alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 99.1

                                   QUIPP, INC.

                  CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
          RELATING TO A PERIODIC REPORT CONTAINING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


         I, Michael S. Kady, Chief Executive Officer of Quipp, Inc., a Florida
corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify that:

         (1) The Company's periodic report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
June 30, 2002 (the "Form 10-Q") fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

         (2) The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


                                      * * *




/S/ Michael S. Kady
---------------------------
Michael S. Kady
Chief Executive Officer

Date:    August 12, 2002
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 6262** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. LOUIS SAMUELS , Defendant

– Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Distr ict of North Carolina , at Charlotte
. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. ( 3:91

- cr - 00033

- GCM

- 1 )

Submitted : April 29, 2010 Decided: May 4, 2010

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Affirmed by un publi shed per curiam opinion
. Louis Samuels, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Louis Samuels appeals the district court ’ s text order denying as frivolous his petition for a writ of audita quere la
. In his petition to the district court , Samuels argued that Amendment 709 of the Sentencing Guidelines requires that the district court re

- sentence him without a career offender designation. Despite Samuels’ contentions to the contrary, alternative re medies existed by which Samuels should have raised the instant claim challenging his criminal conviction and
sentence . See United States v. Torres , 282 F.3d 1241, 1245 (10th Cir. 2002) ( “[A] writ of audita querela is not available to a petitioner when oth er remedies exist, such as a motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 .” (internal quotation marks omitted) )
. Accordingly , the district court did not err in denying Samuels’ motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
**MEMORANDUM**

DATE: November 20, 2014 TO: Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket ID: OAR
- 2013 - 0602 FROM: Rob Lawrence

EPA/Region 6/PD SUBJECT: September 24, 2014 Brief Remarks at a meeting of Oklahoma state agencies,

industries, and NGOs Regarding the Proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants

**SUMMARY** Brief remarks were made by EPA at a September 24 meeting of Oklahoma state agencies, industries, and NGOs on the proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants , which was proposed on June 2, 2014. The meeting was held in Oklahoma City, OK . **ATTENDEES** Participants: Mike Teague (Oklahoma Secretary of Energy and the Environment), Will McPherson (Oklahoma Governor's Office), Eddie Terrill, Rob Singletary, Cheryl Bradley, Beverly Botchlet
- Smith, Scott Thomas, Scott Thompson (Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality), Nicole King, Brandy Wreath, and Geoffrey Rush (Oklahoma Corporation Commission), Michael Watt and Mike Mushrush (Oklahoma Municipal Power Authority), Greg Kushel (Tensaska), Brian McQuown, Usha Turner, Kimber Shoop (OGE), Mickie Taylor (American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity), Jim Dunlap (Jim Dunlap Consultants), Jim Roth and Dominic Williams (Phillips Murrah), Brent Ross (Associated Electric Cooperatives Inc.), Ted Himes (Kamo Power), Al Armendariz and Whitney Pearson (Sierra Club), Chris Winland ( ITC Great Plains), Dan Barron and Cason Carter (Alliance Resources), and Tom Schroedter (Oklahoma Industrial Energy Consumers) EPA Participant : Ron Curry ( R egional Administrator )
<PAGE>
EX-23.3





                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



The Board of Directors
Blue Valley Ban Corp:


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-46022 on Form S-8 of Blue Valley Ban Corp, of our report, dated February 1,
2002, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Blue Valley Ban Corp and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 2001 and 2000, and the related consolidated
statements of income, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the years
in the three-year period ended December 31, 2001, which report appears in the
December 31, 2001 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Blue Valley Ban Corp.



                                                       /s/ BAIRD, KURTZ & DOBSON



Kansas City, Missouri
March 25, 2002
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM,

NOVEMBER, 1900.

#### John Boyd, Respondent, *v.*Frederick Klingman et al., Appellants.

Appeal from a judgment of the. Municipal Court of the city of New York, tenth district, borough of Manhattan.

P. Hellinger, for appellants.

J. S. Strahl, for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

It was part of the contract entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants, that the plaintiff would furnish and set including all connections an electric pump complete as specified, for two hundred dollars ($200), in addition to the contract price of forty-two hundred dollars ($4,200) for other work that the plaintiff was to do for the defendants.

The evidence conclusively shows that the plaintiff failed to perform this portion of his contract and that the defendants were damaged by this failure to at least the extent of seventy-five dollars, but they were allowed nothing by the justice before whom the case was tried. This was error. The judgment is reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellants to abide the event.

Present: Tbuax, P. J., Scott and Dugbo, JJ.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellants to abide event.
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04

- 23

- 00192

- CR
IN RE Marco Antonio GUARDIOLA TRINIDAD Original Proceeding 1
PER CURIAM Sitting: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Beth Watkins , Justice Lori I. Valenzuela , Justice Delivered and Filed: May 17, 2023
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DISMISSED AS MOOT On March 6, 2023, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. Relator also filed a motion
to stay the underlying proceeding pending final resolution of the petition for writ of mandamus, which this court granted in part on March 8, 2023. Relator’s mandamus petiti on argues the trial court failed to rule on his application for writ of habeas corpus and his motion to waive. Relator’s motion seeks to waive his required in

- person attendance at a March 9, 2023 pretrial hearing. After relator filed this original proceed ing, the trial court denied relator’s application for writ of habeas corpus. When the trial court ruled on his application for writ of habeas corpus, relator received the relief he sought through his mandamus petition, rendering his petition moot.

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 10830CR , styled State of Texas v. Marco Antonio Guardiola Trinidad , pending in the County Court , Kinney County, Texas, the Honorable Todd Alexander Blomerth and the Honorable Susan D. Reed presiding.04

- 23

- 00192

- CR

- 2

- See In r e Bonilla , 424 S.W.3d 528, 534 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (orig. proceeding) (holding mandamus petition was moot where relator received relief sought). Additionally, because of the stay granted by this court, relator’s complaint about his required in

- person at tendance at the March 9, 2023 pretrial hearing is also moot. See id. We, therefore, dismiss relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and lift the stay we imposed on March 8, 2023

. PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.3.1

                             Amendment No. 1 to the

                               WebSideStory, Inc.

                           2000 Equity Incentive Plan


     Effective as of April 10, 2000 (the "Effective Date"), Section 4(a) of the
WebSideStory, Inc. 2000 Equity Incentive Plan (the "Plan") is amended to read
in full as follows:

     SHARE RESERVE. Subject to the provisions of Section 11 relating to
adjustments upon changes in Common Stock, the number of shares reserved for
issuance under the Plan is 23,843,785 and such number shall automatically
increase upon the effectiveness of the Company's initial public offering and
each calendar quarter thereafter, such that the total number of shares reserved
for issuance under the Plan shall equal 17.5% of the total shares of Common
Stock outstanding as of the effective date of the initial public offering and as
of the last day of each calendar quarter.
<PAGE>   2
                               WebSideStory, Inc.

                            Secretary's Certificate


I, Michael Christian, do hereby certify as follows:

1. I am the duly elected and qualified secretary of WebSideStory, Inc., a
   California corporation (the "Corporation").

2. The attached Amendment No. 1 to the WebSideStory, Inc. 2000 Equity Incentive
   Plan was duly adopted by the required vote of the Board of Directors of the
   Corporation and the shareholders.



Dated: July 18, 2000
      ------------------




                                                /s/ MICHAEL S. CHRISTIAN
                                                -------------------------------
                                                Michael S. Christian, Secretary
#### MANNING V. CITY OF GADSDEN.

(Decided June 5, 1913.)

Appeal from Etowah Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. J. E. Blackwood.

W. J. Boykin, for appellant. Goodhue, Brindley & White, for appellee. •

Per curiam.

Dismissed for want of prosecution.
#### SISCO *v.*CHEENEY AND WIFE.

Assault and battery — husband and wife — misjoinder—demurrer—arrest—writ of error.

Wiiere a husband and wife jointly commit an assault and battery, the law regards the act his alone so faras it concerns the civil injury, and he should be sued alone.

If a joint suit is brought against a man and his wife fora tort which they cannot in the eye of the *law jointly*commit, the suit /ails; and the defendant may avail himself of the objection either upon demurrer, by motion in arrest of judgment, or by writ of error.

Assault and battery by the defendants jointly. Pleas — not guilty, and a justification in defence of the wife, and also in defence of their son.

*Morehead*and *Gatlay,*for the defendants,

objected to a recovery, because the battery *complained*of was *joint by the husband and wife,*and the battery proved was by *the wife alone,*separate from her husband. 1 *Wh. Sel.*25, 6.

*Benham,*contra.

Wright, J.

If the tort complained of were by the husband and wife *jointly,*suit should be against the husband alone, for the law intends the whole his act. 2 *Com. Dig.*111. If the action be against husband and wife jointly for a tort they could not jointly commit, or against the husband alone for the separate act of the wife, and the objection appear on the face of the pleadings, the *10defendant may demur, move in arrest of judgment, or bring his writ of error. 2 *Com. Dig.*111. 1 *Ch.Pl.*80. So if the action be joint, and the husband be found not guilty, the action fails. *Brownl.*209, *Yelv.*106. If a verdict is taken, therefore, what good would result to the plaintiff, if we must arrest the judgment upon it?

Verdict and judgment for the defendant.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3175 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3175

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 2650 Cleveland Avenue, NW in Canton, Ohio, as the ``Richard D. 
                    Watkins Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2650 
Cleveland Avenue, NW in Canton, Ohio, shall be known and designated as 
the ``Richard D. Watkins Post Office Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Richard D. Watkins Post 
Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 28, 2003.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
108th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 3175

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 2650 Cleveland Avenue, NW in Canton, Ohio, as the ``Richard D. 
                    Watkins Post Office Building''.
```
EXHIBIT 12.1



STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF RATIOS



|                                                       |  | Years Ended |        
|------------------------------------------------------ |  | ----------- | -------
|                                                       |  | 2002        |        
|FIXED CHARGES                                          |  |             |        
|Interest expense                                       |  | $           | 1,353  
|Portion of rental expense deemed to represent interest |  |             | 1,666  
|                                                       |  |             |        
|Total fixed charges                                    |  | $           | 3,019  
|                                                       |  |             |        
|EARNINGS BEFORE FIXED CHARGES                          |  |             |        
|Earnings from continuing operations before income tax  |  | $           | (77,772
|Fixed charges                                          |  |             | 3,019  
|                                                       |  |             |        
|Total earnings before fixed charges                    |  | $           | (74,753
|                                                       |  |             |        
|RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES                     |  |             | (1     



The
ratio of earnings to fixed charges represents the number of times fixed charges are covered by earnings. Fixed charges consist of interest expense, including amortization of debt issuance costs, and the portion of
rental expense deemed to represent interest. Earnings consist of income from continuing operations before income taxes plus fixed charges.



| | (1) |  | We would have had to generate additional earnings for the years ended December 30, 2002, 2001 and 1998 of $77.8 million, $41.6 million and $34.2 million,
respectively, to achieve a ratio of 1:1.
| | --- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

IN RE: THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT 

AND MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR 

PUERTO RICO

AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE 

COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO 

CIVIL NO. 17-3283 (LTS)

TITLE III PROMESA 

MOTION REQUESTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A RESPONSE TO THE 

MOTION FOR RELEIF TO STAY

TO THE HONORABLE COURT: 

COMES NOW the State Insurance Fund Corporation (hereinafter, “SIFC”), the Defendant in

the matter of GARCÍA COLÓN V. STATE INSURANCE FUND CORPORATION, Civil No. 21-cv-01211 

(RAM) before the United District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, through its undersigned 

counsel, and very respectfully alleges, requests, and prays: 

1. On October 4, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM STAY (hereinafter, 

“MOTION FOR RELIEF”) [Docket No. 22501]. 

2. This Honorable Court set October 18, 2022, as the deadline for the SIFC to respond to 

said MOTION FOR RELIEF [Docket No. 22502]. 

3. Currently, the undersigned are in the process of preparing for trial. The trial is set to 

commence on October 26, 2022 and is scheduled to end on October 28, 2022 for Civ. Case 

Number 2018CV00967, at the Court of First Instance, Arecibo Region. 

4. In light of the above, the undersigned requests an extension of time, until November 4, 

2022, to file a Response to the MOTION FOR RELIEF. 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22586 Filed:10/12/22 Entered:10/12/22 14:16:58 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 2
IN RE: THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHTAND BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO

AS A REPRESENTANTIVE OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO. 

CIVIL NO. 17-3283 (LTS)

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A RESPONSE TO THE MOTION FOR RELIEF TO STAY.

PAGE 2

5. The extension of time requested will not cause any undue delay or prejudice to the 

Plaintiffs. 

6. The undersigned certify that the request is in good faith after thorough review of the 

Plaintiff's MOTION FOR RELIEF. 

 WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that this Honorable Court take notice of the 

forgoing and grant until November 4, 2022, for the parties to file a Response to the MOTION FOR 

RELIEF.

 IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that the foregoing Motion for Extension of Time was 

electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send 

notification of such filing to all counsel of record participating in the same.

 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED in San Juan, Puerto Rico, on October 12, 2022. 

 WEINSTEIN-BACAL, MILLER & VEGA, P.S.C.

 González Padín Building-Penthouse

 154 Rafael Cordero Street, Plaza de Armas 

 Old San Juan, Puerto Rico 00901

 Telephone: (787) 977-2550 

 Telecopier: (787) 977-2559

 E-mail: pwm@wbmvlaw.com

 moa@wbmvlaw.com

 S/Peter W. Miller

 U.S.D.C. No. 213609 

 S/Myriam C. Ocasio-Arana 

U.S.D.C. No. 228111 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22586 Filed:10/12/22 Entered:10/12/22 14:16:58 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 2
##### 



EXHIBIT 23.2 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM The Board of Directors
MTI Technology Corporation: We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements No.
333-85410 on Form S-3 and the registration statements (Nos. 333-109060,
333-103065, 333-85410, 333-76972, 333-69030, 333-66716, 333-95915, 333-92623,
333-85579, 333-61957, 333-46363, 333-50377, 333-18501, 33-75180 and 33-80438)
on Form S-8 of MTI Technology Corporation of our report dated May 23, 2003,
except as to the second paragraph of note 7, which is as of June 30, 2003,
relating to the consolidated balance sheet of MTI Technology Corporation and
subsidiaries as of April 5, 2003 and the related consolidated statements of
operations, stockholders equity and cash flows for each of the years in the
two-year period ended April 5, 2003, and related schedule, which report appears
in Amendment No. 1 to the April 3, 2004 annual report on Form 10-K/A of MTI
Technology Corporation. Our report refers to a change in the method of
accounting for goodwill and intangible assets effective April 8, 2001. /s/ KPMG LLP Costa Mesa, California
July 13, 2004
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT CORNELIUS TUCKER, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. No. 95-7843 SERGEANT THOMAS; GUARD THISSEN; J. B. FRENCH, Warden; LYNN PHILLIPS; ACCOUNTING CLERK LONG, Defendants-Appellees. CORNELIUS TUCKER, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. No. 95-7855 SERGEANT THOMAS; GUARD THISSEN; J. B. FRENCH, Warden; LYNN PHILLIPS; ACCOUNTING CLERK LONG, Defendants-Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-94-957-5-H) Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 13, 1996 Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.No. 95-7843 dismissed and No. 95-7855 affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Cornelius Tucker, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM:In No. 95-7843, Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his motion for the appointment of counsel and recusal of the district court judge. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdictionbecause the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders. 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss No. 95-7843 as interlocutory. Appellant also appeals from the district court's order dismissing the action pursuant to Appellant's notice of voluntary dismissal, No. 95-7855. We have reviewed the record and the district court's order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Tucker v. Thomas , No. CA-94-957-5-H (E.D.N.C. Oct. 31, 1995). We dispense with oral argument b ecause the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
2materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. No. 95-7843 - DISMISSED No. 95-7855 - AFFIRMED LUTTIG, Circuit Judge, concurring: Appellant has filed 123 appeals in this court between October 22, 1993, and today. I would impose sanctions against Appellant for abuse of the judicial process.
3