alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT
32
   CERTIFICATIONS
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
 PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  I, David
M. Morse, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of
Location Based Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal
quarter ended February 28, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in such quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material
respects the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
  By:
                /s/ David
      M. MorseDavid
      M. Morse
                  Co-President and Chief Executive OfficerDate:  April
      14, 2009
   I,
Desiree Mejia, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of
Location Based Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal
quarter ended February 28, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material
respects the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
 By:
                  /s/ Desiree
      MejiaDesiree
      Mejia
                    Chief Operating Officer and Principal Financial
    OfficerDate:  April
      14, 2009
 Signed
originals of these written statements required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 have 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.
  These
certifications accompany the Form 10-Q to which they relate, are not deemed
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and are not to be incorporated
by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933 or
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date of
this Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in
such filing.
Exhibit
      23.2






CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM






We
          consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
          333-45949, 333-68855, 333-77111, 333-73240, 333-86796 and 333-115426 of
          PMA
          Capital Corporation on Form S-8 and Registration Statement No. 333-84764
          of PMA
          Capital Corporation on Form S-3 of our reports dated March 16, 2005, relating
          to
          the consolidated financial statements of PMA Capital Corporation, appearing
          in
          this Annual Report on Form 10-K of PMA Capital Corporation for the year
          ended
          December 31, 2005.
 
 We
          also
          hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the above Registration
          Statements of our reports dated June 10, 2005 relating to the consolidated
          financial statements of PMA Capital Insurance Company and the financial
          statements of Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association Insurance Company, which
          also appear in this Form 10-K.




/s/
      DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP


Philadelphia,
      PA


March
      10,
      2006
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 19

- 00278

- CR

R

ANDY J OE C AMP

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 372nd District

Court

of Tarrant County (1578449D)

August 15, 2019

Per Curiam

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

Th is court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that the

appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed

.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 98 (Monday, May 20, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 25187]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12644]



========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
appearing in this section.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 1996 / Notices

[[Page 25187]]



DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    DOC has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for 
clearance the following proposal for collection of information under 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 35).
    Agency: Patent and Trademark Office (PTO).
    Title: Address-Affecting Provisions.
    Agency Approval Number: 0651-0035.
    Type of Request: Regular.
    Burden: 8,970 hours.
    Number of Respondents: 44,850.
    Avg. Hour Per Response: .2 hours.
    Needs and Uses: This submission of information is used by the PTO 
to ensure that the information as to the agent or representative, if 
any, and the correspondence address is current so that correspondence 
to the representative/applicant from the PTO, whenever such 
correspondence is mailed, is timely received.
    Affected Public: Individuals or Households, Business or other for-
profit Institutions, not-for-profit Institutions and the Federal 
Government.
    Frequency: Reporting on Occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.
    OMB Desk Officer: Maya A. Bernstein, (202) 395-3785.
    Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained 
by calling or writing Linda Engelmeier, Departmental Forms Clearance 
Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 5327, 14th and Constitution 
Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230.
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent to Maya Bernstein, OMB Desk Office, room 
10236, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.

    Dated: May 15, 1996.
Linda Engelmeier,
Departmental Forms Clearance Officer, Office of Management and 
Organization.
[FR Doc. 96-12644 Filed 5-17-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-16-P
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Shopper's Wallet, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2007, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Dejan Mirkovic, 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

     (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 operation of the
Company.


/s/ Dejan Mirkovic
----------------------------------------------
Dejan Mirkovic
Principal Financial Officer
July 18, 2007


This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to ss.906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by Registrant for the purposes of
ss.18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. This certification
shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act
of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether
made before or after the date of this Report), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.

A signed original of this written statement required by ss.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.
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 

Navajo Nation, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Jefferson Sessions, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-18-08072-PCT-GMS

ORDER/NOTICE PURSUANT TO 

FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m) 

 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Civil Procedure 

apply to all proceedings in this case. Pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, you must serve each Defendant in your case with the Summons and 

Complaint within 90 days from the date the Complaint is filed, unless you obtain a 

waiver of service pursuant to the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d). If, for good 

reason, you cannot serve your Summons and Complaint on a Defendant within 90 days, 

you may, prior to the expiration of the 90-day period, file with the Court a request for an 

extension of time in which to serve your Summons and Complaint. In that request, you 

should set forth the reason why you have not accomplished service and request a specific 

short period of time in which to accomplish such service on any Defendant. If the Court 

believes your reason constitutes “good cause” it will authorize a brief additional period in 

which you can then serve the Defendant. 

 If you do not obtain an extension and any Defendant named in your Complaint is 

not served within 90 days, the Court is obliged, after notice to you, to dismiss the 

Case 3:18-cv-08072-GMS Document 5 Filed 03/28/18 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

Complaint without prejudice (meaning that your Complaint is dismissed but you may 

refile the Complaint in a new action if you wish to do so). 

The way that the Court knows that you have served the Defendant is that, the 

person who serves the Defendant with the Summons and Complaint is required, 

according to the rules, to file an affidavit with the Court which proves that the Defendant 

was served in compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(l). Therefore, you need to be sure that, 

prior to 90 days from the date on which you filed your Complaint, whoever serves the 

Summons and Complaint on each Defendant files an affidavit with this Court 

demonstrating that they accomplished proper service. 

THIS CONSTITUTES YOUR NOTICE UNDER RULE 4(m) THAT 

IF YOU HAVE NOT APPROPRIATELY SERVED ANY 

DEFENDANT WITHIN 90 DAYS FROM THE FILING OF YOUR 

COMPLAINT THAT DEFENDANT WILL BE DISMISSED 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE FROM YOUR LAWSUIT. 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to terminate any or all

Defendants in this matter, without further notice, that have not been served within the 

time required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) on June 26, 2018. 

 Dated this 28th day of March, 2018. 

Honorable G. Murray Snow

United States District Judge

 

Case 3:18-cv-08072-GMS Document 5 Filed 03/28/18 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit
      10.5




FIRST
      MODIFICATION AGREEMENT OF STOCKOPTIONAGREEMENT
      RELATING TO CHARITABLE PLEDGE
      BY EXECUTIVE








THIS
      FIRST MODIFICATION AGREEMENT, dated
      as of June 29, 2006, by and between SUN ENERGY SOLAR, INC., a Delaware
      corporation formerly known as Sologic , Inc. (the "Company"), and Carl L. SMITH,
      III ("Executive”) .





Recitals





A.
      The Company and Executive are parties
      to that certain Stock Option Agreement, dated as of December 21, 2005 (the
      Stock
      Option Agreement") .


B.
      The Company and Executive desire to
      modify certain provisions of the Stock Option Agreement relating to the
      assignment provision to Executive, subject to and in accordance with the terms
      set forth in this first Modification Agreement.





Agreement





NOW,
      THEREFORE, in consideration of
      these premises, the mutual covenants and agreement of the parties hereunder,
      and
      for other good and valuable consideration the sufficiency and receipt of which
      are hereby acknowledged, the parties  hereby agree as follows:


1.
      Pledge by Executive. Executive has
      agreed to pledge 25% of all his rights under the StockOptionagreement
      to appropriate charitable
      foundation of his own choosing.


2.
      Modification of Provision 5 of Stock.
      Option Agreement titled No Assignment. It has been deemed that such aprovisionmay
      affect Executive's ability to
      implement. Such a pledge, therefore, the aspects limiting the assignability
      of
      this provision are now and forever removed from the agreement.


3.
      Stock Option Agreement Remains in
      Effect. Except as expressly modified by this Agreement, the Stock Option
      Agreement remains in full force and effect.


4.
      Governing Law. This Agreement shall
      in all respects be construed according to the laws of the State of Florida,
      including its conflict of laws principle.


5,
      Counterparts. This Agreement may be
      executed in any number of counterparts, each of which may be executed by less
      than all of the parties to this Agreement, each of which shall be enforceable
      against the parties actually executing such counterparts, and all of which
      together shall constitute one instrument.


IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto
      have executed this Agreement as of the date first above written.





Company:





____________________


Richard
      C. Hall, President




Executive:


____________________


Carl
      L. Smith
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

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

 ** The Honorable Liam O’Grady, District Judge for the U.S. District

Court for Eastern Virginia, Alexandria, sitting by designation.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FORREST M. RICHARDSON,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

JAMES YATES,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 10-15974

D.C. No. 2:08-cv-02964-FCDEFB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Frank C. Damrell, Senior District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted May 9, 2011

San Francisco, California

Before: HUG and PAEZ, Circuit Judges, and O’GRADY,** District Judge. 

FILED

JUN 01 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
1

 We grant the Petitioner’s motion to take judicial notice of the docket and

record in Forrest M. Richardson v. D.K. Sisto, Warden, et. al., No. 2:10-CV00025-GEB-EFB. 

2

California state prisoner Forrest M. Richardson1 (“Richardson”) appeals

from the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

A challenge to a condition of imprisonment, as opposed to a challenge to the

fact or duration of imprisonment, is not a cognizable habeas claim. Ramirez v.

Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir. 2003).

Richardson contends that the prison officials’ 2007 disciplinary finding for

violating prison conduct rules will affect the duration of his imprisonment because

it might be viewed disfavorably by the Board of Parole Hearings and decrease his

chance of a favorable parole decision. These potential consequences of his

misconduct violation are too speculative to establish habeas corpus jurisdiction. 

See Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 82 (2005) (holding that habeas jurisdiction

did not exist for claims seeking relief that would invalidate state procedures used to

deny eligibility and suitability for parole); Ramirez, 334 F.3d at 859 (stating that

“habeas jurisdiction is absent, and a § 1983 action proper, where a successful

challenge to a prison condition will not necessarily shorten the prisoner’s

sentence.”); cf. Docken v. Chase, 393 F.3d 1024, 1031 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that
3

claim regarding frequency of parole review was cognizable in habeas). We

therefore conclude that the district court did not err in dismissing Richardson’s

habeas petition.

Finally, relying on Heck v. Humphrey, Richardson argues that before he can

properly pursue a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, he must first expunge the disciplinary

conviction at issue. 512 U.S. 477 (1994). As the State conceded at argument,

because Richardson’s misconduct conviction did not affect the length of his

confinement, he may pursue a § 1983 action without first complying with the rule

in Heck. See Ramirez, 334 F.3d at 858. We agree, and conclude that Richardson is

not barred from pursuing his § 1983 action noted above. 

AFFIRMED
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 

Fernando Gastelum, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

OM Hotels LP, 

Defendant. 

No. CV-18-00901-PHX-ESW

ORDER 

 Pursuant to the Court’s Order (Doc. 25) filed September 30, 2018, Plaintiff having 

failed to (i) have substitute counsel file a notice of appearance and Reply, or (ii) advise 

the Court of his address and phone number and file a pro se Reply, 

IT IS ORDERED striking Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 

(Doc. 22). 

 The Court having considered Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Case with Prejudice 

(Doc. 26) and all attachments thereto which reflect that the parties have (i) settled all 

issues in this case and (ii) agreed that the case be dismissed with prejudice, 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Case 

with Prejudice (Doc. 26). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) with 
- 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 

prejudice, all parties to bear his/its own attorneys’ fees and costs. The Clerk of Court 

shall terminate the case. 

 Dated this 2nd day of November, 2018. 

Honorable Eileen S. Willett

United States Magistrate Judge
C.F.O. CERTIFICATIONS  

 I, Teresa Cheng, Corporate Secretary and Chief Financial Officer,certify that:  

 1.       I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of AtnaResources Ltd. (the “Company”);  

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

 3.       Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this annual report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, theperiods presented in this annual report;  

 4.       The Company’s other certifying officers and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controlsand procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and15d-14) for the Company and have:  

 

 a)       designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensurethat material information relating to the Company, includingits consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this annual report is being prepared;  

 b)       evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosurecontrols and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior tothe filing date of this annual report (the “EvaluationDate”); and  

 c)       presented in this annual report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and proceduresbased on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;  

 5.       The Company’s other certifying officers and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the Company’sauditors and the audit committee of Company’s board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent function):  

 

 a)       all significant deficiencies in the design or operation ofinternal controls which could adversely affect the Company’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialdata and have identified for the Company’s auditors anymaterial weaknesses in internal control; and  

 b)       any fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees who have a significant role in theCompany’s internal controls; and  

 6.       The Company’s other certifying officers and I have indicatedin this annual report whether or not there were significantchanges in internal controls or in other factors that couldsignificantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date ofour most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions withregard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.  

    

 Date:         May 2, 2003  

 By /s/ “Teresa Cheng”  

         

 Teresa Cheng  

 Corporate Secretary and Chief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT 32****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**     In connection with the Quarterly Report of ITC Holdings Corp. (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), we, Joseph L. Welch, President and Chief Executive Officer of theRegistrant, and Edward M. Rahill, Senior Vice President- Finance and Chief Financial Officer of theRegistrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.Dated: May 1, 2008   /s/ Joseph L. Welch Joseph L. Welch  President and Chief Executive Officer     /s/ Edward M. Rahill Edward M. Rahill  Senior Vice President — Finance and Chief Financial Officer
33