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

 

CERTIFICATIONS

 

 

I, Eddie D. Canterbury, certifythat:

 

1.               I have reviewed this quarterly report onForm 10-Q of Logan County Bancshares, Inc.

 

2.               Based on my knowledge, this annualreport does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances   under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisannual report;

 

3.               Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this annual 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 annual report;

 

4.               The registrant’s other certifyingofficers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14)for the registrant and have:

 

a)              designed such disclosure controls andprocedures 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 annual report isbeing prepared;

 

b)             evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 daysprior to the filing date of this annual report (the “Evaluation Date”); and

 

c)              presented in this annual report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and proceduresbased on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

 

5.               The registrant’s other certifyingofficers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons   performing theequivalent functions):

 

a)         allsignificant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls whichcould adversely affect the registrant’s ability to report, process, summarizeand report financial data and have identified for the registrant’s auditors anymaterial weaknesses in internal controls; and

 

b)             any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal controls;  and

 

6.               The registrant’s other certifyingofficers and I have indicated in this annual report whether there weresignificant changes in internal controls or in other factors that couldsignificantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our mostrecent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses.

 

 
| Date: | November 10,  2003 |   | /s/ Eddie D.  Canterbury |   | President  & CEO |   |
|-------|--------------------|--------|--------------------------|--------|----------------------|--------|

 

----
Subpart 928.1 - Bonds and Other Financial

Protections

Source: 61 FR 41708, Aug. 9, 1996, unless otherwise noted.

Parent topic: PART 928 - BONDS AND INSURANCE

928.101 Bid guarantees.

928.101-1 Policy on use.

In addition to the restriction on use of bid guarantees in 48 CFR 28.101-1(a), a bid guarantee may be

required only for fixed price or unit price contracts entered into as a result of sealed bidding. They

may not be required for negotiated contracts.

928.103 Performance and payment bonds for other than

construction contracts.

928.103-3 Payment bonds.

A determination that is in the best interest of the Government to require payment bonds in

connection with other than construction contracts may be made by the contracting officer on

individual acquisitions.

928.103-70 Review of performance and payment bonds for

other than construction.

A performance or payment bond, other than an annual bond, shall not antedate the contract to

which it pertains.
# L_2015066EN.01002201.xml

| 11.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 66/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 66/22

---

Corrigendum to Council Decision 2014/499/CFSP of 25 July 2014 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 221 of 25 July 2014
  )

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 221 of 25 July 2014

On page 20, Section II of the Annex:

for:

| ‘II. | Entities undermining the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine’ |
| --- | --- |

‘II.

Entities undermining the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine’

;

read:

| ‘II. | Entities’ |
| --- | --- |

‘II.

Entities’

;

on page 23, Section III of the Annex:

| — | the heading of Section: ‘III. Entities whose ownership has been transferred contrary to Ukrainian law’ is deleted; |
| --- | --- |

—

the heading of Section: ‘III. Entities whose ownership has been transferred contrary to Ukrainian law’ is deleted;

| — | the entities in Section III are renumbered starting with number 10. |
| --- | --- |

—

the entities in Section III are renumbered starting with number 10.

---
#### § 927.8 Ship or handle.

*Ship or handle* means to sell, deliver, consign, transport or ship pears within the production area or between the production area and any point outside thereof, including receiving pears for processing: *Provided*, That the term “handle” shall not include the transportation of pear shipments within the production area from the orchard where grown to a packing facility located within the production area for preparation for market or delivery for processing.
## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 14

- 00146

- CR

IN RE: ROBERT BOYLER

Original Mandamus Proceeding

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss2 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION By way of petition for writ of mandamus, Robert Boyler, 1 an inmate in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, D.B. Ellis Unit, asks that this C ourt direct the 176th Judicial District Court of Titus County, Texas, to rule on Boyler’s motion for a speedy revocation hearing or “dismiss the probation as time served.” We may grant a petition for writ of mandamus when the relator shows there is no adequate remedy at law to redress the alleged harm and that the act to be compelled is purely
ministerial. Aranda v. Dist. Clerk , 207 S.W.3d 785, 786 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (orig. proceeding). In proper cases, mandamus may issue to compel a trial court to act. In re Blakeney , 254 S.W.3d 659, 661 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2008, orig. proceeding); see also Eli Lily & Co. v.
Marshall , 82 9 S.W.2d 157, 158 (Tex. 1992) (orig proceeding) (trial court abuses discretion by refusing to conduct hearing and render decision on motion); Chiles v. Schuble , 788 S.W.2d 205, 207 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 1990, orig. proceeding) (mandamus appropria te remedy to require trial court to hold hearing and exercise discretion). T rial courts are not required to
consider or rule on a motion unless the motion is called to the court ’ s attention. See Blakeney , 254 S.W.3d at 662. Boyler ’ s petition is not acco mpanied by any proof that he brought this matter to the
attention of the trial court. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.3(k)(1). Boyler’s petition is not accompanied by a certified or sworn copy of the motion that is the subject of his complaint, as is required by
the Texas rules. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A). Therefore, we are unable to determine if this

1 In the documents provided, the relator’s name is spelled as both “Boyler” and “Bolyer.”3 matter has been brought to the trial court’s attention or whether the trial court has had a reasonable time in which to rule on Boyler’s motion. It is the relator’s burden to provide this Court with a sufficient record to establish the right to mandamus relief. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a)(1). Here, the record is inadequate to grant mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny Boyler’s petition for writ of mandamus.

Josh R. Morriss, III Chief Justice Date Submitted: August 28 , 2014 Date Decided: August 29 , 2014
Do Not Publish
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of First Community Financial Corporation, (the Company) for the period ended September
30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, James R. McLaughlin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:



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



2. To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of the operations of the Company as of and for the period covered by the
Report.



|Date: November 13, 2003 |  | By: |  | /s/ James R. McLaughlin             
|----------------------- |  | --- |  | ------------------------------------
|                        |  |     |  | James R. McLaughlin, President & CEO
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                   5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
Partnership's unaudited financial statements for the quarter ended June 30, 1998
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                            1,000
       
<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                       JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                  1,168
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                             295
<ALLOWANCES>                              215
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        1,305
<PP&E>                                  5,492
<DEPRECIATION>                          1,325
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          5,591
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     107
<BONDS>                                 1,567
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                              3,908
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            5,591
<SALES>                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        6,393
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             426
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        137
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         5,830
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     5,830
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                            5,830
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          151.93
<EPS-DILUTED>                          151.93
        

</TABLE>
1445.302 Contracts with foreign governments or international organizations.       The HCA, after coordinating with the cognizant PMO, shall establish procedures to recover use costs when foreign governments or international organizations request use of Government production and research property    **Parent topic:** Subpart 1445.3 - Authorizing the Use and Rental of Government Property
Case 1:06-cv-00699-WHA-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/08/2006 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:06-cv-00699-WHA-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/08/2006 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:06-cv-00699-WHA-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/08/2006 Page 3 of 3
219.201 General policy.

(c) For the defense agencies, the director of the Office of Small Business Programs must be

appointed by, be responsible to, and report directly to the director or deputy director of the defense

agency.

(8) The responsibility for assigning small business technical advisors is delegated to the head of the

contracting activity.

(10) Contracting activity small business specialists perform this function by—

(A) Reviewing and making recommendations for all acquisitions (including orders placed against

Federal Supply Schedule contracts) over the micro-purchase threshold (see FAR 19.502-2(a)), except

those under the simplified acquisition threshold that are totally set aside for small business concerns

in accordance with FAR 19.502-2. Follow the procedures at PGI 219.201 (c)(10) regarding such

reviews.

(B) Making the review before issuance of the solicitation or contract modification and documenting

it on DD Form 2579, Small Business Coordination Record (see PGI 253.219-70 for instructions on

completing the form); and

(C) Referring recommendations that have been rejected by the contracting officer to the Small

Business Administration (SBA) procurement center representative. If an SBA procurement center

representative is not assigned, see FAR 19.402(a).

(11) Also conduct annual reviews to assess—

(A) The extent of consolidation of contract requirements that has occurred (see FAR 7.107); and

(B) The impact of those consolidations on the availability of small business concerns to participate in

procurements as both contractors and subcontractors.

(d) For information on the appointment and functions of small business specialists, see PGI 219.201

(d).

Parent topic: Subpart 219.2 - POLICIES
#### § 986.97 Counterparts.

Handlers may sign an agreement with the Secretary indicating their support for this marketing order. This agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts by each handler. If more than fifty percent of the handlers, weighted by the volume of pecans handled during an appropriate period of time determined by the Secretary, enter into such an agreement, then a marketing agreement shall exist for the pecans marketing order. This marketing agreement shall not alter the terms of this part. Upon the termination of this part, the marketing agreement has no further force or effect.
#### § 981.20 Handler carryover.

*Handler carryover* as of any given date means all almonds, wherever located, then held by handlers for their own accounts (whether or not sold) but not including any almond products.

[41 FR 26852, June 30, 1976]
Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 47 Filed 06/05/2007 Page 1 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 47 Filed 06/05/2007 Page 2 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 47 Filed 06/05/2007 Page 3 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 47 Filed 06/05/2007 Page 4 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 47 Filed 06/05/2007 Page 5 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 47 Filed 06/05/2007 Page 6 of 6
Petition to Amend Existing 333 Exemption

Current Exemption: No. 14905

Exemption Holder: Casey Lewiston

This letter is being written with the purpose of adding closed set filming operations to the

existing exemption number 14905. Attached along with this proposal is a Motion Picture

Operations Manual.

The exemption holder, Casey Lewiston, has worked on numerous television production sets as

well as other commercial filming sites. In some cases these have included unmanned aircraft

operations. He has proven familiarity with and dedication to appropriate on set practices.

All aircraft will operate under the provisions of their applicable flight manuals, 333 exemption

limitations and local regulations. The attached manual provides for additional considerations, but

is not intended to supercede any other governing text.

Operations of unmanned aircraft in this manner provides an equivalent level of safety to

operating manned aircraft. As detailed in the original exemption request, it is our belief that

unmanned aircraft offer improved safety due to their limited weight, speed and flight paths.

Thank you for your time,

Casey Lewiston

casey@agafilm.com

5675 Old Redwood Hwy Apt 4

Penngrove, CA, 94951

707.601.2637
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Thomas Williams, Appellant. Martin P. Catherwood, as Industrial Commissioner, Respondent.

Gabrielli, J.

Claimant appeals from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denying benefits on the ground that he voluntarily left his employment without good cause. On the morning of October 17, 1966, claimant, shortly after arriving for work, asked to be excused from work because he was feeling tired. The request was granted and he was advised to return after lunch. He did not return that day nor did he call his employer. He remained away from work for two additional days without calling his employer. On the fourth day he returned and learned he had been replaced. At this time he made no inquiry as to why he had been fired nor did he give any excuse for his voluntary absence from work. Upon the record, the claimant was derelict in his duty to notify his employer of the cause (if such there was) of his continuing absence. No explanation was offered therefor nor has any satisfactory excuse been advanced other than on the first day of his absence when he told his employer he was tired. 'Claimant’s testimony did not differ materially from employer’s report and in and of itself constitutes substantial evidence to support the board’s findings. In such ease, the determination must be affirmed *(Matter of Hueber [Catherwood],*24 A D 2d 781; *Matter of Martino [Catherwood],*24 A D 2d 772; *Matter of Rink [Catherwood],*25 A D 2d 790; Labor Law, § 593, subd. 1); Claimant’s contention that he was prejudiced by the use of certain allegedly inadmissible evidence and he was, therefore, not afforded a fair hearing, is unfounded *(Matter of Simpson [Catherwood],*9 A D 2d 967; *Matter of Bonaparte*[Catherwood], 26 A D 2d 843; Labor Law, § 622, subd. 1). Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum by Gabrielli, J.
(May 9, 2006)

#### Tamilla Alekperova, Respondent, v Mikhail Yuger et al., Appellants.

[815 NYS2d 192]

*611In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hubsher, J.), dated October 19, 2004, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

Generally, liability for injuries sustained as a result of dangerous and defective conditions on public sidewalks is placed on the municipality and not the abutting landowner *(see Hausser v*Giunta, 88 NY2d 449, 452-453 [1996]; *Cordova v Vinueza,*20 AD3d 445 [2005]; *Capobianco v Mari,*267 AD2d 191 [1999]). However, an abutting landowner may be held liable to a pedestrian injured by a defect in a public sidewalk where, inter alia, the landowner negligently constructed or repaired the sidewalk or otherwise created the defective condition, or caused the defect to occur by some special use of the sidewalk *(see Hausser v Giunta, supra; Cannizzaro v Simco Mgt. Co.,*26 AD3d 401 [2006]; *Cordova v Vinueza, supra; Angulo v City of New York, 5*AD3d 707 [2004]).

The defendant landowners made a prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that they performed no repairs to the public sidewalk abutting their property, and did not use the sidewalk for a special purpose *(see Angulo v City of New York, supra; Breheny v City of New York,*299 AD2d 385 [2002]; *Ritts v Teslenko,*276 AD2d 768 [2000]). In opposition to the motion, the plaintiff relied upon the affidavit of an expert who opined that the subject defect had been caused by “homemade repairs.” However, the plaintiff offered no evidence demonstrating when these alleged repairs were made, or that the defendants made them. Under these circumstances, the expert’s affidavit was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Patti v Town of N. Hempstead,*23 AD3d 362 [2005]; *Angulo v City of New York, supra; Ritts v Teslenko, supra; Ribacoff v City of Mount Vernon,*251 AD2d 482 [1998]; *Palazzo v City of New Rochelle,*236 AD2d 528 [1997]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Prudenti, P.J., Santucci, Krausman and Dillon, JJ., concur.
#### § 1003.19 Reconsideration.

A participant in the proceeding may submit to the OHA a motion for reconsideration of a Decision and Order. The motion for reconsideration must be filed by the 20th day after the OHA makes the Decision and Order available to the public. The motion must include a statement of the grounds on which the movant believes reconsideration is warranted. Such grounds may include, but are not limited to, procedural, legal, or factual errors in the Decision and Order. A motion for reconsideration may be granted if the Director determines the Decision and Order contains an error that materially impacted the outcome of the proceeding.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

83auX4 Ba 4et60304 

3er aQ3001 418trlot 

308 railed. 
Artiolo elfi of the Rsvisad Cllril Strtutas as emmdad 

by ChapSor 476, Saotlon 1, iiots. 44tb L.gislatura,’ seoon~ callea 

Eesoion (1935), relutoe to elooth3s to 4et0ralne thu propositio5 

of the levy of taxes or the issuanas of bonbs bl school UI.striats. 

Tbls statute ~rorldes in part a8 followsr 

"If sald aab&enenae tax propomltlo5 la deraated at 

nn ebotlon he14 for aoh purpose, na other l lo a tlo8haU n 

he held thersfoor nltblk a&e ysar frool thr date of wld 

slsotlon.* 

St is ous opinion thns ths portion Of Artlolo 294&x, 

w&lab is quoted ebavo. ref6rs to.tlm pra~lsions of Artiolr 8Eb8, 

and that w&m sn rleatlon hes,been hotd ua4er the twas of 

Artlcb &74&f, Rwlsad Clvll Ststutas, 00 4etatim1 &mth&r s 

portion of th8 tarrltory of a sabool aistrlot shall bs 4etaahe4 

an4 sttsabed to anotbr sohoal blsttiot, an4 suoh eleatfon has 

fslleb, one yssr should elapse before aother slaotlon an the 

saos pr0posltlon aaa be bold. Xovever, tier the 4eolmloa of 

the Camladoa~ OS iu4puala .b Knrtfn fe Ormbrlew Sndopemleot 

Sohool Distriot 869 S. 8. 461, 6 noon4 eleotioa OJI tin MR# 

&mo~sitfon u&h us8 hold mre thsa a year sftsr t&m flret 

l lsotiorr 4&&~5f! the ptoposiftoa, woulh not a rsBdsrs4 void 

by the hot tlmt t&a order rot the oleotlaa .ma aa40 vitS&o lass 

then e year after the rtrst oleatlo~ fn hi8 epinkon, which us8 

adopts4 by tho Sqwaiss Caurt, Iudge Gamut ssysr 

*It i8 tba aotual holdlrq of the elsatian, ss4 not the 

Yre ordertng 0r it, whiah is OaLaul8te4 to inaonTqiimlae 

Or dk8tUrb the VOtUr. ftmh the hol4hg or a sswn4 

alsation wlthlrt a less tirw thsn ona ywa Of tha flat 

sleotion wbloh thr legisl.&ure 04 doubt lntan4e4 to WuYerrt~~ 

YI, m *nforo of the o~iaion that ua4er the faata 

st8t6a in your quostloa, the sooon4 l leetlea r&ml4 not k 8~14 

rim&s OM year after tha first rleotlon, .but that this Or4sr for 

tb WOOBd 6m?t%OZi IiUIy b e BULa e dtb h l ma r a fter t)w, fir st 

8leotton wltbout roudsrlng the sadon4 0lsstlOrr YOl49 

very truly pws