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



I, Winnie Wong, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Alianza Minerals 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:   February 14, 2018





/s/  Winnie Wong

Winnie Wong,

Chief Financial Officer
Chris YOUNG, as a Personal Representative of the Estate of Jeffry Young, petitioner, v. Joseph S. FITZPATRICK, et al.

No. 11-1485.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2013.

*2849Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1, denied.
Exhibit 23.1








CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING
FIRM





We
hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-170498,
333-192840, and 333-212430) and on Form S-3 (File Nos. 333-211695,
333-223562 and 333-227846) of CorMedix, Inc. and subsidiary (the
“Company”) of our report dated March 14, 2019, on our
audits of the consolidated financial statements as of December 31,
2018 and 2017, and for each of the years in the two-year period
ended December 31, 2018 which appear in this Form 10-K.





/s/
Friedman LLP


March
14, 2019


East
Hanover, New Jersey
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 

For the Northern District of California 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RONALD SMALL, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CORDIS CORPORATION, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 17-cv-00881-EMC 

ORDER REMANDING CASE 

 

For the reasons stated in this Court’s September 23, 2016, Order in Dunson v. Cordis, 

C16-3076-EMC, Docket No. 53, the Court hereby REMANDS this case to state court for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 31, 2017 

______________________________________ 

EDWARD M. CHEN 

United States District Judge
Jonathan K. LEWIS, petitioner, v. Wansley WALTERS, Secretary, Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, et al.

No. 12-7417.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
GENO LEWIS HAWKINS

,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Respondent.

___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FI LED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 0701

Opinion filed February 24, 2015.

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

-- Original Jurisdiction

.

Geno Lewis Hawkins, pro se , Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

DISMI SSED

. See Baker v. State , 878 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2004).

LEWIS, C.J., BENTON and THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

JAMIE LEE VILLARREAL, )

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CAUSE NO. 3:13-CV-1077 PS

 )

SUPERINTENDENT, )

)

Respondent. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Jamie Lee Villarreal was a prisoner at the Westville Correctional Facility when he

was found guilty of possessing altered property in violation of Class B Offense Number

228 (B-228) of the Disciplinary Code for Adult Offenders applicable to Westville

prisoners. Because a guard found a sharpened piece of metal in the heat vent by his

bed, the Disciplinary Hearing Body (DHB) deprived him of 30 days earned credit time.

Villarreal argues that because the shank was not found on him or in his personal

property and because his cell mate confessed that it was his, there is not sufficient

evidence to have found him guilty. 

“Prison disciplinary proceedings are not part of a criminal prosecution, and the

full panoply of rights due a defendant in such proceedings does not apply.” Wolff v.

McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974). “[T]he findings of a prison disciplinary board [need

only] have the support of some evidence in the record. This is a lenient standard, 

requiring no more than a modicum of evidence.” Webb v. Anderson, 224 F.3d 649, 652

(7th Cir. 2000) (quotation marks and citations omitted). Here, the shank was discovered
in a vent that was accessible by Villarreal and his cell mate. DE 1 at 2. Villarreal argued

that the vent was also accessible from one other cell as well. DE 4-4 at 1. Therefore,

perhaps four inmates could have possessed it. However, in a similar case, the Seventh

Circuit upheld a finding of guilt where a weapon was discovered in an area controlled

by four inmates because there was a twenty-five percent chance of guilt. Hamilton v.

O’Leary, 976 F.2d 341, 346 (7th Cir. 1992). 

At the time of the hearing, Villarreal told the hearing officer that he did not

intend to call any witnesses. DE 4-2. Yet in this court Villarreal has presented an

affidavit from his cell mate in which he claims to have been the owner of the weapon.

DE 1-1. Let’s set to the side for the moment the procedural irregularity of presenting

new evidence to me in a habeas corpus proceeding, even if I were to consider the

affidavit, it gets Villarreal nowhere. Merely because his cell mate confessed and was

found guilty of possessing the shank does not mean that Villarreal did not have shared

possession of it. Though it is possible the shank belonged solely to the cell mate, “[t]he

Federal Constitution does not require evidence that logically precludes any conclusion

but the one reached by the disciplinary board.” Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 457

(1985). The DHB believed that Villarreal had some possessory interest in the shank, and

I cannot re-weigh evidence presented during prison disciplinary hearings. See

McPherson v. McBride, 188 F.3d 784, 786 (7th Cir. 1999).

For the foregoing reasons, the habeas corpus petition is DENIED. 

SO ORDERED.

2
ENTERED: December 12, 2014

s/Philip P. Simon 

Chief Judge

United States District Court

3
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 93 (Monday, May 15, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 25879]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11855]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 94-127; RM-8537]

Radio Broadcasting Services; Wright City, OK
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule; dismissal of.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission, at the request of Texarkana Broadcasting, 
Incorporated, dismisses its request to allot Channel 277A to Wright 
City, OK, as the community's first local aural service. See 59 FR 
59744, November 18, 1994. No interest in applying for the channel was 
received by the Commission. With this action, this proceeding is 
terminated.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leslie K. Shapiro, Mass Media Bureau, 
(202) 418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Report and Order, MM Docket No. 94-127, adopted May 3, 1995, and 
released May 10, 1995. The full text of this Commission decision is 
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW, Washington, 
D.C. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the 
Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, 
Inc., (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, NW, Suite 140, Washington, D.C. 
20037.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 95-11855 Filed 5-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
III 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 11 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 1, 2023 

Received 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Providing for a joint session of Congress to receive a message 

from the President. 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That the two Houses of Congress assemble 

3 in the Hall of the House of Representatives on Tuesday, 

4 February 7, 2023, at 9 p.m., for the purpose of receiving 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

HCON 11 RDS 

1 such communication as the President of the United States 

2 shall be pleased to make to them. 

Passed the House of Representatives January 31, 

2023. 

Attest: CHERYL L. JOHNSON, 

Clerk. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1278 

To amend title 11 of the United States Code to limit the exemption for 

asset protection trusts. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 14, 2005 

Mr. EMANUEL (for himself, Mr. DELAHUNT, Mr. WATT, and Mr. CONYERS) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the 

Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 11 of the United States Code to limit the 

exemption for asset protection trusts. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Billionaire’s Loophole 

5 Elimination Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ASSET PROTECTION TRUSTS. 

7 Section 548 of title 11, United States Code, is 

8 amended by adding at the end the following: 

9 ‘‘(e)(1) The trustee may avoid a transfer of an inter10 est of the debtor in property made by an individual debtor 
2 

•HR 1278 IH 

1 within 10 years before the date of the filing of the petition 

2 to an asset protection trust if the amount of the transfer 

3 or the aggregate amount of all transfers to the asset pro4 tection trust within such 10-year period exceeds $125,000, 

5 to the extent that the debtor’s beneficial interest in the 

6 trust does not become property of the estate by reason 

7 of section 541(c)(2). 

8 ‘‘(2) An asset protection trust is a trust settled by 

9 the debtor, in which the debtor has a direct or indirect 

10 beneficial interest or under which the trustee may dis11 tribute property to or for the benefit of the debtor, and 

12 as to which a restriction on the voluntary or involuntary 

13 transfer of the debtor’s beneficial interest in the trust is 

14 enforceable under applicable nonbankruptcy law. For pur15 poses of this subsection, the following are not asset protec16 tion trusts: 

17 ‘‘(A) Retirement funds to the extent that those 

18 funds are in a fund or account that is exempt from 

19 taxation under section 401, 403, 408, 408A, 414, 

20 457, or 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 

21 1986. 

22 ‘‘(B) Charitable trusts. 
3 

•HR 1278 IH 

1 ‘‘(C) Qualified trusts under section 529 of the 

2 Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and other edu3 cational trusts, funds, or accounts.’’. 

Æ
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 82 (Friday, April 28, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 21026]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-10458]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
[AC-24; OTS No. 2383]


Hemet Federal Savings and Loan Association, Hemet, California; 
Approval of Conversion Application

    Notice is hereby given that on April 21, 1995, the Assistant 
Director, Corporate Activities, Office of Thrift Supervision, or her 
designee, acting pursuant to delegated authority, approved the 
application of Hemet Federal Savings and Loan Association, Hemet, 
California, to convert to the stock form of organization. Copies of the 
application are available for inspection at the Information Services 
Division, Office of Thrift Supervision, 1700 G Street, N.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20552, and the West Regional Office, Office of Thrift 
Supervision, 1 Montgomery Street, Suite 400, San Francisco, California 
94104.

    Dated: April 25, 1995.

    By the Office of Thrift Supervision.
Nadine Y. Washington,
Corporate Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-10458 Filed 4-27-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6720-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 91 (Thursday, May 11, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 25215]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11610]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. CP95-405-000]


Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company; Notice of Request 
Under Blanket Authorization

May 5, 1995.
    Take notice that on May 1, 1995, Williston Basin Interstate 
Pipeline Company (Williston Basin), 200 North Third Street, Suite 300, 
Bismarck, North Dakota 58501, filed in Docket No. CP95-405-000 a 
request pursuant to Sections 157.205 and 157.216 of the Commission's 
Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205, 157.216) for 
authorization to abandon a town border station, under Williston Basin's 
blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP83-1-000, et al. pursuant to 
Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act, all as more fully set forth in the 
request that is on file with the Commission and open to public 
inspection.
    Williston Basin Proposes to abandon its North Sidney Town Border 
Station located in Richland County, Montana. Williston Basin states 
that Montana Dakota Utilities Co. (Montana-Dakota) no longer requires 
service through this border station because the main Sidney Border 
Station possesses sufficient capacity to provide reliable service to 
Montana Dakota to serve its requirements in Sidney. Williston Basin 
mentions that all above ground facilities will be removed.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 45 days after 
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to 
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of 
the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) a protest to 
the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefor, 
the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the 
day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed 
and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a 
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for 
authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-11610 Filed 5-10-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
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 September 30, 2010 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, Michael
J. Cave, President 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.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                 |  |                          
|---------------- |  | -------------------------
|October 20, 2010 |  | /s/ MICHAEL J. CAVE      
|                 |  | Michael J. Cave
President



27
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 86 (Thursday, May 4, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21981-21982]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11007]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD

20 CFR Part 344

RIN 3220-AB13


Contributions Under Special Transition Rule for Public Commuter 
Railroads

agency: Railroad Retirement Board.

action: Final rule; removal.

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

summary: The Railroad Retirement Board (Board) hereby amends its 
regulations to remove a temporary rule regarding the computation and 
payment of contributions under the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act 
for commuter railroads. The rule is now obsolete.

effective date: May 4, 1995.

addresses: Secretary to the Board, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 Rush 
Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611.

for further information contact: Thomas W. Sadler, Assistant General 
Counsel, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 
60611, (312) 751-4513, TDD (312) 751-4701.

supplementary information: Section 7102(a) of the Railroad Unemployment 
Insurance and Retirement Improvement Act of 1988 (Title VII, Subtitle A 
of Pub. L. 100-647) enacted a special transition rule regarding 
computation and payment of contributions by public commuter railroads 
for calendar years 1989 and 1990. Under the special transition rule, 
each public commuter [[Page 21982]] railroad paid contributions under 
section 8(a) of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act in an amount 
equal to the amount of unemployment and sickness benefits paid to its 
employees, plus an additional amount for administrative expenses. The 
Board promulgated Part 344 as a temporary rule (see 54 FR 25846, June 
20, 1989) to explain how it would apply the special transition rule. 
Effective with calendar year 1991, public commuter railroads have been 
paying experience-rated contributions on the same basis as other 
railroad employers. Thus, Part 344 is obsolete.
    The Board has determined that this is not a major rule for purposes 
of Executive Order 12866. Therefore, no regulatory impact analysis is 
required.

List of Subchapter in 20 CFR Part 344

    Railroad employees, Railroad employers, Railroad unemployment 
benefits.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, part 344 of title 20, 
chapter II of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 344--[REMOVED AND RESERVED]

    1. The authority citation for this part continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 45 U.S.C. 362(i) and 362(l).

    2. Part 344, consisting of Secs. 344.1 through 344.6, is hereby 
removed and reserved.

    Dated: April 26, 1995.

    By Authority of the Board.

    For the Board.
Beatrice Ezerski,
Secretary to the Board.
[FR Doc. 95-11007 Filed 5-3-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7905-01-M
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

WAYMO LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.17-cv-00939-WHA (JSC)

ORDER RE: PARAGRAPH SIX OF 

DISTRICT COURT'S PI ORDER

On May 11, 2017 the district court granted in part Waymo’s motion for a preliminary 

injunction. Among other remedies, the court granted Waymo “further expedited discovery in aid 

of possible further provisional relief.” The court also stated that “[a]fter Waymo has exhausted its 

expedited discovery, it may continue with normal discovery.” (Dkt. No. 433 at 25-26.) Uber 

interprets this Order as staying normal discovery until Waymo exhausts its permitted expedited 

discovery, while Waymo insists the district court intended no such thing as a delay in normal 

discovery would prejudice Waymo given the short time frame to complete discovery. After 

reviewing the district court’s order, and conferring with the district court, the Court rules that 

Waymo must first proceed with the expedited discovery ordered in the district court’s preliminary 

injunction order. Once Waymo exhausts the expedited discovery, it may continue discovery with 

the standard deadlines. Waymo may, however, concurrently propound requests for admissions 

since the district court’s expedited discovery order did not provide for such discovery. Further, 

Waymo does not need to propound new discovery requests if it wishes the expedited schedule to 

apply to previously-requested discovery. This process is not designed to alleviate any burden on 

Uber, but rather to ensure that the expedited discovery process is exhausted first. This discovery 

phasing may be revisited depending on the progress of the expedited discovery. The third-party 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 441 Filed 05/15/17 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

discovery as to Gorilla Circuits may proceed, as agreed to by Uber.

Uber may continue its discovery; however, it is not expedited.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 15, 2017

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 441 Filed 05/15/17 Page 2 of 2