alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with this
Amendment No. 1 to our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of WORLD SERIES OF
GOLF, INC. (the Company) for the three months ended June 30, 2008, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
Joseph F. Martinez, as Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, hereby certifies, 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.

|                      |     |                                                                                    
|--------------------- | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: August
 5, 2009 | By: | /s/ Joseph
F. Martinez                                                             
|                      |     |                                                                                    
|                      |     | Joseph F.
 Martinez                                                                
|                      |     | Chief
 Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Principal
 Accounting Officer
|                      |     |                                                                                    
|                     

This certification accompanies each Report
pursuant to § 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 the
Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.


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.

---
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 Omni Bio Pharmaceutical, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 (the “Report”), I, Robert C. Ogden, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m 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 for the period covered by this report.








Date:  July 30, 2010
/s/ Robert C. OgdenRobert C. OgdenChief Financial Officer
Exhibit No. 24
Headway Corporate Resources, Inc.
Form 10-K
File No. 0-23170



                 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We  consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement   (Form   S-3  No.  333-08615)  of  Headway   Corporate
Resources, Inc. and in the related Prospectus of our report dated
February  18,  1999,  with respect to the consolidated  financial
statements  and  schedule  of Headway Corporate  Resources,  Inc.
included  in  this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the  year  ended
December 31, 1998.



                                             ERNST & YOUNG LLP

New York, New York
March 10, 1999
Exhibit 32
 Certifications Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  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 result of operations of Corporate Property Associates 17  Global
Incorporated.
  /s/ Trevor P. Bond

Trevor P. BondChief Executive OfficerDate 05/13/2011/s/ Mark J. DeCesaris

Mark J. DeCesarisChief Financial Officer
#### Ramon TAJES, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 52063.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

April 30, 1996.

Jarrett A. Johnson, Asst. Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Jill C. LaHue, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before EDWIN H. SMITH, P.J., and BRECKENRIDGE and ELLIS, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from the denial of a Rule 24.035 post-conviction motion, without evidentiary hearing.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, Case No. 09-12999

Hon. Marianne O. Battani

v.

 Magistrate Judge Virginia M. Morgan

STONEY BRADLEY, 

Defendant,

and

INTERSTATE BRANDS CORPORATION

and MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF 

TREASURY,

Garnishees.

____________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND

VACATING STAY OF GARNISHEE ORDER

Plaintiff, United States of America, filed a complaint to collect monies owed by

Defendant Stoney Bradley on two student loans he obtained in 1983 and 1984. (Doc. 1).

On January 4, 2010, after Bradley failed to respond to the lawsuit, Plaintiff successfully

obtained a default judgment. (Doc. 7, 8, 9, 10). On June 29, 2010 the Court issued

continuing writs of garnishment to Bradley's employer, Interstate Brands Corporation and

to the Michigan Department of Treasury. (Doc.15,16). The Court subsequently ordered

Interstate Brands to garnish 25 percent of Bradley's disposable wages and pay it to the

United States Department of Justice. (Doc. 20). On August 12, 2010 after the time to

request a hearing had passed, Bradley objected to the writs and requested a hearing.

(Doc. 22,23). The Court referred the case to Magistrate Judge Virginia M. Morgan for a
2

hearing on Bradley's objections to the writs of garnishment. (Doc. 24). The Court stayed

the garnishee order pending a decision on the report and recommendation. (Doc. 28). 

On September 29, 2010, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court overrule

Bradley's objections to the writs of garnishment. (Doc. 29). The Magistrate Judge informed

the parties that objections to the R&R must be filed within fourteen days of service and that

a party’s failure to file objections would waive any further right of appeal. See, (Doc.29 at

3); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).

Because no objection has been filed in this case, the parties waived their right to

review and appeal. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation

(Doc. 29) and VACATES the Order Staying Garnishee Order Pending Decision On The

Report and Recommendation (Doc. 28). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 s/Marianne O. Battani 

MARIANNE O. BATTANI

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DATED: October 26, 2010

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served upon Plaintiff and counsel of record on this date

by ordinary mail and/or electronic filing.

s/Bernadette M. Thebolt 

Case Manager
**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 Cactus Ventures, Inc. a Nevada
      corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ending
      September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
      “Report”), I, Diane S. Button, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
      Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to my knowledge:





(1)
      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 or 78o(d)); and





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










Date:
      November 13,
      2007                                                                                    
/s/ Diane
      S.
      Button


Chief
      Executive Officer and


Chief
      Financial Officer
Case 2:09-mc-50202-AC ECF No. 1, PageID.1 Filed 02/26/09 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 31.2




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




I, Thomas J. Paulson, certify that:




1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of NovaBay Pharmaceuticals, 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 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 registrant’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: August 4, 2009


/s/ Thomas J. PaulsonThomas J. PaulsonChief Financial Officer
(principal financial officer)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ROBERT GINEMAN, 

Plaintiff,

Case No. 09-CV-11955

v.

HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN 

AFFAIRS),

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION 

FOR AN ORDER AUTHORIZING COSTS (#27)

On April 27, 2011, this court entered judgment in favor of the defendant. Local

Rules 54.1 and 54.1.2 require a prevailing party to file a bill of costs and motion for

attorneys’ fees and nontaxable expenses no later than 28 days after entry of judgment. 

Defendant filed its bill of costs on May 3, 2011. The taxation clerk allowed $350 in costs

but denied the remainder of defendant’s request for the reasons stated by the clerk. 

Defendant filed an amended bill of costs on May 4, 2011 seeking to rectify the problems

noted by the taxation clerk. The taxation clerk contacted defense counsel and indicated

that defendant should file a motion with the court seeking review of the actions of the

taxation clerk. On May 6, 2011, defendant filed a motion for an order authorizing

$904.95 in costs. For the reasons stated below, defendant’s motion is granted.

Taxable costs, which a prevailing party is entitled to as a matter of course so long

as they file a properly supported bill of costs, are set out in 28 U.S.C. § 1920. See also,

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). These costs include taxable fees of the clerk, fees of the court

2:09-cv-11955-GCS-MKM Doc # 28 Filed 06/06/11 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 260
2

reporter for transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case, witness fees, service

fees, certain copying fees, and other costs. The taxable versus non-taxable costs, as

well as the required supporting documentation and guidelines used by the taxation

clerk, are set out in the Bill of Costs Handbook.

Defendant seeks: (1) $350 for fees of the clerk; (2) $62.14 for fees of the

marshal; (3) $452.81 for deposition transcripts; and (4) $40.00 for the statutory witness

fee for Dr. Jebson. It appears defendant is not seeking review of the denial of $149.89

in mileage costs. In its amended bill of costs and motion, defendant has provided

appropriate reasons for allowing the clerk fees, marshal fees, deposition transcript fees,

and statutory witness fee under the authority provided in the Bill of Costs Handbook and

28 U.S.C. § 1920. As such, defendant’s motion is GRANTED and costs in the amount

of $904.95 are allowed. 

So ordered.

Dated: June 6, 2011

S/George Caram Steeh 

GEORGE CARAM STEEH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on

June 6, 2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Josephine Chaffee

Deputy Clerk

2:09-cv-11955-GCS-MKM Doc # 28 Filed 06/06/11 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 261
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

D-20 JOSEPH WHITING,

Defendant.

 /

Case No. 06-20465

Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE DEFENDANT WHITING’S MOTION TO

COMPEL UNDISCLOSED DISCOVERY [2540] AND MOTION FOR TRANSCRIPTS

OF CO-DEFENDANTS McDONALD AND VIRAMONTEZ [2541]

This criminal matter comes before the Court on Defendant Joseph Whiting’s motions

to compel undisclosed discovery [2540] and for transcripts of Co-Defendant’s McDonald’s

and Viramontez’s grand jury testimony, arrest/detention, arraignment, plea agreements,

sentencing, and other discovery materials [2541]. After a lengthy jury trial, Defendant

Whiting was convicted of various criminal charges. He then filed an unsuccessful appeal. 

On November 18, 2013, the United States Supreme Court denied his petition for a writ of

certiorari [2517]. See United States v. Nagi, 2013 WL 5433464 (6th Cir. Sept. 30, 2013),

cert. denied, 2013 WL 5744054 (Nov. 18, 2013). 

Defendant has not yet filed a motion to vacate, correct, or set aside his sentence

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and claims he needs the requested discovery to file this

motion. Defendant was represented by counsel during his trial and appeal. That counsel

obtained discovery from the government. Defendant has not informed the Court whether

2:06-cr-20465-NGE-MKM Doc # 2545 Filed 03/05/14 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 18630
his trial or appellate counsel previously provided him with the requested discovery, whether

he previously requested the discovery materials made available to his former counsel, and

has not otherwise persuaded the Court that he cannot file a § 2255 motion at this time. 

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

SO ORDERED.

s/Nancy G. Edmunds 

Nancy G. Edmunds

United States District Judge

Dated: March 5, 2014

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record

on March 5, 2014, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Johnetta M. Curry-Williams 

Case Manager

Acting in the Absence of Carol A. Hemeyer

2

2:06-cr-20465-NGE-MKM Doc # 2545 Filed 03/05/14 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 18631
ex10-1.htm


Exhibit 10.1


 



A D D E N D U M







THIS ADDENDUM, made this 22nd day of April 2014 (“Addendum”), by and among Tangiers Investors LP ("Tangiers", or “Investor”), and North Bay Resources Inc. ("North Bay", or the “Company”), to that certain Tangiers Convertible Promissory Note Agreement dated June 19, 2012  (the “Note Agreement”), by and among  the Parties. Terms not defined otherwise herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Note Agreement.







WHEREAS, pursuant to the Note Agreement, North Bay and Tangiers agreed to a Convertible Promissory Note on the terms and conditions set forth therein.







WHEREAS, the Parties desire to enter into this Addendum to supplement and clarify the terms and conditions of the Note Agreement.







NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual covenants contained herein, the Parties jointly and severally agree to the following:







1. Amendment.







1.1 The “Conversion Price”







The unnumbered provision in the Note Agreement pertaining to “Conversion Price” is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as set forth below:







The “Conversion Price” shall be the following price:


As applied to the Conversion Formula set forth in


2.2, $0.02; as applies to North Bay Resources Inc.


voting common stock.


 


2. General Provisions.







2.1 Except as defined herein, all defined terms used herein shall have the meaning set forth in the Note Agreement







2.2 The captions to the paragraphs/sections in this Amendment are not a part of this Amendment or the Note Agreement, and are included merely for convenience of reference only and shall not affect its meaning or interpretation.







2.3 This Amendment may be signed in any number of counterparts with the same effect as if the signatures thereto and hereto were upon the same instrument.







2.4 Company and Investor confirm and acknowledge that the Note Agreement is in full force and effect, that there have been no uncured events of breach to date, and that each represents and warrants to the other that they are in material compliance with the Note Agreement. Except for the changes made by this Amendment to the Note Agreement, the Note Agreement remains in full force and effect without modification. All references to the Agreement in the Note Agreement mean the Note Agreement as amended hereby.


 




  





  











  











IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have duly executed this Addendum to the Note Agreement as of this 22nd day of April, 2014.


 


Tangiers Investors, LP







 


By:    /s Michael Sobeck                                          


Name: Michael Sobeck


Title:   General Partner


 







 


North Bay Resources Inc.


 


 


By:    /s/ Perry Leopold                                            


Name: Perry Leopold


Title:   CEO
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Lawrence G. LASHLY, Defendant/Appellant.

No. 65497.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Oct. 11, 1994.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 17, 1994.

Charles Clifford Schwartz, Jr., St. Louis, for appellant.

Thomas I. Osborne, Pros. Atty., Randall M. England, Asst. Pros. Atty., Audrain County, Mexico, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and CRAHAN, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals his conviction in a bench trial of the Class A misdemeanor, Driving While Suspended, Revoked or Canceled, § 302.321 RSMo 1986. He was sentenced by the judge to sixty days in jail. We affirm.

We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error are without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).
H. R. 3871

One Hundred Fourth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-six

An Act

To waive temporarily the Medicaid enrollment composition rule for certain health

maintenance organizations.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. WAIVER OF 75/25 MEDICAID ENROLLMENT RULE FOR

CERTAIN MANAGED CARE ORGANIZATIONS.

The requirement of section 1903(m)(2)(A)(ii) of the Social

Security Act is waived—

(1) with respect to Catholic Health Services Plan of

Brooklyn and Queens, Inc. (doing business as Fidelis Health

Plan) and Managed Healthcare Systems of New York, Inc.,

for contract periods through January 1, 1999, and

(2) with respect to Health Partners of Philadelphia, Inc.,

for contract periods through December 31, 1999.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0363

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

JOSEPH EDWARD KNOWLES,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including January 20, 2023, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 15 2022

12/15/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0363