alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 12.1  Certification by the Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  I, Arkady  Volozh, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Yandex  N.V. (the Company);  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 Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The Company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 Company 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 Company, 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)Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company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  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the Companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Companys internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The Companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Companys auditors and the audit committee of the Company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 Company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 Companys internal control over financial reporting.  Date: March 11, 2013  By:
/s/ ARKADY  VOLOZHName:
ArkadyVolozhTitle:
Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 13.1

 

Certification by the 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 on Form 20-F of Yandex N.V. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2018, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned Arkady Volozh, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Greg Abovsky, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, 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 his 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: September 3,  2019

 

|   |              |                                              |   |
|--------|-------------------|---------------------------------------------------|--------|
| By:    | /s/ Arkady Volozh |                                              |
|   | Name:             | Arkady Volozh                                     |   |
|   | Title:            | Chief Executive Officer                           |   |
|   |              |                                              |
| By:    | /s/ Greg Abovsky  |                                              |
|   | Name:             | Greg Abovsky                                      |   |
|   | Title:       | Chief Operating Officer / Chief Financial Officer |   |
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7664

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOHN ANTHONY CAPERS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CR-92-446, CA-98-2111-2-18) Submitted: March 25, 1999 Decided: March 31, 1999 Before WILKINS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Anthony Capers, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Hayden Bickerton, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: John Anthony Capers seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5K2.0 (1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. We note that, because Capers’ motion did not challenge the validity of his original sentence, the motion should not have been docketed as a motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We therefore deny Capers’ motion for a certificate ofappealability as unnecessary. 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
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2795 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2795

 To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to expand the definition of 
                           eligible program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 11, 2014

Ms. Baldwin (for herself and Mr. Kaine) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, 
                     Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to expand the definition of 
                           eligible program.

    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 ``Career and Technical Education 
Opportunity Act''.

SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF ELIGIBLE PROGRAMS.

    The Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.) is 
amended--
            (1) in section 481(b), by adding at the end the following:
    ``(5)(A) For purposes of parts D and E, the term `eligible program' 
includes a program of not less than 250 clock hours of instruction, 
offered during a minimum of 5 weeks of instruction that leads an 
industry-recognized credential.
    ``(B) In this paragraph, the term `industry-recognized credential' 
means an industry-recognized credential that--
            ``(i) is demonstrated to be of high quality by the 
        institution offering the program in the program participation 
        agreement under section 487;
            ``(ii) meets the current, as of the date of the 
        determination, or projected needs of a local or regional 
        workforce for recruitment, screening, hiring, retention, or 
        advancement purposes--
                    ``(I) as determined by the State in which the 
                program is located, in consultation with business 
                entities; or
                    ``(II) as demonstrated by the institution offering 
                the program leading to the credential; and
            ``(iii) is, where applicable, endorsed by a nationally 
        recognized trade association or organization representing a 
        significant part of the industry or sector.''; and
            (2) in section 487(a), by adding at the end the following:
            ``(30) In the case of an institution that offers a program 
        of not less than 250 clock hours of instruction, offered during 
        a minimum of 5 weeks of instruction that leads an industry-
        recognized credential, as provided under section 481(b)(5), the 
        institution will demonstrate to the Secretary that the 
        industry-recognized credential is of high quality.''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 21.1  Wellness Center USA, Inc. List of Subsidiaries  Name of Subsidiary or Consolidated EntityPlace of Formation/Incorporation (Jurisdiction)Date of Incorporation (Date of Acquisition, if Applicable)Attributable InterestCNS Wellness Florida, LLCThe State of FloridaMay 26, 2009
(August 2, 2012)100%Psoria-Shield Inc.The State of FloridaJune 17, 201
(August 24, 2012)2100%National Pain Centers, Inc.The State of Nevada FloridaJanuary 24, 2014
(February 28, 2014)100%Stealthco, Inc.The State of IllinoisMarch 18, 2014
(April 4, 2014)100%
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. WILLIE WADE.

July 23, 1985.

Cross-petition for certification denied.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
Pursuant to

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



In connection with this Annual Report on Form
10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2016 (the "Report") of Garrison Capital Inc. (the "Registrant"),
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Joseph Tansey, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant,
hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------







|/s/ Joseph Tansey       | 
|----------------------- | 
|Joseph Tansey           | 
|Chief Executive Officer | 
|March 7, 2017           |
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS

 

We hereby consent to the use by SandRidge Mississippian Trust I (the “Trust”) of our name and to the inclusion of information taken from the reports listed below in the Trust’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) on or about March 16, 2017, including any amendments thereto:

 

December 31, 2016, SandRidge Mississippian Trust I Interest in Certain Properties located in Oklahoma — SEC Price Case

December 31, 2015, SandRidge Mississippian Trust I Interest in Certain Properties located in Oklahoma — SEC Price Case

December 31, 2014, SandRidge Mississippian Trust I Interest in Certain Properties located in Oklahoma — SEC Price Case

 

 
| ** ** | **CAWLEY,   GILLESPIE ****& ASSOCIATES, INC.** |
|------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
|       |                                                              |   |
|       | By:                                                               | /s/   J. Zane Meekins |
|       |                                                              | J.   Zane Meekins |
|       |                                                              | Executive   Vice President |

 

Fort Worth, Texas

March 16, 2017

 

----
Exhibit 99.11

LETTER OF CONSENT

Reference is made to the technical report dated May 25, 2011,
entitled Strange Lake B Zone Resource Model Update (the Technical Report) which the undersigned has prepared in part for Quest Rare Minerals Ltd. (the Corporation).

I hereby consent to the inclusion of references to my name and references to, and the extracts from, or summaries of, the Technical Report, in the
Corporations Annual Information Form dated January 23, 2012 for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2011, which is incorporated by reference in the Annual Report on Form 40-F, including all exhibits, of the Corporation, which is being
filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.



|                       
|-----------------------
|Yours very truly,      
|                       
|(signed) David Baughman
|                       
|David Baughman, P.Eng. 
|Hazen Research Inc.    
|                       
|Dated: January 27, 2012
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7362

CHARLES BROOKS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

ERIC D. WILSON, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District 

Judge. (3:12-cv-00853-HEH)

Submitted: March 17, 2015 Decided: March 19, 2015

Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Brooks, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Holland Hambrick, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Charles Brooks, a District of Columbia Code offender, seeks 

to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 

U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable 

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012); Wilson v. 

U.S. Parole Comm’n, 652 F.3d 348, 351-52 (3d Cir. 2011); Madley 

v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 278 F.3d 1306, 1308 (D.C. Cir. 2002). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner must demonstrate that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court 

denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the 

denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Brooks has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 
3

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
## THE STATE OF TEXAS
MANDATE

TO THE 5TH DISTRICT COURT OF BOWIE COUNT Y, GREETINGS:
Before the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 8th
day of October, A.D. 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your Judgment was

determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

Donald Ray Brown, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee No. 06

- 14

- 00183

- CR

Trial Court No. 11F860

- 005

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court
below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
We note that the appellant, Donald Ray Brown, has adequately indicated his inability to
pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in this
behalf, and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.
WITNESS, the Hon. Josh R. Morriss, III, Chief Justice of our said Court of Appea ls, with
the seal thereof annexed, at the City of Texarkana, this the 8th day of December , A.D. 2015

.

DEBRA K. AUTREY , Clerk
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 20-0343

_________________

STATE OF MONTANA,

 Plaintiff and Appellee,

 v.

WILLIAM JAMES HARNING,

 Defendant and Appellant.

O R D E R

_________________

Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for 

submission on briefs to the Court sitting en banc. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the 

Honorable Colette B. Davies, District Judge.

For the Court,

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 19 2022

01/19/2022

Case Number: DA 20-0343
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JAMES JEFFERSON KENNER,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

RUBEN VIDAURRI, C.O.; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 13-15481

D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00784-RCJ-VPC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Robert Clive Jones, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 7, 2014** 

Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

Nevada state prisoner James Jefferson Kenner appeals pro se from the

district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due

process violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de

novo, Valdez v. Rosenbaum, 302 F.3d 1039, 1043 (9th Cir. 2002), and may affirm

FILED

APR 14 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
on any ground supported by the record, Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP,

534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Kenner’s due

process claim concerning his placement in administrative segregation pending

disciplinary charges because Kenner failed to raise a genuine dispute of material

fact as to whether his placement gave rise to a protected liberty interest warranting

due process protections. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 486 (1995)

(administrative segregation by itself does not implicate a protected liberty interest

because it does not impose an atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in

relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life); see also Cousins v. Lockyer, 568

F.3d 1063, 1070-71 (9th Cir. 2009) (failure to comply with prison regulations does

not amount to a constitutional violation). 

Summary judgment on Kenner’s due process claim concerning his

confinement to disciplinary segregation and loss of good time credits was proper

because, even assuming Kenner raised a triable dispute as to whether these

restraints gave rise to a protected liberty interest, he received all the process that he

was due. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 564-67 (1974) (setting forth due

process requirements before imposing sanctions implicating a prisoner’s liberty

interest); Koenig v. Vannelli, 971 F.2d 422, 423 (9th Cir. 1992) (prison officials

2 13-15481
may limit an inmate’s efforts to defend himself if they have a legitimate

penological reason).

We do not consider issues regarding the dismissal of Kenner’s conspiracy

and Eighth Amendment claims because they are not supported by argument. See

Am. Int’l Enters., Inc. v. FDIC, 3 F.3d 1263, 1266 n.5 (9th Cir. 1993).

Kenner’s contentions regarding defendants’ alleged failure to give him

Miranda warnings and their alleged decision to place him in the equivalent of

solitary confinement are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

3 13-15481
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                   [REPUBLIC GROUP INCORPORATED LETTERHEAD]

NEWS RELEASE

REPUBLIC GROUP INCORPORATED STOCKHOLDERS APPROVE MERGER WITH PREMIER
CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS ACQUISITION CORP.

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

Hutchinson, Kan., Nov. 9, 2000--The shareholders of Republic Group Incorporated
("Republic") (NYSE:RGC) today voted at a shareholder meeting to approve the
merger of Republic with Premier Construction Products Acquisition Corp. The
merger will also become effective today, November 9, 2000.

Pursuant to the merger agreement, each share of outstanding Republic common
stock, together with the associated common stock share purchase rights, will be
cancelled and entitle the holder to $19.00 cash.  Upon completion of the merger,
Republic will be the surviving corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Premier Construction Products, Inc., a privately held entity and successor to
Premier Construction Products Statutory Trust, the original party to the merger
agreement.

"We are extremely pleased to have completed this merger," said Phil Simpson,
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Republic, "and we are delighted that our
stockholders have agreed that the transaction and the price presented for their
approval were in their best interests.  In this fortieth year of the Company's
existence, I wish to add my personal statement of gratitude to the many
stockholders, directors, employees, customers, suppliers and professional
advisors who have helped us along the way.  We have long-standing relationships
with many of these persons.  Also, I would like to thank the attorneys,
accountants and bankers who worked diligently to consummate this transaction in
recent months."

Republic's common stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol
"RGC".  Shares of Republic common stock will continue to trade on the New York
Stock Exchange until the close of business today, November 9, 2000, at which
time trading will be suspended and the shares delisted from the New York Stock
Exchange.  Republic will also terminate its reporting requirements with the
Securities and Exchange Commission with respect to its common stock.

The Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of August 11, 2000 among Premier
Construction Products Statutory Trust  ("Premier") and Premier Construction
Products Acquisition Corp. ("Acquisition Sub") and Republic (the "Merger
Agreement") was included as part of the Proxy Statement previously distributed
to Republic stockholders and filed with the Securities Exchange Commission.

Republic Group Incorporated and its wholly-owned operating
subsidiaries--Republic Paperboard Company, Republic Fiber Company, and Republic
Gypsum Company--are manufacturers and marketers of 100% recycled paperboard,
recovered paper fiber and gypsum wallboard, servicing markets nationwide.