alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31(b)

I, Thomas A. Nardi, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Peoples Energy Corporation;

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(s) 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(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)	All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b)	Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date:  February 9, 2004

  /s/  Thomas A. Nardi
#### Pauline Rimoldi, Appellant, v. The Hudson Guild, Respondent.

Determination affirmed, with costs. No opinion.
EX-10.3



 Exhibit 10.3 

AMENDMENT 2014-2 
 TO THE

 DEVON ENERGY CORPORATION 

INCENTIVE SAVINGS PLAN 

The Devon Energy Corporation Incentive Savings Plan (the “Plan”) is amended effective as of March 7, 2014, or such later
date as of the occurrence of the “Closing” of the “Mergers” as defined under the Agreement and Plan of Merger by and among Devon Energy Corporation, Devon Gas Services, L.P., Acacia Natural Gas Corp I, Inc., Crosstex Energy,
Inc., New Public Rangers, L.L.C., Boomer Merger Sub, Inc. and Rangers Merger Sub, Inc., dated October 21, 2013, as follows: 
 1. A new
Appendix H (“Special Provisions for Employees Transferring to EnLink Midstream Operating, LP”) is hereby added at the end of the Plan as follows: 

“APPENDIX H 

SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR EMPLOYEES 

TRANSFERRING TO ENLINK MIDSTREAM OPERATING, LP 

This Appendix H shall apply with regard to those Employees who (a) transfer to EnLink Midstream Operating, LP in connection with the
closing of the transaction set forth in the EnLink Merger Agreement (as defined in Section 3 of this Appendix) and (b) cease being Eligible Employees upon such transfer. 

1. Transfer of Employees to EnLink Midstream Operating, LP. Each Transferring Employee (as defined in Section 3 of this Appendix)
shall cease to be an Eligible Employee on his Severance from Service in accordance with the terms of the Plan. The provisions of the Plan shall apply to such Transferring Employee, except as provided in this Appendix. 

2. Special Conditions. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Plan, the following provisions shall apply: 

 

	 	(a)	Special Eligibility for True-Up Matching Contribution. An EnLink Transferring Employee shall continue to be eligible to receive a True-Up Matching Contribution for the quarter in which he becomes an employee of
EnLink Midstream Operating, LP even though such Participant is not an Employee on the last day of such applicable quarter of the Plan Year. 

  

	 	(b)	Special Vesting for EnLink Transferring Employees. An EnLink Transferring Employee shall have a fully (100%) vested and nonforfeitable interest in the portion of his Account that is subject to the vesting
schedule described in Section 7.02(a) of the Plan. 

  

	 	(c)	Special Rollover of Loans. An EnLink Transferring Employee who is an Eligible Borrower may make a direct rollover, as described in Section 8.08 of the Plan, of the full unpaid balance of any loan plus
applicable interest to any “qualified employer plan” (as defined in Code section 72(p)(4) that 


  
 1 








 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Devon Energy Corporation (acting through its authorized delegate) has caused
this Amendment 2014-2 to the Devon Energy Corporation Incentive Savings Plan to be executed this 7th day of March 2014. 
  

			
	DEVON ENERGY CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	/s/ Frank W. Rudolph
	Name:	 	Frank W. Rudolph
	Title:	 	Executive Vice President, Human Resources


 [Signature Page to Amendment 20142 to the Devon Energy Corporation Incentive Savings
Plan]
### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-60542 Summary Calendar

GEORGE GAKIO MUCHANGA,
Petitioner

v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A078 999 466

Before WIENER, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Petitioner G eorge Gakio M uchanga a s k s u s to review the denial of his motion to reopen follow i ng the discretionary d enial of his application for adjustment of status br o u g h t u n d e r 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a). Pursuant to § 1 2 5 2 ( a)(2)(B)(i), no court has jurisdiction to review discretionary denials of relief, incl u d i n g decisions denying m otions f or adjustment of status under § 1255(a). See H

adwani v. Gonzales , 445 F.3d 798, 800 (5th Cir. 2006) (invoking jurisdictional bar w here adjustment of status was denied a s a m atter of U n i t e d S t a te s C o u rt o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D May21, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-60542 Document: 00512248825 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/21/2013No. 12-60542

discretion after the petitioner failed to d isclose prior arrest). F urther, “where a final o rder of removal is shielded from j udicial review by a p rovision of § 1252(a)(2), s o, too, is [the] refusal to reopen that o r d e r . ” Assaad v. A shcroft , 378 F.3d 471, 4 7 4 ( 5th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Section 1252(a)’s jurisdiction-stripping provisions a re not absolute. Gutierrez-Morales v. Homan , 461 F.3d 605, 609 (5th Cir. 2006)

. W e retain jurisdiction to review “constitutional claims or ques t i o n s o f l a w . ” § 1252(a)(2)(D);
see, e .g., Bokhari v. Holder , 622 F.3d 3 57, 3 59 (5th C i r . 2 0 1 0 ), (reviewing determination that petitioner’s untimely application m ade hi m s t a tutorily ineligible for adjustment of status). Muchanga does not contend that t he denial of adjustment presents a question of law. Although he purports to raise a claim of the denial of d ue process, Muchanga’s argument is merely a restatement of his claim t hat the denial of his mo t ion to reopen was an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we reject this “abuse o f discretion c laim c l oaked in constitutional garb.” Hadwani , 445 F.3d at 801 ( internal quotation m a r k s , citation, and alteration omitted). We also reject Muchanga’s assertion that § 1252 d oes not apply, a s he relies on f o rmer l e g i s l a t i o n that i s not applicable to his case. See Santos v. Re n o , 2 2 8 F .3d 591, 595 (5th Cir. 2000). We also lack j urisdiction to consider Muchanga’s claim that his removal will result i n extreme hardship to his United States citizen child because Muchanga failed to raise this issue in his appeal to the BIA. See Omari v. Holder , 562 F.3d 314, 318 (5th Cir. 2009). The petition for review is DISMISSED.

2 Case: 12-60542 Document: 00512248825 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/21/2013
EXHIBIT 33.1

           Report on Assessment of Compliance with Servicing Criteria
                       for Year End December 31, 2006 of
     The Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A., as Securities Administrator


           ASSERTION OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE SERVICING CRITERIA


The Bank of New York and The Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A. (collectively,
the "Company")  provides this  platform-level  assessment of compliance with the
servicing criteria specified in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB promulgated by the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Management has determined that the following  servicing  criteria are applicable
in regards to the following servicing platform for the following period:

Platform:  Publicly-issued (i.e., transaction-level reporting initially required
under  the   Securities   Exchange   Act  of  1934,   as  amended)   residential
mortgage-backed  securities and other mortgage-related  asset-backed  securities
issued on or after January 1, 2006 (and like-kind  transactions  issued prior to
January  1,  2006)  for  which  the   Company   provides   trustee,   securities
administration,  paying agent or custodial services.  The platform includes like
kind   transactions   for  which  the  Company  provided   trustee,   securities
administrator,  paying agent or custodial  services as a result of the Company's
acquisition  as of October 1, 2006 of portions of  JPMorgan  Chase Bank,  N.A.'s
corporate  trust  business,   including  structured  finance  agency  and  trust
transactions.

Applicable Servicing Criteria: All servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d),
to  the  extent  required  by  the  related  transaction  agreements  as to  any
transaction,  except for the following criteria:  1122 (d) (1)(ii), (iii), (iv),
(4) (iv), (v), (vi), (vii), (viii), (ix), (x), (xi), (xii) and (xiii).

Period: Twelve months ended December 31, 2006.

With respect to the Platform and the Period,  the Company provides the following
assessment of compliance in respect of the Applicable Servicing Criteria:

- The Company is responsible  for assessing its  compliance  with the Applicable
Servicing Criteria.

- The  Company has assessed  compliance with the  Applicable Servicing Criteria.

- As of  December  31,  2006 and for the  Period,  the  Company  was in material
compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.


Ernst & Young LLP, an independent  registered public accounting firm, has issued
an  attestation  report with respect to the  Company's  foregoing  assessment of
compliance.


        The Bank of New York                    The Bank of New York
        The Bank of New York Trust              The Bank of New York Trust
            Company, N.A.                           Company, N.A.

        By: /s/ Robert L. Griffin               By: /s/ Patrick J. Tadie
            ----------------------                  ----------------------
            Robert L. Griffin                       Patrick J. Tadie
            Authorized Signer                       Authorized Signer
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

J.W., a child,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-3186

[November 8, 2018]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Gregory M. Keyser, Judge; L.T. Case No. 17CJ001995AMB.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Virginia Murphy, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Mark J. Hamel, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GERBER, C.J., WARNER and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit
32
  Certification
of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
 Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to
 Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 
 In
connection with the Annual Report of Green Irons Holdings Corp. a Nevada
corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended April 30, 2009, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), Sandy McDougall, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, 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 result of operations of the
      Company.
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Green Irons Holdings Corp., and will be retained by Green Irons Holdings Corp.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
 
 
 
 /s/
Sandy
McDougall
 Sandy
McDougall
 Chief
Executive Officer
 Chief
Financial Officer
 June 17,
2009
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Report on Form 10-Q of nStor Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Form 10-Q"), I, Jack Jaiven, Interim Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)        The Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                                                                               /s/ Jack Jaiven                                                                                               Jack Jaiven                                                                                               Interim Chief Financial Officer                                                                                               May 13, 2004
Exhibit
13.1



CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In
connection with the Annual Report of Red Metal Resources Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the period ended January
31, 2022, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Caitlin Jeffs,
Principal 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.



|Date:
    May 31, 2022 |                                
|---------------------- | -------------------------------
|                       |                                
|                       | /s/
    Caitlin Jeffs          
|                       | Caitlin
    Jeffs              
|                       | Principal
    Executive Officer
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6630 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

1400 N Kraemer Blvd. in Placentia, California, as the ‘‘PFC Jang 

Ho Kim Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2022 

Mrs. KIM of California introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 1400 N Kraemer Blvd. in Placentia, California, as the ‘‘PFC Jang Ho Kim Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. PFC JANG HO KIM POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 2400 N Kraemer Blvd. in 

6 Placentia, California, shall be known and designated as 

7 the ‘‘PFC Jang Ho Kim Post Office Building’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6630 IH

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘PFC Jang Ho Kim 

5 Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: White Lion Holdings, v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-14-00104-CV

Trial court case number: D-1-GV-13-001068

Trial court: 98th District Court of Travis County

The motion to withdraw filed by Mary W. Koks and the law firm of Munsch, Hardt, Kopf 

& Harr, P.C. is GRANTED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ___/s/_Harvey Brown

X Acting individually 

Date: December 16, 2016
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





In
      connection with the Annual Report of Scout Acquisition, Inc. (the "Company")
      on
      Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Scott
      Baily, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.
      906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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; 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/
              Scott BailyScott
              BailyPrincipal
              Executive OfficerPrincipal Financial OfficerAugust 12, 2008
#### Mansa Mura MASSI, a/k/a Wayland Willard Talley, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES MARSHAL SERVICE; Thomas R. Corcoran; R & D Personnel MCAC, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 03-6803.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 14, 2003.

Decided Aug. 21, 2003.

Mansa Mura Massi, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Michael DiBiagio, United States Attorney, Allen F. Loucks, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland; John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Mansa Mura Massi appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) and *Bivens.*
      *290
      ***
      **We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Massi v. United States Marshal’s Serv.,*No. CA-02-3555-MJG (D. Md. filed Mar. 21, 2003; entered Mar. 23, 2003). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*

*Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,*403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971).
Exhibit 10(b)



 EXHIBIT (10)(b) 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 







 Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in the Statement of Additional Information
and to use of our reports: (1) dated April 28, 2014, with respect to the statutory-basis financial statements and schedules of Western Reserve Life Assurance Co. of Ohio and (2) dated April 28, 2014, with respect to the financial statements of the
subaccounts of the WRL Series Annuity Account, included in Post-Effective Amendment No. 28 to the Registration Statement (Form N-4, No. 33-49556) and related Prospectus of WRL Freedom Attainer. 

 

			
	 Des Moines, IA
 April 28, 2014
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Corey Jerome HENRY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-4225.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted July 31, 2002.

Decided Nov. 15, 2002.

Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Edward H. Weis, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Kasey Warner, United States Attorney, John L. File, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Corey Jerome Henry appeals from his 71-month sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (West 2000), following his November 29, 2001, guilty plea. At sentencing on February 25, 2002, the district court enhanced his sentence, imposing a four-level increase to his offense level under *United States Sentencing Guideline Manual*§ 2K2.1(b)(5) (2000) based on the court’s finding that Henry possessed the firearm in connection with the distribution of marijuana.

Henry argues that the Government did not sufficiently prove a connection between the guns and the drug offense to warrant increasing his offense level under § 2K2.1(b)(5). However, this court has repeatedly recognized the close link between firearms and drug distribution. *See United States v. Ward,*171 F.3d 188, 195 (4th Cir.1999). In this case, the firearm was in Henry’s hand, Henry admitted selling marijuana only hours before his apprehension out of the motel where he was found, and the room in which he was arrested contained a cell phone, pager, large amounts of cash, and a small amount of marijuana. The evidence produced at sentencing established by a preponderance that Henry possessed the handgun in connection with the felony offense of drug possession with intent to distribute. *Id.*at 195 (recognizing that a Rolex watch, a wad of $1055, and a hand gun were all indicia of drug dealing). Accordingly, we affirm Henry’s sentence.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*