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



I, Marc G Blythe, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Tarsis Resources Ltd.;



2.

Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;



3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.

The Companys other certifying officer 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the Company 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 the Company, 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)

Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principals;



c)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company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; and



d)

Disclosed in this report any change in the Companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Companys internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

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



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 Company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 the Companys internal control over financial reporting.





Date:  January 30, 2015





/s/  Marc G. Blythe

Marc G. Blythe

President and CEO
ONEOK, INC., et al., petitioners, v. LEARJET, INC., et al.

No. 13-271.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.

Justice ALITO took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
James ELLIOTT, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9396.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                        EX-10.40

                                 Lease Amendment

         This Agreement is entered into as of December 30, 1994, by and between
TORREY SORRENTO, INC., a California corporation (hereinafter called "Landlord"),
and IDEC PHARMACEUTICALS, CORPORATION, a California corporation (hereinafter
called "Tenant"), with reference to the following facts:

         A.       Prior hereto the Landlord and Tenant entered into that certain
Lease dated July 9, 1992, for the premises located at 11011 Torreyana Road, San
Diego, California (the "Lease"), as amended by that certain First Amendment to
Lease dated November 9, 1992.

         B.       Landlord and Tenant now desire to amend the Lease on the terms
set forth herein.

         C.       All capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the same
meaning as set forth in the Lease.

         NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:

         1.       Exhibit D to the Lease, the Early Termination Agreement, shall
be deleted in its entirety and all rights of the Tenant and/or any successors
and assigns, for early termination under the Lease pursuant to Section 3.2 of
the Lease, Exhibit D (Early Termination Agreement) to the Lease, and/or any and
all other references thereto, shall be waived.

         2.       The third sentence of Section 6.2.1.(vi) is hereby amended by
adding the words "for the eleventh year of the term of the Lease" after the
words "herein, the Fair Rental Value".

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as
if the date first set forth above.

                                        TORREY SORRENTO, INC.,
                                        a California Corporation

                                        By: /s/ [ILLEGIBLE]
                                            -----------------------------

                                        IDEC PHARMACEUTICALS  CORPORATION,
                                        a California corporation

                                        By: /s/ Phillip Schneider
                                            -----------------------------
Christopher OSTEEN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-6793.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 18, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOHN ROBERT DEMOS, Jr., 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

WILLIAM J. SMITH, Medical Director, 

Washington State Penitentiary; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 20-35421 

D.C. No. 4:20-cv-05071-TOR 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Washington

Thomas O. Rice, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 18, 2021**

Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Washington state prisoner John Robert Demos, Jr. appeals pro se from the 

district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate 

indifference. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an 

abuse of discretion a district court’s dismissal pursuant to a contempt order. In Re 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAY 27 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 20-35421 

Fillbach, 223 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Demos’s action 

because Demos’s action was within the scope of the district court’s contempt

order. See Demos v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for East. Dist. of Wash., 925 F.2d 1160, 1161

(9th Cir. 1991) (confirming that the Eastern and Western Districts of Washington 

have entered final prefiling orders against Demos restricting Demos’s permission 

to file certain actions); Demos v. McNichols, No. 91-CV-00027-LRS (E.D. Wash. 

Aug. 26, 1991) (issuing contempt order barring Demos from initiating actions in 

the Eastern District of Washington); see also In Re Fillbach, 223 F.3d at 1091 

(litigant may not avoid a vexatious litigant order by filing suit in a different venue).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on 

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

We do not consider documents not presented to the district court because 

they are not part of the record on appeal. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 

874 (9th Cir. 1990). 

AFFIRMED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

SHERBERT M. FORTSON, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CAUSE NO. 3:13-CV-315 PS

)

SUPERINTENDENT, )

)

Respondent. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Sherbert M. Fortson, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas corpus petition attempting to obtain

his immediate release from prison for a parole violation. He argues that it was wrong for the

Indiana Parole Board to have waited three years after he violated his parole to revoke his parole

and send him back to prison. He also argues that the Parole Board was wrong to have

subsequently denied him release on parole. 

However, before I can consider a habeas corpus petition from a person in State custody,

the petitioner must have previously presented his claims to the State courts. “This means that the

petitioner must raise the issue at each and every level in the state court system, including levels

at which review is discretionary rather than mandatory.” Lewis v. Sternes, 390 F.3d 1019,

1025-1026 (7th Cir. 2004). 

There are two possible methods for challenging a parole revocation in Indiana: by filing a

post-conviction relief petition, Receveur v. Buss, 919 N.E.2d 1235 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), or by

filing a state habeas corpus petition if the inmate is seeking immediate release. Lawson v. State,

845 N.E.2d 185, 186 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). Furthermore, if a state habeas corpus petition is

improperly filed, it will be converted to a post-conviction petition. Hardley v. State, 893 N.E.2d
740, 743 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) and Ward v. Ind. Parole Bd., 805 N.E.2d 893 (2004). Here,

Fortson says that he has not presented either of his claims to any State court in any proceeding.

Therefore he has not exhausted his State court remedies, and I must dismiss this case without

prejudice so that he can exhaust these claims in the State courts. If, after he has ultimately

presented his claims to the Indiana Supreme Court, he has not yet obtained relief, then he may

return to this court and file a new habeas corpus petition. 

For the foregoing reasons, this federal habeas corpus petition is DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 4. 

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: May 6, 2013. s/ Philip P. Simon

PHILIP P. SIMON, CHIEF JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2
## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 14

- 00219

- CR

DAMION DEWAYNE WILLIAMS, Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 71st District Court Harrison County, Texas Trial Court No. 12

- 0340X

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.2 

### O RDER
Our review of the court reporter’s record and clerk’s record in this case indicates that both such records contain “sensitive data” as that phrase is defined in Rule 9.10 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 9.10(a). Sensitive data includes “a birth date, a home address, and the name of any person who was a minor at the time the offense was committed.” T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 9.10(a)(3). Both records include the name of a person who was a minor at the time the offense was committed. Rule 9.10(b) states, “Unless a court orders otherwise, an electronic or paper filing with the court, including the contents of any appendices, must not contain sensitive data.” T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 9.10(b). Rule 9.10(f) provides, “A court may also order that a doc ument be filed under seal in paper form or electronic form, without redaction.” T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 9.10(f). Therefore, because the court reporter’s record and clerk’s record contain sensitive data, we order the clerk of this Court or her appointee, in accor dance with Rule 9.10(f), to seal the electronically filed reporter’s record and clerk’s record in this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT

Date: February 4, 2015
Kathy STAMPS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9813.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 20, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 18, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 3638]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-1101]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP95-123-000]


Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company; Proposed Changes in FERC Gas 
Tariff

January 11, 1995.
    Take notice that on January 6, 1995, Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line 
Company (Panhandle), tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff sheet, 
with a proposed effective date of February 1, 1995:

First Revised Sheet No. 239

    Panhandle states that this filing is being made to modify 
Sec. 8.2(a) of the General Terms and Conditions to reflect a shortened 
deadline for timely nominations of no later than 8:00 a.m. on the third 
business day prior to the first day of the month for nominations 
submitted through the LINK System and no later than 12:00 p.m. on the 
fourth business day prior to the first day of the month for nominations 
submitted in writing.
    Panhandle states that copies of this filing have been served on all 
affected customers and applicable state regulatory commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426, in accordance with Secs. 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests should be filed on 
or before January 19, 1995. Protests will be considered by the 
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will 
not serve to make the protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person 
wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of 
this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for 
public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-1101 Filed 1-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit 31.1  I, David Rogers, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of International Industrial Enterprises;  2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 officer 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, 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; and  c) 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  d) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.  5. The registrants other certifying officer 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 functions):  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; and  b) 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.  September 9, 2009   /s/ David Rogers David Rogers Chief Executive Officer Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6407

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ENRIQUE ACOSTA,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. William B. Traxler, Jr., District

Judge. (CR-92-317, CA-96-1862-6)

Submitted: July 24, 1997 Decided: August 7, 1997

Before HAMILTON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randall Scott Hiller, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant.

David Calhoun Stephens, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South 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 order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997).

We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.

United States v. Acosta, Nos. CR-92-317; CA-96-1862-6 (D.S.C. Feb.

28, 1997). We 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.

DISMISSED
Erick Daniel DAVILA, petitioner, v. TEXAS.

No. 13-5583.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 9, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas denied.
Chester GARDNER, petitioner, v. MICHIGAN.

No. 13-6487.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 12, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Michigan denied.
Mayelin SALAS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9252.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Exhibit 35.2

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (Item 1123)

GMAC Mortgage, LLC

RFMSI Series 2007-S8 Trust (the Issuing Entity)

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of GMAC Mortgage, LLC, as servicer (the Servicer) pursuant to the applicable servicing agreement, does hereby certify that:

1. A review of the Servicers activities during the period covered by the Issuing Entitys report on Form 10-K and of the Servicers performance under
the applicable servicing agreement has been made under my supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled
all of its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in all material respects throughout such period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has
duly executed this Certificate this 24th day of March 2008.



|       |  |                         
|------ |  | ------------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ Anthony N. Renzi    
|Name:  |  | Anthony N. Renzi        
|Title: |  | Executive Vice President
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION

(pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2006 of Boeing Capital Corporation
(the Company) as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report) and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I,
Walter E. Skowronski, President and Director of the Company, certify, that:



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



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



|              |  |                                            
|------------- |  | -------------------------------------------
|              | 
|July 26, 2006 |  | /s/ WALTER E. SKOWRONSKI                   
|              |  | Walter E. Skowronski President and Director
Emilio NOGUEZ, petitioner, v. Michael D. CREWS, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.

No. 12-9739.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Annual Report of NRDC Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard
A. Baker, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




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




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




Date:
      April 4, 2008
            By:
            /s/
      RICHARD A. BAKERRichard
      A. BakerChief
      Executive Officer(Principal
      Financial Officer)
Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act).
 2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
   /s/ Robert G. GargusRobert G. Gargus,Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer