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

CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Contact Minerals Corp.,
a Nevada corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended
January 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, Kerry McCullagh, Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 and 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.

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.

|Date: March 13, 2008 | /s/ Kerry McCullagh        
|-------------------- | ---------------------------
|                     | Kerry McCullagh            
|                     | Chief Executive Officer and
|                     | Chief Financial Officer    

---
```
Exhibit 4
```

```
CDMC Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates
Series 2002-1
```

```
Schedule of Year-To-Date Principal and Interest
Distributions to Certificateholders for 2002
```

```
Class       Interest Paid   Principal Paid  Realized LossesEnding Balance
```

```
A1          9,014,485.69    23,958,901.39   0.00           154,403,098.61
A2          391,609.42      841,567.67      0.00           7,052,432.33
A3          0.00            0.00            0.00           16,624,567.67
A4          1,253,098.40    0.00            0.00           24,059,490.00
A5          755,208.30      0.00            0.00           14,500,000.00
B1          194,721.05      35,488.12       0.00           3,718,909.88
B2          64,907.07       11,829.37       0.00           1,239,637.63
B3          58,416.29       10,646.42       0.00           1,115,672.58
B4          25,962.82       4,731.75        0.00           495,855.25
B5          19,472.12       3,548.80        0.00           371,891.20
B6          25,962.80       4,731.75        0.00           495,854.85
P           0.00            29,679.40       0.00           2,156,169.76
R           0.52            100.00          0.00           0.00
X           529,613.09      0.00            0.00           8,748,197.56
```
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 986 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 986

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 28 Washington Street in Mount Holly, New Jersey, as the ``Jim Saxton 
                        Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 11, 2009

Mr. Adler of New Jersey (for himself, Mr. Sires, Mr. Frelinghuysen, Mr. 
Pascrell, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Holt, Mr. Lance, Mr. LoBiondo, Mr. Andrews, 
 Mr. Payne, Mr. Rothman of New Jersey, Mr. Garrett of New Jersey, and 
   Mr. Smith of New Jersey) introduced the following bill; which was 
      referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 28 Washington Street in Mount Holly, New Jersey, as the ``Jim Saxton 
                        Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. JIM SAXTON POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 28 Washington Street in Mount Holly, New Jersey, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Jim Saxton Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Jim Saxton 
Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 106 (Friday, June 1, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 29776]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-13747]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

ACTION: Notice.

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

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the 
following proposal for collection of information under the provisions 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Title and OMB Number: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation 
Supplement (DFARS) Supplement Part 223, Environment, Conservation, and 
Occupational Safety, and Related Clauses at DFARS Part 252; OMB Number 
0704-0272.
    Type of Request: Extension.
    Number of Respondents: 8,873.
    Responses Per Respondent: 1.66.
    Annual Responses: 14,726.
    Average Burden Per Response: 0.68 hours.
    Annual Burden Hours: 9,997.
    Needs and Uses: This information collection requires that an 
offeror/contractor provide information in response to solicitation 
provisions and contract clauses in DFARS 252.223, excluding those 
provisions and clauses relating to a drug-free workplace (which are 
approved under OMB Control Number 0704-0336). DoD contracting officers 
use this information to: (1) Verify compliance with requirements for 
labeling of hazardous material; (2) Ensure contractor compliance and 
monitor subcontractor compliance with DoD 4145.26-M, DoD Contractors' 
Safety Manual for Ammunition and Explosives, and minimize risk of 
mishaps; (3) Identify the place of performance of all ammunition and 
explosives work; and, (4) Ensure contractor compliance and monitor 
subcontractor compliance with DoD 5100.76-M, Physical Security of 
Sensitive Conventional Arms, Ammunition, and Explosives.
    Affected Public: Business or Other For-Profit; Not-for-Profit 
Institutions.
    Frequency: On Occasion.
    Respondents Obligation: Required to Obtain or Retain Benefits.
    OMB Desk Officer: Mr. David M. Pritzker.
    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information 
collection should be sent to Mr. Pritzker at the Office of Management 
and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503.
    DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Robert Cushing.
    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal 
should be sent to Mr. Cushing, WHS/DIOR, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, 
Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302.

    Dated: May 25, 2001.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 01-13747 Filed 5-31-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-08-M
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

HERBERT WAYNE WILSON, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-3479

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed November 1, 2019. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk 

County; William D. Sites, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and 

Pamela H. Izakowitz, Assistant Public 

Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Jonathan S. Tannen, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for 

Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

KELLY, VILLANTI, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
No. 53.

#### Palm *v.*Hollopeter.

Jurisdictional statement submitted October 12, 1931.

Decided October 19, 1931.

*Mr. Alfred Evan Reames*for appellant.

*Mr. Gus Newbury*for appellee.

*Per Curiam:*

The appeal herein is dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. Section 237 (a), Judicial Code, as amended by the Act of February 13, 1925 (43 Stat. 936, 937). Treating the papers whereon the appeal was allowed as a petition for writ of certiorari as required by § 237 (c), Judicial Code as amended (43 Stat. 936, 938), certiorari

is denied.
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 on Form 10-Q of HUGHES Telematics, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the Report), I, Craig J. Kaufmann, Senior Vice President Finance and Treasurer 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 the best of 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/ CRAIG J. KAUFMANNName:

Craig J. KaufmannTitle:

Senior Vice President Finance and Treasurer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)Date:

November 8, 2010
The State o



# Fourth Court of Appeals
**San Antonio, Texas**

July 2, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00183

- CR

Richard LARES

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2006CR10110 Honorable Juanita A. Vasquez

- Gardner, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

On June 25 , 2015, Appellant filed a pro se motion to stay judgment and
conviction.

A ppellant is represented in this appeal by court

- appointed counsel : Barry P. Hitchings, Hitchings & Pollock, 645 South Presa, San Antonio, Texas 7821 0, telephone number 210

- 224

- 1433.

Appellant does not have a right to hybrid representation. See Ex parte Taylor , 36 S.W.3d 883, 887 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). A ppellant’s pro se motion is D ENIED.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 2nd day of July, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
```

[Federal Register: March 1, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 41)]
[Notices]
[Page 12929]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr01mr01-49]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Meeting; Sunshine Act

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 11 a.m., Friday, March 30, 2001.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.

Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 01-5052 Filed 2-27-01; 11:04 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```
#### Pritam KAUR, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-74145.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 12, 2006.*

Filed June 16, 2006.

Pritam Kaur, Bellerose, NY, pro se.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Mark C. Walters, Esq., Anh-Thu P. Mai, Esq., 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. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Pritam Kaur, a native and citizen of India, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying as untimely her motion to reopen removal proceedings. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is conferred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion, *see Movsisian v. Ashcroft,*395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA acted within its discretion in denying Kaur’s third motion to reopen, filed more than one year after the BIA’s final removal order, as both untimely and numerically barred, *see*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (permitting only one motion to reopen to be filed within ninety days of BIA’s decision), where Kaur failed to demonstrate changed circumstances in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time and numerical limitations, *see*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(e)(3)(ii).

*678We are without jurisdiction to review Kaur’s challenge to the BIA’s February 24, 2003 dismissal of her appeal on the merits, because this petition for review is not timely as to that decision. *See 8*U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); *Singh v. INS,*315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part, DISMISSED in part.

**

 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.
Exhibit 13.1



CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of
Advantest Corporation, a Japanese corporation (the Company), does hereby certify that, to such officers knowledge:



|1. | The accompanying Annual Report of the Company on Form 20-F for the period ended March 31, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/    TOSHIO MARUYAMAName:

Toshio MaruyamaTitle:

Representative Board Director, President and CEO




Date: June 28, 2007



By:

/s/    YUICHI KURITAName:

Yuichi KuritaTitle:

Director and Managing Executive Officer




Date: June 28, 2007
# C_2018022EN.01005802.xml

| 22.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/58

---

Action brought on 20 November 2017 — roelliroelli confectionery schweiz v EUIPO — Tanner (ALPRAUSCH)

(Case T-769/17)

(2018/C 022/78)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: roelliroelli confectionery schweiz GmbH (St. Gallen, Switzerland) (represented by: S. Overhage and R. Böhm, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: André Tanner (Schindellegi, Switzerland)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant

Applicant:

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark ‘ALPRAUSCH’ No 1 218 671

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 August 2017 in Case R 1596/2016-5

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
| **--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| DOCUMENT: | **CL** | **2** |
|-----------|--------|-------|

|  | **New York Board of     Trade** |
|--|----------------------------------|

| DATE: |  | 8/10/01 | FR PAGE: |  | N/A | PAGES: |  | 4 | PDF SIZE: | 122 KB | PDF LINK: | /files/foia/ |
|-------|--|---------|----------|--|-----|--------|--|---|-----------|--------|-----------|--------------|

|  | **--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** |
|--|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| **--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| DOCUMENT: | **CL** | **1** |
|-----------|--------|-------|

|  | **Chicago Board of     Trade** |
|--|---------------------------------|

| DATE: |  | 8/10/01 | FR PAGE: |  | N/A | PAGES: |  | 4 | PDF SIZE: | 154 KB | PDF LINK: | /files/foia/ |
|-------|--|---------|----------|--|-----|--------|--|---|-----------|--------|-----------|--------------|

|  | **--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** |
|--|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

First
Previous
Next
Last
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-01-00456-CR

Ex parte Bill Rutherford

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF BELL COUNTY

NO. 31-1995-C-07411, HONORABLE JOHN BARINA, JR., JUDGE PRESIDING

PER CURIAM

Bill Rutherford filed a post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to code of criminal procedure article 11.09. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.09 (West 1977).

On November 28, 2000, the county court at law dismissed the application. Rutherford gave notice

of appeal from this order on July 5, 2001.

The notice of appeal was not timely. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a). We lack

jurisdiction to dispose of the purported appeal in any manner other than by dismissing it for want of

jurisdiction. See Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208 (Tex. Crim. App.1998); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d

519, 522-23 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).

The appeal is dismissed.

Before Chief Justice Aboussie, Justices Yeakel and Patterson

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: August 30, 2001

Do Not Publish
Notation of Guarantee



 Exhibit 4.7 
  
 Regulation S Global Note 
  
 NOTATION OF GUARANTEE 
  
 For value received, each Guarantor (which term includes any successor Person under the Indenture) has, jointly and severally, unconditionally guaranteed,
to the extent set forth in the Indenture and subject to the provisions in the Indenture dated as of August 24, 2005 (the “Indenture”) among Syniverse Technologies, Inc., (the “Company”), the
Guarantors listed on Schedule I thereto and The Bank of New York, as trustee (the “Trustee”), (a) the due and punctual payment of the principal of, premium and Liquidated Damages, if any, and interest on the Notes (as
defined in the Indenture), whether at maturity, by acceleration, redemption or otherwise, the due and punctual payment of interest on overdue principal of and interest on the Notes, if any, if lawful, and the due and punctual performance of all
other obligations of the Company to the Holders or the Trustee all in accordance with the terms of the Indenture and (b) in case of any extension of time of payment or renewal of any Notes or any of such other obligations, that the same will be
promptly paid in full when due or performed in accordance with the terms of the extension or renewal, whether at stated maturity, by acceleration or otherwise. The obligations of the Guarantors to the Holders of Notes and to the Trustee pursuant to
the Note Guarantee and the Indenture are expressly set forth in Article 11 of the Indenture and reference is hereby made to the Indenture for the precise terms of the Note Guarantee. Each Holder of a Note, by accepting the same, (a) agrees to and
shall be bound by such provisions, (b) authorizes and directs the Trustee, on behalf of such Holder, to take such action as may be necessary or appropriate to effectuate the subordination as provided in the Indenture and (c) appoints the Trustee
attorney-in-fact of such Holder for such purpose; provided, however, that the Indebtedness evidenced by this Note Guarantee shall cease to be so subordinated and subject in right of payment upon any defeasance of this Note in accordance with
the provisions of the Indenture. 










			
	 Syniverse Holdings, Inc.

		
	 By
	 	/s/    RAYMOND L.
LAWLESS        
	 Name:
	 	Raymond L. Lawless
	 Title:
	 	Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
	
	 Syniverse Brience, LLC

		
	 By
	 	/s/    RAYMOND L.
LAWLESS        
	 Name:
	 	Raymond L. Lawless
	 Title:
	 	Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
	
	 Syniverse Technologies of Virginia, Inc.

		
	 By
	 	/s/    RAYMOND L.
LAWLESS        
	 Name:
	 	Raymond L. Lawless
	 Title:
	 	Secretary and Treasurer


  
 Signature Page
– Notation of Guarantee