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

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a)**

**OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Brian P. McAndrews, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q ofaQuantive, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterlyreport 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 periodcovered by this quarterly report; 

 

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

 

4. The registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have: 

 

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

 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting. 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction): 

 

a) All significant deficiencies ormaterial weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability 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’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: November 13, 2003
#### § 203.2 Applicability.

This part applies to all direct U.S. and foreign direct air carriers, except for air taxi operators as defined in part 298 of this chapter that (a) are not commuter air carriers, (b) do not participate in interline agreements, and (c) do not engage in foreign air transportation.
Certification
by Chief Executive Officer
 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 Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q of Capital Bank Corporation (the “Company”) for the period endedMarch 31, 2009as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, B. Grant Yarber,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, to my knowledge that:
 
 The Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended; and
 
 The information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.
 
 
 /s/B. Grant
      Yarber
 B. Grant Yarber
 President and Chief Executive
Officer
 May 8, 2009
 
 This Certification is being furnished
solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed “filed” by the Company
for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
and shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, whether made before or after the date of this Report, irrespective
of any general incorporation language contained in such
filing.
 
 A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
#### GEORGE E. GOLDING v. UNITED STATES

[78 C.Cls. 682; 292 U.S. 643]

Petition for writ of certiorari *denied*by the Supreme Court May 14, 1934.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

JORGE MOLINA-MADRID, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 18-50069 

D.C. No. 3:17-cr-01965-JLS

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Janis L. Sammartino, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 22, 2018**

Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

Jorge Molina-Madrid appeals from the district court’s judgment and 

challenges the three-year term of supervised release and a special condition

imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted reentry of a removed 

alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

OCT 29 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-50069

§ 1291, and we affirm but remand to correct the judgment.

Molina-Madrid contends that the district court procedurally erred by 

imposing a three-year term of supervised release without calculating the supervised 

release Guidelines range and by insufficiently explaining its decision to impose the 

statutory maximum term of supervision on a deportable alien. We review for plain 

error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 

2010), and conclude that there is none. The government asked for a three-year 

term as “an added measure of deterrence” in light of Molina-Madrid’s immigration 

history and the court expressed similar concerns about the need to deter MolinaMadrid from returning. On this record, we conclude that the court would have 

imposed the same three-year term even absent the alleged errors. See U.S.S.G. 

§ 5D1.1 cmt. n.5; United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir. 2008).

Molina-Madrid next contends that the written judgment conflicts with the 

district court’s oral pronouncement of sentence. Because the written special 

condition contains two restrictions that were not pronounced orally, we remand to 

the district court with instructions that it strike the following portion of the special 

condition: “If deported, excluded or allowed to voluntary [sic] return to country of 

origin, not reenter the United States illegally and report to the probation officer 

within 24 hours of any reentry into the United States.” See United States v. Jones, 

696 F.3d 932, 937-38 (9th Cir. 2012).

AFFIRMED; REMANDED to correct the judgment.
Exhibit 31.1

                              CERTIFICATIONS

I, N. Edward Berg, President-CEO of Micro Interconnect Technology, Inc.,
certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB\A of Micro
Interconnect Technology, Inc.;

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 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. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant
and have:

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

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

     c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the
case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting; and;

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

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

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


Date:  September 23, 2003       By: /s/ N. Edward Berg
                                ---------------------------
                                N. Edward Berg
                                President and Chief Executive Officer
                                (principal executive and financial officer)
#### W. H. Faulk, *Plaintiff in*Error, v. C. W. Richardson, *Defendant in Error.*

"When A contracts with B to purchase from the latter an automobile at the factory in Michigan to be delivered in Florida, but befóré the car is shipped notifies B to cancel the order, he *136is not liable for the difference between the contract price and what B sold the car for in Florida, in the absence of notice of the sale or that B refused to cancel the order.

Writ of error to the Circuit Court for Santa Eosa County.

The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

*Goolc*& *McRae,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*Laird*& *McGeachy,*for Defendant in Error.

Cockrell, J.

— Faulk agreed to purchase through Eichardson an automobile from the factory at Lansing, Mich., to be delivered at Pensacola. The contract is alleged to have been an oral one, evidenced by certain correspom dence. On April 30, 1910, Faulk, who lived at Chipley', Fla., telegraphed to Eichardson at Milton, Fla., to “wire order in for Four Cylinder Car complete, check to follow,” and on the same date wrote enclosing a check for oné hundred dollars, as the first payment and directing that the contract be filled out as agreed upon and sent him for signature; also that he be posted as to when to expect the car. Five days thereafter Faulk writes “I wired you in ample time to cancel order. .1 also wrote you a day or so ago before getting your letter. I am enclosing the contract unsigned.” Payment on the check was stopped.

We are not advised what reply if any was made by Eichardson to this letter of May 5th, but at some timé he sold the car in Pensacola for $315 less than the contract price, but at “the highest price obtainable in the market,” and in this action recovered judgment for $300.

The declaration does not measure the damages by the *137difference between the contract and the market price, but it is measured by the difference betwéen contract price and the sale price of this machine in Pensacola. It is not denied that Richardson was notified, as asserted in Faulk’s letter of May 5, made part of the declaration, “in ample time to cancel the order” before the car left the shops in Michigan, nor does it appear that Faulk was ever advised that the car had left the shops until this action was brought. Richardson upon- his own showing owed some duty to Faulk to keep him advised of the status, and cannot be permitted to pile up the damages against one whom he had kept in the dark. See Benjamin on sale p. 807. 1

For aught that appears the prompt cancellation of the order at the time Richardson was notified would have entailed but nominal loss to either party, and we have no proper basis on this record for allowing a substantial recovery.

Judgment reversed.

Whitfield, C. J., and Taylor, Shackleford and Hocker, J. J., concur.
§ 29.779 Motion and effect of cockpit controls. Cockpit controls must be designed so that they operate in accordance with the following movements and actuation: ( a ) Flight controls, including the collective pitch control, must operate with a sense of motion which corresponds to the effect on the rotorcraft.
( b ) Twist-grip engine power controls must be designed so that, for lefthand operation, the motion of the pilot's hand is clockwise to increase power when the hand is viewed from the edge containing the index finger. Other engine power controls, excluding the collective control, must operate with a forward motion to increase power.
( c ) Normal landing gear controls must operate downward to extend the landing gear.
[Amdt. 29-24, 49 FR 44437, Nov. 6, 1984]
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



In connection with the Annual Report of Hudson Respiratory Care Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Periodic Report), I, Charles A. French, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, to my knowledge, that:



| | 1. | The Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Charles A. FrenchCharles A. French President and Chief Executive Officer March 16, 2004
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-50040

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JESUS LECHUGA-GUERRERO, also known as Jesus Guerrero-Lechuga,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:14-CR-622-1

Before JONES, SOUTHWICK, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jesus LechugaGuerrero has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Lechuga-Guerrero has not filed a response. We have 

reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected 

therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 15, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-50040 Document: 00513308665 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/15/2015
No. 15-50040

2

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave 

to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 15-50040 Document: 00513308665 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/15/2015
§ 29.87 Height-velocity envelope. ( a ) If there is any combination of height and forward velocity (including hover) under which a safe landing cannot be made after failure of the critical engine and with the remaining engines (where applicable) operating within approved limits, a height-velocity envelope must be established for— ( 1 ) All combinations of pressure altitude and ambient temperature for which takeoff and landing are approved; and
( 2 ) Weight from the maximum weight (at sea level) to the highest weight approved for takeoff and landing at each altitude. For helicopters, this weight need not exceed the highest weight allowing hovering out-of-ground effect at each altitude.
( b ) For single-engine or multiengine rotorcraft that do not meet the Category A engine isolation requirements, the height-velocity envelope for complete power failure must be established.
[Doc. No. 24802, 61 FR 21901, May 10, 1996; 61 FR 33963, July 1, 1996]
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Daniel J. Forbush, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1)

the Annual Report on Form 10-K of General Metals Corporation for the year ended April 30, 2009 (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 General Metals Corporation.



|                       |  |                                                                |  | 
|---------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|Dated: August 13, 2009 |  |                                                               
|                       |  |                                                               
|                       |  |                                                               
|                       |  | /s/ Daniel J. Forbush                                          | 
|                       |  | Daniel J. Forbush                                             
|                       |  | Chief Financial Officer and Director                          
|                       |  | (Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
|                       |  | General Metals Corporation                                    





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to General Metals Corporation and will be retained by General Metals Corporation. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





{WLMLAW W0029104.DOC}
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

§

JERRY REED, §

§ No. 302 , 202 2

Defendant

- Below, Appellant, §

§ Court Below: Superior Court

v. § of the State of Delaware

§

STATE OF DELAWARE, §

§ ID No. 1809015387 (S)

Appellee. §

§

Submitted: March 15 , 202 3

Decided: April 17 , 202 3

Before SEITZ , Chief Justice; VALIHURA

, VAUGHN

, TRAYNOR

, Justices and

NEWELL

, Chief Judge , constituting the Court en Banc

. 1

O R D E R

This 17th day of April 2023, ha ving considered this matter on the briefs and oral

arguments of the parties and the record below, and having concluded that the same should

be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons assigned by the Superior Court in its

Memorandum Opinion and Order d ated July 27, 2022;

NOW THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED that the decision and judgment of the

Superior Court be and the same hereby is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura

Justice

1 Sitting by designation pursuant to Del. Const. Art. IV §§ 12 and 38 and Supreme Court Rules 2

and 4(a) to fill the quorum as required.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-11108 Summary Calendar

JAMES W. GREEN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus JOHN HSU, Trustee, ET AL., Defendants, TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY; COMMERCIAL CREDIT CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:91-CV-2726-T

- - - - - - - - - - June 10, 1998 Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * James W. Green appeals from the dismissal of his suit brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) following remand. We have reviewed each issue he has properly raised. The district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants with respect to Green’s claimNo. 96-11108 - 2 -

2 under § 502(a)(1)(B) of ERISA. See Duhon v. Texaco, Inc. , 15 F.3d 1302, 1305 (5th Cir. 1994). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Green’s recusal motions. See Liteky v. United States , 510 U.S. 540, 554-56 (1994). The “law of the case” precludes the reexamination of Green’s § 510 claim under ERISA. Green’s other issues are beyond the scope of remand and are not addressed. See Burroughs v. FFP Operating Partners , 70 F.3d 31, 33 (5th Cir. 1996). The judgment is AFFIRMED. All outstanding motions are
DENIED.
#### § 27.1529 Instructions for Continued Airworthiness.

The applicant must prepare Instructions for Continued Airworthiness in accordance with appendix A to this part that are acceptable to the Administrator. The instructions may be incomplete at type certification if a program exists to ensure their completion prior to delivery of the first rotorcraft or issuance of a standard certificate of airworthiness, whichever occurs later.

[Amdt. 27-18, 45 FR 60177, Sept. 11, 1980]