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

In connection with the Quarterly
Report of Swav Enterprises Ltd., a Nevada corporation (the Registrant), on
Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Pui Shan Lam, the
Principal Executive Officer of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, 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, 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 Registrant.

| | /s/ Pui Shan Lam                               
| | -----------------------------------------------
| | Pui Shan Lam                                   
| | President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
| | (Principal Executive Officer)                  
| | Date: February 22, 2010                        

---
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 13, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 31975]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14468]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 34049]


The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company--Trackage 
Rights Exemption--The Kansas City Southern Railway Company

    The Kansas City Southern Railway Company (KCS) has agreed to grant 
limited overhead trackage rights to The Burlington Northern and Santa 
Fe Railway Company (BNSF) over KCS's rail line (1) between KCS milepost 
220.28 in Tennison, TX, and KCS milepost 201.89 in Wylie, TX, and (2) 
between KCS Engineering Station HB 43+59' in Wylie and KCS Engineering 
Station 1097+80' in Wylie, a total distance of approximately 21.14 
miles.
    The transaction is scheduled to be consummated on or after June 5, 
2001, the effective date of the exemption.
    The purpose of the trackage rights is to allow BNSF to move Norfolk 
Southern Railway Company haulage trains over the subject trackage to 
and from KCS's Wylie Yard.
    Any employees affected by the subject transaction will be protected 
by the labor conditions prescribed in Norfolk and Western Ry. Co.--
Trackage Rights--BN, 354 I.C.C. 605 (1978), as modified in Mendocino 
Coast Ry., Inc.--Lease and Operate, 360 I.C.C. 653 (1980).
    This notice is filed under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(7). If it contains 
false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. 
Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed 
at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically 
stay the transaction.
    An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB 
Finance Docket No. 34049 must be filed with the Surface Transportation 
Board, Office of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, one copy of each pleading must 
be served on Michael E. Roper, The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe 
Railway Company, P.O. Box 961039, Fort Worth, TX 76161-0039.
    Board decisions and notices are available on our website at 
www.stb.dot.gov.

    Decided: June 4, 2001.
    By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of 
Proceedings.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-14468 Filed 6-12-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      Exhibit 11


                            FIRST BELL BANCORP, INC.
                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                               DECEMBER 31, 1998

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                           TWELVE         TWELVE
                                           MONTHS         MONTHS
                                           ENDED          ENDED
                                          12/31/98       12/31/98
                                         ----------     ----------
                                           BASIC     FULLY DILUTED
<S>                                      <C>         <C>
Net income applicable to common stock    $7,838,160     $7,838,160
                                         ----------     ----------
 
EARNINGS PER SHARE
 
Weighted average shares outstanding       5,830,344      5,830,344
 
Add:  Option common stock equivalents             -        155,727
 
Less:  MRP shares                           275,441        275,441
 
Add:  Granted MRP shares                          -         99,171
                                         ----------     ----------
 
     Total Shares                         5,554,903      5,809,801
                                         ==========     ==========
 
Earnings per share                       $     1.41          $1.35
                                         ==========     ==========
</TABLE>
```

[Federal Register: October 20, 1997 (Volume 62, Number 202)]
[Notices]
[Page 54433]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr20oc97-39]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 11 a.m., Friday, November 21, 1997.

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. 97-27804 Filed 10-16-97; 1:31 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```

----

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

----
#### WOOLSEY *v.*BEST, WARDEN.

No. 256.

Jurisdictional statement distributed September 10, 1936.—

Decided October 12, 1936.

*Mr. Thomas H. Gibson*was on the brief for appellant.

*Mr. Byron Rogers,*Attorney General of Colorado, and *Messrs. Charles Roach, Walter F. Scherer,*and *Pierpont Fuller, Jr.,*Assistant Attorneys General, were on the brief for appellee.

Per Curiam.

Appellant brought this proceeding in the Supreme Court of Colorado to obtain a writ of *habeas corpus.*His petition was denied without opinion. It appears that appellant was held pursuant to conviction for violation *2of .§ 2676 C. L. 1921, being § 40, c. 44, Session Laws 1913, of the laws of Colorado (see also § 2740 C. L. 1921, being § 85, c. 44 of Session Laws of 1913), the judgment of conviction having been affirmed by the Supreme Court of the State. *Woolsey*v. *People,*98 Colo. 62; 53 P. (2d) 596.

It is well established that the writ of *habeas corpus*cannot be used as a writ of error. This is the rule in Colorado as well as -in this Court. The judgment of conviction was not subject to collateral attack. *People ex rel. Burchinell*v. *District Court,*22 Colo. 422; 45 Pac. 402; *Martin*v. *District Court,*37 Colo. 110, 115; 86 Pac. 82; *Chemgas*v. *Tynan,*51 Colo. 35; 116 Pac. 1045; *In re Arakawa,*78 Colo. 193, 196; 240 Pac. 940; *In re Nottingham,*84 Colo. 123, 128; 268 Pac. 587. Compare *Harlan*v. *McGourin,*218 U. S. 442; *Riddle*v. *Dyche,*262 U. S. 333; *Craig*v. *Hecht,*263 U. S. 255, 277; *Knewel*v. *Egan,*268 U. S. 442, 445, 446; *Cox*v. *Colorado,*282 U. S. 807. It is apparent from the record submitted that the state court had jurisdiction to try the appellant for violation of the statute in question and that any federal question properly raised as to the validity of the statute could have been heard and determined on appeal to this Court from the final judgment in that action. The Supreme Court of the State was not required by the Federal Constitution to entertain such questions on the subsequent petition for *habeas corpus,*and it does not appear that its denial of the petition did not rest upon an adequate non-federal ground. *Lynch*v. *New York,*293 U. S. 52, and cases there cited. ■ The appeal is dismissed for the want of jurisdiction.

*Dismissed.*
```

[Federal Register: December 27, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 247)]
[Notices]
[Page 77233]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr27de04-43]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

Agency Holding the Meeting: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Time and Date: 11 a.m. Friday, January 7, 2005.

Place: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission
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. 04-28411 Filed 12-22-04; 3:38 pm]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```
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, John Holcomb,
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 Bonanza One, Inc. for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 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 Bonanza One, Inc.



|Date: May 23, 2011 | By:   | /s/
    John Holcomb                                                                          
|------------------ | ----- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                   | Name: | John Holcomb                                                                                  
|                   | Title | President. 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.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-50432

Summary Calendar

 

ANTHONY L. CARTER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

S. ONTIVEROS; J. PRESTAGE, Capt.,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. SA-95-CV-1239

- - - - - - - - - -

January 31, 1997

Before GARWOOD, JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges:

PER CURIAM:*

Anthony L. Carter, # 694133, appeals the district court’s

order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim as frivolous under 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(I)(formerly § 1915(d)) and denying his

motion for reconsideration. Having reviewed the record and

Carter’s arguments on appeal, we affirm for essentially the same

reasons stated by the district court. Carter v. Ontiveros, No.

SA-95-CV-1239 (W.D. Tex. April 18, 1996, May 15, 1996).
AFFIRMED.
* The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, Untied States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 01-2685

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the District v. * of Nebraska. * Rolando Garcia-Landeros, Legal * [UNPUBLISHED] Name: Alfreo Garcia-Landeros, * * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: December 21, 2001 Filed: January 2, 2002

___________ Before HANSEN, FAGG, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Rolando Garcia-Landeros pleaded guilty to distributing methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and the district court * sentenced him to 60 months imprisonment and five years supervised release. In this direct criminal appeal, Garcia-Landeros challenges the court's denial of safety-valve relief.-2- We find no clear error, because the court's finding that Garcia-Landeros had not been forthcoming is supported by the testimony and exhibits introduced at sentencing. See United States v. Tournier , 171 F.3d 645, 647 (8th Cir. 1999) (standard of review); United States v. Santana , 150 F.3d 860, 864 (8th Cir. 1998) (defendant carries burden of demonstrating that he has truthfully provided to government before sentencing all information regarding relevant crime); United States v. Velasquez , 141 F.3d 1280, 1283 (8th Cir.) (affirming denial of safety-valve relief where there was extrinsic support for government's opinion that defendant had not been fully truthful), cert. denied , 525 U.S. 897 (1998). Accordingly, we affirm. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### Barbara BRAXTON, Plaintiff, v. BI-STATE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY and Amalgamated Transit Union Local 788, Defendants.

No. 81-976C(1).

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, E.D.

Dec. 1, 1982.

*184Robert Reinhold, St. Louis, Mo., for plaintiff.

Harold L. Whitfield, St. Louis, Mo., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM

WANGELIN, Chief Judge.

This matter is before the Court upon defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint for failure to prosecute.

Plaintiff has made few indications of record demonstrating a desire to pursue this matter. No discovery has been attempted by plaintiff and this matter has been filed for over fifteen (15) months.

On November 5, 1982, this Court ordered the parties herein to address the issue of this suit’s continued propriety in light of (1) an identical complaint being dismissed with prejudice in the Court of the Honorable Judge John F. Nangle; and (2) plaintiff’s lack of vigor in the prosecution of this cause. Judge Nangle’s case involved identical factual averments, prayers for relief, discriminatory allegations and legal rights asserted. Only the fact that plaintiff had filed multiple charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and had filed suit on them independently distinguishes this case from Judge Nangle’s case.

Plaintiff states that the union defendant is not a necessary party to this suit and that plaintiff “did everything known by it to obtain service on the union defendant, obtaining among other things the officially listed address and agent from the Department of Labor, and service could not be obtained on that agent at that address apparently.” The file herein indicates only one attempt over one year ago to obtain service upon the union. Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, this does not represent vigorous prosecution of this lawsuit. The response also makes no reference as to why defendants should be required to defend the same lawsuit twice. No argument has been advanced by plaintiff which has convinced this Court that Judge Nangle’s dismissal order is not a bar to the maintenance of this action.

This Court therefore deems plaintiff’s complaint properly dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
CIRCUIT COURT OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY

#### Shurm v. Shurm

March 25, 1992

Case No. CJ91-78

By Judge William R. Shelton

The parties and counsel appeared before this Court on March 2, 1992, on Ms. Shurm’s appeal from the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court. The Court noted that no appeal bond had been posted. Counsel argued this point, and the Court granted Mr. Diehl time to file a letter opinion from the Attorney General’s office in regards to the necessity of an appeal bond when the appeal concerns the custody of the parties’ infant child.

The Court has received and reviewed the January 18, 1991, opinion from the Attorney General’s office. After further consideration, the Court is not persuaded by Mr. Diehl’s argument. The Court therefore adheres to its present position concerning the requirements of Virginia Code § 16.1-107.

The posting of the appeal bond under § 16.1-107 is jurisdictional, and the failure to post such a bond or pay the writ tax requires the dismissal of the appeal. *See Scheer v. Issacs,*10 Va. App. 338 (1990); *Hurst v. Ballard,*230 Va. 365 (1985). While *Scheer*is a case in which a monetary judgment was entered against the defendant in the amount of $67,805.00, the Court finds that the law as applied in *Scheer*must likewise be applied in this case. Virginia Code § 16.1-107 requires the posting of a bond “in an amount and with sufficient surety ... to abide by such judgment as may be rendered on appeal if such appeal be perfected . ...” In the present case, an appeal bond in an amount as described in this provision must be posted before the *256Circuit Court properly has jurisdiction to consider the appeal. The record indicates that no appeal bond has been posted. Therefore, the appeal must be dismissed.
```

[Federal Register: July 14, 1997 (Volume 62, Number 134)]
[Notices]
[Page 37566]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr14jy97-38]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m., Tuesday, July 29, 1997.

PLACE: 1155 21st St. NW., Washington, DC 9th Floor Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Enforcement Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 97-18598 Filed 7-11-97; 3:28 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```

----

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

----
**
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14(a) AND15d-14(a)AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Chaim Indig, certify that: 

 
1.
I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Phreesia, Inc.;

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

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

 
4.
The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure 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 bedesigned 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 isbeing prepared; 

 
 (b)
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport 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 

 
 (c)
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred 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 internalcontrol over financial reporting; and 

 
5.
The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal 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 overfinancial 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 inthe registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 
Date: September 10, 2019  By: 
/s/ Chaim Indig
   Chaim Indig   Chief Executive Officer and Director   *(Principal Executive Officer)***
```

[Federal Register: August 16, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 159)]
[Notices]
[Page 42998]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr16au01-41]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting; Notice

Agency Holding the Meeting: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Time and Date: 11:00 a.m., Friday, September 7, 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. 01-20730 Filed 8-14-01; 11:27 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```
Exhibit 10.4


 


October 6, 2005


 


CRIIMI MAE INC.

11200 Rockville Pike, Suite 400

Rockville, Maryland  20852


 


Cynthia
O. Azzara

12920 Buckeye Drive

Darnestown, Maryland  20874


 


Re: 
Amendment of Employment Agreement dated August 26, 2003


 


Dear
Cindy:


 


Reference is made to the Employment Agreement dated August 26,
2003 between you, CRIIMI MAE Inc. and CRIIMI MAE Management, Inc. (the “Employment
Agreement”).  Provision 6 of the
Employment Agreement is hereby amended by adding the following sentence at the
end of the second paragraph thereof:


 


Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the Common Stock
is no longer traded on a public securities market on the date that an
Additional Award contemplated under this paragraph is to be granted, you shall
instead be awarded a cash bonus of $50,000. 
Any such cash bonus, less any applicable tax withholding, shall be paid
at the times and to the extent that the applicable Additional Award otherwise
would have become vested.


 


Except as expressly amended hereby, all of the other
terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement (i) are ratified and
confirmed, (ii) shall remain unamended and not waived and (iii) shall
continue in full force and effect.


 





















 


By signing this letter in the space provided below,
you, CRIIMI MAE Inc. and CRIIMI MAE Management, Inc. shall have adopted
this amendment to the Employment Agreement, intending to be legally bound, on
the date hereof.


 


	
   

  	
   

  	
  Very truly yours,

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  CRIIMI MAE INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Mark R.
  Jarrell

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  CRIIMI MAE
  MANAGEMENT, INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Mark R.
  Jarrell

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Acknowledged and
  agreed:

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  /s/ Cynthia O. Azzara

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Cynthia O. Azzara

  	
   

  	
   

  
						



 


2