alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 13.1








PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350






In connection with this Annual Report of OceanFreight Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on or about the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Antonis Kandylidis, the Chief Executive 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 results of operations of the Company.








A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.








Date: April 13, 2011








/s/ Antonis Kandylidis


Antonis Kandylidis


Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
















SK 25754 0002 1187065
2010-0688.

#### State ex rel. Goins v. Nastoff.

In Mandamus and Procedendo. *On*motion to dismiss. Motion to dismiss granted. Cause dismissed.

Brown, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, and Cupp, JJ., concur.

Lanzinger, J., dissents.
|   | 1980 | 1981 | 1982 | 1983 | 1984 | 1985 | 1986  | 1987  | 1988 |
|--------|------|------|------|------|------|------|-------|-------|------|
| FRF    | 6.5  | 6.2  | 6.2  | 6.4  | 5.61 | 4.56 | -6.33 | -13.7 | -75  |

Back to Chart

|   | 1990 | 1991 | 1992 | 1993 | 1994 | 1995 | 1996 | 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 |
|--------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|
| SAIF   | 0.02 | 0.09 | 0.28 | 1.16 | 1.94 | 3.36 | 8.89 | 9.37 | 9.84 | 10.3 | 10.8 | 10.9 | 11.7 | 12.2 |

Back to Chart

|   | 1990 | 1991 | 1992 | 1993 | 1994 | 1995 | 1996 | 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 |
|--------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|
| BIF    | 0.02 | 0.09 | 0.28 | 1.16 | 1.94 | 3.36 | 8.89 | 9.37 | 9.84 | 10.3 | 10.8 | 10.9 | 11.7 | 12.2 |

Source: FDIC Annual Reports 1980-2003, and FHLBB           Reports 1980-1988

Back to Chart
Exhibit
13.1





Officer
Certifications 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), each of the
undersigned officers of Empresa Distribuidora y Comercializadora Norte S.A., a
sociedad anónima organized under the laws of Argentina (the “Company”), does
hereby certify to such officer’s knowledge that:




The
annual report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 (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 information contained
in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:
June 26, 2009





/s/Name:
      Alejandro MacfarlaneTitle:
      Chief Executive Officer





Date:
June 26, 2009





/s/Name:
      Luis Pablo Rogelio PaganoTitle:
      Chief Financial Officer





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.
#### Jaime Santiago CRUZ-ORTIZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-75558.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 5, 2007 *.

Filed Feb. 22, 2007.

Luis Carlos Ayala, Esq., Law Offices of Luis Carlos Ayala, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.

District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Allen W. Hausman, Attorney, Susan K. Houser, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: McKAY,** KOZINSKI and TROTT, Circuit Judges.

*

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

**

 The Honorable Monroe G. McKay, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

1. Because an alien unlawfully present in the United States need not have a drug conviction to be removed under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), the agency did not violate due process by failing to allege such a conviction in the Notice to Appear.

2. Due to several probation violations, petitioner’s Proposition 36 program — California’s equivalent of the Federal First Offender Act (FFOA) — was terminated, and he was convicted and resentenced. The BIA thus properly determined that petitioner’s drug conviction remains in force for immigration purposes because his offense, had it been prosecuted under federal law, would not have met the requirements for expungement under the FFOA. *See Chavez-Perez v. Ashcroft,*386 F.3d 1284, 1287-88, 1292 (9th Cir.2004) (defendant must successfully complete probation to qualify for FFOA expungement). That petitioner subsequently qualified for ex-*545pungement under Cal.Penal Code § 1208.4 does not change the fact that he wouldn’t have been entitled to such relief under the FFOA. *See Paredes-Urrestarazu v. INS, 36 F.3d*801, 811-12 (9th Cir.1994).

3. Because his conviction remains in force for immigration purposes, petitioner’s unlawful detention claim similarly fails.

DENIED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
2009-2305.

#### State v. Rodriquez.

Cuyahoga App. No. 92231, 2009-Ohio-6101. This cause is pending before the court as a discretionary appeal and cross-appeal and claimed appeal of right. It appears from the records of the court that the appellant has not filed a memorandum in support of jurisdiction for his cross-appeal, due January 22, 2010, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence. Upon consideration thereof,

It is ordered by the court that the cross-appeal is dismissed sua sponte. The discretionary appeal and claimed appeal of right remain pending.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of ChasePackaging Corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’sknowledge, that:

 

The QuarterlyReport on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended September 30, 2007 (the “Form 10-QSB/A”)of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and theinformation contained in the Form 10-QSB/A fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany as of, and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-QSB/A.

 

The foregoingcertification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-QSB/Apursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not beingfiled as part of the Form 10-QSB/A for purposes of Section 18 of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated byreference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the datehereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

 

 
| May 5, 2008 | /s/ Allen T.  McInnes                           |
|------------------|-------------------------------------------------|
|             | Allen T. McInnes                                |
|             | Chairman of the  Board, President and Treasurer |
|             | (Principal  Executive Officer)                  |

 

----
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-10338

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ORCENES MASON,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:01-CR-157-1-A

--------------------

October 30, 2002

Before DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Orcenes Mason appeals his guilty plea conviction and

sentence for possessing with the intent to distribute more than

five grams of a mixture and substance containing a detectable

amount of cocaine base. Mason argues that 21 U.S.C. § 841 was

rendered facially unconstitutional by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530

U.S. 466, 490 (2000). Mason concedes that his argument is

foreclosed by our opinion in United States v. Slaughter, 238 F.3d
No. 02-10338

-2-

580, 581-82 (5th Cir. 2000)(revised opinion), cert. denied, 532

U.S. 1045 (2001), which rejected a broad Apprendi-based attack on

the constitutionality of that statute. He raises the issue only

to preserve it for Supreme Court review. 

A panel of this court cannot overrule a prior panel’s

decision in the absence of an intervening contrary or superseding

decision by this court sitting en banc or by the United States

Supreme Court. Burge v. Parish of St. Tammany, 187 F.3d 452, 466

(5th Cir. 1999). No such decision overruling Slaughter exists. 

Accordingly, Mason’s argument is indeed foreclosed. The judgment

of the district court is AFFIRMED.

The Government has filed a motion for leave to forego the

filing of an appellee’s brief. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
Exhibit 31.2 

CERTIFICATIONS 

I, Richard P. Shea, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Syndax Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and; 

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; 

Date: March 18, 2019 

 

| By:    |   | /s/ Richard P. Shea                                            |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   | Richard P. Shea                                                |
|   |   | Chief Financial Officer                                        |
|   |   | (Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer) |
[Letterhead of KPMG]

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm              Exhibit 34.1.8

 

The Board of Directors

Citibank, N.A.:

 

We have examined management’s assessment, included in the accompanying Management Assessment of Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria, that Citibank, N.A. (the Custodian) complied with servicing criteria 1122(d)(1)(i), 1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(4)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(ii) set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB in connection with the servicing of residential mortgage loans (other than loans held for its own portfolio) for which the Custodian performs a particular servicing function pursuant to a custodial agreement covering transactions that are serviced on the Citilink, Mortgageserv, and Fidelity servicing platforms (the Platform), as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007. Management is responsible for the Custodian’s compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assessmentabout the Custodian’s compliance based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States)****and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Custodian’s compliance with the servicing criteria specified above and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Custodian processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Custodian during the period covered by this report. Our procedureswere not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Custodian during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Custodian’s compliance with the servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion, management’s assessment that the Custodian complied with certain servicing criteria outlined in Exhibit A in the accompanying Management Assessment of Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007 is fairly stated, in all material respects.

/s/ KPMG LLP

St. Louis, Missouri

February 22, 2008
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lucio RAMIREZ-MATA, a.k.a. Lucio Mata Ramirez, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13-10239.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 7, 2014.*

Filed April 11, 2014.

Mark S. Kokanovich, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.

Lucio Ramirez-Mata, Lucio Mata Ramirez, pro se.

Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Lucio Ramirez-Mata appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 24-month sentence for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 *504S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Ramirez-Mata’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Ramirez-Mata 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, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED.

**

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

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Report of Daytona Systems, Inc., (the "Company") on Form 10-K as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"),



I, Joseph Meuse, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





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







|                     |     |                                     
|-------------------- | --- | ------------------------------------
|Date: April 14, 2010 |     |                                     
|                     | By: | /s/  Joseph Meuse                   
|                     |     | Joseph Meuse
Chief Executive Officer





















1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE COMPANY'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON
FORM 10-QSB FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 26, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-26-1997
<CASH>                                      37,422,705
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               10,545,969
<ALLOWANCES>                                   335,903
<INVENTORY>                                  2,512,007
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            51,180,277
<PP&E>                                       1,100,211
<DEPRECIATION>                                 350,340
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              51,947,820
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,766,298
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    61,863,071
<OTHER-SE>                                (12,708,499)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                51,947,820
<SALES>                                     38,957,763
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            38,957,763
<CGS>                                       21,473,836
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               21,473,836
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             7,112,415
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (164,555)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             10,682,391
<INCOME-TAX>                                 3,640,774
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          7,041,617
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              (140,763)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 6,900,854
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .56
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .56
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2833 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2833

   To require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a survey and 
      investigation of the site containing the graves of American 
  Revolutionary War soldiers and sailors, located on a section of the 
              Brooklyn Navy Yard in the city of New York.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 2, 1993

  Mr. Towns introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a survey and 
      investigation of the site containing the graves of American 
  Revolutionary War soldiers and sailors, located on a section of the 
              Brooklyn Navy Yard in the city of New York.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

    The Congress finds that--
            (1) historical documents indicate that the Brooklyn Navy 
        Yard in the city of New York contains the graves of 
        approximately 9-11,000 American soldiers and sailors who had 
        been held captive and tortured aboard British prison ships in 
        nearby waters during the American Revolutionary War;
            (2) recently discovered evidence suggest that the specific 
        part of the Brooklyn Navy Yard that is the proposed site for a 
        city garbage incinerator for which a construction permit has 
        been requested is the burial ground for many of these 
        courageous Revolutionary War heroes;
            (3) the potential value of this graveyard in understanding 
        and commemorating the history of the United States will be lost 
        if construction is allowed to proceed without an investigation; 
        and
            (4) the city of New York may spend millions of tax dollars 
        on a plan that will be halted if the site proves to be a 
        historic landmark.

SEC. 2. SURVEY AND INVESTIGATION.

    In order to avoid damage to a potential national historic treasure, 
the Secretary of the Interior, under section 2(b) of the Act entitled 
``An Act to provide for the preservation of historic American sites, 
buildings, objects and antiquities of national significance, and for 
other purposes'' and dated August 21, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 462(b)), shall 
conduct a survey and investigation of the site generally depicted on a 
drawing entitled ``Map of Brooklyn at the time of the Revolutionary 
War'', drawn by General Jeremiah Johnson, and dated 1786.

                                 <all>
```