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





I,
Allison Carroll, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Pretoria Resources Two, Inc. for the
quarter ended September 30, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly
presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of Pretoria Resources Two, Inc.





Date:
      November 13, 2009
              By:
              /s/  Allison
    CarrollAllison
      CarrollPresident, Principal Executive Officer
      and       Principal Financial
      Officer




The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
document.
IV 

House Calendar No. 174 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1190 

[Report No. 111–441] 

Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 17, 2010 

Mr. MCGOVERN, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules. 

1 Resolved, That it shall be in order at any time 

2 through the calendar day of March 21, 2010, for the 

3 Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the 

4 rules. The Speaker or her designee shall consult with the 

5 Minority Leader or his designee on the designation of any 

6 matter for consideration pursuant to this resolution. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
House Calendar No. 174 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1190 

[Report No. 111–441] 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of motions to suspend 

the rules. 

MARCH 17, 2010 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6003

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

RONNIE DEVONE JOHNSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District

Judge. (CR-96-157-HO)

Submitted: March 8, 2001 Decided: March 16, 2001

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronnie Devone Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Anne Margaret Hayes,

Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Ronnie Devone Johnson appeals the district court’s order denying his “Motion to Reach Final Disposition on Magistrate Judge

Order filed October 30, 2000.” We have reviewed the record and the

district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant Johnson’s motion to adopt appendix and affirm on the

reasoning of the district court. United States v. Johnson, No. CR96-157-HO (E.D.N.C. Dec. 8, 2000). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### SIROCCO ENGINEERING CO. v. B. F. STURTEVANT CO.

(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.

June 12, 1909.)

1. Patent's (§ 312*) — Suit fob Infbingemeno>-Reissue.

A delay of seven years before applying for a reissue raises a presumption of laches, and imposes the burden upon the complainant, in a suit for infringement of the reissue, to allege and prove facts in excuse.

[Ed, Note. — Por other cases, see Patents, Dec. Dig. § 312.*]

2. Patents (§ 310*) — Reissues—Construction of Claims.

On demurrer, claims in a reissue patent should not be regarded as the same as those in the original patent, although in identical words, where the specifications are different, and the bill does not show that the changes in the specifications make no material change in the scope of the claim.

[Ed. Note. — Por other cases, see Patents, Dee, Dig. § 310.*]

In Equity. On demurrer to bill.

Arthur C. Fraser, for complainant.

Omri F. Hibbard, for defendant.

*

For otter cases see same topic & § number in Dec. *&*Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

NOYES, Circuit Judge.

Whether the reissues enlarge or restrict the claims of the original patent, it is my opinion that the delay of more than seven years in applying for them requires explanation upon the part of the complainant. Such delay, unexplained and unexcused, would I think, constitute laches and prevent a recovery.

The complainant, however, points out that several of the claims of the original patent appear unchanged in the reissued patents, and urges that the validity of these original claims is hot impaired by any invalidity in the new claims. This would undoubtedly be true if the claims in legal effect, as well as in language, remained the same. But the claims, although in the identical words, might be essentially different in scope, when read in connection with materially different specifications.

Now the specifications in the reissued patents are different from the specifications in the original patent. The complainant itself, contends that in the absence of expert testimony it is impossible for the court to determine just- what effect the changes in the specifications have upon the scope of the claims. Accepting this contention as well founded, I think it clear that claims in a reissued patent should not, upon demurrer, be regarded as the same as those in the original patent, although in the identical words, where the specifications are different, and where the bill of complaint wholly fails to show that the changes in the specifications. make no material change in the scope of the claims.

If the complainant relies upon the new claims in the reissued patents, it should explain the delay in applying for them. If it relies upon the claims of the original patent as being unchanged by the reissues, it should allege and show that they were unchanged by the alterations in the specifications.

The demurrer to the bill of complaint is sustained, with costs; but the complainant may within 30 days from the date of this decision, and upon the payment of such costs, amend its complaint in the particulars pointed out in the preceding paragraph.
```

[Federal Register: October 25, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 207)]
[Notices]
[Page 63843]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr25oc00-46]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

Agency Holding the Meeting: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Time and Date: 1:00 p.m., Monday, October 30, 2000.

Place: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, Lobby Level Hearing Room.

Status: Open.

Matters to be Considered:
 Final rules for a regulatory framework for Multilateral
Transaction Execution Facilities, Intermediaries and Clearing
Organizations.
- Final rules relating to Intermediaries of Commodity Interest
Transactions.
- Final rules for a New Regulatory Framework for Clearing
Organizations.
- Final rules on the Exemption for Bilateral Transactions.


Contact Person for More Information: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.

Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 00-27501 Filed 10-20-00; 5:06 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```

----

**======== RETURN TO INDEX ========**

----
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 1850

HUGO ALBERTO DE LA O and J.E.D.R.

,

Petitioners

,

v.

MERRICK GARLAND

, Attorney General,

Respondent

.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Argued : March 10, 2023 Decided: June 6, 2023

Before KING

, WYNN, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

ARGUED : Ronald Darwin Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioners. Kathryn McKinney, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. ON BRIEF: Suzanne L. Capriotti, LAW OFFICES OF SUZANNE L. CAPRIOTTI, Gaithersburg, Maryland, for Petitioners. Brian Boynton, Prin cipal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Anna Juarez, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in th is circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-1850 Doc: 36 Filed: 06/06/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM:

Hugo Alberto De La O and his son, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for

review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“the Board”) dismissing the

appeal from the Immigration Judge’s decision denying their appl ications for asylum,

withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture ( “ CAT ” ).

We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence. Diaz de Gomez v.

Wilkinson , 987 F.3d 359, 362 (4th Cir. 2021). Under that standard, t he agency’s factual

findings are “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude

to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). Legal issues are reviewed de novo. Diaz de

Gomez , 987 F.3d at 363. From our review of the record, the Board did not commit any

legal error. And the Board’s factual findings were supported by substantial evidence. Stated

differently, no reasonable factfinder “would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8

U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Essohou v. Gonz ales , 471 F.3d 518, 520 (4th Cir. 2006).

So, we deny the petition to review the Board’s decision concerning the asylum

, withholding

of removal and CAT claims.

PETITION DENIED USCA4 Appeal: 21-1850 Doc: 36 Filed: 06/06/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
CERTIFICATIONS  I, Huoqi Chen, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Kerrisdale Mining Corporation; 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 officers 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 (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) 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 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 report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and (d)         Disclosed in this 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 5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, 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 in the design or operation of internal controls which could 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: December 5, 2008 /s/ Huoqi ChenHuoqi Chen, Principal Executive Officer
```

[Federal Register: April 22, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 77)]
[Notices]
[Page 19749]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr22ap99-32]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: 11:00 a.m., Friday, May 7, 1999.

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. 99-10261 Filed 4-20-99; 2:32 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```

----

**======== RETURN    TO INDEX ========**

----
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. DEAN M. YOUNGQUIST, Defendant - Appellant. No. 13-35829 D.C. No. 3:11-cv-06113-PK
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Anna J. Brown, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 6, 2015 ** Portland, Oregon Before: PREGERSON, N.R. SMITH, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Defendant-Appellant Dean M. Youngquist appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the United States. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. 

# FILED
JUL 16 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).Summary judgment in favor of the United States was properly granted. Although Youngquist alleges that he incu rred a loss of $5,677.34 on his ProTrade stock transactions in 1996, he does not dispute that ProTrade accurately reported that he sold $1,451,076 worth of stock that year. Thus, the only question is whether the cost of acquiring the stock ex ceeded the sales proceeds such that the sales generated no taxable gain. Youngquist has the burden to prove the cost basis in his ProTrade stock sales. See Moore v. Comm’r , 425 F.2d 713, 715 (9th Cir. 1970) (“Under 26 U.S.C. § 1012, the taxpayer bears the burden of establishing the cost basis of property.”). However, Youngquist failed to produce any records from ProTrade or any contemporaneous records of his own establishing the cost of each stock he purchased through ProTrade. 1 Youngquist’s non-specific testimony and ambiguous bank account records from Washington Federal Savings showi ng a $73,000 withdrawal on November 5, 1996, and a $67,322 deposit on December 20, 1996, do not establish that he incurred an aggregate loss of $5,677.34 in trading within his ProTrade account.

1 It is the taxpayer’s responsibility to retain records as long as their contents “may become material in th e administration of any internal review law.” Treas. Reg. § 1.6001-1(e). Because Youngquist ne ver filed a 1996 tax return, the IRS could have brought an action “at any time.” I.R.C. § 6501(c)(3). 2Youngquist’s testimony and Washington Fede ral Savings bank account records are not sufficient to demonstrate that the $73,000 withdrawal went to his ProTrade account or that the $67,322 deposit came from his ProTrade account. But even if we take it as true that Youngquist de posited $73,000 into his ProTrade account on November 5, 1996, and withdrew $67,322 from his ProTrade account on December 20, 1996, there is still insufficient evidence that the $67,322 deposit represented the closing balance of the ProTrade account or that Youngquist had not made any previous withdrawals from that account. Youngquist’s testimony and bank account records were therefore “insuffici ent to establish that the [cost] basis was other than zero.” Coloman v. Comm’r , 540 F.2d 427, 431 (9th Cir. 1976). AFFIRMED.

3
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.3
 
                         AMENDMENT TO RIGHTS AGREEMENT



     This is an AMENDMENT (the "Amendment"), to the Rights Agreement, dated as
of July 29, 1996 (the "Rights Agreement") between PHAMIS, Inc. (the "Company"),
and Chasemellon Shareholder Services, L.L.C., as successor Rights Agent, (the
"Rights Agent").

     WHEREAS, the Rights Agreement specifies the terms of the Rights (as defined
therein); and

     WHEREAS, the Company and the Rights Agent desire to amend the Rights
Agreement in accordance with Section 26 of the Rights Agreement;

     NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual agreements set
forth in the Rights Agreement and this Amendment, the parties hereby agree as
follows:

     1. Section 3 of the Rights Agreement is amended to add a new Section 3(d)
at the end thereof as follows:

          "Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, neither the
     execution of the Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"),
     dated as of March 25, 1997 and as amended from time to time, among the
     Company, IDX Systems Corporation ("IDX"), and a wholly owned subsidiary of
     IDX, nor the consummation of the Merger or grant of proxies provided for
     therein in accordance with the terms of the Merger Agreement, will cause a
     Stock Acquisition Date or a Distribution Date to occur or cause an event
     set forth in Section 11(a)(ii) or Section 13 hereof to occur."

     2. The term "Agreement" as used in the Rights Agreement shall be deemed to
refer to the Rights Agreement as amended hereby.

     3. This Amendment shall be effective as of this date and, except as set
forth herein, the Rights Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and
shall be otherwise unaffected hereby.

     4. This Amendment may be executed in two counterparts, each of which shall
be deemed an original, but both of which together shall constitute one and the
same instrument.
<PAGE>
 
     DATED as of March 25, 1997.

                              PHAMIS, Inc.



                              By:   /s/ FRANK T. SAMPLE
                                   ---------------------------------------
                                    Name:  Frank T. Sample,
                                    Title: Chief Executive Officer


                              CHASEMELLON SHAREHOLDER
                              SERVICES L.L.C
 

                              By:   /s/  PAULINE F. SKUDLER
                                   -----------------------------
                                    Name:  Pauline F. Skudler
                                    Title: Assistant Vice President
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1276 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1276

   Recognizing the continued importance of volunteerism and national 
  service and the anniversary of the signing of the landmark service 
         legislation, the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 20, 2010

Mr. George Miller of California (for himself, Ms. Matsui, Mrs. McCarthy 
   of New York, Mr. Sablan, Mr. Crowley, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Hare, Mr. 
  Loebsack, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Serrano, Ms. Bordallo, Mr. 
Polis of Colorado, Ms. Fudge, Mr. Grijalva, Ms. Titus, Ms. Hirono, Mr. 
    Ehlers, Mr. Pierluisi, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Sestak, Mr. Kildee, Ms. 
  Richardson, Mr. Capuano, Ms. Clarke, Mr. Tonko, Ms. Norton, Ms. Zoe 
 Lofgren of California, and Mr. Price of North Carolina) submitted the 
following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Education 
                               and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Recognizing the continued importance of volunteerism and national 
  service and the anniversary of the signing of the landmark service 
         legislation, the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act.

Whereas April 21, 2010, marks the first anniversary of the signing of the Edward 
        M. Kennedy Serve America Act;
Whereas the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act reauthorized the Corporation for 
        National and Community Service and its programs through 2014, expanding 
        opportunities for millions of people in the United States to serve the 
        Nation;
Whereas the country is experiencing a wave of new innovation and collaboration 
        to increase volunteerism; as social entrepreneurs try new approaches, 
        technology increases access and expands service, and corporate 
        volunteers provide pro bono skills to nonprofit organizations;
Whereas the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act increases volunteer 
        opportunities for people in the United States of all ages, with a focus 
        on disadvantaged youth, seniors, and veterans;
Whereas the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act promotes social innovation by 
        supporting and expanding proven programs and builds capacity of 
        individuals, nonprofits, and communities to volunteer; and
Whereas the legislation leverages service to assist in meeting challenges in the 
        areas of education, health, clean energy, veterans, and economic 
        opportunity: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) recognizes that service is of significant value to the 
        United States; and
            (2) recognizes the first anniversary of the Edward M. 
        Kennedy Serve America Act, and encourages every citizen of the 
        United States to continue to answer the call to serve.
                                 <all>
```