alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| Date:  November 16, 2009 | By:    | /s/  Laura Lee Stewart                     |
|------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------|
|                               |   | Laura Lee Stewart                                    |
|                               |   | President and Chief Executive Officer                |
|                               |   |                                                 |
|                               |   |                                                 |
|                               |   |                                                 |
|                               |   |                                                 |
| Date:  November 16, 2009 | By:    |  /s/  Matthew P. Deines               |
|                               |   | Matthew P. Deines                                    |
|                               |   | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|                               |   | Principal Financial and Accounting Officer           |
#### Beverly Ann HOLLIS-ARRINGTON, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. CENDANT MORTGAGE CORPORATION; United Guaranty Insurance Company, Erroneously Sued as United Guaranty Residential Insurance Company, Defendants—Appellees. Beverly Ann Hollis-Arrington, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Cendant Mortgage Corporation; et al., Defendants—Appellees, and Harold Tennen; Ed Feldman, Intervenors—Appellees.

Nos. 10-56649, 10-56651.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.*

Filed Jan. 9, 2012.

Beverly Ann Hollis-Arrington, West Hills, CA, pro se.

Jan T. Chilton, Severson & Werson, San Francisco, CA, Suzanne M. Hankins, Esquire, Severson and Werson, Irvine, CA, Ronald K. Sittler, Esquire, Jeffrey S. Wru-ble, Esquire, Buchalter Nemer PLC, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

In these consolidated appeals, Beverly Ann Hollis-Arrington appeals pro se from the district court’s orders denying her motions to set aside the judgments in two actions arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s determination of jurisdiction over a Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion, *Scott v. Younger,*789 F.2d 1464, 1466 (9th Cir.1984), and for an abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of such a motion, *Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co.,*452 F.3d 1097, 1100 (9th Cir.2006). We affirm.

To the extent that Hollis-Arrington’s Rule 60(b) motions to set aside the judgments fall within Rule 60(b)(3), the district court properly denied them as untimely because Hollis-Arrington filed the motions more than one year after the judgments were entered. *See*Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(3) (allowing relief from judgment for “fraud ..., misrepresentation, or misconduct by opposing party”); Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(c)(1) (Rule 60(b)(3) motion must be made within one year of entry of judgment); *Nevitt v. United States,*886 F.2d 1187, 1188 (9th Cir.1989) (a district court lacks jurisdiction to consider an untimely motion to set aside a judgment).

To the extent that Hollis-Arrington’s motions fall within Rule 60(b)(6), the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying them because Hollis-Arrington failed to establish extraordinary circumstances. *See Latshaw,*452 F.3d at 1104 (while “ ‘fraud on the court’ can sometimes constitute extraordinary circumstances *676meriting relief under Rule 60(b)(6),” such relief is construed narrowly).

Hollis-Arrington’s remaining contentions, including those regarding Rule 60(b)(4), are unpersuasive.

Hollis-Arrington’s request for judicial notice is granted.

AFFIRMED.

**

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


     

     

    AMENDMENT
      TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

    


    


    AMENDMENT
      (the “Amendment”) dated October 19, 2005 to the Employment Agreement dated as of
      June 13, 2003 (the “Jacob Employment Agreement”) by and between Callisto
      Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Gary S.
      Jacob, an individual (the “Executive”).

    


    WHEREAS,
      the parties desire to amend the Jacob Employment Agreement to increase the
      amount of compensation to be paid upon termination;

    


    NOW
      THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing facts and mutual agreements set
      forth below, the parties, intending to be legally bound, agree as
      follows:

    


    1.        
      Amendment
      to Jacob Employment Agreement. 
      The Jacob Employment Agreement is hereby amended as follows:

    


    1.1        
      Section
      4.3 is hereby amended by changing thirty (30) days to ninety (90) days in the
      third sentence of Section 4.3. 

    


    2.        
      Ratification. 
      The Jacob Employment Agreement is ratified and confirmed and shall continue
      in
      full force and effect as amended hereby. 

    


    3.        
      Headings
      and Captions. 
      The
      headings and captions of the various subdivisions of this Amendment are for
      convenience of reference only and shall in no way modify or affect the meaning
      or construction of any of the terms or provisions hereof.

    


    4.        
      Counterparts. 
      This
      Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts, and by different parties
      hereto on separate counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original,
      but
      all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. This
      Agreement may be executed by facsimile with original signatures to
      follow.

     

    
      
        
        

      

      
        
        

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    

     

    IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment or caused
      this
Amendment
      to be executed by their duly authorized representatives as of the date first
      above written.

     

    
      	 	 	 
	 	
              CALLISTO
                PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

            
	 
 	 
 	 
 
	 	By:  	/s/
              Gabriele M. Cerrone
	 	
              

            
	 	
              Gabriele
                M. Cerrone

              Chairman
                of the Board

            
	 	 
	 	 
	 	/s/ Gary S. Jacob
	 	
              

            
	 	Gary S. Jacob, Ph.D.
Exhibit
31.1
   1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Oxford Resource Partners, LP;
 2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q;
 3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q, 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q;
 4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer 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)) for the registrant and have:
 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
on Form 10-Q is being prepared;
 b.
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q based on such evaluation; and
 c.
    
    Disclosed in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q 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
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer 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):
 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.
  By:
    /s/ CHARLES C. UNGUREANCharles C. UngureanPresident and Chief Executive Officer of
Oxford Resources GP, LLC (the general partner
of Oxford Resource Partners, LP)
---

Exhibit 31

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002

I, Roger Williams, certify that:

1.       I have reviewed the
quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Here Enterprises, Inc.;

2.       Based on my
knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

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

4.      I am responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and I
have:

a)
     designed such disclosure controls and procedures,
or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business
issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others
within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly
report is being prepared;

b)
     evaluated the effectiveness of the small business
issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report my
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

c)
     disclosed in this quarterly report any change in
the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that
occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small
business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and

5.      I have disclosed, based on my
most recent evaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, to the
small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business
issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

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 small business issuer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 small business issuers internal control over
financial reporting.

Date: November 26, 2007

*/s/ Roger Williams*

_____________________________________________Roger
WilliamsPresident, Secretary, Treasurer and Director (Principal
Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officerand Principal Accounting
Officer)

---
VoIP-PAL.COM INC. 10-Q





Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350



(As adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002)



For the Quarterly Report of VoIP-Pal.com Inc.
(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2016 (the “Report”), the undersigned,
in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies that:



(i)     the Report fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and



(ii)    the information contained
in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of
and for the periods covered in the Report.



Date: May 16, 2016



| | By: /s/ Emil
    Malak  
| | ------------------------
| | Emil Malak              
| | Chief Executive Officer 
| |                         
| | By: /s/ D. Barry
    Lee
| | D. Barry Lee            
| | Chief Financial Officer 
| |
Exhibit
No. 32.1
 Form
10-Q
 First
Quantum Ventures, Inc.
 File
No. 33000-52759
  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 First Quantum Ventures, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Andrew
Godfrey, Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 (1) the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
  (2) the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 Dated:
May 14,
2009
  /s/
Andrew
Godfrey
 Andrew
Godfrey
 Chief
Executive Officer,
 Chief
Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 110 (Thursday, June 7, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 30688]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14404]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[I.D. 060401A]


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce has submitted to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for 
collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
    Title: Vessel Monitoring System Requirements in the Western Pacific 
Pelagic Longline Fishery.
    Form Number(s): None.
    OMB Approval Number: None.
    Type of Request: Regular submission.
    Burden Hours: 743.
    Number of Respondents: 165.
    Average Hours Per Response: 4 hours for equipment installation, 2 
hours per year for equipment maintenance, and 24 seconds per day for 
automatic position reporting.
    Needs and Uses: Commercial fishing vessels active in the Hawaii-
based pelagic longline fishery must allow National Marine Fisheries 
Service (NMFS) to install vessel monitoring system (VMS) units on their 
vessel when directed to do so by NMFS enforcement personnel. VMS units 
automatically send periodic reports on the position of the vessel. NMFS 
uses the reports to monitor the vessel's location and activities while 
enforcing area closures. NMFS pays for the units and messaging.
    Affected Public: Business and other for-profit organizations.
    Frequency: Messaging frequency varies, from hourly to more or less 
frequently, depending on location of the vessel relative to closed 
areas and borders of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone.
    Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.
    OMB Desk Officer: David Rostker, (202) 395-3897.
    Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained 
by calling or writing Madeleine Clayton, Departmental Paperwork 
Clearance Officer, (202) 482-3129, Department of Commerce, Room 6086, 
14th and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via the 
Internet at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c38e80afa2bab7acad83a7aca0eda4acb5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b0fdf3dcd1c9c4dfdef0d4dfd39ed7dfc6">[email protected]</span></a>).
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice 
to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10202, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503.

    Dated: May 31, 2001.
Madeleine Clayton,
Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief 
Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 01-14404 Filed 6-6-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
H. Res. 1007 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

January 19, 2010. 

Whereas, on January 7, 2010, the University of Alabama 

Crimson Tide defeated the University of Texas 

Longhorns, 37–21, in the Bowl Championship Series 

(BCS) National Championship Game in Pasadena, California; 

Whereas the University of Alabama located in Tuscaloosa, 

Alabama, has become one of the premier athletic and 

academic institutions in the country; 

Whereas the University of Alabama has been the Southeastern Conference (SEC) Football Champion a recordsetting 22 times; 

Whereas the University of Alabama has made an NCAArecord 57 bowl appearances; 

Whereas the Crimson Tide players won many individual accomplishments throughout the season including, Mark 

Ingram as the first player from the University of Alabama to win the Heisman Trophy, Rolando McClain as 

the Butkus Award Winner, and 6 players selected as Associated Press First Team All Americans; 

Whereas Mark Ingram rushed for 116 yards and 2 touchdowns to be named the Offensive Most Valuable Player 

of the BCS National Championship Game; 
2 

•HRES 1007 EH 

Whereas Marcell Dareus returned an interception for a 

touchdown and was named the Defensive Most Valuable 

Player of the BCS National Championship Game; 

Whereas the Crimson Tide defense held the University of 

Texas to 276 offensive yards and forced 5 turnovers during the BCS National Championship Game; 

Whereas Nick Saban in his third year as head coach led the 

University of Alabama to its first National Championship 

since 1992; and 

Whereas residents of Alabama and Crimson Tide fans worldwide are to be commended for their longstanding support, 

perseverance, and pride in the team: Now, therefore, be 

it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) commends the University of Alabama for winning the Bowl Championship Series National Championship; 

(2) recognizes the achievements of the players, 

coaches, students, and support staff who were instrumental in the victory; and 

(3) directs the Clerk of the House of Representatives to transmit a copy of this resolution to University 
3 

•HRES 1007 EH 

of Alabama President Dr. Robert E. Witt and head 

coach Nick Saban for appropriate display. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                             450
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,286
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       1,026,509
<DEPRECIATION>                                 151,260
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 959,194
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        427,778
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     73,002
<COMMON>                                       415,408
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   959,194
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               173,130
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   59,345
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                48,012
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              31,287
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 34,486
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    34,486
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .98
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .97
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerald Howard BURGESS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-10541.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*671Submitted Sept. 8, 2008.*

Filed Sept. 11, 2008.

Robert L. Ellman, Esq., Kimberly M. Frayn, Esq., USLV-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee.

Glynn Burroughs Cartledge, Esq., Law Offices of Glynn Burroughs Cartledge, Reno, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Jerald Howard Burgess appeals from the district court’s decision, following a limited remand under *United States v. Ameline,*409 F.3d 1073, 1084-85 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc), that it would not have imposed a different sentence had it known that the Sentencing Guidelines were advisory. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Burgess’s contention that the district court failed to give him the opportunity to present mitigating evidence during the *Ameline*remand is belied by the record. The district court obtained the views of counsel in writing. *See Ameline,*409 F.3d at 1084-85.

The remainder of Burgess’s contentions are unreviewable because he failed to raise them during his initial appeal to this court. *See United States v. Thornton,*511 F.3d 1221, 1228-29 (9th Cir.2008); *United States v. Combs,*470 F.3d 1294, 1297 (9th Cir .2006).

AFFIRMED.

**

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