alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.1
                                                    northern rock
                                                    Northern Rock Group Treasury
                                                    Northern Rock plc
                                                    Northern Rock House
                                                    Gosforth
                                                    Newcastle upon Tyne
                                                    NE3 4PL
                                                    Telephone     0191 285 7191
                                                    Facsimile     0191 279 4694
                                                                  0191 279 6517
                                                                  0191 279 6518




The following shall certify, to the best of my knowledge, that (i) a review of
the activities of the Administrator during the preceding fiscal year and the
performance under the Administration Agreement with respect to Granite
Mortgages 02-1 plc have been made, and (ii) Northern Rock plc, acting as
Administrator, has fulfilled all of its obligations under such Administration
Agreement for such year.


Date:  26 June 2003

/S/:  David Johnson

David Johnson
Operational Director
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I,
Arlene M. Morris, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Affymax, Inc.;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

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

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) 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 for the registrant and have:



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



| |  | By: |  | /s/ARLENE M. MORRISArlene M. Morris
President, Chief Executive Officer
and Member of the Board of Directors (Principal Executive Officer)
| |  | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:
March 12, 2008

---



QuickLinks
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-60912

Summary Calendar

NOE SALAZAR-RODRIGUEZ,

Petitioner

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A034 656 055

Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Mexican citizen Noe Salazar-Rodriguez petitions for review of the decision

of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) determining that he is ineligible for

cancellation of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a) because his 1996 Texas

deferred adjudication conviction of possession of marijuana constituted an

aggravated felony due to two prior convictions of possession of controlled

substances.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 22, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 09-60912 Document: 00511271230 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/22/2010
No. 09-60912

Salazar-Rodriguez’s 1996 deferred adjudication was not treated as a

recidivist offense in state court. It therefore does not constitute an aggravated

felony for purposes of federal immigration law. The 1996 conviction does not

render him ineligible to be considered for cancellation of removal. See

Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 130 S. Ct. 2577, 2580, 2589 (2010). SalazarRodriguez’s petition for review is GRANTED. The order of the BIA is VACATED

and the case is REMANDED to allow Salazar-Rodriguez to pursue cancellation

of removal in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Carachuri-Rosendo.

2

Case: 09-60912 Document: 00511271230 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/22/2010
Exhibit 32.2

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                           PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Red Sun Mining, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Matthew Taylor,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss.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.


/s/ Matthew Taylor
---------------------------------
Matthew Taylor
Chief Financial Officer
March 3, 2009

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it
by reference.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.
# C_2010078EN.01000401.xml

| 27.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/4

---

Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures

2010/C 78/04

1.   As provided for in Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 (1) on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community, the European Commission gives notice that, unless a review is initiated in accordance with the following procedure, the anti-dumping measures mentioned below will expire on the date mentioned in the table below.

1

2.   Procedure

Procedure

Union producers may lodge a written request for a review. This request must contain sufficient evidence that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury.

Should the Commission decide to review the measures concerned, importers, exporters, representatives of the exporting country and Union producers will then be provided with the opportunity to amplify, rebut or comment on the matters set out in the review request.

3.   Time limit

Time limit

Union producers may submit a written request for a review on the above basis, to reach the European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade (Unit H-1), N-105 4/92, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË (2) at any time from the date of the publication of the present notice but no later than three months before the date mentioned in the table below.

2

4.   This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.

| Product | Country(ies) of origin or exportation | Measures | Reference | Date of expiry |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Barium carbonate | People's Republic of China | Anti-dumping duty | Council Regulation (EC) No 1175/2005 (OJ L 189, 21.7.2005, p. 15) | 22.7.2010 |

Product

Country(ies) of origin or exportation

Measures

Reference

Date of expiry

Barium carbonate

People's Republic of China

Anti-dumping duty

Council Regulation (EC) No 1175/2005 (OJ L 189, 21.7.2005, p. 15)

22.7.2010

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.

1

(2)  Fax +32 22956505.

2

---
**Exhibit 12.2****CERTIFICATION**I, Olivier Dubois, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Technip; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations 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 maintainingdisclosure 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) and15d-15(f)) for the company and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  (b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internalcontrol over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to providereasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparationof financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally acceptedaccounting principles;  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal controlover financial reporting.5. The company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company’s auditors and theaudit committee of the company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe 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 whohave a significant role in the company’s internal control over financial reporting.         By:       /s/ Olivier Dubois   Olivier Dubois   President, Chief Financial Officer   Date:June 20, 2007
`Exhibit 10.15


          The Document of Jiaozuo Foreign Trade and Economy Cooperation
                                     Bureau


            The Reply about Building "Qinyang Yi Wan Hotel Co., Ltd."

                    Jiao Wai Jing Mao Hang Zi (2002) No. 0019

                                                         Issued by: Han Shijiang



To Qinyang Planning Commission,

Your document of (2001) No.54 and relative documents have been received and
carefully examined. Our reply is as follows:

     1.   It is approved that Qinyang Hotel (Party A) and Yi Wan Group, Inc.of
          America (Party B) cooperate with each other to set the regulations and
          rules for "Qinyang Yi Wan Hotel Co., Ltd." and a certificate is
          issued.Its number is Wai Jing Mao Yu fu Jiao Zi Zi (2002) No.0007.

     2.   It has been verified that the total investment sum is RMB20,000,000
          yuan and the registered capital is RMB20,000,000yuan.
          Among it, the sum Party A offers is RMB4,000,000yuan that takes up 20%
          of the capital. The sum Party B offers is RMB16,000,000yuan that takes
          up 80% of the capital. Both parties should offer the sum they should
          pay in time according to the payment way the contract sets.Otherwise,
          they will be punished according to our country's relative regulations.

     3.   The verified business scope: board, lodging and other items concerning
          hotel service.

     4.   It is agreed that the members of the board of directors are: Mr. Cheng
          Wanming--chairman of the board, Mr.Guo Ruxing--vice chairman of the
          board, Mr.Chang Jufeng, Mr.Chen Hong and Ms.Liu Hua--members of the
          board.

     5.   The verified cooperative period is 30 years.

     6.   Our country's relative rules should be followed when some material
          objects are needed to be imported for business operation.

     7.   After the company is built, please present reports of verifying funds
          and forms for reporting statistics.

     8.   Please handle the procedure of the registration and put on record as
          soon as possible.



Jiaozuo Foreign Trade and Economy Cooperation Bureau

June 3,2002
(Seal)








Key words: Enterprise, Set, Reply

Presented to: Henan People's Government, Henan Foreign Economic Trade Ministry,
     Henan Foreign Economic Trade  Department, Henan Commercial and Industrial
     Bureau, Henan Tax Bureau, Zhenzhou Customs, Jiaozuo Municipal Government

Sent to: Relative working units of Jiaozuo City, Qinyang People's Government,
     Jiaozuo Foreign Administrative Bureau, Financial Departments, Jiaozuo
     Foreign Capital Department, Three copies on record



The Administrative Service Center of Jiaozuo Foreign Trade and Economy
Cooperation Bureau

Issued on June 3,2002

(22 copies in total)`
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Orca
International Language Schools Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended June
30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), the undersigned, Stuart Wooldridge hereby certifies, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to his knowledge:

|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.

August 18, 2008

| | */s/ Stuart
      Wooldridge*       
| | ------------------------------------
| | Stuart Wooldridge                   
| | President, Secretary and Director   
| | (Principal Executive Officer, acting
| | Principal Financial Officer         
| | and Principal Accounting Officer)   

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to Orca International Language Schools Inc. and will be
retained by Orca International Language Schools Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bobby Michael GILYARD, a/k/a Big Mike, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13-7192.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Sept. 24, 2013.

Decided: Oct. 4, 2013.

Bobby Michael Gilyard, Appellant Pro Se. Alan Lance Crick, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*306PER CURIAM:

Bobby Michael Gilyard appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for reduction of sentence in which he sought relief under the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (“FSA”). We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court properly determined Gilyard was not entitled to relief. *See United States v. Bullard,*645 F.3d 237, 248 (4th Cir.2011) (holding that the FSA does not apply retroactively to defendants sentenced prior to its effective date). Accordingly, we affirm. We further deny Gilyard’s motions for abeyance and appointment of counsel. 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
, ii q,

. 

# 1 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS

. AUSTIN

Honorable T. K. Wilkinson CountyAuditor El11 county Hillsboro,Texas Dear Sir:
YOU reqwet r0r fully oonsideredby this de quest as followst rsoeived and oareuote from your rs627 a 11 Texas Jurlsprudenoe, pages employees,unless liability rested by statute,either In express terms or by neoessary implloation. . . .* OpinionMO. O-2779 of this departmentheld that Liberty County, Texas, was not liable for a truck wrsok under the facts related. We enoloseherewith a copy of said oplnion for your information.BonorablsT. If, Wilkimmn, Pa&s Z UnUer tho faots statedabovs, ws are unabls t@ paroeive any theory upon whish the ssunty oaticl be hold liable ror.damges fog the oollieionabove desorfbsd. Ws thereforeanswer your questloa In the nsgatlvo. Very tmllP YO~S ATTQRNlXi!

UKltERAL

OF TIEAS Wm. J. hnnlng Aseiataat WJF:GO muLosul?B
NO. 07-06-0080-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL D 

	MAY 21, 2007

	______________________________

	DAVID TEICHMANN, D/B/A DAVID’S GOLF SHOP, ET AL., APPELLANTS

	V.

	ROYAL LINKS, INC., LANDMARK FINANCIAL CORPORATION, D/B/A LFC, INC.,

	MIKE HORTON, C AND J LEASING CORP., AND

	THE ESTATE OF KIM J. BROWN, DECEASED, APPELLEES

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 223RD DISTRICT COURT OF GRAY COUNTY;

	NO. 33,715; HONORABLE LEE WATERS, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.

	MEMORANDUM OPINION

	Pending before this Court is the parties’ Joint Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Settlement.  By letter dated May 3, 2007, this Court notified counsel that a review of the clerk’s record indicated that the order appealed from was interlocutory as it did not dispose of all parties and claims.  The Court also requested that counsel show cause why this Court has jurisdiction, noting that failure to do so would result in dismissal for want of jurisdiction.  See Tex. R. App. 42.3(a).  No response was filed.  

	This Court is obligated to determine, sua sponte, its jurisdiction to hear an appeal.  Welch v. McDougal, 876 S.W.2d 218, 220 (Tex.App.–Amarillo 1994, writ denied), citing  New York Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Sanchez, 799 S.W.2d 677, 678 (Tex. 1990).  Our jurisdiction is established by various constitutional and statutory provisions.  See, e.g., Tex. Const. art. 5, § 6; Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.220 (Vernon 2004).  Further, this Court has no jurisdiction to review an interlocutory order presented to us by the appeal process prior to entry of a final judgment.  Warford v. Childers, 642 S.W.2d 63, 65 (Tex.App.--Amarillo 1982, no writ); cf. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014 (Vernon Supp. 2006) (authorizing review of certain interlocutory orders).  A judgment is final for purposes of appeal if it disposes of all pending parties and claims in the record.  Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). 

	The Order Granting Defendant Landmark Financial Corporation, d/b/a LFC, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss and Dismissing Defendant Landmark Without Prejudice is interlocutory and thus, not appealable.  We have no jurisdiction to consider the Joint Motion to Dismiss Appeal Pursuant to Settlement.

	Consequently, this purported appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.  

							Patrick A. Pirtle

							      Justice
Exhibit 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL 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 Quarterly Report of Cinnabar Ventures Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending November 30, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Stephanie Wood, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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
10th day of January, 2008.


/s/ Stephanie Wood
------------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Astarte DAYIS-RICE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-10277.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 5, 2010.*

Filed April 21, 2010.

Stephen G. Corrigan, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Oakland, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

*607Astarte Davis-Rice, Point Arena, CA, pro se.

Before: RYMER, MCKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument.

*607*See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Astarte Davis-Rice appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her petition for early termination of supervised release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Davis-Rice contends that the district court erred by determining that early termination of supervised release was unwarranted. We disagree. The district court properly acted within its discretion by relying upon the recommendation of the Probation Officer that Davis-Rice’s conduct during supervised release was not so exceptionally good as to warrant early termination. *See United States v. Miller,*205 F.3d 1098, 1101 (9th Cir.2000); *United States v. Weber,*451 F.3d 552, 557 (9th Cir.2006) (explaining that a district court has “significant discretion” in its decisions concerning supervised release).

We decline to consider facts and arguments raised by Dávis-Rice for the first time on appeal. *See United States v. Cade,*236 F.3d 463, 467 (9th Cir.2000).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.