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

EXHIBIT 13.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Ronald W. Thiessen, President and Chief Executive Officer of
Quartz Mountain Resources Ltd. (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:

(i)     the Annual
Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2013 (the
Annual Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

|Date:  | November 27, 2013                    
|------ | -------------------------------------
|       |                                      
|       | /s/
      Ronald Thiessen            
|By:    | Ronald W. Thiessen                   
|Title: | President and Chief Executive Officer

This written statement is being furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Companys Annual Report on Form
20-F. A signed original of this statement has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies this Annual Report on Form
20-F pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not,
except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
"Exchange Act"). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it
by reference.

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________ )

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

, )

)

Plaintiff

, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 04

- 0798 (PLF)

)

ALL ASSETS HELD AT BANK JULIUS, )

Baer & Company, Ltd., Guernsey )

Branch, account number 121128, in the )

Name of Pavlo Lazarenko et al

. , )

)

Defendants In Rem

. )

____________________________________)

ORDER

For the reasons set forth in the Opinion issued this same day, it is hereby

ORDERED that Claimant Pavel Lazarenko’s Motion for Reconsideration Seeking

Authorization to Plead an Excessive Fines Affirmative Defense [Dkt. 860] is GRANTED; it is

FURTHER ORD ERED that on or before August 18 , 2017, Claimant Pavel

Lazarenko shall file on the public docket an amended Answer consistent with this Opinion that is

identical to his current amended Answer (Feb. 3, 2017) [Dkt. 882] but adds an Eighth

Amendment excessive fines affirmative defense containing th e facts substantiating that defense;

it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion of Claimants Alexander, Ekaterina, and

Lecia Lazarenko for Leave to File an Answer to the Amended Complaint [Dkt. 877] is

GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; and it isFURTHER O RD ERED that on or before August 18 , 2017, Claimants Alexander,

Ekaterina, and Lecia Lazarenko sh all file on the public docket a new Answer consistent with this

Opinion that is identical to their current proposed Answer (Feb. 3, 2017) [Dkt. 877

- 2]

, but o mits

their Eighth Amendment excessive fines and failure to state a claim affirmative defense s

.

SO ORDERED.

/s/

PAUL L. FRIEDMAN

United States District Judge

DATE: August 3, 2017
Exhibit 23.2

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

The Partners of
FFP Partners, L.P.:

We consent to  incorporation  by reference in the  registration  statement  (No.
33-73170) on Form S-8 of FFP Partners,  L.P. of our report dated March 30, 1999,
relating to the consolidated balance sheet of FFP Partners,  L.P. and subsidiary
as of December 31, 1998, and the related consolidated  statements of operations,
partners' capital,  and cash flows for the period ended December 31, 1998, which
report  appears  in the  December  31,  1999  annual  report on Form 10-K of FFP
Partners, L.P.

                                      KPMG LLP


Fort Worth, Texas
April 12, 2000
@misc{1207646,
  author = {Douglas Thomas},
  title = {The U.S. Biomanufacturing Economy: Value Added, Supply Chains, Cost, Sustainability, and Efficiency},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-06-23 04:06:00},
  publisher = {Advanced Manufacturing Series (NIST AMS), National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=936582},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.AMS.100-52},
  language = {en},
}
Exhibit 32.2





Certification of Principal Executive Officer, 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 Alamo Energy Corp. a Nevada corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending July 31, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Donald Sebastian, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, 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 result of operations of the Company.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Alamo Energy Corp., and will be retained by Alamo Energy Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





/s/ Donald SebastianDonald Sebastian

Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer)

September 12, 2012
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 123 (Monday, June 29, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 31052]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15302]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,878]


BCF Industries, Altavista, VA; Notice of Termination of 
Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on May 4, 2009, in response to a petition 
filed on behalf of workers of BCF Industries, Altavista, Virginia.
    The petitioners have requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 19th day of May 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-15302 Filed 6-26-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
EXHIBIT 23.1






                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS









THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND STOCKHOLDERS
WORLDCORP, INC.:



We consent to the  incorporation  by  reference in the  registration  statements
(Nos. 33-44245,  33-46443,  33-62864, and 33-60247) on Form S-3 and registration
statements  (Nos.  33-33468 and 33-51944) on Form S-8 of WorldCorp,  Inc. of our
report dated February 14, 1997,  relating to the consolidated  balance sheets of
WorldCorp,  Inc.  and  subsidiaries  as of December  31, 1996 and 1995,  and the
related consolidated  statements of operations,  changes in common stockholders'
deficit  and cash  flows for each of the years in the  three-year  period  ended
December 31, 1996, and the related financial statement  schedules,  which report
appears in the December 31, 1996 annual report on Form 10-K of WorldCorp, Inc.


                                                      KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP



WASHINGTON, D.C.
MARCH 31, 1997
ORICINAL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

OP 20-0360

LORRIE CORETTE CAMPBELL,

and JILL LOVEN,

Petitioners,

v.

MONTANA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

COURT, LEWIS & CLARK COUNTY,

HONORABLE JAMES P. REYNOLDS,

Presiding,

Respondent.

FILED

JUL 1 5 2020

owen Greenwood

::lerk of Supreme Court

Stasw nf Montana

ORDER

Petitioners, two Montana voters who signed a petition to put the Montana Green Party

on the 2020 ballot, filed an emergency petition for writ of supervisory control seeking an

order to immediately reverse the First Judicial District Court's denial of their motion to

intervene, an order the court issued from the bench on the opening morning of an evidentiary

hearing. The underlying proceeding, Lewis and Clark County Cause No. CDV-2020-856, is

an action brought by the Montana Democratic Party and four other Montana voters that

apparently seeks to withdraw the signatures of numerous individuals on petitions to qualify

the Green Party for the ballot. (The complaint is not before us.) The Defendant in the

underlying case is Secretary of State Corey Stapleton, whose office is defending the action.

Petitioners urge this Court's immediate action on the grounds that their fundamental

rights are at stake in the case and that no other party to the proceeding represents their

interests. Petitioners have presented the Court with their intervention motion and briefs to

the District Court and with the Plaintiffs' response.

Supervisory control is an extraordinary remedy that is sometimes justified when

urgency or emergency factors make the normal appeal process inadequate, the case involves

07/15/2020

Case Number: OP 20-0360
purely legal questions, and one or more of the three following circumstances exist: the other

court is proceeding under a mistake of law and is causing a gross injustice, constitutional

issues of state-wide importance are involved, or the other court has granted or denied a

motion for substitution of a judge in a criminal case. M. R. App. P. 14(3). Exercise of

supervisory control is discretionary.

On review of the Petitioners' submissions, the Court concludes that the petition is

insufficient on its face to demonstrate that the District Court is acting under a pure mistake of

law or that a gross injustice will result, particularly given that the Plaintiffs' brief below

indicated they did not object to Petitioners' participation as amicus curiae. The petition as

presented does not satisfy the M. R. App. P. 14(3) criteria for invoking this Court's

extraordinary jurisdiction to review the District Court's interlocutory ruling.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Petition for a Writ of Supervisory Control is

DENIED and DISMISSED.

The Clerk is directed to provide notice of this Order to all counsel of record in the

First Judicial District Court's Cause No. CDV-2020-856 and to the Honorable James P.

Reynolds, presiding District Court Judge.

DATED this day of July, 2020.

Chief Justice
#### 21X CAPITAL LTD.; David A. Brewer, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. Robert WERRA; John Werra, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 09-17336.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Feb. 17, 2011.

Filed March 4, 2011.

Thomas H. Carlson, Esquire, Rogers Joseph O’Donnell, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Jon B. Streeter, Steven A. Hirsch, Esquire, Rachael E. Meny, Esquire, Khari Jamil Tillery, Audrey Walton-Hadlock, Keker & Van Nest LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: NOONAN, O’SCANNLAIN, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

21X Capital, Ltd. and David A. Brewer appeal the district court’s order awarding $1.5 million in attorneys’ fees in favor of Robert and John Werra. We review for clear error the factual findings underlying an award of attorneys’ fees, and review de novo the legal premises applied to determine an award. *Ferland v. Conrad Credit Corp.,*244 F.3d 1145, 1147-48 (9th Cir.2001) (per curiam).

California Civil Code section 1717(a) allows for recovery of contractual attorneys’ fees only where the action was “on a contract.” Because this was an action to enforce a judgment, it was not “on a contract,” and the district court erred in awarding attorneys’ fees. *See Chelios v. Kaye,*219 Cal.App.3d 75, 80, 268 Cal.Rptr. 38 (1990) (“When, as here, a lawsuit on a contractual claim has been reduced to a final, nonappealable judgment, all of the prior contractual rights are merged into and extinguished by the monetary judgment, and thereafter the prevailing party has only those rights as are set forth in the judgment itself.”).

The Werras did not seek attorneys’ fees in the district court pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(k). Whether 21X and Brewer willfully violated the bankruptcy stay is a factual issue that we may not decide for the first time on appeal, and the issue is therefore waived. *See Wildwest Inst. v. Bull,*547 F.3d 1162, 1172 (9th Cir.2008).

The award of attorneys’ fees is REVERSED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

WILLIAM RAUCH,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 70 WAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 17th day of July, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS 

INFORMATION SHEET BY COURT REPORTERS 

You are expected to file the reporter’s record by the original due date. See Tex. R. App. P.35. If 

a reporter determines that the due date may not be met, please advise the Clerk of the Court of 

Appeals immediately in writing, stating the reason and the due date by which the record will be 

filed. Generally speaking, for good cause shown, the Court will grant no more than two 

extensions from the original record due date, each extension not to exceed 30 days in regular 

appeals and 10 days in accelerated appeals for a total period not to exceed 60 days in regular 

appeals and 20 days in accelerated appeals.

 

Appellate Case Number: Trial Court Case Number: 

(1) Is there a Reporter's Record? Y N

(2) Are you the only court reporter involved in this appeal? Y N

If not, please provide the names and addresses of all other court

reporters below.

(3) Has the appellant requested that the reporter’s record be prepared or 

has the trial court ordered that the record be prepared?

 Y N

(4) Please select from the following options:

 A. The appellant has paid for the record.

 B. The appellant has made arrangements to pay for the record

 C. The appellant is appealing as indigent.

 D. The appellant has not paid or made arrangements to pay for the

 record and is not appealing as indigent.

(5) Extension (fill out if extension is required for any reason other than payment)

I was unable to file the record in this appeal by ________. I expect the record 

in this appeal to be approximately _______ pages. The record covers 

_______days of testimony. I believe that I can file the record by _________. I 

ask that the court grant an extension until that time for filing the record.

Additional Comments: ___________________________________________

Court Reporter's Signature, Full Address, Email Address and Telephone Number: 

_______________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________

 FILED IN 14th COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 7/17/2015 2:50:22 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
• - /- r7. Ut"

2015 JUL 20 hi 12: l;J

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DARLENE T. and JOEL HOBBS,

Appellants,

NORTHWEST TRUSTEE SERVICES,

INC.; and WELLS FARGO BANK, NA,

Respondents.

No. 71143-1-1

DIVISION ONE

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

FILED: July 20, 2015

Becker, J. — The actual holder of a note is entitled to enforce it. Because

there is no dispute that respondent Wells Fargo Bank NA was the actual holder

of the note given by the appellants, summary judgment in favor ofWells Fargo

was appropriate. We affirm.

The appellants are Darlene and Joel Hobbs. This appeal arises out of

their default on a note owned by the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation

(hereinafter "Freddie Mac") and held byWells Fargo. The respondents began

nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings after the Hobbs defaulted. Wells Fargo

transmitted a beneficiary declaration to NorthwestTrustee Services Inc., stating

that Wells Fargo was the "actual holder" of the note and Freddie Mac was the

owner. At Wells Fargo's direction, Northwest Trustee issued a notice oftrustee's
No. 71143-1-1/2

sale. The Hobbs filed suit to restrain the sale and recover damages from Wells

Fargo and Northwest Trustee for violations of the deed of trust act, chapter 61.24

RCW, and the Consumer Protection Act, chapter 19.86 RCW. The court

enjoined the sale, subject to the Hobbs making payment required by RCW

61.24.130. The court granted motions for summary judgment made by Wells

Fargo and NorthwestTrustee on the claims for damages. The Hobbs appeal.

The Hobbs argue that a beneficiary must be both the actual holder and the

owner of a note to enforce it. Because Northwest Trustee knew that Wells Fargo

was not the owner of the note, the Hobbs maintain that, under RCW

61.24.030(7)(b), Northwest Trustee was not entitled to rely on Wells Fargo's

beneficiary declaration. Relying on RCW 62A.9A-313, the Hobbs also argue that

Wells Fargo did not have "legal possession" ofthe note and thus was notthe

"actual holder" for purposes of RCW 61.24.030(7).

This court persuasively rejected the same arguments in Truiillo v.

Northwest Trustee Services. Inc.. 181 Wn. App. 484, 510, 326 P.3d 768 (2014),

review granted. 182 Wn.2d 1020 (2015). First, the court concluded that "it is the

status of holder of the note that entitles the entity to enforce the obligation.

Ownership ofthe note is not dispositive." Truiillo. 181 Wn. App. at 498. Second,

the court concluded that Trujillo's "legal possession" argument was based on § 9-

313 of the Uniform Commercial Code, a section which is concerned with security

interests in notes and is therefore inapplicable to nonjudicial foreclosure

proceedings. Truiillo. 181 Wn. App. at 502-04. We adhere to our decision in

Truiillo.
No. 71143-1-1/3

Affirmed.

\jecke£t

WE CONCUR:

fC^M^A
Exhibit 23.1        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM   We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Forms S-8 (Nos. 333-118845 and 333-129231) of Blue Ridge Real Estate Company (Blue Ridge) and Big Boulder Corporation (Big Boulder), of our reports, dated January 28, 2008, with respect to the combined financial statements of Blue Ridge and Big Boulder and the related financial statement schedule, which reports appear in the October 31, 2007 annual report on Form 10-K of Blue Ridge and Big Boulder.     /s/ Parente Randolph, LLC      Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania January 28, 2008
Motion Granted and Abatement Order filed January 8, 2013 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-10-00772-CR

NO. 14-10-00771-CR

____________

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant

V.

MARK STEVEN BELL, Appellee

On Appeal from the 228th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 1238939 and 1238940

ABATEMENT ORDER

On December 13, 2012, the parties filed a joint agreed motion to abate these 

appeals pending finalization of an agreement they anticipate will lead to dismissal of 

these appeals. The motion is granted. Accordingly, we issue the following order.

The appeals are abated, treated as closed cases, and removed from this court’s 

active docket for a period of 60 days from the date of this order. The appeals will be 

reinstated on this court’s active docket at that time, or when the parties file a motion to 
2

dismiss these appeals. The court will also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the 

appeals filed by either party, or the court may reinstate the appeals on its own motion.

PER CURIAM
[NUMBER]                                                            [SHARES]




                            GEORGIA BANCSHARES, INC.
                   Incorporated under the Laws of the State of
             Georgia 10,000,000 Shares Authorized Common Stock ($.01
                              par value per share)




                   This Certifies that [NAME] is the owner of
                          ****AMOUNT**** fully paid and
     non-assessable Shares of the above Corporation transferable only on the
  books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in person or by duly authorized
         Attorney upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed.

      In Witness Whereof, the said Corporation has caused this Certificate
       to be signed By its duly authorized officers and to be sealed with
                          the Seal of the Corporation.





 Dated  ------------- , 2002


-------------------------                                  ---------------------
     PRESIDENT                                                        SECRETARY
<PAGE>


The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this
certificate, shall be construed as though they were written out in full
according to applicable laws or regulations. Additional abbreviations may also
be used though not in the list.

TEN COM -as tenants in common    UNIF GIFT MIN ACT-....Custodian......(Minor)
TEN ENT -as tenants by the entireties under Uniform Gifts to Minors Act..(State)
JT TEN  as joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenants in common

For value received, the undersigned hereby sells, assigns and transfers unto

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

             Please Print or Typewrite Name and Address of Assignee

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

----------------------------------------------------------------- Shares
Represented by the within Certificate, and hereby irrevocably constitutes
and appoints ___________ Attorney to transfer the said shares on the books of
the within-named Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises.
Dated,
      ------------------

                      In presence of
                                      ------------------------------------------
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**Certification of Periodic Financial Report**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**

 

Forpurposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, JohnSaunders the Chief Executive Officer of Integrated ManagementInformation, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies that, to hisknowledge:

 

(i)             the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of theCompany for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2010, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”) fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(ii)          the information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 
| Date:  August 12, 2010             |
|-----------------------------------------|
| /s/  John Saunders                      |   |
| John  Saunders, Chief Executive Officer |

 

----