alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
10-Q Exhibit 32.1: Certifications 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 iShares COMEX Gold Trust (the Trust) on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Lee T. Kranefuss, Chief Executive Officer of Barclays Global Investors International, Inc., the Sponsor of the
Trust, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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, 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 Trust at the dates and for the periods indicated.



|                              |  |                 
|----------------------------- |  | ----------------
|Date:                         |  | November 7, 2008
|                             
|/s/ Lee T. Kranefuss         
|Lee T. Kranefuss *           
|Chief Executive Officer      
|(Principal executive officer)



|* | The Registrant is a trust and Mr. Kranefuss is signing in his capacity as an officer of Barclays Global Investors International, Inc., the Sponsor of the Registrant.
|- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN RE C.E.E.

No. COA05-1489.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed July 5, 2006.

Certification Date July 25, 2006.

Appeal from Yancey (98J72).

Case without published opinion. Affirmed.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-60178 Summary Calendar

ABDUL KARIM Petitioner

v. MICHAEL B MUKASEY, U S ATTORNEY GENERAL Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A78 556 522
Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Abdul Karim, a native and citizen of Pakistan, seeks reviewof the Board ofImmigration Appeals (BIA)’s February 2007 denial ofhis motion toreopen his removal proceedings. Karim contends that the BIA erred because he satisfies thefour conditionsset forth in 8C.F.R. § 1245.2(a)(1)(ii), making hisapplication for adjustment of status amenable to the immigration judge’s (IJ) jurisdiction. The Government argues that the use of the definite article “the” in § 1245.2(a)(1)(ii)(A)-(D) means that, while the IJ in Karim’scasewould have had United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D January 2, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-60178

2 jurisdiction over the adjustment application Karim fi led before leaving for Pakistan and which was based on hisformer wife’s (Angela Allen) I-130relative alien visa petition, the newadjustment application Karim hasfiled based on his current wife’s (Nikki Herbst) I-130 petition is not amenable to IJ jurisdiction. Under a plain reading of the regulation, the Government’s argument is unassailable because the adjustment application that Karim wants an IJ to adjudicate is not “the previously filed application” that was based on Allen’s I130 alien relative visa petition. § 1245.2(a)(1)(ii)(B) (emphasis added); s ee S.D.
ex rel. Dickson v. Hood, 391 F.3d 581, 595 (5th Cir. 2004) (“We have consistently held that a regulation should be construed to give effect tothe natural and plain meaning of its words.”). Karim argues that the BIA erred in it its factual finding that he had not filed a new I-485 adjustment application based on Herbst’s I-130 petition. He alsoargues that the BIA should administratively close his removal proceedings
so that he can await the adjudication ofhis currently pending I-485 adjustment application. After Karim filed his brief in this case, the BIA considered these arguments in the context of a reconsideration motion filed by Karim. In a decision dated June 13, 2007, the BIA acknowledged the factual error but maintained that it did not affect the BIA’s February 2007 decision. The BIA also refused Karim’s request to administratively close the removal proceedings. Karim has not challenged the BIA’s June 2007 order addressing those arguments. For the foregoing reasons, Karim’s petition for review of the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen his removal proceedings is DENIED.
Exhibit 32.1

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. Section 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of **Global Green Solutions Inc.** (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended February 28, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, **Doug Frater**, Chief Executive 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated this 13th day of April, 2007.

 
DOUG FRATER 
Doug Frater 
Chief Executive Officer
<page>


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 Marketing Worldwide, Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Michael Winzkowski, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to
my knowledge 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 result of operations of the Company.

                                                     /s/ Michael Winzkowski
                                                     -----------------------
                                                     Michael Winzkowski
                                                     Chief Executive Officer
                                                     February  18, 2009
#### In the Matter of Howard Hoffmann, Appellant, v Department of Education of City of New York et al., Respondents.

[799 NYS2d 738]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate an arbitration award, the petitioner appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), dated March 17, 2004, which denied the petition, granted the respondents’ motion to dismiss the proceeding, and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the arbitrator did not exceed his power in allowing into evidence prior similar charges against the petitioner which had been dismissed. An arbitrator is not governed by the substantive or evidentiary rules which prevail in courts of law (see *Matter of Board of Educ. of Norwood-Norfolk Cent. School Dist. [Hess],*49 NY2d 145, 152 [1979]). It was permissible for the arbitrator to examine the prior charges to determine whether the petitioner had notice that such conduct was inappropriate (see *Matter of Engel v Sobol,*161 AD2d 873 [1990]; *Matter of Jerry v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of Syracuse,*50 AD2d 149 [1975]).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Florio, Cozier and Lifson, JJ., concur.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT RICHARD GAUGH, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-3240 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed April 24, 2019. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Polk County; J. Kevin Abdoney, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
KELLY, MORRIS, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
Exhibit 10.1

                                  Catcher, Inc.


                                                  As of May 4, 2005

Ira Tabankin
1165 Via Vera Cruz
San Marcos CA 92078

Re:  Employment Agreement

Dear Ira:

Reference is made to your Employment Agreement (the "Employment Agreement") with
Catcher, Inc. (the "Company") dated April 21, 2005. We wish to memorialize an
obligation the Company has undertaken with respect to your employment with the
Company. By your countersignature of this letter, your Employment Agreement with
the Company shall be deemed amended as set forth in this letter.

In addition to any other remuneration to which you may be entitled under your
Employment Agreement, the Company shall pay you a $20,000 signing bonus for your
execution of the Employment Agreement.

As well, the Company is obliged to reimburse you for your reasonable and
necessary business expenses incurred in connection with your services under the
Employment Agreement.; PROVIDED THAT, such expenses are made, verified and
submitted to the Company for reimbursement in accordance with Company's expense
reimbursement policies. The Company shall pay you a monthly car allowance of
$700 per month

If the foregoing reflects your understanding, please sign in the space provided
below and return this letter to the Company whereupon your Employment Agreement
shall be deemed amended hereby.

                                                  Sincerely,
                                                  CATCHER, INC.

                                                  /s/ Ira Tabankin
                                                  --------------------------
                                                  By: Ira Tabankin


ACCEPTED AND AGREED


/s/ Ira Tabankin
--------------------------
Ira Tabankin
STATE of North Carolina v. Kimberly Ann EDWARDS.

No. 160P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 4, 2006.

Kevin P. Bradley, Durham, for Kimberly Ann Edwards.

Ann W. Matthews, Assistant Attorney General, Edward W. Grannis, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

*497*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 28th day of March 2006 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 4th day of May 2006."
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 31, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

133984 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 133984 

 COA: 275813 

Genesee CC: 06-018286-FC 

MARQUIS LICQUIA FISHER, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 19, 2007 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

p1024 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 31, 2007 

 Clerk
Exhibit 4.05      CONSENT OF MATHIEU SAVARD   Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended February 28, 2013 (the Annual Report) of Virginia Mines Inc. (the Company), filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.  I, Mathieu Savard, participated in the preparation of the following technical reports:  - Technical Report and Recommendations, 2012 Exploration Program, Coulon Project, Quebec Mines Virginia Inc., completed in August 2012; and  - Technical Report and Recommendations, Summer 2012 Exploration Program  Wabamisk Project, completed in January 2013;  concerning mineralized material in the Coulon and Wabamisk properties for the Company (collectively the Reports). Portions of the Reports are summarized, for the Coulon property, under headings Item III  Description of the Business  3.1.4 Geological Setting; 3.1.5 Exploration and Drilling; and 3.1.6 Mineralization and for the Wabamisk property, under headings 3.2.4 Geological Setting; 3.2.5 Exploration and Drilling; and 3.2.6 Mineralization in the Annual Information Form of the Company for the year ended February 28, 2013 (included as Exhibit 1 of the Annual Report, which Exhibit is incorporated by reference herein).  I hereby consent to the inclusion of the foregoing written disclosure and to the references to such disclosure and to my name under the foregoing heading and to all other references to such disclosure and to my name included or incorporated by reference in the Annual Report.   Very truly yours,     /S/ Mathieu SavardName:
Mathieu Savard, B.Sc., P.Geo.   May 13, 2013
EXHIBIT 99.2

Consent of Independent Accountants:

     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated
November 1, 1995, except as to the Dataquest acquisition discussed in Note 3,
which as of January 25, 1996 and the stock split discussed in Note 10, which is
as of March 29, 1996, with respect to the consolidated statement of operations,
of changes in stockholders equity, and cash flows of Gartner Group, Inc. and its
subsidiaries for the year ended September 30, 1995, which appears in the
September 30, 1997 Form 10-K of Gartner Group, Inc., in the December 31, 1997
Form 10-K of Cognizant Corporation.

                                        PriceWaterhouse LLP
Stamford, Connecticut
March 18, 1998
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE:

WAL

- MART STORES, INC.,

WAL

- MART STORES TEXAS, L.P.,

WAL

- MART ASSOCIATES, INC., AND

WAL

- MART STORES TEXAS, LLC,

Relator. '

'

'

'

'

' No. 08

- 15

- 00126

- CV

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

IN MANDAMUS

J U D G M E N T

The court has considered this cause on the Relator = s petition for writ of mandamus

against the Honorable Luis Aguilar , Judge of the 243rd District Court of El Paso County , Texas,

and conditionally grants relief, in accordance with the opinion of this court. Respondent is

ordered to vacate the void contempt orders entered on March 26, 2015, April 2, 2015, and

April 9, 2015, and to enter the necessary order to return to the Wal

- Mart defendants the contempt

fines they paid in satisfaction of the contempt orders.

The writ will issue only if the trial court fails to comply with this opinion.

All costs herein having been paid, no further order is made with respect thereto.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 14 TH DAY OF DECEMBER , 2016

.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2022-0669 

_____________________________

VINCENT CHARO,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

J. Lee Marsh, Judge.

December 18, 2023

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

OSTERHAUS, C.J., and B.L. THOMAS and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Vincent Charo, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Darcy Townsend, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Exhibit 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

            Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002

I, Carmine Stella, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Capital Beverage
Corporation.;

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. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
registrant and I have:

         a) designed such internal controls to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant and its subsidiaries (collectively, the "Company") is
made known to me by others within the Company, particularly during the period in
which this annual report is being prepared;

         b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's internal controls as
of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the
"Evaluation Date"); and

         c) presented in this annual report my conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

5. 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:

         a) all significant deficiencies (if any) in the design or operation of
internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

         b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
controls; and

6. I have indicated in this annual report whether or not there were significant
changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect
internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation,
including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and
material weaknesses.

Date:  April 14, 2004                /s/Carmine Stella
                                        -------------------------------------
                                        Carmine Stella
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer
#### In the Matter of the Claim of David W. Froats, Respondent. Frankfort-Schuyler Central School District, Appellant; Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[800 NYS2d 793]

*1170Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 3, 2004, which ruled that claimant was entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, reversing that of the Administrative Law Judge, that claimant was entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits. Claimant was employed as a noncertified mathematics teacher and was aware that he had until January 2004 to complete the credits, courses and examinations needed for certification. The school district eliminated a teaching position in the mathematics department for the 2003-2004 school year. The teacher who held that position was certified, resubmitted an application and effectively bumped claimant. Although claimant was working toward his certification process in order to meet the January 2004 deadline, the employer notified claimant in August 2003 that his employment was being terminated and his position filled by the certified teacher. We find no reason to disturb the Board’s finding that claimant did not voluntarily leave his employment or provoke his discharge by not completing his certification process. Here, claimant was terminated six months prior to the certification deadline. Although the employer maintains that claimant was discharged because it was under the impression that claimant would be unable to complete his certification process, claimant testified that he had sufficient credits and courses to timely fulfill those requirements. Inasmuch as there is no indication that claimant was negligent or disregarded the requirement for certification, the record fails to support a finding that he provoked his discharge (see *Matter of De Grego [Levine],*39 NY2d 180, 183 [1976]; *Matter of Hannah [New York City Bd. of Educ.—Hartnett],*144 AD2d 765 [1988]). Accordingly, the Board’s findings that claimant was laid off and replaced by a displaced certified teacher, and he did not voluntarily leave his employment or provoke his discharge, will not be disturbed despite the employer’s contentions to the contrary (see *Matter of Vaksman [Lenox Hill Radiology & Med.*Assoc.— *Commissioner of Labor],*304 AD2d 1027 [2003]; *compare Matter of Joseph [Commissioner of Labor],*264 AD2d 933 [1999]; *Matter of Ambrose [Board of Educ. of Malverne Union Free School Dist.—Hudacs],*191 AD2d 845 [1993]).

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Carpinello, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7535

STEPHEN SHIRLEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; H.A.

LANGSTON, JR.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, District

Judge. (CA-03-1630-22BD)

Submitted: January 13, 2005 Decided: January 20, 2005

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stephen Shirley, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Michael Pruitt, Robert W.

Cone, MCDONALD, PATRICK, TINSLEY, BAGGETT & POSTON, Greenwood,

South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Stephen Shirley appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action. We have

reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the

magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See

Shirley v. Langston, No. 03-1630-22BD (D.S.C., filed Aug. 25, 2004

& entered Aug. 26, 2004). 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
IN RE L.M.B.L.

No. COA04-505.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed April 19, 2005.

Certification Date May 9, 2005.

Appeal from Robeson (03J194, 03J195).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
# L_2014036DE.01002201.xml

| 6.2.2014 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 36/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.2.2014

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 36/22

---

Berichtigung des Durchführungsbeschlusses 2013/445/EU der Kommission vom 29. August 2013 über die Änderung von Anhang E der Richtlinie 91/68/EWG des Rates in Bezug auf die Mustergesundheitsbescheinigungen für den Handel mit Schafen und Ziegen innerhalb der Union sowie die tierseuchenrechtlichen Anforderungen hinsichtlich der Traberkrankheit

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 233 vom 31. August 2013
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 233 vom 31. August 2013

Seite 57, Anhang, Anhang E der Richtlinie 91/68/EWG, MUSTER III, Punkt I.5, erste Zeile:

anstatt:

„Absender“

muss es heißen:

„Empfänger“.

---