alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32: Rule 13a-14(b) Certifications





The undersigned officers certify that this report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Jinzanghuang Tibet Pharmaceuticals, Inc.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Jinzanghuang Tibet Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and will be retained by Jinzanghuang Tibet Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





April 9, 2012
/s/ Xue BangyiXue Bangyi (Chief Executive Officer)





April 9, 2012
/s/ Eva DengEva Deng (Chief Financial Officer)
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-15-00100-CR

Brandon MASTER,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2010CR4791W

Honorable Kevin M. O’Connell, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI, JUSTICE CHAPA, AND JUSTICE PULLIAM

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is 

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED December 9, 2015.

_____________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference and use of our report, dated
November 5, 1998,  except for Note 2 as to which the date is November  13, 1998,
on the consolidated  financial  statements of MFB Corp. which is incorporated by
reference in MFB Corp.'s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September
30, 1998, in MFB Corp.'s  Registration  Statement on Form S-8  (Registration No.
333-47891).


/s/ Crowe, Chizek and Company LLP

South Bend, Indiana
December 26, 1998
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

N OT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CH ARLES WALDREP

, Appel lant,

v. Case No. 5D 23

- 1412 LT Case No. 2023

- DR

- 1647 -DVX KAYLA KOREY

, Appel lee. / Opinion filed August 8, 20 23

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Duv al County, Steven F ahlgren

, Judge.

Charles W aldrep, Sat s uma, pr o se

.
N o A ppearanc e for

Appel le e.

PER CURIAM

.
A FFIRMED. See Fla. R. App. P. 9 .315(a).

EDWARDS, C.J., J AY and K ILBANE

, J J., concur.
EXHIBIT 11 - STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE LOSS  (Unaudited)
(In thousands except per share data)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                               Three Months Ended      Nine Months Ended
                                                   September 30          September 30
                                               ------------------    ------------------
                                                 1997       1996       1997       1996
                                               -------    -------    -------    -------


<S>                                            <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>  
Average common shares outstanding                7,618      7,608      7,636      7,580


Net income (loss)                              $     6    ($3,900)   ($5,553)   ($8,085)

Preferred stock dividends                          (30)       (30)       (90)       (90)
Preferred stock accretion                          (13)       (13)       (39)       (39)
                                               -------    -------    -------    -------
Net loss applicable
      to common stock                          ($   37)   ($3,943)   ($5,682)   ($8,214)
                                               =======    =======    =======    =======

Net loss per common share                      ($ 0.00)   ($ 0.52)   ($ 0.74)   ($ 1.08)
                                               =======    =======    =======    =======
</TABLE>
TMC FUEL INJECTION SYSTEM, LLC, petitioner, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY.

No. 17-234.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 11, 2017.

Petition for rehearing denied.
<PAGE>

                                                             EXHIBIT 2.3



                       INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



We consent to the use in the annual report on Form 20-F of Comet Software 
International, Ltd. of our report dated March 21, 1996, relating to the 
balance sheet of Software Center, Inc. as of December 31, 1995 and the 
related statements of operations, stockholders' equity and cash flows for the 
years ended December 31, 1995 and 1994.




                                           /s/ Rothstein, Kass & Company, P.C.
                                          -------------------------------------
                                               ROTHSTEIN, KASS & COMPANY, P.C.


Roseland, New Jersey
July 1, 1997
Rowan BROOKS, petitioner, v. Scott FRAUENHEIM, Warden.

No. 18-6079.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 29, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 13.2


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 annual report of Silicom Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I the undersigned, being the 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 to my knowledge:
  1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of sections 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.
  Signature: /S/ Eran Gilad
 Eran Gilad, Chief Financial Officer
  Date: March 17, 2010
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 

24, 2019.

In The 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

NO. 14-18-01106-CR

RICKY HARRELL, Appellant 

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 176th District Court 

Harris County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 1562109 

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N 

Appellant Ricky Harrell has signed and filed a written motion to withdraw his 

notice of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2. Because this court has not delivered an 

opinion, we grant appellant’s motion and dismiss the appeal. 

PER CURIAM 

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Hassan, and Poissant 

Do Not Publish – Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
Exhibit 31.2

I, Gerald A DeCiccio, certify that:

1.     I have reviewed this First Amended Anual Report on Form 10-KSB/A  of  GTC
Telecom Corp. and subsidiaries (the "Registrant");

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

3.     Based  on  my  knowledge,  the  financial statements, and other financial
information  included  in  this  annual  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 annual 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)) 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) 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 c) 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 that has materially affected, or is
reasonably  likely  to  affect, the registrant's internal control over financial
reporting;  and;

5.     The registrant's other certifying officers 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 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.

Date: April 10, 2007

/s/ Gerald A. DeCiccio
----------------------
Gerald A. DeCiccio
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Accounting Officer)
```
  
 
VIX FUTURES - CBOE FUTURES EXCHANGE                                  Code-1170E1
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 03/15/11          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
($1000 X INDEX)                                      OPEN INTEREST:      194,208
COMMITMENTS
  18,566   27,589   37,412  116,247  111,005  172,225  176,006   21,982   18,202

CHANGES FROM 03/08/11 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     13,166)
      28     -652    3,544    7,993    8,212   11,565   11,104    1,601    2,061

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
     9.6     14.2     19.3     59.9     57.2     88.7     90.6     11.3      9.4

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      106)
      32       25       43       28       35       86       90
```

----

Updated March 18, 2011
Milorad Teodor OLIC, petitioner, v. M. Eliot SPEARMAN, Warden.

No. 18-5873.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 5, 2018.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the United States *461Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
Willie PETERSON, petitioner, v. Steven JOHNSON, Administrator, New Jersey State Prison, et al.

No. 18-8946.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 3, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
George STONEY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-5840.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 9, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
Exhibit 10.37

GIFT LETTER




TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:




This letter confirms that the undersigned donor is making an irrevocable gift to the recipient in the amount of:

 

$ 125,000.00 USD

 

Gift shall be in the form of a Promissory Note originally dated December 31, 2017 held by Isabelle Pilon. The ‘maker’ of the promissory note is Bravo Multinational Inc.(BRVO)

The recipient is being Gifted the full original face value of the existing Promissory Note which is Attached here to, plus all accrued interest to date.  The Gifted amount of the Promissory Note shall adopt and continue to hold the same rights of conversion to common stock of the ‘maker’ as the original Promissory Note including and subject to BRVO board of director approved amendments as Attached to this Gift Letter.      




To:  Marsadi Parliament

_________________________________            

 (Print name of recipient)

 

600 W. Los Olas Blvd, Unit 1704, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33312

__________________________________________________________

(Address)

 

We, the undersigned recipient and donor, hereby certify and declare:

 

- the donor is of sound mind, of the legal age of majority, and

 

-the value received is a genuine Gift from the donor, and

 

- no part of the Gift is encumbered by any third party (directly or indirectly) and the donor is the owner of the Promissory Note and is within his legal rights to transfer ownership of the Gift. Additionally, no consideration has been conveyed to the donor for this Gift and there is no requirement implied or inferred that the Gift be repaid. 




Recipient:

     

	
	Signature: /s/ Marsadi Parliament 


	Print name:Marsadi Paliament


	Date: November 19, 2018


	Address: 600 W. Los Olas Blvd, Unit 1704, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33312




 

 

Donor:

	
	Signature:/s/ Isabell Pilon


	Print name:Isabelle Pilon


	Date:Nov.19,2018


	Address:491A Carlton St. 

    St. Catharines, Ontario

    Telephone:   905-XXX-XXXX
----

| (1)    | the      Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended      December 31, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements      of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15      U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |
| (2)    | the      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company.                                                                                                                  |
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |

| Date:      March 1, 2010 | /s/ Patrick J. Goodman                                                        |   |
|--------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                     | Patrick      J. Goodman                                                       |   |
|                     | Senior      Vice    President and Chief Financial Officer |   |
|                     | (principal      financial officer)                                            |   |

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION

RILEY J. KUHN,

 Plaintiff

v. 

CREDITFORHOMELOANS.COM, LLC,

 Defendant.

Case No. 4:23-cv-00308-AGD

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EXTEND

DEADLINETO FILE DISMISSAL DOCUMENTS

 Plaintiff, RILEY J. KUHN, by and through his attorneys, SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, 

LTD., having filed with this court her Motion to Extend Deadline to File Dismissal Documents 

and the court having reviewed same, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED

(Dkt. #s 24 & 25) and:

1. The parties shall have until March 16, 2024 to file their dismissal documents; and

2. On or before January 30, 2024, Defendant should file an advisement as to the status of

the settlement payment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Case 4:23-cv-00308-AGD Document 26 Filed 01/19/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 107
(110 So. 883)

No. 28152.

#### PLANTERS’ BANK & TRUST CO. v. MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO. OF NEW YORK. In re PLANTERS’ BANK & TRUST CO.

(Nov. 29, 1926.)

Dubuisson, Perrault & Burleigh and R. Lee Garland, all of Opelousas, for applicant.

Denegre, Leovy & Chaffe, of New Orleans, and Sandoz & Sandoz, of Opelousas, for defendant.

O’NIELL, C. J.

This is the suit referred to in the decision handed down to-day in the case of Marie S. Fisette v. Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York (No. 28170) 110 So. 880.1 The cases are alike in every respect. For the reasons given in the other case:

The judgment complained of in this case is annulled, and the case is ordered remanded to the Court of Appeal to be decided according to the opinion rendered in the case entitled Marie S. Fisette v. Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York, No. 28170. The costs of the proceedings had in the Supreme Court are to be paid by the defendant. The liability of either party for other court costs is to be determined by the final judgment.

ST. PAUL, J„ dissents.

THOMPSON, J., dissents in remanding the case, but otherwise concurs.

1

 Ante, p. 620.
Hamerton JEANTY, petitioner, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE.

No. 17-9295.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 13, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
Shane COX, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-7451.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 10, 2019.

*2691Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
Larry HAYES, petitioner, v. Marvin PLUMLEY, Warden.

No. 18-6203.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 3, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Deborah A. PURNELL, petitioner, v. ST. MARY's HOSPITAL, et al.

No. 18-5638.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District denied.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 21

- 1880 Filed August 30, 2023

ELVIN MARQUETTE FARRIS , Applicant

- Appellant,

vs. STATE OF IOWA, Respondent

- Appellee.

________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Steven J.
Andreasen , Judge.

A postconviction applicant appeals the summary disposition of hi s challenge to a traffic violation. AFFIRMED.

Pamela Wingert of Wingert Law Office , Spirit Lake , for appellant.
Brenna Bird , Attorney General, and Anagha Dixit , Assistant Attorney General, for appellee State.

Considered by Bower, C.J., and Tabor an d Greer, JJ.2

TABOR , Judge

. The Sioux City police ticketed Elvin Farris for driving while his license was suspended. When he did not appear for trial on this simple misdemeanor charge,
the district court relied upon his signature bond on the ticket to enter a conviction

. Farris applied for postconviction relief (PCR) , noting his attorney withdrew the morning of trial and did not advise that Farris was “e xpected in court that day.” T he State moved for summary judgment. 1 The court granted the State’s motion, finding no genuine issue of material fact that would entitle Farris to relief. Farris appeals that summary disposition , claiming trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by not advising him of the consequences for failing to a ppear for trial. He also asserts that counsel’s “abandonment of [him] prejud iced his ability to present his case to the judge.” We generally review the summary dismissal of a PCR application for the correction of legal error. Moon v. State , 911 N.W.2d 137, 142 (Iowa 2018) . But when the basis for relief is ineffective assistance of counsel , we review the ruling
de novo. Id

. In finding the State was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the district
court declared that Farris “was required to appear with or without counsel.” The court pointed out that no continua nce had been granted. And Farris did not a llege that his attorney informed him that the trial would be continued or that he did not need to appear. On this record, the court decided: “ [N] o reasonable fact finder

1 Summary judgment principles apply to motions for disposition of a PCR application without a trial on the merits. Manning v. State , 654 N.W.2d 555, 560 (Iowa 2002); compare Iowa Code § 822.6(3) (202 1 )

.3

could conclude that [Farris] was denied ef fective assistance of counsel because no reasonable fact finder could conclude that [he] suffered any prejudice as a result of the actions or inactions of [his trial attorney].”
Because the district court’s opinion identifies and considers all of the issu es that Farris presented, and we approve of the analysis in its summary judgment ruling, we affirm by memorandum opinion. See Iowa Ct. R. 21.26(1)(d). In our view, a full opinion would not enhance existing law. Iowa Ct. R. 21.26(1)(e).
AFFIRMED.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 5 I 0 2 24

. L.E. SCHW ARTZ & SONS, I NC. v . YATECA J ACKSON.

On M ay 12

, 2 0 1 5

, t h e t ri al co u rt d en i ed d efen d an t L .E. Sch wart z & So n s , In c.’ s

m o t io n fo r s u m

m ary ju d g m en t. Th e t ri al co u rt s i g n ed a cert i fi cat e o f i m m ed i a t e

rev i ew o n M ay 21

, 2 0 1 5

, a n d L.E. Sch wart z & So n s , In c. fi led t h i s ap p li cat i o n fo r

i n t erl o cu t o ry

ap p eal o n Ju n e 1 0 , 2 0 1 5

. Un d er OCGA § 5 -6 -3 4 (b ), an ap p l i cat i o n fo r i n t erl o cu t o ry ap p eal m u s t b e fi l ed

wi t h i n 10 d ay s of t he d at e o n wh i ch a t i m el y cert i fi cat e o f i m m ed i at e rev i ew i s

en t ered i n t h e co u rt b el ow. Gen t er v. S t a t e , 2 1 8 Ga. Ap p. 3 1 1 (4 6 0 SE2 d 8 7 9 )

(1 9 9 5). Becau s e t h i s ap p l i cat io n was fi l ed 2 0 d ay s aft er en t ry of t h e cert i fi cat e o f

i m m ed i at e rev i ew, i t i s u n t im el y an d i s t h erefo re DISM ISSED fo r lack o f ju ri s d i ct i o n.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 06/30/2015 June 30, 2015
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TEXARKANA DIVISION

JERRAL W. JONES,

Plaintiff,

v. 

ALEXANDRA DAVIS, CYNTHIA 

DAVIS f/k/a CYNTHIA DAVISSPENCER

Defendants. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:23-CV-00032-RWS

ORDER

Before the Court is Jerral W. Jones’s Motion to File Documents Under Seal. Docket No. 

98. Jones seeks to file his reply in support of his Motion to Show Cause for Cynthia DavisSpencer’s Spoliated Evidence under seal. Id. Defendant Cynthia Davis-Spencer has not indicated 

whether she is opposed to the Jones’s motion to seal. However, having reviewed the motion and 

Jones’s reply, the motion is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED that Jones’s reply in support of his Motion to Show Cause for Cynthia DavisSpencer’s Spoliated Evidence (Docket No. 97) shall be filed under seal. 

.

 

____________________________________

ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 17th day of May, 2024.

Case 5:23-cv-00032-RWS Document 108 Filed 05/17/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 1932
Mario LOPEZ-PACHECO, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-5550.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.