alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| 1.   | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented and the consolidated result of operations of the Company for the periods presented. |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   By: |   /s/ Fraser Cottington                                          |
|-----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  Name:     |  Fraser Cottington                                                    |
|  Title:    |  Principal Executive Officer,Principal Financial Officer and Director |
|  Date:     |  November 17, 2010                                                    |
EXHIBIT 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firms

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in Registration Statements No. 333-20549, No. 333-65459, No. 333-38568, No. 333-88836, and No. 333-107645 of Powerwave Technologies, Inc. on Form S-8, Registration Statements No. 333-81384,
No. 333-107633, and No. 333-123246 of Powerwave Technologies, Inc. on Form S-3 and Registration Statement No. 333-112182 of Powerwave Technologies, Inc. on Form S-4 of our reports dated March 6, 2007, relating to the financial
statements and financial statement schedule of Powerwave Technologies, Inc. (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes explanatory paragraphs referring to a restatement to report discontinued operations and a change in method of
accounting for stock-based compensation during the year ended December 31, 2006), and managements report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Powerwave
Technologies, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2006.



|                      
|----------------------
|DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 
|                      
|Costa Mesa, California
|March 6, 2007
# C_2009153EN.01000203.xml

| 4.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 153/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 153/2

---

Criteria for assigning cases to Chambers

2009/C 153/04

On 16 June 2009, the Court of First Instance laid down the following criteria for the assignment of cases to the Chambers for the period from 1 October 2009 to 31 August 2010, in accordance with Article 12 of the Rules of Procedure:

| 1. | Appeals against the decisions of the Civil Service Tribunal shall be assigned to the Appeal Chamber as soon as the application has been lodged and without prejudice to any subsequent application of Articles 14 and 51 of the Rules of Procedure. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Appeals against the decisions of the Civil Service Tribunal shall be assigned to the Appeal Chamber as soon as the application has been lodged and without prejudice to any subsequent application of Articles 14 and 51 of the Rules of Procedure.

| 2. | Cases other than those referred to in paragraph 1 above shall be assigned to Chambers of three Judges as soon as the application has been lodged and without prejudice to any subsequent application of Articles 14 and 51 of the Rules of Procedure.
  Cases referred to in this paragraph shall be allocated to the Chambers in turn, in accordance with the date on which they are registered at the Registry, following three separate rotas:






  — | for cases concerning application of the competition rules applicable to undertakings, the rules on State aid and the rules on trade protection measures; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Cases other than those referred to in paragraph 1 above shall be assigned to Chambers of three Judges as soon as the application has been lodged and without prejudice to any subsequent application of Articles 14 and 51 of the Rules of Procedure.

Cases referred to in this paragraph shall be allocated to the Chambers in turn, in accordance with the date on which they are registered at the Registry, following three separate rotas:

—

for cases concerning application of the competition rules applicable to undertakings, the rules on State aid and the rules on trade protection measures;

| — | for cases concerning the intellectual property rights referred to in Article 130(1) of the Rules of Procedure; |
| --- | --- |

—

for cases concerning the intellectual property rights referred to in Article 130(1) of the Rules of Procedure;

| — | for all other cases. |
| --- | --- |

—

for all other cases.

In applying those rotas, the two Chambers sitting with three Judges which are composed of four Judges shall be taken into consideration twice at each third turn.

The President of the Court of First Instance may derogate from the rotas on the ground that cases are related or with a view to ensuring an even spread of the workload.

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 10-23638-CIV-LENARD/WHITE

DANIEL GARCIA,

Petitioner,

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (D.E. 4) AND

TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate

Judge Patrick A. White (“Report,” D.E. 4), issued on October 25, 2010. Petitioner Daniel

Garcia (“Garcia”) filed his Objections to the Report (“Objections,” D.E. 5) on November 9,

2010. After a de novo review of the Report, the Objections and the record, the Court finds

as follows.

 The Report finds that Garcia’s Petition for Writ of of Habeas Corpus (“Petition,” D.E.

1) attacks his conviction in case no. 98-49-SPM, entered in the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida. (Report at 1.) The Report also finds that this is a

successive petition, filed without first obtaining leave from Eleventh Circuit as required in

28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) . (Id.) Consequently, the Report recommends transferring this

Petition to the Northern District of Florida. (Id. at 2.)

Plaintiff objects to the Report, challenging the legality of his incarceration and
2

asserting actual innocence. (Objections at 1-3.) The Court need not address these arguments.

It is well-settled that a § 2255 motion to vacate must be brought in the district where the

movant was sentenced. Garcia cites no authority to the contrary. Thus, his Objections are

without merit.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:

1. The Report and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge (D.E. 4), issued on

October 25, 2010, is ADOPTED.

2. The Clerk of this Court shall take all necessary action to TRANSFER this

Case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida.

3. This Case is now CLOSED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida this 22nd day of February,

2011.

_________________________________

 JOAN A. LENARD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
<TABLE> <S> <C>


        <S> <C>
                                                             
<ARTICLE>5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                              APR-1-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           7,538
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   34,947
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    160,244
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               207,575
<PP&E>                                         215,911
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 598,545
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          265,548
<BONDS>                                        278,187
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                    (92,619)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   598,545
<SALES>                                        737,281
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               737,281
<CGS>                                          407,871
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  407,871
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               318,853
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              40,635
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (30,078)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,598
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (19,480)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (2,002)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (21,482)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 (21,482)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0

        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 31.2



Certification Pursuant to

Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





I, Kenneth Eade, certify that:



(1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Independent Film Development Corporation;



(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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



(4) The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) 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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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;



(c) 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



(d) 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 (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and



(5) The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) 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 control 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 control over financial reporting.



Dated:  May 18, 2009



/s/  Kenenth G. Eade

Kenneth G. Eade

Chief Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

ANITA J. CRAWFORD,

Plaintiff, 

vs. CASE NO. 5:10-cv-222/RS-WCS

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant. 

_________________________________________ /

UORDER

Before me is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 18).

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated 

by reference in this Order. 

2. Plaintiff’s Petition for attorney’s fees (Doc. 16) is GRANTED. 

3. The Commissioner is directed to pay Plaintiff’s attorney $2,062.50 as a reasonable 

EAJA attorney’s fee. The Commissioner is allowed to offset from this amount 

any debt owed by the Plaintiff to the United States as identified by the Department 

of the Treasury. 

ORDERED on November 17, 2011.

 /S/ Richard Smoak

 RICHARD SMOAK

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 5:10-cv-00222-RS-WCS Document 19 Filed 11/17/11 Page 1 of 1
Form 20-F
EXHIBIT 13.2
July 30, 2012


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 13 OF TITLE 18


OF THE UNITED STATES CODE (18U.S.C.1350)


ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the Annual Report of CanAlaska Uranium Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the year ended April 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ram Ramachandran, 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 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 resultof the operations of the Company.








Date:           July 30, 2012




“Ram Ramachandran”


Chief Financial Officer
# C_2010352EN.01000101.xml

| 23.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 352/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 352/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6003 — Renco Group/Body Systems)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 352/01

On 30 November 2010, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M6003. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M6003. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
Converted by EDGARwiz


This correspondence confirms the agreement entered into by and between Arazu, Inc., a Florida Corporation (the “Company”) with and Elliott Polatoff, an individual (the “Service Provider”).




Whereas, the Service Provider shall perform certain services (the “Services”) rendered to the Company and desires to be compensated for such services in cash and shares of common stock of the Company (the “Common Shares”) and the Company desires to compensate the Service Provider with cash and Common Shares as set forth herein. Now therefore, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants the Company and Service Provider acknowledge and agree as follows: 




1.

Service Provider is to provide the following services to the Company:

a.

Advise on US business operations

b.

Assistance with finding local staff

c.

Assistance in finding suitable local premises

d.

Liason with any US based staff, contractors or interested parties after UK hours

e.

Help is developing business strategy

f.

Project Management Services




2.

The Services Provider is to commence the Services on April 1st 2014 and completed the Services on September 30th 2014.




3.

The Services are to be provided in a professional and workman like manner in accordance with good industry practices.




4.

The Service Provider is an independent contractor and not an employee or agent of the Company.  The Company did not, will not and is not required to make social security, workers’ compensation, or unemployment insurance payments on behalf of the Service Provider.




5.

As payment for the services, the Service Provider shall receive 1,020,000 of the Common Shares in total plus $5,000 per month. The shares shall be issued upon signing. The cash portion is earned monthly, but can be accrued until the contract is complete by mutual agreement.




6.

Upon issuance the Common Shares shall be validly issued, fully paid and non-assessable.




Agreed and Accepted on this 1st day of March 2014.




Arazu, Inc.




By :________________________     (Signature)




       Paul Clewlow     (Print Name)




Service Provider

By : ________________________     (Signature)



        Elliott Polatoff    (Print Name)
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

We have issued our reports dated March 13, 2008, accompanying the consolidated financial statements and schedule and management’sassessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting included in the Annual Report of EFJ, Inc. and subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of saidreports in the Registration Statements of EFJ, Inc. and subsidiaries on Form S-3 (File No. 333-125257, effective May 26, 2005) and Forms S-8 (File No. 333-129717, effective November 15, 2005; File No. 333-48834, effective October 27, 2000; File No.333-48836, effective October 27, 2000; File No. 333-48840 effective October 27, 2000; File No. 333-48880, effective October 27, 2000; File No. 333-30673, effective July 2, 1997). 

 

/S/ GRANT THORNTON LLP 

 

Dallas, Texas 

March 13, 2008
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Real
Goods Solar, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, D. Thompson McCalmont, 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 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: August 11, 2009





/s/ D. Thompson McCalmontD. Thompson McCalmontChief Executive Officer
### MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 10

- 00283

- CV

IN RE: CASTLE & COOKE MORTGAGE, L.L.C.

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Rebecca S immons

, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Delivered and Filed: May 5, 2010

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

The court has considered relator’s petition, real party in interest’s response, and relator’s

reply for a writ of mandamus and motion for emergency relief and is of the opinion the relator is

not entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, relator’s petit ion for a writ of mandamus, and

motion for emergency relief, is denied. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2009

- CI

- 01575 , styled Diamond T Ranch Development, Inc. v.

Castle & Cooke Mortgage, LLC , pending in the 407th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable

John D. Gabriel, Jr. presiding.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

RUFUS MILLER,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 5:10-cv-00276-RS-GRJ

SECRETARY,

DEPT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondents.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 12, Respondent’s motion for an

extension of time to respond to the Petition. Upon due consideration, it is ORDERED:

1. That the motion, Doc. 12, is GRANTED. Respondent shall respond to the

Petition on or before April 4, 2011.

2. Petitioner shall have until May 4, 2011, to file a reply, if any.

DONE AND ORDERED this 4 day of March 2011.

th

 

s/ Gary R. Jones

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

CHAD WILLIAMS, 

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:10cv203-MP-GRJ

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, 

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge's Report and

Recommendation dated December 14, 2011. (Doc. 23). The parties have been furnished

a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file

objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de

novo determination of any timely filed objections. 

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any objections thereto

timely filed, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted. 

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows: 

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order. 

2. Pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) the decision of the

Commissioner is REVERSED and REMANDED to the Commissioner for further

proceedings so that the ALJ can accord proper weight to the opinion of the treating

psychologist, Dr. Khalil Sakalla, Ph.D; accord appropriate weight to the VA’s June 2008

70% disability rating; and to conduct such further proceedings that the Commissioner

deems appropriate.

DONE and ORDERED this 17th day of January, 2012.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00203-MP-GRJ Document 24 Filed 01/18/12 Page 1 of 1