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**

| (1)   | The              Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)              of              the Securities and 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. |
|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                        |                                                                            |                                      |
|-----------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|
|                        |                                                                            |
|                   |                                                                       |                                 |
| Date: November 1, 2007 | By:                                                                   | * /s/*Jonathan              Leinwand |
|                        | Jonathan                Leinwand                                                |
|                        | Chief              Executive Officer (Principal Executive              Officer) |

----
NUMBER 13-08-00366-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG 

 

IN RE: GREATER HOUSTON ORTHOPAEDIC SPECIALISTS, INC.

 

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Vela

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

On June 6, 2008, relator, Greater Houston Orthopaedic Specialists, Inc., filed a

petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause, in which it alleges that on April 7, 2008,

the respondent, the Honorable Arturo McDonald, Jr., Presiding Judge of the County Court

at Law No. 1 of Cameron County, Texas, abused his discretion by setting aside an order

of dismissal in cause no. 2006-CCL-133-A entered on April 3, 2008. In addition, relators

allege that on April 24, 2008 respondent granted the real parties’ in interest, Jody Griswold

and Peter Zavaletta’s, motion to set case for trial, and entered an order setting final jury

trial. Cause No. 2006-CCL-133-A is currently set for trial at 8:30 a.m. on Monday, October
2

27, 2008. Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus asks this Court to order the respondent

to: (1) vacate the trial court’s order dated April 7, 2008; (2) vacate the trial court’s order

dated April 24, 2008; and (3) enter an order dismissing Cause No. 2006-CCL-133-A. 

The Court, having examined and fully considered relator’s petition for writ of

mandamus, real parties’ in interest response to relator’s petition for writ of mandamus, and

relator’s reply to response, is of the opinion that relator has not shown itself entitled to the

relief sought and the petition for writ of mandamus should be denied. 

The petition for writ of mandamus is hereby DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and 

filed this the 11th day of September, 2008.
## F I F T H 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5 D 202 3

- 1533 LT Case No

. 20 22

- CF

- 006159

- A

____________________________
D AMON T REYVON L IGON , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On a ppeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Mark J. Borello, Judge

. Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Victoria Rose Cordero, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Virginia Harris , Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.

July 9, 2 024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
M AKAR , L AMBERT , and E ISNAUGLE , JJ., concur

.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 521

AN ACT

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse and customhouse located at 515 West First Street 

in Duluth, Minnesota, as the ‘‘Gerald W. Heaney Federal 

Building and United States Courthouse and Customhouse’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•S 521 ES

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

2 The Federal building and United States courthouse 

3 and customhouse located at 515 West First Street in Du4 luth, Minnesota, shall be known and designated as the 

5 ‘‘Gerald W. Heaney Federal Building and United States 

6 Courthouse and Customhouse’’. 

7 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

8 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

9 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal 

10 building and United States courthouse and customhouse 

11 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference 

12 to the ‘‘Gerald W. Heaney Federal Building and United 

13 States Courthouse and Customhouse’’. 

Passed the Senate April 10, 2007. 

Attest:

Secretary. 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 521

AN ACT

To designate the Federal building and United 

United States Courthouse and Customhouse’’.the ‘‘Gerald W. Heaney Federal Building and 515 West First Street in Duluth, Minnesota, as States courthouse and customhouse located at
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6933

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANTHONY MARCELLUS BAKER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (8:94-

cr-00361-PJM-l; 8:08-cv-01102-PJM-l)

Submitted: August 21, 2008 Decided: August 27, 2008

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Marcellus Baker, Appellant Pro Se. Rod J. Rosenstein,

United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
*To the extent that Baker seeks to raise his claims by way of

a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, the district court properly noted

that he must first obtain authorization from this court pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2244 (2000).

 2 

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Marcellus Baker appeals the district court’s

orders denying his motion for modification of sentence, 18 U.S.C.A.

§ 3582(c)(2) (West 2000 & Supp. 2008). We have reviewed the record

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the

reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Baker, Nos.

8:94-cr-00361-PJM-l; 8:08-cv-01102-PJM-l (D. Md. filed May 1, 2008

and entered May 2, 2008; May 9, 2008).*

 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
**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 on Form 10-Q of LIN TV Corp. for the three months ended June 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Vincent L. Sadusky, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Richard J. Schmaeling, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

 

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

 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated:   August 1, 2012 | /s/   Vincent L. Sadusky                            |
|------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|                         | Vincent   L. Sadusky                                |
|                         | President   and Chief Executive Officer             |
|                         |                                                |
|                         |                                                |
| Dated:   August 1, 2012 | /s/   Richard J. Schmaeling                         |
|                         | Richard   J. Schmaeling                             |
|                         | Senior   Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
Exhibit 99.27
 CONSENT OF A. ROSS
   1.
    
    The technical report dated March 31, 2006 entitled Technical Report
NI 43-101F1 Los Filos Project, Mexico (the Los Filos Report); and2.
    
    The 40-F, the MD&A and the AIF, which include references in connection
with information relating to the Los Filos Report and the Los Filos
Mine, and the properties described therein.
  /s/ Andrew F. RossName:
    Andrew F. Ross, M.Sc., P. Geo.Snowden Mining Industry Consultants Inc.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Balance Sheets at December 31, 1999 and the Consolidated Statement
of Income for the Year Ended December 31, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           1,138
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,830
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (571)
<INVENTORY>                                     35,019
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                53,513
<PP&E>                                          30,940
<DEPRECIATION>                                (16,245)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  70,486
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           28,361
<BONDS>                                         20,180
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            59
<OTHER-SE>                                      19,712
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    63,200
<SALES>                                        127,569
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               149,807
<CGS>                                           84,201
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  112,045
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,697
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,712
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,712
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,712
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .31


</TABLE>
State of North Carolina v. Rakeed Divone Sellers

No. COA15-1309

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: September 6, 2016

VACATED IN PART; REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 179 (Friday, September 16, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 54766]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18456]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[MT-922-05-1310-FI-P; NDM 85983, NDM 85987, NDM 85992, NDM 85998, and 
NDM 92293]


Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Leases

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Per 30 U.S.C. 188(d), the lessees, Headington Oil, Limited 
Partnership, Upton Resources U.S.A., Inc., Northern Energy Corporation, 
and W.H. Champion, timely filed petitions for reinstatement of oil and 
gas leases NDM 85983, NDM 85987, NDM 85992, NDM 85998, and NDM 92293, 
Billings County, North Dakota. The lessees paid the required rentals 
accruing from the date of termination, February 1, 2005.
    No leases were issued that affect these lands. The lessees agree to 
new lease terms for rentals and royalties of $10 per acre and 16\2/3\ 
percent or 4 percentages above the existing competitive royalty rate 
for each lease. The lessees paid the $500 administration fee for the 
reinstatement of each lease and $155 cost for publishing this Notice.
    The lessees met the requirements for reinstatement of the leases 
per Sec. 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 
188). We are proposing to reinstate the leases, effective the date of 
termination, February 1, 2005, subject to:
    <bullet> The original terms and conditions of each lease;
    <bullet> The increased rental of $10 per acre for each lease;
    <bullet> The increased royalty of 16\2/3\ percent or 4 percentages 
above the existing competitive royalty rate for each lease; and
    <bullet> The $155 cost of publishing this Notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen L. Johnson, Chief, Fluids 
Adjudication Section, BLM Montana State Office, PO Box 36800, Billings, 
Montana 59107, 406-896-5098.

Karen L. Johnson,
Chief, Fluids Adjudication Section.
[FR Doc. 05-18456 Filed 9-15-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-$$-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6592

RICKIE A. BINNS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District

Judge. (2:08-cv-00124-JBF-FBS)

Submitted: September 16, 2008 Decided: September 22, 2008

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rickie A. Binns, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Rickie A. Binns seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000).

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Binns

has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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. 

DISMISSED
1

The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-2809

___________

Angela Owens, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Alltel Communications, Inc., *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: September 5, 2008

Filed: September 23, 2008

___________

Before MURPHY, BYE, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Angela Owens appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary judgment

in her Title VII discrimination action. After reviewing the record de novo, viewing

the evidence and all reasonable inferences from it in a light most favorable to Owens,

see Jacob-Mua v. Veneman, 289 F.3d 517, 520 (8th Cir. 2002) (standard of review),

we conclude summary judgment was proper. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir.

R. 47B.

______________________________
EXHIBIT 31: Rule 13a-14(a) CERTIFICATION

I, Huakang Zhou, certify that:

        1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of
Ultradata Systems, Incorporated;

	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 small business issuer's other certifying officers and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) 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 small business issuer'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 small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting.

	5.  The small business issuer's other certifying officers and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit
committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

	a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability
to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b)	Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the small business
issuer's internal controls over financial reporting.


Date:  August 14, 2006              /s/  Huakang Zhou
                                    --------------------------------------
                                    Huakang Zhou, Chief Executive Officer
                                     and Chief Financial Officer
STATE v. Timothy RICHARDSON.

No. 232A95-5.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 17, 2016.

Jonathan P. Babb, Special Counsel to Attorney General, for State of NC.

Kenneth J. Rose, Durham, for Richardson, Timothy.

Thomas J. Moore, II, Smithfield, for Richardson, Timothy.

Robert A. Evans, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 31st of December 2015 by State of NC to Amend Response in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari:

> *737"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of March 2016."
fs12010a1ex4i_chinatele.htm


Exhibit 4.1


 


 


 








	
British


Columbia


 


The Best Place on Earth

	
 


 


Ministry


of Finance


 


BC Registry Services

	
 


 


Mailing Address:


PO Box 9431 Stn Prov Govt.


Victoria BC V8W 9V3


 


WWW. Corporateonline.gov.bc.ca

	
 


 


 


Location:


2nd Floor – 940 Blanshard St.


Victoria BC


 250 356-8626












 


Notice of Alteration







FORM 11


BUSINESS CORPORATIONS ACT


Section 257
































NOTICE OF ALTERATION








	
Incorporation Number:


 


BC0634846

	
Name of Company:


 


CHINA TELETECH LIMITED












Alteration Effective Date:


 


The alteration is to take effect at the time that this application is filed with the Registrar.


 


Authorized Share Structure


 



	
1. 250,000,000

	
Class “A” Common Shares

	
Without Par Value


	
 


2.   10,000,000

	
 


Class “A” Preferred Shares

	
 


Without Par Value
STATE of North Carolina v. Mickey Gene MELLON

No. 215P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 22, 2016

Mr. C. Scott Holmes, Attorney at Law, For Mellon, Mickey Gene.

Ms. Elizabeth A. Fisher, Assistant Solicitor General, Mr. Mike Miller, District Attorney, for State.

***ORDER***

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 15th of June 2016 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Dissolved by order of the Court in conference, this the 22nd of September 2016."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by State of NC on the 15th of June 2016 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, 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 22nd of September 2016.'

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 15th of June 2016 by State of NC 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 22nd of September 2016."