alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.02








SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION








In connection with the Quarterly Report of Rovi Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), James Budge certifies in his capacity as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted), that to the best of his knowledge:





(a) 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(a) or 78o(d)), and





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





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has hereunto signed this Certification as of May 6, 2010.





By:
/s/ James BudgeJames BudgeChief Financial Officer
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

NORMAN A MCCRARY,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00114-MP -GRJ

WARDEN POLK, et al,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff is suing the wardens at Florida State Prison (Defendants Polk and

Singer); Ms. Adams, D. Worthington, and the Secretary of the DOC because his state

court case was dismissed for his failure to submit paperwork necessary for that court to

determine his request to proceed in forma pauperis. He does not assert any specific

claims against the named defendants, but complains generally that his case was not

heard and he seeks reimbursement of all the time and money he spent building his

case.

Plaintiff was warned previously after the Court reviewed his original complaint

that he must provide more facts or his case would be dismissed, and that it would

constitute a “strike” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §1915(g). (Doc. 10). Plaintiff has

added nothing substantive to the original claims in his First Amended Complaint, and it

is now recommended that it be dismissed for failure to state a claim for relief. 

As it was explained to Plaintiff previously, he must demonstrate that the alleged

actions by the Defendants hindered his efforts to pursue a legal claim. Lewis v. Casey,
Page 2 of 2

518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996). When a prisoner has not alleged, much less shown, an

actual injury his claim must fail. Nichols v. Head, Case No. 5:10-CV-71(HL), 2010 WL

1224091 at *2 (M.D. Ga. March 22, 2010). See also Dorsey v. White, Case No.

2:05CV565-MHT, 2007 WL 2480517 at *5 (M.D. Ala. Aug. 27, 2007) (failure to allege

any specific facts showing prejudice to pending or contemplated appeal, habeas action

or non-frivolous civil rights action does not establish requisite showing of actual

prejudice); Tucker v. Powell, Case No. 7:09-CV-67 (WLS), 2009 WL 3416465 at *2 

(M.D. Ga. July 8, 2009) (conclusory allegation of prejudice without more specific

showing of negative impact on particular legal action does not state a claim).

In light of the foregoing, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED: 

That this cause be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim for relief and that this

dismissal be noted on the docket as a strike within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §1915 (g).

At Gainesville, Florida, this 16 day of November 2010.

th

s/Gary R. Jones

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2), a party may file specific, written objections to

the proposed findings and recommendations within 14 days after being served with a

copy of this report and recommendation. A party may respond to another party’s

objections within 14 days after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific

objections limits the scope of review of proposed factual findings and

recommendations.

Case No: 1:10-cv-00114-MP -GRJ
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 216 (Thursday, November 8, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 63186]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-5579]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging Proposed Consent Decrees

    In accordance with Departmental Policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is 
hereby given that three (3) proposed Consent Decrees in United States 
v. Sea Bay Development Corp., et al., No. 2:06-cv-624 (E.D. Va.), were 
lodged with the United States District Court for the Eastern District 
of Virginia, Norfolk Division, on October 26, 2007.
    The proposed Consent Decrees concern a complaint filed by the 
United States against Sea Bay Development Corp., Beechtree Park, Inc., 
Green Sea Farms, LLC, Elwood H. Perry, Frank T. Williams' Farms, Inc., 
and Ferrell's Backhoe Service, Inc., to obtain injunctive relief from 
and to impose civil penalties against the Defendants for allegedly 
violating Section 301(a) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 
1311(a), by discharging dredged or fill material and/or controlling and 
directing the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the 
United States without a permit at an approximately 1,560-acre property 
located in Chesapeake, Virginia.
    The proposed Consent Decrees resolve all allegations against the 
Defendants. The proposed Consent Decree for Elwood H. Perry and 
Ferrell's Backhoe Service, Inc., requires payment to the United States 
of a civil penalty in the amount of $65,000.00. The proposed Consent 
Decree for Frank T. Williams' Farms, Inc., requires payment to the 
United States of a civil penalty in the amount of $35,000.00. The 
proposed Consent Decree for Sea Bay Development Corp., Beechtree Park, 
Inc., and Green Sea Farms, LLC, requires restoration and mitigation on 
a portion of the property consisting of approximately 873 acres of 
wetlands, and the preservation in perpetuity of that portion under a 
conservation easement or deed restriction. In addition, that Consent 
Decree allows the discharge of dredged or fill material in the 
remainder of the property, subject to certain limitations.
    The Department of Justice will accept written comments relating to 
these proposed Consent Decrees for thirty (30) days from the date of 
publication of this Notice. Please address comments to Kenneth C. 
Amaditz, Trial Attorney, Environmental Defense Section, P.O. Box 23986, 
Washington, DC 20026, and refer to United States v. Sea Bay Development 
Corp, et al., DJ <greek-i> 90-5-1-1-05061.
    The proposed consent Decrees may be examined at the Clerk's Office, 
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, 
Norfolk Division. In addition, the proposed Consent Decrees may be 
viewed at http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Consent_Decrees.html.

Russell M. Young,
Assistant Chief, Environmental Defense Section, Environmental & Natural 
Resources Division, U.S. Department of Justice.
[FR Doc. 07-5579 Filed 11-07-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 222 (Monday, November 19, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65051-65052]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-5737]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis 
Panel; ``Prion Diseases''
    Date: December 6, 2007.
    Time: 1 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 
Wisconsin Avenue, 2C212, Bethesda, MD 20814, (Telephone Conference 
Call).
    Contact Person: Ramesh Vemuri, PhD, Scientific Review Office, 
National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health, 7201 
Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2C-212, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-7700, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#522024606120123c3b3a7c353d24"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="aedcd89c9ddceec0c7c680c9c1d8">[email protected]</span></a>.


[[Page 65052]]


(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging 
Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: November 9, 2007.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-5737 Filed 11-16-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Case 1:07-cv-03526-MGC Document 11 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 1 of 6Case 1:07-cv-03526-MGC Document 11 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 2 of 6Case 1:07-cv-03526-MGC Document 11 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 3 of 6Case 1:07-cv-03526-MGC Document 11 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 4 of 6Case 1:07-cv-03526-MGC Document 11 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 5 of 6Case 1:07-cv-03526-MGC Document 11 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 6 of 6
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2484 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the authority for operation 

of a Department of Veterans Affairs regional office in Manila, the Republic of the Philippines, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 17, 2019 

Ms. HIRONO introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the authority for operation of a Department of Veterans Affairs 

regional office in Manila, the Republic of the Philippines, 

and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Keeping Our Commit5 ment to Overseas Veterans Act of 2019’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 2484 IS

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY FOR OPERATION OF DE2 PARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS RE3 GIONAL OFFICE IN MANILA, THE REPUBLIC 

4 OF THE PHILIPPINES, AND FOR OTHER PUR5 POSES. 

6 Section 315(b) of title 38, United States Code, is 

7 amended by striking ‘‘September 30, 2019’’ and inserting 

8 ‘‘September 30, 2020’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
EXHIBIT 31.1



I, Richard R. Walters, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB of Little Squaw Gold Mining Company;

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 Little Squaw Gold Mining Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.

4.

Little Squaw Gold Mining Company's other certifying officer 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 Little Squaw Gold Mining Company 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 Little Squaw Gold Mining Company, 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 Little Squaw Gold Mining Company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 Little Squaw Gold Mining Company's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during Little Squaw Gold Mining Company's most recent fiscal quarter (Little Squaw Gold Mining Company's fourth quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, Little Squaw Gold Mining Company's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.

Little Squaw Gold Mining Companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to Little Squaw Gold Mining Company's auditors and the audit committee of Little Squaw Gold Mining Company's board of directors:

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 Little Squaw Gold Mining Company'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 Little Squaw Gold Mining Companys internal control over financial reporting.



Date: November 14, 2005





By   /s/ Richard R. Walters



Richard R. Walters, President and

Chief Executive Officer
Order entered January 12, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00885-CR

No. 05-14-00886-CR

RICHARD DOUGLAS BAILEY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F12-34478-H, F12-34479-H

ORDER

This appeal is REINSTATED.

The trial court has filed findings of fact in accordance with our order entered on January 

2, 2015. The trial court has recommended that appellant be given an extension to file his brief 

until February 4, 2015. We ADOPT the trial court’s findings and recommendation.

Appellant’s brief shall be due on February 4, 2015. 

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
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 Burrow Mining, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Cathy M.T. Ho, President, Chief Executive Officer and
Director of Burrow Mining, Inc., certify, pursuant to  18 U.S.C. {section}1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act  of 2002, that, to
the best of my knowledge:

(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.




                                     /s/ Cathy M.T. Ho

                                     Cathy M.T. Ho
                                     President, Chief Executive Officer and
                                     Director
                                     Date: June 13, 2008
Order entered December 19, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-01181-CV

JAMES H. GENTRY, Appellant

V.

BENJAMIN N. SMITH, Appellee

On Appeal from the 199th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 199-03888-2018

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s December 3, 2018 “Motion for Complete Paper Copy of 

Clerk’s Record.” In his motion, appellant acknowledges receipt of a paper copy of the clerk’s 

record. He contends, however, that the clerk’s record is incomplete because the docket sheet 

shows “10/17/18 Correspondence, Request for Transcript” and that document is not included in 

the clerk’s record. The clerk’s record may be supplemented if a “relevant item” has been 

omitted. See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.5(c)(1). Appellant does not explain how the Request for 

Transcript is a relevant item necessary to this appeal. Accordingly, we DENY his motion.

Appellant’s amended brief correcting deficiencies noted in this Court’s November 5, 

2018 letter is currently due on December 27, 2018. On the Court’s own motion, we extend that 

deadline to January 11, 2019. 

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
EDDY B ASILLO-ARR OYO, AKA Eddy Lope z , Pe t i tione r,
v. W ILLIAM P. B ARR , Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 16-71947 Age n c y No. A205-716-540
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d August 7, 2019 ** B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , HAW KINS and M c KEOW N, C i rc uit Judge s. Eddy B a sillo-Arroy o, a

native and c itiz e n of M e xic o, pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism i ssing his a p p e a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de c ision de ny ing his a pplic ation for a sy lum , withholding of rem o v a l, a nd re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(“ C AT” ).



# FIL ED AUG 28 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).W e re vie wde novo que stions of la w, C e r e zo v . Muk ase y , 512 F.3d 1163, 1666 (9th C ir. 2008), e xc e p t to thee xte n t tha t de fe re n c e is owe d to the B IA’ s inte rpre tation of the gove rning sta

tute s a nd re gula t ions, S ime o nov v . Ashc roft , 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th C ir. 2004). W e re vie w for substa ntia l e vide nc e the a ge nc y ’ s fa c t ua l findings. Shre stha v . Holde r , 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th C ir. 2010). Our jurisdiction is gove rne d by 8 U.S.C . § 1252, a

nd we de ny

in pa rt a n d dism iss in pa

rt the pe tition for re vie w. B a sillo-Arroy o doe s not c ha lle nge the IJ a nd B IA’ s de te rm i nation tha t his
a sy lum a pplic ation wa s untim e ly

in his ope ning brie f. Thus, this issue is wa ive d,
and we do not re a c h the m e rits of his a sy l um c la im
. Se e Smith v . Marsh , 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th C ir. 1999) (“ [A] rgum e nts not ra ise d by a pa rty in its opening brie f
are d e e m e d wa ive d .” ). Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the B IA’ s de te rm ination tha

t B a sillo-Arroy o fa ile d to e sta

blish hewould be pe rse c ute d on a c c ount of a prote c te d ground. Se e Ze tino v . Holde r , 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th C i r. 2010) (holding tha t a n a pplic ant’ s

“ de sire to be fre e from ha ra ssm e nt by

c rim ina ls m otiva

te d by the ft or ra

n dom viole nc e by

ga ng m e m be rs be ars no ne xus to a

prote c te d ground” ). Thus, B a silloArroy o’ s withholding of rem ova l c la im fa ils.

2B a sillo-Arroy o fa ile d to c ha lle nge the IJ’ s de nia l of C AT re lie f be fore the

B IA. Thus, this issue

is une xha

uste d. Se e Baron v . Ashc roft , 358 F.3d 674, 677–78 (9th C ir. 2004) (holding tha t c ourts la c k jurisdic t ion to re vie w c la im s not pre s e nte d to the a ge nc y ). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D in par t; DISM ISSE D in par t.

3
# C_2009139EN.01001601.xml

| 19.6.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 139/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 139/16

---

Corrigendum to the notice for the attention of the persons, groups and entities on the list provided for in Article 2(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism (see Annex to Council Regulation 2009/.../EC of 15 June 2009)

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 136 of 16 June 2009
  )

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 136 of 16 June 2009

On the cover and on page 35, title:

for:

‘Notice for the attention of the persons, groups and entities on the list provided for in Article 2(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism (see Annex to Council Regulation 2009/.../EC of 15 June 2009)’,

read:

‘Notice for the attention of the persons, groups and entities on the list provided for in Article 2(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism (see Annex to Council Regulation (EC) No 501/2009 of 15 June 2009)’;

on page 35, first paragraph:

for:

‘The following information is brought to the attention of the persons, groups and entities listed in Council Regulation 2009/.../EC of 15 June 2009.’,

read:

‘The following information is brought to the attention of the persons, groups and entities listed in Council Regulation (EC) No 501/2009 of 15 June 2009.’.

---
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

SHARON FOWLER,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 5:10cv149/RS/EMT

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

Commissioner of the Social Security

Administration,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This cause is before the court upon Plaintiff’s “Motion to Dismiss Complaint” (Doc. 5). 

Plaintiff states simply that she seeks dismissal because she “does not want to proceed with her

complaint” (id. at 1). 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) provides that an action may be dismissed without

an order of the court (i) by filing a notice of dismissal at any time before the adverse party serves

an answer or a motion for summary judgment, or (ii) by filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by

all parties who have appeared in the action. Rule 41(a)(2) provides that “[e]xcept as provided in

Rule 41(a)(1), an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s request only by court order and on terms

that the court considers proper.” Because Defendant has not yet filed an answer in the instant case,

it is clear that Plaintiff is automatically entitled to a voluntary dismissal at this time.

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

That Plaintiff’s “Motion to Dismiss Complaint” (Doc. 5) be GRANTED and this case be

DISMISSED.
Page 2 of 2

At Pensacola, Florida, this 26th day of July 2010.

/s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy 

ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations may be filed within ten

(10) days after being served a copy thereof. Any different deadline that may appear on the

electronic docket is for the court’s internal use only. A copy of objections shall be served upon

the magistrate judge and all other parties. Failure to object may limit the scope of appellate

review of factual findings. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; United States v. Roberts, 858 F.2d 698, 701

(11th Cir. 1988).

Case No. 5:10cv149/RS/EMT