alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.4

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Peter J. Cashin, President and Chief Executive Officer of Quest Rare Minerals Ltd. (the Corporation), hereby
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:



| | a. | the Annual Report on Form 40-F of the Corporation for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2013 (the Annual Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | b. | the information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of the Corporation.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: January 29, 2014

(signed) Peter J. CashinName: Peter J. Cashin Title:
President and Chief Executive Officer


This written statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the
Corporations Annual Report on Form 40-F. A signed original of this statement has been provided to the Corporation and will be retained by the Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies this Annual Report on Form 40-F pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and
shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Corporation for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act). Such certification will
not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Corporation specifically incorporates it by reference.
#### A. T. Obenchain v. James I. Reekes.

(No. 1501, Op. Book No. 2, p. 166.)

Appeal from Dallas County.

June 25, 1880.

Opinion by

Walker, A. S., J.

§ 970. *Garnishment; city bonds not subject to; rule as to negotiable paper in garnishment proceeding; tuhen rights become fixed.*Reekes having a judgment against Obenchain, garnished Adams & Leonard, who answered that Reekes had placed in their hands for sale certain bonds of the city of Dallas, which bonds they had forwarded to their agents in New York, to be sold in that market. Subsequent to the service of the garnishment, and the answer of the garnishees, the bonds were sold, and the proceeds were received by the garnishees. *Held:*1. That with regard to the character of the bonds, it is now too well settled for those entertaining a different opinion, to maintain that they should not be treated as commercial paper, or that the holders of them are not entitled to the privileges and immunities attaching to negotiable instruments. [Board v. R. R. Co. 46 Tex. 316.] 2. Such being the character of the bonds, they were not subject to the writ of garnishment. [Price v. Brady, 21 Tex. 614; Taylor v. Gillean, 23 Tex. 508; Ellison v. Tuttle, 26 Tex. 283.] 3. Garnishment process must not be given a perpetual force against the dealings between the debtor and garnishee, unless the statute so enact. The Revised Statutes [art. 206], in prescribing .the judgment against the garnishee, provides for a decree when “effects” of the defendant liable to execution shall be in the hands of the garnishee. This evidently defines the term “effects” as used in prescribing the rights and duties created by the service of the writ. [R. S. 191.] The rights of the parties became fixed at the time the garnishees filed their answer and the same was controverted. The subsequent sale or disposition of the. bonds was immaterial. [Drake on Attach. § 667.]

Reversed and remanded.
#### Joseph Mulhaul v. Fritz Feller.

(No. 1857, Op. Book No. 2, p. 456.)

Appeal from Washington County.

Opinion by

Quinan, J.

§ 1162. *Jurisdiction of justice of the peace; reconvention.*Suit for $160. Defendant pleaded in reconvention a claim for damages amounting to $360, and asked judgment against plaintiff for $200. *Held,*that the plea in reconvention was within the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace, as the judgment asked upon it was for an amount within the jurisdiction of that court. [R. S. 650; Dalby v. Murphy, 25 Tex. 354.]

§1163. *Attachment; reconvention; evidence.*Mulhaul sued Feller and had an attachment levied upon his property, and Mulhaul replevied the property. Feller pleaded in reconvention for damages. It was competent for Feller to read in evidence the attachment papers and the plaintiff’s replevy bond to show how it came about that his goods had been unlawfully taken, and that they had gone into plaintiff’s possession.

§ 1164. *Officer’s return; value of goods attached; measure of damage.*The plaintiff Mulhaul offered to prove that the value of Feller’s property which had been *664attached was less than the value assessed by the attaching officer, and stated in the officer’s return and in the replevy bond. This evidence was rejected by the court. *Held*error. Plaintiff was not estopped by the officer’s return or by the replevy bond. He was not estopped by the officer’s return as to value, for the law does not require the attaching officer to make any return of the value of property attached. An officer’s return is only an estoppel as to facts which he is required to state in it. [Freeman on Ex. § 305.] He was not estopped by the recital in the replevy bond, for the value of the goods is not there stated as agreed upon, but it is simply recited that the officer had valued them at so much. In replevy bonds and claim bonds which upon forfeiture warrant execution for the amount, the value as assessed may be conclusive, but the bond here was of no greater validity than a common law bond. The plaintiff had no right to replevy the property. No execution could issue upon this bond. The plaintiff should have been permitted to show the real value of the goods. The defendant’s measure of damages was that value and interest. [Wallace v. Finberg, 46 Tex. 46; Sedgwick on Dam. 491.]

October 3, 1881.

Reversed and remanded.
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 accompanying Quarterly Report of VSUS Technologies Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the nine month period ending March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kyle Gotshalk, 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, 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; and   (2) The information contained in the Report fully presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.   Date: May 1,2011By: /s/ Kyle GotshalkKyle GotshalkChief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 82 (Wednesday, May 17, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5086]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                    THREE CHEERS FOR THE WHITE HOUSE

  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to address the House 
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Hear, hear, Mr. Speaker. Three cheers for the White 
House, who has finally slapped Japan with a big time 100-percent tariff 
on luxury vehicles.
  And guess what? Acura is a crying, Infiniti is now finite, Toyota is 
toasted, Nissan is nixed, Mazda is maxed, Mitsubishi is busted, and 
Lexus is nauseous. But in the words of Bob Dylan, how does it feel, 
Japan? Because you see, we here in America know that Lincoln had been 
shrinking, Cadillac had been lacking, and Chrysler was almost mort.
  So think about it, Members. It is about time we used a 2 by 4 and 
open those markets. Open those markets in Japan if you want to 
straighten out the budget in America.
  And one thing, Japan, think of this: When you hold your own trade 
program to your nosey, it doesn't smell too rosy, does it? In the words 
of Bob Dylan, how does it feel? Big time tariffs. I yield back the 
balance of these huge tariffs.

                          ____________________
```
#### Matyski *v.*Buczkowski.

Opinion delivered February 20, 1922.

Appeal and error — appeal from order granting new trial — dismissal.' — Where the trial court set aside a verdict in favor of plaintiff and granted a new trial to defendant, and plaintiff appealed without filing- the stipulation required by Crawford oí Moses’ Dig., § 2129, subdiv. 2, that “if the order be affirmed, judgment absolute shall be rendered against the appellant”, the appeal will be dismissed.

Appeal from Prairie Circuit Court, Northern District; *George W. Clark,*Judge;

appeal dismissed.

*Emmet Vaughan,*for appellant.

*Cooper Thivedtt,*for appellee.

An ’ appeal will not lie from an order granting a new trial unless the appellant in his notice of appeal agrees that if the order be affirmed judgment absolute shall'be rendered against him. C. & M. Digest § 2129; 82 Ark. 490; 305 *Td.*324; 303 *Id.*90; 138 *Id.*448.

McCulloch, C. J.

Appellant instituted this action against appellee in the circuit court of Prairie County, (Northern District) to recover the sum of $221.80, alleged to be due on account for money deposited by appellant with appellee for safekeeping. Appellee answered, denying that the money was deposited with him for the purposes mentioned in the complaint and alleging that the amounts were delivered to him (appellee) as par*90.tial payments on certain land notes. There was a trial of the issues, which resulted in a verdict in appellant’s favor for .the full amount claimed in the complaint. Appellee filed a motion for a new trial, and the court, in passing on the motion, required appellant to enter' a *remittitur*of $110, and, upon refusal of appellant to enter a remittitur, the court set aside the verdict and granted a new trial.

Appellant prayed for an appeal, which was granted by the court, but he failed to stipulate, as required by the statute (Crawford & Moses’ Digest, § 2129, subdivision 2), that “if the order be affirmed, judgment absolute shall be rendered against the appellant.” The appeal therefore was not properly taken and is unavailable. *Osborn*v. LeMaire, 82 Ark. 490; *St. L. I. M. & S. Ry Co.*v. *Hix,*101 Ark. 90; *Yowell*v. *Fort Smith Pure Milk Co.,*118 Ark. 448.

The appeal not being properly taken, the cause still stands for trial on the docket of the circuit court, the same as if an appeal had not been attempted.

Appeal dismissed.
H. Con. Res. 440 Agreed to October 2, 2008

One Hundred Tenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and eight 

Concurrent Resolution 

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That when the House adjourns on any legislative day on 

a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its 

Majority Leader or his designee, it stand adjourned until 11 a.m. 

on Saturday, January 3, 2009, or until the time of any reassembly 

pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs 

first; and the Senate may adjourn or recess at any time from 

Thursday, October 2, 2008, through January 3, 2009, on a motion 

offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader 

or his designee until such time as specified in that motion, but 

not beyond noon on January 3, 2009, and it may reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution. 

SEC. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader 

of the Senate, or their respective designees, acting jointly after 

consultation with the Minority Leader of the House and the 

Minority Leader of the Senate, shall notify the Members of the 

House and the Senate, respectively, to reassemble at such place 

and respective time as they may designate if, in their opinion, 

the public interest shall warrant it. 

Attest: 

Clerk of the House of Representatives. 

Attest: 

Secretary of the Senate.
Order entered October ~)- , 2012

In The

No. 05-12-01139-CR THOMAS VINCIE BROWN, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law Rockwall County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CR09-1565



### ORDER The Court ORDERS the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and recommendations and determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, whether appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal.See TEx. R. A~,~,. P. 38.8(b). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the trial court shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State, 742 S.W.2d 708 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which may include appointment of new counsel.

### We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include

written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order. This appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are received, whichever 1s earlier.
News United States Air Force
 Around the Air Force: New PT, Uniform Standards for EPME, Interoperability with Marines, Autonomous Flight Moves ForwardPublished Sept. 15, 2023
                        
                        By Tech. Sgt. Britt Crolley
                        
                        
                        Air Force TV
                **FORT GEORGE G. Meade, Md. (AFNS) --**
                In this week’s look around the Air Force, Enlisted Professional Military Education courses have new uniform wear and physical fitness requirements, Airmen from Creech Air Force Base work with Marines in California, and a new proving ground for automated flight has its first successful test. (Hosted by Staff. Sgt. Milton Hamilton)



02:00


**Watch on DVIDS | Watch on YouTube**
For previous episodes, click **here** for the Air Force TV page.Featured Video 



AF 



Air Force 



ATAF 



Around the Air Force 



AFTV 



EPME 



physical fitness 



Marine Corps 



Remotely Piloted Aircraft 



Agile Combat Employment 



AI 



Air Force Research Laboratory Related Links
        Maxwell | Barnes Center implements new PT and uniform standard for EPME
            
            Unleashing aerial potential: Marine Corps harnesses Air Force RPA expertise
            
            First autonomous flight advances AI proving ground forward
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19

- 1870 V
UNPUBLISHED

SHERRI MCCOYLE

,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: May 19, 2021

Special Processing Unit (SPU) ; Rul ing on Entitlement; Concession; Table Injur y; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)

Paul R. Brazil, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA , for petitioner.

Terr ence Kevin Mangan, Jr. , U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

On December 11, 2019

, Sherri McCoyle filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa

- 10, et seq

. 2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration ( “ SIRVA ” ), which meets the Table definit ion for SIRVA, after receiving the influenza vaccine on October 1, 201 8 . Petit ion at 1

, ¶ 2

. Petitioner further alleges that s he received the vaccine in the U nited States, that s he suffered the residu al effects of h er SIRVA for more than six months, and that neither s he nor any other party has filed a civil

ac tion or received compensation for his injury . Petit ion at 1, ¶¶ 2 , 11

- 12

. T he case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E

- Government Act
of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). This means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information,
the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660, 100 Stat. 3755

. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subpara graph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012 ). CORRECTED2

On May 19, 2021

, R espondent filed a combined Rule 4(c) R eport and Proffer in which he concedes that P etitioner is entitled to compensa tion in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer at 1. Specifically, R espondent has “ concluded that [P]etitioner ’ s claim meets the Table criteria for SIRVA

. ” Id. at 3

- 4

.

In view of R espondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that P etitioner is entitle d to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master
<PAGE>

                                  Exhibit 99.2
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of U.S. Microbics, Inc. and Subsidiaries
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Conrad Nagel, Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify to the
best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 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 and 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.

                                            /S/CONRAD NAGEL
                                            ---------------
                                            Conrad Nagel
                                            Principal Accounting Officer
                                            May 19, 2003

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
document.
#### EDISON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF EDUCATION v. EDISON TOWNSHIP EDUCATION ASSOCIATION.

Dec. 20, 1979.

Petitions for certification denied.
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11


                  RAMSAY YOUTH SERVICES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                       QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,     NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,
                                                      ----------------------------     -------------------------------
                                                          2001             2000             2001             2000
                                                      -----------      -----------      -----------      -----------
                                                      (unaudited)      (unaudited)      (unaudited)      (unaudited)
<S>                                                   <C>              <C>              <C>              <C>
Numerator:
     Numerator for basic earnings per share -
       income attributable to common
       stockholders ............................      $ 1,078,000      $   138,000      $ 2,258,000      $   405,000
                                                      ===========      ===========      ===========      ===========

Denominator:
   Denominator for basic earnings per share -
     weighted-average shares ...................        9,056,000        8,915,000        8,977,000        8,908,000

   Effect of dilutive securities:
     Employee stock options and warrants .......        2,003,000               --        1,000,000          126,000
                                                      -----------      -----------      -----------      -----------
   Dilutive potential common shares ............        2,003,000               --        1,000,000          126,000
                                                      -----------      -----------      -----------      -----------
     Denominator for diluted earnings per
       share - adjusted weighted-average
       shares and assumed conversions ..........       11,059,000        8,915,000        9,977,000        9,034,000
                                                      ===========      ===========      ===========      ===========

Basic earnings per share .......................      $       .12      $       .02      $       .25      $       .05
                                                      ===========      ===========      ===========      ===========

Diluted earnings per share .....................      $       .10      $       .02      $       .23      $       .05
                                                      ===========      ===========      ===========      ===========


</TABLE>
News United States Air Force
 Around the Air Force: NCO Retraining Revamp, Aviator Retention, Quantum NavigationPublished Aug. 25, 2023
                        
                        By Senior Airman Saomy Sabournin
                        
                        
                        Air Force TV
                **Fort George G. Meade, Md. (AFNS) --**
                In this week’s look around the Air Force, retraining for career Airmen evolves, a demonstration program aims to keep rated aviators in service and artificial intelligence paired with Earth’s magnetic field may guide navigators in the future. (Hosted by Staff Sgt. Jazmin Granger)



02:00


**Watch on DVIDS | Watch on YouTube**
For previous episodes, click **here** for the Air Force TV page.Featured Video 



AF 



Air Force 



ATAF 



Around the Air Force 



AFTV 



retraining 



Manning Shortages 



Second Enlistment 



talent management 



aviators 



rated officers 



incentives 



Quantum Navigation 



Sandbox AQ 



innovation Related Links
        Quantum navigation aims to overcome GPS limitations, transform operations
            
            Air Force announces FY23 Rated Officer Retention Demonstration Program
            
            NCO retraining program revamped for FY24