alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32
                                  CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Annual Report of Mobile Area Networks, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
we, George Wimbish, Chief Executive Officer and Jerald R. Hoeft, 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 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 the Company.

Date:  March  28, 2008                      /s/  George Wimbish
                                            ------------------------------
                                                 George Wimbish
                                                 Chief Executive Officer

                                            /s/  Jerald R. Hoeft
                                            ------------------------------
                                                 Jerald R. Hoeft
                                                 Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 31.2
**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**
I, James P. Waters, Chief Financial Officer, certify that:
 1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of The Hillman Companies, Inc.;  2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded 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 periodspresented in this report;  4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15eand 15d-15e) for the registrant and we have:
 a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b)  evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  c)  disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):
 a)  all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  b)  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.   Date: 3/25/05 /s/James P. Waters_                                                                       James P. Waters Chief Financial Officer
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 May 3, 2016

jam

Order 

Clerk

May 3, 2016

153202

IN RE SCHMIDT

__________________________________

JAMES EDWARD SCHMIDT, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 153202

CoA: 329703

KALKASKA CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE,

Defendant-Appellee.

___________________________________

On order of the Chief Justice, plaintiff-appellant having failed to 

acknowledge an obligation to pay the $375.00 filing fee in installments as required by the 

order of March 25, 2016, the Clerk of the Court is hereby directed to close this file.
<Page>


                                                                    Exhibit 99.2


                   PRINCIPLE ACCOUNTING OFFICER CERTIFICATION
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Glenn R. Bartels, Controller of GS Financial Corp., hereby certify, pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

         (1)      The amended annual report on Form 10-K/A of the Company for
                  the fiscal year ended December 31, 2001 (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

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


September 19, 2002                            By:  /s/ GLENN R. BARTELS
                                                   --------------------------
                                                   Glenn R. Bartels
                                                   CONTROLLER
r... ,,<or- "-e, 

\...4 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES
 

Public Health Service 

National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health 

Robert A. Taft Laboratories 

4676 Columbia Parkway 

Cincinnati, OH 45226-1998 

PhoDe:513-533-6825 

Fax: 513-533-6826 

November 23, 2005 

Peter M. Turcic, Director 

Division of Energy EmployeesOccupational 

Illness Compensation 

U.S. Departmentof Labor 

Room C-4511 

200 ConstitutionAvenue, N.W. 

Washington,D.C. 20210 

Dear Mr. Turcic: 

On behalf of the Secretary of the Departmentof Health and Human Services(HHS), and as required by 

42 C.F.R. pt. 83.17(c), I am notifying you of the final effect of the HHS decisionto designate a class of 

employeesat the Mallinckrodt ChemicalCompany,Destrehan Street Plant, in Saint Louis, Missouri as 

an additionto the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) under the Energy EmployeesOccupationalIllness 

CompensationProgram Act of2000. On October 14,2005, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. 7384q(b), 

the SecretaryofHHS designatedthe followingclass of employeesas an additionto the SEC: 

Departmentof Energy (DOE) employeesor DOE contractor or subcontractoremployees 

who worked in the Uranium Divisionat the Destrehan Street Facility of Mallinckrodt 

Chemical Works from 1949to 1957and who were employed for a number of work days 

aggregatingat least 250 work days, either solely under this employmentor in 

combinationwith work days within the parameters(excludingaggregate work day 

requirements)establishedfor other classes of employeesincluded in the SEC. 

This designationbecame effective on November 13,2005, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. 7384/(14)(C). 

Hence, beginningon November 13,2005, members of this class of employees,defined as reported in this 

notice, became members of the Special Exposure Cohort. 

Pursuant to 42 C.F.R. pt. 83.16(b),the petitionersmay contest the health endangermentdeterminationby 

submittinga challenge in writing within 30 days of receivingnotice of the HHS designation. The 

petitioners had through November 22, 2005 to submit this written challenge. HHS did not receive such a 

challenge.
Exhibit 32.2  Chief Financial Officer Certification (Section 906)   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18U.S.C.,SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002    Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, Patrick Downey, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of Silver Hill Mines, Inc., (the Company), herby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the registrant and will be retained by it and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.   Dated: August 18, 2008By: /s/ Patrick DowneyPatrick DowneyTitle: CFO
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Veterans Affairs

As required by section 9(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Department of Veterans Affairs hereby gives notice of the establishment of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs had determined that establishing the Committee is both necessary and in the public interest.

The Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans will advise the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on the full spectrum of health care and benefits issues that confront veterans who served in the Southwest Asia theater of operations during the 1990-1991 period of the Gulf War. The Committee will pay particular attention to issues that are unique to these veterans.

Committee members will be appointed by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and will be selected from among knowledgeable experts, veterans, and others with special competence to evaluate the particular needs of veterans who served during the 1990-1991 period of the Gulf War. Members will include Gulf War veterans, medical professionals with expertise in Gulf War veterans' illnesses, environmental health experts, veterans service organization officials, and other appropriate individuals.

The Committee is expected to remain operational for 18 months after its first meeting. Prior to its termination, the Committee will submit to the Secretary a report containing recommendations on the delivery of VA benefits and services to Gulf War veterans.

Dated: February 29, 2008.

By the direction of the Secretary.

E. Philip Riggin,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 08-956  Filed 3-5-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8320-01-M
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The
Board of Directors and Stockholders
Vicinity Corporation:

We
consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-96443, 333-96445, 333-30270, 333-55216, 333-56276 and 333-56278) on
Form S-8 of Vicinity Corporation of our report dated August 17, 2001, except as to Note 16, which is as of October 22, 2001, relating to the consolidated
balance sheets of Vicinity Corporation and subsidiaries as of July 31, 2001 and 2000, and the related consolidated statements of operations, redeemable convertible preferred stock and
stockholders' equity (deficit), and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended July 31, 2001, and the related financial statement schedule, which report appears
in the July 31, 2001, annual report on Form 10-K of Vicinity Corporation.

| |  | /s/KPMG LLP
| |  | -----------

Mountain
View, California
October 25, 2001

---

QuickLinks
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 46108

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JOSE LUIS BARONA-HERNANDEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Filed: December 24, 2018

Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Jerome County. Hon. John K. Butler, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and sentence and order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 

motion, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford, 

Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GUTIERREZ, Judge; HUSKEY, Judge;

and LORELLO, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Jose Luis Barona-Hernandez pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance with 

intent to deliver. I.C. § 37-2732(a)(1)(A). The district court sentenced Barona-Hernandez to a 

unified fifteen-year sentence, with three years determinate. Barona-Hernandez filed an I.C.R 35 

motion, which the district court denied. Barona-Hernandez appeals.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established. 

See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-15 (Ct. App. 1991); State 

v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 1984); State v. Toohill, 103 
2

Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing the length of a sentence, 

we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 

391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot 

say that the district court abused its discretion.

Next, we review whether the district court erred in denying Barona-Hernandez’s 

I.C.R. 35 motion. A motion for reduction of sentence under I.C.R. 35 is essentially a plea for 

leniency, addressed to the sound discretion of the court. State v. Knighton, 143 Idaho 318, 319, 

144 P.3d 23, 24 (2006); State v. Allbee, 115 Idaho 845, 846, 771 P.2d 66, 67 (Ct. App. 1989). In 

presenting a I.C.R. 35 motion, the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of 

new or additional information subsequently provided to the district court in support of the 

motion. State v. Huffman, 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). Upon review of the 

record, including any new information submitted with Barona-Hernandez’s I.C.R. 35 motion, we 

conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown. 

Therefore, Barona-Hernandez’s judgment of conviction and sentence, and the district 

court’s order denying Barona-Hernandez’s I.C.R. 35 motion, are affirmed.
Exhibit 4.3


 


Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We consent to the
reference made to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Part B of the Prospectus
and to the use of our report dated December 22, 2015, in this Registration Statement (Form S-6 No. 333-207607) of Smart Trust,
Strategic Growth & Income Trust, Series 8.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


December 22, 2015
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

DINESH R. MEHTA, 

Petitioner,

v.  No. 02-2457

JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,

Respondent. 

On Petition for Review of an Order

of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

(A73-640-394)

Submitted: November 19, 2003

Decided: December 17, 2003

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Steven A. Morley, Thomas M. Griffin, MORLEY, SURIN & GRIFFIN, P.C., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler,

Assistant Attorney General, Richard M. Evans, Assistant Director,

Marion E. Guyton, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED

STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for

Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Dinesh R. Mehta, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review

of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming,

without opinion, the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and for relief under the

Convention Against Torture (CAT). 

Mehta challenges the IJ’s determination that he failed to establish

his eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien "must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to

find the requisite fear of persecution." INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S.

478, 483-84 (1992). We have reviewed the record and the IJ’s decision, which was designated by the Board as the final agency determination, and conclude that Mehta fails to show that the evidence

compels a contrary result. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1), (2) (2003).

Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that Mehta seeks. 

In addition, we uphold the IJ’s denial of Mehta’s application for

withholding of removal. The standard for withholding of removal is

more stringent than that for asylum eligibility. Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d

198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999). To qualify for withholding of removal, an

applicant must demonstrate "a clear probability of persecution." INS

v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987). Because Mehta failed

to show that he is eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the higher standard for withholding of removal. Likewise, he cannot meet the burden

necessary to qualify for relief under CAT. See 8 C.F.R.

§ 1208.16(c)(2) (2003). 

We accordingly deny the petition for review. 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.

PETITION DENIED

2 MEHTA v. ASHCROFT
**Exhibit 99.22**

 

**CONSENT OF SCOTT C. ELFEN**

 

I hereby consent to the use of my name and the name of my company in connection with the following, which are being reference in the annual report on Form 40-F of Minera Andes Inc. (the “**Company**”) being filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission:

 

1.               The technical report titled “Canadian National Instrument 43-101 Technical Report Updated Preliminary Assessment Los Azules Project”, with an effective date of December 1, 2010 (the “**Los Azules Report**”);

 

2.               The current mineral resource estimates of the Los Azules project; and

 

3.               The annual information form of the Company dated March 28th, 2011, which includes reference to my name and company name in connection with information relating to the Los Azules Project and the Los Azules Report.

 
| Date: March 30th, 2011 |                                |
|-----------------------------|-------------------------------------|
|                        |                                |
|                        | “Signed” Scott C.   Elfen |
|                        | Name: Scott C.   Elfen, PE          |
|                        | Title:President                     |
|                        | Company:Ausenco Vector              |

 

----
##### Table of Contents



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 Washington, D.C. 20549
 Amendment No. 1
to
 FORM 10-K/A
 (Mark One)
 þ
    
    ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2010.
 o
    
    TRANSITION REPORTING PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 FOR THE TRANSITION PERIOD FROM  TO .
 COMMISSION FILE NO. 001-34490
 SYNTROLEUM CORPORATION
  Delaware
    
    73-1565725(State or other jurisdiction of
    
    (I.R.S. Employerincorporation or organization)
    
    Identification No.)
 5416 S. Yale Suite 400
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135
 (918) 592-7900
 
 
 Yes o No þ
 Yes o No þ
 þ o
 o o
 þ
  Large accelerated filer o
    
    Accelerated filer þ
    
    Smaller reporting company o
    
    Non-accelerated filer o
 o þ
   DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE:
 EXPLANATORY NOTE




---



TABLE OF CONTENTS  SIGNATURESIndex to ExhibitsExhibit 99.3Exhibit 31.1Exhibit 31.2    Table of Contents  
 SIGNATURES
  SYNTROLEUM CORPORATIONDated:  July 18, 2011
    By:
    /s/ Karen L. GallagherKaren L. GallagherPrincipal Financial Officer 
 Index to Exhibits
 99.3
    
    
    Dynamic Fuels, LLC Audited Financial Statements, year ended September 30, 201031.1
    
    
    Section 302 Certification of Chief Executive Officer31.2
    
    
    Section 302 Certification of Chief Financial Officer
  2
EXHIBIT
21





SUBSIDIARIES
OF THE COMPANY








323
Railroad Corp., a Connecticut Corporation





UB
Darien, Inc., a Connecticut Corporation





UB
Danbury, Inc., a Connecticut Corporation





UB
Somers, Inc., a New York Corporation





UB
Dockside, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company





UB
Railside, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company





UB
Yorktown, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company





UB
Stamford, L.P., a Delaware Limited Partnership





UB Rye,
LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company





UB
Ironbound L.P., a Delaware Limited Partnership





UB
Ironbound GP, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company





UB New
Milford, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company





Carmel
Movie Theater, Inc., a New York Corporation
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed May 12, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D21-113 Lower Tribunal Nos. 19-9873 CC, 20-100 AP

________________ 

### Pride Clean Restoration, Inc., a/a/o Virginia Benitez , Appellant,
vs. 

### Citizens Property Insurance Corporation ,

Appellee.An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Luis PerezMedina, Judge. Font & Nelson, PLLC, and Jose P. Font and Bryan T. Fischer (Fort Lauderdale), for appellant. Lydecker | Diaz, and Michelle Diverio and Alejandro Sanchez Parraga, for appellee. Before EMAS, C.J., and SCALES and MILLER, JJ. PER CURIAM.2

Affirmed. See Washington Nat’l Ins. Corp. v. Ruderman, 117 So. 3d 943, 948 (Fla. 2013) (holding: “Where the language in an insurance contract is plain and unambiguous, a court must interpret the policy in accordance with the plain meaning so as to give effect to the policy as written. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Menendez, 70 So. 3d 566, 569–70 (Fla. 2011). In construing insurance contracts, ‘courts should read each policy as a whole, endeavoring to give every provision its full meaning and operative effect.’ U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. J.S.U.B., Inc., 979 So. 2d 871, 877 (Fla. 2007).”) (quotations and citations omitted).