alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

            Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002

I, Carmine Stella, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Capital Beverage
Corporation.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual
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. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
registrant and I have:

         a) designed such internal controls to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant and its subsidiaries (collectively, the "Company") is
made known to me by others within the Company, particularly during the period in
which this quarterly report is being prepared;

         b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's internal controls as
of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the
"Evaluation Date"); and

         c) presented in this quarterly report my conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

5. I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors:

         a) all significant deficiencies (if any) in the design or operation of
internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

         b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
controls; and

6. I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were
significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could
significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent
evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date:  August 22, 2005                     By: /s/ Carmine Stella
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                   Carmine Stella
                                                   President and Chief Executive
                                                   Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Samuel TREVINO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-40234

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 18, 2007.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Sarah Beth Landau, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Samuel Trevino has requested leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Trevino has not filed a response.

Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

December 27, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 129170 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 129170 COA: 252555 Oakland CC: 03-188990-FH DUSTIN ALAN CARLETON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 21, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

d1219 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.

December 27, 2005

Clerk
#### Lillian Waxstein, Respondent, v Arthur Waxstein, Appellant.

In an action for divorce upon the ground that the parties have lived separate and apart pursuant to the terms of a separation agreement for one year, defendant appeals from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered September 14, 1976, which, *inter alia,*directed him to take whatever steps are necessary to secure a Jewish religious divorce. Judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. Under the peculiar circumstances revealed by this record, the determination of Special Term was correct. Martuscello, J. P., Latham, Shapiro and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
#### § 1509.655 Individual.

*Individual* means a natural person.
#### § 1203.735-406 Submission of position description.

Each Statement of Employment and Financial Interests or annual supplement thereto must be accompanied by a full description of the employee's principal governmental duties. The description should be particularly detailed in regard to those duties which might possibly be an element in a conflict of interest. If the statement indicates that the employee has no outside employment or financial interests, the employee need not submit a description of duties. For a special Government employee, the employing office shall submit the description.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Bray, Overton and Senior Judge Duff 

Argued at Alexandria, Virginia 

ERIK TIANTE JOHNSON 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 2498-97-4 JUDGE NELSON T. OVERTON 

 OCTOBER 6, 1998 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA 

Alfred D. Swersky, Judge 

 (Donald R. Allen, on brief), for appellant. 

Appellant submitting on brief. 

 H. Elizabeth Shaffer, Assistant Attorney 

General (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on 

brief), for appellee. 

 Erik Tiante Johnson (defendant) appeals his conviction for 

malicious destruction of property in violation of Code 

§ 18.2-137. He contends the evidence was insufficient to support 

his conviction. Because we hold the evidence was sufficient, we 

affirm. 

 The parties are fully conversant with the facts in this case 

and because this memorandum opinion carries no precedental value, 

no recitation of the facts is necessary. 

 When sufficiency of the evidence is challenged on appeal, we 

review the evidence in the light most favorable to the 

Commonwealth, granting to it all reasonable inferences fairly 

deducible therefrom. See Martin v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 438, 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

443, 358 S.E.2d 415, 418 (1987). We will reverse the conviction 

only if plainly wrong or without evidence to support it. See

Higginbotham v. Commonwealth, 216 Va. 349, 352, 218 S.E.2d 534, 

537 (1975). 

 So viewed, the salient facts of this case provide sufficient 

evidence to support the conviction. Defendant was the victim's 

unfaithful lover whom she had recently expelled from her 

apartment. Defendant had threatened the victim on previous 

occasions and had intimated his desire for revenge. The victim 

saw him leave work during the time her apartment was entered and 

her property destroyed. Most importantly, the kind of 

destruction indicates defendant was the perpetrator: property 

belonging to the victim was destroyed while items belonging to 

defendant were either missing or disturbed but not damaged. 

 Because all the circumstances of this case are consistent 

with defendant's guilt and inconsistent with his innocence, the 

evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. See Boothe v. 

Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 484, 492, 358 S.E.2d 740, 745 (1987). 

Accordingly, defendant's conviction is affirmed. 

 Affirmed.
#### § 239.35 [Reserved]
#### § 38.7 Prohibited use of data collected for regulatory purposes.

A designated contract market may not use for business or marketing purposes any proprietary data or personal information it collects or receives, from or on behalf of any person, for the purpose of fulfilling its regulatory obligations; provided however, that a designated contract market may use such data or information for business or marketing purposes if the person from whom it collects or receives such data or information clearly consents to the designated contract market's use of such data or information in such manner. A designated contract market, where necessary, for regulatory purposes, may share such data or information with one or more designated contract markets or swap execution facilities registered with the Commission. A designated contract market may not condition access to its trading facility on a market participant's consent to the use of proprietary data or personal information for business or marketing purposes.

[77 FR 36699, June 19, 2012]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE MARCH
31, 1996, CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE-MONTH PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1996, AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THE FOOTNOTES
THERETO.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001019867
<NAME> TOLLYCRAFT YACHT CORP
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                           84170
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    23038
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     450000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               3159683
<PP&E>                                         2736892
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 5933900
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         11060417
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       1581267
<OTHER-SE>                                   (7838779)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   5933900
<SALES>                                        2596358
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2596358
<CGS>                                          3179163
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  4219468
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              155551
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (1778182)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (1778182)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (1778182)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23


BANKS, FINLEY, WHITE & CO.
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS





                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS




     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
listed below of our report on the financial statements of The Coca-Cola Company
Thrift & Investment Plan included in the Annual Report on Form 11-K of The
Coca-Cola Company for the year ended December 31, 2003:

         1.       Registration Statement No. 2-58584 on Form S-8, dated
                  November 20, 1987, as amended

         2.       Registration Statement No. 333-83270 on Form S-8, dated
                  February 22, 2002





                                      /s/ BANKS, FINLEY, WHITE & CO.



Atlanta, Georgia
June 18, 2004
§ 191.30 Eligibility for benefits. ( a ) A spouse or unmarried dependent child aged 18 or above of a hostage as determined under subpart A of this subchapter shall be eligible for benefits under § 191.31 of this subpart. (Certain limitations apply, however, to persons eligible for direct assistance through other programs of the Veterans Administration under chapter 35 of title 38, United States Code).
( b ) A Principal (see definition in § 191.3) designated as a hostage under Subpart A of this subchapter, who intends to change jobs or careers because of the hostage experience and who desires additional training for this purpose, shall be eligible for benefits under § 191.32 of this part unless such person is eligible for comparable benefits under title 38 of the United States Code as determined by the Administrator of the Veterans Administration.
§ 1306.18 Waiver of indebtedness. ( a ) An employee may request a waiver of indebtedness. When an employee makes a request under a statutory right, further collection may be stayed pending an administrative determination on the request. During the period of any suspension, interest, penalties and administrative charges may be held in abeyance. MCC will not duplicate, for purposes of salary offset, any of the notices/procedures already provided the debtor prior to a request for waiver.
( b ) Waiver of indebtedness is an equitable remedy and as such must be based on an assessment of the facts involved in the individual case under consideration. The burden is on the employee to demonstrate that the applicable waiver standard has been met in accordance with MCC's Policy on Waivers of Indebtedness.
( c ) A debtor requesting a waiver shall do so in writing to the official identified in § 1306.12(a)(8) and within the timeframe stated within the initial notice sent under § 1306.12. The debtor's written response shall state the basis for the dispute and include any relevant documentation in support.
( d ) While a waiver request is pending, MCC may suspend collection, including the accrual of interest and penalties, on the debt if MCC determines that suspension is in the agency's best interest or would serve equity and good conscience.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          18,014
<SECURITIES>                                   124,485
<RECEIVABLES>                                  518,270
<ALLOWANCES>                                    18,659
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               744,084
<PP&E>                                       1,413,326
<DEPRECIATION>                                 863,323
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,933,177
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          668,627
<BONDS>                                        149,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,314
<OTHER-SE>                                     690,689
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,933,177
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,306,690
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  894,669
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                26,082
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,537
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                218,387
<INCOME-TAX>                                    89,363
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            129,024
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   129,024
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .94


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4155 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.4155

                      One Hundred Twelfth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
            the third day of January, two thousand and twelve

                                 An Act

 
   To direct the head of each Federal department and agency to treat 
    relevant military training as sufficient to satisfy training or 
            certification requirements for Federal licenses.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
    This Act may be cited as the ``Veteran Skills to Jobs Act''.
SEC. 2. CONSIDERATION OF RELEVANT MILITARY TRAINING FOR ISSUANCE OF A 
FEDERAL LICENSE.
    (a) In General.--The head of each Federal licensing authority shall 
consider and may accept, in the case of any individual applying for a 
license, any relevant training received by such individual while 
serving as a member of the armed forces, for the purpose of satisfying 
the requirements for such license.
    (b) Definitions.--For purposes of this Act--
        (1) the term ``license'' means a license, certification, or 
    other grant of permission to engage in a particular activity;
        (2) the term ``Federal licensing authority'' means a 
    department, agency, or other entity of the Government having 
    authority to issue a license;
        (3) the term ``armed forces'' has the meaning given such term 
    by section 2101(2) of title 5, United States Code; and
        (4) the term ``Government'' means the Government of the United 
    States.
SEC. 3. REGULATIONS.
    The head of each Federal licensing authority shall--
        (1) with respect to any license a licensing authority grants or 
    is empowered to grant as of the date of enactment of this Act, 
    prescribe any regulations necessary to carry out this Act not later 
    than 180 days after such date; and
        (2) with respect to any license of a licensing authority not 
    constituted or not empowered to grant the license as of the date of 
    enactment of this Act, prescribe any regulations necessary to carry 
    out this Act not later than 180 days after the date on which the 
    agency is so constituted or empowered, as the case may be.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
FLORIDA'S DEP DENIES
                               COASTAL PETE PERMIT


          APALACHICOLA,  FL,  May 26,  1998 -  Coastal  Petroleum  Company  said
Florida's  Department of  Environmental  Protection last Friday refused to issue
the Company a permit to drill an  offshore  exploration  well near St.  George's
Island in the Panhandle region.

         The agency's  denial  reverses its  previously  announced  intention to
grant  the  permit,   and  also   rejects  a  positive   recommendation   by  an
administrative law judge, Coastal said.

         The  Company  applied  for the St.  George  permit in 1992.  Four years
later, after two previous denials had been judicially reversed,  the agency said
it intended to grant the permit.  The Sierra Club and others then  appealed that
decision;  and the  administrative  law judge's  recommendation  in favor of the
permit was handed down last month.

         A Coastal  spokesman said the agency's  position is clearly  erroneous,
and also said the Company intends to appeal the agency's  ruling  immediately to
Florida's First District Court of Appeal.

         Coastal  Petroleum  Company is a  majority-held  subsidiary  of Coastal
Caribbean Oils & Minerals, Ltd. (Boston:  CCO-B; CCO-BN).

                   Contact: Phillip W. Ware, at (850) 653-2732
§ 1006.75 Do terms in this part have special meanings? This part uses terms throughout the text that have special meaning. Those terms are defined in Subpart I of this part. For example, three important terms are— ( a ) *Exclusion or excluded,* which refers only to discretionary actions taken by a suspending or debarring official under this part or the Federal Acquisition Regulation (48 CFR part 9, subpart 9.4);
( b ) *Disqualification or disqualified,* which refers to prohibitions under specific statutes, executive orders (other than Executive Order 12549 and Executive Order 12689), or other authorities. Disqualifications frequently are not subject to the discretion of an agency official, may have a different scope than exclusions, or have special conditions that apply to the disqualification; and
( c ) *Ineligibility or ineligible,* which generally refers to a person who is either excluded or disqualified.
#### Donna Avacato, as Administratrix of the Estate of Rosalie Avacato, Deceased, Respondent, v Mount Sinai Medical Center et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

[715 NYS2d 146]

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Esposito, J.), entered May 17, 2000, which, in an action to recover for alleged medical malpractice, denied defendants-appellants’ motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The affidavit of plaintiffs expert, in conjunction with the relevant hospital records, was sufficient to raise triable issues as *33to whether defendants had, in fact, properly and timely diagnosed and treated the decedent’s condition in accordance with the accepted standard of medical care *(compare, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Williams, Ellerin and Buckley, JJ.
#### Patricia Rapaport, an Infant, by Eva M. Rapaport, Her Guardian ad Litem, Respondent, v. Jerome L. Clark et al., Appellants. Jerome L. Clark, Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Reuben Rapaport, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

Judgments and order affirmed, with costs. All concur. (Appeal from a judgment of Onondaga Trial Term for plaintiff against all defendants in an automobile negligence action. Defendants Bertrand appeal from an order denying their motion for a new trial. Also appeal by the third-party defendant Reuben Rapaport from a judgment of the same court in favor of the third-party plaintiff Clark against the third-party defendant for the amount of plaintiff’s recovery.) Present — Vaughan, J. P., Kimball, Piper, Wheeler and Van Duser, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Henry Bruere (In the Matter of Coca-Cola Company.

Motion granted, question certified. Present — Clarke, P. J., Laughlin, Dowling, Page and Davis, JJ.