"):

     Participant: ________________________________________________________

     Issuance Date: ______________________________________________________

     Number of Shares: ___________________________________________________

     Consideration for Shares: ___________________________________________

     Vesting of Shares: __________________________________________________

     The Participant understands and agrees that the stock is issued
subject to and in accordance with the terms of the Mezzanine Investment
Corporation Stock Option/Stock Issuance Plan (the "Plan").  The participant
further agrees to be bound by the terms of the Plan, a copy of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit A.

     All capitalized terms in this Stock Issuance Form shall have the
meaning assigned to them in this form or in the attached Plan.

     Assuming that you are in agreement with the terms of this Stock
Issuance Form, please sign your name in the space indicated below.



                              Mezzanine Investment Corporation


                              By: ________________________________________


AGREED: ____________________________

____________________________________
Participant

Address: _________________________________________________________________


Exhibit A                     Stock Option/Stock Issuance Plan
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 78 (Tuesday, April 22, 2008)]
[Corrections]
[Page 21690]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: Z8-4998]



Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / 
CORRECTIONS

[[Page 21690]]



NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 26

RIN 3150-AF12


Fitness for Duty Programs

Correction

    In rule document E8-4998 beginning on page 16966, in the issue of 
Monday, March 31, 2008, make the following correction:


PART 26-[CORRECTED]

    On page 17177, the table of contents for Subparts N and O are 
corrected to read as follows:
    * * * * *
Subpart N--Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
26.709 Applicability.
26.711 General provisions.
26.713 Recordkeeping requirements for licensees and other entities.
26.715 Recordkeeping requirements for collection sites, licensee 
testing facilities, and laboratories certified by the Department of 
Health and Human Services.
26.717 Fitness-for-duty program performance data.
26.719 Reporting requirements.
Subpart O--Inspections, Violations, and Penalties
26.821 Inspections.
26.823 Violations.
26.825 Criminal penalties.
    * * * * *

[FR Doc. Z8-4998 Filed 4-21-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
Case 21-20622-PDR Doc 6 Filed 11/05/21 Page 1 of 6
Case 21-20622-PDR Doc 6 Filed 11/05/21 Page 2 of 6
Case 21-20622-PDR Doc 6 Filed 11/05/21 Page 3 of 6
Case 21-20622-PDR Doc 6 Filed 11/05/21 Page 4 of 6
Case 21-20622-PDR Doc 6 Filed 11/05/21 Page 5 of 6
Case 21-20622-PDR Doc 6 Filed 11/05/21 Page 6 of 6
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-21162 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus GERARDO MORENO-PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-03-CR-245-1

-------------------- Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Gerardo Moreno-Perez appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Moreno-Perez contends that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional. He therefore argues that his conviction must be reduced to one under the lesser included offense found in 8 U.S.C. § 1362(a), his judgment must be reformed to reflect a conviction only under United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## F I L E D June 23, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 03-21162 -2- that provision, and his sentence must be vacated and the case remanded for resentencing to no more than two years’ imprisonment and one year of supervised release.
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Moreno-Perez acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his arguments for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
Luis ROMAGUERA and Arlene Romaguera, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. ONEWEST BANK, FSB, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D18-0289

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

MARCH 28, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 124 (Tuesday, June 29, 2004)]
[Corrections]
[Page 38955]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: Z4-1256]



Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 29, 2004 / 
CORRECTIONS

[[Page 38955]]



DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[I.D. 050304F]


Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act Provisions; 
Application for Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP)

Correction

    In notice document E4-1256 beginning on page 31588 in the issue of 
June 4, 2004, make the following correction:
    On page 31588, in the third column, in the DATES section, in the 
second line, ``August 3, 2004'' should read ``July 6, 2004. ''.

[FR Doc. Z4-1256 Filed 6-28-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D