alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 12.11**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 2002**

 

I, Andrew Sukawaty, certify that: 

 

1.    I have reviewed this annual reporton Form 20-F of Inmarsat Leasing (Two) Limited (the “Company”); 

 

2.    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial 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, thefinancial 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’sother 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 Company and have: 

 

(a)    Designed such disclosure controlsand 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 thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

(b)    Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport 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 Company’s internal control overfinancial 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 othercertifying officer(s) 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 theequivalent 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.
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 Quarterly Report of Synergetics USA, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David M. Hable, President and 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 to 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 results of operations of the Company.
 
 Dated: December 12, 2011
 
 /s/ David M. HableDavid M. HablePresident andChief Executive Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

T

- SHACK, INC.,

Defendant

- Appellant,

and

BLACKHORSE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION,

Defendant. No. 20

- 15228

D.C. No. 2:15

- cv

- 02241

- APG

- BNW

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Andrew P. Gordon, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 17, 2020 * * Pasadena, California

Before: RAWLINSON, HUNSAKER, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

T

- Shack, Inc. appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

NOV 24 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

Bank of New York Mellon (BNYM) , finding that BNYM’s predecessor preserved

its deed of trust by tender ing the superpriority amount prior to the Blackhorse

Homeowners Associatio n’s (HOA) foreclosure sale of a residential property. We

have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we review the summary judgment

order de novo, Badgley v. United States , 957 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2020) , and we

affirm.

BNYM sufficiently established that before the foreclosure sale, it tendered a

$1,654.30 check to the HOA’s foreclosure agent, Nevada Association Services, Inc.

,

which covered ni ne months of unpaid HOA assessments and reasonable collection

costs. 1 T

- Shack neither contest ed n or respond ed to this evidence below
, and we
decline to consider arguments raise d for the first time on appeal. See Ramirez v.

C n ty

. of San Bernardino , 806 F.3d 1002, 1008

– 09 (9th Cir. 2015)

. And notably, t he

HOA conceded below that the tender satisfied the superpriority amount. B y
operation of law
, therefore, t he tender extinguished the HOA’s superpriority lien

,

and the property remains subject to BNYM’s deed of trust. See Bank of Am., N.A.

v. SFR Invs

. Pool 1, LLC , 427 P.3d 113, 121 ( Nev. 2018) (en banc)
, as amended on

denial of reh ’

g (Nov. 13, 2018)

. T

- Shack purchase d the property subject to

BNYM’s interest.

1 The tender was effectuated by counsel for BNYM’s predecessor in the deed of trust, Bank of America.3

T

- Shack’s bona fide purchaser argument has been rejected by the Nevada

Supreme Court. Id. BNYM was entitled to insist on the condition imposed in its

tender
, s ee Bank of Am., N.A. v. Arlington W. Twilight Homeowners Ass ’ n , 920 F.3d

620, 623 (9th Cir. 2019) (“ Bank of America was entitled to insist on the condition

... that acceptance would satisfy the HOA ’ s superpriority lien. ”)

, even if T

- Shack

had not forfeited its argument to the contrary by failing to raise it below. See

Ramirez , 806 F.3d at 1008

– 09

.

AFFI RMED.
Case: 1:20-cv-05024 Document #: 21 Filed: 12/10/20 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:76
Case: 1:20-cv-05024 Document #: 21 Filed: 12/10/20 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:77
Case: 1:20-cv-05024 Document #: 21 Filed: 12/10/20 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:78
Case: 1:20-cv-05024 Document #: 21 Filed: 12/10/20 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:79
Case: 1:20-cv-05024 Document #: 21 Filed: 12/10/20 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:80
Case: 1:20-cv-05024 Document #: 21 Filed: 12/10/20 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:81
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 2 3

- 2090

ELVIN OMAR ROMERO

- LOPEZ; ANGELA JOHANY ROMERO

- RIVERA , Petitioners ,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General , Respondent

.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted : August 27, 2024 Decided: September 5, 2024

Before KING and HEYTENS , Circuit Judges , and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

ON BRIEF: John W. Goodman, Simon Sandoval

- Moshenberg, MURRAY OSORIO PLLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Petitioner. Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Attorney General, Zoe J. Heller, Senior Litigation Counsel, Erik R. Quick, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigatio n, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-2090 Doc: 25 Filed: 09/05/2024 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM:
Elvin Omar Romero

- Lopez and his daughter , natives and citizens of Honduras , petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing
their appeal from the immigration judge ’s (“IJ”) decision denying Romero

- Lopez’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We deny the petition for review.
We have reviewed the record and the Board ’ s order and conclude that there was no
error in the Board ’ s analysis of the IJ ’s findings that Romero

- Lopez did not show that the Honduran government was unable or unwilling to protect him from his persecutors

. See
Diaz de Gomez v. Wilkinson , 987 F.3d 359, 365 (4th Cir. 2021) (stating proper standard
when private actor is source of persecution or fear of persecution). We also conclude that
the Petitioners fail to show that the Board engaged in improper factfinding . We have also
considered the Petitioners’ claim that the Board failed to consider that one of Romero

Lopez’s alleged persecutors was a government official acting under color of law and find
the claim lacks merit.
A ccordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED USCA4 Appeal: 23-2090 Doc: 25 Filed: 09/05/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2




                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS





The Board of Directors
NorthWestNet, Inc.:


We consent to the use of our report relating to the financial statements of
NorthWestNet, Inc. as of June 30, 1996 and for the six months ended June 30,
1996 and the eight months ended February 28, 1997, and the financial statements
of NorthWest Academic Computing Consortium, Inc. as of June 30, 1995 and for the
year ended June 30, 1995 and the six months ended December 31, 1995,
incorporated by reference herein.




                                                     KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


Seattle, Washington
July 17, 1998
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JUNE 18, 2014

NO. 03-13-00482-CV

Jeffrey D. Smith, Appellant

v.

Jason Wall, D.D.S, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 391ST DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES PEMBERTON AND FIELD

REVERSED AND REMANDED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE PEMBERTON

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the district court on July 17, 2013, into which is 

merged its order of June 17, 2013. Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the 

Court holds that there was reversible error in the district court’s judgment. Therefore, the Court 

reverses the district court’s judgment and remands the case to the district court for further 

proceedings. The appellee shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the 

court below.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT July Term 2014

RENETTE GABRIEL and JEAN ROBERT DORESTIN
, Appellant s ,

v.

CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 13

- 3830

[ September 17, 2014 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Mily Rodriguez

- Powell , Judge; L.T. Case No. 12

- 15505 (03)

.

Joshua A. Blacksten and Vyacheslav Borshchukov of Dubo f f Law Firm, North Miami, for appellant s

.

David C. Boruck e and Aram P. Megerian of Cole Scott & Kissane, P.A., Tampa, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Based on appellee’s confession of error, we agree that appellants’ purported assignment of benefits was invalid and we reverse the summary judgment entered below.

D AMOORGIAN
, C.J., W ARNER and G ROSS
, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.3

Eastern Division

TikTok, Inc., Consumer Privacy Litigation, et al.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−04699

Honorable John Z. Lee

TikTok Inc., et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Friday, September 18, 2020:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Z. Lee: Due to scheduling issues, the

initial pretrial conference set for 9/22/20 is reset to 9/24/20 at 2:00 p.m. The hearing will

take place via telephone conference. The call−in number is 888−273−3658, and the access

code is 1637578. Any counsel of record who wishes to participate must send an email to

the courtroom deputy identifying their name, the firm with which they are associated, and

the person or entity that they represent by 9/22/20 at 5:00 p.m. Central time. Those

counsel will receive a separate email from the Court at least 12 hours prior to the start of

the telephonic hearing with instructions on how to join the call; they should input their

names when prompted by the system. Anyone else who wishes to listen to the proceedings

can do so by dialing into the call using the information above. All persons granted remote

access to proceedings are reminded of the general prohibition in this district against

photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings. Violation of these

prohibitions may result in court−imposed sanctions, including removal of court issued

media credentials, restricted entry to future hearings, denial of entry to future hearings, or

any other sanctions deemed necessary by the Court. All participants should review the

Court's standing order regarding telephone conferences that is on Judge Lee's website,

which can be found at: https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/judge−info.aspx?4Qf5

zc8loCI5U7rfMP9DHw==. Mailed notice(ca, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 87 Filed: 09/18/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:1722
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

MARYANN GRAU and STEVEN A. GRAU,

Appellants,

v.

US BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,

AS TRUSTEE OF THE TIKI SERIES III TRUST

Appellee.

No. 4D21-2430

[September 1, 2022]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, 

Martin County; Gary L. Sweet, Judge; L.T. Case No. 432019CA000565.

Jessica M. Vanvalkenburgh of McCarthy, Summers, Wood, Norman, 

Melby & Schultz, P.A., Stuart, for appellants.

Harris S. Howard and Evan R. Raymond of Howard Law Group, Boca 

Raton, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

KLINGENSMITH, C.J., GROSS and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                         Subsidiaries of the Company



Allegiance Telecom, Inc.                                Delaware

Allegiance Telecom International, Inc.                  Delaware

Allegiance Telecom of California, Inc.                  Delaware

Allegiance Telecom of Georgia, Inc.                     Delaware

Allegiance Telecom of Illinois, Inc.                    Delaware

Allegiance Telecom of New Jersey, Inc.                  Delaware

Allegiance Telecom of New York, Inc.                    Delaware

Allegiance Telecom of Texas, Inc.                       Delaware

Allegiance Telecom Service Corporation                  Delaware
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1          
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. DOLLARS                 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         JUN-30-1999     
<PERIOD-START>                            JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                              SEP-30-1998     
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                     1
<CASH>                                          32091    
<SECURITIES>                                        0  
<RECEIVABLES>                                  293179  
<ALLOWANCES>                                   215743  
<INVENTORY>                                     59043  
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               384317  
<PP&E>                                         453319  
<DEPRECIATION>                                 248581  
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 969222  
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          371866  
<BONDS>                                             0  
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0  
<PREFERRED>                                    680230  
<COMMON>                                         3612  
<OTHER-SE>                                     659300  
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   969222  
<SALES>                                        191089  
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               191089  
<CGS>                                          132007  
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  132007  
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               240267  
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0  
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12346  
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (182760) 
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0  
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 0  
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0  
<CHANGES>                                           0  
<NET-INCOME>                                  (182760) 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.05) 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0  
                                              

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.9



                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



         As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the use of our
report dated March 20, 1998, on the financial statements of Patterson
Broadcasting, Inc. and subsidiaries (and to all references to our firm),
included in or made part of this Registration Statement on Form S-1 (file No.
333-48819), Amendment No. 4.


                                             ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP



Dallas, Texas
May 20, 1998
Exhibit 4.31
 Third Amended and Restated Equity Interests Pledge Agreement
  Pledgee:  Address:  Legal Representative:
 Pledgor:  ID No.:  Address:
 WHEREAS,
 www.elong.com
      th
 th




---



##### 



Definitions And Interpretation
        Assignments And Pledge
  Rate Of Pledge And Term Of Pledge
 The rate of Pledge
  The term of Pledge
   Physical Possession Of Documents




---



##### 



Representation of the Pledgor
   Warranties and Guarantee of the Pledgor
         Event Of Default




---



##### 



Exercise Of The Right Of The Pledge




---



##### 



Transfers Or Assignment
     Termination
   Formalities Fees And Other Charges
   Force Majeure
 Force majeure force majeure




---



##### 



force majeure force majeure force majeure force majeure
 Dispute Resolution
        Notice




---



##### 



Appendices
  Effectiveness
    The
Pledgee:
 Signature of Authorized Representative:
    
    /s/ Justin Tang
 Official Seal:
 The
Pledgor:
 Signature:
    
    /s/ Guangfu Cui
 Appendices
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed October 30, 2014

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 14

- 00789

- CV

IN RE AMELIA V. KELL Y , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 122nd District Court Galveston County, Texa s Trial Court Cause No. 11CV0325



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

On October 1, 2014, relator Amelia V. Kelly filed a petition for writ of

m andamus in this c ourt. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this c ourt to com pel the Honorable John Ellisor, presiding judge of the 122nd District Court of Galveston County
, to vacate three orders pertaining to a motion by the real party in interest to enforce the final judgment in the underlying litigation by foreclosure of relato r’s real property

.2 Relator has not satisfied her burden to demonstrate entitlement to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. We also lift our stay granted on October 3, 2014.

PER CURIAM

Panel c onsists of Justices Boyce, Jamison, and Donovan.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 543 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                    September 17, 1998.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 3248) to provide dollars to the classroom. The first reading of the 
bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. After 
general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 
rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of 
amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
recommended by the Committee on Education and the Workforce now printed in the 
bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 
as read. Points of order against the committee in the nature of a substitute for 
failure to comply with clause 7 of rule XVI are waived. No amendment to the 
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those 
printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. 
Each amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, 
shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and 
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to 
amendment. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a 
time during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a 
recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time 
for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows another electronic 
vote without intervening business, provided that the minimum time for electronic 
voting on the first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the 
conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendments the Committee shall rise 
and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. 
Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in 
the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```