alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.01

                  CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER &

                            CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Michael Pacult, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
TriView Capital Management, Inc. as managing member of TriView Global Fund,
LLC, certify that (i) the Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 of
TriView Global Fund, LLC fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information
contained in the Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of TriView Global Fund, LLC.

TRIVIEW GLOBAL FUND, LLC
By: TriView Capital Management, Inc., Managing Member


By: /s/ Michael Pacult
Michael Pacult
Chief Executive Officer &
Chief Financial Officer

Date:	May 20, 2010

<page>
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 21 (Monday, February 3, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 8816]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-02108]

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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division

Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--1EdTech Consortium, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on December 18, 2024, pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), 1EdTech Consortium, Inc. 
(``1EdTech Consortium'') has filed written notifications simultaneously 
with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing 
changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose 
of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust 
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, Academian, Chandler, AZ; Alabama School of Cyber 
Technology, Huntsville, AL; Dighton-Rehoboth Regional SD, North 
Dighton, MA; Digital Respons-Ability, Vineyard, UT; Ditki Medical & 
Biological Sciences, Carmel, IN; Novis River, Houston, TX; Ron Clark 
Academy, Atlanta, GA; and Theta Servv Inc., San Diego, CA, have been 
added as parties to this venture.
    Also, New Meridian, Austin, TX; Salesforce, San Francisco, CA; 
Meazure Learning, Hoover, AL; Excel Public Schools, Mysore, INDIA; 
Digvial IT Solutions, Dubai, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES; Vivienns, Hamilton 
Township, NJ; Crosstown High, Memphis, TN; Studynaut, Alicante, SPAIN; 
Curriki, Chicago, IL; and Alief ISD, Houston, TX, have withdrawn as 
parties to this venture.
    Additionally, RANDA Solutions has changed its name to Level UP, 
Franklin, TN.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and 1EdTech Consortium intends to file 
additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On April 7, 2000, 1EdTech Consortium filed its original 
notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of 
Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to section 
6(b) of the Act on September 13, 2000 (65 FR 55283).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on October 4, 
2024. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
section 6(b) of the Act on December 20, 2024 (89 FR 104208).

Suzanne Morris,
Deputy Director Civil Enforcement Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2025-02108 Filed 1-31-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
```
Case 3:17-cv-00223-RS   Document 160   Filed 06/01/17   Page 1 of 1
J.D., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3501

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 17, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Quorum Ventures, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ended August 31, 2006 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 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 operations
           of the Company.


Date:  October 11, 2006


/s/ Bryan Markert
---------------------------------------
Bryan Markert, Principal Financial Officer
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 24.4

Power of Attorney of Gaylen D. Kemp



STATE OF GEORGIA

COUNTY OF FULTON


                               POWER OF ATTORNEY


KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that I, Gaylen D. Kemp, a Director of EDUTREK
INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Georgia corporation, do constitute and appoint Steve
Bostic and David J. Horn, jointly and severally, my true and lawful
attorneys-in-fact, each with full power of substitution and resubstitution, for
me in any and all capacities, to sign the Annual Report on Form 10-K for
EDUTREK INTERNATIONAL, INC. for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1999,
pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and to
file such document with the Securities and Exchange Commission, together with
all exhibits thereto and other documents in connection therewith, and to sign
on my behalf and in my stead, in any and all capacities, any amendments to said
Annual Report, incorporating such changes as any of the said attorneys-in-fact
deems appropriate, hereby ratifying and confirming all that each of said
attorneys-in-fact, or his substitute or substitutes, may do or cause to be done
by virtue hereof.

        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 4th day
of March 2000.




                                                   /s/   Gaylen D. Kemp
                                                   --------------------------
                                                   Gaylen D. Kemp




                                 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

BEFORE me this 4th day of March 2000, came Gaylen D. Kemp, personally known to
me, who in my presence did sign and seal the above and foregoing Power of
Attorney and acknowledged the same as his true act and deed.



                                                   /s/  Cynthia Gardere
                                                   --------------------------
                                                   NOTARY PUBLIC


                                                   State of Georgia

                                                   My Commission Expires:

                                                   September 11, 2003
DENY and Opinion Filed August 23, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-22-00817-CV

IN RE JACKI L. PICK, Relator

Original Proceeding from the Criminal District Court No. 1

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. OSW-22-00030-H

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Myers, Nowell, and Goldstein

Opinion by Justice Myers

Before the Court is relator’s August 18, 2022 Petition for Writ of Mandamus 

challenging a trial court’s August 15, 2022 Order to Appear and Testify. The order 

was signed by Judge Rick Magnis, who was sitting by assignment.

Also before the Court is relator’s August 18, 2022 Emergency Motion for Stay

where relator seeks a stay of the August 15, 2022 Order to Appear and Testify.

As the party seeking relief, relator bears the burden to provide the Court with 

a sufficient record to establish its right to relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 

837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). A relator establishes its right to relief by showing 

that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that the relator lacks an appellate 
–2–

remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. 

proceeding). Relator must provide this Court with a certified or sworn copy of every 

document that is material to establishing their right to mandamus relief and that was 

filed in the underlying proceeding. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a)(1); In 

re Butler, 270 S.W.3d 757, 759 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, orig. proceeding). 

The record is not properly authenticated as required by the Texas Rules of 

Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k), 52.7(a)(1). Documents included 

in relator’s record and appendix are not certified by a trial court clerk or adequately 

sworn copies. See Butler, 270 S.W.3d at 759. Additionally, the record reflects that a 

hearing was held on July 28, 2022, but relator has neither filed a properly 

authenticated transcript of any testimony from that hearing nor provided a statement 

that no testimony was adduced in connection with the matter complained of at that 

hearing. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a)(2).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

1 We also deny 

relator’s Emergency Motion for Stay as moot.

220817f.p05

 

1 The order assigning Judge Rick Magnis states that his assignment was for August 8, 2022, through 

August 12, 2022. We have no authority to issue a writ of mandamus to a successor judge for a visiting 

judge’s rulings. See TEX. R. APP. P. 7.2(b); In re Caddell, No. 05-21-00233-CV, 2021 WL 3412238, at *1 

n.1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 4, 2021, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). Thus, we question whether rule 7.2(b) 

would require us to give the successor judge an opportunity to reconsider the challenged order before we 

may consider relator’s request for mandamus relief. 

/Lana Myers//

LANA MYERS

JUSTICE
# L_2017019EN.01009701.xml

| 25.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 19/97 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 19/97

---

Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/105 of 19 October 2016 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1247/2012 laying down implementing technical standards with regard to the format and frequency of trade reports to trade repositories according to Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on OTC derivatives, central counterparties and trade repositories

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 17 of 21 January 2017
  )

On page 17, title:

for:

‘Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/105 of 19 October 2016 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1247/2012 laying down implementing technical standards with regard to the format and frequency of trade reports to trade repositories according to Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on OTC derivatives, central counterparties and trade repositories’,

read:

‘Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/105 of 26 October 2016 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1247/2012 laying down implementing technical standards with regard to the format and frequency of trade reports to trade repositories according to Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on OTC derivatives, central counterparties and trade repositories’;

on page 23, place, date and signature:

for:

‘Done at Brussels, 19 October 2016.’,

read:

‘Done at Brussels, 26 October 2016.’.

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7681
WILLARD TALLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SHERRY WILSON, R.N.; JAMES C. WILLETT, Superintendent; SERGEANT SCKINTO; MAJOR M.A. BENNETT, Deputy Superintendent; DR. SHEETS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:06-cv-01410-LMB) Submitted: March 26, 2008 Decided: April 21, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Willard Talley, Appellant Pro Se. Jeff W. Rosen, PENDER & COWARD, PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Willard Talley appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Talley v. Wilson , No. 1:06-cv-01410-LMB (E.D. Va., filed Oct. 17, 2007 & entered Oct. 19, 2007). We deny Talley’s motion to appoint counsel and 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
Exhibit 9.1

                                  Quinenco S.A.
                        List of Significant Subsidiaries

      The following list contains the name, jurisdiction of incorporation and
      the names under these subsidiaries do business of Quinenco's significant
      subsidiaries as defined under rule 1-02(w) of Regulation S-X. Names of
      multiple wholly-owned subsidiaries have been omitted.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                               Jurisdiction of     Name Under Which                               Number of Omitted
Name                            Incorporation     Subsidiary Operates     Line of Business         Subsidiaries(1)
----                            -------------     -------------------     ----------------         ---------------
<S>                                 <C>             <C>                   <C>                           <C>
                                                                          Investments in
LQ Inversiones                                                            Financial
Financieras S.A.                    Chile           LQIF                  Services Sector                13
Inversiones Rio                                     Inversiones Rio
Grande S.A.                         Chile           Grande S.A.           Investments                    18
VTR S.A.                            Chile           VTR S.A.              Investments                     2
                                                                          Industrial
Madeco S.A.                         Chile           Madeco                Manufacturer                   26
</TABLE>

(1)   The jurisdiction of incorporation of all of the omitted subsidiaries is
      outside of the United States.
EX PARTE Shaeffer COLEMAN

CR-17-0193

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

January 29, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. denied.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT

To the Board of Directors
Provo International, Inc.

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectus
constituting part of the Registration Statement of Provo International, Inc., on
Forms S-3 (#333-89811, 333-35058, 333-110764 and 333-112926) and Form S-8
(#333-86792) of our report dated April 2, 2004, on the consolidated financial
statements of Provo International, Inc. as December 31, 2003 and for the year
ended December 31, 2003 appearing in the annual report on Form 10-KSB of Provo
International, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2003


/s/ Bernardo Soto, CPA
------------------------------
Hernandez Marron y Cia., S. C.


Mexico City, Mexico

April 29, 2004
Kamarccus J. WEBSTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-1331

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 19, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-05-00388-CV

Fleur Land, Ltd. and Langley Ranches Limited Partnership, Appellants

v.

Travis Central Appraisal District, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 126TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. GN102992, HONORABLE STEPHEN YELENOSKY, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

Appellants Fleur Land, Ltd. and Langley Ranches Limited Partnership first amended

motion to dismiss their appeal is granted. The appeal is dismissed.

 

Bea Ann Smith, Justice

Before Justices B. A. Smith, Puryear and Pemberton

Dismissed on Appellants’ Motion

Filed: July 29, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           9
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER>        1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                           5,550
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           9,570
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     66,995
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           5,845
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             5,589
<LOANS>                                         96,998
<ALLOWANCE>                                        233
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 195,768
<DEPOSITS>                                     124,515
<SHORT-TERM>                                     1,143
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,159
<LONG-TERM>                                     56,162
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           836
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,953
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 195,768
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  7,047
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                5,057
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   172
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                12,275
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               5,729
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,541
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            3,735
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       31
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  5,341
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,071
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,071
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       653
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .27
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    6.88
<LOANS-NON>                                        669
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   217
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       15
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  233
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               233
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

April 18, 2023

ERRATA

______________________

Appeal Nos. 2021-2263, 2021-2264, 2021-2265, 2021-2266

SEQUOIA TECHNOLOGY, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

DELL, INC., DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC., EMC 

CORPORATION, AKA DELL EMC, HEWLETTPACKARD ENTERPRISE CO., HITACHI VANTARA 

CORPORATION, SUPER MICRO COMPUTER, INC., 

HITACHI LTD.,

Defendants-Appellees

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

Appeal No. 2021-2267

RED HAT, INC.,

Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee

v.

SEQUOIA TECHNOLOGY, LLC,

Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff-Appellant

ELECTRONICS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS 

Case: 21-2263 Document: 69 Page: 1 Filed: 04/18/2023
2 SEQUOIA TECHNOLOGY, LLC v. DELL, INC.

RESEARCH INSTITUTE,

Defendant-Appellant

v.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES 

CORPORATION,

Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

District of Delaware in No. 1:18-cv-02027-LPS-CJB, Judge 

Leonard P. Stark.

______________________

Decided: April 12, 2023

Precedential Opinion

______________________

Please make the following change:

On page 15, footnote 5, change “The district court did 

rely on this extrinsic evidence, see Decision, 2021 WL 

2010448, at *3,” to “The district court did not explicitly rely

on this extrinsic evidence, see Decision, 2021 WL 2010448, 

at *3–4”

Case: 21-2263 Document: 69 Page: 2 Filed: 04/18/2023
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7116
HAYWOOD ALLEN CANNON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-95-675-5-H) Submitted: March 27, 1997 Decided: April 2, 1997 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Haywood Allen Cannon, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L.No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and findno reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Cannon v. North Carolina , No. CA-95-675-5-H (E.D.N.C. July 8, 1996 and May 14, 1996). We deny Appellant's motions for an order enjoining state court Judge Duke from presiding over any cases filed by Appellant and for copies of law clerks' memoranda to the court concerning this appeal and Appellant's prior appeals. We also deny Appellant's motions for appointment of counsel and for 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.

DISMISSED
---

Exhibit 32.a

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (the Report) of Dynamic Gold Corp. (the Company) for the quarter ended March 31, 2010, each of Tim Coupland, the Chief Executive Officer, and Gord Steblin, the Chief Financial Officer, of the Company, 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 the undersigneds knowledge and belief: (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 / Tim CouplandTim Coupland, Principal Executive Officer
May 4, 2010

/ s / Gord SteblinGord Steblin, Principal Financial Officer
May 4, 2010

---