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


                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

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


       The undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Quarterly Report of The Kingsley Coach, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for
the fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents in
all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


March 24, 2006                              By: /s/ John Merkent
                                            ---------------------------
                                            John Merkent
                                            Chief Executive Officer
                                            and Chief Financial Officer


This  certification  accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and  shall not 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, 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 Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its
staff upon request.










--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of AESP, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and
we 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 quarterly report is being prepared;b)
    
    intentionally omitted;c)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this quarterly 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 quarterly report any change 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
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 registrant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 registrants internal
controls over financial reporting. Date: November 17, 2004
    By:
    /s/ Slav SteinName:
    Slav SteinTitle:
    President and Chief
Executive Officer
#### Anatoliy TSIRKUNOV; Konstantin Yakubovsky, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-74723.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 10, 2011.*

Filed Jan. 21, 2011.

Inna Lipkin, Esq., Law Offices of Inna Lipkin, Redwood City, CA, for Petitioners.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Oil, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Anatoliy Tsirkunov and Konstantin Yakubovsky, natives and citizens of Belarus, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the new standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the Real ID Act. *Shrestha v. Holder,*590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir.2010). We deny the petition for review.

The IJ found petitioners not credible for a number of reasons, including inconsistencies between their testimonies regarding their July 2004 arrests and the date they left Belarus, and Yakubovsky’s inconsistent testimony regarding when he was expelled from school. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. *See id.*at 1040-44 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the Real ID Act’s “totality of the circumstances”); *Chebchoub v. INS,*257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir.2001) (adverse credibility determination supported in part based on inconsistencies relating to the *102events leading up to petitioner’s departure). In the absence of credible testimony, petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Because petitioners’ CAT claim is based on the same testimony found to be not credible, and petitioners do not point to any other evidence that shows it is more likely than not they would be tortured if returned to Belarus, their CAT claim also fails. *See id.*at 1156-57. Petitioners’ contention that the BIA erred by failing to separately analyze their CAT claim is belied by the record.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 99 - Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code
 

      I, Shaun  O'Brien,  the Chief  Financial  Officer of CIS  Investments,  Inc.  ("CISI"),  the Managing Owner ofJWH Global Trust(the "Trust"),  and I, James A.  Davison,  the  President of CISI,  certify that (i) the attached  10-Q fullycomplies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the informationcontained in the attached Form 10-Q fairly  presents,  in all material  respects,  the  financial  condition and results ofoperations of the Trust.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

James A. Davison         President         CIS Investments, Inc.         May 14, 2003
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shaun D. O'Brien         Chief Financial Officer         CIS Investments, Inc.         May 14, 2003
CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

*February 17, 2010*

[Cite as *02/17/2010 Case Announcements,*2010-Ohio-486.]

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

2009-2030.

#### Pollis v. State.

Trumbull App. No. 2008-T-0055, 2009-Ohio-5058. This cause is pending before the court as a discretionary appeal and claimed appeal of right. On November 6, 2009, appellant filed a notice that a motion to certify a conflict was pending in the court of appeals and, pursuant to S.Ct-Prac.R. 4.4(A)(4), this court stayed consideration of the jurisdictional memoranda filed in this appeal. Whereas appellant has neither notified this court that the court of appeals determined that a conflict does not exist as provided by S.CtPrac.R. 4.4(B) nor filed a copy of the court of appeals’ order certifying the existence of a conflict as provided by S.CtPrac.R. 4.4(C),

It is ordered by the court, sua sponte, that appellant show cause within 14 days of the date of this entry why this court should not proceed to consider the jurisdictional memoranda in this appeal •pursuant to S.CtPrac.R. 3.6.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6237

ROBERT DIAZ,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

WARDEN, NOTTOWAY CORRECTIONAL CENTER,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.

(CA-96-658-R)

Submitted: May 15, 1997 Decided: May 29, 1997

Before RUSSELL, HALL, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Diaz, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel John Munroe, OFFICE OF THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. Diaz v. Warden, Nottoway, Corr. Ctr., No. CA-96-658-R (W.D.

Va. Feb. 3, 1997). 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.

DISMISSED
---

---

Exhibit 15.1

# CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We
consent to the incorporation by reference into the Registration Statement on Form S-8
(File No. 333-146593) of STARLIMS Technologies Ltd. of our report dated March 24, 2009
relating to the consolidated financial statements of STARLIMS Technologies Ltd. appearing
in the annual report on Form 20-F of STARLIMS Technologies Ltd. for the year ended
December 31, 2008.

/s/ Brightman Almagor & Co.
Brightman Almagor & Co.
Certified Public Accountants
A Member Firm of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu

Tel-Aviv, IsraelMarch
25, 2009



---

---
2009-2065.

#### State v. Irwin.

Columbiana App. No. 07-CO-22, 2009-Ohio-5271. On motion for stay of court of appeals’ judgment. Motion denied.

Lundberg Stratton and O’Connor, JJ., dissent.
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 Communications Commission

          - 47 CFR Part 73 
          - [MM Docket Nos. 94-150, 92-51, and 87-154] 

# AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission. 

# ACTION:

Final rule; correction. 

# SUMMARY:

                        The Federal Communications Commission published in the                         **Federal Register**                         of February 13, 2001 (66 FR 9962), a document revising rules governing attribution of ownership interests. This document contains a correction to those rules.                     

# DATES:

Effective April 16, 2001. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Cyndi Thomas, 202-418-2120. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The Federal Communications Commission published a document amending parts 21, 73, and 76 in the                     **Federal Register**                     of February 13, 2001 (66 FR 9962). This document corrects the                     **Federal Register**                     as it appeared. In rule FR Doc. 01-3175 published on February 13, 2001 (66 FR 9962), the Commission is correcting § 73.3615 of the Commission's rules to reflect an amendment to § 73.3615(a)(3)(iv)(B), rather than § 73.3615(a)(3)(iii)(B). In rule FR Doc. 01-3175 published on February 13, 2001, make the following corrections:                 

§ 73.3615 

1. On page 9973, in the first column, in amendatory instruction 6, in the third line, “paragraph (a)(3)(iii)(B)” is corrected to read “paragraph (a)(3)(iv)(B)”. 

2. On page 9973, in the first column, in § 73.3615, correct paragraph designation “(iii)” to read “(iv)”. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 01-4795 Filed 2-28-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

I947A .4610 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TH E STATE OF NEVADA 

OSCAR CABADA, AN INDIVIDUAL; 

AND JOSE ALBERTO CABADAOROZCO, AN INDIVIDUAL, 

Petitioners, 

vs. 

THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF 

CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE TARA 

D. CLARK NEWBERRY, DISTRICT 

JUDGE, 

Respondents, 

and 

PETER RICHARDSON, AN 

INDIVIDUAL, 

Real Party in Interest. 

No. 83230 

FILED 

AUG 1 1 2021 

ELIZABETH A. BROWN 

CLERK OF SUPREME COURT 

S 

BY 

DEPUTYC>C1CtRK iVI

ORDER DENYING PETITION .FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS 

This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a 

district court order partially granting a motion to strike a rebuttal expert. 

This court has original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, 

and the issuance of such extraordinary relief is within this court's sole 

discretion. See Nev. Const. art. 6, § 4: D.R. Horton, inc. v. Eighth Judicial 

Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 4-68, 474-75. 168 P.3d 731, 736-37 (2007). Petitioners 

bear the burden to show that extraordinary relief is warranted, and such 

relief is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy 

at law. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist, Court, 120 Nev, 222, 224, 228, 88 

P.3d 84.0, 841., 844 (2004.). An appeal is generally an adequate remedy 

precluding writ relief. Id. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841. Even when an appeal is 

not immediately available because the challenged order is interlocutory in 
nature, the fact that the order may ultimately be challenged on appeal frorn 

a final judgment generally precludes writ relief. Id. at 225, 88 P.3d at 841. 

Further, 'Wins court has held that the decision to adrnit or exclude expert 

opinion testimony is discretionary and is not typically subject to review on 

a petition for a writ of mandamus." Williams v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court. 

127 Nev. 518, 524, 262 P.3d 360, 364 (2011). Having considered the petition, 

we are not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is warranted 

because petitioners have not demonstrated that an appeal from a final 

judgment below would not be a plain, speedy, and adequate legal remedy. 

Accordingly, we 

ORDER the petition DENIED. 

Hardesty 

"C:24.13"142.31.1rflim7J. 

Parraguirre Cadish 

cc: Hon. Tara D. Clark Newberry, District Judge 

Bauman Loewe Witt & Maxwell. :131414C/Las Vegas 

Drummond Law Firm 

Law Office of Lee J. Grant II 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

2 

•
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 15.1

November 8, 2002

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

Commissioners:

We are aware that our report dated October 29, 2002 on our review of interim
financial information of Southwest Bancorporation of Texas, Inc. and
subsidiaries (the "Company') as of and for the period ended September 30, 2002
and included in the Company's quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter then
ended is incorporated by reference in its Registration Statements on Form S-3
(File Nos. 333-80603 and 333-60190) and Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-76269,
333-21619, 333-55685, 333-33533 and 333-36092).

Very truly yours,

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
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 Euramax International, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending
September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, J. David Smith, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|/s/J. DAVID SMITH                                                     |  | 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|J. David Smith
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
November 10, 2003 |  | 

---

QuickLinks
EXHIBIT  32.1






CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of ENHANCE SKIN PRODUCTS INC. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended April  30, 2011, as filed with the  Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Dr. Samuel S. Asculai, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant  to 18 U.S.C. 1350,  as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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






By:
/s/ Dr. Samuel S. AsculaiDate: August 30, 2011

Dr. Samuel S. AsculaiPresident & Chief Executive 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.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Office of the Secretary

# AGENCY:

Department of the Interior, Office of the Secretary.

# ACTION:

Invitation for proposals. 

# SUMMARY:

The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council is asking the public, private organizations, and government agencies to submit proposals for restoration of resources and services injured by the Exxon Valdez oil spill. The Invitation to Submit Restoration Proposals for Federal Fiscal Year 2002, a booklet explaining the process, is available from the  Trustee Council office.

# DATES:

Proposals are due April 13, 2001.

# ADDRESSES:

Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, 645 “G” Street, Suite 401, Anchorage, Alaska 99501.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

The Restoration Office, (907) 278-8012 or toll free at (800) 478-7745 (in Alaska) or (800) 283-7745 (outside Alaska) or via e-mail at restoration@oilspill.state.ak.us.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Following the Exxon Valdez oil spill in March 1989, a Trustee Council of three state and three federal trustees, including the Secretary of the Interior, was formed. The Trustee Council prepared a restoration plan for the injured resources and services within the oil spill area. The restoration plan calls for annual work plans identifying projects to accomplish restoration. Each year proposals for restoration projects are solicited from a variety of organizations, including the public.

Dated: February 20, 2001.

Willie R. Taylor,

Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance.

[FR Doc. 01-4632  Filed 2-23-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-R6-M
##### 



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 Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the
undersigned, as Chief Executive Officer of Southwest Bancorporation of Texas,
Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify that: 1) the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June
30, 2004 (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 Companys Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company. Dated: August 9, 2004 /s/ Paul B. Murphy, Jr.Paul B. Murphy, Jr.Director and Chief Executive Officer
_______________________________________ __ ___________________ _________________ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

September 17, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan 133294(61) Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman,

Justices

RICK BEAVERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, SC: 133294 v COA: 269007 Wayne CC: 03-309389-NO BARTON MALOW COMPANY, JOMAR BUILDING COMPA NY, INC., SPILLIS CARDELLA, DMJM, a/k/a DMJA, INC., and ROBERT SMITH, Defendants-Appellees.

On order of the Chief Jus tice, the motion by defendants-appellees for leave to file a reply brief is considered and it is GRANTED.

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 17, 2007

Clerk