alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                 FORM 52-109FT2

            CERTIFICATION OF INTERIM FILINGS DURING TRANSITION PERIOD

I, Tom J. Landa, Chief Financial Officer of Gerdau Ameristeel Corporation,
certify that:

1.   I have reviewed the interim filings (as this term is defined in
     Multilateral Instrument 52-109 Certification of Disclosure in Issuers'
     Annual and Interim Filings) of Gerdau Ameristeel Corporation, (the issuer)
     for the interim period ending September 30, 2005;

2.   Based on my knowledge, the interim filings do not contain any untrue
     statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact required to
     be stated or that is necessary to make a statement not misleading in light
     of the circumstances under which it was made, with respect to the period
     covered by the interim filings; and

3.   Based on my knowledge, the interim financial statements together with the
     other financial information included in the interim filings fairly present
     in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and
     cash flows of the issuer, as of the date and for the periods presented in
     the interim filings.


Date:  November 10, 2005




/s/ Tom J. Landa
--------------------------------------
Tom J. Landa
Chief Financial Officer


<PAGE>


                                 FORM 52-109FT2

            CERTIFICATION OF INTERIM FILINGS DURING TRANSITION PERIOD

I, Phillip E. Casey, Chief Executive Officer of Gerdau Ameristeel Corporation,
certify that:

1.   I have reviewed the interim filings (as this term is defined in
     Multilateral Instrument 52-109 Certification of Disclosure in Issuers'
     Annual and Interim Filings) of Gerdau Ameristeel Corporation, (the issuer)
     for the interim period ending September 30, 2005;

2.   Based on my knowledge, the interim filings do not contain any untrue
     statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact required to
     be stated or that is necessary to make a statement not misleading in light
     of the circumstances under which it was made, with respect to the period
     covered by the interim filings; and

3.   Based on my knowledge, the interim financial statements together with the
     other financial information included in the interim filings fairly present
     in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and
     cash flows of the issuer, as of the date and for the periods presented in
     the interim filings.


Date:  November 10, 2005




/s/ Phillip E. Casey
--------------------------------------
Phillip E. Casey
Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.2

                            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 Annual Report of Genesis Technology Group, Inc.
on Form 10-KSB for the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Adam Wasserman, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         1. The Report 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.

Date: January 13, 2006

/S/ Adam Wasserman
------------------
Adam Wasserman,
Chief Financial Officer
[915 NE2d 1165, 886 NYS2d 868]

#### Michael Jaglom et al., Respondents, v Insurance Company of Greater New York, Appellant.

Decided September 15, 2009

*769APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Thomas D. Hughes,*New York City, for appellant.

*Ohrenstein & Brown, LLP,*Garden City *(Michael D. Brown*of counsel), for respondents.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative. Questions of fact exist whether plaintiffs had a reasonable good-faith belief that the tenants in an underlying libel action against them would not seek to hold them liable, precluding dismissal of their action against the insurer *(see Argentina v Otsego Mut. Fire Ins. Co.,*86 NY2d 748, 750 [1995]).

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, etc.
EXHIBIT 13.2
   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F/Afor the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 (the “Report”) for the purposes of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
  I, Andre Bergstein,Chief Financial Officer of Gafisa S.A., certify that, to the best of my knowledge:
  ·
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.
  Date: July 5, 2012
  By:
/s/Andre BergsteinName:  Andre BergsteinTitle:    Chief Financial Officer
Memorandum Opinion filed April 7, 2016, Withdrawn, and Order filed May

26, 2016

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 15

- 00944

- CV

____________ DAVID SOLIZ AND SOLIZ AUTOMOTIVE, IN C. , Appellant

V.
DARWIN HANEY , Appellee

On Appeal from the 270th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2013

- 55761



### ORDER

On April 7, 2016 , this court issued an opinion dismissing this appeal. On April 22, 2016, appellant filed a motion for rehearing , which the court granted on May 12, 2016

. This court’s opinion filed April 7, 2016 , is WITHDRAWN , and our judgment
of that date is VACATED

.
#### Dean G. Skelos et al., as Duly Elected Members of the New York State Senate, Respondents, v David Paterson, as Governor of the State of New York, et al., Appellants.

Submitted September 8, 2009;

decided September 15, 2009

Reported below, 65 AD3d 339.

Motion by Citizens Union of the City of New York et al. for leave to file a brief amici curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0248

STATE OF MONTANA,

 Plaintiff and Appellee,

 v.

REGINA LEE THOMPSON,

 Defendant and Appellant,

 

 ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension 

of time, and good cause appearing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an 

extension of time to and including September 1, 2022, within 

which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on 

appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 25 2022

07/25/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0248
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 on Form 10-QSB (the "Report") of Colorado Wyoming Reserve Company (the "Company") for the quarter ended December 31, 2003, I, Kim Fuerst, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of the undersigned's knowledge and belief:

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

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



Date:  June 29, 2005

/s/ Kim Fuerst



Kim Fuerst



Chief Executive Officer
## NO. 12-08-00341-CV IN THE COUR T OF APP EALS TWELFTH COURT OF APP EALS D ISTR ICT

TYLER, TEXA S

MIC HAEL KEN

NE DY , § APP EAL FRO

M T HE 3 RD APPELLANT V. § JUDICIAL DISTRI CT COURT OF MARK W. CAR GILL, APP ELL EE § AN DE RSON C OU

NT Y, TEX

AS MEMORA NDUM OPIN ION PER CU RIAM On Au gu st 2 1, 20 08 , M ic ha e l K e nn e dy fi le d a no tic e of

app e a l “ fr om a civ il ri gh ts c om pl ain t.” On that sa me da te , th is c ou rt no tif ie d K e nn e dy , p ur su a nt t o T e xa s Ru le of Ap pe llate Procedur e 37.1, that the informati o n rec eived in this appea l does not contain a f inal judgment or other a ppea l ab l e order . Kenne dy was further informed that the appe al would be dismissed if the info r mati o n r e c e iv e d in th e ap p e a l w a s n o t a me n d e d o n o r b e f o r e Se p te mb e r 2 , 2 0 0 8 to s h o w the jurisdiction o f

th is c o u r t. T h e d e a d li n e f o r a me n d me n t h a s p a s s e d , a n d K e n n e d y h a s n e ithe r re sp on de d to the Au gu st 2 1, 20 08 no tic e or o th erw ise sh ow n th e jurisd ic tio n o f this c ou rt

. Ac c or din gly , th e app e a l is dismiss ed for want of juri sdiction

. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 37.1, 42.3. Opinion delivere d October 22, 2008. P an el consi s t ed of

W ort hen, C. J. , G r i

f f i t h, J. , and H oyl e, J.

(PUBLISH)
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before

publication in the New York Reports.

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

No. 205 SSM 18

In the Matter of Noel Olmosperez,

 Appellant,

 v.

Andrea W. Evans, &c.,

 Respondent.

Submitted by Cynthia H. Conti-Cook and Caroline Hsu,

for appellant.

Submitted by Frank Brady, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM:

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed,

without costs (see Matter of Linares v Evans, __NY3d__ [decided

today]; Matter of Silmon v Travis, 95 NY2d 470, 476 [2000]).

- 1 -
- 2 - No. 18

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules,

order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum. Chief Judge

Lippman and Judges Pigott, Rivera, Abdus-Salaam and Fahey concur.

Judge Stein took no part.

Decided October 22, 2015

- 2 -
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8, No. 333-93933) pertaining to the Cumberland Bancorp, Incorporated
1998 Stock Option Plan of our report dated March 1, 2002 with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of Cumberland Bancorp, Incorporated included
in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2001.


                                       /s/ Heathcott & Mullaly, P.C.
                                       --------------------------------------
                                       HEATHCOTT & MULLALY, P.C.


                                       Brentwood, Tennessee
                                       April 1, 2002
(MarkOne)

[X]   QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TOSECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

 

 

[]   TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THESECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to befiled by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during thepreceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was requiredto file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements forthe past 90 days.  

[X]Yes  [ ] No

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, anaccelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reportingcompany.  See the definitions of “large accelerated filer”, “acceleratedfiler” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

 

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule12b-2 of the Exchange Act). [ ] Yes  [X] No
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2319 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2319

   To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Related 
         Programs, US Institute of Peace for fiscal year 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
 referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the 
     Committee on Education and the Workforce, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 
  of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
                               concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Related 
         Programs, US Institute of Peace for fiscal year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR RELATED PROGRAMS, US 
              INSTITUTE OF PEACE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Related Programs, US 
Institute of Peace for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $0.
                                 <all>
```
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. DUANE BYRON FIELDS, Jr., Defendant - Appellant. No. 12-30315 D.C. No. 3:12-cr-00022-JKS-1
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Alaska James K. Singleton, Senior District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted August 14, 2013 Anchorage, Alaska Before: KOZINSKI , Chief Judge, BERZON and IKUTA , Circuit Judges. 1. The quantity of cocaine subjecting Fi elds to increased penalties for his conspiracy conviction was properly “charg ed in the indictment, submitted to the jury, subject to the rules of evidence, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Buckland , 289 F.3d 558, 568 (9th Cir. 2002) (en banc); see also 

# FILED
AUG 28 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.page 2 Alleyne v. United States , 570 U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 2151, 2155 (2013). The 439 grams found on his person and in his trailer, together with the other evidence of the conspiracy’s drug-dealing activities, was ample to support the jury’s special verdict that the conspiracy involved at least 500 grams. See United States v. Reed , 575 F.3d 900, 923 (9th Cir. 2009).
2. Fields’s acquittal on the firearm charge didn’t preclude the sentencing judge from considering the gun in appl ying a two-level enhancement. See United States v. Watts , 519 U.S. 148, 157 (1997) (per curiam). Fields didn’t prove it was “clearly improbable” that his gun possession was connected to his crimes, so the enhancement was properly applied. United States v. Ferryman , 444 F.3d 1183, 1186 (9th Cir. 2006); see also U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 cmt. n.11.
3. Application of the managerial role enhancement to Fields’s sentence was also proper. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c). He twice sent others to deliver cocaine. Even if these were the only times Fields exerted control over others, they qualify him for the aggravating role enhancement. See, e.g. , United States v. Maldonado , 215 F.3d 1046, 1050 (9th Cir. 2000).
AFFIRMED.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 7063

LARRY PERCELL MAYBIN , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. DEPUTY MORRISON; DEPUTY GREENE; DEPUTY MCBRYER; DEPUTY MARTIN; DEPUTY LONG , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Spartanburg

. Timothy M. Cain , District Judge. ( 7:19

- cv
- 01138

- TMC

- PJG )

Submitted : January 21, 20 20 Decided: January 23, 2020

Before WILKINSON , KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Larry Percell Maybin , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Larry Percell Maybin appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (201 8 ) complaint for failure to comply with a court order and failure to prosecute . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. May bin v. Morrison , No. 7:19

- cv
- 01138

- TMC

- PJG (D.S.C. July 1, 2019). 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.
AFFIRME D
Exhibit 10.1


May 21, 2007


Mr. Ron B. Barber


C/o Barber & Bartz


525 South Main Street, Suite 800


Tulsa, OK  74103


Dear Ron,


The Audit Committee of
XETA Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby engages you to serve as an
advisor to the Committee through the Company’s next annual meeting (unless
sooner terminated as provided below). 
The Committee believes that you are uniquely qualified due to your solid
understanding of the Company’s business, and your professional qualifications
and experience in the areas of financial accounting and regulatory matters, to
contribute valuable guidance to the Committee in its on-going efforts to comply
with the significant additional obligations imposed upon it by Sarbanes-Oxley.


As an advisor, you agree
to:


·                  advise
the Committee and give guidance as requested with regard to financial
disclosure and accounting issues, and


·                  assist
the Committee in developing and implementing regulatory compliance initiatives.


You agree to consult with
Audit Committee members when requested; attend regularly scheduled Audit
Committee meetings so as to be fully informed and better prepared to advise the
Committee on specific issues that may arise from time to time; and review the
Company’s financial statements and quarterly and annual reports.


In exchange for your
services, you will receive a total fee of $15,000.  This fee will be paid in monthly installments
on a pro rata basis.


This agreement may be
terminated by either party for any or no reason, upon written notice given to
the other party.



   
 








Please indicate your
acceptance to the terms of this agreement by signing a copy of this letter
below where indicated.


	
  /s/ Donald T. Duke

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Donald T. Duke,
  Chairman

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Agreed to and
  accepted:

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  /s/ Ron B. Barber

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Ron B. Barber

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Date:

  	
  May 23, 2007

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
						



 



 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule  contains  summary  financial data extracted from the consolidated
balance sheet and the  consolidated  statement of operations and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   Mar-31-1998
<CASH>                                         29,991
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  36,708
<ALLOWANCES>                                   12,817
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         14,645
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 68,527
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,566,923
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          913,700
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   0
<SALES>                                        304,626
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               304,626
<CGS>                                          367,069
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  835,477
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (208)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             21,455
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (552,098)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (552,098)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (552,098)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
#### Joanne FIELDER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UAL CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, dba United Airlines, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 98-35511.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Sept. 27, 2006.

Thad M. Guyer, Esq., Medford, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Risa L. Hall, Esq., Central Point, OR, Roy T. Englert, Jr., Esq, Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck & Untereiner LLP, Washington, DC, Michael T. Garone, Esq., Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt Pacwest Center, Portland, OR, for Defendant-Ap-pellee.

*16Before: ALDISERT,* KLEINFELD, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The Honorable Ruggiero J. Aldisert, Senior Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation.

ORDER

On January 20, 2006, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order confirming United Airlines’s petition for reorganization. Pursuant to this order, United Airline’s second amended plan of reorganization became effective February 1, 2006. On March 23, 2006, United Airlines filed its notice of discharge with this Court. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1141(d) and the terms of the plan, the bankruptcy order discharges and releases United from certain claims and causes of action, including the pre-confir-mation claims being advanced by appellant in this appeal. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 524(a), the discharge operates as an injunction against the continuation of any action to recover any debt discharged under the plan. The automatic stay is no longer in effect because the bankruptcy order has now been entered. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Each party shall bear its own costs.
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

R.J.W., : SEALED CASE

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Department of Human Services, :

Respondent : No. 836 C.D. 2015

O R D E R

NOW, July 5, 2016

, upon consideration of petitioner’s application for

rearg ument en banc , the application is denied.

MARY HANNAH LEAVITT,

President Judge
#### Eugenia Brennan Heslin, as Administrator of the Estate of Egypt A. Phillips, Deceased, Appellant, v County of Greene et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

Submitted July 27, 2009;

decided September 17, 2009

Reported below, 53 AD3d 996.

Motion to vacate this Court’s July 6, 2009 preclusion order granted, and the County of Greene’s brief is accepted as filed, except to the extent that the January 12, 2005 letter attached as part of the appendix to the County’s brief is deemed stricken.