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



Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14
UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE
ACT OF 1934




---



##### 



CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION I, Paul Zogas, certify that pursuant to Rule 13a-14 under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Midland Capital
Holdings Corporation;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement
of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of 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
respect 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 officers 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; andc)
    
    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 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 officers 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 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 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 28, 2004 /s/ Paul Zogas
Paul ZogasPresident and Chief ExecutiveOfficer and Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>



                                                                   Exhibit 99.2

                          ANNUAL SERVICER'S CERTIFICATE

                         CHASE MANHATTAN BANK USA, N.A.

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

                       Chase Manhattan Owner Trust 1998-C

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


         The undersigned, a duly authorized representative of Chase Manhattan
Bank USA, N.A. ("Chase USA"), as Servicer pursuant to the Sale and Servicing
Agreement dated as of June 1, 1998 (the "Sale and Servicing Agreement") by and
between Chase USA and Norwest Bank Minnesota, National Association, as trustee
(the "Trustee"), does hereby certify that:

     1.     A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period from
            January 1, 2000 until December 31, 2000 was conducted under my
            supervision.

     2.     Based on such review, the Servicer has, to the best of my knowledge,
            fully performed in all material respects all its obligations, under
            the Sale and Servicing Agreement throughout such period and no
            material default in the performance of such obligations has occurred
            or is continuing except as set forth in paragraph 3 below.

     3.     None.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this certificate
this 26th day of March 2001.

                                      /s/ Keith Schuck
                                      -------------------
                                      Keith Schuck
                                      Vice President
#### STATE OF FLORIDA v SLATER

Case No. CF87-0882

Tenth Judicial Circuit, Polk County

May 28, 1991

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Office of the State Attorney, for plaintiff.

Peter P. Sleasman, Esquire, Florida Institutional Legal Services, Inc., for defendant.

OPINION OF THE COURT

ROBERT E. PYLE, Circuit Judge.

*ORDER VACATING THE DEFENDANTS JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE*

THIS MATTER is before the Court upon receipt of the Defendant’s motion which was filed with the Clerk of the Court on the 15th of November, 1989. The motion was filed by an attorney for the Defendant. The delay in court response was caused by the fact that the Defendant had already filed a pro se motion in this case which the Court entered an order addressing. The clerk’s officer confused the two *147motions and thought the Court’s order answered both. After the error was discovered, the motion and file were forwarded to the judge’s office.

In his motion the Defendant requests that the Court vacate the judgment and sentence entered on its Order of Contempt which was filed on the 19th of August, 1987. The Court found the Defendant to be in willful contempt because of his behavior at a status conference hearing held on the 14th of August, 1987, and sentenced him to 179 days consecutive to his current prison sentence. However, a problem arises because the Defendant’s mental competence had already been called into question as shown by the fact that the Defendant had been examined by three mental health experts prior to the status conference. After a hearing on the 24th of August 1987, the Defendant was ruled not to be competent to stand trial. Since his attorneys failed to present to the Court the question of the Defendant’s mental state at the status conference and never filed a motion for new trial based upon this issue, the Defendant asserts that he was provided ineffective assistance of counsel.

After review of the Defendant’s motion and the case file, the Court finds that the Defendant was incompetent at the time of his status conference and since his attorneys failed properly to present this issue to the Court, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Court Order of Contempt dated the 19th of August 1987, in which the Defendant was Adjudged to be in willful contempt and was sentenced to 179 days is vacated.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Bartow, Polk County, Florida, this 28th day of May, 1991.
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 442 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to postpone the effective date of 

high-impact rules pending judicial review. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 12, 2019 

Mr. SULLIVAN (for himself and Mr. LANKFORD) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to postpone the 

effective date of high-impact rules pending judicial review. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Require Evaluation 

5 before Implementing Executive Wishlists Act of 2019’’ or 

6 the ‘‘REVIEW Act of 2019’’. 

7 SEC. 2. RELIEF PENDING REVIEW. 

8 Section 705 of title 5, United States Code, is amend9 ed— 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 442 IS

1 (1) by striking ‘‘When’’ and inserting the fol2 lowing: 

3 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—When’’; and 

4 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

5 ‘‘(b) HIGH-IMPACT RULES.— 

6 ‘‘(1) DEFINITIONS.—In this subsection— 

7 ‘‘(A) the term ‘Administrator’ means the 

8 Administrator of the Office of Information and 

9 Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management 

10 and Budget; and 

11 ‘‘(B) the term ‘high-impact rule’ means 

12 any rule that the Administrator determines may 

13 impose an annual cost on the economy of not 

14 less than $1,000,000,000. 

15 ‘‘(2) IDENTIFICATION.—A final rule may not be 

16 published or take effect until— 

17 ‘‘(A) the agency making the rule submits 

18 the rule to the Administrator; and 

19 ‘‘(B) the Administrator makes a deter20 mination as to whether the rule is a high-im21 pact rule, which shall be published by the agen22 cy with the final rule. 

23 ‘‘(3) RELIEF.— 

24 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in 

25 subparagraph (B), an agency shall postpone the 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 442 IS

1 effective date of a high-impact rule of the agen2 cy until the final disposition of all actions seek3 ing judicial review of the rule. 

4 ‘‘(B) FAILURE TO TIMELY SEEK JUDICIAL

5 REVIEW.—Notwithstanding section 553(d), if 

6 no person seeks judicial review of a high-impact 

7 rule— 

8 ‘‘(i) during any period explicitly pro9 vided for judicial review under the statute 

10 authorizing the making of the rule; or 

11 ‘‘(ii) if no such period is explicitly pro12 vided for, during the 60-day period begin13 ning on the date on which the high-impact 

14 rule is published in the Federal Register, 

15 the high-impact rule may take effect as early as 

16 the date on which the applicable period ends. 

17 ‘‘(4) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in 

18 this subsection may be construed to impose any limi19 tation under law on any court against the issuance 

20 of any order enjoining the implementation of any 

21 rule.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3914-1 Filed:09/10/18 Entered:09/10/18 17:30:31 Desc:

Exhibit Lift Stay Protocol Notice Page 1 of 10
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3914-1 Filed:09/10/18 Entered:09/10/18 17:30:31 Desc:

Exhibit Lift Stay Protocol Notice Page 2 of 10
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3914-1 Filed:09/10/18 Entered:09/10/18 17:30:31 Desc:

Exhibit Lift Stay Protocol Notice Page 3 of 10
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3914-1 Filed:09/10/18 Entered:09/10/18 17:30:31 Desc:

Exhibit Lift Stay Protocol Notice Page 4 of 10
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3914-1 Filed:09/10/18 Entered:09/10/18 17:30:31 Desc:

Exhibit Lift Stay Protocol Notice Page 5 of 10
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3914-1 Filed:09/10/18 Entered:09/10/18 17:30:31 Desc:

Exhibit Lift Stay Protocol Notice Page 6 of 10
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3914-1 Filed:09/10/18 Entered:09/10/18 17:30:31 Desc:

Exhibit Lift Stay Protocol Notice Page 7 of 10
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3914-1 Filed:09/10/18 Entered:09/10/18 17:30:31 Desc:

Exhibit Lift Stay Protocol Notice Page 8 of 10
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3914-1 Filed:09/10/18 Entered:09/10/18 17:30:31 Desc:

Exhibit Lift Stay Protocol Notice Page 9 of 10
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3914-1 Filed:09/10/18 Entered:09/10/18 17:30:31 Desc:

Exhibit Lift Stay Protocol Notice Page 10 of 10
EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Jitu Banker, Chief Financial Officer of Gateway International Holdings, Inc.,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for
the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2003, fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
78o(d)) and that  information  contained in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB
for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2003,  fairly  presents,  in all material
respects,   the  financial  condition  and  results  of  operations  of  Gateway
International Holdings, Inc.


By:    /s/ Jitu Banker
       -----------------------------
Name:  Jitu Banker
Title: Chief Financial Officer
Date:  August 12, 2005

                                       59
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 10.5

                              AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE

         This AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE (hereinafter the "Amendment") is made and
entered into as of this 28th day of February 2003, by and between REPUBLIC
SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation, (hereinafter the "Company") and MICHAEL
CORDESMAN, a Florida Resident (hereinafter the "Employee"):

                                    RECITALS

         WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee have heretofore entered into a
certain Employment Agreement dated as of January 31, 2003 ("Employment
Agreement"; terms defined therein being used herein as therein defined); and

         WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee wish to make amendments to the
Employment Agreement as set forth below;

         A.       For all purposes therein, Section 2, clause (a) of the
Employment Agreement is hereby deleted, in its entirety, and replaced with the
following:

         2.       Compensation.

                  (a)      BASE SALARY. In consideration for the Employee's
services hereunder and the restrictive covenants contained herein, the Employee
shall be paid (i) an annual base salary of $360,000 commencing on February 28,
2003 and continuing until July 31, 2003, and (ii) an annual base salary of
$425,000 commencing on August 1, 2003 and continuing until February 29, 2004.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Employee's Base Salary may be increased at
anytime and from time to time to levels greater than the level set forth in the
preceding sentence at the discretion of the Board of Directors of the Company
to reflect merit or other increases. The Employee's Base Salary for any period
following February 29, 2004 shall remain at $425,000 unless the Board of
Directors expressly provides otherwise.

         B.       All other provisions or terms of the Employment Agreement are
hereby ratified and confirmed.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and the Employee have executed this
Amendment effective as of the date first written above.


                                    REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC., a Delaware
                                    corporation


                                    By: /s/ James E. O'Connor
                                       ----------------------------------------

                                    Its: Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
                                        ---------------------------------------

                                    EMPLOYEE:

                                    /s/ Michael Cordesman
                                    -------------------------------------------
                                    MICHAEL CORDESMAN
The Honorable Joseph H. Rodriguez, Senior United States District Judge for the District *

of New Jersey, sitting by designation.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

March 25, 2010

No. 09-2312

SINGLE EMPLOYER WELFARE BENEFIT PLAN TRUST,

 Appellant

v.

DATALINK ELECTRONICS, INC; YOSSI LEV;

DAVID R. NESTE; GENERAL AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE 

COMPANY; SIMON SINGER; JEFFREY L. DAVIDSON

(E.D. Pa No. 2-09-cv-00377)

Present: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges, and RODRIGUEZ , District Judge. *

Motion by Appellees for Clarification of the Opinion of the Court

of March 24, 2010.

 /s/Caitlyn J. Gillie 

Case Manager (267)299-4956

Response due 04/05/10

 O R D E R 

The foregoing motion by appellees for clarification of the opinion of the Court of March 24, 2010,

construed by the Court as a motion to amend the Court’s opinion, is granted. The Opinion of the Court

filed March 24, 2010, is amended as follows:

Page 2, line 18, first sentence that reads:

“The Trust is a multiple employer welfare benefit plan trust administered in

Pennsylvania to fund death benefits to employers throughout the United

States.”

shall read:

“The Complaint also alleges that the Trust is a multiple employer welfare

benefit plan trust administered in Pennsylvania to fund death benefits to

employers throughout the United States.”

By the Court,

/s/ Joseph H. Rodriguez 

District Judge

DATED: April 19, 2010
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

TRUE RAILROAD ASSOCIATES, L.P.,

Petitioner

v.

AMES TRUE TEMPER, INC.,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 30 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

TRUE RAILROAD ASSOCIATES, L.P.,

Petitioner

v.

AMES TRUE TEMPER, INC.,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 31 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

TRUE RAILROAD ASSOCIATES, L.P.,

Petitioner

v.

AMES TRUE TEMPER, INC.,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 32 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

TRUE RAILROAD ASSOCIATES, L.P.,

Petitioner

v.

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 33 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court
[30 MAL 2017, 31 MAL 2017, 32 MAL 2017, 33 MAL 2017 and 34 MAL 2017] - 2

AMES TRUE TEMPER, INC.,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

TRUE RAILROAD ASSOCIATES, L.P.,

Petitioner

v.

AMES TRUE TEMPER, INC.,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 34 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 23rd day of May, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.

Justice Wecht did not participate in the consideration or decision in this matter.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MIDDLE DISTRICT

BRENTT SHERWOOD

,

Appe llant

v.

PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTM ENT OF CORRECTIONS; JOHN E. WETZEL; BRUCE BEEMER; ROBERT GILMORE; KAREN PATTERSON; TIF FANY PAULEY; JOAN KENNEDY ; J. CARTER; THERON R. PEREZ; DOR INA VARNER; KERI MOORE; JUSTIN DUNKELBERGER; JAMIE SALESKI; SARAH SNYDER; TRACY SHAWLEY; CRYSTAL GREENAWALT; LESLIE WYNN; MINDY ANDREETT I; JOHN/JANE DOE (1

- 99)

,

Appell ee s :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 61 MAP 2020

Notice of Appeal from the Or der of
Commonwealth Court dated 9/9/2020 at
No. 767 MD 2018

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 4th day of January , 202 1

, the Notice of Appeal is QUASHED

,

w ithout prejudice to Appellant’s ability to raise the claims therein on appeal from a final

order of the Commonwealth Court. See United States Orgs. for Bank. Alts., Inc. v. Dep't

of Banking , 611 Pa. 370, 26 A.3d 474 (Pa. 2011).
§ 298.24 Cancellation of the registration. The registration of an air taxi operator may be canceled by the Department if any of the following occur: ( a ) The operator ceases its operations;
( b ) The operator's insurance coverage changes or lapses;
( c ) The operator fails to file an amended registration when required by § 298.23;
( d ) The operator's Air Carrier Certificate and/or Operations Specifications is revoked by the Federal Aviation Administration;
( e ) The operator fails to qualify as a citizen of the United States;
( f ) The Department determines that it is otherwise in the public interest to do so.
Editorial Note on Part 21
Editorial Notes: 1. For miscellaneous amendments to cross references in this 21 see Amdt. 21-10, 31 FR 9211, July 6, 1966. 2. Nomenclature changes to part 21 appear at 74 FR 53384, Oct. 16, 2009.

§ 21.303 Application. ( a ) The applicant for a PMA must apply in a form and manner prescribed by the FAA, and include the following: ( 1 ) The identity of the product on which the article is to be installed.
( 2 ) The name and address of the manufacturing facilities at which these articles are to be manufactured.
( 3 ) The design of the article, which consists of— ( i ) Drawings and specifications necessary to show the configuration of the article; and
( ii ) Information on dimensions, materials, and processes necessary to define the structural strength of the article.
( 4 ) Test reports and computations necessary to show that the design of the article meets the airworthiness requirements of this subchapter. The test reports and computations must be applicable to the product on which the article is to be installed, unless the applicant shows that the design of the article is identical to the design of a article that is covered under a type certificate. If the design of the article was obtained by a licensing agreement, the applicant must provide evidence of that agreement.
( 5 ) An applicant for a PMA based on test reports and computations must provide a statement certifying that the applicant has complied with the airworthiness requirements of this subchapter.
( b ) Each applicant for a PMA must make all inspections and tests necessary to determine— ( 1 ) Compliance with the applicable airworthiness requirements;
( 2 ) That materials conform to the specifications in the design;
( 3 ) That the article conforms to its approved design; and
( 4 ) That the manufacturing processes, construction, and assembly conform to those specified in the design.
#### Cole *v.*The State.

Violating Prohibition Law.

(Decided April 18, 1916.

71 South. 616.)

1. Indictment and Information; Proof; Variance. — Where the complaint charged an unlawful sale of prohibited liquors, a conviction may be had for either selling or acting as agent or assisting friend of the seller or buyer in procuring an unlawful sale.

2. Intoxicating Liquors; Directing Verdict. — The evidence in this case examined and held to warrant affirmative instructions of defendant’s guilt, the defendant offering no evidence.

3. Trial; Argument of Counsel; Waiver. — It was not error for the court to decline to allow counsel to argue a case where the court first sought to ascertain if they desired to argue the case, and counsel stated that they did not care to do so, whereupon the court directed the jury to find defendant guilty, and counsel then sought to argue the case.

Appeal from Walker Law and Equity Court.

Heard before Hon. T. L. Sowell.

Bird Cole was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

Leith & Gunn, for appellant. W. L. Martin, Attorney General, and P. W. Turner, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

PELHAM, P. J.

Appellant was tried and convicted upon a complaint charging that he sold, offered for sale, kept for sale, or otherwise disposed of prohibited liquors and beverages. The complaint is in the form prescribed by the statute.

(1, 2) The evidence, without conflict, authorized the inference that the defendant either sold prohibited liquors or acted as agent or assisting friend of the seller or buyer in procuring an unlawful sale. A conviction for either offense may be had *72under a complaint for unlawful *selling.*—Bush *v. State,*12 Ala. App. 260, 67 South. 847; *Arrington v. State,*13 Ala. App. 359, 69 South. 385. The defendant introduced no evidence, and the court gave the general charge for the state. In this there was no error, as the only inference to be drawn from the evidence introduced by the state was that of the guilt of the defendant of the offense charged.

(3) At the conclusion of the evidence, the court asked counsel if they wished to argue the case to the jury, and each replied that he did not. After this, the court, upon the written request of the state, gave the general charge. Thereupon the defendant asked leave to argue the case to the jury, and the court declined to allow any argument. The defendant had affirmatively waived his right to argument, and the court may not be put in error for acting upon defendant’s waiver.—38 Cyc. 1471.

Affirmed.