alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# United StatesCourt of A ppeals For the Fir st Circuit

No. 01-1741 RICARDO F. VELÁSQUEZ, SUSANA D. GRANADOS-URIZAR, ELUVIA R. GRANADOS-URIZAR,

Petitioners,

v. JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

THE UNITED STATES, Respondent.

ERRATA SHEET
The opinion of this Court issued on August 29, 2003 is amended as follows: At page 7, line 5, delete "by direct evidence". At page 7, line 8, delete " id. ". At page 7, line 9, replace "'credible, direct and specific evidence'" with "specific evidence". At page 7, lines 10-11, replace " Ravindran v. INS , 976 F.2d 754, 758 (1st Cir. 1992)(internal quotations and citations omitted)." with " Id. ". At page 8, line 4, replace "'credible, direct and specific evidence'" with "specific evidence".
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Earth

Filters

              - connect_staff_profiles(2)

## By Location

              - alaska(2)
              - arizona(2)
              - arkansas(1)
              - california(10)
              - colorado(4)
              - delaware(2)
              - (-)district of columbia(2)
              - florida(1)
              - hawaii(1)
              - iowa(1)
              - louisiana(1)
              - maryland(2)
              - massachusetts(4)
              - michigan(1)
              - montana(1)
              - nevada(1)
              - new mexico(1)
              - south dakota(15)
              - texas(1)
              - virginia(4)
              - washington(4)

## By Year

              - (-)2024(2)

staff profilePhillip Goodling

staff profileMichael E Wieczorek
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND**

**OFTHE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER IN ACCORDANCE**

**WITHSECTION 906 OF THE *SARBANES OXLEY ACTOF 2002***

 

Inaccordance with Section 906 of the *SarbanesOxley Act of 2002,*each of the undersigned officers of Cascades Inc.(the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

1)             theAnnual Report on Form 40-F (the “Report”) for the year ended December 31,2008 of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2)             theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

Dated March 30, 2009

 

 
|   | /s/ Alain Lemaire                                    |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Name: Alain Lemaire                                  |
|   | Title:  President and Chief Executive Officer        |
|   |                                                 |
|   |                                                 |
|   | /s/  Christian Dubé                             |
|   | Name:  Christian Dubé                           |
|   | Title:  Vice - President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

The foregoingcertification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosuredocument.

 

----
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**

We hereby consent to the inclusion in this Annual Reporton Form 40-F as at December 31, 2011 and 2010 and January 1, 2010 and for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010 of Cascades Inc. of our report dated March 19, 2012, relating to the consolidated financial statements, whichappears in the Exhibit incorporated by reference in this Annual Report. 

We also consent to reference to us under theheading “Interests of Experts” in the Annual Information Form incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 40-F which is incorporated by reference in such Registration Statement.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP1

Montréal, Canada 

March 29, 2012

 

 

1Chartered accountant auditor permit no. 12300
# C_2020180EN.01001001.xml

| 29.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 180/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 180/10

---

Notice for the attention of persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP and in Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria

(2020/C 180/05)

The following information is brought to the attention of the persons and entities designated in Annex I to Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP (1), as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/719 (2), and in Annex II to Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 (3), as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/716 (4), concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria.

The Council of the European Union, after having reviewed the list of persons and entities designated in the abovementioned Annexes, has determined that the restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2013/255/CFSP and in Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 should continue to apply to those persons and entities.

The attention of the persons and entities concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated on the websites in Annex III to Regulation (EU) No 36/2012, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 16 of the Regulation).

The persons and entities concerned may submit a request to the Council before 1 March 2021, together with supporting documentation that the decision to include them on the abovementioned list should be reconsidered to the following address:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| RELEX.1.C |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

RELEX.1.C

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

Any observations received will be taken into account for the purpose of the Council’s next review, pursuant to Article 34 of Decision 2013/255/CFSP and Article 32(4) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012, of the list of designated persons and entities.

---

(1)  OJ L 147, 1.6.2013, p. 14.

(2)  OJ L 168, 29.5.2020, p. 66.

(3)  OJ L 16, 19.1.2012, p. 1.

(4)  OJ L 168, 29.5.2020, p. 1.

---
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: District of Columbia

Filters

              - products_data(1)
              - products_publications(6)

## By Location

              - american samoa(1)
              - arkansas(1)
              - california(5)
              - commonwealth of the northern mariana islands(1)
              - (-)connecticut(7)
              - delaware(24)
              - district of columbia(56)
              - florida(1)
              - guam(1)
              - illinois(1)
              - kentucky(1)
              - maine(6)
              - maryland(50)
              - massachusetts(7)
              - new hampshire(6)
              - new jersey(8)
              - new york(9)
              - north carolina(1)
              - ohio(2)
              - oregon(2)
              - pennsylvania(13)
              - puerto rico(2)
              - rhode island(6)
              - south carolina(2)
              - u.s. virgin islands(2)
              - vermont(5)
              - virginia(32)
              - washington(3)
              - west virginia(12)
              - wisconsin(2)

## By Year

publication        December 1, 1998        Preliminary results from the investigation of the Pymatuning earthquake of September 25, 1998

publication        October 26, 2015        Strategy to evaluate persistent contaminant hazards resulting from sea-level rise and storm-derived disturbances—Study design and methodology for station prioritization

publication        June 28, 2019        The presence of antibiotic resistance genes in coastal soil and sediment samples from the eastern seaboard of the USA

publication        April 2, 2020        Low threshold for nitrogen concentration saturation in headwaters increases regional and coastal delivery

publication        January 1, 2018        Thresholds of lake and reservoir connectivity in river networks control nitrogen removal

publication        March 1, 2013        Observed changes in phenology across the USA: A regional review for the 2013 National Climate Assessment, Northeast Regional Information Sheet

Data Release        November 28, 2017        Analytical inorganic chemistry results for samples collected for the Sediment-Bound Contaminant Resiliency and Response Strategy pilot study, northeastern United States, 2015
Toby SHREVE and Sherry Shreve v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, et al.

NO. 2018-C-1058

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

October 29, 2018

**ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, SECOND CIRCUIT, PARISH OF OUACHITA**

Writ denied.

In this writ application, the trial court granted a Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict on the issue of whether the defendant insurer acted unreasonably, arbitrarily and capriciously in handling the Plaintiffs' homeowner's claim.

In *Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc* ., 2000-0445, pp. 4-5 (La. 11/28/00), 774 So.2d 84, 89 (citations omitted), this court discussed motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict:

> A JNOV is warranted when the facts and inferences point so strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of one party that the court believes that reasonable jurors could not arrive at a contrary verdict. The motion should be granted only when the evidence points so strongly in favor of the moving party that reasonable men could not reach different conclusions, not merely when there is a preponderance of evidence for the mover. If there is evidence opposed to the motion which is of such quality and weight that reasonable and fair-minded men in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions, the motion should be denied. In making this determination, the court should not evaluate the credibility of the witnesses and all reasonable inferences or factual questions should be resolved in favor of the non-moving party.

> The standard of review for a JNOV on appeal is a two part inquiry. In reviewing a JNOV, the appellate court must first determine if the trial court erred in granting the JNOV. This is done by using the aforementioned criteria just as the trial judge does in deciding whether or not to grant the motion. After determining that the trial court correctly applied its standard of review as to the *575jury verdict, the appellate court reviews the JNOV using the manifest error standard of review.

Three experts testified in this case resulting in differing opinions as to the cracked foundation and the fallen tree. There were definitely two permissible views of the evidence; thus, the jury's decision cannot be deemed to have been clearly erroneous or that there was manifest error. It cannot be said that reasonable jurors could not have arrived at a contrary verdict. The trial court simply substituted its judgment for that of the jury, which is impermissible. I would reverse the lower courts and reinstate the jury verdict.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Declination

Filters

              - science_education(5)
              - science_faqs(5)
              - science_science(341)
              - products_data(70)
              - products_maps(16)
              - products_publications(2976)
              - products_software(4)
              - products_web_tools(7)
              - multimedia_audio(53)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(47)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(6)
              - multimedia_before_after(3)
              - multimedia_image(130)
              - multimedia_image-141769(1)
              - multimedia_image-141770(2)
              - multimedia_image-141771(106)
              - multimedia_image-141772(1)
              - multimedia_image-141774(3)
              - multimedia_image-141775(10)
              - multimedia_image-141776(7)
              - multimedia_slideshow(3)
              - multimedia_video(146)
              - multimedia_video-149194(74)
              - multimedia_video-149195(32)
              - (-)multimedia_video-149196(5)
              - multimedia_video-149197(2)
              - multimedia_video-149198(6)
              - multimedia_video-149225(6)
              - documents_file(2)
              - documents_file-149206(1)
              - documents_file-149220(1)
              - news_news-149245(21)
              - news_news-149246(4)
              - news_news-149248(27)
              - news_news-149249(4)
              - news_news-149250(2)
              - news_newsletters(3)
              - news_other_news(31)
              - connect_staff_profiles(6)
              - other_basic-42(8)

## By Location

              - arkansas(1)
              - kansas(1)
              - mississippi(2)
              - nebraska(1)
              - oklahoma(1)
              - texas(1)

## By Year

Science Animations        January 6, 2009        Simulated groundwater declines in Central Arkansas

Science Animations        December 2, 2010        The Mississippi Embayment - Declining Water Levels in a Shallow Aquifer

Science Animations        December 2, 2010        The Mississippi Embayment - Declining Water Levels in a Deep Aquifer

Science Animations        August 27, 2013        Water-level Change in the High Plains Aquifer System

Science Animations        March 10, 2020        Importance of Cattails in Wetlands
Robert L. GOODEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4499

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

October 26, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Earth

Filters

              - science_education(2)
              - (-)science_science(5)
              - products_publications(21)
              - multimedia_image(3)
              - multimedia_image-204460(3)
              - multimedia_video(4)
              - multimedia_video-149194(1)
              - multimedia_video-149195(2)
              - multimedia_video-149196(1)
              - news_news-149249(1)
              - news_news-149250(1)
              - news_other_news(2)

## By Location

              - alabama(3)
              - alaska(20)
              - arizona(22)
              - arkansas(1)
              - california(27)
              - colorado(20)
              - delaware(3)
              - district of columbia(3)
              - florida(8)
              - georgia(3)
              - guam(2)
              - hawaii(5)
              - idaho(3)
              - illinois(1)
              - kentucky(1)
              - louisiana(4)
              - maryland(4)
              - massachusetts(1)
              - michigan(2)
              - minnesota(2)
              - mississippi(2)
              - missouri(4)
              - montana(5)
              - nebraska(3)
              - nevada(7)
              - new jersey(2)
              - new mexico(6)
              - new york(5)
              - north carolina(4)
              - oregon(2)
              - puerto rico(2)
              - south carolina(4)
              - south dakota(23)
              - tennessee(2)
              - texas(2)
              - u.s. virgin islands(1)
              - (-)utah(5)
              - virginia(10)
              - washington(7)
              - wyoming(9)

## By Year

Capability        August 15, 2022        Actionable Science

Program        August 15, 2022        Integrated Science Approach

Project        July 2, 2019        Volcanic-related Beryllium Deposits of the US: Geologic Setting, Genesis, and the Potential for Post-Extraction Recovery of By-Product Critical Minerals

Project        August 1, 2016        Ecology of Insect-eating Bats

Project        March 25, 2020        Past Perspectives of Water in the West
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CEO PURSUANTTO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002**

 

In connectionwith the annual report on Form 10-K of Digital Theater Systems, Inc. (the “Company”)for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), Jon E. Kirchner, as Chief Executive Officer ofthe Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuantto § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge,that:

 

(1)                                  The annual report fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  The information contained in the annual report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operationsof the Company.

 

 
| Dated: March 15, 2005 | By     | /s/ JON E. KIRCHNER                   |   |
|----------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|                       |   | Jon E. Kirchner                       |   |
|                       |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |   |

 

A signed originalof this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002 has been provided to Digital Theater Systems, Inc. and will be retainedby Digital Theater Systems, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

 

----
Robert SCHULLER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-5015

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed October 26, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 METALINE CONTACT MINES CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. OF SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Metaline Contact Mines (the
Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John
W. Beasley, Secretary, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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. By:
    
    /s/ John W. BeasleyJohn W. BeasleySecretary, Treasurer & Chief Financial OfficerNovember 15, 2004
 Exhibit 32.2 - Page 1
M.W., the Mother, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, et al., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-2613

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

FEBRUARY 27, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Exhibit No. 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 CEO Channel.com, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10- QSB for the  period  ending  September  30,  2004 as filed  with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Larry
Creeger,  Chief  Executive 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  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.





April 1, 2005                      By: /s/ Larry Creeger
                                       ---------------------------
                                       Larry Creeger
                                       Chief Executive Officer,
                                       Chief Financial Officer





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

A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
required by Section 906,  has been  provided to the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its
staff upon request.
James POWELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-2723

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 1, 2018 Rehearing Denied June 4, 2018

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Andrew Mich, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

James Powell, Lake Butler, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rebecca Roark Wall, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

COHEN, C.J., ORFINGER and TORPY, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 31.1



SECTION 302

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER





I, Robert Danvers, 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/ Robert Danvers

Robert Danvers, Chief Executive Officer



Date: July 23, 2004
STATE of Louisiana v. Sherman FREDIEU, Jr.

NO. 2018-KO-1315

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

October 29, 2018

Denied.