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

              Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to
            Securities and Exchange Act Rules 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a)
                             as Adopted Pursuant to
                  Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Steven Barrenechea, certify that:

      1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of ABC Funding, 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 officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

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

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

      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 registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

            a) all significant deficiencies and material weakness in the design
or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data; and

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


Dated: September 27, 2007         By: /s/ Steven Barrenechea
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Steven Barrenechea Chief Executive Officer
§ 886.311a Notice upon contract expiration. ( a ) The Contract will provide that the owner will notify each assisted family, at least 90 days before the end of the Contract term, of any increase in the amount the family will be required to pay as rent which may occur as a result of its expiration. If the Contract is to be renewed but with a reduction in the number of units covered by it, this notice shall be given to each family who will no longer be assisted under the Contract.
( b ) The notice provided for in paragraph (a) of this section shall be accomplished by: ( 1 ) Sending a letter by first class mail, properly stamped and addressed, to the family at its address at the project, with a proper return address, and
( 2 ) serving a copy of the notice on any adult person answering the door at the leased dwelling unit, or if no adult responds, by placing the notice under or through the door, if possible, or else by affixing the notice to the door. Service shall not be considered to be effective until both required notices have been accomplished. The date on which the notice shall be considered to be received by the family shall be the date on which the owner mails the first class letter provided for in this paragraph, or the date on which the notice provided for in this paragraph is properly given, whichever is later.
( c ) The notice shall advise each affected family that, after the expiration date of the Contract, the family will be required to bear the entire cost of the rent and that the owner will be free (to the extent the project is not otherwise regulated by HUD) to alter the rent without HUD approval, but subject to any applicable requirements or restrictions under the lease or under State or local law. The notice shall also state: ( 1 ) The actual (if known) or the estimated rent which will be charged following the expiration of the Contract;
( 2 ) The difference between the rent and the Total Tenant Payment toward rent under the Contract; and
( 3 ) The date the Contract will expire.
( d ) The owner shall give HUD a certification that families have been notified in accordance with this section with an example of the text of the notice attached.
( e ) This section shall apply to ( 1 ) Contracts involving Substantial Rehabilitation entered into pursuant to Agreements executed on or after October 1, 1981, or Contracts involving Substantial Rehabilitation entered into pursuant to Agreements executed before October 1, 1981, but renewed or amended on or after October 1, 1984 and
( 2 ) all other Contracts executed, renewed or amended on or after October 1, 1984.
[49 FR 31285, Aug. 6, 1984]
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-40748 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ALLEN RAY CARTER, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 9:95-CR-30-5

- - - - - - - - - - February 20, 1997 Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Allen Ray Carter appeals his sentence for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine base. He argues that the district court erred in attributing to him quantities of cocaine involved in transactions which occurred outside of the time frame alleged in the count of conviction. The district court did not err in calculating the quantity of drugs attributable to Carter for sentencing purposes. See United States v. Mergerson , 4 F.3d 337, 345 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied , 510 U.S. 1198 (1994).
AFFIRMED.
#### § 902.21 Physical condition standards for public housing.

Public housing must be maintained in a manner that meets the physical condition standards set forth in 24 CFR part 5, subpart G.

[88 FR 30500, May 11, 2023]
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-19-00036-CV

IN RE LIBERTY COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice2

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Delivered and Filed: January 30, 2019

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On January 22, 2019, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. After considering the 

petition, this court concludes relator is not entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition 

for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). 

PER CURIAM

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2018CI07605, styled Claudia Licandro v. Liberty County Mutual Insurance 

Co., pending in the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas. The Honorable Karen H. Pozza signed the 

order at issue in this original proceeding.

2 Dissents to the denial of the petition without requesting a response.
§ 983.12 Project record retention. ( a ) *Records retained according to the contract term.* For each PBV project, the PHA must maintain the following records throughout the HAP contract term and for three years thereafter: ( 1 ) Records to document the basis for PHA selection of the proposal, if selection is competitive, or project, if selection is noncompetitive, including records of the PHA's site selection determination (see § 983.55) and records to document the completion of the review of the selection process in the case of PHA-owned units and copies of the written notice of proposal selection and response of the appropriate party;
( 2 ) The analysis of impact (see § 983.58(b)), if applicable;
( 3 ) The subsidy layering determination, if applicable;
( 4 ) The environmental review record, if applicable;
( 5 ) The Agreement to enter into HAP contract, if applicable;
( 6 ) Evidence of completion (see § 983.155), if applicable;
( 7 ) The HAP contract and any rider and/or amendments, including amendments to extend the term of the contract;
( 8 ) Records to document the basis for PHA determination and redetermination of rent to owner;
( 9 ) Records to document HUD approval of the independent entity or entities, in the case of PHA-owned units;
( 10 ) Records of the accessibility features of the project and each contract unit; and
( 11 ) Other records as HUD may require.
( b ) [Reserved]
[89 FR 38309, May 7, 2024]
JEFFERY L. STANTON,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-1321

Opinion filed April 8, 2015.

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus -- Original Jurisdiction.

Jeffery L. Stanton, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed.

ROWE, MARSTILLER, and MAKAR, JJ., CONCUR.
§ 93.51 Formula factors. ( a ) *Need factor one.* The ratio of the shortage of standard rental units both affordable and available to extremely low-income renter households in the State to the aggregate shortage of standard rental units both affordable and available to extremely low-income renter households in all the States.
( b ) *Need factor two.* The ratio of the shortage of standard rental units both affordable and available to very low-income renter households in the State to the aggregate shortage of standard rental units both affordable and available to very low-income renter households in all the States.
( c ) *Need factor three.* The ratio of: ( 1 ) Extremely low-income renter households in the State living with either incomplete kitchen or plumbing facilities, more than one person per room, or paying more than 50 percent of income for housing costs, to
( 2 ) The aggregate number of extremely low-income renter households living with either incomplete kitchen or plumbing facilities, more than one person per room, or paying more than 50 percent of income for housing costs in all the States.
( d ) *Need factor four.* The ratio of very low-income renter households in the State paying more than 50 percent of income on rent relative to the aggregate number of very low-income renter households paying more than 50 percent of income on rent in all the States.
( e ) *Construction cost factor.* The resulting sum calculated from the factors described in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section shall be multiplied by the relative cost of construction in the state. For purposes of calculating this factor, the term “cost of construction”: ( 1 ) Means the cost of construction or building rehabilitation in the State relative to the national cost of construction or building rehabilitation; and
( 2 ) Is calculated so that values higher than 1.0 indicate that the State's construction costs are higher than the national average, a value of 1.0 indicates that the State's construction costs are exactly the same as the national average, and values lower than 1.0 indicate that the State's cost of construction are lower than the national average.
### §53502. Regulations

(a) In General.—Except as provided in subsection (b), the Secretary shall prescribe regulations to carry out this chapter.

(b) Tax Liability.—The Secretary and the Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe joint regulations for the determination of tax liability under this chapter.

(Pub. L. 109–304, §8(c), Oct. 6, 2006, 120 Stat. 1593.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 53502 | 46 App.:1177(l) (2d sentence). | June 29, 1936, ch. 858, title VI, §607(l) (2d sentence), 49 Stat. 2005; June 23, 1938, ch. 600, §§23–28, 52 Stat. 960; Aug. 4, 1939, ch. 417, §10, 53 Stat. 1185; July 17, 1952, ch. 939, §§17–19, 66 Stat. 764; Pub. L. 85–637, Aug. 14, 1958, 72 Stat. 216; Pub. L. 86–518, §1, June 12, 1960, 74 Stat. 216; Pub. L. 87–45, §6, May 27, 1961, 75 Stat. 91; Pub. L. 87–271, Sept. 21, 1961, 75 Stat. 570; restated Pub. L. 91–469, §21(a), Oct. 21, 1970, 84 Stat. 1032; Pub. L. 97–31, §12(97)(A), Aug. 6, 1981, 95 Stat. 162. |

Section

Subsection (a) is added for clarity because various provisions of the source language for this chapter imply that the Secretary is to prescribe regulations individually (except for regulations affecting a determination of tax liability). See, e.g., 46 App. U.S.C. 1177(a) (last sentence), (f)(1) (last sentence), and (l) (last sentence).

In subsection (b), the words "not inconsistent with the foregoing provisions of this section, as may be necessary or appropriate" are omitted as surplus.
Exhibit 32.2

                   Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.1350

     In  connection  with the  filing  with the  United  States  Securities  and
Exchange Commission of Emergent Group Inc.'s (the "Company") Quarterly Report on
Form  10-QSB/A for the quarter  ended  September  30, 2005 (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned,  the Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  hereby certifies that
(i) in my capacity as an officer of the  Company,  (ii) to my actual  knowledge,
and (iii) solely for the purpose of compliance with 18 U.S.C.ss.1350, that:

     (1)  the Report fully complies with the  requirements  of ss.13(a) or 15(d)
          of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

     The  above  certification  is  given as of the  date of the  Report  and is
limited to the periods covered by the Report.  The above  certification  is made
severally and not jointly.

     IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the  undersigned  have executed this  Certificate  on
May 15, 2008.


                                               By: /s/ William M. McKay
                                                   --------------------
                                                   William M. McKay
                                                   Chief Financial Officer
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 05719

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2File Name3

Description

x 05719\05719_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

05719\05719_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

x 05719\05719_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 05719\05719_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 05719\05719_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 05719\05719_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 05719\05719_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

05719\Certification Statement Plant ID 05719.pdf Plant certification statement

x 05719\Supplemental Documents\05719_IT Drawings.PDF Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket. 

3

 No hardcopy log is included for this plant as no hardcopy materials were received.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Donald E. De Groat, Appellant.

Defendant appeals from an order of the Ulster County Court which denied his motion for a correction of sentence. Defendant was convicted after a jury trial of rape in the first degree under the first count of an indictment, and of assault in the second degree under the second count of the same indictment. He was thereafter sentenced as a second offender to a term of not less than 10 years nor more than 20 years on the rape count, and not less than 5 years nor more than 10 years on the assault count, the sentences to run concurrently. Upon appeal to this court *(People*v. *De Groat,*5 A D 2d 1045) the conviction on the rape count was vacated and that count of the indictment was dismissed. The judgment of conviction on the assault count was affirmed. The appellant also raised the question upon that appeal that in the event the rape count should be vacated a new trial should be ordered on the assault count. The Court of Appeals affirmed upon appeal to that court by the defendant-appellant. *(People*v. *De Groat,*5 N Y 2d 947, motion for reargument denied 6 N Y 2d 882.) Appellant now contends that the trial court was without power under section 1938 of the Penal Law to impose a sentence on each count, even though they were to run concurrently. It is contended that the court was only empowered to impose sentence upon the higher of the two counts. Section 1938 prohibits double punishment. There is no double punishment or multiple punishment when the two sentences are to run concurrently, and certainly not when now the conviction and sentence on one count of the indictment has been vacated. As the record now stands, the defendant is convicted and sentenced only for assault in the second degree, which has been affirmed by the Court of Appeals. We think that should establish the law of this case. Moreover, the Court of Appeals in *People ex rel. Maurer*v. *Jackson*(2 N Y 2d 259) has construed section 1938 contrary to the appellant’s contention when the sentences are concurrent. In fact, the court in that ease envisioned just such a situation as is presented here, when it said at page 269: *“*Another important factor should not be overlooked. Where a criminal act which is a composite of several included offenses is followed by a multiple court indictment, and convictions are obtained on more than one count, the imposition of concurrent sentences for lesser included offenses insures that the defendant will not go unpunished if there is an error in his conviction for the highest degree of offense resulting in an acquittal as to that count.” Order unanimously affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32

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

---



Certification pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

David G.
Baker, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Nandini Mallya, Chief
Financial Officer, of Lincoln Park Bancorp (the Company), each
certifies in his/her capacity as an officer of the Company that he/she has
reviewed the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-KSB for the year ended
December 31, 2007 and that to the best of his/her knowledge:

| |    |                                                                                                                                                         
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | 1. | the report
  fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) 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.

The purpose of
this statement is solely to comply with Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of
the United States Code, as amended by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002.

|                 |  |                                         | 
|---------------- |  | --------------------------------------- | 
|March 26,
  2008 |  | /s/ David G.
  Baker                    | 
|Date             |  |                                         | 
|                 |  | David G.
  Baker                        | 
|                 |  | President
  and Chief Executive Officer | 
|                 |  |                                         | 
|March 26,
  2008 |  | /s/ Nandini
  Mallya                    | 
|Date             |  |                                         | 
|                 |  | Nandini
  Mallya                        | 
|                 |  | Chief
  Financial Officer               | 

---
## NUMBER 13

- 2 4

- 00 164

- C V

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

IN THE INTEREST OF H. H., M. P., L. P., A. P., A. P.,

AND T. P., CHILDREN

ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 5

OF NUECES COUNTY , TEXAS



## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Pe ñ a

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Contreras

T his matter is before the Court on appellant ’ s motion to dismiss. A ppellant wishes

to withdraw or dismiss his appeal

.

H aving considered appellant ’ s motion, we are of the opinion that the motion should

be granted. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1). Therefore, appellant ’ s motion to dismiss is

granted, and the appeal is hereby dismissed. Costs will be taxed against the appellant.

See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1(d) ( “ Absent agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs2 against the appellant. ” ). Because the appeal is dismissed at the appellant ’ s request, no

motion for rehearing will be entertained.

DORI CONTRERAS

Chief Justice

D elivered and filed on the

2nd day of May, 20 2 4

.
§ 245.120 Meeting space. ( a ) Owners of multifamily housing projects covered under § 245.10, and their agents, must reasonably make available the use of any community room or other available space appropriate for meetings that is part of the multifamily housing project when requested by: ( 1 ) Tenants or a tenant organization and used for activities related to the operation of the tenant organization; or
( 2 ) Tenants seeking to establish a tenant organization or collectively address issues related to their living environment.
( b ) Tenant and tenant organization meetings must be accessible to persons with disabilities, unless this is impractical for reasons beyond the organization's control. If the complex has an accessible common area or areas, it will not be impractical to make organizational meetings accessible to persons with disabilities.
( c ) *Fees.* An owner of a multifamily housing project covered under § 245.10 may charge a reasonable, customary and usual fee, approved by the Secretary as may normally be imposed for the use of such facilities in accordance with procedures prescribed by the Secretary, for the use of meeting space. An owner may waive this fee.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

ANDRE WITHERSPOON

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No s . 4D 19

- 2503 and 4D19

- 2689

[ October 22, 2020 ]

Consolidated a ppeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Glenn D. Kelley , Judge; L.T. Case No s

. 502017CF011340A and 502016CF010088A.

Michael Salnick of Law Offices of Salnick & Fuchs PA, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley M oody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Deborah Koenig, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ERBER
, C ONNER

, and K LINGENSMITH

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.