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



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Tom Evslin, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1
to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of ITXC Corp.;



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 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 this 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 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: April 27, 2004



|                  |  |                                      
|----------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|                 
|/s/    Tom
Evslin
|                 
|Name:             |  | Tom Evslin                           
|Title:            |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
#### § 29.1522 Auxiliary power unit limitations.

If an auxiliary power unit that meets the requirements of TSO-C77 is installed in the rotorcraft, the limitations established for that auxiliary power unit under the TSO including the categories of operation must be specified as operating limitations for the rotorcraft.

(Secs. 313(a), 601, 603, 604, Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. 1354(a), 1421, 1423), sec. 6(c), Dept. of Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. 1655(c)))

[Amdt. 29-17, 43 FR 50602, Oct. 30, 1978]
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           6,651
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,646,710
<ALLOWANCES>                                   114,614
<INVENTORY>                                     22,205
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,677,171
<PP&E>                                       1,326,378
<DEPRECIATION>                                 203,455
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,645,811
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,424,198
<BONDS>                                      2,153,457
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     9,039,658
<OTHER-SE>                                  (6,202,257)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,645,811
<SALES>                                        962,751
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,436,658
<CGS>                                          879,927
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  879,927
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,767,678
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               125,833
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,303,743
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (6,084,903)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (204,609)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (5,880,294)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (5,976,762)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.38)
        

</TABLE>
§ 152.503 Suspension of grant. ( a ) If the sponsor or planning agency fails to comply with the conditions of the grant, the FAA may, by written notice to the sponsor or planning agency, suspend the grant and withhold further payments pending— ( 1 ) Corrective action by the sponsor or planning agency; or
( 2 ) A decision to terminate the grant.
( b ) Except as provided in paragraph (c), after receipt of notice of suspension, the sponsor or planning agency may not incur additional obligations of grant funds during the suspension.
( c ) All necessary and proper costs that the sponsor or planning agency could not reasonably avoid during the period of suspension will be allowed, if those costs are in accordance with appendix C of this part.
Exhibit 32

                    CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO 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 Playboy  Enterprises,
Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly  period ended September 30, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
Christie Hefner, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Linda G. Havard,
as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted  pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that, to the best of her knowledge:

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

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


/s/ Christie Hefner
-------------------
Name:  Christie Hefner
Title: Chief Executive Officer
Date:  November 8, 2006


/s/ Linda Havard
----------------
Name:  Linda G. Havard
Title: Chief Financial Officer
Date:  November 8, 2006

This   certification   accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  ss.  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of ss.18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A  signed  original  of this  written  statement  required  by ss.  906 has been
provided  to  Playboy  Enterprises,   Inc.  and  will  be  retained  by  Playboy
Enterprises, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA
2022

- NCSC

- 56
No. 535A20 Filed 6 May 2022
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

v. CIERA YVETTE WOODS

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A

- 30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 275 N.C. App. 364, 853 S.E.2d 177 (2020), finding no error in a judgment entered on 10 May 2019 by Judge Karen Eady

- Williams in Superior Court, Mecklenburg County. On 10 August 2021, the Supreme Court allowed defendant’s petition for discretionary review as to additional issues. Heard in the Supreme Court

on 21 March 202 2

.
Joshua H. Stein, Attorney General, by Jessica V. Sutton, Special Deputy Attorney Gene ral, for the State

- appellee. Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender, by Aaron Thomas Johnson , Assistant Appellate Defender, for defendant

- appellant.

PER CURIAM

. AFFIRMED

. Justice BERGER did not participate in the consideration or decision of this

case.
Exhibit 32.1

CONTANGO OIL & GAS COMPANY

CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Contango Oil & Gas Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period
ending September 30, 2009 (the Report), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Kenneth R. Peak, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

Dated: November 9, 2009



|                                                             
|-------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ KENNETH R. PEAK                                          
|Kenneth R. Peak                                              
|Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
#### JESPERSON v STATE OF FLORIDA

Case No. 89-67AC10 (Lower Court Case No. 89-11080MM10)

Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County

October 16, 1991

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Mardi Levey Cohen, Esquire, and Lynn Barrett, Esquire, for appellant.

Lewis Michael, Esquire, Assistant State Attorney, for appellee.

Before FRUSCIANTE, J., Circuit Judge.

OPINION OF THE COURT

THIS CAUSE comes before the court upon the appeal of a conviction entered against appellant, Neil Jesperson. After a jury trial, Mr. Jesperson was convicted of driving under the influence and sentenced *70to twelve months probation and fined $500.00. On appeal, appellant raises two issues, one of which has some validity.

Appellant contends that the prosecutor improperly commented on Mr. Jesperson’s failure to testify. In her closing argument, the prosecutor stated as follows:

> You have to use your common sense and don’t (sic) believe the excuse of not feeling good, being on medication and having an ulcer. These are excuses, he would not talk. The prosecutor’s statement, “he would not talk,” was fairly susceptible of being interpreted as a comment on Mr. Jesperson’s failure to testify. As such, it was a violation of Mr. Jesperson’s fifth amendment guarantee against self incrimination. *See State v DiGuilio,*491 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 1986).

“The harmless error test . . . places the burden on the state ... to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict or, alternatively stated, that there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction.” *Id.*at 1135. The court concludes that the state has met the burden in this case.

Even with the improper statement, the facts in this case leave no reasonable doubt as to the appellant’s guilt. Mr. Jesperson failed more than one of the roadside tests administered by the officer. Additionally, Mr. Jesperson had two elevated readings on the breath test. There was no evidence presented as to the type of denture adhesive Mr. Jesperson used. There was no evidence presented as to the specifics of Mr. Jesperson’s exposure to printing chemicals. Finally, there was no medical evidence presented as to the effects of any medication Mr. Jesperson was using. Thus, the possible effects of these factors does not create a reasonable doubt. Given these facts, the state has shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict.

Accordingly, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

DONE AND ORDERED this 16th day of October, 1991, in chambers, at Broward County, Fort Láuderdale, Florida.
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier:** 2014

- NM

- 0 17

- AD

**Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate t o include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
1 CAUSE NO. 77109

- CV

ARNOLD & ITKIN LLP § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
§

VS. §
§ BRAZORIA COUNTY, TEXAS EJH ENTERPRISES, INC., § MICHAEL HINDS, EDEN HINDS, §

AND DAVID EBENAL § 149TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

DEFENDANT DAVID EBENAL’S

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Defendant David Ebenal desires to appeal and does hereby give Notice of

Appeal to either the First or Fourteenth Court of Appeals from the Nunc Pro Tunc

Order signed by this Court on September 10, 2015

.

Respectfully submitted,

T HE M ICHAEL M. P HILLIPS L AW F IRM P.C.

/s/ Michael M. Phillips

MICHAEL M. PHILLIPS

State Bar No. 15939000

P. O. Box 1030 Angleton, Texas 77516

- 1030
[Tel.] (979) 849

- 4382
[Fax] (979) 849

- 1409 michael@mphillipslaw.com

ATTORNEY FOR DAVID EBENAL Filed for Record

10/8/2015 2:44:14 PM Rhonda Barchak, District Clerk Brazoria County, Texas

77109-CV Kelley Hanson, Deputy ACCEPTED

14-15-00866-CV

FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

10/16/2015 12:41:19 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify a true and c orrect copy of the foregoing instrument has been served on opposing counsel and pro se parties of record by mail, fax, e

- mail and/or
electronic service, addressed as follows:

Kurt B. Arnold

Arnold & Itkin LLP

6009 Memorial Drive

Houston, Texas 77007
[Fax ] (713) 222

- 3850

karnold@arnolditkin.com

e

- service@arnolditkin.com

Eden Hinds (Pro Se) 3010 Longhorn Circle
Manvel, Texas 77578
[Tel.] (205) 901

- 3981 edenhinds@gmail.com mfhinds@gmail.com

Michael Hinds (Pro S e) 3010 Longhorn Circle
Manvel, Texas 77578
[Tel.] (205) 936

- 3839 mfhinds@gmail.com

Dated: October 8 , 2015

/s/ Michael M. Phillips

MICHAEL M. PHILLIPS
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Annual Report of Barrett Business
Services, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, 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) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.



|                        |  |  |  |  |  |                        
|----------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | -----------------------
|                        |  |  | 
|/s/ Michael L. Elich    |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ James D. Miller    
|Michael L. Elich        |  |  |  |  |  | James D. Miller        
|Chief Executive Officer |  |  |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer
|April 1, 2011           |  |  |  |  |  | April 1, 2011          

A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 has been provided to Barrett Business Services, Inc. and will be retained by Barrett Business Services, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
630 A.2d 713

#### ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. Claudius Rogers HALL, Jr.

Misc. (Subtitle BV) No. 34,

Sept. Term, 1993.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Sept. 13, 1993.

ORDER

The Court having considered the joint Petition of the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland and respondent to place the respondent, Claudius Rogers Hall, Jr., on indefinite suspension pending further Order of this Court, it is this 13th day of September, 1993,

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the petition be, and it is hereby, GRANTED and the respondent, Claudius Rogers Hall, Jr., is indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Maryland, effective immediately, and it is further

ORDERED, that the Clerk of this Court shall strike the name of Claudius Rogers Hall, Jr., from the register of attorneys, and pursuant to Maryland Rule BV13, shall certify that fact to the Trustees of the Clients’ Security Trust Fund and the clerks of all judicial tribunals in the State.
§ 29.1125 Exhaust heat exchangers. For reciprocating engine powered rotorcraft the following apply: ( a ) Each exhaust heat exchanger must be constructed and installed to withstand the vibration, inertia, and other loads to which it would be subjected in operation. In addition— ( 1 ) Each exchanger must be suitable for continued operation at high temperatures and resistant to corrosion from exhaust gases;
( 2 ) There must be means for inspecting the critical parts of each exchanger;
( 3 ) Each exchanger must have cooling provisions wherever it is subject to contact with exhaust gases; and
( 4 ) No exhaust heat exchanger or muff may have stagnant areas or liquid traps that would increase the probability of ignition of flammable fluids or vapors that might be present in case of the failure or malfunction of components carrying flammable fluids.
( b ) If an exhaust heat exchanger is used for heating ventilating air used by personnel— ( 1 ) There must be a secondary heat exchanger between the primary exhaust gas heat exchanger and the ventilating air system; or
( 2 ) Other means must be used to prevent harmful contamination of the ventilating air.
[Doc. No. 5084, 29 FR 16150, Dec. 3, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 29-12, 41 FR 55473, Dec. 20, 1976; Amdt. 29-41, 62 FR 46173, Aug. 29, 1997]
#### § 25.491 Taxi, takeoff and landing roll.

Within the range of appropriate ground speeds and approved weights, the airplane structure and landing gear are assumed to be subjected to loads not less than those obtained when the aircraft is operating over the roughest ground that may reasonably be expected in normal operation.

[Amdt. 25-91, 62 FR 40705, July 29, 1997]
§ 323.5 Time for filing notices. ( a ) Except as specified by paragraph (b) of this section, a notice required by § 323.3 shall be filed at least: ( 1 ) 90 days before the intended termination, suspension, or reduction, if it is filed by a certificated carrier or by an uncertificated carrier receiving compensation under 49 U.S.C. 41731-41742 for service to the place;
( 2 ) 30 days before the intended termination, suspension, or reduction, if it is filed by an uncertificated carrier not receiving compensation under section 419 of the Act for service to the place.
( b ) The notice required by § 323.3(a)(3) shall be filed at least 30 days, and the notice required by § 323.3(a)(1) shall be filed at least 60 days, before the intended termination or suspension.
[Doc. No. 82, 50 FR 2430, Jan. 16, 1985, as amended by Doc. No. OST-96-1269, 61 FR 19165, 19166, May 1, 1996]
#### Louis Ciaccia, Appellant, *v.*The Board of Education of the City of New York et al., Respondents.

(Submitted September 28, 1936;

decided October 6, 1936.)

Motion for reargument denied, with ten dollars costs and necessary printing disbursements. (See 271 N. Y. 336.)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1998
<CASH>                                           4,646
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   87,214
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (876)
<INVENTORY>                                    126,803
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                30,306
<PP&E>                                         334,556
<DEPRECIATION>                                (70,509)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 663,639
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          108,201
<BONDS>                                        299,847
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      18,578
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   663,639
<SALES>                                        716,581
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               716,581
<CGS>                                          599,522
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  663,190
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (561)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   147
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              40,659
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 22,879
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,398
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             11,481
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (4,388)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,093
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### LONG v. CITY NATIONAL BANK.

(Decided May 20, 1915.)

Appeal from Morgan Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. D. W. Speake.

No counsel marked for appellant. Wert & Lynne, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

Affirmed on certificate.