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

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

In connection with the Annual Report of PlasmaTech,  Inc. on Form 10-KSB for the
period  ending  December 31,  2005,  as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange
Commission  on the  date  hereof  (the  "Report"),  I,  Christopher  J.  Brough,
President,  Principal  Executive Officer,  Principal  Financial Officer and sole
Director of PlasmaTech, Inc. hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Sec. 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.

Dated:  August 21, 2006

By:  /s/ Christopher J. Brough
     -----------------------------------------------
     Christopher J. Brough
     President, Principal Executive Officer,
     Principal Financial Officer and sole Director
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6164 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6164

  To require the Federal Trade Commission to conduct a study on scams 
   that target travelers during the COVID-19 pandemic, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 7, 2021

  Mr. Neguse introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To require the Federal Trade Commission to conduct a study on scams 
   that target travelers during the COVID-19 pandemic, and for other 
                               purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting Consumers from Travel 
Fraud Act''.

SEC. 2. FTC STUDY ON TRAVEL FRAUD.

    (a) Study.--The Federal Trade Commission (in this section referred 
to as the ``Commission'') shall conduct a study, using the Commission's 
authority under section 6 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 
U.S.C. 46), regarding scams that target travelers during the COVID-19 
pandemic.
    (b) Report.--Not later than 45 days after the date of enactment of 
this Act, the Commission shall submit to Congress a report containing 
the results of the study conducted under subsection (a), together with 
recommendations for such legislation and administrative action to 
prevent and deter scams that target consumers, including online travel 
booking scams, as the Commission determines appropriate.
    (c) Consumer Protection Information.--Not later than 30 days after 
the date of the submission of the report under subsection (b), the 
Commission shall update the website of the Commission to include 
information for consumers on avoiding scams that target travelers, 
including scams that target travelers during the COVID-19 pandemic 
identified in the study conducted under subsection (a).
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>   1
                                  Exhibit 23.1

                        C0NSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

      We consent to the Incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements of Eltron International, Inc. on Form S-8 (File Numbers 33-80233 and
333-32319) and Form S-3 (File Numbers 333-2530 and 333-06157) of our report
dated February 24, 1998, on our audits of the consolidated financial statements
and financial statement schedule of Eltron International, Inc. as of
December 31, 1997 and 1996 and for the years ended December 31, 1997, 1996 and
1995, which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.


COOPERS & LYBRAND


Sherman Oaks, California
March 26, 1998
#### The People of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Sylvester Hubbard, Jr., Appellant.

Gen. No. 50,775.

First District, Second Division.

July 22, 1966.

Rehearing denied September 12, 1966.

*303Vernon T. Squires, of Chicago, for appellant; Daniel P. Ward, State’s Attorney of Cook County, of Chicago (Elmer C. Kissane and Joel M. Flaum, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellee.

Opinion by

PRESIDING JUSTICE BRYANT.

Not to be published in full.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

1 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005). United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED December 9, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-41591 Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus LEROY CONNER, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:04-CR-32-1
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Leroy Conner, Jr. appeals the 33-month sentence of imprisonment imposed following his guilty plea to counterfeit securities charges. He asserts that his sentence violates United States v. Booker
. 1 Because Conner’s sentence was enhanced based on facts neither admitted by him nor proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, it was imposed in violation of the Sixth Amendment and2 Id. at 756.

3 United States v. Pineiro , 410 F.3d 282, 284 (5th Cir. 2005).

4 Id.

5 United States v. Akpan , 407 F.3d 360, 377 n.62 (5th Cir. 2005). 2 Booker
. 2 Where, as here, the defendant preserved the error in district court, we will vacate the sentence and remand unless the Government shows that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. 3 To do this, it must show beyond a reasonable doubt that the court would have given the defendant the same sentence had it thought the Guidelines were advisory. 4 The Government has not met this burden. Although the district court stated that it would have imposed a 36-month sentence had the Guidelines been advisory, the court was able to impose that longer sentence at the time as it was within the Guidelines range of 33 to 41 months. As a result, we are unsure whether its statement was a misstatement. Because we must vacate Conner’s sentence due to Booker error, we do not address Conner’s argument that the district court erred by denying him a reduction for acceptance of responsibility. 5 Conner’s sentence is VACATED and the case is REMANDED for resentencing.
* Local Rule 47.5.1 provides: "The publication of

opinions that merely decide particular cases on the basis of

well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the

public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that

Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-60298 

Conference Calendar

__________________

CLAUDIO AVALOS MIRAMONTES,

 Petitioner,

versus

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

SERVICE,

 Respondent.

- - - - - - - - - -

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

INS No. A092 919 654

- - - - - - - - - -

December 20, 1995

Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

As the petitioner has been deported, his petition for review

is DISMISSED. 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(c).
AGREEMENT



THIS AGREEMENT is entered into on this 1st

day of

October , 2007 ,  by and between Orex Ventures Inc.( Client ),  2120 - 1066 West Hastings Street Vancouver, BC V6E 3X2), and Orko Silver Corp. (ORKO),  Suite 2120  1066 West Hastings Street, Vancouver, BC V6E 3X2.



HEREINAFTER, the Client and ORKO are collectively referred to as Parties and singularly as Party.



WHEREAS, the Parties desire to set forth the terms and conditions under which certain services shall be performed;



NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of these promises of the mutual covenants herein, the Parties hereto agree as follows:



ARTICLE I  SCOPE OF SERVICES



ORKO agrees to provide office space for the Client described as follows:



1.

Office space

ORKO agrees to provide the Client with office space to accommodate its corporate presence, and its staff and consultants.

2.

Equipment

ORKO agrees to provide the Client with the use of a fax machine, and photocopier.



ARTICLE II  PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE



The period of performance under this Agreement shall be month-to-month until terminated by 30 days written notice given by either the Client or ORKO.



ARTICLE III  COMPENSATION



As full consideration for the performance of services described herein, the Client shall pay ORKO compensation as follows:



1.

Rent: ($6,130) Cdn. Dollars cash, plus GST paid monthly, in advance.





ARTICLE IV  NOTICES



Notices provided for hereunder may be served personally to the representative of either Party at its respective place of business, or by fax or registered mail to the address of each Party shown on the face hereof.



ARTICLE V  ARBITRATION



Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement, or the breach thereof, shall be settled by binding arbitration in the Province of British Columbia.





ARTICLE VI ENTIRE AGREEMENT



This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the Parties. Any changes or amendments will not be valid unless reduced to writing and signed by both parties.



This Agreement is construed under the laws of British Columbia.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized officers.



SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED

)

ORKO SILVER CORP.

)

in the presence of:

)

)



)

)

)

)

)



Witness

)

Gary Cope

)

)

)



Address

)

)

)

)

Date

)





SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED

)

Orex Ventures Inc.

)

in the presence of:

)

)

)

)

)

_____

Witness

)

Ross Wilmot

)

)

)

Address

)

)

)

)

Date



#
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       1,324,364
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               10,776,722
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                 19,789,243
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            32,789,871
<PP&E>                                      16,015,918
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,810,729
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              51,567,232
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       13,234,325
<BONDS>                                     14,587,699
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        3,239,345
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  23,301,208
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                51,567,232
<SALES>                                     38,223,141
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            38,657,185
<CGS>                                       23,466,037
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               23,466,037
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             404,496
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,729,597
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,778,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,951,597
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,951,597
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .92
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .80
<FN>
<F1>ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE ARE NET OF ALLOWANCE.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**RULE13a-14 UNDER THE**

**SECURITIESEXCHANGE ACT OF 1934**

 

I, Darius G. Nevin, certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/Aof Protection One, Inc.;

 

2.               Based on my knowledge, this report does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

 
| Date:  |  April 30,  2010 |   | By:    | /s/ DARIUS G.  NEVIN                                                                               |
|--------|----------------------------|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                       |   |   | Darius G. Nevin  Executive Vice President and Chief  Financial Officer,  Protection One, Inc. |

 

----
```

                                                                    Exhibit 31.1
SERVICER CERTIFICATION

I, Paul C. Honda, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A and all reports on Form
10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on
Form 10-K/A of Honda Auto Receivables 2006-1 Owner Trust (the "Exchange Act
periodic reports");

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole,
do 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, all the distribution, servicing and other information
required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is
included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the Servicer and
based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the
Servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of
Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the
Servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in
all material respects; and

5. All the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for
asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of
compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be
included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and
Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this
report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of
noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on
Form 10-K/A.

     In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: FDI Computer Consulting
Inc., dba FDI Collateral Management and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

Date: June 29, 2006

/s/ Paul C. Honda
-------------------
Paul C. Honda
Assistant Vice President, Assistant Secretary and Compliance Officer
of American Honda Finance Corporation
```
#### Brookhaven Plaza Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. County of DuPage, a Body Politic and Corporate, Defendant-Appellee.

Gen. No. 65-95.

Second District.

June 29, 1966.

Jack M. Siegel and Ross, Hardies, O’Keefe, Babcock, McDugald & Parsons, all of Chicago, for appellant; William V. Hopf, State’s Attorney, and Edward Van de Houten, Jr., Assistant State’s Attorney, of Wheaton, for appellee.

Opinion by

JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON.

Not to be published in full.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 9/19/96 TENTH CIRCUIT
AMOS BROWN,

Petitioner - Appellant, No. 96-1168
v. D. Colorado BILL R. STORY, Warden of ADX; KATHLEEN M. HAWK, Director of BOP, Respondents - Appellees. (D.C. No. 95-B-1652)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before ANDERSON , BARRETT , and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. SeeFed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.1 Brown also argues for the first time on appeal that Respondents failed to provide

an impartial factfinder for the new hearing ordered by the district court. This court will not consider an issue on appeal where the party did not raise it before the district court. Walker v. Mather (In re Walker) , 959 F.2d 894, 896 (10th Cir. 1992). - 2 - Amos Brown appeals from an order of the district court denying his motion for an order holding Respondents in contempt. Brown contends that Respondents have failed to comply with an October 2, 1995 district court order which sustained Brown’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 1 It is highly doubtful that this appeal from the denial of a motion is properly before this court. In any event, it is clear from our review of the record that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Respondents had complied with its order. See V.T.A., Inc. v. Airco, Inc. , 597 F.2d 220, 226 (10th Cir. 1979) (the denial of a contempt motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion). AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. ENTERED FOR THE COURT Stephen H. Anderson Circuit Judge
ex415form20f.htm


FIRST AMENDMENT TO


COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT







This First Amendment to Cooperative Development Agreement (“First Amendment”) is dated effective June 15, 2012 (“Effective Date”) by and between Peak Minerals Inc. (“Peak”) and LUMA Minerals LLC (“LUMA”).







Recitals







A.           Peak and LUMA entered into a certain Cooperative Development Agreement (“Agreement”) dated effective July 15, 2011, wherein the parties agreed, among other things, to enter into a unit agreement for the joint development and operation of certain Federal potash leases owned by the parties and certain State of Utah potash leases owned by Emerald Peak Minerals, LLC, all of which are located wholly or in part within the Sevier Dry Lake Bed (“Sevier Lake Bed”).







B.           At the election of LUMA, the Agreement provided for certain cash and/or other consideration to be paid or delivered to LUMA by Peak on or before the Closing (as defined in the Agreement), subject to certain Closing conditions set forth in Section 6 of the Agreement.







C.           Not all of the Closing conditions have been met, the Closing has not occurred, and the parties wish to amend the Agreement to extend same for a term of one year.







NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Peak and LUMA agree as follows:







1.           Extension of Term.  The parties hereby agree to extend the term of the Agreement from July 15, 2012 to July 15, 2013 (the “Extension”).  Except for the Extension, all terms, conditions, requirements, obligations and rights of the parties in and under the Agreement remain unchanged and in full force and effect and the parties hereby ratify and confirm same.







2.           Counterparts.  This First Amendment may be executed and delivered by each part hereto in separate counterparts, each of which when so executed and delivered shall be deemed an original and all of which taken together shall constitute but one and the same Agreement.







AGREED to and accepted this 27th day of June, 2012, but effective as of June 15, 2012.








	
PEAK MINERALS, INC.

	
LUMA MINERALS LLC


	  	  
	
By: /s/ Lance D’Ambrosio

	
By: /s/ Luke R. Kline


	
Name: Lance D’Ambrosio

	
Name: Luke R. Kline


	
Title: CEO

	
Title: Partner
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Juan Manuel CUEVAS-VILLELAS, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 03-30033.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 21, 2003.*

Decided July 30, 2003.

Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Juan Manuel Cuevas-Villelas appeals the 24-month sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s consideration of nonbinding policy statements set forth in U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4, *United States v. Tadeo,*222 F.3d 623, 625 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm.

Cuevas-Villelas contends that the district court erred in failing to consider the policy statements contained in Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines and failing to explain why his sentence exceeded the suggested Guideline range. The district court did not abuse its discretion because it expressly considered Cuevas-Villelas’ file, including a probation report discussing Chapter 7, and explained in detail why it was sentencing him outside the policy statement range. *See United States v. Garcia,*323 F.3d 1161, 1165 (9th Cir.2003).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Marco Castagna, Appellant, *v.*Robert P. Lawless and Others, Respondents.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. No opinion.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2263
In Re: REGINALD L. KEENE, SR.; In Re: KAREN L. KEENE, Debtors.

_________________________ REGINALD L. KEENE, SR.; KAREN L. KEENE, Debtors - Appellants, versus DAVID CHARLES, Creditor - Appellee. FRANK J. SANTORO, Trustee, Amicus Curiae.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CA-98-16-4, BK-91-42512-S) Submitted: April 20, 1999 Decided: April 30, 1999 Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2 Richard G. Poinsett, Linda Weston Coppinger, LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD G. POINSETT, Hampton, Virginia, for Appellants. Sheryl Lee Brindle, ALEXANDER P. SMITH & ASSOCIATES, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Frank J. Santoro, Trustee, Karen M. Crowley, MARCUS, SANTORO, KOZAK & MELVIN, P.C., Portsmouth, Virginia, for Amicus Curiae. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Reginald and Karen Keene appeal from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying their motion to enforce the confirmation and discharge orders and for a court order releasing the lien of David Charles, a creditor in theirbankruptcy proceeding. We have reviewed the record and the opinions of the bankruptcy court and the district court and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the district court’s reasoning. See Keene v. Charles , Nos. CA-98-16-4; BK-91-42512-S (E.D. Va. July 16, 1998). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED