alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32

                            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 Baynon International Corporation on
Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, Pasquale Catizone, President (principal executive officer) and
Daniel Generelli, Chief Financial Officer (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:

(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.


                                /s/ Pasquale Catizone
                             -------------------------------------------------
                             Pasquale Catizone
                             President (Principal Executive Officer)


                                /s/ Daniel Generelli
                             -------------------------------------------------
                             Daniel Generelli
                             Chief Financial Officer
                             (Principal Financial Officer)
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Applicants October 24, 2022","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"5V2WQz7okN\"><a href=\"\/oti\/applicants-october-24-2022\/\">Applicants October 24, 2022<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/oti\/applicants-october-24-2022\/embed\/#?secret=5V2WQz7okN\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Applicants October 24, 2022” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"5V2WQz7okN\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
### C OURT OF 

### A PPEALS FOR THE



### F IRST 

### D ISTRICT OF 

### T EXAS A T 

### H OUSTON



### O RDER O N 

### M OTION

Cause Number: 01

- 21

- 00161

- CV

Trial Court Cause

Number: 2021

- 07817

Style: Six Brothers Concrete Pumping, LLC and Joseph Lowry

v

. Martin Tomczak

Date motion filed * : 9/2/2021

Type of motion: Motion for Extension of Time

Party filing motion: Appellants S ix Brothers Concrete Pumping, LLC and Joseph Low ry

Document to be filed: Appellants ’ Supplemental Brief

Is appeal accelerated? Yes No

If motion to extend time:

Original due dat e: September 2, 2021

Number of p r evious extensions granted: None

Date Requested: 7 days

Ordered that motion is:

Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: September 9, 2021

Absent extraordinary circu mstances, the Court will not grant add i tional motions to extend time

The Court will not grant additional motions to extend time.

Denied

Dismissed ( e.g. , want of jurisdiction, moot)

Other: _______________________

_ _____________

1. The supplemental br ief of appellants , Six Brothers Concrete Pumping, LLC and Joseph Low ry,

regarding the order deny ing the TCPA motion to dismiss is due September 9, 2021

. 2. The response brief of appellee

, Martin Tomczak

, regarding t h e order denying the TCPA motion to

dismiss is due September 30, 2021

. 3. The reply brief of appellants, Six Brothers Concrete Pumping, LLC and Joseph Lowry, regarding both

the temporary injunction and the TCPA motion to dismiss is due October 14, 2021

.

Judge ’ s signature: /s/ Peter Kelly

Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date: September 3, 2021
#### Pamela R. JONES, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF the ARMY, Respondent.

No. 2013-3169.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Dec. 12, 2013.

Pamela R. Jones, Converse, TX, pro se.

Matthew Paul Roche, Trial Attorney, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before RADER, Chief Judge, LOURIE and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The court considers whether this appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

On May 30, 2013, the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board) issued its final order dismissing Pamela R. Jones’ ease for lack of jurisdiction. The Board’s decisions note that Jones signed up to receive documents by electronic mail. The court received her petition for review on July 31, 2013; 62 days after Jones was deemed to receive the Board’s decision. *See*5 C.F.R. § 1201.14(m)(2).

Our review of a Board decision or order is governed by 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1), which prowdes in relevant part that “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law, any petition for review shall be filed within 60 days after the Board issues notice of the final order or decision of the Board.” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A). This filing period is “statutory, mandatory, [and] jurisdictional.” *Monzo v. Dep’t of Tramp.,*735 F.2d 1335, 1336 (Fed.Cir.1984). Because Jones’ appeal as to the underlying judgment was filed outside of the statutory deadline for taking an appeal to this court, we must dismiss the appeal.

Accordingly,

It Is Ordered That:

(1) The appeal is dismissed.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
EX-35 (i)


(logo) WELLS FARGO

Corporate Trust Services
MAC N2702-011
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045
410 884-2000
410 715-2380 Fax

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

March 12, 2007

JP Morgan Acceptance Corporation I

RE: Annual Statement As To Compliance for J.P. Morgan Alternative Loan Trust
    2006-Al

 Per Section 11.05 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of 2/1/2006,
 the undersigned Officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., (Securities Administrator),
 hereby certifies the following for the 2006 calendar year or portion thereof:

 (A) a review of such party's activities during the preceding calendar year or
 portion thereof and of such party's performance under this Agreement, or such
 other applicable agreement in the case of an Additional Servicer, has been made
 under such officer's supervision and

 (B) to the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, such party
 has fulfilled all its obligations under this Agreement, or such other
 applicable agreement in the case of an Additional Servicer, in all material
 respects throughout such year or portion thereof, or, if there has been a
 failure to fulfill any such obligation in any material respect, specifying each
 such failure known to such officer and the nature and status thereof.

 (C) Notwithstanding anything herein to contrary (and noting that, to the extent
 of any inconsistency, any and all other statements, certifications or
 assertions herein are subject to the following): instances of noncompliance
 related to the subject transaction for the applicable reporting period are
 identified on Schedule A hereto.


Certified By:
/s/ Scott Strack
Scott Strack, Vice President

Certified By:
/s/ Gordon Johnson
Gordon Johnson Assistant Secretary

(page)

Schedule A

Payment/Distribution Calculation Errors

During the reporting period, certain errors were made in connection with the
calculation of payments/distributions on the securities. To the best of the
signing officer's knowledge, each such error, which may or may not have been
material, has been identified and remedied and any related corrective action
has been disclosed in a report previously filed with the SEC in respect of the
reporting period.

JPMALT 2006-A
Rodolfo Guerrero
Angulo Manzanillo 33.Local E, Mexico, Col. Roma Norte, 06700,
Mexico.


+525585262098


principal@tofla.top
www.tofla.top


 


Loan Agreement


This
Agreement made on April 20, 2022


This Loan Agreement (the “Agreement”)
is made between of the first part Tofla Megaline and of the second part Rodolfo Guerrero Angulo (“Director”).


 


 


In Respect that:


The Company requires
funding about business operations;


Director has agreed to loan $50,000 (the “Loan Amount”)
to the Company, on certain terms and conditions contained herein;


 


 


Now therefore this agreement
witnesses:


In consideration if the
Company needs more than Fifty Thousand (50,000) US Dollars from Director, this Agreement
become useful.


 


 


The parties hereto agree
as follows:


Director hereby has agreed
to loan the Loan Amount to the Company in the event of not raising enough
funds from the offering in accordance to the Form S-1 registration statement of the
Company;


Director hereby agrees to loan
the Loan Amount to the Company on demand of the Company;


The Company will conduct
accordingly to the sequence of loans;


Director will be repaid from revenues of the Company, when it
starts to earn significant revenues;


Any amount of Director’s
loan can be converted into shares of Common Stock and repaid under certain terms agreed upon by the two parties;


Advanced Loan funds are non-interest bearing, secured and payable
upon demand;


Any additional funds that
Director loans to the Company after this Agreement are subject to the same terms as
this Agreement, unless otherwise agreed in writing.





 





In witness, whereof:


The parties hereto have
agreed to the terms above, and the Agreement becomes affective in the day and year first above written.


 


 


CERTIFIED TO BE THE LOAN AGREEMENT OF:


 


 


Tofla Megaline By: 04/20/2022


 


____________________________


Rodolfo Guerrero Angulo, Director
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Chairman Cordero Testifies to Congress Regarding FY 2015 FMC Budget","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"DfdgL56CPc\"><a href=\"\/chairman-cordero-testifies-to-congress-regarding-fy-2015-fmc-budget\/\">Chairman Cordero Testifies to Congress Regarding FY 2015 FMC Budget<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/chairman-cordero-testifies-to-congress-regarding-fy-2015-fmc-budget\/embed\/#?secret=DfdgL56CPc\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Chairman Cordero Testifies to Congress Regarding FY 2015 FMC Budget” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"DfdgL56CPc\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT REQUESTED

***
Certain portions of this exhibit were omitted and marked with "***". Copies of this exhibit containing the omitted information have been filed separately with the Securities and Exchange
Commission pursuant to the Company's Application for Confidential Treatment under Rule 24b-2 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Exhibit 10.2

SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENT

This Agreement is entered into between Huntsman International LLC, a company organised and existing under the laws of Delaware, USA and Huntsman (Europe) BVBA, a
company organized and existing under the laws of Belgium (together with their subsidiaries, hereinafter called "Huntsman"), and Huntsman Advanced Materials LLC and each of its subsidiaries
(collectively ("HAM").

WHEREAS,
Huntsman and HAM constitute an international group of enterprises controlled by Huntsman Holdings LLC and Huntsman Group, Inc.;

WHEREAS,
HAM has a need for advice and assistance in the areas of, among others, planning and asset management, human resources and labor relations ("HR"), environmental, health and
safety ("EHS"), finance, legal matters, tax and treasury, information technology ("IT"), purchasing accommodations, communications and public affairs (collectively the "Services");

WHEREAS,
Huntsman is staffed with highly experienced personnel and has therefore been selected to provide and coordinate Services to HAM, by drawing on its own resources as well as on
those available from third parties;

WHEREAS,
HAM is staffed with highly experienced personnel and may be in the future selected to provide Services to Huntsman, by drawing on its own resources as well as those available
from third parties;

WHEREAS,
this Agreement is being entered into for the benefit of both Huntsman and HAM;

WHEREAS,
Huntsman is willing to render Services to HAM and HAM desires to use such Services;

WHEREAS,
HAM is willing to render Services to Huntsman and Huntsman may desire to use such Services;

WHEREAS,
Huntsman and HAM desire to share in both the costs and benefits of any such Services rendered;

NOW
THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual covenants hereinafter contained, the parties hereby mutually agree as follows:

---





2

---



3

---



4

---



5

---



6

---















7

---

IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement this 30th day of June 2003.

| |  | HUNTSMAN ADVANCED MATERIALS LLC
| |  | -------------------------------
| |  | By:                            
| |  | HUNTSMAN (EUROPE) BVBA         
| |  | By:                            
| |  | HUNTSMAN (EUROPE) BVBA         
| |  | By:                            
| |  | HUNTSMAN INTERNATIONAL LLC     
| |  | By:                            

8

---

Attachment A to the Service Level Agreement

Service Fee

The below will constitute the Service Fee as set out under Article 4.1 of the Agreement for the calendar year 2003:

EHS

$***Purchasing

$***Finance

$***IT

$***Treasury

$***Communications

$***Legal

$***Tax

$***


9

---

QuickLinks
Exhibit 31 CERTIFICATIONS I, Kjell I. Jagelid, hereby certify that: (1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2007 (the report) of Simex Technologies, Inc.; (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 officers 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 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) [Omitted] (c) 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 (d) 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 officers 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 small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies 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.  Dated: November 27, 2007/s/ Kjell I. JagelidKjell I. Jagelid
#### Wallace ERVIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John MARSHALL; et al., Respondents-Appellees.

No. 07-16145.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 20, 2008.*

Filed May 27, 2008.

Wallace Ervin, San Luis Obispo, CA, pro se.

Pamela B. Hooley, Esq., Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.

Before: PREGERSON, TASHIMA, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Wallace Ervin appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Ervin contends he is entitled to statutory tolling of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s one-year statute of limitations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). However, because the Cali*572fornia Superior Court rejected Ervin’s habeas petition as untimely, it was not “properly filed,” and he is not entitled to statutory tolling under § 2244(d)(2). *See Pace v. DiGuglielmo,*544 U.S. 408, 417, 125 S.Ct. 1807, 161 L.Ed.2d 669 (2005).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Dina JAEGER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CELLCO PARTNERSHIP, d/b/a Verizon Wireless, Connecticut Siting Council, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-1347-cv.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Dec. 7, 2010.

Whitney North Seymour, Jr., New York, NY; Gabriel North Seymour, Falls Village, CT, for Dina Jaeger.

Joshua S. Turner, Andrew G. McBride, Brendan J. Morrissey, Wiley Rein LLP, Washington, DC; Bradford S. Babbitt, Robinson *&*Cole LLP, Hartford, CT, for Célico Partnership.

Robert L. Marconi, Assistant Attorney General of Connecticut, New Britain, CT, for Connecticut Siting Council.

Present: AMALYA L. KEARSE, WALKER, ROSEMARY S. POOLER, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Dina Jaeger appeals from the district court’s judgment granting Defendants’ motions to dismiss all six claims in Jaeger’s complaint. Jaeger’s complaint alleged, *inter alia,*violations of the International Migratory Bird Treaty, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and the Telecommunications Act (“TCA”), resulting from the grant by the Connecticut Siting Council (“Council”) of a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need for the Construction, Maintenance and Operation of a personal wireless service facility to Célico Partnership (“Célico”). Jaeger principally requested injunctive and declaratory relief. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and issues presented on appeal.

We review a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss *de novo,*accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true, and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs favor. *See Goldstein v. Pa-taki,*516 F.3d 50, 56 (2d Cir.2008).

Having conducted a *de novo*review of the record in light of the controlling substantive principles, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of the first five claims in Jaeger’s complaint for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court.

With respect to the sixth claim in Jae-ger’s complaint, we hold that Jaeger lacks standing to sue for a declaratory judgment that the funding scheme of the Council, as set forth in Section 16-50v of the General Statutes of Connecticut, violates due process. Jaeger fails to allege any redressa-ble injury that is “fairly traceable” to conduct by either defendant. *Allen v. Wright,*
      *646468 U.S.*737, 751,*104 S.Ct. 3315, 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984). Courts are barred by the TCA from ordering the Council to deny Celleo’s siting application on the grounds asserted by Jaeger.

We have considered Jaeger’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Jaeger’s renewed motion to strike irrelevant matter is DENIED in its entirety.