alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL 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 MattMar Minerals Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending November 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Sean
Mitchell, 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 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.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
9th day of January, 2007.


/s/ Sean Mitchell
------------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
: Mag. No. 1 1-2525 (IXEA)

DAVID WAX and : ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE

JUDY WAX

This matter having come before the Court on the joint application ofPaul 3.

Fishman, United States Attorney for the District ofNew Jersey (R. Joseph Gribko, Assistant U.S.

Attorney, appearing), and defendants Davi4 Wax and Judy Wax (Mitchell J. Arisell, Esq. and

Steven Secare, Esq., appearing), for an order giinting a continuance ofthe pmceedings in the

above-captioned matter, and the defendants and their counsel being aware that an Information or

Indictment ordinarily must be filed within thirty (30) days of defendant*s initial appearance on

this charge, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3161(b); and, pursuant to TItle 18,

United States Code, Section 3161 (h)(7)(A), the United States and the defendants having

requested this continuance so that the j,arties can negotiate plea agreements and thereby avoid apossible trial, and for good cause shown,

IT IS on this

day ofNovember, 2013,

ORDERED that the time from the date this Order is entered, to and including

January 23, 2014, shall be excluded in calculating the time within which an Infonnation orIndictment must be filed under the Speedy Trial Act for the following reasons:
2. Pursuant to Title i g, United States Code, Section 3161Q1X7)(A), the ends

ofjustice served by granting the continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the

defendants in a speedy trial,

HON. DOU%LA E. ARPERT

United StatsMstrate Judge

Mitchell Ansell, Esq.

Counsel for De:1endint David WaxSteven Seeare Esq.

Counsel for defendant Judy Wax
Exhibit 31.1

MedPro Safety Products, Inc.Rule 13a-14(a) Certificationof Chief Executive Officer

I, W. Craig Turner, Chief Executive Officer of MedPro Safety Products, Inc. (the Company), certify that:

1.     I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company;

2.     Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

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

4.     The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and 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 report is being prepared; and

(c) 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

(d) 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(s) 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 the 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 control 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.

|                    |                        
|------------------- | -----------------------
|Dated: May 20, 2009 | /s/ W. Craig Turner    
|                    | W. Craig Turner        
|                    | Chief Executive Officer

---
Exhibit 4.43
 
 FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT
            Internet Media Licensing Limited. Standard EULA
    
    Page 1 of 25th Amendment
    
    Contract No. EULA-010404




---



##### 



1. SCHEDULE B
 Payment
    
    DueUp-front, non-refundable license fee, of USD $0
    
    Upon signing of agreementSoftware Royalties for Games of Chance Software 
the royalty shall be equal to thirty-two and one
half percent (32.5%) of Gross Revenues (Royalty
Rate) derived from the Games of Chance Software,
received in the particular Calculation Period.
    
    On the tenth day of each calendar month
following the end of the preceding Calculation
Period.Software Royalties for Multi Player Game Software 
the royalty shall be equal to ten percent (10%) of
Gross Revenues (Royalty Rate) derived from the
Multi-Player Game Software, received in
the particular Calculation Period.
       Internet Media Licensing Limited
    
    
    
    Ultra Internet Media S.A.:By:
    
    /s/ Kenneth Huang

Name: Kenneth Huang
    
    
    
    By:
    
    /s/ William Lee

Name: William LeeTitle:   Director
    
    
    
    
    
    Title:   Director
 Internet Media Licensing Limited. Standard EULA
    
    Page 2 of 25th Amendment
    
    Contract No. EULA-010404
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF

TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 863,

 Plaintiff,

v.

GROCERY HAULERS, INC., 

 Defendant

Civil Action No.: 11-1582 (CCC) (JAD)

O R D E R 

BRIAN QUEEN, ET AL. 

 Plaintiffs,

v.

GROCERY HAULERS, INC., 

 Defendant.

Civil Action No.: 11-6592 (CCC) (JAD)

O R D E R 

This matter comes before the Court on the motion of Defendant Grocery Haulers, Inc. to

dismiss as duplicative the Complaint filed in Brian Queen, et al. v. Grocery Haulers, Inc., Civil

Action No, 11-6592 (the “Queen Action”), which was consolidated for discovery purposes with

International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 863 v. Grocery Haulers, Inc., Civil Action No. 11-

1582 (the “Local 863 Action”). On June 14, 2012, Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson issued a

Report and Recommendation that the Defendants’ motion to dismiss be denied without prejudice,

that the Queen Action be stayed pending the outcome of the Local 863 Action, and that the cases

remain consolidated. No objections have been filed thereto. The Court has considered the

submissions of the parties, and Judge Dickson’s Report and Recommendation dated June 14, 2012,

and for substantially the same reasons stated therein,

Case 2:11-cv-01582-CCC-JAD Document 50 Filed 07/10/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 261
IT IS on this 10 day of July, 2012 th

ORDERED that this Court adopts Judge Dickson’s June 14, 2012 Report and

Recommendation that the Defendant’s motion to dismiss be denied without prejudice, that theQueen

Action be stayed pending the outcome of the Local 863 Action, and that the cases remain

consolidated. Defendant’s motion to dismiss the Complaint filed in Brian Queen, et al. v. Grocery

Haulers, Inc., Civil Action No. 11-6592 is thus denied.

 s/ Claire C. Cecchi 

HON. CLAIRE C. CECCHI

United States District Judge

Case 2:11-cv-01582-CCC-JAD Document 50 Filed 07/10/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 262
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6769

PATRICE MUNSELLE CARTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FLUVANNA CORRECTIONAL CENTER FOR WOMEN; PATRICIA HUFFMAN, Warden; FLUVANNA MEDICAL DEPARTMENT, Health Services; FRED SCHILLING; FAYE GARNETT; ANTHONY LYNCH, Director of Nurses, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-286-7) Submitted: August 28, 2003 Decided: September 8, 2003 Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Patrice Munselle Carter, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Patrice Munselle Carter appeals the district court’s order denying relief on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Carter v. Fluvanna Corr. Ctr. for Women , No. CA-03-286-7 (W.D. Va. Apr. 28, 2003). We deny the motion for appointment of appellate counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### McLEAN v. WABASH R. CO. et al.

No. 1237.

District Court, W. D. Missouri, W. D.

Dec. 8, 1942.

*173Cope & Hadsell, of Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiff.

Sebree, Shook & Gisler, of Kansas City, Mo., for defendant.

REEVES, District Judge.

The only question presented here is whether the plaintiff has a right to dismiss as to the removing defendant Wabash Railroad Company.

An examination of the complaint discloses that said defendant is not an indispensable party. It is optional whether the plaintiff should have made said defendant a party. While the motion to dismiss asserts that notice was given and it was filed before the said Wabash Railroad Company had answered, the notice shows that it was served upon counsel for the said defendants on the 9th day of July, 1942, whereas the removing defendant had answered on July 1, 1942. This is mentioned for the reason that the order of dismissal should be under subsection (2) of Rule 41(a), Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c. The plaintiff would not be entitled, as a matter of right, to dismiss the action. Under said sub-paragraph (2) the plaintiff would have a right to seek dismissal of its action against either one or all of the defendants. After answer, however, the plaintiff is not entitled to dismiss “save upon order of the court and upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper.”

After filing the motion for dismissal and the service of notice upon counsel for plaintiff, no objection has been interposed to such dismissal and no showing has been made as to what special terms and conditions should be imposed. Under such circumstances the plaintiff would be entitled to dismiss without condition. United States v. Commercial Solvents Corporation of Delaware, D.C., 25 F.Supp. 653.

It is alleged in the motion to remand that all of the other defendants filed answers in the state court before removal and have submitted to the jurisdiction of that court. Upon dismissal as to the removing defendant, the case should be remanded to the court from which it was removed. St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 58 S.Ct. 586, 82 L.Ed. 845.
S06F1169.

#### COOK v. COOK.

(632 SE2d 664)

Thompson, Justice.

We granted an application for discretionary appeal in this divorce case pursuant to this Court’s Family Law Pilot Project.1 Finding no error, we affirm the judgment entered below.

Kenneth Ray Cook, husband, and Jennifer Marie Cook, wife, were married in 2003 and separated approximately four months later. Husband filed suit for divorce and the case was tried by the court sitting without a jury. Upon conclusion of the trial, the court granted the divorce and awarded wife custody of the couple’s minor son. Husband filed a motion for new trial. The motion was denied and this appeal followed.

1. Husband contends that the trial court erred by awarding wife legal and physical custody of the minor child because the evidence demonstrated he is the better parent. We disagree. This Court will not interfere with the decision of the trial court to award custody of a child to one fit and proper parent over another, unless the trial court abused its broad discretion. *Urquhart v. Urquhart,*272 Ga. 548 (1) (533 SE2d 80) (2000). It is not an abuse of discretion if there is any evidence to support the trial judge’s decision of which party shall have custody. Id.; *Atkinson v. Atkinson,*160 Ga. 480 (1) (128 SE 765) (1925). In this case, the evidence concerning the fitness of the parties was not altogether one-sided. There was evidence that husband was a good parent, but there was evidence that wife was a fit parent, too. It was not error for the trial judge to resolve conflicts in the evidence and award custody of the child to wife. Furthermore, the trial judge, while required to consider joint custody between fit and equally capable parents, was not required to award joint custody. *Baldwin v. Baldwin,*265 Ga. 465, 465 (458 SE2d 126) (1995). In this case, the trial judge considered joint custody, but did not award it due to the parties’ lack of communication.

2. Husband contends that the trial court erred in not ruling on his application for contempt. However, this Court is empaneled to review rulings by lower courts and will not address issues not ruled upon below. *Ballard v. Waites,*194 Ga. 427, 430 (5) (21 SE2d 848) (1942); *Mitchell v. Mitchell,*184 Ga. App. 903, 908 (5) (363 SE2d 159) (1987).

3. Husband contends that the trial court erred in considering the guardian ad litem’s report because the report was never introduced into evidence. However, the parties referenced and discussed the *769report at a pretrial conference and during argument, and husband did not make a timely objection to the consideration of it below. *Bolden v. Carroll,*239 Ga. 188, 189 (1) (236 SE2d 270) (1977).

Decided July 13, 2006.

*Brown & Romeo, Robert T. Romeo,*for appellant.

*Shepherd, Johnston & Owen, Lance N. Owen,*for appellee.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

1

 Under the pilot project, this Court will grant a non-frivolous discretionary application seeking review of a final decree of divorce. *Maddox v. Maddox,*278 Ga. 606 (604 SE2d 784) (2004).
Exhibit
      32.2




**Certification
      Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63**


**of
      Title 18 of the United States Code**






In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of NTR Acquisition Co. (the "Company")
      on
      Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, William E. Hantke, Principal
      Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
      as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
      to
      the best of my knowledge:




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




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






/s/
                William E. Hantke**William
                E. Hantke****Principal
                Financial Officer**November 9, 2007




A
      signed original of this written
      statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has
      been provided to NTR Acquisition Co. and will be retained by NTR Acquisition
      Co.
      and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA Cause No. DA 19-0530 SCOTT SPERLE , P etitioner and Appellant,

v. S TATE OF MONTANA , Respondent and Appellee.

ORDER Upon unopposed motion of Appellant, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant’s Reply Brief be filed on or before June 10, 2020. DATED this _____ day of June, 2020.
By: Mike McGrath Chief Justice

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court June 3 2020

06/03/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0530
Case 3:11-cv-01160-AET -DEA Document 10 Filed 06/10/11 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 79
Case 3:11-cv-01160-AET -DEA Document 10 Filed 06/10/11 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 80
Case 3:11-cv-01160-AET -DEA Document 10 Filed 06/10/11 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 81
EX-10.71



 Exhibit 10.71 
 English Translation 
 Spousal Consent Letter 

I, the undersigned (ID No:                     ), as
the legal spouse of                     (ID No:
                    ), hereby unconditionally agree that the equity interests of Shenzhen 7 Road Technology Co., Ltd., owned by and registered under
name of my spouse, is disposed in accordance with the arrangements under Equity Interest Purchase Right Agreement, Equity Interest Pledge Agreement, Business Operation Agreement dated as of 26 June, 2012 and other supplementary agreements to be
signed from time to time. 
 I further guarantee not to take any action at any time with an intention conflicting against the above-identified
arrangements, including making a claim to court or other competent authorities that such equity interests constitute the property or community property between my spouse and me. I, unconditionally and irrevocably, hereby waive any and all rights or
benefits and my share of any community property between my spouse and me with relation to such equity interests under applicable laws. 
  

			
	Name of the Spouse:	 	  

		
	ID No:	 	
	Date:
Issues in Implementing 

Change in a Complex Survey 

Chet Bowie 

October 26, 2011 

Workshop on 

Redesigning the 

Consumer Expenditure 

Surveys 
2 

• Context 

•Planning the Change 

•Stakeholders (Internal and External) 

•Staffing 

• Testing and Implementation 

• Funding 

• Cost 

• Change in Contractor 

Issues 

Insert Presentation Title and Any Confidentiality Information 
3 

• Why was I chosen to be this discussant? 

• 33 year career at the Census Bureau 

• 6 years in the private sector 

• Redesign of the Current Population Survey 

• Redesign of the National Crime Victimization 

Survey 

•Introduction of CAPI in the CE Interview Survey 

Context 

Insert Presentation Title and Any Confidentiality Information 
4 

• Long lead time required 

• Organizational structure 

• Meetings, meetings, meetings............. 

•Partnership instead of client/contractor 

relationship 

• How to resolve conflict? 

•BLS Gemini Project 

Planning the Change 

Insert Presentation Title and Any Confidentiality Information 
5 

•Internal 

• BLS 

• Census Bureau 

•External 

• Data Users 

• Political 

• What do they want/when do they want it? 

• Managing expectations 

Stakeholders 

Insert Presentation Title and Any Confidentiality Information 
6 

•Are separate staffs required? 

• Maintaining the current time frame and operation 

Staffing 

Insert Presentation Title and Any Confidentiality Information 
7 

• What to test? 

•Is each change evaluated separately? 

•Is an overlap survey required? 

•Providing new technology to respondents 

• How to phase in the redesign? 

Testing and Implementation 

Insert Presentation Title and Any Confidentiality Information 
8 

•Source of funding 

• Current program 

• New initiative 

•Is the current/future political environment 

conducive to sustained funding? 

• Change in the Administration 

Funding 

Insert Presentation Title and Any Confidentiality Information 
9 

• Gemini Project Objective – The costs of a 

redesigned survey cannot exceed current budget 

levels 

•Is the redesign effort 

DOA? 

Cost 

Insert Presentation Title and Any Confidentiality Information 
10

• Continue with the Census Bureau 

• Release an RFP to gage the technical and 

budgetary options 

• How best to evaluate: 

• Quality metrics 

• Best value 

• Nimbleness and ability to procure/develop required 

hardware and software 

Change in Contractor 

Insert Presentation Title and Any Confidentiality Information
### QQWOFCmmtLAPPEAL APR 27 2015m@rtesta;CterkJLLd*(>&&a3UiAL4fr ^ 1381 W& J^O^'BoX_1^30g_ _J ^4^H_F.M_,J2oiy 

### ^^___^ 2SSSL. 

### •'ZEJ ffg(p6i£^r For Cr>py of MSDXCftL IteCofA h#n fjLiihUiC-% Of

f ^/Mmik. vb^- t^.ur^sjf^roi^iJ *&, 

### rb*k*\vf2s>n&
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5153 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5153

 To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the Native American 
                  veteran housing loan pilot program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 28, 2004

  Ms. Herseth (for herself, Mr. Evans, Mr. Michaud, Mr. Udall of New 
Mexico, Mr. Faleomavaega, and Mr. Abercrombie) introduced the following 
     bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the Native American 
                  veteran housing loan pilot program.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Native American Veterans Home Loan 
Act of 2004''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF NATIVE AMERICAN VETERAN HOUSING LOAN PILOT 
              PROGRAM.

    Section 3761(c) of title 38, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``December 31, 2005'' and inserting ``December 31, 2010''.
                                 <all>
```