alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.10

          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 on Form 10-K of Spectrum Organic Products,
Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Neil G.
Blomquist, Chief 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:

     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 presents fairly, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.



                                             /s/  Neil G. Blomquist
                                             ----------------------------------
                                                  Neil G. Blomquist
                                                  Chief Executive Officer
                                                  March 4, 2005




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. D-672.

#### In re Disbarment of Cooper.

Edward Samuel Cooper, of Los Angeles, Cal., having requested to resign as a member of the Bar of this Court, it is ordered that his name be *952stricken from the roll of attorneys admitted to practice before the Bar of this Court. The rule to show cause, heretofore issued on January, 25, 1988 [484 U. S. 1040], is hereby discharged.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 147 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 147

 To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to exempt elementary and 
 secondary schools from the fee imposed on employers filing petitions 
     with respect to non-immigrant workers under the H-1B program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 2007

   Mr. Gene Green of Texas introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to exempt elementary and 
 secondary schools from the fee imposed on employers filing petitions 
     with respect to non-immigrant workers under the H-1B program.

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

SECTION 1. EXEMPTION FROM FILING FEES FOR SCHOOLS.

    (a) In General.--Section 214(c)(9)(A) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(c)(9)(A)) is amended by inserting ``an 
employer that is a public or private elementary or secondary school 
and'' after ``(excluding''.
    (b) Applicability.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take 
effect on the date of the enactment of this Act and shall apply to 
petitions filed under section 214(c)(1) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act on or after such date and before October 1, 2001.
                                 <all>
```
#### Headly Berry EDWARDS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 5D11-90.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

April 21, 2011.

Headley B. Edwards, Malone, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Anthony J. Golden, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Headly Edwards, appeals the order denying his motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. One of Edwards’ four claims is that the sentencing court did not advise him of his right to challenge the public defender fees assessed against him. The lower court held the claim should have been raised on direct appeal and is not cognizable in a motion for post-conviction relief. However, Florida courts have held that defendants have the right to utilize post-conviction proceedings to challenge a lack of notice and opportunity to contest fees assessed against them. *See Hall v. State,*784 So.2d 491, 492 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); *Lewis v. State,*629 So.2d 1051, 1052 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). On remand, Edwards shall have 30 days from the issuance of our mandate to file a written objection to the *336amount of the fees imposed by the trial court. If an objection is filed, the trial court shall conduct a hearing. Otherwise, the trial court may reimpose the public defender fees without a hearing. *See White v. State,*32 So.3d 132 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010).

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED.

PALMER, COHEN and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.
858 A.2d 609

#### In the Matter of John J. MOGCK, III.

No. 911 Disciplinary Docket No. 2 (No. 34 RST 2004).

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Sept. 28, 2004.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 28th day of September, 2004, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendations of the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania dated June 22, 2004, the Petition for Reinstatement is DENIED.

Pursuant to Rule 218(e), Pa.R.D.E., petitioner is directed to pay the expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation and processing of the Petition for Reinstatement.
#### G., C. & S. F. R’y Co. v. J. H. Witt.

(No. 3502.)

June 20, 1885.

Appeal from Bell County.

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 774. *Ownership; variance between allegation and proof of; case stated.*Appellee recovered judgment against appellant for $350 damages for injuries done to himself, and to a wagon and two horses, by the cars of appellant. He alleged in his petition that, at the time of the injuries, he was the owner of the wagon and horses. The evidence showed that the wagon and one of the horses at the time of the injury was the property of his father, F. M. Witt. *Held:*The rule is that the allegations and proof must correspond, and the ownership of property injured or destroyed must be proved as alleged. When a right of action is joint, the suit must be brought by all who are entitled to redress. *[Ante,*§§ 173, 175, 618.] Whilst the evidence does not show that appellee and his father were joint owners of the property injured, it does show that the greater portion of it belonged to the father, who is not a party to the suit. Appellee has recovered judgment for damages for injuries done to property which did not belong to him.

Reversed and remanded.
#### Deantonio D. MITCHELL, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D11-3565.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 19, 2011.

Deantonio D. Mitchell, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition seeking a belated appeal of the judgment and sentence rendered on October 1, 2010, in Escambia County Circuit Court case number 2008-CF-000486-A, is granted. Upon issuance of mandate, a copy of this opinion shall be furnished to the clerk of the lower tribunal for treatment as a notice of appeal. If petitioner qualifies for the appointment of counsel at public expense, the lower tribunal is directed to appoint counsel to represent him *952in the belated appeal authorized by this opinion.

BENTON, G.J., VAN NORTWICK and SWANSON, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                           1
<CASH>                            1,871,786
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                       520,741
<ALLOWANCES>                        (22,575)
<INVENTORY>                         246,722
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  2,706,351
<PP&E>                            1,460,013
<DEPRECIATION>                     (877,676)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    4,033,427
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             1,052,831
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                         13,953,917
<OTHER-SE>                      (11,148,246)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      4,033,427
<SALES>                           1,803,732
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  1,803,732
<CGS>                               230,538
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       230,538
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  1,533,436
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  (20,277)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      60,035
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  60,035
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                         60,035
<EPS-BASIC>                           .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                           .01



</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

# AGENCY:

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

# TIME AND DATE: 

October 14, 2010, 12 noon to 3 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time.

# PLACE: 

This meeting will take place telephonically. Any interested person may call 877.768.0032 passcode 4856462 to participate in this meeting by telephone.

# STATUS: 

Open to the public. 

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

The Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board  of Directors (the Board) will continue its work in developing and implementing the Unified Carrier Registration Plan and Agreement and to that end, may consider matters properly before the Board.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Avelino Gutierrez, Chair, Unified Carrier Registration Board of Directors at (505) 827-4565.

Issued on: September 21, 2010.

Larry W. Minor,

Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development. 

[FR Doc. 2010-24183 Filed 9-22-10; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
Exhibit 31.1



Certifications



I, J.A. Cardwell, Sr., certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Petro Stopping Centers, L.P.;



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 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



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 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: November 4, 2004                          
|                                                
|/s/ J.A. Cardwell, Sr.                          
|(J.A. Cardwell, Sr.)                            
|Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, and President
#### Janeene C. GERHOLD, Wife of/and Alexander Gerhold, III v. William H. GILES, Progressive Insurance Company and Markel American Insurance Company.

No. 2012-CC-0461.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 20, 2012.

In re Gerhold III, Alexander; Gerhold, Janeene C. et al.; — Plaintiffs); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. I, No. 2009-212; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-CA-0992.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.
Exhibit 32.1
 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
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
 (2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Dated: February 26, 2010
    /s/ BEN M. BRIGHAMBen M. BrighamChief Executive Officer, President and Chairman of the Board
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.2


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


In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Western Ohio Financial
Corporation (the "Company") for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Craig F. Fortin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
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 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.


By:  /s/ Craig F. Fortin
Name:  Craig F. Fortin
Chief Financial Officer
August 12, 2002
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 6500** 

TIMOTHY CLIFTON EVANS , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. HAROLD W. CLARKE , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria
. Claude M. Hilton , Senior District Judge. ( 1:15

- cv - 00558

- CMH

- IDD )

Submitted : August 18 , 2016 Decided: August 23, 2016

Before WILKINSON , KING, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Timothy Clifton Evans, Appellant Pro Se. Aaron Jennings Campbell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Timothy Clifton Eva ns seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (A) (2012). 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 satisfies this standard by demonstrating 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
proc edural 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
Evans 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 argument because the facts and legal contentio ns are adequately presented3 in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 10

- 00145

- CV

JAMES SUGGS APPELLANT

V.

ROBERT SPEERS APPELLEE

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

FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 AND JUDGMENT

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

On May 12, 2010 and June 8, 2010 , we notified appellant, in accordance

with rule of appellate procedure 42.3(c), that we would dismiss this appeal unless

the $175 filing fee was paid. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c). Appellant has not paid

the $175 filing fee. See Tex. R. App. P. 5, 12.1(b).

Because appellant has failed to comply with a requirement of the rules of

appellate procedure and the Texas Supreme Court = s order of August 28, 2007, 2

we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c), 43.2(f).

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.Appellant shal l pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GARDNER, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ.

DELIVERED: July 1, 2010

2 See Supreme Court of Tex., Order Regarding Fees Charged in Civil

Cases in the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeals and Before the Judicial

Panel on Multidistrict Litigation , Misc. Docket No. 07

- 9138 (Aug. 28, 2007) (listing

fees in courts of appeals).
**Exhibit 31.2**
**Rule 13a-14 Certification**
I, Frank P. Vaughan, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of The Cronos Group (the “Registrant”);
2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:
(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; and
(b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, 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 financialreporting that occurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the Registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
5. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and the AuditCommittee of Registrant’s Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrols over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report information; and
(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: May 13, 2005
/s/ FRANK P. VAUGHAN
#### Andre J. ROBERT, et al. v. ROBERT MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, et al.

No. 2012-CC-0569.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 20, 2012.

In re Claiborne Fresh Market, LLC; Harrison Fresh Market, LLC; M. Robert Enterprises, LLC; Marketfare, LLC; Robert II, Marc L.; Robert Management Company, LLC, et al.; Robert Resources, LLC; Robert, Darlene P.; — Defendant(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. L, Nos. 2010^4150, 2011-2488; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-C-1550.

Denied.
583 A.2d 339

#### EDWARD ICCARINO v. NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD.

March 7, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 15

- 00184

- CR

MICAELA RAMOS APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 213TH DISTR ICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 1337 652D

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



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 

### AND JUDGMENT

----------

We have considered “ Appellant ’ s Motion To Dismiss Appeal. ” The motion

complies with rule 42.2(a) of the rules of appellate procedure. Tex. R. App. P.

42.2(a). No decision of this court having been delivered before we received th is

motion, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P.

42.2(a), 43.2(f).

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2 PER CURIAM

PANEL: GARDNER, WALKER, and MEIER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App

. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: September 24, 2015