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

CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Kerry J. McCullagh, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of Contact Minerals Corp. (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 the best of my knowledge:

| | (i)  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company, for the
      fiscal quarter ended April 30, 2009, and to which this certification is
      attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Report) fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934, as amended; and
| | ---- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                                        



| | By:    |                             
| | ------ | ----------------------------
| |        | /s/
      Kerry J. McCullagh
| | Name:  | KERRY J. MCCULLAGH          
| |        |                             
| | Title: | Chief Executive Officer and 
| |        | Chief Financial Officer     
| |        |                             
| | Date:  | May 29, 2009                
| |        |                             





A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it
relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission 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 Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.

---
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 KBS Real Estate Investment Trust II, Inc. (the Registrant) for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), the undersigned, Charles J. Schreiber Jr., Chief Executive Officer and Director of the Registrant, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to the best of his knowledge and belief:



|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
Registrant.
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: November 10, 2010



/s/ Charles J. Schreiber, Jr.Charles J. Schreiber, Jr. Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and
Director
CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY

#### Equipment Leasing Co. v. Talbot Homes, Inc.

February 11, 1991

Case No. (Law) 101716

By JUDGE JACK B. STEVENS

This matter has been under advisement by the Court to consider the defendant, Talbot Homes’s Demurrer to the Motion for Judgment. The Demurrer argues that bringing this suit in Virginia is contrary to a law and forum selection clause in the lease between the parties. The Court has considered the arguments of counsel, as well as the cases submitted, and sustains the Demurrer.

Virginia conflicts of law rules generally honor contractual choice of law provisions. *Thornhill*v. *Donnkenny, Inc.,*823 F.2d 782 (4th Cir. 1987). Additionally, the current view of forum selection agreements, in light of present-day commercial realities, is that forum selection clauses should control, absent a strong showing that it should be set aside. *Gordonsville Industries v. American Artos Corp.,*549 F. Supp. 200 (W.D. Va. 1982).

Paragraph 22 of the lease, entitled "LEGAL MATTERS," is a typical choice of law and forum selection clause, designed to articulate what law and forum should govern the parties, should conflict regarding the lease arise. In pertinent part, the paragraph reads as follows:

> LEGAL MATTERS: *MD. law shall govern the execution, performance and construction of this Lease.*All other shall be governed in accordance with MD. law and shall be accepted and deemed entered *126into within the State of MD. The LESSEE and guarantor(s) *hereby submit to the jurisdiction of the Courts of the State of MD.*and agree with LESSOR that personal jurisdiction of the LESSEE and guarantor(s) shall rest with the *Courts of the State of MD.*for purposes of *any action on or related to this*Lease, the liabilities, or the enforcement of the same.

(Emphasis added.)

The clear meaning of Paragraph 22 is to confer jurisdiction upon the courts of Maryland to resolve all legal conflicts arising from this lease. The contract was drafted by Equipment Leasing Company and signed by representatives of both parties. Equipment Leasing Company has not put forth any basis that the Court considers would constitute strong support why this clause in its own standard contract should not be given effect. Accordingly, the law and forum selection clause is upheld.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1061 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 1061

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                        March 10, 2010.
Whereas, on January 4, 2010, during an assault at the entrance of the Lloyd D. 
        George Federal Courthouse in Las Vegas, Nevada, Court Security Officer 
        Stanley Cooper was fatally wounded and died heroically in the line of 
        duty while protecting the employees, occupants, and visitors of the 
        courthouse;
Whereas Deputy United States Marshal Richard J. ``Joe'' Gardner was wounded in 
        the line of duty while protecting the employees, occupants, and visitors 
        of the courthouse;
Whereas the Court Security Officers and members of the United States Marshals 
        Service and the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department acted swiftly 
        and bravely to subdue the gunman and minimize risk and injury to the 
        public; and
Whereas the heroic actions of Court Security Officer Stanley Cooper, Deputy 
        United States Marshal Richard J. ``Joe'' Gardner, and the law 
        enforcement officers who responded to the attack prevented additional 
        harm to innocent bystanders: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) commends the brave actions and quick thinking exhibited by Court 
        Security Officer Stanley Cooper during the assault at the entrance of 
        the Lloyd D. George Federal Courthouse;
            (2) offers its deepest condolences to the family and friends of 
        Court Security Officer Stanley Cooper, who valiantly gave his life in 
        the line of duty;
            (3) commends Deputy United States Marshal Richard J. ``Joe'' Gardner 
        for his actions and bravery in responding to the assault;
            (4) wishes Deputy United States Marshal Richard J. ``Joe'' Gardner a 
        speedy recovery from the wounds he sustained in the line of duty; and
            (5) applauds the Court Security Officers and members of the United 
        States Marshals Service and Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department for 
        their brave and courageous actions in responding to the assault at the 
        Lloyd D. George Federal Courthouse.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Número Identificador

SEN2023 _______________

Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico

TRIBUNAL DE APELACIONES

PANEL XI

HON. O ́BRIAN VÁZQUEZ 

MOLINA 

MUNICIPIO DE GUAYAMA 

Recurrente

v.

DEPARTAMENTO DE LA 

FAMILIA 

Recurrido

KLRA202300635

Revisión 

Administrativa 

procedente de la 

Junta Adjudicativa 

del Departamento de 

la Familia

Apelación Núm.:

2017 PCHC0012A

Sobre:

Factura al Cobro 

Oficina: ACUDEN 

Panel integrado por su presidenta, la Juez Brignoni Mártir, el Juez 

Candelaria Rosa, la Jueza Álvarez Esnard y la Jueza Díaz Rivera.

Candelaria Rosa, Juez Ponente 

SENTENCIA

En San Juan, Puerto Rico, a 12 de diciembre de 2023. 

Sabido es que la revisión judicial nos permite asegurar que los 

organismos administrativos actúen de acuerdo con las facultades que 

legalmente les fueron concedidas. Comisión Ciudadanos v. G.P. Real 

Property, 173 DPR 998 (2008). Sin embargo, el foro apelativo solo 

puede ejercer su autoridad cuando las resoluciones, órdenes o 

sentencias de una agencia u organismo administrativo son finales. Art. 

4.006 de la Ley de la Judicatura de 2003 (4 LPRA sec. 24y). Véase, 

también, Sec. 4.3 de la Ley de Procedimiento Administrativo Uniforme 

(LPAU) (3 LPRA sec. 9673); Moreno Ferrer v. Jta. Reglamentadora 

del Cannabis Medicinal, 209 DPR 430 (2022). En efecto, un recurso 

administrativo en contra de una decisión interlocutoria es prematuro, 

por lo que priva a este foro apelativo de jurisdicción. Yumac Home 

Furniture, Inc. v. Caguas Lumber Yard, Inc., 194 DPR 96 (2015). Ante 
KLRA202300635 2

dicho escenario, el Reglamento del Tribunal de Apelaciones contempla 

la desestimación de un recurso por carecer de jurisdicción para 

atenderlo en sus méritos. Regla 83(2) del Tribunal de Apelaciones (4 

LPRA Ap. XXII-B). No obstante, la desestimación de un recurso 

prematuro no prohíbe en absoluto que el recurrente vuelva a 

presentarlo, una vez el foro apelado resuelva la controversia ante su 

consideración. Yumac Home Furniture, Inc. v. Caguas Lumber Yard, 

Inc., supra.

En el presente caso, el recurrente acudió ante este Tribunal 

prematuramente. Como claramente expresado por el recurrente en su 

solicitud, este compareció vía revisión administrativa para que 

revoquemos una resolución interlocutoria de la Junta Adjudicativa del 

Departamento de la Familia, en lugar de una final como dispuesto en 

ley. Indudablemente, acoger la petición del recurrente cuando la Junta 

Adjudicativa todavía no ha evaluado la controversia en sus méritos y 

dictaminado su decisión final y fundamentada resulta inoportuno. 

Por los fundamentos expuestos, desestimamos el recurso 

presentado por falta de jurisdicción. En consecuencia, se deniega 

también la Solicitud urgente de orden provisional en auxilio de 

jurisdicción pendiente.

Notifíquese de inmediato a todas las partes. 

Lo acordó y manda el Tribunal y lo certifica la Secretaria del 

Tribunal de Apelaciones.

La Juez Brignoni Mártir concurre sin escrito. 

Lcda. Lilia M. Oquendo Solís

Secretaria del Tribunal de Apelaciones
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 5, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 30235]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14237]


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

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD


Sunshine Act Meeting

Time and Place: 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, June 12, 2001.

Place: NTSB Conference Center, 429 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 
20594.

Status: The one item is open to the public.

Matter to be considered: 7366  Pipeline Accident Report--Natural Gas 
Explosion and Fire in South Riding, Virginia, July 7, 1998 (CDA-98-MP-
003).

News Media Contact: Telephone: (202) 314-6100. Individuals requesting 
specific accommodation should contact Ms. Carolyn Dargan at (202) 314-
6305 by Friday, June 8, 2001.

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Vicky D'Onofrio, (202) 314-6410.

    Dated: June 1, 2001.
Vicky D'Onofrio,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 01-14237 Filed 6-1-01 12:55 am]
BILLING CODE 7533-01-M
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7317

PAUL LEWIS RICHARDS, Petitioner - Appellant,
versus RICKIE HARRISON, Warden, Kershaw Correctional Institution; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General, State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-01-2329-3) Submitted: December 19, 2002 Decided: December 31, 2002 Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paul Lewis Richards, Appellant Pro Se. Derrick K. McFarland, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Paul Lewis Richards, a state pri soner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken to this court from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a state court unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). When, as here, a district court dismisses a § 2254 petition solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’” Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)), cert. denied , 122 S.Ct. 318 (2001). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Richards has not made the requisite showing. SeeRichards v. Harrison , No. CA-01-2329-3 (D.S.C. June 14, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are3 adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

 

In connection with the report of EmoCapital Corp. (the "Company"), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending January 31st,2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Juanming Fang, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Sect 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Sect 1350), that to my 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 result of operations of the Company. 

 

/s/ Juanming Fang                                   

Juanming Fang, 

Chief Executive Officer

Dated: March 16th, 2009
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

TERRANCE T. GLENN,

Appellant,

v.

MONICA GLENN,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 14

- 00092

- CV

Appeal from

325th District Court

of Tarrant County, Texas

(TC # 325

- 481291

- 10)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before the Court is Appellant’ s motion to dismiss the appeal pursuant to

T EX .R.A PP .P. 42.1(a)(1) because he no longer wishes to pursue the appeal

. Appellant requests

that costs be taxed against the party incurring same. Appellee does not oppose the motion. We

grant the motion and dis miss the appeal.

August 13, 2014

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.
Exhibit 3.4
 DIGITILITI, INC.
CERTIFICATE OF DESIGNATION
OF THE
RELATIVE RIGHTS, RESTRICTIONS AND PREFERENCES
OF
SERIES B CONVERTIBLE PREFERRED STOCK
 Pursuant to Section 151 of the
General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware
  RESOLVED,
 RESOLVED FURTHER,
 RESOLVED FURTHER, Appendix A
 RESOLVED FURTHER,




---



##### 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
 Signed:
    
    /s/ Ehssan TaghizadehBy: Ehssan TaghizadehIts: CEO and President




---



##### 



Appendix A
 DIGITILITI, INC.
Series B Convertible Preferred Stock
  1. Voting Rights.
 2. Stock Dividends. T




---



##### 



3. Liquidation Rights.
 (a)
 (b)
 (c)
 4. Conversion Rights.
  (a) Optional Conversion.
 (b) Mandatory Conversion.
 (1)
 (2)
 (3)




---



##### 



(c) Mechanics of Conversion.
 (d) Adjustment for Stock Splits and Combinations.
 (e) Adjustment for Common Stock Dividends and Distributions. plus provided, however




---



##### 



(f) Adjustment for Reclassification, Exchange and Substitution.
 (g) Reorganizations, Mergers or Consolidations.
 (h) Certificate of Adjustment.




---



##### 



(i) Notices of Record Date.
 (j) Fractional Shares.
 (k) Reservation of Stock Issuable Upon Conversion.




---



##### 



(l) Notices.
 (m) Payment of Taxes.
 5. Optional Redemption by Company.
 (a)
 (b)  
 (c) Pro Rata Redemptions pro rata
 (d) Rights of Holders.
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this
Quarterly Report is being prepared;
 b)
    
    designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;
 c)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrants disclosure controls and procedures
and presented in this Quarterly Report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this Quarterly
Report based on such evaluation; and
 d)
    
    disclosed in this Quarterly Report any change in the Registrants internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the Registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
  a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the Registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
and
 b)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the Registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 Date: May 23, 2011
    By:
    /s/ Ehssan TaghizadehEhssan Taghizadeh, CEO, President and Director
#### Robert GRIGORYAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-72939.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 12, 2006.*

Filed June 16, 2006.

Nejdeh Bagramian, Glendale, CA, for Petitioner.

Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, James A. Hunolt, Esq., Michele Y.F. Sarko, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: KLEINFELD, PAEZ, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. RApp. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Robert Grigoryan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse *677of discretion, *see Movsisian v. Ashcroft,*395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir.2005), and we grant the petition for review and remand.

Along with his motion to reopen, petitioner submitted a number of exhibits, listed on page 38 of the Administrative Record. The BIA’s denial of the motion to reopen seems to suggest that exhibits other than Exhibit No. 3 may have been overlooked. *See Mohammed v. Gonzales,*400 F.3d 785, 792 (9th Cir.2005) (noting that “[t]he BIA abused its discretion ... in failing to consider all the attached evidence.”).

Accordingly, we grant the petition for review and remand for further consideration of the motion to reopen in light of all the other exhibits submitted. *See INS v. Ventura,*537 U.S. 12, 16, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.