alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Intelligent
Buying, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:



The annual report on Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2012 (the "Form 10-K") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|Date: April 13, 2013 |                            
|-------------------- | ---------------------------
|                     |                            
|                     | /s/ David Gorodyansky      
|                     |                            
|                     | David Gorodyansky          
|                     | Principal Executive Officer



A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to INTELLIGENT BUYING, INC. and will be retained by INTELLIGENT BUYING, INC. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### REED v. ALSON.

No. 14796.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Oct. 7, 1935.

Porteous, Johnson & Humphrey and Julian B. Humphrey, all of New Orleans, for appellant.

A. Melville Wolfson, of New Orleans, for appellee.

*441LECHE, Judge.

Plaintiff brought this suit for damages in the sum of $293 and obtained a judgment in .her favor for $72. Defendant has appealed.

Only issues of fact are involved. Plaintiff, as the lessee of a portion of the premises No. 1427 Poydras street, asks for damages for injuries sustained by her when a stairway on the premises broke, causing her to fall to the ground sustaining the injuries complained of. The room occupied by her was on the second floor and was reached by an outside stairway leading up through the yard. On the 22d day of July, 1933, while sweeping these stairs, a portion of the stairway collapsed. Plaintiff fell through the stairway onto an icebox which was situated beneath the steps, and sustained minor injuries.

Our appreciation of the record is that the findings of the trial court as to liability and on the quantum of damages are substantially correct, and, under well settled jurisprudence, the judgment should not be disturbed in the absence of manifest error.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6413 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6413

To prohibit local educational agencies from obligating certain Federal 
 funds when schools are not providing full-time in-person instruction.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 18, 2022

   Mrs. Cammack (for herself, Mr. Mast, Mr. Waltz, Mr. Dunn, and Mr. 
 Rutherford) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit local educational agencies from obligating certain Federal 
 funds when schools are not providing full-time in-person instruction.

    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 ``Keep Kids in Schools Act''.

SEC. 2. RESTRICTION RELATING TO IN-PERSON INSTRUCTION.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and 
subject to subsection (b), a local educational agency that received 
funds under section 18003 of division B of the CARES Act (Public Law 
116-136), section 313 of the Coronavirus Response and Relief 
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2021 (division M of Public Law 116-
260), or section 2001 of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public 
Law 117-2) shall not obligate such funds during any period when one or 
more elementary or secondary schools served by such local educational 
agency are not providing full-time in-person instruction.
    (b) Exception.--The restriction described in subsection (a) shall 
not apply with respect to a school that is not providing full-time in-
person instruction due to following quarantine or isolation guidelines 
issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
                                 <all>
```
177 La. 671

#### PETERS v. FEDERAL LAND BANK OF NEW ORLEANS.

No. 31674.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 29, 1933.

Rehearing Denied July 7, 1933.

E. S. Prudhomme, of Natchitoches, for appellant.

Harold Moses and Kenneth C. Barranger, both of New Orleans, for appellee.

ST. PAUL, Justice.

Some time in the summer of 1931, the exact date not appearing in the transcript, the defendant took out executory proceedings against the property of plaintiR upon a past due and unpaid mortgage note.

Before the sale plaintiff sued for an injunction to stop the proceedings, on the ground that defendant had granted him an extension of time until the 1st of January, 1932. The trial judge granted a temporary restraining order and a rule to show cause why the injunction should not issue. On the trial of the rule the judge refused the injunction and dissolved the restraining order, but granted plaintiff a suspensive appeal which is now before us.

The only evidence adduced by plaintiff is that of himself and a tenant farmer of the land, that once upon a time some unknown and unidentified person, claiming or assumed to be the agent of defendant, came into the plaintiff’s field and there, in the presence of the tenant farmer, granted plaintiff the alleged extension.

Pretermitting the fact that plaintiff and his tenant farmer disagree both as to time and circumstance about the granting of the alleged extension, that plaintiff then had a letter from the defendant declining even to discuss an extension and stating that the claim had been placed for collection in the hands of their attorney whom he (plaintiff) would have to consult in the matter, and that this attorney agreed that plaintiff would be granted an extension of two weeks and no more, which extension of two weeks had expired when foreclosure proceedings were commenced, the fact remains that there is no evidence to show that there was any authority given to any one by defendant to grant plaintiff any extension whatever save and except the qualified authority given to the attorney and exercised by him as aforesaid, and the officers and agents of the defendant testify positively that no other extension was ever given.

The trial judge did not believe the alleged extension had been granted, and we think his judgment is correct.

Decree.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
To:United States Securities and Exchange CommissionRe:Red Metal Resources Ltd. (the “Company”)Annual Report on Form 20-FConsent of Expert   This consent is provided in connection with the Company’s Annual Report on Form 20-F to be filed by the Company with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission and any amendments thereto (the “Registration Statement”).  I, Scott Jobin-Bevans, Ph. D., PMP, P. Geo., of Sudbury, Ontario, hereby consent to:  ·the use of my name in connection with my involvement in the preparation of the technical report entitled I am the author of the independent technical report dated August 30, 2021 entitled “Independent Technical Report on the Carrizal Cu-Co-Au Property, Carrizal Alto Mining District, III Region de Atacama, Chile” with an Effective Date of August 1, 2021 (the “Technical Report”);  ·references to the Technical Report, or portions thereof, in the Annual Report;  ·the inclusion of the information derived from the Technical Report in the Annual Report; and  ·the identification of myself as the person responsible for ensuring that the technical information contained in the Annual Report is an accurate summary of the original reports and data provided to or developed by the Company.  Dated: May 31, 2023/s/ Scott Jobin-BevansScott Jobin-Bevans, Ph. D., PMP, P. Geo.Principal GeoscientistCaracle Creek International Consulting Inc
```

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 166 (Tuesday, August 26, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 50395]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-19770]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 6333]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Paintings From the Reign of Victoria: The Royal 
Holloway Collection, London''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 
of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of 
April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Paintings from the Reign of Victoria: The 
Royal Holloway Collection, London,'' imported from abroad for temporary 
exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The 
objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign 
owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display 
of the exhibit objects at the Philbrook Museum of Art, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 
from on or about October 12, 2008, until on or about January 4, 2009; 
at the Delaware Museum of Art, Wilmington, Delaware, from on or about 
January 31, 2009, until on or about April 12, 2009; at the Yale Center 
for British Art, New Haven, Connecticut, from on or about June 11, 
2009, until on or about July 26, 2009; at Brigham Young University 
Museum of Art, Provo, Utah, from on or about August 15, 2009, until on 
or October 25, 2009; at the Huntsville Museum of Art, Huntsville, 
Alabama, from on or about November 21, 2009, until on or about January 
31, 2010; at the Society of the Four Arts, Palm Beach, Florida, from on 
or about March 12, 2010, until on or about April 18, 2010; and at the 
Iris and Gerald B. Cantor Center for the Visual Arts, Stanford 
University, Stanford, California, from on or about May 15, 2010, until 
on or about July 12, 2010; and at possible additional exhibitions or 
venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice 
of these Determinations is ordered to be published in the Federal 
Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Wolodymyr Sulzynsky, Attorney-
Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State 
(telephone: 202/453-8050). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-
44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.

    Dated: August 19, 2008.
C. Miller Crouch,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural 
Affairs, Department of State.
 [FR Doc. E8-19770 Filed 8-25-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
#### Adrien THIBODEAUX v. TEXAS & NEW ORLEANS RAILROAD CO. et al.

No. 2323.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Feb. 18, 1942.

A. Wilmot Dalferes, of Lafayette, for appellant.

James J. Martin and E. L. Guidry, both of St. Martinville, for appellees.

DORE, Judge.

For the reasons assigned in the consolidated cases of Adrien Thibodeaux et al. v. Texas & New Orleans Railroad Company et al., *6*So.2d 224, this day handed down, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
#### DADE-BROWARD LAND CO., et al., Appellants, v. GREENFIELD VILLAGES, Inc., Etc., Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida, Division A.

Oct. 8, 1954.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
EX-33 (g)

ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE SERVICING CRITERIA

Newport Management Corporation (the "Asserting Party") provides this
assessment of compliance with respect to its performance of functions for the
Applicable Servicing Criteria, as specified in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB
promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission, in regards to the loans
selected in the Platform for the following Period:

Platform: Pools of loans, underlying publicly-issued residential
mortgage-backed securities that were issued on or after January 1, 2006 by
IndyMac Bank ("IndyMac"), on which escrow payments were disbursed in 2006,
specifically Item 1122(d)(4)(xi), only as it relates to the "Applicable
Servicing Criteria" described below, and as disclosed by IndyMac to the
Asserting Party (collectively, "Eligible Loans", as identified in Schedule A).

Period: As of and for the year ended December 31, 2006.

Applicable Servicing Criteria: the servicing criteria which applies to the
functions performed by the Asserting Party is set forth in Section
229.1122(d)(4)(xi) ("Applicable Servicing Criteria"). With respect to the
Applicable Servicing Criteria, the Asserting Party performs the following
limited functions:
1.       Processes the obligor's hazard insurance information it receives and
provides IndyMac with the applicable hazard insurance effective date, payment
amount, and payee (collectively, "Insurance Information");
2.       Provides the Insurance Information to IndyMac no later than 5 days
prior to the applicable expiration date as indicated in the Insurance
Information.

With respect to the Platform, and with respect to the Period, the Asserting
Party provides the following assessment of its compliance in respect of the
Applicable Servicing Criteria (as defined above):

1. The Asserting Party is responsible for assessing its compliance with respect
to the functions it performs for the Applicable Servicing Criteria.

2. The Asserting Party has assessed its compliance with respect to the functions
it performs for the Applicable Servicing Criteria.

3. Other than as identified on Schedule B hereto, as of and for the Period, the
Asserting Party was in material compliance with respect to the functions it
performs for the Applicable Servicing Criteria.

KPMG, LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an
attestation report with respect to the Asserting Party's foregoing assessment of
compliance.



NEWPORT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION

By:
/s/ Mark A. McElroy
Mark A. McElroy

Its: Executive Vice President

Dated: February 27, 2007


(page)


SCHEDULE A


Exhibits maintained at the office of the Depositor.




(page)



SCHEDULE B

MATERIAL INSTANCES OF NONCOMPLIANCE

  No material instances of noncompliance: Newport Management Corporation has
  complied, in all material respects, with the aforementioned criterion as for
  the year ended December 31, 2006.
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Intelligent Buying, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:





The annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 (the "Form 10-K") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date: March 23, 2011





/s/ David GorodyanskyDavid GorodyanskyPrincipal Executive Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to INTELLIGENT BUYING, INC. and will be retained by INTELLIGENT BUYING, INC. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### TATE v. TATE.

No. 2509.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

April 20, 1943.

For prior opinion, see 12 So.2d 506.

S. S. Reid, of Amite, and Allen B. Pier-son, of Ponchatoula, for appellant.

R. F. Walker and Dudley L. Weber, both of Baton Rouge, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

As appears from the registry mail card receipt signed by the person acting as agent for the Attorney of record in this case, notice of judgment, together with a copy thereof, was received on March 25th 1943.

The application for rehearing was not received and filed by the Clerk of this Court until April 9, 1943, or the fifteenth day following receipt of said notice.

By the provisions of Act No. 16 of 1910, judgments rendered by this Court become final and executory on the fifteenth calendar day after rendition. See also Sec 24, Art. 7, of the Constitution of 1921.

Excluding the day on which notice was received, fourteen days intervened before the application for rehearing was filed. In other words, it was filed on the fifteenth day after notice, or on the day on which the judgment became final and executory. See Tyson v. Baker et al., La.App., 12 So. 2d 468, decided March 24th 1943.

It was therefore filed too late and cannot be considered.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 302OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Alec Taylor, ChiefExecutive Officer of FGX International Holdings Limited certify that:

 

1.* *Ihave reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of FGX International HoldingsLimited; and

 

2.* *Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report.

 
| March 23, 2010 |   | /s/ ALEC TAYLOR          |
|---------------------|--------|-------------------------------|
|                |   | Alec Taylor                   |
|                |   | *Chief  Executive Officer*    |
|                |   | (principal executive officer) |

 

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Troy L. McFARLANE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-6876.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 23, 2002.

Decided Nov. 7, 2002.

Troy L. McFarlane, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Lee Whisler, Office of the United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Troy McFarlane seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *See United States v. McFarlane,*Nos. CR-97-290; CA-00-533-1-3 (W.D.N.C. filed Apr. 30, 2002; entered May 2, 2002).* 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.

*DISMISSED.*

*

 Claims raised for the first time on appeal will not be considered absent exceptional circumstances such as plain error or a fundamental miscarriage of justice. *Muth v. United States,*1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993). We find no such circumstances present here.
#### Frank Gross, Plaintiff, *v.*Kathairo Chemical Company, Defendant.

Second Department,

December 2, 1908.

Appeal — form of order of reversal.

An order reversing a judgment entered on a verdict will not be amended so as to read “ reversed upon the law and not upon the facts,” for there is no such form of reversal in any case, and the amendment would not change the status of an appeal to the Court of Appeals.

Motion to amend an order of the Appellate Division reversing a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and an order denying a motion for a new trial made upon the minutes. (See 127 App. Div. 165.)

Jones, *McKinny &*Steinbrink, for the motion.

*Mayer*& Gilbert, opposed.

Gaynor, J.:

We reversed a judgment for the plaintiff for damages for breach of a contract entered on a verdict, and the order denying the motion *on*the minutes for a new trial. This motion is by the plaintiff to have our order of reversal amended so as to read “ reversed upon the law and not upon the facts ”. There is no such form of reversal in any case, and it would serve no purpose to grant the motion. It would in no way affect the status of the appeal to the Court of *412Appeals, but would be useless verbiage. The motion is made out of an entire lack of knowledge on the subject, which could only result from a failure to read the statute which is applicable, although we have been at much pains to point out the provisions of such statute and the practice in respect of orders of reversal *(Brennan*v. *City of New York,*123 App. Div. 7; *Duryea*v. Zimmerman, Id. 805).

The motion is denied with costs.

Tenes, Hooker, Rich and Miller, JJ., concurred.

Motion denied, with costs.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                           Soligen Technologies, Inc.

                        Computation of Net Loss Per Share



                                            Fiscal Year Ended March 31,
                                           ----------------------------
                                           2000                   1999
                                     -------------------    -------------------
  Weighted average number
   of common shares                          33,827,000             32,682,000
  Net loss before beneficial conversion   $    (909,000)         $  (1,718,000)
  Net loss available to common
    stockholders                          $  (1,048,000)         $  (1,718,000)
  Net loss per share (basic and diluted)  $       (0.03)         $       (0.05)