alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Filed by sedaredgar.com - Canyon Copper Corp. - Exhibit 10.10






PROMISSORY NOTE 

	EXECUTED BY: 	CANYON COPPER CORP. 
	  	(the "Borrower") 
	 	 
	IN FAVOUR OF: 	ANTHONY R. HARVEY 
	  	(the "Lender") 
	 	 
	PRINCIPAL AMOUNT: 	CDN $25,000 
	 	 
	DATE OF EXECUTION: 	January 13, 2009 
	 	 
	PLACE OF EXECUTION: 	Vancouver, British Columbia
  


FOR VALUE RECEIVED the Borrower hereby promises to pay
to or to the order of the Lender on April 7, 2010, the principal sum of CDN
$25,000, together with interest thereon at the rate of 15% per annum, calculated
and compounded annually, both before and after maturity from the date hereof.


The Borrower waives presentment, demand, notice, protest and
notice of dishonour and all other demands and notices in connection with the
delivery, acceptance, performance, default or enforcement of this Promissory
Note. 

The Borrower agrees this Promissory Note may be negotiated,
assigned, discounted, or pledged by the Lender and in every case payment will be
made to the holder of this Promissory Note instead of the Lender upon notice
being given by the holder to the undersigned, and no holder of this Promissory
Note will be affected by the state of accounts between the undersigned and the
Lender or by any equities existing between the undersigned and the Lender and
will be deemed to be a holder in due course and for the value of the Promissory
Note held by him. 

DATED at Vancouver, British Columbia this 13th day of January,
2009. 

CANYON COPPER CORP. 
by its authorized signatory:


/s/ Kurt Bordian 
________________________________

KURT BORDIAN
1

Case No. 16-MD-02752-LHK 

ORDER REGARDING CASE SCHEDULE

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

IN RE: YAHOO! INC. CUSTOMER DATA 

SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION

Case No. 16-MD-02752-LHK 

ORDER REGARDING CASE

SCHEDULE

On May 4, 2017, the Court set a further case management conference for June 15, 2017 “to 

set the case schedule through the class certification hearing and through trial.” ECF No. 89. 

However, the parties’ proposed schedule in the joint case management statement filed in advance 

of the June 15, 2017 case management conference only contains a schedule through the class 

certification hearing. See ECF No. 100 at 3. 

Pursuant to the Civil Justice Reform Act, civil cases should be resolved within three years 

of the filing of the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 473. The earliest-filed member case in the instant 

multi-district litigation was filed in September 2016. Accordingly, the parties shall meet and 

confer and agree upon a schedule for summary judgment, pre-trial conference, and trial that allows 

post-trial motions to be resolved within three years of the date when the earliest-filed member case 

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 101 Filed 06/12/17 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No. 16-MD-02752-LHK 

ORDER REGARDING CASE SCHEDULE

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

was filed. The parties shall file a joint proposed case schedule by June 14, 2017 at 10:00 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 12, 2017

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 101 Filed 06/12/17 Page 2 of 2
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### International Trade Commission

          - [Investigation No. 731-TA-749 (Fifth Review)]

## Determination

                    On the basis of the record [1]                                          developed in the subject five-year review, the United States International Trade Commission (“Commission”) determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”), that revocation of the antidumping duty order on persulfates from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.[2] 

## Background

The Commission instituted this review on July 1, 2024 (89 FR 54533) and determined on October 4, 2024, that it would conduct an expedited review (89 FR 87598, November 4, 2024).

                    The Commission made this determination pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its determination in this review on February 10, 2025. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 5586 (February 2025), entitled                     *Persulfates from China: Investigation No. 731-TA-749 (Fifth Review).*
      ( print page 9553)    

By order of the Commission.

Issued: February 10, 2025.

Lisa Barton,

Secretary to the Commission.

# Footnotes

1.                             The record is defined in § 207.2(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).                    
        Back to Citation      

2.                             Commissioner Rhonda K. Schmidtlein did not participate.                    
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 2025-02610 Filed 2-12-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
Raymond Eric HALL, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-1922

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 14, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Habeas corpus is denied.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE EXPERIAN INFORMATION

SOLUTIONS CREDIT REPORTING

LITIGATION

 /

No. C 16-05674 WHA

No. C 16-05676 WHA

No. C 16-05679 WHA

No. C 16-05694 WHA

No. C 16-05701 WHA

No. C 16-05704 WHA

No. C 16-06315 WHA

No. C 16-06335 WHA

No. C 16-06363 WHA

No. C 16-06372 WHA

No. C 17-00342 WHA

No. C 17-00343 WHA

No. C 17-00395 WHA

No. C 17-00397 WHA

No. C 17-00506 WHA

ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO

ANSWER OR OTHERWISE

RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

Case 3:17-cv-00342-WHA Document 20 Filed 03/20/17 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

In ten of the above-captioned cases, a combined motion to dismiss is scheduled for

hearing on March 23. This particular action, Cole v. TransUnion, No. 3:17-cv-00342-WHA, is

not a part of that combined motion. Defendants in this action, however, shall have until 28

DAYS after the Court rules on the aforementioned combined motion to answer or otherwise

respond to the complaint. The pending stipulated request to extend the time for defendant

Nationstar Mortgage LLC to respond to the complaint (Dkt. No. 19) is DENIED as inconsistent

with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 20, 2017. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:17-cv-00342-WHA Document 20 Filed 03/20/17 Page 2 of 2
* 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. 97-50226

Conference Calendar

 

DENNIS JOE WEATHERLY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CHIEF OF POLICE OF ROUND ROCK;

UNKNOWN DETECTIVE, ROUND ROCK;

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. A-95-CV-61

- - - - - - - - - -

December 9, 1997

Before BARKSDALE, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Dennis Joe Weatherly, Texas prisoner # 653950, appeals the

district court's denial of his motion to extend time to file a

motion for a new trial. The district court lacked the authority

to extend the time for filing Weatherly's FED. R. CIV. P. 59(b)

motion. FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b); Fairley v. Jones, 824 F.2d 440, 442

(5th Cir. 1987). Thus, this appeal lacks an arguable basis in

law and is frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d. 215, 219-20
No. 

-2-

(5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is

DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
Larry G. COKER v. STATE

CR-16-1276

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

March 9, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Christina PAYLAN, M.D., Appellant, v. JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION; and Gregory Holder, Circuit Court Judge, Appellees.

Case No. 2D18-302

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 3, 2019.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

LIUDMYLA Y. REIDY

, Appellant,

v.

DAVID STEPHEN REIDY

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 16

- 3731

[ October 12, 2017 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,

Broward County ; Timothy L. Bailey and Alfred J. Horowitz , Judge s ; L.T.

Case No. 14

- 6256 FMCE (38)

.

Daniel A. Bushell of Bushell Law, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Carla Lowry of Lowry at Law, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ROSS

, C IKLIN and K LINGENSMITH

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
================================================================================

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 Matrix Ventures, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 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: May 12, 2006


/s/ Erika Kumar
---------------------------
Erika Kumar
Principal Financial Officer
Roberto Gonzalez ARROYO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3476

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed June 4, 2019

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Kathryn Rollison Radtke, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Nora Hutchinson Hall, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

COHEN, EISNAUGLE and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEHOADDAN WILSON,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cr-00028-JST-1 

ORDER RE: MOTIONS IN LIMINE

Re: ECF Nos. 93, 94, 144, 152, 176

The parties in this case have filed various motions in limine in anticipation of trial dates 

that were later continued. ECF Nos. 93, 94, 144, 152, 176. These motions are hereby terminated. 

With the exception of Defendant’s third motion in limine, which the Court has already denied, see

ECF No. 157, the parties are ordered to refile these motions 14 days before the pretrial conference 

once a new trial date is set. All such motions should be filed in accordance with the Court’s 

standing order for criminal cases. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 20, 2020

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge
Order – Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

ARANSAK KEOVIXAY, §

§

Petitioner, §

v. § Civil Action No. 3:06-CV-0277-L 

§ (Consolidated with 3:06-CV-0278-L)

§

NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, Director, §

Texas Department of Criminal Justice, §

Correctional Institutions Division, §

§

Respondent. §

ORDER

Before the court is Keovixay’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed February 14, 2006.

Pursuant to Special Order 3-251, the Complaint was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Irma

C. Ramirez, on February 14, 2006. On April 9, 2008, the Findings, Conclusions, and

Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”) was filed. Petitioner filed

objections to the Report on April 14, 2008. 

This is a habeas petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner alleges that during

his trial, the state court allowed the Government to strike a venireperson based upon race.

Magistrate Judge Ramirez found that Petitioner’s unsupported assertions did not constitute clear and

convincing evidence that the state court’s determination regarding the validity of the strike was

unreasonable or that the factual premise was incorrect. Plaintiff objects to the magistrate judge’s

finding because, according to him, it approves the trial court’s ruling even though the trial court

failed to make a “searching and serious analysis of the reasons given for the juror strike.” Pet. Obj.

2. This objection fails because it is not supported by the record. Morever, Petitioner offers no
Order – Page 2

evidence to support this conclusory statement. Therefore, the court overrules this objection.

Having reviewed the Complaint, file, record, and the Report in this case, the court determines that

the findings and conclusions are correct. The magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions are

therefore accepted as those of the court. The court therefore dismisses with prejudice the writ of

habeas corpus. 

It is so ordered this 30th day of April, 2008.

_________________________________

Sam A. Lindsay

United States District Judge
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Robert N. Tenczar, as Chief Financial Officer of MMI Products, Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1) the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended January 1, 2005, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|Dated: April 1, 2005 |                                  
|-------------------- | ---------------------------------
|                     | By:  /s/Robert N. Tenczar        
|                     | Robert N. Tenczar, Vice President
|                     | and Chief Financial Officer of   
|                     | MMI Products, Inc.               































A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to MMI Products, Inc. and will be retained by MMI Products, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EX PARTE Dedric Jamar DEAN

CR-17-0313

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

January 16, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Transferred to Dale Cir. Ct.
Fernando MILLS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-3423

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 2, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Sam STROTHER, Appellant, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Appellee.

No. 1D18-3528

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 24, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

MATTHEW WAYNE, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 16-cv-06994-PJH 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Re: Dkt. No. 196 

The relator and defendants, by their counsel, have advised the court that the 

parties have reached a settlement of this qui tam case, subject to approval by the federal 

and state governments. See Dkt. 196. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the pretrial and 

trial dates are vacated and the claims between relator and defendants are dismissed 

without prejudice to reinstatement should the federal and state governments not approve 

the settlement within 90 days. A dismissal with prejudice of all claims as to all parties 

shall be filed when consent of the federal and state governments is obtained within this 

90 day period. The parties shall promptly notify the court if they are unable to obtain 

government approval within the 90 day period. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 28, 2023 

 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton 

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:16-cv-06994-PJH Document 198 Filed 02/28/23 Page 1 of 1
##### 



Exhibit 31.2 INTEGRATED BUSINESS SYSTEMS AND SERVICES, INC. CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Michael P. Bernard, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Integrated Business
Systems and Services, Inc.; 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 the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:  a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure,
or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed
under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating
to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as
of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of
directors (or persons performing 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 the registrants
ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting. Dated: August 27, 2004
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Michael P. BernardName: Michael P. BernardTitle: Chief Financial Officer
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 

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANT EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC.; 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

Scott Sagaria (State Bar No.217981) 

sjsagaria@sagarialaw.com 

Elliot Gale (State Bar No. 263326) 

egale@sagarialaw.com 

Joe Angelo (State Bar No. 268542) 

jangelo@sagarialaw.com 

SAGARIA LAW, P.C. 

3017 Douglas Blvd., Ste. 200 

Roseville, California 95661 

Telephone: (408) 279-2288 

Facsimile: (408) 279-2299 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Victor Vazquez 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

VICTOR VAZQUEZ, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, 

INC.; et. al., 

Defendants. 

Federal Case No.: 3:17-cv-00424-RS 

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH 

PREJUDICE OF DEFENDANT 

EXPERIAN INFORMATION 

SOLUTIONS, INC.; [PROPOSED] ORDER 

 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between plaintiff Victor Vazquez and defendant 

Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (“Experian”), through their designated counsel, that 

Experian be dismissed with prejudice from the above-captioned action pursuant to Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure, Rule 41(a)(2), and that each party shall bear its own attorneys’ fees and 

costs. 

// 

// 

// 

// 
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 

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANT EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC.; 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

DATED: February 6, 2018 Sagaria Law, P.C. 

By: /s/ Elliot W. Gale 

Elliot W. Gale 

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Victor Vazquez 

DATED: February 6, 2018 Jones Day 

By: /s/Ben Lee 

Ben Lee 

Attorneys for Defendant 

Experian Information Solutions, Inc. 

I, Elliot Gale, am the ECF user whose identification and password are being used to file this 

Stipulation. I hereby attest that Ben Lee has concurred in this filing. 

/s/ Elliot Gale 

 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

Pursuant to the stipulation of the Parties, Experian is dismissed with prejudice from the 

above-captioned action and that each party shall bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: 

 RICHARD SEEBORG 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

3/23/18
Robert SCOTT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-4115

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 29, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.