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

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Devinder Randhawa, Chief Financial Officer of Eye Catching Marketing Corporation, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Eye Catching Marketing Corporation;



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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.

The small business issuer'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(d)) for the small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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)

evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer'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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.







May 11, 2006

/s/Devinder Randhawa

Date

Devinder Randhawa,

Chief Financial Officer
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.                  

###### Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

# TIME AND DATE: 

10:00 a.m., Thursday, October 26, 2017.

# PLACE: 

The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004 (enter from F Street entrance).

# STATUS: 

Open.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

                        The Commission will consider and act upon the following in open session:                         *Secretary of Labor on behalf of McGary et al.*                         v.                         *The Marshall County Coal Company et al.,*                         Docket Nos. WEVA 2015-583-D et al. (Issues include whether the Judge erred in requiring the operators' Chief Executive Officer to personally read a prepared statement at the mines in question.)                    

Any person attending this meeting who requires special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to 29 CFR 2706.150(a)(3) and 2706.160(d).

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Emogene Johnson (202) 434-9935/(202) 708-9300 for TDD Relay/1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

# PHONE NUMBER FOR LISTENING TO MEETING: 

1 (866) 867-4769, Passcode: 678-100.

Sarah L. Stewart,

Deputy General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 2017-22591 Filed 10-13-17; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6735-01-P
---

Exhibit 99.16

Professionals in resources, mining, processing, construction and the environment
     www.cam-llc.com
 CONSENT OF EXPERT
February 25, 2010
British Columbia Securities Commission
Alberta Securities Commission
Saskatchewan Financial Services Commission
Manitoba Securities Commission
Ontario Securities Commission
New Brunswick Securities Commission
Nova Scotia Securities Commission
Registrar of Securities, Prince Edward Island
Securities Commission of Newfoundland and Labrador
Registrar of Securities, Northwest Territories
Registrar of Securities, Nunavut
Registrar of Securities, Yukon
United States Securities and Exchange Commission Re:
     Annual Information Form dated February 25, 2010 (the Annual Information Form) of Minefinders Corporation Inc. (the Company).
  I refer to the report entitled "Technical Report Dolores Gold-Silver Project, Chihuahua State, Mexico" dated July 26, 2007 (the "Report") as referenced in the Annual Information Form and documents incorporated by reference therein. This letter is being filed as my consent to the use of my name and the Report in the Annual Information Form and in documents incorporated by reference therein. I confirm that I have read the Annual Information Form and I have no reason to believe that there are any misrepresentations that are derived from the Report referred to above or that are within my knowledge as a result of the services I performed in connection with such Report. I consent to the filing of this consent with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission as part of the Companys Form 40-F dated February 25, 2010, and any amendment thereto, including post-effective amendments and as part of a post-effective amendment to the Companys Form F-10, to incorporate the Companys Form 40-F dated February 25, 2010. Yours truly, /s/ Richard L. NielsenRichard L. Nielsen12600 W. Colfax Ave., Suite A-250Lakewood, Colorado 80215Telephone: (303) 716-1617Fax: (303) 716-3386
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PETERSON SULLIVAN P.L.L.C.
601 UNION STREET  SUITE 2300  SEATTLE WA  98101  (206) 382-7777 FAX 382-7700
                                                CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



                        Independent Auditors' Consent
                        -----------------------------



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration 
statements (No. 333-15831 and 333-15829) on Form S-8 of Ichor Corporation and 
Subsidiary of our report dated February 17, 1999, relating to the balance 
sheets of Ichor Corporation and Subsidiary as of December 31, 1998 and 1997, 
and the related statements of operations, shareholders' equity and cash flows 
for the years ended December 31, 1998 and 1997, and the eleven months ended 
December 31, 1996, which report appears in the Annual Report of Form 10-K for 
the year ended December 31, 1998, of Ichor Corporation and Subsidiary.



/s/ Peterson Sullivan P.L.L.C.
March 26, 1999
Seattle, Washington
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 Total Identity Corp. (the "Registrant") on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ending June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Quarterly Report"), I Matthew P. Dwyer, Chief Executive Officer and Jeffrey Hoffman Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, 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 Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Registrant.
 
 Dated: September 28, 2004
 By:/s/ Matthew P. DwyerChief Executive Officer
 
 
      Dated: September 28, 2004  By:/s/ Jeffrey HoffmanChief Financial Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Tynisa Dovon RANDOLPH, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 05-5230.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 16, 2008.

Decided: May 1, 2008.

Brian J. Kornbrath, Federal Public Defender, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Thomas E. Johnston, United States Attorney, David E. Godwin, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Tynisa Dovon Randolph pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) (2000). At sentencing, Randolph requested a variance from the sentencing guidelines based on the 100:1 disparity between sentences for crack cocaine and *337cocaine powder offenses. The district court believed it was constrained to defer to the guidelines and sentenced Randolph to the low end of the properly calculated guidelines range of imprisonment. On appeal, we affirmed her sentence, noting her challenge to the sentencing disparity was foreclosed by *United States v. Eura,*440 F.3d 625 (4th Cir.2006) (holding that 100:1 ratio could not be used as basis for variance), *vacated,*— U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 853, — L.Ed.2d-(2008). *See United States v. Randolph,*185 Fed.Appx. 255 (4th Cir.2006). On January 7, 2008, the Supreme Court granted Randolph’s petition for writ of certiorari, vacated this court’s judgment, and remanded the case for further consideration in light of *Kimbrough v. United States,*— U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007). *See Randolph v. United States,*— U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 854, 169 L.Ed.2d 706 (2008).

In *Kimbrough,*the Supreme Court held that “it would not be an abuse of discretion for a district court to conclude when sentencing a particular defendant that the crack/powder disparity yields a sentence ‘greater than necessary’ to achieve § 3553(a)’s purposes, even in a mine-run case.” *Kimbrough,*128 S.Ct. at 575. *Kimbrough*has thus abrogated *Eura.*Although this court has held that a sentence within a correctly calculated advisory guideline range is presumptively reasonable, *see United States v. Allen,*491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir.2007); *see also Rita v. United States,*— U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2462-69, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007) (upholding presumption of reasonableness for within-guidelines sentence), in this case, the district court did not have the benefit of *Kimbrough*when it determined Randolph’s sentence.

To give the district court the opportunity to reconsider the sentence in light of *Kimbrough,*we vacate Randolph’s sentence and remand the case for resentencing.* 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.

*VACATED AND REMANDED.*

*

 On remand, the amended Guidelines for crack cocaine offenses, effective November 1, 2007, will apply.
cc: Hon. Janet J. Berry, District Judge Penisimani Tuipulotu Attorney General/Carson City Washoe County District Attorney Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA
(0) 1947A 2
Exhibit 13.2



Section 906 Certificate



Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), I, Adam
George, Chief Financial Officer of GW Pharmaceuticals plc, a public limited company incorporated under English law (the
“company”), hereby certify, to my knowledge, that:



| | 1. | The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended September 30, 2015 (the “Form 20-F”)
    of the company 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 Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects,
    the financial condition and results of operations of the company.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: December 7, 2015



| | /s/ Adam George        
| | -----------------------
| | Adam George            
| | Chief Financial Officer
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas

at F ort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 24

- 00093

- CR

______ ____ ________ _________

O n Ap peal fro m t he 211th District Court Denton County, Texas Trial Court No. F

- 2003

- 0427

- C
Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Walker, JJ. M emorandum Opinion by Justice Walker 

### Ex parte David Duran2 MEMORANDUM OPINION
D a vid Duran , proceeding pro se, attempts to appeal the trial cou rt ’ s Februar y 12, 2024 order which concludes that Duran is abusing the writ process and
recommends that the Te xas Cour t of Criminal Appeals take no action on his twenty

second A r ticle 11.07 ap pl ic ation for a post

- conviction writ of h ab eas corpus
. 1 See
Tex . Code Crim. P r o c . A n n . a r t
. 1 1

. 0 7

. We will dismiss Duran ’ s attempted ap peal because we do not have jurisdiction over appeals related to A r ticle 11.07 writ applications

. See Duran v. State , No. 02

- 22

- 00228

- CR, 2022 WL 17687417, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth Dec. 15, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op. , not designated for publication ) (dismi ssing a previous ly attempted Article 11.07 appeal by Duran for lack of jurisdiction

)

. We have no jurisdiction over post

- convi ction appl ications under A r ticle 11.07.
See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07; Ater v. Eight h Court of Appeals , 802 S.W.2d
2 41, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (ori g. proce eding) (stating that the Court of Criminal Appeals is the “ only court with ju risdiction in final post

- conviction felony proceedings ” ); Duran , 2022 WL 17687417, at *1.
We notif ied Duran of our concern t hat we lack jurisdiction over his appeal and
stated tha t unless he filed a response showing grounds for cont inuing the appeal, we

1 The record shows that Duran ’ s attempted ap peal concerns his final conv iction for felony aggravated sexual assault , for which he was sentenced on September 10, 2003.3

would dismiss it. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.3. Duran responded and stated that he
would “ like to appeal ” the trial court ’ s ord e r for the fo llowing rea sons:

• H e has a right to obtain a writ under A r ticle I of the Texas C onstitution and the O pen C ourts A ct ;

• “ Writ shall never be ‘ suspended ’ unless Rebellion or Invasion time ” ;

• The “ Anti

- Terrori sm Act [] does not meet the requirement as Rebellion or invasion , only [the] Civil War 1860 was Rebellion or Invasion time and Death penalty Act does not meet it either ” ;

• New legal or fa ctual bases exist; and

• T he State violated his constitutional rights under A r ticle I , Section 13 of the Texas Constitutio n . None of these reasons provide us with a bas is to assert ju risdiction over his
Article 11.07 a ppea l . For this reason, we dismiss his attempted appeal for lack of jurisd iction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f). /s/ Brian Walker
Brian Walker Just ice
Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47 .2(b)
Delivered : April 11 , 2 024
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Lekeebrion D. JACKSON, Appellant.

No. 10-3781.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: June 3, 2011.

Filed: June 13, 2011.

Joel W. Barrows, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Davenport, IA, Maureen McGuire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Des Moines, IA, for Appellee.

Cory Jon Goldensoph, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Appellant.

*658Lekeebrion D. Jackson, Dubuque, IA, pro se.

Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Lekeebrion Jackson appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to (1) conspiracy to distribute cocaine base, cocaine, and marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(b)(1); and (2) possession of firearms in furtherance of drug-trafficking crimes, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924. On appeal, counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), asserting claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.

We decline to consider Jackson’s ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal. *See United States v. McAdory,*501 F.3d 868, 872 (8th Cir.2007) (appellate court ordinarily defers ineffective-assistance claims to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings).

Having reviewed the record independently pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues that are appropriate for direct appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, subject to counsel informing Jackson about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for certiorari.

1

. The Honorable John A. Jarvey, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SUSANNA MONTANTE,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

ANTHONY FOXX, Secretary of Transportation (Federal Aviation Administration),

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 14

- 55340

D.C. No.

2:13

- cv

- 00384

- GAF

- PJW

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California Gary A. Feess, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 14, 2016 **

Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Susanna Montante appeals pro se from the district court’s summary

judgment in her employment action alleging retaliation and related constitutional

claims. We have jurisdiction under 29 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo,

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

JUN 23 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 14

- 55340

Covey v. Hollydale Mobilehome Esta tes , 116 F.3d 830, 834 (9th Cir. 1997), and we

affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Appellee

on Montante’s Title VII retaliation claim because Montante failed to raise a

genuine dispute of material fact as to whether de fendant’s asserted non

- retaliatory

reason for not rehiring her in 2007 was pretextual. See Ray v. Henderson , 217

F.3d 1234, 1245

- 46 (9th Cir. 2000) (setting forth elements of a retaliation claim

under Title VII); see also Munoz v. Mabus , 630 F.3d 856, 865 (9th Cir. 2010)

(“[The] plaintiff bears the ultimate burden of showing defendant’s stated reasons to

be merely pretextual, once defendant has given legitimate, non

- retaliatory grounds

for its actions.”).

The district court properly dismissed Montante’s cl aim that she was forced

to retire in 2004 in violation of the First Amendment because the Civil Service

Reform Act is the sole remedy for constitutional claims arising from federal

employment. See David v. United States , 820 F.2d 1038, 1041 (9th Cir. 1987 )

(holding the CSRA offered sufficient “meaningful remedies” to preclude a federal

employee from pursuing a First Amendment claim).

We do not consider matters raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett

v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2 009).

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 23.0**

 

**CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP,INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**

 

We consent to the incorporation byreference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 Nos. 333-42670, 333-69374, 333-69376, 333-101105 and 333-101104) pertaining to the amended and restated 1999 Stock Option Plan, Stock Subscription Warrant, the amended and restated 1995 InternationalEmployee Stock Purchase Plan, the amended and restated French Employee Savings Plan and the 2001 Stock Option Plan of Business Objects, S.A. of our report dated January 7, 2003 with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule ofBusiness Objects, S.A. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2002. 

 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

 

San Jose, California 

March 20, 2003