alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
13.1






CERTIFICATION




Certification
required by Rule 13a-14(b) and Section 1350 of


Chapter
63 of Title 18 of the United States Code





In
connection with the report of Vasogen Inc. (the “Company”) on the Form 20-F for
the fiscal year ended November 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Christopher J.
Waddick, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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 operations of the
      Company.








/s/Christopher
      J. WaddickChristopher
      J. Waddick
                      President
      and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer),
                        Vasogen
      Inc.


February
27, 2009
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 121 (Friday, June 21, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31940-31941]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15978]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION


Notice of Agency Sunshine Act Meeting

    Pursuant to the provisions of the ``Government in the Sunshine 
Act'' (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that at 2:56 p.m. on 
Monday, June 17, 1996,

[[Page 31941]]

the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation met 
in closed session to consider matters relating to the Corporation's 
corporate and supervisory activities.
    In calling the meeting, the Board determined, on motion of Vice 
Chairman Andrew C. Hove, Jr., seconded by Director Joseph H. Neely 
(Appointive), concurred in by Julie Williams, acting in the place and 
stead of Director Eugene A. Ludwig (Comptroller of the Currency), 
Director Jonathan L. Fiechter (Acting Director, Office of Thrift 
Supervision), and Chairman Ricki Helfer, that Corporation business 
required its consideration of the matters on less than seven days' 
notice to the public; that no earlier notice of the meeting was 
practicable; that the public interest did not require consideration of 
the matters in a meeting open to public observation; and that the 
matters could be considered in a closed meeting by authority of 
subsections (c)(2), (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(i), 
(c)(9)(A)(ii), (c)(9)(B) and (c)(10) of the ``Government in the 
Sunshine Act'' (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2), (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), 
(c)(9)(A)(i), (c)(9)(A)(ii), (c)(9)(B) and (c)(10)).
    The meeting was held in the Board Room of the FDIC Building located 
at 550-17th Street, NW., Washington, DC.

    Dated: June 18, 1996.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Valerie J. Best,
Assistant Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-15978 Filed 6-19-96; 10:06 am]
BILLING CODE 6714-01-M
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Percy LAKE, Appellant. Percy LAKE, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. 62167, 63562.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Dec. 7, 1993.

*899John Klosterman, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Cheryl A. Caponegro, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before CRANDALL, P.J. and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Percy Lake, appeals from his conviction, after a jury trial, for burglary in the second degree. Defendant was sentenced as a prior and persistent class X offender to fifteen years imprisonment.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. Defendant’s conviction is affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

Defendant also appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion following an evidentia-ry hearing. The judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous; no error of law appears. An opinion would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Defendant’s conviction for burglary in the second degree and denial of defendant’s Rule 29.15 motion are affirmed.
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

BRAINTECH, INC., 

Plaintiff,

vs Case No: 09-10454

Honorable Victoria A. Roberts

ADIL SHAFI, 

Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff/

Third Part Plaintiff,

v

Frederick Weininger,

Third Party Defendant.

____________________________/

ORDER

On April 6, 2010, the Court held a telephone conference on Pepper Hamilton’s

Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Braintech and Frederick Weidinger (Doc. # 27). 

Attending were James VandeWyngearde representing Braintech and Weidinger, and

J.P. Murphy representing Defendant Shafi. Also attending were Jeffrey Greeves, Mr.

Weidinger’s personal attorney and David Parker, corporate counsel for Braintech. 

Messrs. Greeves and Parker have not filed appearances.

Based on the discussion held, the Court orders the following:

1. The motion hearing set for April 12, 2010 is cancelled; 

2. This matter is stayed until May 21, 2010 to allow Braintech and Frederick

Weidinger time to find new counsel; and

3. A Telephone Conference is set for May 17, 2010 at 2:30 pm. The Court

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 29 Filed 04/07/10 Page 1 of 2
2

will initiate the call.

Counsel are reminded that a corporation must have counsel appear on its behalf

or face default [or dismissal], since a corporation cannot appear otherwise than through

an attorney in federal Court. See, U.S. v 9.19 Acres of Lane, More or Less, In

Marquette County, 416 F.2d 1244 (6th Cir 1969).

IT IS ORDERED.

 /s/ Victoria A. Roberts 

Victoria A. Roberts

United States District Judge

Dated: April 7, 2010

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this

document was served on the attorneys of

record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on

April 7, 2010.

s/Linda Vertriest 

Deputy Clerk

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 29 Filed 04/07/10 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 132 (Tuesday, July 9, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36091-36092]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17306]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice 96-066]


Government-Owned Inventions, Available for Licensing

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

ACTION: Notice of Availability of Inventions for Licensing.

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

SUMMARY: The inventions listed below are assigned to the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration, have been filed in the United 
States Patent and Trademark Office, and are available for licensing.
    Copies of patent applications cited are available from the Office 
of Patent Counsel, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Mail Code SPJ, Pasadena, 
CA 91109. Claims are deleted from the patent applications to avoid 
premature disclosure.

DATES: July 9, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas H. Jones, Patent Counsel, Mail 
Code SPJ, NASA Management Office-JPL, Pasadena, CA 91109; telephone 
(818) 354-5179, fax (818) 354-6051.
    NASA Case No. NPO-19,143-2: Long-Wavelength PtSI Infrared Detectors 
and Method of Fabrication Thereof;
    NASA Case No. NPO-18,414-3: Synchronous Parallel System for 
Emulation and Discrete Event Simulation;
    NASA Case No. NPO-18,518-1: Solid-State Image Sensor with Focal-
Plane Digital Photon-Counting Pixel-Array;
    NASA Case No. NPO-18,983-2: Scalable Wrap-Around Shuffle Exchange 
Network with Deflection Routing;
    NASA Case No. NPO-18,836-2: Method of Producing Buried Porous 
Silicon-Germanium Layers in Monocrystalline Silicon Lattices;
    NASA Case No. NPO-19,098-1: Resonant Attachment Method for Low 
Level Trace Oxygen Contaminant Detection;
    NASA Case No. NPO-19,428-1: Varying Potential Silicon Carbide Gas 
Sensor;
    NASA Case No. NPO-19,423-1: Parallel Promimity Detection for 
Computer Simulation;
    NASA Case No. NPO-19,002-1: Analysis of Supercritical-Extracted 
Chelated Metal Ions from Mixed Organic-Inorganic Samples;
    NASA Case No. NPO-18,756-1: Point Relay Scanner Utilizing 
Ellipsoidal Mirrors;
    NASA Case No. NPO-19,108-2: Digital Camera with Apparatus for 
Authentication of Images Produced from an Image File;

[[Page 36092]]

    NASA Case No. NPO-19,414-1: Temperature Compensated Sapphire 
Resonator for Ultrastable Oscillator Operating at Temperatures Near 77 
degrees Kelvin;
    NASA Case No. NPO-19,418-1: Modulated Source Interferometry;
    NASA Case No. NPO-19,442-1: Composite Material Switches;
    NASA Case No. NPO-19,430-1: Polarization Independent Electro-Optic 
Modulator;

    Dated: June 25, 1996.
Edward A. Frankle,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 96-17306 Filed 7-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-01-M
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-10-00105-CV

Northwest Independent School 

District

v.

Carroll Independent School District

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

From the 141st District Court

of Tarrant County (141-210251-05)

June 19, 2014

Opinion by Chief Justice Livingston

Concurrence and Dissent by Justice 

Dauphinot

Concurrence and Dissent by Justice 

Gardner

JUDGMENT

Having granted appellee Carroll Independent School District’s motion for 

en banc reconsideration, we withdraw our prior judgment of February 16, 2012 

and substitute the following.

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

there was error in part of the trial court’s order. We affirm the trial court’s denial 

of appellant Northwest Independent School District’s plea to the jurisdiction to the 

limited extent that appellee Carroll Independent School District seeks a 
declaratory judgment regarding the meaning of the orders and judgments 

creating the actual boundary location between the two school districts. We 

reverse the trial court’s order denying appellant’s plea to the jurisdiction to the 

extent that appellee seeks to contest and challenge appellant’s 1948 and 1949 

elections, and the subsequent orders creating appellant and its boundaries, in an 

attempt to move the existing boundary between the two districts. We remand the 

case to the trial court for further proceedings on appellee’s declaratory judgment 

claim.

It is further ordered that each party shall pay its own costs of this appeal, 

for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Terrie Livingston

 Chief Justice Terrie Livingston
#### J.P., M.D., Relator, v. The FIRST COURT OF APPEALS, and the Honorable Eugene Chambers, Judge of the 215th District Court, Harris County, Respondents.

No. 94-0246.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Nov. 10, 1994.

Margare Uhlig (Pemberton), Austin, for relator.

Kathleen A. Gallagher, Michael A. Pullara, Norman Riedmueller, Keith S. Dubanevich, Houston, Rod Patterson, Fort Worth, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

In this original mandamus proceeding relator seeks review of an order protecting mental health records from discovery. Both the trial court and the court of appeals rendered decisions prior to our writing in *R.K. v. Ramirez,*— S.W.2d - (Tex.1994). We believe the trial court should have the opportunity to reconsider the rulings of which relator complains in this proceeding in light of *R.K.*Accordingly, without addressing the merits of the petition and without prejudice to either party again requesting relief from the court of appeals and this Court after the trial court has had an opportunity to reconsider its rulings, we conditionally grant the writ and direct the court of appeals to vacate its opinion and order, and the trial court to vacate its order of March 8, 1994. Tex. R.App.P. 122. The writ of mandamus will issue only in the unlikely event they do not do so.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 20 (Tuesday, January 30, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3073-3074]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-1622]



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

[[Page 3074]]



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

RTCA, Inc., Joint RTCA Special Committee 180 and EUROCAE Working 
Group 46 Meeting; Design Assurance Guidance for Airborne Electronic 
Hardware

    Pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(P.L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice is hereby given for a joint 
RTCA Special Committee 180 and EUROCAE Working Group 46 meeting to be 
held March 19-21, 1996, starting at 8:30 a.m. on March 19. (On 
subsequent days, meeting begins at 8 a.m.) The meeting will be held at 
EUROCAE, rue Hamelin 17, Paris, France.
    The agenda will be as follows: (1) Chairman's Introductory Remarks; 
(2) Review and Approval of Meeting Agenda; (3) Review and Approval of 
Minutes of Previous Joint Meeting; (4) Leadership Team Meeting Report; 
(5) Consensus Items; (6) Review Action Items; (7) Review Issue Logs; 
(8) Review Document by Section in Plenary; (9) Other Business; (10) 
Agenda for Next Meeting; (10) Date and Place of Next Meeting.
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present 
statements or obtain information should contact the RTCA Secretariat, 
1140 Connecticut Avenue NW., Suite 1020, Washington, DC, 20036; (202) 
833-9339 (phone) or (202) 833-9434 (fax). Members of the public may 
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 23, 1996.
Janice L. Peters,
Designated Official.
[FR Doc. 96-1622 Filed 1-29-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-13-M
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF 

AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

GENE MARTIN, 

 Defendant. 

 

Case No. 2:08-cv-14151 

Chief Judge Gerald E. Rosen 

Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti 

___________________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR HEARING (DE 28) 

and CANCELLING HEARING NOTICED FOR NOVEMBER 18, 2015 (DE 

32) 

 The government filed this student loan recovery case on September 27, 

2008. (DE 1.) It was terminated on February 10, 2009, when the Clerk of the 

Court entered default and judgment by default. (DEs 6, 7.) 

 Recently, on September 25, 2015, the government filed an application for a 

writ of continuing garnishment as to garnishee Bank of America. (DE 24.) The 

Clerk of the Court issued a writ of continuing garnishment that same day. (DE 

26.) On October 19, 2015, Bank of America’s answer was filed, indicating that 

Defendant had no accounts. (DE 27.) 

 Currently before the Court is Defendant’s October 23, 2015 request for 

hearing, wherein he states: “I never had an accou[n]t with the Bank of 

America[.]” (DE 28.) The government filed a response, noting that “all parties 

2:08-cv-14151-GER-APP Doc # 33 Filed 11/18/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 110
2 

are in agreement that Defendant does not maintain any account at Bank of 

America, and therefore no funds are at issue . . . .” (DE 29 at 2.) 

 Defendant’s request was referred to me, and I therefore noticed a hearing for 

November 18, 2015. (DEs 29, 31, 32.) However, upon consideration, 

Defendant’s request for hearing (DE 28) is DENIED and the notice to appear (DE 

32) is RESCINDED. This is so, because the aforementioned representations in 

Garnishee Bank of America’s answer (DE 27), Defendant’s request (DE 28), and 

the government’s response (DE 29) obviate the need for a hearing on the issue of 

whether the government should be entitled to garnish any funds held by Bank of 

America in Defendant’s name. There appear to be no such funds to garnish and 

no issues in dispute with respect to the garnishment, any such issues having been 

mooted by Bank of America’s response thereto. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 18, 2015 s/Anthony P. Patti 

 Anthony P. Patti 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record 

on November 18, 2015, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail. 

 s/Michael Williams 

 Case Manager for the 

 Honorable Anthony P. Patti 

2:08-cv-14151-GER-APP Doc # 33 Filed 11/18/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 111
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 this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of WebSafety, Inc. (the
“Company”) for the quarter ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Rowland W. Day II,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby 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 operations of the Company.




By:
              /s/Rowland W. Day II.Rowland
      W. Day IIChief
      Financial Officer




Dated:
  August 18, 2010





This
certification accompanies this report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purpose of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, another document
authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to WebSafety, Inc. and will be retained and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
#### John D. KLEPEES, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 51819.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

June 25, 1996.

Rosemary E. Pereival, Assistant Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Joanne E. Joiner, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before LAURA DENVIR STITH, P.J., and ULRICH and SMART, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from denial of a Rule 24.035 post-conviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Appellant was convicted of burglary in the first degree, § 569.160, *594RSMo 1994, and sentenced as a prior and persistent offender, §§ 558.016 and 557.036.4, RSMo 1994, to fifteen years imprisonment.

Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
EXHIBIT A

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1348-1 Filed 10/12/21 Page 1 of 3
1

PROPOSED SUPPLEMENTAL/REVISED 

QUESTIONS FOR JUROR QUESTIONNAIRE

50. Do you, any members of your family, or close friends support, volunteer, donate 

to, or work for any groups or organizations that advocate for Human Trafficking 

Awareness, Sex Trafficking Awareness, or the Prevention of the Sexual Exploitation of 

Women (for example, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children 

(“NCMEC”), the National Center on Sexual Exploitation, the Polaris Project, Shared 

Hope International, Legal Momentum, Demand Abolition, Florida Abolitionist, FairGirls, 

ChildSafe.ai, Arizona Anti-Trafficking Network (“AATN), Trust Arizona, Project 

Starfish, Auburn Theological Society/Auburn Seminary, B.H. Carroll Theological 

Institute, or others)?

If YES, please explain.

57a. Please list the name of the source(s) you've indicated above (for example, The 

Arizona Republic/AzCentral, Phoenix New Times, Village Voice, One America News, 

New York Times, Washington Post, Frontline, FOX, MSNBC, CNN, NPR, The Blaze, 

Christian Radio or any radio talk shows, or social media platforms, or publishing 

platforms like Substack.com or Medium.com):

61. Which social media sites do you use? (Check all that apply).

 Facebook  Twitter  Instagram  Snapchat  TikTok  Parler

 Gab  LinkedIn  Pinterest  Reddit  YouTube

 Rumble  Other: 

 I do not use social media 

76A. Do you believe that websites hosting third-party content (such as 

Google/YouTube, Rumble, Facebook/Instagram, Parler, Twitter, Gab, and others) should 

be able to decide what content will be allowed on their websites? Please explain. 

__________________

76B. Websites hosting third-party content often engage in ‘content moderation’? Do 

you know what ‘content moderation’ is? _________ If yes, please describe. 

______________.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1348-1 Filed 10/12/21 Page 2 of 3
2

76C. What are your feelings about whether websites hosting third-party content(such as 

YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Google, and Instagram, among others) should be legally 

responsible for the content posted by users of the websites?

77. Have you, any members of your family, or close friends ever used an adultoriented dating or connection service (for example, Tinder, Bumble, Hinge, Ship 

(getshipped), OkCupid, PlentyofFish, AdultFriendFinder, iHookup, AshleyMadison, 

NoStringsAttached, BeNaughty, GetItOn, MaritalAffair, Alt, Grindr, Pure, Match, or 

OnlyFans)?

If YES, please explain who (don't use names) and identify which services:

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1348-1 Filed 10/12/21 Page 3 of 3
Exhibit 10.2


Loan Agreement Summary


 


		1.	Lender and borrower:



Borrower: Weifang Lakeland Safety Products
Co., Ltd. (“WF”)


Lender: Weifang Rural Credit Cooperative
Bank (“WRCCB”)


 


		2.	The borrowing amounts limit: RMB 8 million, WF can select the borrowing amounts within RMB 8 million.



 


		3.	Borrowing method: Trading financial, WF mortgaged inventory valued at RMB 18,357,925 to the bank.
The bank hired a professional firm to supervise WF’s inventory flow, which WF will pay at a yearly rate of RMB 40,000.



 


		4.	Interest: Interest based on 120% of the benchmark rate. Payment requirements (ex. monthly, quarterly,
etc.) will be decided at contract signing.



 


		5.	Borrowing period: up to six months. The longest borrowing period is six months, WF can select the
borrowing period (ex. three months, six months, etc.)