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



CERTIFICATION OF

CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



Pursuant to §
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350)



The undersigned, as the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of Cadmus Communications Corporation, certify that, to the best of their knowledge and belief, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 2003, which accompanies this certification fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Cadmus Communications Corporation at the dates and for the periods indicated. The foregoing certification is made pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), and
shall not be relied upon for any other purpose. The undersigned expressly disclaim any obligation to update the foregoing certification except as required by law.



|/s/ Bruce V. Thomas                                                 |  | /s/ Paul K. Suijk                                                             
|------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Bruce V. Thomas                                                     |  | Paul K. Suijk                                                                 
|President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
|                                                                    | 
|November 12, 2003                                                   |  | November 12, 2003
#### Hester A. Tompkins, Respondent, v. William A. Tompkins and Another, Appellants.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.—

Dykman, J.:

This is an appeal from a judgment entered upon the verdict of a jury, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial upon the minutes of the court. The action was tried at the Circuit before a jury, and a verdict rendered in favor of the plaintiff for $500. The defendants are the son and daughter-in-law of the plaintiff. Upon the cross-examination of the plaintiff the fact was disclosed that the defendants had executed two promissory notes to the plaintiff ‘ for the indebtedness upon which this action is based, one note for $500 and one note for $450, and that sometime afterward, when the plaintiff was sick, she delivered the notes to her son, one of the defendants, for safe-keeping. After her recovery the plaintiff demanded the notes of the defendants, hut they were not returned. They were subsequently destroyed in a fire at the dwelling house of the defendants, to their knowledge. Bo the ground upon which the motion to dismiss the complaint was based had slid from *609beneath the feet of the defendants before the motion was made, and it was properly denied. The notes were overdue at the time of the commencement of this action, and as they were in the possession of the defendants when they were destroyed, they encounter no danger by a recovery in this action, based upon the .original indebtedness for which the notes were given. The defendants did not deny the reception of the money, but they say the wife took it. The theory of the defense was that the money was received upon an understanding that the defendants were to keep the plaintiff and her sister, and care for them while they lived. Both the defendants testified that the money was received by the daughter-in-law under that agreement, and the whole case was fairly submitted to the jury in a charge to which there was no exception taken. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for $655. It must be assumed now, therefore, that the jury received the testimony of the plaintiff as the truth of the case, and upon that assumption the verdict is fully sustained. In fact it is difficult to believe that the defendants would have given their promissory notes to the plaintiff for the money delivered to them unless they received it as a loan. If the money was an advance payment for board and care to be furnished to the plaintiff and her sister it would have been unnatural for them to give their notes therefor because in that view they would have been under no obligation to repay the money. They would then give the plaintiff no evidence of a debt, because there was none. The record discloses no error and the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Brown, P. J., and Pratt, J., concurred.
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 97 (Thursday, May 20, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 28240]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-12279]

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

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: Wednesday, May 26, 2010; 2 p.m.-4 p.m.

PLACE: Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, 
Bethesda, Maryland.

STATUS: Closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

Compliance Status Report

    The Commission staff will brief the Commission on the status of 
compliance matters.
    For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, 
call (301) 504-7948.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West 
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814 (301) 504-7923.

    Dated: May 14, 2010.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-12279 Filed 5-18-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
```
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BAKER 

&

HOSTETLER LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS 

ANGELES

Notice Parties 

PG&E Corporation

c/o Pacific Gas & Electric Company 

Attn: Janet Loduca, Esq. 

77 Beale Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Keller & Benvenutti LLP

Attn: Tobias S. Keller, Esq. 

 Jane Kim, Esq. 

650 California Street, Suite 1900 

San Francisco, CA 94108 

The Office of the United States Trustee for Region 17

Attn: James L. Snyder, Esq. 

 Timothy Laffredi, Esq. 

450 Golden Gate Avenue, 5th Floor, Suite #05-0153 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Milbank LLP

Attn: Dennis F. Dunne, Esq. 

 Sam A. Khalil, Esq. 

55 Hudson Yards 

New York, NY 10001-2163 

Milbank LLP

Attn: Paul S. Aronzon, Esq. 

 Gregory A. Bray, Esq. 

 Thomas R. Kreller, Esq. 

2029 Century Park East, 33rd Floor 

Los Angeles, CA 90067 

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP

Attn: Stephen Karotkin, Esq. 

 Jessica Liou, Esq. 

 Matthew Goren, Esq. 

767 Fifth Avenue 

New York, NY 10153-0119 

Bruce A. Markell

Fee Examiner 

541 N. Fairbanks Court 

Suite 2200 

Chicago, IL 60611-3710 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2295-6 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 10:14:52 Page 1

of 1
<!--/* //NOSONAR */--><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<!--/* //NOSONAR */--><html  lang="en-US">
<head id="Head"><meta id="MetaDescription" name="DESCRIPTION" /><meta id="MetaKeywords" name="KEYWORDS" /><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width,initial-scale=1" /><title>
	RELEASE: Second phase of Tradewinds exercise hosted by Trinidad and Tobago
</title><link id="css3605" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/DesktopModules/ArticleCS/module.css" /><link id="css4619" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/desktopmodules/ArticleCS/styles/DOD2/style.css" /></head>
<body>
    <main>
    <div>
    <div class="aprint news">
    <div class="header">
        <img height="100" class="print-logo" alt="Site Logo" src="/Portals/7/Images/SOUTHCOM_logo_thumb.jpg?ver=SIvIeRRofyrg5ZHPpvvh6Q%3d%3d" />

        <h1 class="title">RELEASE: Second phase of Tradewinds exercise hosted by Trinidad and Tobago</h1>
    </div>
    

    <div> <span class="date">/ Published June 12, 2017</span></div>
    <span class="dateline-text"></span>
    <p>MIAMI – The second phase of a yearly U.S. Southern Command-sponsored joint combined exercise is set to take place in Trinidad and Tobago, June 13-17.</p>
<p>Phase II of exercise Tradewinds 17 brings together security forces and regional civilian agencies from 20 participating countries to strengthen relationships, build partner nation capacity and conduct subject matter expert exchanges in security-related operations.</p>
<p>The list of countries participating in the exercise includes: Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Dominica, Dominican Republic, France, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Mexico, St. Kitts and Nevis, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, United Kingdom, the Netherlands and the United States.</p>
<p>The initial phase of Tradewinds 17 took place in Barbados June 6-12 and focused on improving interoperability during multinational humanitarian assistance and disaster relief operations. Phase III will consist of a leadership seminar in Miami, Florida, June 18-20.  </p>
<p>The overall objective of Tradewinds is to enhance the collective ability of the regional security forces and civilian agencies involved to conduct humanitarian assistance and disaster relief operations and counter transnational organized crime. This year marks the 33rd iteration of the regionally focused, multi-nationally planned exercise, which dates back to 1984. </p>
<p>For more information on Tradewinds 17 Phase II, please contact the U.S. Marine Corps Forces, South Public Affairs Officer, Capt. Jose M. Negrete, email: jose.m.negrete.mil@mail.mil, phone: 305-437-2554, or the Public Affairs Chief, Gunnery Sgt. Zachary Dyer, email, zachary.s.dyer.mil@mail.mil, 305-437-2554.</p>
<p><span></span></p><br />
</div>

    </div>
    </main>
</body>
</html>
#### In the Matter of the Application of the City of New York, Relative to Acquiring Title, etc., to Lands for a Plaza at the Manhattan Bridge Terminal, in the Borough of Brooklyn, City of New York, etc. Meier Stein *934brink, Petitioner.

Motion to confirm report granted.

Present— Jenks, P. J., Hirsehberg, Burr, Thomas and Carr, JJ. Order to be settled before the presiding justice, upon notice to the corporation counsel.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 27, 2010

s0920 

# Order

September 27, 2010

141209

CUMULUS BROADCASTING, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 141209 COA: 290112 Kent CC: 2008-009920-CK MARK KEADY a/k/a JAY DEACON, Defendant-Appellant,

and

WARREN KLUCK, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 29, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions pr esented should be reviewed by this Court prior to the completion of the proceedings or dered by the Court of Appeals.
## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

July 20, 2006

ERRATUM

Appeal No. 05-1550

UGINE AND ALZ v. US

Decided: June 15, 2006 Precedential Opinion

Please make the following change:

Delete the sentence and citation at page 10, lines 20-23, beginning “When the

importer . . .” and ending “710 F.2d at 810.”
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13002 Filed: 09/26/22 Entered: 09/26/22 11:50:33 Page 1

of 18
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13002 Filed: 09/26/22 Entered: 09/26/22 11:50:33 Page 2

of 18
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13002 Filed: 09/26/22 Entered: 09/26/22 11:50:33 Page 3

of 18
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13002 Filed: 09/26/22 Entered: 09/26/22 11:50:33 Page 4

of 18
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13002 Filed: 09/26/22 Entered: 09/26/22 11:50:33 Page 5

of 18
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13002 Filed: 09/26/22 Entered: 09/26/22 11:50:33 Page 6

of 18
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13002 Filed: 09/26/22 Entered: 09/26/22 11:50:33 Page 7

of 18
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13002 Filed: 09/26/22 Entered: 09/26/22 11:50:33 Page 8

of 18
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13002 Filed: 09/26/22 Entered: 09/26/22 11:50:33 Page 9

of 18
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13002 Filed: 09/26/22 Entered: 09/26/22 11:50:33 Page 10

of 18
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13002 Filed: 09/26/22 Entered: 09/26/22 11:50:33 Page 11

of 18
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13002 Filed: 09/26/22 Entered: 09/26/22 11:50:33 Page 12

of 18
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13002 Filed: 09/26/22 Entered: 09/26/22 11:50:33 Page 13

of 18
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13002 Filed: 09/26/22 Entered: 09/26/22 11:50:33 Page 14

of 18
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13002 Filed: 09/26/22 Entered: 09/26/22 11:50:33 Page 15

of 18
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13002 Filed: 09/26/22 Entered: 09/26/22 11:50:33 Page 16

of 18
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13002 Filed: 09/26/22 Entered: 09/26/22 11:50:33 Page 17

of 18
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13002 Filed: 09/26/22 Entered: 09/26/22 11:50:33 Page 18

of 18
NORMAN WALKER

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 3106

____________ ______________/

Opinion filed October 1, 2015.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Jack M. Schemer , Judge

.

Norman Walker, pro se , Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Virginia Chester Harris, Assistant

Attorney G eneral, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, C.J., THOMAS and RAY, JJ., CONCUR.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-13-00294-CV

Sergio Gardea, Appellant

v.

GMAC Mortgage, LLC Successor by Merger to GMAC Mortgage Corporation,

Its Successor and/or Assigns, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 4 OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY

NO. 12-1552-CC4, HONORABLE JOHN McMASTER, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Sergio Gardea has filed a notice of bankruptcy. See Tex. R. App. P.

8.1. We therefore suspend this appeal until a party files a motion to reinstate or a motion to

sever. See Tex. R. App. P. 8.2, 8.3. Appellant is ordered to inform this Court of the resolution

of the bankruptcy proceeding or some other event that would allow this appeal to be reinstated. 

Should appellant fail to provide such notice, the appeal will be subject to dismissal for want of

prosecution on this Court’s or another party’s motion. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b), (c). 

__________________________________________

Melissa Goodwin, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Rose and Goodwin

Bankruptcy

Filed: October 25, 2013
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FRED SWANIGAN,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

ANTHONY P. KANE,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 07-56140

D.C. No. CV-06-03681-DOC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 8, 2011** 

Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Fred Swanigan appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We dismiss.

FILED

MAR 10 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 07-56140

Swanigan contends that the Board’s 2005 decision to deny him parole was

not supported by “some evidence” and therefore violated his due process rights. 

After briefing was completed in this case, this court held that a certificate of

appealability (“COA”) is required to challenge the denial of parole. See Hayward

v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 554-55 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc). Now the Supreme

Court has held that the only federal right at issue in the parole context is

procedural, and the only proper inquiry is what process the inmate received, not

whether the state court decided the case correctly. See Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 

S. Ct. 859, 862-63 (2011). Because Swanigan raises no procedural challenges, a

COA cannot issue, and we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 

DISMISSED.
EX-4.11









EXHIBIT 4.11




CONSENT OF EXPERT




     I, Dr. Anson Xu, of SRK Consulting China Limited (“SRK”), hereby consent to the inclusion and
incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement on Form F-8 of Silvercorp Metals Inc.
(the “Registration Statement”) of references to and information derived from the technical report
entitled “Technical Report on Gaocheng Ag-Zn-Pb Project, and Shimentou Au-Ag-Zn-Pb Project,
Guangdong Province, People’s Republic of China” dated April 30, 2008 (the “Incorporated
Information”). I also consent to the reference to SRK’s name and to SRK’s involvement in the
preparation of the Incorporated Information in this Registration Statement.



SRK CONSULTING CHINA LIMITED




	 	 	 
	  /s/ Dr. Anson Xu
 

Name: Dr. Anson Xu

	 	 
	Title: Director and Principal Consultant
	 	 






Date: June 15, 2009
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

October 14, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

126188 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

MAURICE HELLEBUYCK, 

Plaintiff, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 126188 

 COA: 243940 

Macomb CC: 01-002861-CK 

FARM BUREAU GENERAL INSURANCE 

COMPANY OF MICHIGAN,

Defendant. 

_________________________________________/ 

By order of October 28, 2004, the application for leave to appeal was held in 

abeyance pending the decision in Rory v Continental Insurance Company (Docket No. 

126747). On order of the Court, the opinion having been issued on July 28, 2005, 473 

Mich 457 (2005), the application for leave to appeal the February 10, 2004 judgment of 

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

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

CAVANAGH and WEAVER, JJ., would grant leave to appeal. 

KELLY, J., would grant leave to appeal to reconsider Rory v Continental Insurance 

Company, 473 Mich 457 (2005). 

l1010 

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

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

October 14, 2005 

Clerk
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Arthur H. Penn, Chief Executive Officer of PennantPark Investment
Corporation, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Report on Form 10-K of PennantPark Investment 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
company as of, and for, the periods presented in this Report;

4. The 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 the 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 the 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 the 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 the
companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the companys internal control over financial
reporting; and

5. The companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal
control over financial reporting, to the companys auditors and the audit committee of the company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 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 the companys internal control over financial reporting.



|                         
|-------------------------
|Dated: December 12, 2007.
|                         
|/s/    ARTHUR H. PENN    
|Arthur H. Penn           
|Chief Executive Officer
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 22, 2019

No. 04-17-00563-CV

FIRE CHIEF CHARLES HOOD, In His Official Capacity Only,

Appellant

v.

Fernando MUNOZ and Edward Chacon,

Appellees

From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CI16293

Honorable Norma Gonzales, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

The court has considered the Appellees’ Motion for Rehearing En Banc and the motion is 

hereby DENIED.

It is so ORDERED on February 22, 2019.

 PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: _________________________

 Keith E. Hottle

 Clerk of Court
Infitech Ventures Inc. - Exhibit 10.3 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com





PROMISSORY NOTE 

 

	Name of Borrower 	Infitech Ventures Inc. 
	  	20 Lyall Avenue 
	  	Toronto Ontario, Canada M4E 1V9
    
	  	  
	Name of Lender 	Paul G. Daly 
	  	20 Lyall Avenue 
	  	Toronto Ontario, Canada M4E 1V9
    



	 	1. 	
      For value reviewed, Borrower agrees to pay the Lender,
      the amount of [$CDN/$US] _____________ without interest on a date to be
      determined. Payment will be sent to the Lender at 20 Lyall Avenue, Toronto
      Ontario Canada M4E 1V9. Payment can be made in cash or common stock with
      any repayment subject to the requirements imposed by the Securities and
      Exchange Commission under the Securities Exchange Act of
  1934.



Dated at the City of _______this _____day of ___________,
______

Signature of Borrower or authorized signatory of Corporation
____________________

	Name of authorized signatory of Corporation 	PAUL G. DALY 
	 	 
	 	 
	Name of Corporation 	INFITECH VENTURES INC.