alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.2

                            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 Altair  Nanotechnologies  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the  quarterly  period ended March 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Edward Dickinson,  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 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/ Edward H. Dickinson
-----------------------------------------
Edward H. Dickinson
Chief Financial Officer
May 14, 2003
#### Juan Manuel CHAVEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. A.P. KANE, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 07-56427.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 14, 2011.

Juan Manuel Chavez, Soledad, CA, pro se.

Charles Chung, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Juan Manuel Chavez appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We dismiss.

The stay of this case is lifted because a decision has been filed in *Hayward v. Marshall,*603 F.3d 546 (9th Cir.2010) (en banc).

Chavez contends that the Board’s 2002 decision to deny him parole was not supported by “some evidence” and therefore violated his due process rights. After briefing was completed in this case, this court held that a certificate of appealability (“COA”) is required to challenge the denial of parole. *See Hayward v. Marshall,*603 F.3d 546, 554-55 (9th Cir.2010) (en banc). Now the Supreme Court has held that the only federal right at issue in the parole context is procedural, and the only proper inquiry is what process the inmate received, not whether the state court decided the case correctly. *See Swarthout v. Cooke,*— U.S. -, ---, 131 S.Ct. 859, 862-63, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011). Because Chavez raises no procedural challenges regarding his parole hearing, a COA cannot issue. Further, because Chavez has not has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, we decline to certify his remaining claims. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-111302,
333-128338, 333-134896 and 333-142066 and Form S-3 No. 333-127154) of NitroMed, Inc. and in the related Prospectus of
our reports dated March 4, 2008, with respect to the financial statements of NitroMed, Inc., and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of NitroMed, Inc.,
included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2007.

|                                    |  | /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
|----------------------------------- |  | ---------------------
|Boston, Massachusetts
March 4, 2008 |  |                      

---



QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                             2953241
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        60024
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   3013265
<PP&E>                                              610790
<DEPRECIATION>                                      154046
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     7903858
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               162773
<BONDS>                                             257543
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                          12779254
<OTHER-SE>                                        (5295712)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       7903858
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         0
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    449588
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    4330
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (435924)<F2>
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (435924)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (435924)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0 <F1>
<FN>
<F1>Fully diluted EPS not computed on loss.
<F2>Includes $17,994 interest and miscellaneous income.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 13.2

                            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 annual report on Form 20-F of Metallica Resources Inc.
for the year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof, I hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
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
registrant.

Date: March 30, 2005

/s/ Bradley J. Blacketor
----------------------------
Bradley J. Blacketor
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to the registrant and will be
retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
EX-10.7



 Exhibit 10.5 





 
  







 



 
  

äâóìÿ âåðñèÿìè
òåêñòà Äîãîâîðà ïðåâàëèðóåò ðóññêàÿ
âåðñèÿ. 
 5.
Íàñòîÿùåå Ñîãëàøåíèå ìîæåò áûòü
ïîäïèñàíî â îäíîì èëè áîëåå ýêçåìïëÿðàõ,
êàæäûé èç êîòîðûõ äîëæåí ñ÷èòàòüñÿ
îðèãèíàëîì, è âñå â ñîâîêóïíîñòè
ïðåäñòàâëÿòü îäèí èíñòðóìåíò. 

more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, and all of which, taken together, shall constitute one
instrument. 
 ÎÒ ÇÀÉÌÎÄÀÂÖÀ / FOR
THE CREDITOR 
 /s/ Melnikov A.V. Ìåëüíèêîâ
À.Â./Melnikov A.V. 

(Äîâåðåííîñòü 1
ÊÃÎÊ/II, IV-1 îò 07.03.2014/Power of Attorney 1 ÊÃÎÊ/II, IV-1 of 07.03.2014) 
 /s/ Orlova N.P. Îðëîâà Í.Ï./Orlova N.P. 
 Ãëàâíûé áóõãàëòåð / Chief accountant 

(Äîâåðåííîñòü 1KGOK/II-9 îò
01.04.14/Power of Attorney 1KGOK/II-9 of 01.04.14) 
 M.Ì.Ï. / Seal 

ÎÒ ÇÀÅÌÙÈÊÀ / FOR THE BORROWER 

/s/ Glenda Minor 
 M.Ì.Ï. / Seal
Exhibit 99.2

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 Sunterra Corporation on Form 10-Q for
the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Lawrence E. Young, Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer, 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 results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Lawrence E. Young
---------------------
August 14, 2002
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jaquon Snell, Appellant.

[986 NYS2d 902]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Christopher J. Burns, J.), rendered September 5, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15 [4]). We reject defendant’s contention that Supreme Court erred in refusing to suppress an identification of defendant based on an allegedly suggestive photo array identification procedure conducted by the police. The People met their initial burden of establishing the reasonableness of the police conduct at issue, and defendant failed to meet his ultimate burden of proving that the identification procedure was unduly suggestive *(see People v Alston,*101 AD3d 1672, 1672-1673 [2012]; *see generally People v Chipp,*75 NY2d 327, 335 [1990], *cert denied*498 US 833 [1990]). Contrary to defendant’s further contention, the sentence is not unduly harsh and severe.

Present — Centra, J.E, Fahey, Peradotto, Sconiers and DeJoseph, JJ.
#### GPX INTERNATIONAL TIRE CORPORATION and Hebei Starbright Tire Co., Ltd., Plaintiffs-Appellees, and Tianjin United Tire & Rubber International Co., Ltd., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellant, and Titan Tire Corporation and United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO-CLC, Defendants-Appellants, and Bridgestone Americas, Inc. and Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC, Defendants-Appellants.

Nos. 2011-1107, 2011-1108, 2011-1109.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

May 17, 2011.

Daniel L. Porter, William H. Barringer, James P. Durling, Gene C. Schaerr, Matthew Paul McCullough, Winston & Strawn LLP, Washington, DC, Francis J. Sailer, Mark E. Pardo, Andrew T. Schütz, Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Michael D. Panzera, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Wesley K. Caine, Terence P. Stewart, Elizabeth J. Drake, Stewart & Stewart, Washington, DC, Joseph W. Dorn, Jeffrey M. Telep, Ashley C. Parrish, J. Michael Taylor, Christopher Todd Cloutier, P. Lee Smith Jr., King & Spalding LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendants-Appellants.

Before GAJARSA, Circuit Judge.

ON MOTION

ORDER

The Committee to Support U.S. Trade Laws, Nucor Corporation, Maverick Tube Corporation, and Aabama Metal Industries Corporation move to file a brief amicus curiae in support of the defendants-appellants. Titan Tire Corporation and United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Alied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO-CLC (collectively “Titan”) move to file a separate response brief in response to the United States’ brief on the issue of countervailing duty cut-off date. The United States opposes.

Upon consideration thereof,

It Is Ordered That:

(1) The motion for leave to file a brief as amici curiae is granted.

(2) Titan’s motion is granted to the limited extent that it may include the arguments in its reply brief. The separate response brief is rejected. A corrected reply brief, including the arguments Titan wishes to make concerning the cut-off date, may be filed within 14 days of the date of filing of this order.
#### Michael A. Piscitello et al., Appellants, v Fortress Trucking, Ltd., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

[988 NYS2d 784]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Deborah A. Chimes, J.), entered April 1, 2013. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied in part the motion of plaintiffs for partial summary judgment.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking damages for injuries sustained by plaintiff Michael A. Piscitello *1442(plaintiff) when he fell from the top of a tractor-trailer owned by defendants Fortress Trucking, Ltd. and 781100 Ontario, Inc. and operated by defendant Christina Stanko. Plaintiff was on a platform taking a sample of oil from the tractor-trailer when Stanko, believing that plaintiff had finished, started to drive away. Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on liability. Supreme Court granted the motion only with respect to the issue of serious injury, determining that there are issues of fact with respect to the issue of negligence and thus that plaintiffs are not entitled to partial summary judgment on liability *(see generally Ruzycki v Baker,*301 AD2d 48, 51 [2002]). We affirm. Plaintiffs failed to meet their initial burden of establishing that Stanko’s alleged negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident and that plaintiff was free from comparative negligence as a matter of law *(see Thoma v Ronai,*82 NY2d 736, 737 [1993]; *Haberman v Burke,*116 AD3d 921, 922 [2014]; *Day v MTA Bus Co.,*94 AD3d 940, 941 [2012]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, we conclude that in opposition to the motion, defendants raised issues of fact with respect to those issues *(see Azeem v Cava,*92 AD3d 821, 821 [2012]; *Guzman v Bowen,*38 AD3d 837, 838 [2007]).

Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, they are not entitled to summary judgment on the basis of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Here, the evidence submitted by plaintiffs in support of their motion established that the inference of negligence is not inescapable and that this is not “the exceptional case in which no facts are left for determination” *(Morejon v Rais Constr. Co.,*7 NY3d 203, 212 [2006]; *see Dengler v Posnick,*83 AD3d 1385, 1386 [2011]). Even assuming, arguendo, that plaintiffs established that plaintiff’s fall would not have occurred in the absence of negligence and that his fall was caused by an instrumentality solely within Stanko’s control, we conclude that plaintiffs did not prove that the accident was not caused by any action by plaintiff *(see generally Kambat v St. Francis Hosp.,*89 NY2d 489, 494 [1997]; *Dengler,*83 AD3d at 1386; *Perrin v Chase Equip. Leasing, Inc.,*9 AD3d 839, 840 [2004]).

Present — Scudder, PJ., Centra, Garni, Lindley and DeJoseph, JJ.
Dismissed and Opinion Filed June 15, 2015 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-15-00170-CV ALEXANDER AGUIRRE, Appellant V. SERRANO PROPERTIES, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-15-00255-B



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Wright, Justi ce Lang-Miers, and Justice Stoddart Opinion by Chief Justice Wright The clerk’s record in this case is overdue. By letter dated April 8, 2015, we informed appellant that the Dallas County Clerk notified the Court that th e clerk’s record had not been filed because appellant had not paid for or made arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record. We directed appellant to provide ve rification of payment or arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record or to provide written documentation that he had been found entitl ed to proceed without payment of costs. We cautioned appellant that if he did not file the required documentation within ten days, we might dismiss the appeal wit hout further notice. To date, appellant has not provided the required documentation or otherwis e corresponded with the Court regarding the status of the clerk’s record.–2– Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 37.3(b).

150170F.P05 /Carolyn Wright/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE–3– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
ALEXANDER AGUIRRE, Appellant
No. 05-15-00170-CV V. SERRANO PROPERTIES, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-15-00255-B. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. Justices Lang-Miers and Stoddart participating. In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED

. It is ORDERED that appellee SERRANO PROPERTIES recover its costs of this appeal from appellant A LEXANDER AGUIRRE.
Judgment entered June 15, 2015.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of notice:*                         October 13, 2017.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 6, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Contract 368 to Competitive Product List*. Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2018-5, CP2018-7.                

Elizabeth A. Reed,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2017-22038 Filed 10-12-17; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7950

JEREMY DANIEL RUSSOM,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

KEITH WHITENER, Administrator, Marion Correctional 

Institution,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Frank D. Whitney, 

Chief District Judge. (5:14-cv-00167-FDW)

Submitted: February 25, 2016 Decided: March 2, 2016

Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeremy Daniel Russom, Appellant Pro Se. Nicholaos George Vlahos, 

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jeremy Daniel Russom seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. We 

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of 

appeal was not timely filed. 

Parties are accorded 30 days after the entry of the district 

court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 

4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period 

under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of 

appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. 

Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on August 

31, 2015. The notice of appeal was filed on November 29, 2015.* 

Because Russom failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to 

obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions 

 * For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date 

appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could 

have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to 

the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 

(1988).
3

are adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED