alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT RULE 13A-14(a)





1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of Cala Corporation



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



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 report



4.   I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a thru 14 and 15d thru 14) for the registrant and I have



a)   designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 report is being prepared



b)   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this report (the Evaluation Date) and



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



5.   I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function)



a)   all significant deficiencies in the design or  operation of internal controls which could adversely affect  the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and  report financial data and have identified for the registrants  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 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: March 27, 2008 | By: /s/ Joseph Cala                                        
|                     | Joseph Cala                                                
|                     | Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I,Frederick C. Herbst, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q of Clayton Holdings, Inc.;

2.    Based on my knowledge, thisreport does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

3.    Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;

4.    The registrant’s othercertifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure 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 oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;

(b) [Paragraph omitted in accordance with SECtransition instructions contained in SEC Release No. 34-47986];

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

5.    The registrant’s othercertifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
| Date: May 11, 2007 |                      |
|--------------------|---------------------------|
|               | /s/ Frederick C. Herbst   |   |
|               | Frederick C. Herbst       |
|               | *Chief Financial Officer* |

 

----
98-1289.

#### State ex rel. Costakos v. Donchatz.

In Mandamus. Reported at 83 Ohio St.3d 1409, 698 N.E.2d 435. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.
§ 25.2 Objective and purpose. The purpose of this part is to provide for the establishment of Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities in rural areas in order to facilitate the empowerment of the disadvantaged and long-term unemployed such that they may become economically self-sufficient, and to promote revitalization of economically distressed areas, primarily by facilitating: ( a ) Coordination of economic, human services, health, transportation, education, community, and physical development plans, and other plans and related activities at the local level;
( b ) Local partnerships fully involving affected communities and local institutions and organizations in developing and implementing a comprehensive multi-sectoral strategic plan for any nominated rural Empowerment Zone or Enterprise Community;
( c ) Tax incentives and credits; and
( d ) Distribution of other federal resources including grants from USDA and other federal departments, including Empowerment Zone and Enterprise Community Social Services Block Grant (EZ/EC SSBG) funds as may be available from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7167

DEREK STANTON LA’MAR, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. James E. Bradberry, Magistrate Judge. (CA-04-368-2) Submitted: October 14, 2004 Decided: October 22, 2004 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Derek Stanton La’Mar, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Derek Stanton La’Mar seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order denying his request for DNA evidence and his motion for appointment of counsel. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order La’Mar seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 2

Case 7:20-cv-02945-MCR-HTC Document 16-2 Filed 07/19/22 Page 1 of 2
Case 7:20-cv-02945-MCR-HTC Document 16-2 Filed 07/19/22 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 10.4

                             ASSIGNMENT OF CONTRACT
                             ----------------------

     FOR  VALUE  RECEIVED,  ADVANTAGE  PROFESSIONAL  MANAGEMENT  GROUP,
INC.   ("Assignor"), without RECOURSE, hereby assigns TO THIRTEEN DAVENPORT, LLC
("Assignee"),  all  of  Assignor's  right,  title  and interest to that Purchase
Agreement  between  ASSIGNOR  AS  SELLER AND PARADISE DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. AS
Buyer,  DATED  February 5, 2005, A COPY of which is ATTACHED hereto."Contract").

                                    ASSIGNOR:

                                              ADVANTAGE PROFESSIONAL
                                              MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC., a Florida
                                                      corporation

                                              By: /s/ Malcolm J. Wright
                                                 ----------------------------
                                                 MALCOLM J. WRIGHT, President

                                                    (Corporate Seal)

State of Florida
County of Orange

The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 3rd day of March, 2005
by MALCOLM J. WRIGHT of ADVANTAGE PROFESSIONAL MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.,   a
Florida corporation, on behalf of the corporation.  He
[ ] is personally known to me or [X] has produced a driver's license as
identification.

[Notary Seal]

Sharon G. Clement                          Notary Public  /s/ Sharon G. Clement
Commission #DD343005                       Printed Name: Sharon G. Clement
Expires: Aug 02,2008
BONDED THRU                                My Commission Expires: August 2, 2008
ATLANTIC BONDING CO., INC.

<PAGE>
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 1:88-cr-01026-MP-AK

CHARLES L DAVIS,

Defendant.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 3405, the unopposed Motion to Continue

Evidentiary Hearing, filed by Charles L. Davis. The motion is granted, and the evidentiary

hearing currently set for July 7, 2005 is hereby continued and reset for Wednesday August 3,

2005 at 10:00 a.m.

DONE AND ORDERED this 30th day of June, 2005

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:88-cr-01026-MP-AK Document 3406 Filed 06/30/05 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO. 1:03-cr-00055-MP-AK

RAYMOND LOZANO, JR.,

Defendant.

________________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 65, Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge, which recommends that Defendant’s Motion to Vacate under 28 U.S.C. §

2255, Doc. 62, be denied. The Magistrate Judge filed the Report and Recommendation on

Friday, August 3, 2007. The parties have been furnished a copy of the Report and have been

afforded an opportunity to file objections. Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section

636(b)(1), this Court must make a de novo review of those portions to which an objection has

been made. In this instance, however, no objections were filed.

Defendant pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five hundred

grams or more of methamphetamine, and was sentenced to 240 months imprisonment. In his

motion to vacate, Defendant raises four grounds for relief based largely on Booker, and alleges

that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to raise these four grounds. After

reviewing the Magistrate’s Report, the Court agrees with the Magistrate that because Defendant

received a mandatory minimum sentence pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A), none of

Defendant’s claims have merit, and the motion to vacate should be denied. Therefore, having

considered the Report and Recommendation, and the lack of objections thereto, I have

determined that it should be adopted. Accordingly, it is hereby

Case 1:03-cr-00055-WTH-GRJ Document 67 Filed 09/05/07 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 1:03-cr-00055-MP-AK

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and

incorporated herein.

2. Defendant’s Motion to Vacate, Doc. 62, is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 5th day of September, 2007

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:03-cr-00055-WTH-GRJ Document 67 Filed 09/05/07 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 23



                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration
Statements and related Prospectuses of our report dated February 2, 1999, on our
audits of the consolidated financial statements and the financial statements
schedules of UNUM Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1998 and 1997,
and for the years ended December 31, 1998, 1997, and 1996, which report is
included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K:

           Form S-8 No. 33-31270 pertaining to the UNUM Employees 401(k) Plan
           (formerly the UNUM Employees Retirement Savings Plan and Trust)

           Form S-8 No. 33-19090 pertaining to the 1987 Executive Stock Option
           Plan

           Form S-8 No. 33-38225 pertaining to the 1990 Long-Term Stock
           Incentive Plan

           Form S-8 No. 33-52741 pertaining to the 1990 Long-Term Stock
           Incentive Plan (additional shares)

           Form S-3 No. 33-36873 pertaining to the 1990 Debt Securities

           Form S-3 No. 33-69132 pertaining to the 1993 Debt Securities,
           Preferred Stock, Common Stock and Warrants

           Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 on Form S-8 to Registration Statement
           on Form S-4 No. 33-55870 pertaining to the issuance of UNUM
           Corporation shares upon the exercise of stock options granted under
           the Colonial Plans as defined therein

           Form S-3 No. 333-08187 pertaining to the 1996 Debt Securities,
           Preferred Stock, Common Stock and Warrants

           Form S-8 No. 333-41917 pertaining to the 1998 Goals Stock Option Plan

           Form S-8 No. 333-41897 pertaining to the 1996 Long-Term Stock
           Incentive Plan





/s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
Portland, Maine
March 31, 1999
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

XAVIER DEMON JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 3:20cv5441/LAC/EMT

MAYS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

ORDER

The chief magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on May

12, 2021 (ECF No. 24). Efforts have been made to furnish Plaintiff a copy of the

Report and Recommendation and afford him an opportunity to file objections

pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). All mail has been

returned as undeliverable. No objections have been filed.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, I have determined it

should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The chief magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No.

24) is adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.

2. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to

comply with an order of the court.

Case 3:20-cv-05441-LC-EMT Document 27 Filed 06/16/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

3. The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with

this order and close the case.

DONE AND ORDERED this 16th

 day of June, 2021.

 s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No.: 3:20cv5441/LAC/EMT

Case 3:20-cv-05441-LC-EMT Document 27 Filed 06/16/21 Page 2 of 2
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2
 SARBANES-OXLEY SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION
 CERTIFICATION OF W. RANDALL FOWLER, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
OF EPE HOLDINGS, LLC, THE GENERAL PARTNER OF
ENTERPRISE GP HOLDINGS L.P.
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 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 Registrant.
 /s/ W. Randall FowlerName:
    
    W. Randall FowlerTitle:
    
    Chief Financial Officer of EPE Holdings, LLC
on behalf of Enterprise GP Holdings L.P.Date: November 9, 2007
Case 4:03-cv-00107-SPM-AK   Document 213   Filed 01/04/07   Page 1 of 1
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

DAVID BUCK CULVER,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 3:19cv3542/MCR/ZCB

N. SANDERS, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________/

ORDER

The magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on June 23, 2022. 

(Doc. 56). The Court furnished the parties a copy of the Report and 

Recommendation and afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, 

United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). There have been no timely filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation and the record, I have 

determined the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 56) is 

adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.

2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 41) is GRANTED.

3. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 37) is DENIED as moot.

Case 3:19-cv-03542-MCR-ZCB Document 58 Filed 08/30/22 Page 1 of 2
2

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants 

and close this case.

DONE AND ORDERED this 29th day of August 2022.

 M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:19-cv-03542-MCR-ZCB Document 58 Filed 08/30/22 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
balance sheets and statements of operations found on pages F-3 through F-6 of
the Company's Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1999, and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         200,501
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  135,823
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    643,332
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,225,956
<PP&E>                                      26,370,617
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,179,577
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              26,058,782
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       15,731,522
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     6,107,700
<OTHER-SE>                                  (5,560,326)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                26,058,782
<SALES>                                      9,794,600
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,794,600
<CGS>                                        4,462,298
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,462,298
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             8,318,263
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,629,484
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (4,615,445)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (516,819)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (3,491,526)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (3,491,526)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (.43)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.43)
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6872 BERLINDA L. CRADDOCK, a/k/a Jackie Paige, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-448-2) Submitted: November 21, 1996 Decided: December 4, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Berlinda L. Craddock, Appellant Pro Se. Linwood Theodore Wells, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Appellant seeks to appeal from the district court's order dismissing without prejudice her petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. The district court's dismissal without prejudice is not appealable. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers' Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066- 67 (4th Cir. 1993). A dismissal without prejudice could be final if"no amendment [to the petition] could cure defects in the plaintiff's case." Id. at 1067. In ascertaining whether a dismissal without prejudice is reviewable in this court, the court must determine "whether the [petitioner] could save his action by merely amending the [petition]." Id. at 1066-67. Because Appellant could have amended her petition to raise only the exhausted claims and thereby cured the defects in her petition, the dismissal order is not appealable. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED