alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection
with the quarterly report of Mattmar Minerals, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the period ending November 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Arnold P. Kling, President 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, as amended; and                  
| |     |                                                                                                                                                      
| | (2) | The
 information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
 respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

Dated: January
12, 2010

|                            | 
|--------------------------- | 
|/s/ Arnold
 P. Kling        | 
|                            | 
|Arnold P.
 Kling
 President | 

A signed
original of this certification 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.

---
#### REGINA CARGO AIRLINES, Inc. v. CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD OF UNITED STATES et al.

Civil No. 11059.

United States District Court E. D. New York.

Oct. 19, 1950.

*629Theodore E. Wolcott, New York City, for plaintiff.

Frank J. Parker, U. S. Atty., Brooklyn, N. Y. (M. Jay Meckler, Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City, of counsel), for defendants.

MEMORANDUM

BYERS, District Judge.

There are two motions in this cause, the plaintiff’s for an order vacating and setting aside an order made by C.A.B. dated August 24, 1950; and the defendants’ to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. As to the latter, it must prevail, since this Court has not obtained jurisdiction over either defendant according to the requirements of Rule 4, Subdivision (d)(5) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., touching the method of service of process upon an officer or agency of the United States.

Here there was an attempted service by delivery of process to the Marshal of this District, and by delivery of copies of the summons and complaint at “the offices of the defendants in this district”.

There are no such general offices, but there are field offices for investigation and accounting purposes, hut no representative of either defendant is authorized to accept service of legal process on behalf of his employer.

It also now appears that a copy of the summons and complaint was sent to the office of the Board in Washington, D. C., by registered mail.

Perhaps as a practical matter, government agencies should be haled into court by the methods here described, but until the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are amended to that effect, such service of process cannot be deemed legally effective.

If the foregoing be deemed too narrow a construction of the Rules, there is a further and conclusive reason to grant the motion to dismiss, i. e., what the complaint seeks is the review of an order of the Commission, and that is governed by the statute Title 49 U.S.C.A. § 646, which provides that judicial review of an order of the Commission is confided to the appropriate Court of Appeals.

This decision accords with the disposition made by Judge Rayfiel of this Court in Alexander v. C.A.B., Civil 8627,1 order dated November 19, 1947.

Settle order granting motion to dismiss.

1

. No opinion for publication.
================================================================================

         This is an Exhibit to the Form 20-F of Secureview Systems Inc.

                     Attached find the following materials:

               CERTIFICATION OF DON PERKS PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


================================================================================

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003

In  connection  with the Annual  Report on Form 20-F for fiscal year ended March
31, 2004 of Secureview Systems Inc., a British Columbia, Canada corporation (the
"Company"),  as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date
hereof  (the  "Annual  Report"),  I, Don Perks,  President  and Chief  Executive
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 2003, that:

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

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


Dated: September 30, 2004
                                          /s/ Don Perks
                                          Don Perks, President, CEO and Director
June 14, 2013

Hon. Jerome B Simandle, Chief Judge Mitchell H. Cohen U.S. Courthouse

One John F. Gerry Plaza

4th & Cooper, Room 6101

Camden NJ 08101-0888

VIA ECF FILING SYSTEM

Re: City Select Auto Sales, Inc. v. David Randall Associates, Inc., et a!. Civil Action No: 1:1 1-CV-02658-JBS-KMW

Dear Judge Simandle:

Please consider this a letter motion to modify the discovery and scheduling Order that the Court entered on May 22, 2013.

The depositions of Ryan Kelly, Esq., and Brian Wanca, Esq., were scheduled to be completed by the deadline set forth in the above Order, but Mr. Kelly cancelled his the night before. The earliest alternative date that he has provided which is mutually- available is July 11th. However, that date is beyond the CourUs present deadlines for both the completion of Mr. Kelly’s deposition and the filing of the Defendants’ Response to the Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Class Certification. Accordingly, we respecifully request that the Court reset the deadline for corntion of Mr. Kejjysposjonjl July 11, 2013 and the deadIinsurnTinoeeenasResponsetojy 2013.

Counsel for the Plaintiff does not oppose this request. Copies of his emails about the matter are attached. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

F. EMTT F1TZPATRlCK’1

11A%— aay

i thiS

cc Alan Milstein, Esq (via ECF Filing 2O System) Tod A Lewis, Esq IJonathan B Piper Esq (via ECF Filing
Case 3:11-cv-03183-FLW-TJB Document 4-5 Filed 06/03/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 125
HOUSEHOLD DATA

ANNUAL AVERAGES

27. Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment, sex, and age

(Numbers in thousands)

Reason

Total,

16 years

and over

Men,

20 years

and over

Women,

20 years

and over

Both sexes,

16 to 19

years

2001 2002 2001 2002 2001 2002 2001 2002

NUMBER OF UNEMPLOYED

 Total unemployed .......................................................................................... 6,801 8,378 3,040 3,896 2,599 3,228 1,162 1,253

Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs .................................. 3,476 4,607 1,999 2,702 1,291 1,708 185 197

 On temporary layoff ........................................................................................ 1,067 1,124 624 701 373 360 69 62

 Not on temporary layoff .................................................................................. 2,409 3,483 1,375 2,000 918 1,348 116 135

 Permanent job losers .................................................................................... 1,764 2,701 1,003 1,537 697 1,082 64 82

 Persons who completed temporary jobs ...................................................... 645 783 372 464 221 265 52 54

Job leavers ....................................................................................................... 835 866 372 386 365 389 98 91

Reentrants ........................................................................................................ 2,031 2,368 612 743 850 1,028 568 597

New entrants .................................................................................................... 459 536 56 65 92 102 311 368

PERCENT DISTRIBUTION

Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs .................................. 51.1 55.0 65.8 69.3 49.7 52.9 15.9 15.7

 On temporary layoff ....................................................................................... 15.7 13.4 20.5 18.0 14.4 11.2 6.0 4.9

 Not on temporary layoff ................................................................................. 35.4 41.6 45.2 51.3 35.3 41.7 10.0 10.8

Job leavers ....................................................................................................... 12.3 10.3 12.3 9.9 14.0 12.1 8.4 7.3

Reentrants ........................................................................................................ 29.9 28.3 20.1 19.1 32.7 31.8 48.9 47.6

New entrants .................................................................................................... 6.8 6.4 1.8 1.7 3.6 3.2 26.8 29.4

UNEMPLOYED AS A PERCENT OF THE

 CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE

Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs .................................. 2.4 3.2 2.7 3.7 2.0 2.7 2.3 2.6

Job leavers ....................................................................................................... .6 .6 .5 .5 .6 .6 1.2 1.2

Reentrants ........................................................................................................ 1.4 1.6 .8 1.0 1.3 1.6 7.2 7.9

New entrants .................................................................................................... .3 .4 .1 .1 .1 .2 3.9 4.9
### In The C ou rt o f A p p ea ls Si x t h Appe l l at e Di st r i c t o f Te x as a t Te x ar ka na

______________________________ No . 0 6- 09 -0 01 80 -C R

______________________________ THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant

V. J USTI N AUGU STUS TATUM, Appellee
On Appea l from the 6th J udicial District Court

L amar County , Texas Trial Court No. 22756

B e f o r e M o r r i s s , C
. J. , C a

r t e r a n d M o s e l e y , JJ. Memorandum Opinion by J ustice Moseley2 MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON The State of T exas, appellant, has filed with this Court a motion to dismiss its a ppeal. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 42 .2 (a ); State v. Miles , 994 S.W .2d 410 (Tex. App.

— W ac o 1 9 9 9 , n o p et.). As authorized by

Rule 42.2, we g rant the motion. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.2. Ac c or din g ly , w e dis mis s th e a pp e a l.

Ba iley

C. Moseley J ustice Date Submitted: October 27, 2009 Date D ecide d: October 28, 2009 Do No t Pu

bli sh
Case 2:11-cr-00080-SDW Document 194 Filed 08/10/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 712
Case 2:11-cr-00080-SDW Document 194 Filed 08/10/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 713
Exhibit 10.23

SECOND ADDENDUM TO LEASE

THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO LEASE is entered as of the 25th day of October 2002, by and between FOOTHILL TECHNOLOGY CENTER LLC,
(BOONE/FETTER/OCCIDENTAL I) (hereinafter referred to as the "LESSOR") and SEEBEYOND TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION (SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION) (hereinafter referred to as the "LESSEE") with
reference to the following facts and circumstances:



NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Lessor and Lessee hereby
agree as follows:



Remainder
of Original Term $48,865.80 a month NNN



1

---

IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, Lessor and Lessee have executed this Second Amendment to Lease as of the day and year first above written.

Executed
at Monrovia, CA on November 5, 2002

| |  | LESSOR:                       
| |  | ------------------------------
| |  | FOOTHILL TECHNOLOGY CENTER LLC
| |  | By:                           

Executed
at  on November
5, 2002

| |  | LESSEE:                         
| |  | --------------------------------
| |  | SEEBEYOND TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
| |  | By:                             
| |  | Title:                          

2

---

EXHIBIT "A"

[GRAPHIC]

3

---

QuickLinks
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;b)
    
    Designed such internal controls over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;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; andd)
    
    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.
  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.
 Date: November 19, 2008
    By:
    /s/ Edward J. GildeaEdward J. GildeaCEO, President and Director
(Principal Executive Officer)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : Hon. Dickinson R. Debevoise

v. : Cnn. No, 11-132 (DRD)

CARLOS E. ALMONTE CONSENT ORDER

This matter having come before the Court on the

application of Paul J. Fishman, United States Attorney for the

District of New Jersey CL. Judson Welle and Andrew Kogan,

Assistant U.S. Attorneys, appearing> for the entry of an order

directing the staff of the Metropolitan Detention Center

Brooklyn, United States Bureau of Prisons, 80 29th Street,

Brooklyn, New York (hereinafter “MDC Brooklyn”>, to admit the

experts identified in this Consent Order to MDC Brooklyn for the

purpose of conducting meetings, testing, and/or interviews of the

defendant, such matters being necessary for the preparation of

findings and assessments that are responsive to those prepared by

experts retained on behalf of the defendant, and counsel for

defendant (James Patton, Esq., appearing> having consented to the

entry this Consent Order, and good cause appearing,

IT IS, therefore, on this day of March, 2012,

ORDERED that the staff of MDC Brooklyn shall admit Dr.

Barry A. Katz, Ph.D. to the facility and permit him to conduct

meetings, testing, and/or interviews of defendant Carlos E.

Almonte, beginning on April 2, 2012, and April 4, 2012, and on

Case 2:11-cr-00132-DRD Document 42 Filed 03/29/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 141
such further dates as may be necessary to complete those

activities, and it is further

ORDERED that the staff of MDC Brooklyn shall admit Dr.

Raymond Patterson, M.D., to the facility and permit him to

conduct meetings, testing, and/or interviews of defendant Carlos

E. Almonte, beginning on April 16, 2012, and April 17, 2012, and

on such further dates as may be necessary to complete those

I

activities

HON. DICKINSON R. DEBEVOISE

United States District Judge

2

Case 2:11-cr-00132-DRD Document 42 Filed 03/29/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 142
0-tC) N0/0/) 0’. .1. -.

0 I — f

(11.-ONddV NOJ .VJ [II — .II-1O) 1Si A1xO

.4t 01141.))! i0t?O0hi)4 94401 NUàtIiOItU4)sOq,

.Z; S//A. .() /00 °°11

0•.p4 [0 [I 11: Itt .101 144 •ouoJor 0/1/44 too.o,-o. <4/ r; ;to;tt 4. tt .t;t /4tt (ID 1/) (0flJfio ttjtttt Jt ;ot 00.10.01 tO ItO ott 14 441 ItI/ji/itOt 010 i0/t0)

tO oon.- o-t 1Jdo 00/ ttooo Ito Noo.o 0/ott oo- ou[ 0/0040010410101 1 1011 0. oo ON H 0/0 01001 Coo 0 0 ON

O”!t) 0/.) ttt0ttt Co o.oooi )U0i4044/ .4040400 0/ ttIIOiddll4 t0) tooto 14141 .10 40.14 0

t))fl)) fl)

tO 4/10.10 050.1 1145<) NO).1./11d0/01)

tO ) N0l..lVOltllI/IA tO) t13.kOtdAl/4501.t) 1tlOt) /1(1.! (1-0)5/10 30/5.511410 .INJIO.LN)0110S° N0)J.VN)1441/LI. ‘‘150 1)45,..) 00111400410

U%W) iiOJ D)s Hh11 uv (iii.Lsii’u’

(t.ttc/tt000ttlttotlo:ttt’tt..tt.tttt.tJo-oottO.tt.’)tou.tr) :-. Itt

-‘‘ ... . .‘

tt .t0040t000JtOtItfi’ltttto.lttttlotttttttO’tfiOtlstltttttttl 0/Ito . 5/1fl 1 15101101

0

-t Ott) 0/114 t1tt 110 /100 104)40 0100.0 .ttt.oocJvt -:4;; ti”Itfit’t(t 1[(fi)t,ott.t’

.:. lit/tO] ID qO.iOtot (1140 00)11400/44140

C) 9t1r”ttt 14 /io,or,tot 10t0.0

4)15)01

I 4) 11 10) 4 I I. I

1101) ‘I

‘. ‘.. I . ‘f4)\\ 4Iu1lI’\ ‘11:10’

IIl) I NO NI’ )l SI T\\ IJVI iS\ NO.1 10) IN I%.DI

.

f., —

-

-

.

. ..— ,.

S

‘
{N0271001; 1}

Carl D. Poplar (4791)

CARL D. POPLAR, P.A.

1010 Kings Highway South, Bldg. 2

Cherry Hill, NJ 08034

(856) 216-9979

Attorneys for Defendants

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

----------------------------------------------------------------x

DAVID ANDERSON,

Plaintiff,

-againstPERTTI TORMALA, et al.,

Defendants, and

BIORETEC OY,

Nominal Defendant.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Civil Action No.: 2:11-cv-000525

NOTICE OF MOTION

FOR ADMISSION

PRO HACE VICE

----------------------------------------------------------------x

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Local Rule Civil 1010 of the United States

District Court for the District Court of New Jersey, the law office of Carl D. Poplar, P.A. here by

requests the entry of an Order admitting George O. Richardson, III of Sullivan & Worcester LLP

to practice before this Court in this matter pro hac vice, on behalf of defendants.

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that the Certification of George O. Richardson, III,

the Certification of Carl D. Poplar, the Statement Pursuant to L.Civ.R. 7.1(d)(4), and that a form

of order on this application are submitted with this notice of motion.

Case 2:11-cv-00525-CCC -JAD Document 37 Filed 06/28/11 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 240
2

{N0271001; 1}

DATED: June 27, 2011

CARL D. POPLAR, P.A.

By:/s/ Carl D. Poplar______

Carl D. Poplar (4791)

1010 Kings Highway South, Bldg Two

Cherry Hill, NJ 08034

(856) 216-9979

Email: cpoplar@poplarlaw.com

Attorneys for Defendants

Case 2:11-cv-00525-CCC -JAD Document 37 Filed 06/28/11 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 241
3

{N0271001; 1}

CERTIFICATION OF FILING AND SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 28th day of June 2011, I caused a copy of Defendants’

Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice to be filed electronically.

A courtesy copy is being forwarded to the Hon. Joseph A. Dickson, Martin Luther King,

Jr. Federal Building & U.S. Courthouse 50 Walnut Street, Newark, NJ 07101 by REGULAR

MAIL.

CARL D. POPLAR, P.A.

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

/s/ Carl D. Poplar

CARL D. POPLAR, Esquire

1010 Kings Highway South

Building Two

Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08034

P: (856) 216-9979

Attorneys for Defendants

DATED: June 28, 2011

Case 2:11-cv-00525-CCC -JAD Document 37 Filed 06/28/11 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 242
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Carla F. Tucker,certify that:

1.     Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Skagit State Bancorp, Inc.;

2.     Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.     Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)           Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiary,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;

(b)           Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

(c)           Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.             Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)           Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

(b)           Any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| Date:  | August 10, 2006 |                    |   | Carla F. Tucker |   |   |
|--------|-----------------|-------------------------|--------|-----------------|--------|--------|
|   |            | Carla F. Tucker         |   |            |
|   |            | Senior Vice-President   |   |            |
|   |            | Chief Financial Officer |   |            |

 

1

----