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



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 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021 (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, Guilherme Benevides, Principal Executive 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 and results of operations
of the Company.
| | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: July 29, 2022



|GAFISA S.A. |                        
|----------- | -----------------------
|            |                        
|            |                        
|By:         | /s/ Guilherme Benevides
|            | Name:                  
|            | Title:
SCPW-13-0000038

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

ANTOINETTE SMITH, Petitioner-Respondent,

vs.

THE HONORABLE KEITH E. TANAKA, Judge of the Family Court of the

Second Circuit of the State of Hawai#i, Respondent,

and

KENT SMITH, PAULA SMITH, TIFFANY SMITH and ALEXANDRIA HOECK,

Respondents-Petitioners.

 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND/OR PROHIBITION

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ.)

On January 22, 2013, petitioner Antoinette Smith filed

a petition for a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition seeking an

order directing the respondent judge to dismiss the petition for

third-party visitation filed in FC-M No. 12-1-0146 on the grounds

that the family court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and

Hawai#i Revised Statutes § 571-46(a)(7) is unconstitutional. 

Petitioner also seeks an order staying the family court

proceedings pending disposition of this original proceeding. 

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPW-13-0000038

06-MAR-2013

08:43 AM
2

A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will

not issue unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear and

indisputable right to relief and a lack of alternative means to

redress adequately the alleged wrong or obtain the requested

action. Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai#i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338

(1999). Such writs are not intended to supercede the legal

discretionary authority of the lower courts, nor are they

intended to serve as legal remedies in lieu of normal appellate

procedures. Id. Where a court has discretion to act, mandamus

will not lie to interfere with or control the exercise of that

discretion, even when the judge has acted erroneously, unless the

judge has exceeded his or her jurisdiction, has committed a

flagrant and manifest abuse of discretion, or has refused to act

on a subject properly before the court under circumstances in

which he or she has a legal duty to act. Id. at 204-05, 982 P.2d

at 338-39.

Similarly, a writ of prohibition “is an extraordinary

remedy the object of which is not to cure a mere legal error or

to serve as a substitute for appeal, but to restrain a judge of

an inferior court from acting beyond or in excess of his

jurisdiction.” Honolulu Adv., Inc. v. Takao, 59 Haw. 237, 241,

580 P.2d 58, 62 (1978).

Upon consideration of the petition, the supporting

documents, and the record, it appears that petitioner can seek
3

relief by way of an appropriate appeal. Moreover, petitioner

fails to demonstrate that the respondent judge exceeded his

jurisdiction, committed a flagrant and manifest abuse of

discretion, or refused to act on a subject properly before him

under circumstances in which he has a legal duty to act

sufficient to fall within the scope of mandamus and/or

prohibition relief. Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of

mandamus and/or prohibition is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, March 6, 2013.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vazrik A. MAKARIAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-50937.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 17, 2006.*

Filed Oct. 23, 2006.

*768Becky S. Walker, Esq., Mary Carter Andrues, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Suzanne Lee Elliott, Esq., Law Offices of Suzanne Lee Elliott, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: PREGERSON, GOULD, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Vazrik Makarian appeals the twelve months and one day sentence imposed after his conviction following a guilty plea on two counts of knowingly submitting false statements to a federally insured financial institution, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1014. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291.1

Makarian contends that the district court’s calculation of the loss amount as $197,463.73 was clear error, and that the court’s use of this loss amount to increase Makarian’s base offense level by seven pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2F 1. 1(b)(1)(H) also was clear error.2

Makarian argues that he intended only that his false statements would induce the lender to waive loan fees, so that loss should be about $12,000 per the amount of the waived fees. There was, however, sufficient evidence to support the district court’s determination that Makarian’s submission of false income tax returns to the bank was material to the bank’s making of the loan, and also that the actual loss suffered by the bank as a result of his misconduct was the loss after foreclosure of $197,463.73.

We conclude that the district court correctly calculated “loss” under section 2F1.1 of the guidelines, since both the commentary and our circuit precedent instruct the district court to use the *greater*of the actual loss suffered or the intended or probable loss the defendant attempted to inflict. *See*U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1, Comment, n. 7 (Nov.1990); *United States v. Allen,*88 F.3d 765, 770 (9th Cir.1996); *United States v. Shaw,*3 F.3d 311 (9th Cir.1993); *United**769*States v. Galliano,*977 F.2d 1350, 1352 (9th Cir.1992). The district court did not clearly err when it determined the appropriate loss amount to be $197,463.73 and calculated the advisory sentencing guidelines correctly in light of the loss on the loan. Moreover, nothing in the plea agreement precluded the district court’s sentence of Makarian based on the actual loss suffered by the bank.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

1

. Because the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history, we do not restate them here except as necessary to explain our disposition.

2

. The district court’s factual findings are reviewed for clear error. *United States v. Kim-brew,*406 F.3d 1149, 1151 (9th Cir.2005).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JOSEPH JOHNSON COLE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) Civil No.14-0176-CG-C

)

ASHLEY MOONEY RICH and JOJO 

SCHWARZAUER,

)

)

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of the issues raised, and a de novo

determination of those portions of the recommendation to which objection is made1, 

the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B) 

and dated July 22, 2014, is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court.

DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of August, 2014.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

1 Plaintiff’s Response to the Report and Recommendation and Motion to Amend Complaint 

(Doc. 16) is deemed to be an objection to the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff seeks to 

amend the complaint to correct the deficiency of not listing his prior lawsuit. However, 

because the objection does not address question of immunity of the defendants which was a part 

of the Report and Recommendation, any amendment would be futile. As such, the motion to 

amend the complaint is DENIED.

Case 1:14-cv-00176-CG-C Document 18 Filed 08/07/14 Page 1 of 1
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection  with the Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of Public  Storage,  Inc.
(the "Company") for the quarterly  period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  Ronald L.
Havner,  Jr., as Chief  Executive  Officer and President of the Company and John
Reyes,  as Chief  Financial  Officer  of the  Company,  each  hereby  certifies,
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 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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/ Ronald L. Havner, Jr.
-------------------------
Name:    Ronald L. Havner, Jr.
Title:   Chief Executive Officer & President
Date:    May 10, 2006

/s/ John Reyes
-------------------------
Name:    John Reyes
Title:   Chief Financial Officer
Date:    May 10, 2006

                                   Exhibit 32
#### Kimberly L. Ackman, Appellant, v Douglas C. Gross, Respondent and Third-Party Plaintiff. Mark Haberer, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

[977 NYS2d 663]

— Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (John L. Michalski, A.J.), entered January 17, 2012. The judgment awarded plaintiff money damages against defendant/third-party plaintiff upon a jury verdict.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs. Present — Scudder, P.J., Smith, Fahey, Sconiers and Valentino, JJ.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3666 

To amend the Florida National Forest Land Management Act of 2003 to 

authorize the conveyance of an additional tract of National Forest System land under that Act, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 14, 2006 

Mr. NELSON of Florida introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Florida National Forest Land Management 

Act of 2003 to authorize the conveyance of an additional 

tract of National Forest System land under that Act, 

and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CONVEYANCES UNDER FLORIDA NATIONAL 

4 FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT ACT OF 2003. 

5 (a) ADDITIONAL CONVEYANCE AUTHORIZED.—Sub6 section (b) of section 3 of the Florida National Forest 

7 Land Management Act of 2003 (Public Law 108–152; 

8 117 Stat. 1919) is amended— 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

•S 3666 IS

1 (1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph 

2 (17); 

3 (2) by redesignating paragraph (18) as para4 graph (19); 

5 (3) by inserting after paragraph (17) the fol6 lowing new paragraph: 

7 ‘‘(18) tract W-1979, located in Leon County 

8 consisting of approximately 114 acres, within T. 1 

9 S., R. 1 W., sec.25; and’’; and 

10 (4) in paragraph (19), as so redesignated, by 

11 striking ‘‘(17)’’ and inserting ‘‘(18)’’. 

12 (b) ADDITIONAL USE OF PROCEEDS.—Paragraph (2) 

13 of subsection (i) of such section (117 Stat. 1921) is 

14 amended— 

15 (1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of subpara16 graph (A); 

17 (2) by striking the period at the end of sub18 paragraph (B) and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

19 (3) by adding at the end the following new sub20 paragraph: 

21 ‘‘(C) acquisition, construction, or mainte22 nance of administrative improvements for units 

23 of the National Forest System in the State.’’. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
3 

•S 3666 IS

1 (c) LIMITATIONS ON USE OF PROCEEDS.—Sub2 section (i) of such section is further amended by adding 

3 at the end the following new paragraphs: 

4 ‘‘(3) GEOGRAPHICALAND USE RESTRICTION

5 FOR CERTAIN CONVEYANCE.—Notwithstanding para6 graph (2), proceeds from the sale or exchange of the 

7 tract described in subsection (b)(18) shall be used 

8 exclusively for the purchase of inholdings in the 

9 Apalachicola National Forest. 

10 ‘‘(4) RESTRICTION ON USE OF PROCEEDS FOR

11 ADMINISTRATIVE IMPROVEMENTS.—Proceeds from 

12 any sale or exchange of land under this Act may be 

13 used for administrative improvements, as authorized 

14 by paragraph (2)(C), only if the land generating the 

15 proceeds was improved with infrastructure.’’. 

Æ 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
#### State v. Wiggins

Case below: 185 N.C. App.-(21 August 2007)

No. 446P07

Def’s (Cartwright) PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA06-1481)

Denied 10/11/07
665 A.2d 753

#### IN THE MATTER OF GARY M. WEISS, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

October 23, 1995.

ORDER

The Office of Attorney Ethics having filed a petition with the Supreme Court recommending that GARY M. WEISS of LIN-CROFT, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1984, be temporarily suspended from the practice of law, pursuant to *Rule*1:20-11, and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that GARY M. WEISS is temporarily suspended from the practice of law, effective immediately, and until further Order of this Court; and it is further

ORDERED that all funds, if any, currently existing in any New Jersey financial institution maintained by GARY M. WEISS, pursuant to *Rule*1:21-6 shall be restrained from disbursement except on application to this Court, for good cause shown, pending the further Order of this Court; and it is further

ORDERED that GARY M. WEISS be restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of his suspension and that he comply with *Rule*1:20-20 dealing with suspended attorneys.
April 30, 1999


               QUARTERLY REPORT TO THE LIMITED PARTNERS
                     OF DSI REALTY INCOME FUND VI 


DEAR LIMITED PARTNERS:

We are pleased to enclose the Partnership's unaudited financial statements 
for the period ended March 31, 1999. The following is Management's discussion
and analysis of the Partnership's financial condition and results of its 
operations.

For the three month periods ended March 31, 1999 and 1998, total revenues 
increased 6.7% from $657,089 to $700,968 and total expenses increased 6.5%
from $385,171 to $410,361.  As a result, net income increased 6.9% from
$271,918 for the three month period ended March 31, 1998, to $290,607 for
the same period in 1999.  The revenue increase can be attributed to an 
increase in rental income as a result of higher unit rental rates.  
Occupancy levels for the Partnership's isx mini-storage facilities averaged
82.7% for the three month period ended March 31, 1999, compared to 85.1% 
for the same period in 1998.  The Partnership is continuing its marketing
efforts to attract and keep new tenants in its various mini-storage 
facilities.  Operating expenses increased approximately $24,500 (7.9%) 
primarily due to increases in maintenance and repair, real estate tax, 
security expenses and property management fees.  Property management fees,
which are based on rental revenue, increased as a result of the increase in
rental revenue.  General and administrative expenses remained relatively
constant.

The General Partners plan to continue their policy of funding the continuing 
improvement and maintenance of Partnership properties with cash generated
from operations.  The Partnership's resources appear to be adequate to meet
its needs.  The General Partners anticipate distributions to the Limited 
Partners to remain at the current level for the foreseeable future.

We are not enclosing a copy of the Partnership Form 10-Q as filed with 
the Securities and Exchange Commission since all the information set 
forth therein is contained either in this letter or in the attached 
financial statements. However, if you wish to receive a copy of said 
report, please send a written request to DSI Realty Income Fund VI, 
P.O. Box 357, Long Beach, California 90801.

                              Very truly yours,

                              DSI Realty Income Fund VI
                              By: DSI Properties, Inc., as
                              General Partner



                              By___\s\ Robert J. Conway_______
                              ROBERT J. CONWAY, President
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                               5
<PERIOD TYPE>                        3-MONTHS
<FISCAL YEAR END>                    DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD END>                         MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                              1,455
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                           0
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT ASSETS>                                    1,455
<PP&E>                                                  0
<DEPRECIATION>                                          0
<TOTAL ASSETS>                                      1,455
<CURRENT LIABILITIES>                               5,000
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                           35,724
<OTHER SE>                                        (39,269)
<TOTAL LIABILITY AND EQUITY>                        1,455
<SALES>                                                 0
<TOTAL REVENUES>                                        0
<CGS>                                                   0
<TOTAL COSTS>                                           0
<OTHER EXPENSES>                                   14,345
<LOSS PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST EXPENSE>                                      0
<INCOME PRETAX>                                   (14,345)
<INCOME TAX>                                            0
<INCOME CONTINUING>                               (14,345)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET INCOME>                                      (14,345)
<EPS PRIMARY>                                        0.00
<EPS DILUTED>                                        0.00

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheets and consolidated statements of operations found on 
pages 2 and 3 of the Company's Form 10-QSB/A for the year to date, and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<CIK>                         0000318852
<NAME>                        COLORADO WYOMING RESERVE COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. DOLLARS

        
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                Jun-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                   Jul-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                     Mar-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                          1
<CASH>                             809,408
<SECURITIES>                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                       10,971
<ALLOWANCES>                             0
<INVENTORY>                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   820,379
<PP&E>                             689,242
<DEPRECIATION>                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   1,509,621
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                5,944
<BONDS>                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
<PREFERRED>                              0
<COMMON>                            15,950
<OTHER-SE>                       1,487,727
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     1,509,621
<SALES>                             18,682
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    26,131
<CGS>                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   347,309
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   (321,178)
<INCOME-TAX>                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               (321,178)
<DISCONTINUED>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0
<CHANGES>                                0
<NET-INCOME>                      (321,178)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        (0.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                        (0.20)
        


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Anthony Peluso et al., Appellants, v Erie County Independence Party et al., Respondents, and New York State Committee of the Independence Party et al., Appellants, et al., Respondents.

Submitted August 25, 2009;

decided August 25, 2009

Reported below, 65 AD3d 820.

Motion for leave to appeal by Anthony Peluso et al. and New York State Committee of the Independence Party et al. granted. Motion for leave to appeal by Erie County Independence Party et al. dismissed upon the ground that such parties are not aggrieved.
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Skeletal Biology Development and Disease Study Section, February 05, 2015, 08:00 a.m. to February 06, 2015, 05:00 p.m., Marriott Courtyard Gaithersburg Washingtonian Ctr, 204 Boardwalk Place, Gaithersburg, MD, 20878 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on January 08, 2015, 80 FR 1030.                

The meeting will be held at Crowne Plaza Rockville, 3 Research Court, Rockville, MD 20850. The meeting date and time remain the same. The meeting is closed to the public.

Dated: January 13, 2015.

Carolyn Baum,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2015-00661 Filed 1-16-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### In re T.M.H.

Case below: 186 N.C. App. — (16 October 2007)

No. 530P07

Respondent (Father’s) Motion for Temporary Stay (COA07-609)

Allowed 11/01/07