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

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

The undersigned, Kenneth Hicks, of Argentex Mining Corporation,
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) the annual report on Form 10-K of Argentex Mining
Corporation for the year ended January 31, 2011 (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
Argentex Mining Corporation

Dated: April 29, 2011

|/s/ Kenneth Hicks            
|-----------------------------
|Kenneth Hicks                
|President and Director       
|(Principal Executive Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Argentex Mining
Corporation and will be retained by Argentex Mining Corporation and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
# L_2010029DE.01003402.xml

| 2.2.2010 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 29/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.2.2010

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 29/34

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1126/2008 der Kommission vom 3. November 2008 zur Übernahme bestimmter internationaler Rechnungslegungsstandards gemäß der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1606/2002 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 320 vom 29. November 2008
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 320 vom 29. November 2008

Seite 408, Fußnote von Paragraph 28 des IFRS 5:

anstatt:

| „1) | Sofern die Vermögenswerte keine Sachanlagen oder immateriellen Vermögenswerte sind, die vor einer Einstufung als zur Veräußerung gehalten gemäß IAS 16 oder IAS 38 neu bewertet wurden, ist die Anpassung als eine Zu- oder Abnahme aufgrund einer Neubewertung zu behandeln.“ |
| --- | --- |

„1)

Sofern die Vermögenswerte keine Sachanlagen oder immateriellen Vermögenswerte sind, die vor einer Einstufung als zur Veräußerung gehalten gemäß IAS 16 oder IAS 38 neu bewertet wurden, ist die Anpassung als eine Zu- oder Abnahme aufgrund einer Neubewertung zu behandeln.“

muss es heißen

| „1) | Es sei denn, die Vermögenswerte sind Sachanlagen oder immaterielle Vermögenswerte, die vor einer Einstufung als zur Veräußerung gehalten gemäß IAS 16 oder IAS 38 neu bewertet wurden; in diesem Fall ist die Anpassung als eine Zu- oder Abnahme des Neubewertungsbetrags zu behandeln.“ |
| --- | --- |

„1)

Es sei denn, die Vermögenswerte sind Sachanlagen oder immaterielle Vermögenswerte, die vor einer Einstufung als zur Veräußerung gehalten gemäß IAS 16 oder IAS 38 neu bewertet wurden; in diesem Fall ist die Anpassung als eine Zu- oder Abnahme des Neubewertungsbetrags zu behandeln.“

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KEITH ALAN LASKO, Reverend Doctor,

Minister of Worldwide Ministries of Jesus

Christ,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

WILLIAM C. ROBERTS; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 16

- 15455

D.C. No. 2:15

- cv

- 00967

- KJD

- GWF

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Kent J. Dawson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 11, 2017 **

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Keith Alan Lasko appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing as duplicative his action alleging violations of federal and state law

.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review f or an abuse of

* 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

APR 25 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 15455

discretion, Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs. , 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir.

2007), overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell

, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008),

and we may affirm on any basis supported by the record, Johnson v. Riverside

Hea lthcare System, LP , 543 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008). W e affirm.

Dismissal of Lasko’s action was proper on the basis of issue preclusion

because the issue of whether the allegedly defamatory statements were false was

actually litigated and decided against Lasko in a prior action

, Lasko v. Am. Bd. of

Surgery, Inc. , No. 2:13

- cv

- 01893

- JAD

- NJK (D. Nev. Dec. 14, 2015 ). See Taylor

,

553 U.S. at 892 (setting forth elements of issue preclusion)

.

We reject as meritless Lasko’s contention that he was held to a higher

pleading standard as a pro se litigant.

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

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

AFF IRMED.
VI 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 443 

For the relief of Javier Lopez-Urenda and Maria Leticia Arenas. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 2, 2011 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

For the relief of Javier Lopez-Urenda and Maria Leticia 

Arenas. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR JAVIER 

4 LOPEZ-URENDA AND MARIA LETICIA ARENAS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a) 

6 and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality 

7 Act (8 U.S.C. 1151), Javier Lopez-Urenda and Maria 

8 Leticia Arenas shall each be eligible for issuance of an 

9 immigrant visa or for adjustment of status to that of an 

10 alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon fil11 ing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 443 IS

1 section 204 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1154) or for adjustment 

2 of status to lawful permanent resident. 

3 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Javier Lopez4 Urenda or Maria Leticia Arenas enter the United States 

5 before the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), that 

6 alien shall be considered to have entered and remained 

7 lawfully and shall, if otherwise eligible, be eligible for ad8 justment of status under section 245 of the Immigration 

9 and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) as of the date of the 

10 enactment of this Act. 

11 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

12 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only to an ap13 plication for issuance of an immigrant visa or an applica14 tion for adjustment of status that is filed, with appropriate 

15 fees, within 2 years after the date of the enactment of 

16 this Act. 

17 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.— 

18 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res19 idence to Javier Lopez-Urenda and Maria Leticia Arenas, 

20 the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to 

21 reduce by two, during the current or next following fiscal 

22 year, the total number of immigrant visas that are made 

23 available to natives of the country of the aliens’ birth 

24 under section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality 

25 Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)) or, if applicable, the total number 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 443 IS

1 of immigrant visas that are made available to natives of 

2 the country of the aliens’ birth under section 202(e) of 

3 such Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(e)). 

4 (e) PAYGO.—The budgetary effects of this Act, for 

5 the purpose of complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You6 Go Act of 2010, shall be determined by reference to the 

7 latest statement titled ‘‘Budgetary Effects of PAYGO 

8 Legislation’’ for this Act, submitted for printing in the 

9 Congressional Record by the Chairman of the Senate 

10 Budget Committee, provided that such statement has been 

11 submitted prior to the vote on passage. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
#### DURYEA v. KAISER et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 15, 1907.)

Action by William F. Duryea against John Kaiser and another.

No opinion. Motion granted, with $10 costs. Order filed.
No. 07-17-00463-CR

Lucas Morin

 Appellant

v.

The State of Texas

 Appellee

§

§

§

§

From the 137th District Court

 of Lubbock County

July 11, 2018

Opinion Per Curiam

J U D G M E N T

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated July 11, 2018, it is ordered, adjudged

and decreed that the judgment of the trial court be affirmed.

Inasmuch as this is an appeal in forma pauperis, no costs beyond those that

have been paid are adjudged.

It is further ordered that this decision be certified below for observance.

o O o

FILE COPY
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

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 Urban Barns Foods Inc.
(the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending July 31, 2011 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Jacob Benne, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of
      section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
  and                                  
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |     |                                                                                                                                                                
| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations
      of the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this
certification as of the 14thday of November, 2011.

/s/ Jacob Benne

Chief Executive Officer

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Thomas Boyle, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.), rendered December 15,1983, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of stolen property in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence as a second felony offender.

Judgment affirmed.

The defendant contends that his conviction should be reversed because his plea of guilty was based upon an insufficient allocution or, in the alternative, he should be resentenced because his status as a second felony offender was based upon an unconstitutional prior plea. By failing to make a motion to withdraw his plea or vacate his conviction to the court of first instance, the *827defendant has failed to preserve the issue of the sufficiency of the allocution for appellate review *(see, People v Pellegrino,*60 NY2d 636; *People v Santiago,*100 AD2d 857). In any case, the absence of a complete factual recitation of the underlying facts would not require reversal of the conviction since it is clear from the record that the plea was entered into knowingly, voluntarily and with the assistance of counsel *(see, People v Harris,*61 NY2d 9,16-17; *People v Nixon,*21 NY2d 338, 353-354, *cert denied sub nom. Robinson v New York,*393 US 1067; *People v Santiago, supra).*

The predicate felony conviction, also resulting from a plea of guilty, likewise contained no constitutional defects. A guilty plea is not invalid solely because the court failed to specifically enumerate all the defendant’s rights and elicit from him a detailed list of waivers *(People v Harris, supra,*p 16). Further, it was not necessary for the defendant to be expressly advised at the time of his prior guilty plea that the conviction would provide a predicate for a more severe sentence should he commit another felony *(see, People v McGrath,*43 NY2d 803). Lazer, J. P., Mangano, O’Connor and Brown, JJ., concur.
#### Barclays Bank of New York *v.*William M. Ivler et al.

*William M. Ivler,*pro se, in support of the petition.

*Richard E. Castiglioni,*in opposition.

Decided November 29, 1989

The defendant William M. Ivler’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 20 Conn. App. 163, is denied.
#### Valeria P. Taylor, Respondent, *v.*Francis A. Taylor, Appellant.

(Argued June 2, 1890;

decided June 17, 1890.)

Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, made December 9, 1889, which affirmed an order of Special Term granting a motion to modify a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict.

*C. P. Gowles*for appellant.

*William A. Abbott*for respondent.

Agree to dismiss appeal; no opinion.

All concur.

Appeal dismissed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Shannon Alexander, Also Known as Eric Wright, Also Known as Smoke, Also Known as Smokey, Appellant.

[944 NYS2d 684]—

Appeals (1) from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Breslin, J.), rendered September 29, 2010, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and (2) from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Lamont, J.), rendered September 29, 2010 in Albany County, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

In March 2010, defendant was charged in an indictment with criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. In April 2010, he was charged in a second indictment with criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree. In two separate proceedings before two different courts, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree for each indictment and also waived his right to appeal. Consistent with the respective plea agreements, he was sentenced on the first conviction to a prison term of 3x/2 years, to be followed by three years of postrelease supervision, and on the second conviction to a prison term of 4V2 years to be followed by three years of post-release supervision, which sentences were to run concurrently. He now appeals.

*1564Defendant’s sole challenge is to the severity of the sentence. He is, however, precluded from making this claim by his valid waivers of the right to appeal *(see People v Small,*82 AD3d 1451, 1452 [2011], *lv denied*17 NY3d 801 [2011]; *People v Waters,*80 AD3d 1002, 1003 [2011], *lv denied*16 NY3d 864 [2011]). Therefore, the judgments are affirmed.

Peters, RJ., Rose, Kavanagh, Stein and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dawis GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-12956

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Sept. 29, 2011.

*712Evelyn Baltodano-Sheehan, Wifredo A. Ferrer, U.S. Attorney, Sean Thomas McLaughlin, Christopher Párente, Anne R. Schultz, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Maria Elena Perez, Maria E. Perez, PA, Coral Gables, FL, Dawis Gonzalez, USP Big Sandy-Inmate Trust Fund, Inez, KY, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Maria Elena Pérez, appointed counsel for Dawis Gonzalez in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel has correctly assessed the relative merit of this appeal from the judgment and commitment order entered in June 17, 2010. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw from representing Gonzalez in his direct appeal is GRANTED, and the convictions and sentences imposed in the June order are AFFIRMED. Nevertheless, because the district court lacked jurisdiction to enter an amended judgment and commitment order on September 8, 2010, while the present appeal was pending, the judgment in this case is VACATED. The matter is now REMANDED for the limited purpose of allowing the district court to consider the government’s motion to reduce Gonzalez’s sentences, and to re-enter the amended judgment if it deems that action appropriate. *See United States v. Russell,*776 F.2d 955, 956 (11th Cir.1985) (holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain, during the pen-dency of an appeal, a motion filed pursuant to a prior version of Rule 35(b)); *see also United States v. Turchen,*187 F.3d 735, 743 (7th Cir.1999) (reaching the same conclusion with respect to a motion filed pursuant to the current version of Rule 35(b)).
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.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration #17001 and #17002; Louisiana Disaster Number LA-00113]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Louisiana (FEMA-4590-DR), dated 06/22/2021. *Incident:*
                         Severe Winter Storms. *Incident Period:*
                         02/11/2021 through 02/19/2021.
 DATES: Issued on 06/22/2021. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         08/23/2021. *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         03/22/2022.
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 06/22/2021, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Parishes:*
                     Allen, Beauregard, Bossier, Caddo, Catahoula, Concordia, De Soto, East Baton Rouge, Grant, La Salle, Lincoln, Ouachita, Saint Helena, Union, Washington. The Interest Rates are: Percent*For Physical Damage:*Non-Profit Organizations with Credit Available Elsewhere
2.000Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.000*For Economic Injury:*Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.000
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 17001 7 and for economic injury is 17002 0. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008) James Rivera, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.


[FR Doc. 2021-13780 Filed 6-28-21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8026-03-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Balance
sheet as of March 31, 1998 and the related Statement of Income for the 
year-to-date ended March 31, 1998.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          21,043
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   92,858
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,389
<INVENTORY>                                    104,801
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               231,240
<PP&E>                                          53,550
<DEPRECIATION>                                  31,745
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 330,892
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           89,929
<BONDS>                                         60,000<F1>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          115,815<F2>
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            72
<OTHER-SE>                                      21,089
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   330,892
<SALES>                                        172,091
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               172,091
<CGS>                                          103,453
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   61,054
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (110)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   396
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,688
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,948
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,327
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,621
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,621
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .25
        
<FN>
<F1> Bonds represents all long-term debt for senior notes.
<F2> Represents Guaranteed preferred beneficial interests in the Corporations
     junior subordinated debentures.
</FN>






</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATION**I, Natasha Ray, Chief Financial Officer of Panda Ethanol, Inc., certify that:1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A to the annual report onForm 10-K of Panda Ethanol, Inc.; and2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial 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 misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this report.        April 29, 2008 /s/ Natasha Ray   Natasha Ray   Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
**RB** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 2 1 - 0082 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. DANIEL HUNTER FLANSBURG ,

Defendant and Appellant . **ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellee ’s motion for a 45 - day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time to and including Octo ber 2 5 , 2022 , within which to prepare, serve, and file its response brief

.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 1 2022

09/01/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0082