alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**
**Exhibit 13.1**

**Certification by the Principal Executive Officer**

**Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

I, Takeshi Idezawa, Chief Executive Officer of LINE Corporation (the “Company”), 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: 

 
 • 
the Company’s annual report on Form 20-F for the fiscal yearended December 31, 2019, as previously amended by Amendment No. 1 on Form 20-F/A and as further amended by Amendment No. 2 on Form 20-F/A (the“Report”), 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company for the periods presented therein. 

Date: September 28, 2020 

 

By:
 
/s/ Takeshi Idezawa
 
Name: Takeshi Idezawa
 
Title: Chief Executive Officer
**
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.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)). 

The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than October 28, 2010. 

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (A. Linwood Gill III, Vice President), 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261-4528: 

1. William Lee Hale and the William Lee Hale Trust, both of Bland, Virginia, acting in concert to retain control of 20.86% of the voting shares of First Regions Bancshares, Inc., Richlands, Virginia and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of First Sentinel Bank, Richlands, Virginia. 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, October 7, 2010. 

Robert deV. Frierson, 

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2010-25679 Filed 10-12-10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
585 A.2d 367

#### FREDRICKA LUPINO v. EASTERN PROPERTIES, INC.

September 4, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and coll ateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### JUL 15 2004 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

ANTONIO ZAMARRIPA, Petitioner-Appellant,

v. T. C. PETERSON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee. No. 04-6145 (Western District of Oklahoma) (D.C. No. CV-04-341-M)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before EBEL , MURPHY , and McCONNELL , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). T he case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This matter is before the court on Antonio Zamarrip a’s appeal from the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition.-2-

Zamarripa is currently in the custody of the Federa l Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”). He alleges that his 120-month term of incarcerationwill end on November 24, 2004. On March 19, 2004, Zamarripa filed a petitio n for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the WesternDistrict of Oklahoma. In the petition, Zamarripa alleged that the BOP is require d, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3624(c), to transfer him to a halfway house or to h ome confinement for the last six months of his term of incarceration. “A necessary predicate for the granting of federal habeas relief . . . is a determination by the federal court that [petitioner ’s] custody violates the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Rose v. Hodges , 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). The district court dismissed the § 2241 petition sua sponte , concluding that Zamarripa had failed to state a cla im for federal habeas relief because his petition did not allege a violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. The district court relied on Prows v. Federal Bureau of Prisons , 981 F.2d 466, 469 (10th Cir. 1992) in which this court held that “[n]othing in § 3624(c) indicates any intention to encroach upon the [BOP’s] authority to decide where the prisoner may be confi ned during the pre-release period.” Accordingly, Zamarripa has no right pursu ant to § 3624(c) to placement in any particular type of pre-release program.-3-

Upon review of Zamarripa’s appellate brief and de novo review of the entire record on appeal, this court affirms the dis missal of Zamarripa’s § 2241 petition for substantially the reasons set forth inthe magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation dated April 15, 2004 and the distric t court’s Order dated April 22, 2004. ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Michael R. Murphy Circuit Judge
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 783 

To amend chapter 178 of title 28 of the United States Code to permit 

during a 4-year period States to enact statutes that exempt from the 

operation of such chapter, lotteries, sweepstakes, and other betting, gambling, or wagering schemes involving professional and amateur sports. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 1, 2017 

Mr. LOBIONDO (for himself and Mr. PALLONE) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend chapter 178 of title 28 of the United States 

Code to permit during a 4-year period States to enact 

statutes that exempt from the operation of such chapter, 

lotteries, sweepstakes, and other betting, gambling, or 

wagering schemes involving professional and amateur 

sports. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Sports Gaming Oppor5 tunity Act of 2017’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 783 IH

1 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT. 

2 Section 3704(a) of title 28, United States Code, is 

3 amended— 

4 (1) in paragraph (3) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the 

5 end, 

6 (2) in paragraph (4) by striking the period at 

7 the end and inserting ‘‘; or’’, and 

8 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

9 ‘‘(5) a lottery, sweepstakes, or other betting, 

10 gambling, or wagering scheme in a State authorized 

11 by such State by an applicable statute— 

12 ‘‘(A) enacted on or after January 1, 2017, 

13 and 

14 ‘‘(B) as in effect not later than January 1, 

15 2021.’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
584 A.2d 254

#### ENRICO BOMBIERI, ET AL. v. ROBERT B. NICHOLAS, ETC.

June 29, 1990.

This matter having been duly presented to the Court, on plaintiffs’ application for leave to appeal and for emergent temporary relief, and good cause appearing, it is ORDERED *197that plaintiffs’ motion for leave to appeal is granted; and it is further

ORDERED that the portion of the June 19, 1990 order of the Appellate Division that denied plaintiffs’ motion for stay and the temporary placement of Donata Bombieri in the Bancroft School’s Community Program for Adults with Challenging Behavior pending disposition of the accelerated appeal in the Appellate Division is summarily reversed; and it is further

ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion for a limited remand to the Division of Developmental Disabilities for an expedited hearing is denied, without prejudice to plaintiffs’ renewal of that application in the Appellate Division.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER> 1

       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       NOV-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                            AUG-31-1996
<CASH>                                    1,695,870
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                             1,241,495
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0
<INVENTORY>                               4,181,124
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          8,322,631
<PP&E>                                      401,044
<DEPRECIATION>                              101,728
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           12,844,987
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     1,620,271
<BONDS>                                   2,500,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                     834
<COMMON>                                      1,350
<OTHER-SE>                                8,618,684
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             12,844,987
<SALES>                                   9,449,321
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          9,449,321
<CGS>                                     4,355,837
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             4,355,837
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           89,299
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (225,977)
<INCOME-TAX>                                (84,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (141,977)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                               (141,977)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.01)
        


</TABLE>
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION FOR R EHEARING

Appellate case name: Trenton Garrett v. Texas 18th U.S. District Representative Sheila

Jackson Lee

Appellate case number: 01

- 21

- 0 0 498

- C V

Trial court case numbe r: 1173525

Trial cour t: County Civil Court at Law No. 1 of Harris Co unty

Date motion filed: December 3, 2021

Party filing motion: App el l ant

It is ordered that the motion for rehearing is denied

.

Judge’s signature:

___

/s/ Julie Countiss

_________ Acting for the C ourt

P anel consist s of: Jus tices Hightower

, C ountiss , and Guerra

.

Date:

____ January 6, 2022

___
585 A.2d 366

#### BEATRIZ GONCALVES v. BUCYRUS-ERIE, INC.

September 4, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 21

- 30326

**United States of America,**

Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus

**Bryant Lamont Harris**

Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:20

- CR

- 71

- 1

Before **King** , **Jones** , and **Duncan** , Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *

Bryant Lamont Harris appeals the district court order holding th at he
remains incompetent to stand trial and continuing his commitment to the custody of the Attorney General under 18 U.S.C. § 4241. Because of
Harris’s already lengthy pretrial detention, this court expe dited the appeal

.

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 7, 2022
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-30326 Document: 00516271982 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/07/2022No. 21

- 30326

2 This court reviews a district court’s competency determination using a “species of clear error” review. United States v. Simpson , 645 F.3d 300, 306 (5th Cir. 2011) (quoting United States v. Joseph , 333 F.3d 587, 589 (5th Cir. 2003)). “[ A]fter re

- analyzing the facts and taking a hard look at the trial judge’s ultimate conclusion, [this court] will reverse only if the finding was clearly arbitrary or unwarranted.” United States v. Porter , 907 F.3d 374, 380 (5th Cir. 2018) (quoting Simpson 645 F.3d at 306). After carefully reviewing
the record and hearing oral argument , this court finds that the district court’s
conclusion that Harris is still not competent to stand trial is not clearly arbitrary or unwarranted. Critically, reports prepared by two forensic psychologists and live testimony by one of those psychologists support th e district court’s conclusion. Notwithstanding our finding, the a lready much

extended length of Harris’s pretrial detention is of great concern. We therefore strongly urge the government and defense counsel to work expeditiously to bring this case to a final conclusion.

**AFFIRM ED** 

. Case: 21-30326 Document: 00516271982 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/07/2022
#### Donald PERRY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D10-1642.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Dec. 28, 2010.

Donald Perry, pro se, Appellant.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General and Anne C. Conley, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Donald Perry (DC *#*50031), sought review of an order summarily denying multiple postconviction motions relating to his 1977 first-degree murder conviction. We affirmed the trial court’s order without opinion on July 29, 2010, and we also issued an order directing Perry to “show cause ... why sanctions, possibly including a prohibition against appearing in this Court unless represented by counsel, should not be imposed against him” based upon his history of filing frivolous pro se appeals in this Court.

The response to the order filed by Perry failed to show good cause why sanctions should not be imposed against him. The records of this Court reflect 37 cases in which Perry has appeared pro se as the appellant or petitioner, including 17 cases since 2005 and at least 12 prior appeals involving the denial of postconviction motions related to his 1977 conviction. None of the prior appeals resulted in the granting of any relief to Perry, and like the prior cases, the present appeal was wholly frivolous.

We find that Perry’s repetitious and frivolous filings have substantially interfered with the administration of justice and have adversely affected the ability of this Court to devote its finite resources to consideration of genuine disputes and col-orable claims by those who have not abused the system. *See Pettway v.*McNeil, 987 So.2d 20 (Fla.2008); *Franklin v. State,*25 So.3d 645 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that Perry shall secure the filing of a notice of appearance by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar in any active case now pending before this court in which he appears as appellant or petitioner within 10 days of the date of this order, failing which such cases shall be dismissed. Further, the Clerk of this Court is directed to accept no further pro se filings from Perry; if received, such documents shall be returned to Perry without filing and with a reference to this order. The Clerk shall also forward a certified copy of this order to the Department of Corrections pursuant to section 944.279, Florida Statutes.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BENTON, C.J., VAN NORTWICK and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.
585 A.2d 341

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JOHNNY ABREUS.

July 10, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
Exhibit 32.1

 

 

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANTTOSECTION 906**

**OFTHESARBANES-OXLEYACT**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Highwoods Properties, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Edward J. Fritsch, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

 

| /s/ EDWARDJ.FRITSCH                                    |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Edward J. FritschPresident and Chief Executive Officer |   |
| May 9, 2008                                  |   |
585 A.2d 408

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. NELSON VELASQUEZ.

October 30, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
584 A.2d 203

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. KENNETH WATSON.

May 1, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 21

- 00366

- CR

EMILIO VARGAS
v. THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the 214th District Court of Nueces County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 21FC

- 1613F

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this ca use on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion

. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
January 20, 2022
#### James C. TURNER, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 5D09-4541.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Dec. 17, 2010.

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Nancy Ryan, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Carmen F. Corrente, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Ap-pellee.

LAWSON, J.

James C. Turner, Jr., appeals from his judgment and sentence on a charge of battery, enhanced to a third degree felony by a prior battery.1 He argues that the conviction should be reversed because the trial court erred when it failed to grant his *543motion to strike the jury panel. This motion was made after a member of the venire indicated that she knew the defendant because she “was a former corrections officer at the Marion County Jail.” *See Richardson v. State,*666 So.2d 223 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (holding that trial court reversibly erred by denying defendant’s motion to strike venire, in light of exchange between prosecutor and prospective jury member suggesting that she knew defendant through her employment as corrections officer, thereby implying that he was convicted felon who previously served time).

The State argues that this comment, in context, should have been understood by the rest of the venire as an indication that the former corrections officer recognized either the defendant or one of the attorneys. However, later questioning of other venire members revealed that at least some of the panel members understood the comments to mean that the corrections officer had prior experience with Turner because he had been incarcerated in the past, and possibly on other charges. Although the trial judge attempted to remedy any potential prejudice with a curative instruction, our review of the record convinces us that the instruction given could not have cured the potential prejudice caused by the comment. Accordingly, we reverse Turner’s conviction and remand for a new trial.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

GRIFFIN and ORFINGER, JJ„ concur.

1

. *See*§ 784.03(2), Fla. Stat. (2009).
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED September 6, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-50397 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. MICHAEL VICTOR NEWSOM Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 6:04-CR-121-ALL Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Michael Victor Newsom has moved for leave to withdraw and has fil ed a brief in accordance with A nders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Newsom has filed a response. Our independent review of the record, counsel’s brief , and Newsom’s response discloses no non-frivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave towithdrawis GRANTED, counsel isexcused from further responsibilitiesNo. 05-50397

2 herein, and the APPEAL IS DI S MISSED. See 5 TH C IR. R. 42.2. Newsom’s motion for the appointment of substitute counsel is DENIED.
585 A.2d 385

#### IN THE MATTER OF SUPREME COURT ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL ETHICS OPINION NO. 635.

October 2, 1990.

Petition for review of the Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics Opinion Number 635, entitled *Use of Authorization to Endorse Forms in Personal Injury Matters,*is granted.
585 A.2d 352

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION v. 909 OCEAN AVENUE, INC. AND THE NATIONAL STATE BANK, ELIZABETH OF NEW JERSEY, ET AL.

July 17, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                             LIBERTY PROPERTY TRUST

                           CERTIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY
            RULE 13A-14(B) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

________________________________________________________________________________

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Liberty Property Trust (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, WILLIAM P. HANKOWSKY, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, in
connection with Rule , that based on my knowledge:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.

/s/  WILLIAM P. HANKOWSKY
_______________________________________________
William P. Hankowsky
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer

Date:  August 5, 2004