alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.1   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, Terrance Owen, certify that:  1.I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of ALDA PHARMACEUTICALS CORP.;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 company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.The companys other certifying officer 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 company 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 company, 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 company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; andc)Disclosed in this report any change in the companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the companys internal control over financial reporting;5.The companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the companys auditors and the audit committee of the companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):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 companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb)Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the companys internal control over financial reporting.  Date:  December 30, 2010  /s/   Terrance Owen  Terrance Owen, Chief Executive Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Genaro CASTILLO-FUENTES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-50089.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 20, 2008.*

Filed May 21, 2008.

Michael J. Raphael, Esq., Fred Wallace Slaughter, Esq., USLA-Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

David Robert Reed, Esq., Law Offices of David Robert Reed, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

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 **

Genaro Castillo-Fuentes appeals from his 108-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for distribution of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(l)(B)(iii). Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Castillo-Fuentes’ counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided the appellant the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 80-81, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the judgment is AFFIRMED.

Because the district court’s judgment incorrectly references 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(l)(A)(iii), rather than 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(l)(B)(iii), as the statute of conviction, we REMAND for the limited purpose of correcting the judgment. *See United States v. Rivera-Sanchez,*222 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir.2000).

**

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

                   EXHIBIT 32.1 -- SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

I, Richard L. Wambold, certify that:

     (1) the Form 10-Q of Pactiv Corporation for the period ended September 30,
         2006 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of sec.13(a)
         or sec.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 results of operations of
         Pactiv Corporation for the period then ended.

                                        /s/ RICHARD L. WAMBOLD
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Richard L. Wambold
                                        Chairman, President, and Chief Executive
                                        Officer

Date: November 9, 2006

This certification accompanies this report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. A signed original
of this written statement required by Section 906 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.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-10489

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

KEVIN WHITE,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:95-CR-15-X

- - - - - - - - - -

April 17, 1997

Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Kevin White appeals from his sentence following his

conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a

controlled substance. He argues that the heightened penalty

provisions for cocaine base contained in the sentencing

guidelines violated his rights to due process and equal

protection and that the district court erred by overruling his
No. 96-10489

- 2 -

objection to the PSR based upon sentencing entrapment. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. This court has

held that the disparate sentencing provisions for crack cocaine

and cocaine powder contained in the sentencing guidelines do not

offend constitutional due process or equal protection guarantees. 

See United States v. Watson, 953 F.2d 895, 897 (5th Cir. 1992). 

The court declines to address the second issue raised by White on

appeal because he has waived his right to appeal his sentence. 

See United States v. Portillo, 18 F.3d 290, 293 (5th Cir. 1994). 

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
#### Darnell L. WALKER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 15-7234.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 22, 2015.

Decided: Jan. 20, 2016.

Darnell L. Walker, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Andrew Witmer, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Darnell L. Walker seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85,120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Walker has not *212made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
EXHIBIT 31.1



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER



I, Paul K. Danner, certify that:



1) I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Paragon Financial Corporation (the Registrant);



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



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



4) The Registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15e and 15d-15e) for the Registrant and have:



a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
that material information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrants disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



c) disclosed in this report any changes in the Registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5) The Registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrants auditors and the audit committee of the Registrants Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the Registrants internal control over financial reporting.



|                   |  |        |  |                            
|------------------ |  | ------ |  | ---------------------------
|Date: May 23, 2005 |  | By:    |  | /s/ Paul K. Danner         
|                   |  | Name:  |  | Paul K. Danner             
|                   |  | Title: |  | Principal Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         484,294
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,485,047
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (42,911)
<INVENTORY>                                    6,909
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2,080,335
<PP&E>                                         3,691,592
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,385,152)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,558,689
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,794,560
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       12,435,975
<OTHER-SE>                                     (12,729,032)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,558,689
<SALES>                                        8,915,435
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               8,915,435
<CGS>                                          7,655,959
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  7,655,959
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               2,457,324
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (79,976)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,117,871)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   11,580
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,129,401)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,129,401)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.25)


</TABLE>
This decision of the Supreme Court of New Mexico was not selected for publication in

the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Refer to Rule 12

- 405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished decisions. Electronic decisions may contain computer

generated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Supreme Court.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Filing Date: May 26, 2022

N o . S

- 1

- SC

- 37727

STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

Plaintiff

- Respondent,

v. COREY TALK,

Defendant

- Petitioner.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ON CERTIORARI Karen L. Townsend, District Judge

Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender Caitlin C.M. Smith, Assistant Appellate Defender Santa Fe, NM

for Petitioner
Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General John Kloss, Assistant Attorney General Santa Fe, NM
for Respondent

DISPOSITIONAL ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
VIGIL, Chief Justice.
{1} WHEREAS, the Court granted Defendant Corey Talk’s petition for writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals determination that the district court erred in ruling that the blood test results at issue were inadmissible because the district court misapprehended State v. Adams , 2019

- NMCA

- 043, 447 P.3d 1142 and NMSA 1978, Section 66

- 8

- 103 (1978); an d{2} WHEREAS, the Court ordered that this case be held in abeyance pending the

Court’s disposition of State v. Adams , 2022

- NMSC

- 008, 503 P.3d 1130; and
{3} WHEREAS, this Court issued an opinion in Adams, id. ; and
{4} WHEREAS, the Court concludes that the issue of law presented in this case was addressed by the Court’s opinion in Adams, id. ; and
{5} WHEREAS, the Court exercises its discretion under Rule 12

- 405(B)(1) NMRA to dispose of this case by nonprecedential order rather than a formal opinion;
{6} NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS OR DERED that the memorandum opinion of the Court of Appeals is affirmed, and the matter is remanded to the district court for further proceedings in accordance with Adams , 2022

- NMSC

- 008.
{7} IT IS SO ORDERED.
MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Justice
C. SHANNON BACON, Jus tice
DAVID K. THOMSON, Justice
JULIE J. VARGAS, Justice
BRIANA H. ZAMORA, Justice, not participating
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                               5
<LEGEND>
                         This schedule  contains summary  financial  information
                         extracted from the  consolidated  financial  statements
                         included  herein and is  qualified  in its  entirety by
                         reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                    OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                      SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                              1,075,898
<SECURITIES>                        4,532,594
<RECEIVABLES>                       1,613,240
<ALLOWANCES>                           50,000
<INVENTORY>                         1,504,050
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    9,005,740
<PP&E>                              5,884,538
<DEPRECIATION>                      4,853,943
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     10,694,315
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               2,118,286
<BONDS>                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                          114,827,231
<OTHER-SE>                       (106,251,202)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       10,694,315
<SALES>                            10,072,961
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   10,073,020
<CGS>                               3,847,444
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      13,554,948
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     (276,284)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    (3,205,644)
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         0
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                       (3,205,644)
<EPS-BASIC>                           (0.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                           (0.23)


</TABLE>
No. 901.

#### The New York Life Insurance Company, Plaintiff in Error, *v.*Fitz H. McMaster, as Insurance Commissioner, etc.

April 28, 1910.

*Mr. T. Moultrie Mordeóai*for the plaintiff in error.

No appearance for the defendant in error.

In error tó the Supreme Court of the State of South Carolina.

Dismissed with costs on motion of counsel for the plaintiff in error.
{"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":"Public","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"6HS0UBvkvt\"><a href=\"\/resources-services\/public\/\">Public<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/resources-services\/public\/embed\/#?secret=6HS0UBvkvt\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Public” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"6HS0UBvkvt\" 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"}