alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**


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




In
      connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Aspire
      Japan, Inc., for the Quarter ending April 30, 2007, I,  Daisuke
      David Nakajima ,
      Chief Executive Officer of Aspire Japan, Inc. hereby certify pursuant to 18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:




1.
Such
      Quarterly
      Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending April 30, 2007, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period
      ended April 30, 2007, fairly represents in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operations of Aspire Japan, Inc.






Dated:
                June 22, 2007






**Aspire
      Japan, Inc.**




By:
            */s/
                Daisuke David Nakajima*
              Daisuke
                David Nakajima
              Chief
                Executive Officer
CERTIFICATION
OF


CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND


CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350




In
connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Golden
Opportunities Corporation, for the period ending April 30, 2009, I, Michael
Zahorik, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Golden
Opportunities Corporation hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best
of my knowledge and belief, that:




1.
Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending April 30, 2009,
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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
period ended April 30, 2009, fairly represents in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Golden Opportunities
Corporation.




Date:
June 8, 2009




/s/
      Michael ZahorikMichael
      ZahorikChief
      Executive OfficerChief
      Financial Officer
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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Ernesto Uriarte-Velazquez, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

No. CV17-4251 PHX DGC (JZB) 

ORDER 

 

 Petitioner Ernesto Uriarte-Velazquez has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Doc. 1. United States Magistrate John Z. Boyle has issued 

a report and recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the petition be denied and 

dismissed with prejudice. Doc. 14. No objection has been filed, which relieves the Court 

of its obligation to review the R&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3);

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 

1121 (9th Cir. 2003). The Court will accept the R&R and deny the petition. 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The R&R (Doc. 14) is accepted. 

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is denied and dismissed 

with prejudice. 

3. A certificate of appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on 

appeal are denied
‐ 2 ‐ 

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 

4. The Clerk is directed to terminate this action. 

Dated this 10th day of August, 2018.
Exhibit 10.8
 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
(Non CEO)
 Company Employee
 RECITALS
   NOW, THEREFORE
 IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
 ARTICLE I
EMPLOYMENT
 Term of Employment Employment Term Renewal Terms Renewal Term
 Position and Duties




---



##### 



ARTICLE II
COMPENSATION AND OTHER BENEFITS
 Base Salary Base Salary
 Performance Bonus Bonus Year Performance Bonus
 Benefit Plans , Plans
 Expenses
 Vacation
  2




---



##### 



ARTICLE III
TERMINATION
 Right to Terminate; Automatic Termination
 Termination by Company Without Cause
 Termination by Employee for Good Reason
 Termination by Company For Cause " nolo
contendere
 Termination Upon Death or Disability
  3




---



##### 



Termination Upon Resignation or Retirement
 Rights Upon Termination; Non-Renewal by Company
 Section 3.1(a) and 3.1(b) Termination
 ,
     4




---



##### 



Section 3.1(c) and 3.1(e) Termination
 Section 3.1(d) Termination ) )
 Termination Pursuant to a Change of Control
  
 
   5




---



##### 



Definition of Change of Control
       6




---



##### 



Exclusive Remedy; Waiver and Release .
 Limitation of Benefits
 Six Month Delay
 ARTICLE IV
GENERAL PROVISIONS
 Notices
 (a)
    
    If to the Company:
 
 (b)
    
    If to Employee:
 
  7




---



##### 



Entire Agreement
 Amendment
 Assignability
 Severability
 Arbitration
     8




---



##### 



Separation from Service
 Waiver of Breach
  9




---



##### 



Governing Law; Construction
  EMPLOYEE:
    

    COMPANY:Gustavo Hugo Olivera
    

    TomoTherapy Incorporated/s/ Gustavo Hugo Olivera
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Frederick A. RobertsonFrederick A. Robertson, M.D.Chief Executive Officer
  10
NUMBER 13-20-00437-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE BENCHMARK FILING & SHELVING SYSTEMS, INC.

AND WILLIAM MORRIS

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Benavides, Hinojosa, and Tijerina

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides1

Relators Benchmark Filing & Shelving Systems, Inc. and William Morris filed a 

petition for writ of mandamus in the above referenced cause through which they contend 

that the trial court abused its discretion by denying relators’ motions for protective orders 

1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not 

required to do so,” but “[w]hen granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case”); 

id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
2

and granting a motion to compel discovery in favor of the real party in interest, Susan 

Lucas. 

Mandamus is both an extraordinary remedy and a discretionary one. In re Garza, 

544 S.W.3d 836, 840 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). For mandamus to issue, 

the relator must show that the trial court abused its discretion and that no adequate 

appellate remedy exists to cure the error. In re N. Cypress Med. Ctr. Operating Co., 559 

S.W.3d 128, 130 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding); In re Christus Santa Rosa Health Sys., 

492 S.W.3d 276, 279 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding). The relator bears the burden of 

proving both requirements. In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) 

(orig. proceeding) (per curiam); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig. 

proceeding). As it pertains to this case, a discovery order that compels production beyond 

the rules of procedure is an abuse of discretion for which mandamus is the proper remedy. 

In re Nat'l Lloyds Ins. Co., 507 S.W.3d 219, 223 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per 

curiam); In re Deere & Co., 299 S.W.3d 819, 820 (Tex. 2009) (orig. proceeding) (per 

curiam); In re Weekley Homes, L.P., 295 S.W.3d 309, 322 (Tex. 2009) (orig. proceeding).

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, 

the response filed by Lucas, relators’ reply, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that 

the relators have not met their burden to obtain relief. See Hall v. Lawlis, 907 S.W.2d 493, 

494–95 (Tex. 1995) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); Maresca v. Marks, 362 S.W.2d 299, 

301 (Tex. 1962) (orig. proceeding); El Centro del Barrio, Inc. v. Barlow, 894 S.W.2d 775, 

779–80 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1994, orig. proceeding); see also In re Vaughan, No. 

13-18-00541-CV, 2019 WL 962381, at *4 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Feb. 27, 
3

2019, orig. proceeding [mand. denied]) (mem. op.). Accordingly, we DENY the petition 

for writ of mandamus.

GINA M. BENAVIDES

Justice

Delivered and filed on the 

21st day of January, 2021.
Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter Citation Limited Pursuant to lst Cir. Loc. R. 32.3 

# United States Court of Appeals

For the First C ircuit

No. 03-1525 GARY A. BENNETT, Plaintiff, Appellant,

v. DANIEL SZOSTKIEWICZ, ETC., Defendants, Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Michael A. Ponsor, U.S. District Judge ]
Before Selya, Circuit Judge , Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge , and Smith,* District Judge . Tani E. Sapirstein , with whom Sapirstein & Sapirstein was on brief, for appellant. John H. Fitz-Gibbon , with whom Harry L. Miles , Green, Miles, Lipton, White & Fitz-Gibbon , John C. Sikorski , and Robinson Donovan, P.C. were on brief, for appellees.

March 24, 2004

__________ *Of the District of Rhode Island, sitting by designation.1 Bennett elaborates on this assignment of error by attacking

(i) the trial court's willingness to take judicial notice of the applicable criminal statute, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 99, and (ii) the jury instructions related to this evidence. We have considered and rejected both theories. -2- PerCuriam . This appeal follows the entry of a judgment in favor of defendants-appellees Daniel Szostkiewicz (mayor of the Cityof Holyoke), Marc Cournoyer (Holyoke's poli ce c hief), and Stephen Donoghue (Holyoke's former police chie f) . The circumstances of the case are limned in our opinion in Bennett v. Cityof Holyoke , ___ F.3d___ (1st Cir. 2004) [No. 03-1520], dated March 22, 2004, and need not be repeated here.

In this appeal, plaintiff-appellant Gary A. Bennett challenges two mid-trial evidentiary rulings of the district court: ( i) the exclusion of so-called comparator evidence anent R alp h DiNapoli and Joseph Garcia, and (ii) the admission of evidence regarding the criminality of Bennett's conduct in surreptitiously recording a conversation. 1

It is black-letter law tha t a district court possesses broad discretion in connection with the admission or exclusion of evidence, and that its determin ati ons in that wise are reviewed onlyfor abuse of discretion. Udembav. Nicoli , 237 F.3d 8, 14 (1st Cir. 2001); Iacobucci v. Boulter , 193 F.3d 14, 20 (1st Cir. 1999). We have carefully reviewed the rulings at issue here and we are satisfied that the trial court, in both instances, acted well within the encincture of its discretion. Given the fact-specific-3-

nature of both the case an d t he disputed rulings, further discussion would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, the judgments entered below in favor of Szostkie wicz , Cournoyer, and Donoghue will be

Affirmed .
EXHIBIT
31.2


CERTIFICATIONS
OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


UNDER
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT





I,
Mitchell B. Rubin, certify that:





1. I have
reviewed this report on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2007 of
AeroGrow International Inc.;





2. Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report;





3. Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;





4. The
registrant’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 registrant and we have:





(a) Designed
such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this report is being prepared;





(b) Evaluated
the effectiveness of the registrant’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 registrant’s internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the
issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and





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




Date:  February
      13, 2008
            By:
            /s/
      Mitchell B. RubinMitchell
      B. RubinChief
      Financial Officer
              (Principal
      Financial Officer)
<PAGE>

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 annual report of Revolutions Medical Corporation
(formerly Maxxon, Inc.) (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ending
December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Rondald L. Wheet , Chief Executive Officer (and
principal 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:

     (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.


March 30, 2009                               /s/ RONDALD L. WHEET
                                             ---------------------------
                                             Rondald L. Wheet,
                                             Chief Executive Officer and
                                             principal financial officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission as an exhibit to the Report and shall not be considered filed as part
of the Report.
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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Miguel Angel Urias-Cruz, 

Defendant.

No. CR-17-1512-PHX-DLR

DETENTION ORDER 

 In accordance with the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f), the issue of 

detention was addressed at a hearing on December 11, 2017. The Court was informed 

that the defendant is subject to other custody and is not eligible for release at this time. 

 The Court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is subject to 

other custody and should be similarly detained in this case. If circumstances change such 

that defendant is no longer in custody in the other matter, defendant shall have leave to 

request that the matter of detention be reopened in this case. 

 IT IS ORDERED that the defendant be detained pending further proceedings. The 

defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney General or his designated 

representative for confinement in a corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, 

from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal. The 

defendant shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity for private consultation with defense 

counsel. On order of the Court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the 

government, the person in charge of the corrections facility shall deliver the defendant to 
- 2 - 

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 

the United States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a Court 

proceeding. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that should a motion for review/reconsideration of 

this detention order be filed, it is counsel's responsibility to deliver a copy of the motion 

for review/reconsideration to Pretrial Services at least one day prior to the hearing. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if a release to a third party is to be considered, it 

is counsel's responsibility to notify Pretrial Services sufficiently in advance of the hearing 

to allow Pretrial Services an opportunity to interview and investigate the potential third 

party custodian. 

 Dated this 12th day of December, 2017.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF KESSELMAN & KESSELMAN CPAs (ISR), INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement(Form S-8, File No. 333-37804), pertaining to the 1996 Equity Incentive Plan, the 1999 Employee and Consultant Equity Incentive Plan, the 2000 Employee and Consultant Equity Incentive Plan and the 2000 Employee Stock Purchase Plan; the RegistrationStatement (Form S-8, File No. 333-55958), pertaining to the 1996 Equity Incentive Plan, the 1999 Employee and Consultant Equity Incentive Plan, the Amended and Restated 2000 Employee and Consultant Equity Incentive Plan, and the 2000 Employee StockPurchase Plan; the Registration Statement (Form S-8, File No. 333-67070), pertaining to the Second Amended and Restated 2000 Employee and Consultant Equity Incentive Plan; the Registration Statement (Form S-8, File No. 333-86878), pertaining to theSecond Amended and Restated 2000 Employee and Consultant Equity Incentive Plan and the 2000 Employee Stock Purchase Plan; and the Registration Statement (Form S-8, File No. 333-105216), pertaining to the Second Amended and Restated 2000 Employee andConsultant Equity Incentive Plan and the 2000 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, each of Vyyo Inc., of our report dated January 22, 2004, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Vyyo Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for theyear ended December 31, 2003. 

 

/s/    KESSELMAN & KESSELMAN CPAs (ISR) 

        Amember of PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited 

 

Tel Aviv, Israel 

February 24, 2004
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R.

47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 18, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 06-20726

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

ADAN MUNOZ-TORRES, also known as Adrian Munoz, also known as

Adrian Munoz-Torrez, also known as Adan Munoz, also known as

Adrian Munoz-Torres 

Defendant - Appellant

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

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Texas, Houston

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

Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

IT IS ORDERED that appellant’s unopposed motion to summarily

affirm the U.S. District Court judgment in part is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that appellant’s unopposed motion to

vacate the U.S. District Court judgment in part is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that appellant’s unopposed motion to

remand case for resentencing in light of Lopez v. Gonzales is
GRANTED.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Principal Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350

(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

In connection with the Annual Report of Capella Education Company (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Stephen G. Shank, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|/s/    STEPHEN G.
SHANK             
|Stephen G. Shank                    
|Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

February 24, 2009

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.

A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.