alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1**Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 302**I, Michael P. Sage, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Orchids Paper Products Company (the“Registrant”);2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The Registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;(b) [reserved](c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the Registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The Registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the Registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting 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 involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.   Date: May 11, 2006 /s/ Michael P. Sage     Michael P. Sage  Chief Executive Officer and President
22
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

RODNEY CRAIG MOUNTJOY,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 3:20cv4685/LAC/EMT

CENTURION OF FLORIDA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

ORDER

The chief magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on March

11, 2021 (ECF No. 32). Plaintiff was furnished 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). I have made a de novo determination of

the timely filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and the objections

thereto, I have determined the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

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

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

2. Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state

a claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), 1915A(b)(1).

Case 3:20-cv-04685-LC-EMT Document 37 Filed 03/31/21 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 31st day of March, 2021.

 s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No.: 3:20cv4685/LAC/EMT

Case 3:20-cv-04685-LC-EMT Document 37 Filed 03/31/21 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

vs. 4:03-CR-20-SPM

MICHAEL WALLACE,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REDUCE UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 3582

This cause comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Appoint

Counsel (doc. 70) and Motion to Reduce Sentence (doc. 69) pursuant to the

retroactive crack cocaine amendment (Amendments 706 and 711) and 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c).

An application of the amendment results in no change to Defendant’s

guideline range because of the career offender enhancement, which sets

Defendant’s offense level at 37. With a 3-point reduction for acceptance of

responsibility, Defendant’s total offense level remains at level 34, and his

guideline range remains 262-327 months as originally calculated. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. Defendant’s Motion to Reduce Sentence (doc. 69) is denied.

2. Defendant’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (doc. 70) is denied.

DONE AND ORDERED this first day of May, 2008.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 4:03-cr-00020-SPM-AK Document 73 Filed 05/01/08 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I,David Zinberg, certify that:

1. Ihave reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Bidz.com, Inc.;

2.Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4. Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant is made known to us by others,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and

c)Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5. Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

b)Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
| Date: November 13, 2006 |                    |
|-------------------------|-------------------------|
|                    |                    |
|                    | /s/ David Zinberg       |   |
|                    | David Zinberg           |
|                    | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
Summary of Compensation Arrangements with Named Executive Officers



 Exhibit 10.13 
  
 SUMMARY OF COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS WITH NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS 
  
 The following table sets forth the annual base salary actually paid and
target bonus levels for the Company’s Named Executive Officers for 2004. Base salaries and target bonus levels for these Named Executive Officers will remain in effect until the Compensation Committee of our Board of Directors approves changes
thereto: 
  

										
	 NAME AND POSITION

	  	YEAR

	  	BASE SALARY

	 	 	TARGET BONUS


	 Vincent C. Smith
 Chairman of the Board and
Chief Executive Officer
	  	2004	  	$	150,000	 	 	$	200,000
				
	 Douglas F. Garn
 President(1)
	  	2004	  	 	400,000	 	 	 	200,000
				
	 M. Brinkley Morse
 Vice President, Finance
and Operations and Chief
Financial Officer
	  	2004	  	 	350,000	 	 	 	150,000
				
	 Douglas Merritt
 Senior Vice President and
General Manager, ADM
	  	2004	  	 	211,458	(2)	 	 	75,000
				
	 Ratmir Timashev
 Senior Vice President and
General Manager, Microsoft Solutions
	  	2004	  	 	112,500	(3)	 	 	150,000



	(1)	 	During 2004, Mr. Garn was Vice President, Worldwide Sales. Mr. Garn was promoted to President on February 18, 2005. 


	(2)	 	Mr. Merritt joined Quest on April 30, 2004, with an annual salary of $350,000. 


	(3)	 	Mr. Timashev joined Quest on March 17, 2004 as a result of our acquisition of Aelita Software Corporation, with an annual salary of $180,000.
|   | (1) | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as      applicable, 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. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|         | /s/      Christopher W. Vieth                                                          |   |
|-------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|              | Christopher      W. Vieth                                                              |
|              | Executive      Vice President, Chief Operating Officer andChief Financial      Officer |
|              | (principal      financial officer)                                                     |
|              |                                                                                   |
| May      11, 2010 |                                                                                   |

----
#### § 29.3071 Type.

A division of a class of tobacco having certain common characteristics and closely related grades. Tobacco which has the same characteristics and corresponding qualities, colors, and lengths is classified as one type, regardless of any factors of historical or geographical nature which cannot be determined by an examination of the tobacco.

[24 FR 8771, Oct. 29, 1959. Redesignated at 47 FR 51722, Nov. 17, 1982, 49 FR 16758, Apr. 20, 1984, and 51 FR 40407, Nov. 7, 1986]
#### § 29.6050 Uniformity.

A grade requirement designating the percentage of a lot which must meet the specified degree of each element of quality. (See Rule 12.)
Opinion issued February 25, 2020

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 1 9
- 00 970
- CV

——————————— IN RE A.R.R., A.M.R. , AND A.R.R. , Relator s
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator s , A.R.R., A.M.R., and A.R.R., have filed a petition for writ of mandamus requesting this Court to compel the trial court to strike and dismiss an original petition to modify conservatorship filed by real part ies in interest, O.M. and
L.M. 1 To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must show that the trial court

1 The underlying proceeding is In the Interest of A.R.R., A.M.R., and A.R.R. , Cause No. 2017

- 00427J , currently pending in the 314th District Court of Harris County, the Honorable Eric Andell presiding.2

clearly abused its discretion and that the relator has no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. , 148 S.W.3d 124, 135

– 36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). Relators have not shown that they lack an adequate remedy by appeal. Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833, 842 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding) ( holding that “a n appellate remedy is not inadequate merely because it may involve more expense or delay than obtaining an extraordinary writ. ”)

. Accordingly, w e deny relators’ petition for writ of mandamus. See T EX
. R.
A PP
. P. 52.8(a), (d). We dismiss any pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Keyes , Lloyd, Hightower

.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2038 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2038

 To amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to expand the eligibility 
  of certain veterans while they have disability claims pending under 
                  title 38 of the United States Code.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 16, 2013

 Ms. Speier (for herself, Mr. Vargas, and Ms. McCollum) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to expand the eligibility 
  of certain veterans while they have disability claims pending under 
                  title 38 of the United States Code.

    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 ``Disabled Veterans Nutrition Fairness 
Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS.

    Section 3(j)(4) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 
2011 et seq.) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``or'' at the end,
            (2) in subparagraph (B) by adding ``or'' at the end, and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(C) has pending under title 38 of the United 
                States Code a claim for compensation for a service-
                connected disability for which no disposition has yet 
                been made by the Secretary of Veteran Affairs;''.
                                 <all>
```
Addendum: An Assessment of 

Environmental Problems Associated with Recycling of 

Hazardous Secondary Materials

Appendix 2: Additional Sites Considered But 

Not Included in the Damage Case Analysis
June 2011

Appendix 2

Additional Sites Considered But 

Not Included in the Damage Case Analysis

Site Name State EPA/ RCRA ID Reason Rejected

Bayer Cropscience, LP West Virginia WVD005005509 Damage Unrelated to 

Recycling

Environmental Quality

Company North Carolina NCD982170292 Damage Unrelated to Recycling

Agrium Hartsville 

Rainbow Operations South Carolina SCD003350675 Damage Unrelated to 

Recycling
DENY; and Opinion Filed September 26, 2013.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-13-01319-CV

IN RE ALLISON HOLLINGSWORTH, Relator

On Appeal from the 429th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 429-00556-2011

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Bridges, Francis, and Lewis 

Opinion by Justice Lewis

Relator contends the trial judge erred in entering a judgment after the court’s plenary 

jurisdiction had expired. The facts and issues are well known to the parties, so we need not 

recount them herein. The agreed judgment in question was signed by the trial court on December 

19, 2012, prior to the attempted dismissal of the case on May 20, 2013. A judgment is effective 

when signed, not when it is entered into the court’s minutes. See Truelove v. Truelove, 266 

S.W.2d 491, 493 (Tex. Civ. App.—Amarillo 1953, writ ref’d); see also Newsom v. Ballinger Ind. 

School Dist., 215 S.W.2d 375, 378 (Tex. App.—Austin 2006, no pet.), TEX. R. CIV. P. 306a.

Therefore, based on the record before us, the December 19 judgment was effective and the trial 

court has jurisdiction over the post-judgment discovery filed by real party in interest. We 

conclude relator has not shown she is entitled to the relief requested. See TEX. R. APP. P.

52.8(a); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). 
–2–

Accordingly, we DENY relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and motion for emergency 

relief.

131319F.P05

/David Lewis/

DAVID LEWIS

JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 32.1





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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Arrow Resources Development, Inc. (the Company ) for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report ), I, Peter J. Frugone, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, subject to the disclosure of deficiencies in the Company ’ s disclosure controls and procedures set forth in Item 8A  of the Report:





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





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





May 23, 2011


/s/ Peter J. FrugonePeter J. FrugoneChief Executive Officer
118 STAT. 1376 PUBLIC LAW 108–344—OCT. 18, 2004

Public Law 108–344

108th Congress

An Act

To revise and extend the Boys and Girls Clubs of America.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF AMERICA.

Section 401 of the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 (42 U.S.C.

13751 note) is amended—

(1) in subsection (a)(2)—

(A) by striking ‘‘1,200’’ and inserting ‘‘1,500’’;

(B) by striking ‘‘4,000’’ and inserting ‘‘5,000’’; and

(C) by striking ‘‘December 31, 2005’’ and inserting

‘‘December 31, 2010’’;

(2) in subsection (c)—

(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘2002, 2003, 2004,

2005, and 2006’’ and inserting ‘‘2006, 2007, 2008, 2009,

and 2010’’; and

(B) in paragraph (2)—

(i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘1,200’’ and

inserting ‘‘1,500’’; and

(ii) in subparagraph (B)—

(I) by striking ‘‘4,000’’ and inserting ‘‘5,000’’;

and

(II) by striking ‘‘2007’’ and inserting ‘‘2010’’;

and

(3) in subsection (e), by striking paragraph (1) and inserting

the following:

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—There are authorized to be appropriated

to carry out this section—

‘‘(A) $80,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;

‘‘(B) $85,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;

‘‘(C) $90,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;

‘‘(D) $95,000,000 for fiscal year 2009; and

Oct. 18, 2004

[S. 2363]

PUBLIC LAW 108–344—OCT. 18, 2004 118 STAT. 1377

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 2363:

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 108–601 (Comm. on the Judiciary).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 150 (2004):

June 3, considered and passed Senate.

Sept. 28, considered and passed House.

Æ

‘‘(E) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2010.’’.

Approved October 18, 2004.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:89-cr-01018-MP

LAWRENCE EDWARD HILL,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 1240, Motion to Terminate Probation by

Lawrence Edward Hill. The government has filed a response, Doc. 1241, which the Court has

reviewed. As an initial matter, Mr. Hill is on supervised release after a term of imprisonment

under 18 U.S.C. § 3583, and not probation. Additionally, to the extent that Mr. Hill simply

moves the Court to exercise its discretion under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1) to terminate his

supervision early, the conduct of the defendant in having three prior violations of supervised

release and the interests of justice do not warrant such termination. 

To the extent that Mr. Hill challenges this Courts imposition of supervised release at the

sentencing on his third violation, such challenge is untimely filed. Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 34 or

35, any such motion must be filed with 7 days; under Fed. R. App. P. 4, a Notice of Appeal of a

criminal judgment must be filed within 10 days. Moreover, any motion seeking to collaterally

attack a sentence must be brought via 28 U.S.C. § 2255. United States v. Jordan, 915 F.2d 622,

629 (11th Cir.1990). Since Mr. Hill's motion does not comply with any of these requirements, it

should be denied.
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 1:89-cr-01018-MP

Finally, even on its merits, Mr. Hill's motion should be denied. In Johnson v. U.S., 529

U.S. 694, 120 S.Ct. 1795 (2000), the Supreme Court agreed with Mr. Hill that 18 U.S.C. §

3583(h) could not be applied retroactively to cases like Mr. Hill's, but also found that "in

applying the law as before the enactment of subsection (h), district courts have the authority to

order terms of supervised release following reimprisonment. " Id. at 713. 

Here, the original maximum term of supervised release was five years, and Mr. Hill,

upon revocation, was sentenced to six months imprisonment and then 4 years and 6 months of

supervised release. This complies with the state of the law at the time of Mr. Hill's original

conviction. Therefore, his motion should also be denied on its merits. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

The Motion to Terminate Probation, Doc. 1240, is denied.

DONE AND ORDERED this 11th day of December, 2009

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge
#### § 29.3549 Stem.

The midrib or large central vein of a tobacco leaf.

[30 FR 9207, July 23, 1965. Redesignated at 49 FR 16759, Apr. 20, 1984]
#### § 3200.8 Costs.

Excess personal property obtained under this part is provided free of charge. However, the institution must pay all costs associated with packaging and transportation. The institution should specify the method of shipment on the SF-122.
Case 1:90-cr-01021-MP   Document 829   Filed 12/05/06   Page 1 of 2

Case 1:90-cr-01021-MP   Document 829   Filed 12/05/06   Page 2 of 2
H. R. 2391 

One Hundred Thirteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and fourteen 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 5323 Highway 

N in Cottleville, Missouri as the ‘‘Lance Corporal Phillip Vinnedge Post Office’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. LANCE CORPORAL PHILLIP D. VINNEDGE POST OFFICE. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 5323 Highway N in Cottleville, Missouri, shall 

be known and designated as the ‘‘Lance Corporal Phillip Vinnedge 

Post Office’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any references in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Lance Corporal Phillip Vinnedge Post Office’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.