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

 

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Portage Resources Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending August 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Paul Luna Belfiore, as Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, hereby 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

Date: October 15, 2012

By:

/s/Paul Luna Belfiore

  

  

Name:

Paul Luna Belfiore

  

Title:

Principal Executive Officer
and Principal Financial Officer
 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Report pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code and, accordingly, is not being filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as part of the Report and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date of the Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.) |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: In re RAMS Aviation Company, Inc. and Jonathan L. Rankin

Appellate case number: 01

- 13

- 00 885

- CV

Trial court case number: 2010

- 23205

Trial court: 334 th District Court of Harris County, Texas

On October 16, 2013, relator RAMS Aviation Company, Inc. and Jonathan L. Rankin filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this Court and an emergency motion to stay

. Relators’ petition seeks relief from the trial cou rt’s September 6, 2013 order denying relators’ traditional motion for summary judgment. Relators’ petition names the Honorable Ken Wise as the respondent in this original proceeding. The Honorable Ken Wise is no longer the presiding judge of the 334th Di strict Court; the Honorable Grant Dorfman is now the presiding judge of

that court.

Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 7.2, Judge Dorfman is substituted for the Judge Wise as the respondent. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 7.2(a). Further, this original p roceeding is

abated and remanded to the trial court to allow Judge Dorfman to reconsider the ruling made the basis of relator’s petition. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 7.2(b).

Within 30 days of this order, a copy of Judge Dorfman’s order on reconsideration should

be filed with the Clerk of this Court. When a copy of the order on reconsideration is filed, the

Clerk shall reinstate the case without further order of the Court.

T he Court further orders all proceedings in the above

- referenced underlying case stayed,

w ith the exception that Judge Dorfman is permitted to reconsider the ruling made the basis of relator’s petition. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.10(b). This stay is effective until the case in this Court is finally decided or the Court otherwise orders the stay lifted.

Finally, r elators are advised that their petition fails to include a certification as required by Texas Rule of Appellate Proc edure 52.3(j). Accordingly, upon reinstatement, if relators desire to proceed with their original proceeding, relators must file a proper certification within 10 days of reinstatement. If a proper certification is not filed, relators’ petition for writ o f

mandamus will be denied.It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ L a ura C. Higley

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: October 21, 2013
# FCM DATA SEPTEMBER 2007
* Pursua nt to 5 T H C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit



## FILED

November 28, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-40030

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JAVIER LONG,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(2:04-CR-426-ALL)

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

Before JONES, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Defendant-Appellant Javier Long appeals his conviction

following a jury trial for being a felon in possession of firearms.

He contends that the district court erred when it denied his motion

to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant, arguing

that the affidavit in support of probable cause was a “bare bones”

affidavit. Long fails to establish that the good-faith exception

to t he exclusionary rule does not apply. S ee United States v.2

Cavazos

, 288 F.3d 706, 709 (5th Cir. 2002); United States v.

McKnight , 953 F.2d 898, 904-05 (5th Cir. 1992).

Long’s assertion that the evidence was insufficient to support

his conviction is likewise unavailing. Testimony established that

Long’s car was observed outside 1434 Gavilan prior to the search,

that he possessed a key to the front door, that he knew the

whereabouts of the key to the safe containing firearms, and that

the safe contained a car alarm that matched one on his key chain.

Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the

government, and employing some common sense, we are convinced that

the evidence supports the jury’s finding that Long had knowledge of

and access to the firearms inside the residence at 1434 Gavilan.

See United States v. Mergerson , 4 F.3d 337, 349 (5th Cir. 1993).

AFFIRMED.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

.

R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit



## FILED

June 3, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-30890

Summary Calendar

ROBERTO BAEZ,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; DEAN A. HOLT,

Agent of IRS; JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL;

MAXWELL WOOD, United States Attorney,

Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 03-CV-1307

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

Before JOLLY, WIENER, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Roberto Baez, detainee # 90703, appeals the district court’s

denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, challenging his indefinite

detention pending removal to his native country of Cuba. Baez

contends that the district court erred in rejecting his claim that

his indefinite detention violates his constitutional rights. There

are no constitutional time limits on the detention of excluded2

aliens who have been denied entry into the United States. R ios v.

INS

, 324 F.3d 296, 296 (5th Cir. 2003); Gisbert v. U.S. Atty. Gen.

,

988 F.2d 1437, 1439-41 (5th Cir.), amended by Gisbert v. U.S. Atty.

Gen. , 997 F.2d 1122 (5th Cir. 1993).

B aez next asserts that he was improperly denied immigration

parole by the Mariel Cuban Review Panel (the “Panel”) based on

inaccurate information concerning the quantity of cocaine involved

in his drug-trafficking offense. The record indicates that parole

was denied because Baez demonstrated a propensity to engage in

recidivist criminal behavior, had been cited for failing to follow

directions while detained, and had not shown that he would remain

nonviolent and would not pose a threat to the community if

released. Baez has not shown that he was improperly denied parole.

See Gisbert , 988 F.2d at 1448.

Baez also advances that the Panel v iolated his due process

rights. Excluded aliens do not have the same due process rights as

criminal parolees, and denial or revocation of immigration parole

does not rise to the level of a constitutional infringement. Id

.

at 1443.

Baez finally insists that he was denied adequate medical care

to repair a hernia and was denied adequate pain medication. Baez’s

claim is not cognizable is a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition; rather, it

is properly brought in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. S ee Martinez v. Texas Ct. of Crim. Appeals

, 292 F.3d 417,

420 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 535 U.S. 1091 (2002).3

In addition to his substantive complaints, Baez h as filed a

motion for release pending appeal. We deny that motion.

AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.
EXHIBIT 10.1

SPANTER DEVELOPMENTS INC
2015 PEEL, SUITE 1200, MONTREAL, QUEBEC, H3A ITS
TEL: (514) 845-2265 PAX: (514) 845-4472

    Transmitted by Fax
    October 31st, 2005

    MIAD SYSTEMS LIMITED
    Attn: Michael Green
    43 Riviera Drive, Unit 7
    Markham, Ont. L3R 5J6

         no.: 1-905-479-9472

         No of pages: 2

                  RE: LEASE RENEWAL 43 RIVIERA DRIVE, UNITS 5&6
                               MARKHAM - ONTARIO

    Dear Mr. Green:

    Further to our discussions, we hereby offer to renew Lease for above
    mentioned premises between Spanter Developments Inc. and Miad Systems Ltd.
    dated September 13th, 2001 in accordance with the terms and conditions set
    forth:

    1. TERM
       ----

       The Term of the Lease shall be amended to be five (5) years commencing on
       the first (1st) day of December 2005 and ending on the thirtieth (30th)
       day of November 2010.

    2. PREMISES;
       ---------

       Units 5 & 6, 43 Riviera Drive, Markham, Ontario

    3. AREA:
       -----

       9,975 square feet

    4. NET RENT:
       ---------

       The Net Rent during the Term of the Lease shall be amended as follows:

       From December 1st, 2005 to November 30th, 2007 -
         Net rent of $6.00 / square foot
       From December 1st, 2007 to November 30th, 2009 -
         Net rent of $6.25 / square foot
       From December l", 2009 to November 30th, 2010 -
         Net rent of $6.50 / square foot

<PAGE>

    5. LESSOR'S WORK;
       --------------

       The Lessor shall at its expense repaint the offices and install new
       building standard carpet in the offices.

    6. CONDITIONS;
       -----------

       All other terms and conditions remain the same as per Lease dated
       November 14th, 1996 and Offer to Lease dated September 13th, 2001 between
       Spanter Developments Inc. and Miad Systems Ltd.

    We trust the above meets with your approval and would appreciate you
    signifying your acceptance by signing and returning a copy of this letter
    prior to November 2nd,2005, 5:00pm, after which time this Offer to Amend the
    Lease shall become null and void. If you have any questions, please do not
    hesitate to contact us.

    Yours very truly,

    Ronald Mashaal
    SPANTER DEVELOPMENTS INC.

    APPROVED AND ACCEPTED, this 1st day of November 2005.

    per               .M.Green,President
               MIAD SYSTEMS LTD.

                                       -2-
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 of Waxess Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Hideyuki Kanakubo, 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 result of operations of the Company.





Dated:  May 16, 2011





/s/ Hideyuki KanakuboHideyuki Kanakubo

Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)
141 So. 914

#### Ex parte W. L. PARKS, Judge, etc.

4 Div. 641.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

May 12, 1932.

M. A. Owen, of Elba, and M. S. Carmichael, of Montgomery, for petitioner.

G. L. Rowe, of Elba, opposed;

FOSTER, J.

Petition of W. L. Parks, as Judge of the Circuit Court of Coffee County, for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that Court in Ex parte Bowdoin (Ala. App.) 141 So. 911.

Writ denied.

GARDNER, BOULDIN, and KNIGHT, JJ., concur.
Case 1:07-cv-05304-AKH Document 22 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05304-AKH Document 22 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05304-AKH Document 22 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 3 of 3
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1988 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1988

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To clarify seasoning requirements for certain refinanced mortgage 
                     loans, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting Affordable Mortgages for 
Veterans Act of 2019''.

SEC. 2. SEASONING REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN REFINANCED MORTGAGE LOANS.

    (a) Ginnie Mae.--Paragraph (1) of section 306(g) of the National 
Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1721(g)(1)) is amended by striking the second 
sentence (as added by section 309(b) of Public Law 115-174).
    (b) Veterans Loans.--Section 3709 of title 38, United States Code, 
is amended by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:
    ``(c) Loan Seasoning.--Except as provided in subsection (d) and 
notwithstanding section 3703 of this title or any other provision of 
law, a loan to a veteran for a purpose specified in section 3710 of 
this title that is a refinance may not be guaranteed or insured under 
this chapter until the date that is the later of--
            ``(1) the date on which the borrower has made at least six 
        consecutive monthly payments on the loan being refinanced; and
            ``(2) the date that is 210 days after the first payment due 
        date of the loan being refinanced.''.
    (c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this Act may be construed to 
restrict or otherwise modify the authorities of the Government National 
Mortgage Association.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 9, 2019.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
116th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1988

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To clarify seasoning requirements for certain refinanced mortgage 
                     loans, and for other purposes.
```
#### UNITED STATES v. Clay H. BERRI, Machinery Technician Second Class, U.S. Coast Guard.

CGCM 0058.

Docket No. 921.

U.S. Coast Guard Court of Military Review.

Nov. 23, 1992.

Trial Counsel: LCDR Craig H. Allen, USCG.

Assistant Trial Counsel: LCDR Peter L. Seidler, USCG.

Detailed Defense Counsel: LCDR Thomas A. Devins, JAGC, USN.

Associate Defense Counsel: LT Valerie J. Hilicus-Pellegrino, JAGC, USNR.

Appellate Defense Counsel: LCDR Allen Lotz, USCG.

Appellate Government Counsel: LCDR Charles J. Bennardini, USCG.

Before Panel TWO, BAUM, GRACE and BASTEE, Appellate Military Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The record before us is that of a rehearing that we authorized in *U.S. v. Berri,*30 M.J. 1169 (C.G.C.M.R.1990), *aff'd*33 M.J. 337 (C.M.A.1991). At the rehearing, Appellant pled guilty to attempted premeditated murder in accordance with a pretrial agreement which called for dismissal by the convening authority of the other two charges of maiming and assault with intent to inflict grievous bodily harm. Appellant was convicted of the single charge of attempted murder in accordance with his guilty plea and the convening authority dismissed the other two charges as required by the agreement. The judge sentenced Appellant to a dishonorable discharge, confinement for 17 years, forfeiture of all pay and allowances and reduction to paygrade E-l. Pursuant to the sentencing portion of the pretrial agreement, the convening authority disapproved all confinement in excess of 150 months, but approved the remainder of the sentence as adjudged.

Appellant now assigns two errors, that the military judge and the judges of this Court were appointed in violation of the United States Constitution’s Appointments Clause and that the presence on this Court of collateral duty judges denies Appellant due process.

These assignments of error have been raised in other cases before this Court and have been decided contrary to the Appellant’s position here. *U.S. v. Ryder,*34 M.J. 1259 (C.G.C.M.R.1992); *U.S. v. Prive,*35 M.J. 569 (C.G.C.M.R.1992); *U.S. v. Kovac,*36 M.J. 521 (C.G.C.M.R.1992). Those decisions are dispositive. The assignments of error are, therefore, rejected.

After review pursuant to Article 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice, the findings and sentence are determined to be correct in law and fact and on the basis of the entire record should be approved. Accordingly, the findings of guilty and sentence as approved below are affirmed.

Chief Judge BAUM and Judges GRACE and BASTEE concur.
#### HUCK et al. v. UNITED STATES.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

May 16, 1923.)

No. 286.

In Error to, the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. Criminal prosecution by the United States against Annie Huck and Charles Huck. Judgment of conviction, and defendants bring'error.

Affirmed.

George Wolf, of New York City, for plaintiff in error. William Hayward, U. S. Atty., of New York City (Elmer H. Lemon, Sp. Asst. U. S. Atty., of Middletown, N. Y., of counsel), for the United States.

Before ROGERS, MANTON, and MAYER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment affirmed in open court.
**Exhibit
      32.1**




**Joint
      Certification of Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
      Required by Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(b)**




In
      connection with the Annual Report of Xethanol Corporation (the "Company") on
      Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), we, Christopher d'Arnaud-Taylor,
      President and Chief Executive Officer, and Lawrence Bellone, Principal Financial
      Officer and Principal Accounting Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      ss.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 operations of the Company.




March
      31,
      2006




/s/
      Christopher d’Arnaud-Taylor


Christopher
      d'Arnaud-Taylor


President
      and Chief Executive Officer




/s/
      Lawrence
      Bellone


Lawrence
      Bellone


Principal
      Financial Officer
Case 1:07-cv-05775-SHS-DCF Document 24 Filed 05/15/2008 Page 1 of 1
#### McKINNEY v. BLACK PANTHER OIL *&*GAS CO. et al.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

February 3, 1923.)

No. 5573.

Appeal from the District *Court of*the United States *for the*Eastern District of Oklahoma.

Charles A. Dickson, of Okmulgee, Okl., W. W. Pryor, of Wewoka, Okl., George M. Swift, of Okmulgee, Okl., Charles A. Houts, of St. Louis, Mo., and Lafayette Walker, of Okmulgee, Okl.. for appellant. J. C. Stone and Archibald Bonds, both of Muskogee, Okl., C. B. Stuart and M. K. Crúce, both of Oklahoma City., Okl., J. H. Gordon, of McAlester, Okl., Edward R. Jones, and Ephriam H. Foster, both of Muskogee, Okl., and Ralph A. Smith, of Tulsa, Okl., for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Decree of District Court modified and-affirmed, without costs to either party in this court, per stipulation. See, also, 280 Fed. 486.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL

OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT

TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Greg Chapman, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Osler Incorporated on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended December 31, 2007, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Osler Incorporated.



Dated:

February 5, 2008



By:           /s/ Greg Chapman

Greg Chapman

Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)

and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting Officer)