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

                                  EXHIBIT 31.1

I, Stephan Kuppenheimer, certify that:

       1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on
Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of
periods included in the year covered by this annual report, of Merrill Lynch
Depositor, Inc., on behalf of PreferredPLUS Trust Series CZN-1;

       2. Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a
whole, 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 as of the
last day of the period covered by this annual report;

       3. Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
required to be provided to the depositor by the trustee under the pooling and
servicing, or similar, agreement, for inclusion in these reports is included in
these reports;

       4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
depositor and the trustee under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement
and based upon my knowledge and the annual compliance review required under that
agreement, and except as disclosed in the reports, the depositor and trustee
have each fulfilled its obligations under that agreement; and

       5. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
compliance by the depositor or trustee with the minimum servicing or similar
standards based upon the report provided by an independent public accountant,
after conducting a review in compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation
Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedure, as set forth in the pooling
or servicing, or similar, agreement, that is included in these reports.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: The Bank of New York and
its officers and agents.


Date: March 29, 2005                             /s/ Stephan Kuppenheimer
                                               ---------------------------------
                                                 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 of DuPont Fabros Technology, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), we, Hossein Fateh and Mark L. Wetzel, President and Chief Executive Officer and Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, respectively, 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 to our knowledge:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |  |  |     |  |                    |  |                                                                
|-------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ------------------ |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 5, 2009 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Hossein Fateh 
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | Name:              |  | Hossein Fateh                                                  
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | Title:             |  | President and Chief Executive Officer                          
|                     |  |  | 
|                     |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Mark L. Wetzel
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | Name:              |  | Mark L. Wetzel                                                 
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | Title:             |  | Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
---

Exhibit 99.7


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 
    18 U.S.C. § 1350, 
    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Annual Report of Burcon NutraScience Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 40-F for the year ended March 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jade Cheng, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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; and2.
      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Date: June 25, 2012 “/s/ Jade Cheng”Jade ChengChief Financial Officer


---
**EXHIBIT
      10.1**





**Stone
      Consulting Services, Inc.**


**18
      Ozone Avenue**


**Venice,
      CA 90291**





June
      3,
      2008





**LOAN
      AGREEMENT**





This
      Loan
      Agreement is to memorialize  the
      terms
      verbally agreed to  in
      principle between Michael Stone, in an individual capacity (“Stone”) and Stone
      Consulting Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”).





Stone
      hereby agrees to loan the Company the aggregate principal amount of up to FIFTEEN
      THOUSAND DOLLARS ($15,000.00), which amounts may be provided to the Company in the form of any
      number of separate advances made from time to time, in the sole discretion
      of
      Stone, in order to cover the Company’s accounting, legal and miscellaneous
      expenses. The loan is made on a non-interest bearing basis and is due upon
      the
      earlier of: (i) twelve (12) months from the date hereof, or (ii) the Company’s
      completion of a minimum four hundred thousand ($400,000) dollar
      financing.





This
      Loan
      Agreement shall be effective as of the date set forth above.





STONE:
            
            STONE
                CONSULTING SERVICES, INC.:/s/
                Michael F. Stone
            
            /s/
                Michael F. StoneMichael
                F. Stone
            
            Michael
                F. StonePresident
                and Chief Executive Officer
116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2325 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 100 Calle Alondra in San Juan, Puerto Rico, 

as the ‘‘65th Infantry Regiment Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 2325 EH

1 SECTION 1. 65TH INFANTRY REGIMENT POST OFFICE 

2 BUILDING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 100 Calle Alondra in San Juan, 

5 Puerto Rico, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘65th 

6 Infantry Regiment Post Office Building’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in law, map, regu8 lation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘65th Infantry Regi11 ment Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 17, 2019. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2325 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postment Post Office Building’’. Juan, Puerto Rico, as the ‘‘65th Infantry Regi- al Service located at 100 Calle Alondra in San
<Page>

EXHIBIT 23






                         Consent of Independent Auditors



The Board of Directors
Airgas, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by referrence in the registration statements
(Nos. 33-39433, 33-48388, 33-57893, 33-61301, 33-61899, 33-63201, 33-64633,
333-08113, 333-37863, 333-46739, 333-60995, 333-61989 and 333-46266) on Form
S-3, (Nos. 333-23651 and 333-68722) on Form S-4 and (Nos. 33-21780, 33-25419,
33-33954, 33-64056, 33-64058, 33-64112, 333-28261, 333-42023, 333-60999,
333-69214, 333-75256 and 333-75258) on Form S-8 of Airgas, Inc. of our report
dated May 6, 2002, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Airgas,
Inc. and subsidiaries (the Company) as of March 31, 2002 and 2001, and the
related consolidated statements of earnings, stockholders' equity, and cash
flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended March 31, 2002,
and all related schedules, which report appears in the March 31, 2002, annual
report on Form 10-K of Airgas, Inc. Our report refers to a change in the
Company's method of accounting for goodwill and other intangible assets and
derivative instruments and hedging activities for the year ended March 31,
2002.



/s/ KPMG LLP


Philadelphia Pennsylvania
June 20, 2002
CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, George Whatley, Chief Executive Officer of Alpha Gold Corp., (the Company) do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



1. This Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the period ended February 28, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



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



Date: August 14, 2006





/s/   George Whatley

George Whatley

President and Chief Executive Officer













#
**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 RxBids (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, **Mack Bradley**, Chief Executive Officer and Acting Principal Accounting Officer of the            Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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.

 

| /s/ | **MACKBRADLEY** |
|-----|-----------------|

 

**Mack Bradley**

Chief Executive Officer

Acting Principal Accounting Officer

May 6, 2009

 

 

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 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 certifications are accompanying the Company's Form 10-Q solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.
#### Iqbal Singh, Appellant, v City of New York Division of Housing Preservation and Development, Respondent.

Decided May 4, 2010

On the Court’s own motion, appeal dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that no appeal lies as of right from the unanimous order of the Appellate Division absent the *859direct involvement of a substantial constitutional question (CPLR 5601). Motion for leave to appeal denied.
**Exhibit 10.70**

**AMENDMENT TO**

**CLASS B RESTRICTED SHARE AGREEMENT**

This Amendment to Class B Restricted Share Agreement (this “Amendment”) is entered into as ofDecember 7, 2009, by and between Intelsat Global, Ltd. (the “Company”) and David McGlade (the “Employee”). 

WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee entered into that certain Class B Restricted Share Agreement dated as of May 6, 2009, by and between the Company and the Employee (the “Class BAgreement”); and 

WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee desire to amend certain terms of the Class B Agreement ashereinafter provided. 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals, and in consideration of the mutual promisesand covenants set forth below, the Company and the Employee hereby agree as follows: 

1. Capitalized terms used but not otherwise definedherein shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Class B Agreement. 

2. The first sentence of Section 8(b) of the Class BAgreement is hereby amended and restated as follows: 

“Shareholders of Class B Restricted Shares shall not be entitled toreceive their percentage interest of all Distributions paid to shareholders until each shareholder of Class A Shares receives Distributions (received after the time of the Company’s migration to Luxembourg) equal to their Paid-in-Capital(as defined below), and, thereafter, the holders of Class B Shares and holders of Class A Shares shall be entitled to receive Distributions ratably based upon the proportionate number of outstanding common shares of the Company held by eachsuch shareholder; at the time of any Distribution of Class A Shares to the holders of Class A Shares (a “Class A Share Distribution”), the Company shall simultaneously make a Class B Share distribution to the holders ofClass B Shares in an amount necessary to maintain the proportion of Class A Shares to Class B Shares in effect as of the date of such Class A Share Distribution.” 

3. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Class B Agreement, and for the avoidance of doubt, the parties acknowledge and agree that (a) any distribution of Class A Shares in connectionwith a stock split or in connection with a stock dividend having the effect of a stock split (including, without limitation, any Class A Shares issued in connection with the recapitalization related to the Company’s migration toLuxembourg) shall not constitute a “Distribution” for purposes of the Class B Agreement, and (b) as of the date hereof, no Distributions have been made to the holders of the Class A Shares. 

4. Except as amended above, the terms, conditions and provisions of the Class B Agreement shall remainunchanged and shall continue in full force and effect. 

5. This Amendment may be executed in several counterparts, each of which shall bedeemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute the same instrument. 

[Signature page follows] 

 

2 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date first abovewritten. 

 
**INTELSAT GLOBAL, LTD.**By: 
 
 Name: 
 
 Title: 
 
**EMPLOYEE**
 
David McGlade
**[SIGNATURE PAGETO AMENDMENTTO CLASS B RESTRICTED SHARE AGREEMENT]**
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 17, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4010-4011]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-1311]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER01-904-000]


North Carolina Power Holdings, LLC; Notice of Filing

January 10, 2001.
    Take notice that on January 8, 2001, North Carolina Power Holdings, 
LLC (NCPH), tendered for filing an application for waivers and blanket 
approvals under various regulations of the Commission and for an order 
accepting NCPH's FEFC Electric Rate Schedule No. 1 and accompanying 
Code of Conduct.

[[Page 4011]]

    NCPH requests waiver of the 60-day prior notice requirement to 
permit NCPH's Rate Schedule and Code of Conduct to be effective January 
19, 2001.
    NCPH intends to engage in electric power and energy transactions as 
a marketer. In transactions where NCPH sells electric energy, it 
proposes to make such sales on rates, terms and conditions to be 
mutually agreed to with the purchasing party. NCPH's proposed Rate 
Schedule also permits it to reassign transmission capacity.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and 
protests should be filed on or before January 18, 2001. Protests will 
be considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceedings. 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. This filing may also be viewed on 
the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-
2222 for assistance). Comments and protests may be filed electronically 
via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and 
the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-1311 Filed 1-16-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Steven LESANE, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Steven Lesane, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 12-8158, 13-7114.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Sept. 12, 2013.

Decided: Oct. 9, 2013.

James Steven Lesane, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Wu, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

No. 12-8158 dismissed in part; affirmed in part; No. 13-7114 dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

In Case No. 12-8158, James Steven Le-sane seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2013) motion, and, in Case No. 13-7114, Lesane seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for a certificate of appealability and his motion to alter or amend the district court’s judgment denying his § 2255 motion. *See*Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e).

These orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006); *Reid v. Angelone,*369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir.2004). A certificate of appeal-ability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Lesane has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny certificates of appealability and dismiss the appeals of the orders denying *333Lesane’s § 2255 motion, Rule 59(e) motion, and motion for a certificate of appealability-

In Case No. 12-8158, Lesane also seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his second Fed.R.Crim.P. 83 motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the order denying Lesane’s second Rule 33 motion for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Lesane,*Nos. 3:08-cr-00185-REP-1; 3:10-cv00109-REP (E.D.Va. Dec. 13, 2012).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

No. 12-8158 *DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART.*No. 13-7114 *DISMISSED.*
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 97-2580EA

_____________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. *

*

Bakari Liu Adisa, *

*

Appellant. *

Appeals from the United States

_____________ District Court for the Eastern

District of Arkansas.

No. 97-2649EA

_____________ [UNPUBLISHED]

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. *

*

Izih Lenard, Jr., *

*

Appellant. *

_____________

 Submitted: November 18, 1997

Filed: November 26, 1997

_____________

Before FAGG, WOLLMAN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.
-2-

_____________

PER CURIAM.

Bakari Liu Adisa and Izih Lenard, Jr. appeal their convictions and sentences for

bank robbery and related weapons charges. Having reviewed the record and the

parties' briefs, we conclude that an extensive discussion is not warranted. First, the

district court properly classified Adisa's conviction for a racketeering conspiracy

predicated on an underlying series of four armed robberies and a hired shooting as a

serious violent felony for sentencing purposes under 18 U.S.C. § 3559(c) (1994).

Second, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Adisa's request for a

court-appointed psychiatric expert. Third, Lenard's assertions that a felony conviction

expunged under Arkansas state law could not be used as the predicate for Lenard's

conviction as a felon in possession of a weapon, that the government failed to produce

sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdicts, and the district court improperly

enhanced his sentence for reckless endangerment and for obstruction of justice either

are unsupported by the record, otherwise without legal merit, or both. Having rejected

Adisa's and Lenard's contentions, we affirm their convictions and sentences. See 8th

Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Exhibit 32.2  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Quarterly Report of Green Mountain Recovery, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Eduard Korsinsky, Chief Financial 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 to my knowledge:  1. The Report fully complies with 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.    August 14, 2008 /s/ Eduard Korsinsky Eduard Korsinsky Title: Secretary and Chief Financial Officer