alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# CI2021402EN.01000101.xml

| 5.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CI 402/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CI 402/1

---

Opinion No 2/2021

concerning the Commission’s proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 609/2014 in order to enhance predictability for Member States and to clarify procedures for dispute resolution when making available the traditional, VAT and GNI based own resources (COM(2021) 327 final of 25 June 2021, 2021/0161 (NLE))

(2021/C 402 I/01)

The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that opinion No 2/2021 concerning the Commission’s proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 609/2014 in order to enhance predictability for Member States and to clarify procedures for dispute resolution when making available the traditional, VAT and GNI based own resources (COM(2021) 327 final of 25 June 2021, 2021/0161 (NLE)) is published on 5 October 2021.

The opinion can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website from 17:00 on 5 October 2021:

https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/DocItem.aspx?did=59435

---
Exhibit 8



Certification Required by Rule 13a-14(b)
or Rule 15d-14(b)

of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and

Section 1350 of Chapter 63
of Title 18 of the United States Code



In connection with the report
of InterOil Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ending December 31,
2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael
Hession, Chief Executive Officer 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 the best of my knowledge:



|1. |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|-- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|Date:  March 17, 2015 |                        
|--------------------- | -----------------------
|                      | /s/ Michael Hession    
|                      | Michael Hession        
|                      | Chief Executive Officer
Allihondra MOODY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-1422

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed September 25, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
STATE of Louisiana v. Floyd TYLER

No. 2018-KH-0984

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

October 15, 2018

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ORLEANS**

PER CURIAM:

*1204Denied. The application was not timely filed in the district court, and relator fails to carry his burden to show that an exception applies. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 ; *State ex rel. Glover v. State* , 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.

Relator has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the Legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 19

- 00192

- CR

___________________________

On Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 1 Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 127623 4W

Before Pittman, B irdwell , and B assel , JJ. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### R ONDAL 

### D URAY 

### J OHNSON 

### , Appellant

V


### . T HE 

### S TATE OF 

### T EXAS2 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Rondal Duray Johnson attempts to appeal his March
2012 conviction for aggravated robbery and related twenty

- five

- year sentence. Because we have no ju risdiction, we dismiss this appeal. Pursuant to a plea bargain, Appe llant pled guilty to aggravated robbery , a first

degree felony, and true to a sentence

- enhancement allegation in exchange for a
twenty

- five

- year sentence. See Tex. Penal Co de Ann. §§ 12.42(c), 29. 03(a)(2), (b). O n March 30, 2012, t he trial court convicte d and sentenced him in accordance with the bargain

. Appellant did not file a motion for new trial. His notice of appeal was ther efore due by April 30, 2012 , but he did not file it until May 16, 2019. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a) (providing that a notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days of sentencing absent a timely motion for new trial). Thus, Appellant ’ s notice of appeal

was fi led more than seven years too late. See id. ; Taylor v. State , No. 02

- 19

- 00059

- CR, 2019 WL 1574984, at *1 (Tex. App.

— F ort Worth Apr. 11, 2019, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication ). We informed Appellant by letter of our concern that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal because his notice of appeal was untimely filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2( a). We stated that the appeal would be subject to dismissal absent a response showing gr ounds for continuing it. Appellant responded to our letter, but his response does not allege grounds giving us jurisdiction over an out

- of

- time appeal.3 A notice of ap peal that complies with the requirements of rule 26 is essential to

vest t his court with jurisdiction over an appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has expressly held that without a timely filed notice of appeal, we cannot exercise jurisdiction over an appeal. Olivo v. State , 918 S.W.2d 519,
52 2 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Because Appellant filed his pro se notice of appeal too late, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f) ; Taylor , 2019 WL 1574984,
at *1

.

Per Curiam
Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
Deliv ered: July 25, 2019
Exhibit
32.1








CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Annual Report of CN Dragon Corporation (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K A-1 for the year ended April 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned
certify the following pursuant to Section 18, U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:





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.








/s/ Chong Him
Lau


Chong Him
Lau


Chief
Financial Officer


Principal
Accounting Officer





January
19, 2010
Marshall VAUGHAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3828

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed August 28, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO



SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Report
of DynaResource, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his
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 operation of the Company.



| | /s/ K.W.
        (“K.D.”) DIEPHOLZ
        K.W. (“K.D.”) Diepholz
        Chairman of the Board of Directors
        Dated: November 8, 2013
        
        
        /s/ K.W. (“K.D.”) DIEPHOLZ
        K.W. (“K.D.”) Diepholz
        Chief Executive Officer
        Dated: November 8, 2013
        
        
        /s/ Charles Smith
        Charles Smith
        Chief Financial Officer
        Dated: November 8, 2013
        
        
        /s/ Charles Smith
        Charles Smith
        Principal Accounting Officer
        Dated: November 8, 2013
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This certification accompanies the
Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Exhibit 99.1


                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 Tabatha III, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB  for  the  period  ending  September  30,  2002,  (the  "Report"),
I, Robert L. Smith, Chief  Executive Officer and  Chief Financial Officer 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:

1) The Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.



/s/ Robert L. Smith
-----------------------
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer
November 14, 2002
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Comets

Filters

              - science_faqs(1)
              - (-)science_science(2)
              - products_publications(56)
              - multimedia_audio(1)
              - (-)multimedia_audio-141766(1)
              - multimedia_image(3)
              - multimedia_image-141771(1)
              - multimedia_image-141776(1)
              - multimedia_image-204460(1)
              - multimedia_video(1)
              - multimedia_video-149195(1)
              - documents_file(1)
              - documents_file-149214(1)
              - news_other_news(1)
              - connect_staff_profiles(1)

## By Location

              - arizona(2)

## By Year

Research        October 7, 2022        Planetary Defense

Program        October 1, 2018        IAU - WGCCRE

Podcasts        February 5, 2013        Chesapeake Bay Impact Crater
---

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 Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United
States Code), the undersigned officer of Uranerz Energy Corporation, (the
Company) does hereby certify with respect to the Annual Report of the Company
on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2007 (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: March 17, 2008 |                                   
|-------------------- | ----------------------------------
|                     | /s/
      Benjamin Leboe          
|                     | Benjamin Leboe                    
|                     | Chief Financial Officer, Principal
|                     | Financial and Accounting Officer  

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of
Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report
or as a separate disclosure document.

---
**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 Worldwide Manufacturing USA, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A
for the period ending September 30, 2003, (the "Report"), I, Jimmy Wang, Chief Executive Officer 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:

1)	The Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Company's financial
position and results of operations.

February 11, 2004

/s/ Jimmy WangChief Executive Officer
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 235 (Friday, December 6, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 97017]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-28672]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4832-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2024-0001]

Tennessee; Amendment No. 4 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Tennessee (FEMA-4832-DR), dated October 2, 2024, and 
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued November 4, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Tennessee is hereby amended to include the following 
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by 
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration 
of October 2, 2024.

    Hancock County for Public Assistance, including direct Federal 
assistance.
    Sevier County for permanent work [Categories C-G] (already 
designated for debris removal and emergency protective measures 
[Categories A and B], including direct Federal assistance, under the 
Public Assistance program).

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, 
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster 
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance 
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and 
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing 
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other 
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially 
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2024-28672 Filed 12-5-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
```
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 6521** 

LONNIE MCDONOVAN GHOLSON , Petitioner

– Appellant ,
v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the 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. ( 2:11

- cv - 00023

- RBS

- DEM )

Submitted : September 13, 2011 Decided: September 15, 2011

Before DAVIS and DIAZ , Circuit Judges. *

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Lonnie McDonovan Gholson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

* This opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).2 PER CURIAM: Lonnie McDonovan Gholson seeks to appeal the di strict
court ’ s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (A) (2006) . A certificate of appealability will n ot issue absent “ a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. ” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find th at the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the p risoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude t hat Gholson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials3 before the co urt and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

DISMISSE D
#### Clyde F. WAERS, as Officer-ln-Charge, Sub-Region 30 of the National Labor Relations Board, v. AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS AND BUTCHER WORKMEN OF NORTH AMERICA, LOCAL UNION NO. 641.

No. 4642.

United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.

April 20, 1953.

David P. Findling, Associate General Counsel, and A. Norman Somers, Asst. General Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C., for appellant.

Philip Iiornbein, Jr., Denver, Colo., for appellee.

Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, and BRATTON and HUXMAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed on motion of appellant.
EXHIBIT 31.2



SECTION 302

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER





I, Barry Foreman, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this annual  report on Form 10-KSB of Infotec Business Sys­tems, Inc.
("Infotec");



2.

Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of Infotec as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual  report;



4.

Infotecs other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for Infotec 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 Infotec, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;



b) evaluated the effectiveness of Infotecs disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this annual  report based on such evaluation; and



c) disclose in this annual report any changes in Infotecs internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by this annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, Infotecs internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

Infotecs other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to Infotecs auditors and the audit committee of Infotecs board of directors (or persons fulfilling the equivalent function):



a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect Infotec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 Infotecs internal controls over finan­cial reporting.



/s/ Barry Foreman

Barry Foreman, Chief Financial Officer



Date: July 27, 2005
Carlos Rubio CORRALES, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, et al., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D18-0903

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

JULY 12, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Bartholomew PASCHAL, Rasheed D. Fields, Sean Fields, Willie Colbert and Patricia Mack, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. In re: ESTATE OF Michael James CALHOUN, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-3457

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

October 10, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Emma L. HALL, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. In re: ESTATE OF William Lewshane HALL, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0498

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

September 26, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.