alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned officer of Globalink, Ltd. (the "Company"), hereby
certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 (the
"Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                 /s/Robin Young
                                 ----------------------
                                 Robin Young
                                 Chief Executive Officer

November 20, 2009

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned officer of Globalink, Ltd. (the "Company"), hereby
certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 (the
"Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                 /s/Ben Choi
                                 ----------------------
                                 Ben Choi
                                 Chief Executive Officer

November 20, 2009
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 February 20, 2018

d0209

Order 

Clerk

February 20, 2018

155504

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 155504

COA: 335288

Wayne CC: 12-007551-FC

DEMONE DOMINIQUE HALL,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 25, 2017 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6518

EKERE INYANGETTE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

TRAVIS BRAGG, Warden FCI Bennettsville,

Respondent – Appellee,

and

DARLENE DREW,

Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. 

(6:13-cv-01219-BHH)

Submitted: July 21, 2015 Decided: July 24, 2015

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ekere Inyangette, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Ekere Inyangette, a federal prisoner, appeals the district 

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge 

and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. The 

district court referred this case to the magistrate judge pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge 

recommended that relief be denied and advised Inyangette that 

failure to file specific objections to this recommendation would 

waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the 

recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate 

judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review 

of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been 

warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins, 

766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474

U.S. 140 (1985). Inyangette has waived appellate review by failing 

to file specific objections after receiving proper notice. 

Accordingly, although we grant Inyangette’s motion to proceed in 

forma pauperis, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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.

AFFIRMED
40 Occupational Outlook Quarterly ● Summer 2002

According to the Bureau of Labor

Statistics, new registered nurses

are expected to fill more than a

million job openings between 2000 and

2010—a number greater than that for

any other occupation that usually

requires posthigh school education or 1

year or more of training.

As the chart shows, however, many

occupations that commonly require

advanced education or training have

numerous openings projected. The

education level cited for each occupation

is the training that workers in the

occupation most often have. There are

usually many different ways to prepare

for an occupation.

Among occupations that usually

require at least a bachelor’s degree, those

expected to have the most openings for

new entrants are general and operations

manager (767,000), postsecondary

teacher (682,000), and elementary

school teacher (551,000). General and

operations managers usually need a

bachelor’s or higher degree plus experience, postsecondary teachers a doctoral

degree, and elementary school teachers a

bachelor’s degree.

Carpenter and restaurant cook are

projected to top the list for occupations

that usually require long-term on-the-job

training, offering a combined total of

637,000 openings for workers new to

those occupations. Of occupations

usually requiring a postsecondary

vocational credential, automotive service

technician and mechanic is expected to

provide the most openings.

The job openings shown on this chart

stem from new jobs added to the

economy and the need to replace workers

who leave an occupation permanently.

They do not include openings that will be

filled by workers switching from one job

to another within an occupation or by

workers returning to the occupation.

Job openings for new entrants in occupations that

usually require postsecondary education or more

than 1 year of training, projected 2000-10

Estimated job openings due to

growth and net replacements,

projected 2000-10

Registered nurse

General and operations manager

Postsecondary teacher

Elementary school teacher, except

special education

Computer support specialist

Secondary school teacher, except special

and vocational education

Computer software engineer,

applications

Automotive service technician

and mechanic

Cook, restaurant

Accountant and auditor

Licensed practical and licensed

vocational nurse

Computer software engineer,

systems software

Carpenter

Computer systems analyst

Police and sheriff’s patrol officer

1,004

767

682

551

512

492

406

349

335

326

322

306

302

296

269

Occupation

(thousands)

Bachelor’s degree or more

education most common

Long-term on-the-job training

most common

Postsecondary vocational award

most common

Associate degree most common
**EXHIBIT 24**

 

OWENS-ILLINOIS GROUP, INC.

POWER OF ATTORNEY

 

KNOWALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That each individual whose signature appears belowhereby consents to and appoints James W. Baehren as his true and lawfulattorney-in-fact and agent with all power of substitution, for him and in hisname, place and stead, in any and all capacities, to sign the 2008 AnnualReport on Form 10-K of Owens-Illinois Group, Inc., a corporationorganized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, and any and allamendments thereto, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and alldocuments in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commissionpursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, grantingunto said attorney-in-fact and agent full power and authority to do and performeach and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and aboutthe same as fully to all intents and purposes as he might or could do inperson, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorney-in-fact andagent or his substitute or substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done byvirtue thereof.

 

INWITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has hereunto set his hand on the dateset opposite his name.

 

 
| **Signature**             | ** ** | **Title**                                                        | ** ** | **Date**               |
|---------------------------|------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|------------------------|
|                      |       |                                                             |       |                   |
| /s/ Albert P.L. Stroucken |       | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer                             |       | February 17, 2009 |
| Albert P.L. Stroucken     |       | (Principal Executive Officer)                                    |       |                   |
|                      |       |                                                             |       |                   |
| /s/ Edward C. White       |       | President (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer); Director |       | February 17, 2009 |
| Edward C. White           |       |                                                             |       |                   |
|                      |       |                                                             |       |                   |
| /s/ James W. Baehren      |       | Vice President and Secretary; Director                           |       | February 17, 2009 |
| James W. Baehren          |       |                                                             |       |                   |
|                      |       |                                                             |       |                   |
| /s/ L. Richard Crawford   |       | Director                                                         |       | February 17, 2009 |
| L. Richard Crawford       |       |                                                             |       |                   |

 

----
EXHIBIT 31.2



CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION



I, Charles Driscoll, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Viscorp, Inc.



2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material 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 quarterly report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;



4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:



a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;



b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report 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 registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant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 registrants internal control over financial reporting.





Date: May 15, 2007















/s/ Charles Driscoll





Charles Driscoll









Chief Financial Officer
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### December 20, 2011 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT

RICHITA MARIE HACKFORD; NATHAN S. COLLET; OPAL S. HACKFORD; RICHARD D. HACKFORD, Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v. STATE OF UTAH; DUCHESNE COUNTY; ROOSEVELT CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT; ROOSEVELT CITY CORPORATION; PETE BUTCHER, Officer/Detective; DUCHESNE COUNTY JAIL; WALLACE HENDRICKS; ROOSEVELT ADULT PROBATION & PAROLE; TOM KOSMACK; BRAD DRAPER, Officer; UINTAH COUNTY; VERNAL CITY CORPORATION; UINTAH COUNTY JAIL; CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS, Defendants - Appellees. No. 11-4108 (D.C. No. 11-CV-00084-DB-DN) (D. Utah)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.Before KELLY , HARTZ , and HOLMES , Circuit Judges. **
Plaintiffs-Appellants Richita Hackford, Nathan S. Collet, and Opal S. Hackford, proceeding pro se , appeal from the district court’s denial of their motion for a restraining order or preliminary injunction. Their brief is incomprehensible, but appears to allege that the Ute Partition Act of 1954 was fraudulently enacted and that unspecified rights of theirs are being violated by the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Church of Latter-day Saints. We review a district court’s denial of preliminary injunctive relief for an abuse of discretion. See Dominion Video Satellite, Inc. v. EchoStar Satellite Corp. , 269 F.3d 1149, 1153 (10th Cir. 2001). To obtain a preliminary injunction, plaintiffs must demonstrate “(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparable injury to the movant if the injunction is denied; (3) the threatened injury to the movant outweighs the injury to the party opposing the preliminary injunction; and (4) the injunction would not be adverse to the public interest.” Id. at 1154. Plaintiffs must also comply with the procedural requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 65. The district court properly held that the plaintiffs have not satisfied the requirements for injunctive relief. They failed to file an affidavit or verified

** After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. SeeFed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. - 2 -complaint as required for the issuance of a temporary restraining order without notice to other parties; they failed to set forth specific facts that demonstrate immediate and irreparable injury is about to occur; and they failed to present facts that would allow the court to fashion a proper order under Rule 65(d). Appellant Richard Hackford’s motion to proceed without prepayment of fees is granted. He is reminded to continue making partial payments until the filing fee is paid in full.
AFFIRMED. Entered for the Court Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge

- 3 -
Exhibit 32.01


CERTIFICATION




I, Gary D. Halbert, the President of ProFutures, Inc., the general partner of ProFutures Diversified Fund, L.P., certify that (i) the Annual Report of ProFutures Diversified Fund, L.P. on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009 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 such Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of ProFutures Diversified Fund, L.P.









PROFUTURES DIVERSIFIED FUND, L.P.




By:  ProFutures, Inc., General Partner









By:  /s/ Gary D. Halbert




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


Gary D. Halbert


President


April 15, 2010
Benefits and Beneficiaries Under the Railroad Retirement 

and Unemployment Insurance Systems - October 2002 

Regular Retirement 

and Survivor Benefits 

Benefit payments October 2002 October 2001 

Total $727,441,000 $696,610,000 

Retired employees 461,196,000 439,940,000 

Spouses and divorced spouses 88,340,000 85,578,000 

Widow(er)s - aged and disabled 156,575,000 150,136,000 

Other survivors 21,330,000 20,956,000 

Number Average1 Number Average1 

Total 642,200 ......... 2,800 ......... ......... 

Regular employee annuities, total 297,300 $1,535 1,200 $2,147 ......... 

Age 215,600 1,499 2 500 2 2,537 3 $1,154 

Disability, age 65 and over 36,900 1,369 ......... ......... ......... 

Disability, under age 65 44,800 1,841 400 2,097 

Spouses and divorced spouses 150,600 580 800 694 

Widow(er)s--aged and disabled 165,200 946 700 1,299 

Widowed mothers and fathers 1,100 1,234 4/ 1,025 

Widow(er)s--remarried and divorced 15,100 631 100 666 

Children 12,800 730 100 987 

Other survivors 100 615 ......... ......... ......... 

Average under 

Being paid 

end of month 

Awarded in 

month 

Social Security 

Monthly benefits October 2002

Being Paid Awarded 

......... 

......... 

$880 

......... 

629 640 

820 897 

432 331 

......... 

5/ / 

575 596 

835 713 

5

Supplemental 

Employee 

Annuities 

Benefit payments 

October October 

2002 2001 Number Average 

$5,585,000 $5,782,000 131,900 $42 

Being paid 

end of month 

Awarded 

in month 

Number Average 

600 $41 

1

Railroad retirement benefits shown are net of reduction for social security benefit entitlement.

2

For employees retiring directly from the railroad industry with full age annuity (their years of service averaged35); some 200

other age annuities were awarded in the month. 

3

For men aged 65 or over insured on regular basis.

4

Fewer than 50.

5

Remarried and divorced widow(er)s included with aged and disabled widow(er)s and widowed mothers and fathers.

Note. --Data are on a cash basis (unaudited) and are partly estimated. Detail may not add to totals due to rounding 

(Over) 
Benefits and Beneficiaries Under the Railroad Retirement 

and Unemployment Insurance Systems - (Continued) 

October 2002 

Unemployment and Sickness Benefits 

Unemployment 3,600 $255.55 

Sickness 7,700 257.60 

Unemployment 

Sickness 

Average payment 

Per 

full week 

$456.35 

Number of beneficiaries 

during month 

Per 2-week 

registration period 

472.82 

October 2002 

Benefit payments 

October 2001 

Total $8,968,000 $8,958,000 

3,311,000 3,742,000 

5,657,000 5,216,000 

Note. --Data are on a cash basis (unaudited) and are partly estimated. Detail may not add to totals due to rounding 

Recycled 

Paper 

Published by the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board 

Bureau of the Actuary and the Office of Public Affairs
#### KREIGER v. LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO.

No. 556.

District Court, E. D. New York.

Sept. 11, 1939.

*602Arthur Frank, of New York City, for plaintiff.

Alexander & Green, of New York City, for defendant.

ABRUZZO, District Judge.

This is a motion to dismiss the action because the plaintiff has not the capacity to sue.

It is the opinion of this Court that the action is properly brought under Section 51, Title 45 of the United States Code Annotated. Rule 17 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, cannot be construed as modifying that statute. This motion is therefore denied.

The motion for a bill of particulars made simultaneously with the above motion is denied at this time with leave to renew the same after the defendant has filed an answer to the complaint.

Settle order on two (2) days’ notice.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Angel Murphy, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 885]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herbert J. Adlerberg, J., at *Darden*hearing; John A.K. Bradley, J., at plea and sentence), rendered July 24, 2001, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of five years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Based upon our review of the minutes of the *Darden*hearing *(People v Darden,*34 NY2d 177 [1974]), we conclude that there was probable cause for issuance of the search warrant *(see generally Spinelli v United States,*393 US 410 [1969]; *Aguilar v Texas,*378 US 108 [1964]). Concur—Saxe, J.E, Marlow, Nardelli, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: In re Alliance Machine & Specialties, Inc.

Appellate case number: 01-21-00022-CV

Trial court case number: 2019-79056

Trial court: 234th District Court of Harris County

Relator, Alliance Machine & Specialties, Inc., filed a “Motion for Temporary Relief to 

Stay Underlying Proceedings.” The motion is denied.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ___________/s/ Julie Countiss__________

 Acting individually 

Date: April 1, 2021