alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.a



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 Dynamic Gold Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Tim Coupland, Principal Executive and I, Ann-Marie Cederholm, Principal 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 result of operations of the Company.





|                                         
|-----------------------------------------
|/ s / Tim Coupland                       
|Tim Coupland, Principal Executive Officer

May 8, 2007



|                                                
|------------------------------------------------
|/ s / Ann-Marie Cederholm                       
|Ann-Marie Cederholm, Principal Financial Officer

May 8, 2007
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-60759

Conference Calendar

 

TATIANA KEREMIDTCHIEVA;

ZVEZDOMIT P. KEREMIDTCHIEVA,,

Petitioners,

versus

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

Respondent.

- - - - - - - - - -

Petition for Review of an Order

of the Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA Nos. A 72 453 268/269

- - - - - - - - - -

August 18, 1997

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Tatiana and Zvezdomit Keremidtchieva petition for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision dismissing their

appeal from the immigration judge’s decision to deny Tatiana

Keremidtchieva’s application for asylum and for a withholding of

deportation. We have reviewed the record and the briefs and

determine that the Board’s decision is supported by substantial
No. 

-2-

evidence. See Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS, 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th

Cir. 1996). The petition for review is DENIED.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

SANTOS DIAZ-MARTINEZ,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 16-50447

D.C. No. 3:16-cr-01035-BEN

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 9, 2017** 

Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Santos Diaz-Martinez appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 57-month sentence and $250 fine imposed following his guilty-plea

conviction for attempted reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

FILED

AUG 14 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Diaz-Martinez contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The

district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38,

51 (2007). The 57-month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including

Diaz-Martinez’s criminal history and his prior 48-month sentence for the same

offense. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. The below-Guidelines fine is also substantively

reasonable in light of Diaz-Martinez’s work history. See United States v. Orlando,

553 F.3d 1235, 1239-40 (9th Cir. 2009).

To the extent that Diaz-Martinez argues that the court selected the sentence

based on “hostility and a lack of objectivity,” the record does not support his claim. 

Rather, the record reflects that the court relied on proper sentencing factors,

including the need for deterrence and protection of the public. See 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a); Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

AFFIRMED.

2 16-50447
EX PARTE Brooks Holloway FOLEY

CR-17-0450

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

February 13, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. denied.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 7537** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. JOSHUA MICHAEL COGDELL , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Columbia
. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. , Senior District Judge. ( 3:07

- cr - 01521

- JFA

- 2 ; 3:14

- cv - 02020

- JFA )

Submitted : July 28, 2016 Decided: August 16, 2016

Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Joshua Michael Cogdell, Appellant Pro Se . Robert Frank Daley, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Jo shua Michael Cogdell seeks to a ppeal the district court’s July 2 9, 2015 order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as time

- b arred and the court’s August 10, 2015 order construing his motion to amend as a successive § 225 5 motion and dismissing it as unauthorized. The se order s are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (20 12 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a

co nstitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (20 12 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional cla ims 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 prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedura l ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. With regard to the July 29 order, we have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Cogdell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appe alability and dismiss the portion of the appeal related to3 that order. As to the August 10 order, we recently granted Cogdell’s motion to file a successive § 2255 motion asser ting his claim based on Johnson v. United States , 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (declaring residual clause of Armed Career Criminal Act unconstitutionally vague). See In re Cogdell , No. 16

- 358 (4th Cir. June 21, 2016) (unpublished order). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss t he portion of the appeal related to that order as moot
. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not a id the decisional process.
DISMISSED
Order filed, January 14, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-13-01035-CR

____________

GLENN LLOYD KINGHAM, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 230th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1371576

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due January 06, 2014. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the 

record. The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record 

has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Marcia Barnett, the court reporter, to file volume 3 of the record 

in this appeal within 30 days of the date of this order. 

PER CURIAM
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ST. PAUL REINSURANCE COMPANY

LIMITED LONDON,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

THE FORT MILLER GROUP, INC.,

THE FORT MILLER COMPANY,

INC., and BEECHE SYSTEMS

CORPORATION,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C05-1912 BZ

SCHEDULING ORDER

Defendants’ motion to dismiss St. Paul Reinsurance

Company Limited London’s Complaint or, in the alternative, to

transfer action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a) and 1406(a)

is scheduled to be heard on September 7, 2005, at 10:00 a.m.,

in Courtroom G, 15th Floor, Federal Building, 450 Golden Gate

Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED

that the briefing schedule is modified as follows: any

opposition to defendants’ motion must be filed no later than

///

///

Case 3:05-cv-01912-BZ Document 13 Filed 07/07/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

July 27, 2005. Any reply must be filed no later than August

3, 2005.

Dated: July 7, 2005

Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\ST. PAUL REINSURANCE\SCHEDULING.ORD.wpd

Case 3:05-cv-01912-BZ Document 13 Filed 07/07/05 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) 3:06-CR-0086-M

) ECF

GONZALO GANDARA, a/k/a G-G )

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions and a recommendation in

this case. No objections were filed. The District Court reviewed the proposed findings,

conclusions and recommendation for plain error. Finding none, the Court ACCEPTS the

Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge.

It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant Gonzalo Gandara has failed to show good cause

or excusable neglect for filing his notice of appeal out of time, and that this matter should be

returned to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for dismissal. 

It is further ORDERED that Robert Cady’s motion to withdraw as attorney for Defendant

(#92) is GRANTED, and that Defendant’s motion for extension of time to file an out-of-time

appeal and to appoint counsel (#104) is DENIED.

SO ORDERED this 16 day of November, 2007. th

_________________________________

BARBARA M. G. LYNN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
James Noah WHITE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-2880

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 2, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# L_2017131EN.01002301.xml

| 20.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 131/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 131/23

---

Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/693 of 7 April 2017 amending Annexes II, III and V to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for bitertanol, chlormequat and tebufenpyrad in or on certain products

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 101 of 13 April 2017
  )

On page 12, point 1(b) of the Annex, in the table replacing the column for chlormequat in Annex II of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005:

for:

| ‘1030000 | Birds eggs | 0,01 (*)’ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1030010 | Chicken | |
| 1030020 | Duck | |
| 1030030 | Geese | |
| 1030040 | Quail | |
| 1030990 | Others | |

‘1030000

Birds eggs

0,01 (*)’

1030010

Chicken

1030020

Duck

1030030

Geese

1030040

Quail

1030990

Others

read:

| ‘1030000 | Birds eggs | 0,1’ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1030010 | Chicken | |
| 1030020 | Duck | |
| 1030030 | Geese | |
| 1030040 | Quail | |
| 1030990 | Others | |

‘1030000

Birds eggs

0,1’

1030010

Chicken

1030020

Duck

1030030

Geese

1030040

Quail

1030990

Others

---
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.15

                        SECURITY AGREEMENT CONFIRMATION

         Reference is made to that certain Security Agreement (the "Agreement")
dated June 29, 2001 from The J. Jill Group, Inc. to Citizens Bank of
Massachusetts ("Citizens") individually and as Agent for the benefit of, and on
behalf of, all Lenders, as such term is defined in that certain Fifth Amended
and Restated Loan Agreement between The J. Jill Group, Inc. on the one hand, and
the several financial institutions from time to time party thereto (Citizens
Bank of Massachusetts being one of them) and Citizens Bank of Massachusetts as
Agent on behalf of the Lenders, on the other hand, dated as of June 29, 2001, as
amended as of August 28, 2001, July 25, 2002, June 26, 2003 and as the same may
hereafter be amended (collectively, the "Security Agreement"). The undersigned
hereby confirms to Citizens individually and as Agent that the Agreement (i)
remains in full force and effect; (ii) is valid, binding and enforceable against
the undersigned and the undersigned's successors and assigns in accordance with
its terms; and (iii) continues to secure all "Obligations" as therein defined.

         Executed as an instrument under seal as of this 26 day of June, 2003.

                                     THE J. JILL GROUP, INC.

                                     By: /s/ Linda L. Trudel
                                         -------------------

                                     Name: Linda L. Trudel
                                           ---------------

                                     Title: Vice President/Corporate Controller
                                            -----------------------------------
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                              68
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      742
<ALLOWANCES>                                        10
<INVENTORY>                                        392
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,332
<PP&E>                                           1,865
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,099
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,796
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,124
<BONDS>                                            802
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            69
<OTHER-SE>                                         279
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,796
<SALES>                                          4,450
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,510
<CGS>                                            3,804
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,128
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  65
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    317
<INCOME-TAX>                                       123
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                194
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       194
<EPS-BASIC>                                       2.81
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.81


</TABLE>
Justin Chad OAKES v. STATE

CR-16-0364

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

February 9, 2018 Reh. denied February 23, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, July 17, 2018.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, July 17, 2018

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A18D0511. AZIZA BOUTALEB SIMMONS v. DONALD KARL SIMMONS.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

2014V0203
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RACHEL CONDRY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-00183-VC 

ORDER MODIFYING BRIEFING 

SCHEDULE & HEARING DATE

Re: Dkt. Nos. 245, 246, 247

The hearing on the pending motions to exclude expert testimony is advanced to 

November 21, 2019, so that those motions can be heard together with the pending motions 

regarding class certification and intervention. To ensure that these motions are fully briefed prior 

to the hearing, the briefing schedule for these motions is modified as follows: opposition briefs 

due November 11; reply briefs due November 18.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 1, 2019

______________________________________

VINCE CHHABRIA

United States District Judge
CAUSE NO. 12-15-00048-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

CHASE ALLEN GILLIAM, } APPEALED FROM 173RD DISTRICT COURT

APPELLANT

V. } IN AND FOR

THE STATE OF TEXAS, } HENDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

APPELLEE

ORDER

Appellant is represented by Mr. Samuel M. Smith, appointed counsel. On February 26,

2015, this Court notified Appellant’s counsel that a Docketing Statement was to be filed and

gave him until March 9, 2015, to file it. TEX. R. APP. P. 32.2. Thereafter, when no Docketing

Statement was filed, Appellant’s counsel was again notified on March 12, 2015, that the

Docketing Statement was past due and was given until March 23, 2015, to file a Docketing

Statement. As of the date of this Order, no satisfactory response has been received.

Pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 32.2 it is ORDERED that the Honorable Mark A. Calhoon,

Judge of the 173rd District Court of Henderson County, shall immediately conduct a hearing to

determine the cause of counsel’s failure to file the Docketing Statement and whether the

Appellant has abandoned the appeal.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that the trial court determine whether: (1) Appellant is

indigent and entitled to the appointment of counsel on appeal; (2) Appellant has sufficient funds

to retain counsel; or (3) Appellant desires to represent himself on appeal.

FILE COPY
It is ADDITIONALLY ORDERED that once findings are made as to the above issues,

the trial court shall appoint counsel, give Appellant an appropriate deadline for retaining counsel,

or administer the appropriate warnings concerning the dangers of self-representation, in

accordance with its findings and the court shall also take necessary action to insure the prompt

filing of the Docketing Statement with this Court.

It is FINALLY ORDERED that a supplemental record containing the court’s findings of

fact and conclusions of law and any appropriate order(s) attendant thereto be certified to this

Court on or before April 27, 2015.

WITNESS the Honorable James T. Worthen, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals, 12th

Court of Appeals District of Texas, at Tyler.

GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF SAID COURT, at my office this the

26th day of March 2015, A.D.

CATHY S. LUSK, CLERK

12TH COURT OF APPEALS

By: ________________________________

Katrina McClenny, Chief Deputy Clerk

FILE COPY
EX PARTE STATE

(In re: State v. Lakiethia Ray)

CR-17-0340

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

January 8, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. denied.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

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

_______________________________________ __ Clerk February 2, 2011

p0126 

# Order

February 2, 2011

142198

In re Parole of Michelle Elias.

________________ _______________ __________/

MACOMB PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 142198 COA: 300113 Macomb CC: 2 010-001213-AP MICHELLE ELIAS, Defendant-Appellant.

and

MICHIGAN PAROLE BOARD, Interventor.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e October 21, 2010 order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND th is case to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted.

We further ORDER that this case be argued and submitted to the Court of Appeals together with the case of People v Haeger (Docket No. 141718), which we remanded to the Court of Appeals for consider ation as on leave granted by order dated February 2, 2011, at such future session of the Court of Appeals as both cases are ready

for submission.

We do not retain jurisdiction.