alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.1**I, Peter E. Julian, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Performance Home Buyers, LLC;2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this quarterly report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented inthis quarterly report;4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisquarterly report is being prepared;  b) [intentionally omitted];  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisquarterly report based on such evaluation; and  d) Disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the small business issuer’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’sauditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent function): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.August 14, 2006         By                                  /s/ Peter E. Julian    Peter E. Julian    Chief Executive Officer
§ 230.409 Information unknown or not reasonably available. Information required need be given only insofar as it is known or reasonably available to the registrant. If any required information is unknown and not reasonably available to the registrant, either because the obtaining thereof could involve unreasonable effort or expense, or because it rests peculiarly within the knowledge of another person not affiliated with the registrant, the information may be omitted, subject to the following conditions: ( a ) The registrant shall give such information on the subject as it possesses or can acquire without unreasonable effort or expense, together with the sources thereof.
( b ) The registrant shall include a statement either showing that unreasonable effort or expense would be involved or indicating the absence of any affiliation with the person within whose knowledge the information rests and stating the result of a request made to such person for the information.
[Reg. C, 12 FR 4072, June 24, 1947, as amended at 14 FR 91, Jan. 7, 1949]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7216 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ROBERT ELTON STOTTS, a/k/a Sugarbear,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District

Judge. (2:95-cr-00049-RBS-7)

Submitted: December 21, 2006 Decided: January 3, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Elton Stotts, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Philip Rosenberg,

United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia; Kevin Michael

Comstock, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Robert Elton Stotts appeals the district court’s order

denying his motion filed under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000). In

criminal cases, a defendant must file his notice of appeal within

ten days of the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A);

United States v. Alvarez, 210 F.3d 309, 310 (5th Cir. 2000)

(holding that § 3582 proceeding is criminal in nature and ten-day

appeal period applies and collecting cases adopting rule). With or

without a motion, the district court may grant an extension of up

to thirty days to file a notice of appeal upon a showing of

excusable neglect or good cause. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4); United

States v. Reyes, 759 F.2d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 1985). These time

periods are mandatory and jurisdictional.

The district court entered its order denying the

§ 3582(c)(2) motion on May 8, 2006. The ten-day appeal period

expired on May 22, 2006. See Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(2). Stotts

filed his notice of appeal, at the earliest, on June 23,

2006—outside both the ten-day appeal period and the thirty-day

excusable neglect period, which expired on June 21, 2006.

Therefore, Stotts’ notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of

jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
- 3 -

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. John Torre, Relator, against Warden of the City Prison of the City of New York, Borough of Manhattan, et al., Respondents.

Writ sustained to the extent of reducing bail to $5,000 on each charge, making a total bail of $10,000. The relator is remanded to the custody of the Warden of the City Prison of the City of New York, Borough of Manhattan. Present — Nolan, P. J., Adel, MaeCrate and Schmidt, JJ.
#### §§ 275.203A-4-275.203A-6 [Reserved]
#### Irving Fliegler, Appellant, *v.*Alfred S. Holmes et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

*Per Curiam.*

Plaintiff appeals from an order denying his motion for summary judgment as to the second cause of action.

*1035Plaintiff sued as assignee of one Guhl, who loaned defendants $30,000 pursuant to a written agreement that the borrowers would repay in one year. There is no issue concerning the making of the loan.

The defendants, by affidavits, attempt to create triable issues concerning (1) a defense that the plaintiff is not the real party in interest; (2) a defense that the plaintiff being an assignee and attorney is guilty of champerty under section 274 of the Penal Law, and (3) a counterclaim for breach of contract.

The plaintiff appears to have good title by assignment. Though an attorney, plaintiff did not buy the claim for suit. Therefore, the defenses have no merit.

The affidavit supporting the counterclaim mostly paraphrases the pleading, and the factual support in the affidavit does not appear sufficient to create a triable issue. The gist of the counterclaim is that Guhl, a Swiss national, induced the defendants to invest money in a New York restaurant by representations that Guhl would participate in the management of the business. A breach of this contract is alleged. The affidavits and correspondence clearly disclose, however, that attempts by Guhl to participate in the restaurant operation were rejected by the defendants and by the wife of one of them, who was their agent. Statements made in connection with payment of interest, and other admissions of the debt, as disclosed by the correspondence between the parties, clearly reveals that the counterclaim is wholly without merit.

The order appealed from should be reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements, and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to second cause of action and for a severance granted. Settle order.

Callahan, J. P., Breitel, Bastow, Botein and Rabin, JJ., concur.

Order unanimously reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the motion granted. Settle order on notice.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6849

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CARLOS GERMAN LEMA NOGALES, a/k/a Carlos Felix Torres De La Villa, 

a/k/a Carlos German Lema-Nogales, a/k/a German Lema, a/k/a Mark Ruiz Alvarez, 

a/k/a Oberto Rubi, a/k/a Charlie,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 18-6852

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CARLOS GERMAN LEMA NOGALES, a/k/a Carlos Felix Torres De La Villa, 

a/k/a Carlos German Lema-Nogales, a/k/a German Lema, a/k/a Mark Ruiz Alvarez, 

a/k/a Oberto Rubi, a/k/a Charlie,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Greenville. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (6:12-cr-00328-JMC-2; 6:15-cv-03044-

JMC)
2

Submitted: December 31, 2018 Decided: January 9, 2019

Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carlos German Lema Nogales, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Carlos German Lema Nogales seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying 

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and denying his motion to reconsider the 

court’s denial of his motion for discovery and expansion of the record. The order is not 

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).*

 A certificate of appealability 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 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (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 motion states a debatable claim of 

the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Nogales has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and 

dismiss the appeal. We deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and deny as moot 

Nogales’ motion for transcripts at the Government’s expense. We dispense with oral 

 * Because it was filed more than 28 days after the entry of the district court’s 

order, we construe Nogales’ motion to reconsider as filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 

60(b). A certificate of appealability is required for the order to be appealable. See Reid 

v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004), abrogated in part by United States v. 

McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 & n.7 (4th Cir. 2015). 
4

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
#### Irma Berg v. Solomon Berg.

Present — Peek, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Shientag, JJ. [See *ante,*p. 555.]
### §1997j. Disclaimer respecting private litigation

The provisions of this subchapter shall in no way expand or restrict the authority of parties other than the United States to enforce the legal rights which they may have pursuant to existing law with regard to institutionalized persons. In this regard, the fact that the Attorney General may be conducting an investigation or contemplating litigation pursuant to this subchapter shall not be grounds for delay of or prejudice to any litigation on behalf of parties other than the United States.

(Pub. L. 96–247, §12, May 23, 1980, 94 Stat. 354.)
###### Editorial Note on Part 240

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 240 appear at 57 FR 36501, Aug. 13, 1992, and 57 FR 47409, Oct. 16, 1992.

#### § 240.12b-1 Scope of regulation.

The rules contained in this regulation shall govern all registration statements pursuant to sections 12(b) and 12(g) of the Act and all reports filed pursuant to sections 13 and 15(d) of the Act, including all amendments to such statements and reports, except that any provision in a form covering the same subject matter as any such rule shall be controlling.

[47 FR 11464, Mar. 16, 1982]
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 26 (Monday, February 9, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5966-5967]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-2699]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

ACTION: Notice.

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

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the 
following proposal for collection of information under the provisions 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

DATES: Consideration will be given to all comments received by March 
10, 2004.
    Title, Form, and OMB Number: Civil Aircraft Landing Permit System; 
OBM Number 0701-0050.
    Type of Request: Extension of a Currently Approved Collection.

[[Page 5967]]

    Number of Respondents: 3,600.
    Responses Per Respondent: 1.
    Annual Responses: 3,600.
    Average Burden Per Response: 30 minutes.
    Annual Burden Hours: 1,800.
    Needs and Uses: This information collection is necessary to ensure 
that the security and operational integrity of military airfields are 
maintained; to identify the aircraft operator and the aircraft to be 
operated; to avoid competition with the private sector by establishing 
the purpose for use of military airfields; and to ensure the U.S. 
Government is not held liable if the civil aircraft becomes involved in 
an accident or incident while using military airfields, facilities, and 
services.
    Affected Public: Business or Other For Profit.
    Frequency: On Occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Required to Obtain or Retain Benefits.
    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jacqueline Zeiher.
    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information 
collection should be sent to Ms. Zeiher at the Office of Management and 
Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503.
    DoD Clearance Officer: Ms. Jacqueline Davis.
    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal 
should be sent to Ms. Davis, WHS/DIOR, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, 
Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302.

    Dated: February 2, 2004.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 04-2699 Filed 2-6-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
|         |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |
|---------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| • | the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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. |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |  |  |
| Dated: | February 11, 2020 | By   | /s/ Dino E. Robusto |   |
|   |   |   | Dino E. Robusto |   |
|   |   |   | Chief Executive Officer  |   |
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                                REDENVELOPE, INC.
                            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 RedEnvelope, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 27, 2004, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Alison L. May,
President and 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 result of operations of the
Company.

/s/ ALISON L. MAY
------------------------------------
Alison L. May
Chief Executive Officer

August 6, 2004
### §17033. Biofuels and biorefinery information center

#### (a) In general

The Secretary, in cooperation with the Secretary of Agriculture, shall establish a biofuels and biorefinery information center to make available to interested parties information on—

(1) renewable fuel feedstocks, including the varieties of fuel capable of being produced from various feedstocks;

(2) biorefinery processing techniques related to various renewable fuel feedstocks;

(3) the distribution, blending, storage, and retail dispensing infrastructure necessary for the transport and use of renewable fuels;

(4) Federal and State laws and incentives related to renewable fuel production and use;

(5) renewable fuel research and development advancements;

(6) renewable fuel development and biorefinery processes and technologies;

(7) renewable fuel resources, including information on programs and incentives for renewable fuels;

(8) renewable fuel producers;

(9) renewable fuel users; and

(10) potential renewable fuel users.

#### (b) Administration

In administering the biofuels and biorefinery information center, the Secretary shall—

(1) continually update information provided by the center;

(2) make information available relating to processes and technologies for renewable fuel production;

(3) make information available to interested parties on the process for establishing a biorefinery; and

(4) make information and assistance provided by the center available through a toll-free telephone number and website.

#### (c) Coordination and nonduplication

To the maximum extent practicable, the Secretary shall ensure that the activities under this section are coordinated with, and do not duplicate the efforts of, centers at other government agencies.

#### (d) Authorization of appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out this section.

(Pub. L. 110–140, title II, §229, Dec. 19, 2007, 121 Stat. 1535.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective on the date that is 1 day after Dec. 19, 2007, see section 1601 of Pub. L. 110–140, set out as a note under section 1824 of Title 2, The Congress.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

MONICA GAVIN AND LUCIA CAREZANI,

EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF

JAMES GAVIN, DECEASED,

Petitioners

v.

ELAINE LOEFFELBEIN,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 382 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 28th day of November, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of

Appeal is GRANTED , limited to the issues rephrased for clarity and set forth below:

1. Did the Superior Court err by holding emergency guardianship orders automatically expire ?

2. Did the Superior Court err by holding that the rebuttable presumption that an incapacitated person is unable to engage in financial transactions is inapplicable to a person under the protection of an emergency guardian who has been appointed for the person and his estate?

Allocatur is DENIED as to all remaining issues. M.D. Appeal Dkt. 74 MAP 2017
Supreme Court of the United States

Office of the Clerk

Washington, DC 20543-0001

January 29, 2015

Scott S. Harris

Clerk of the Court

(202)479-3011

Clerk

Court of Appeals of Texas, Twelfth District

1517 W. Front Street

Suite 354

Tyler, TX 75702

•!T OF APPEALS

12 : •r.ict

Re: Charles Christopher Lancaster

v. Natrenia L. Hicks, et al.

No. 14-8203

(Your No. 12-13-00283-CV)

Dear Clerk:

The petition for a writ of certiorari in the above entitled case was filed on

December 15, 2014 and placed on the docket January 29, 2015 as No. 14-8203.

Sincerely,

Scott S. Harris, Clerk

by &~+^

Andrew Downs

Case Analyst
#### § 269.10 Form TH—Notification of reliance on temporary hardship exemption.

Form TH shall be filed by any electronic filer who submits to the Commission, pursuant to a temporary hardship exemption, a document in paper format that otherwise would be required to be submitted electronically, as prescribed by Rule 201(a) of Regulation S-T (§ 232.201(a) of this chapter).

[58 FR 14687, Mar. 18, 1993]

###### Editorial Note

#### Editorial Note:

For Federal Register citations affecting Form TH, see the List of CFR Sections Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and at *www.govinfo.gov.*
#### § 38.256 Trade reconstruction.

The designated contract market must have the ability to comprehensively and accurately reconstruct all trading on its trading facility. All audit-trail data and reconstructions must be made available to the Commission in a form, manner, and time that is acceptable to the Commission.
### §17733. Repealed or Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 110–422, title IV, §405, Oct. 15, 2008, 122 Stat. 4789, which related to exploration technology development, was repealed in part and transferred in part. Subsec. (b) was repealed and reenacted as section 70506 of Title 51, National and Commercial Space Programs, by Pub. L. 111–314, §§3, 6, Dec. 18, 2010, 124 Stat. 3328, 3444, which Act enacted Title 51. Subsec. (a) was transferred and is set out as a note under section 70506 of Title 51.