alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1
CERTIFICATION UNDERSECTION 302OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
I, Raymond Eshaghian, the Chief ExecutiveOfficer of TMSF Holdings, Inc.,certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this annualreport on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 of TMSF Holdings,Inc. 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report; 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining 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, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared; 

     b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and
     c. disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial 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 materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): 

     a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation ; and 

     b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

/s/ Raymond Eshaghian   Raymond Eshaghian Chief Executive Officer May 2, 2007
§ 155.5060 Exercises. ( a ) For nontank vessels with an oil capacity of 250 barrels or greater— ( 1 ) A vessel owner or operator required by § 155.5035 to have a vessel response plan (VRP) must conduct exercises as necessary to ensure that the VRP will function in an emergency. Vessel owners or operators must include both announced and unannounced exercises; and
( 2 ) A vessel owner or operator must comply with the VRP exercise requirements of 33 CFR 155.1060.
( b ) For nontank vessels with an oil capacity of less than 250 barrels, a vessel owner or operator must comply with the VRP exercise requirements of paragraph (a) of this section or the Alternative Training and Exercise Program requirements of § 155.5061.
**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**





In
      connection with the accompanying Annual Report of BSI2000, Inc. (the “Company”)
      on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the
      United States Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below,
      hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his
      knowledge:




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.







Date:September
                1, 2005
            **BSI2000,
                INC.**By:*/s/
                Jack Harper*Name:Jack
                HarperTitle:
                Principal Accounting Officer





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authentications, 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 BSI2000, Inc. and will be retained by
      BSI2000, Inc. and furnished to the United States Securities and Exchange
      Commission or its staff upon request.
Editorial Note on Part 117
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear by USCG-1998-3799, 63 FR 35529, June 30, 1998.

§ 117.791 Hudson River. ( a ) The draws of the bridges listed in this section shall open as soon as possible at any time for the passage of the following vessels: ( 1 ) Downbound vessels during a freshet of a height exceeding an elevation determined by the District Commander.
( 2 ) Public vessels of the United States.
( 3 ) Vessels of 500 tons or more.
( 4 ) Tugs with a tow on a hawser.
( b ) The draws of the bridges listed in this section shall not remain open for more than 15 minutes and may remain closed for up to 10 minutes to allow accumulated land traffic to pass.
( c ) The draw of the Livingston Ave. (Amtrak) Bridge, mile 146.2 between Albany and Rensselaer, shall open on signal; except that, from April 1 through December 15, from 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., the draw shall open on signal if at least 4 hours notice is given and from December 16 through March 31, the draw shall open on signal if at least 24 hours notice is given.
( d ) The draw of the Troy-Menands Bridge, mile 150.2 between Troy and Menands, need not be opened for the passage of vessels.
( e ) The draw of the Troy-Green Bridge, mile 152.7, between Troy and Green Island, operates as follows: ( 1 ) From April 1 through December 15 the draw shall open on signal if at least a twenty four hour advance notice is given by calling the number posted at the bridge.
( 2 ) From December 16 through March 31, the draw need not open for the passage of vessel traffic.
[CGD 82-025, 49 FR 17452, Apr. 24, 1984, as amended by CGD3 85-42, 49 FR 43462, Oct. 29, 1984, 50 FR 26713, June 28, 1985; USCG-1999-5832, 64 FR 34712, June 29, 1999; USCG-2001-10881, 71 FR 70312, Dec. 4, 2006; USCG-2013-0257, 78 FR 56609, Sept. 13, 2013; USCG-2017-0926, 83 FR 66623, Dec. 27, 2018; USCG-2018-0874, 84 FR 30879, June 28, 2019; USCG-2020-0304, 85 FR 58278, Sept. 18, 2020]
On petitioner’s objection to respondent’s revised order on reconsideration filed July 30,

objection sustained; order on reconsideration vacated; judicial review to proceed on May 21 order as decided December 16, 1992

#### JAMES SCOTT, *Petitioner, v.*OREGON STATE PENITENTIARY, CORRECTIONS DEPARTMENT, *Respondent.*

(03-92-046; CA A75421)

843 P2d 512

James Scott, Salem, *pro se.*

Before Rossman, Presiding Judge, and Joseph, Chief Judge, and Riggs, Judge.

*183JOSEPH, C. J.

*184JOSEPH, C. J.

On June 17, 1992, petitioner filed a petition for judicial review of a disciplinary order issued on May 21,1992. On July 17, 1992, while judicial review was pending and without withdrawing the May 21 order, respondent reopened the hearing; it issued an order on reconsideration on July 21, 1992. Petitioner timely filed an amended petition for judicial review from the order on reconsideration.

Petitioner has moved this court to vacate respondent’s order on reconsideration and to allow judicial review to proceed on the original order, on the ground that respondent, while judicial review was pending, lacked authority to reopen the hearing and issue a new order without first withdrawing the original order. *See Evans v. OSP,*93 Or App 18, 760 P2d 894 (1988).

 Although respondent argues that *Evans*was impliedly overruled when the court adopted ORAP 4.35(3), which replaced *former*ORAP 5.35, on which *Evans*relied, it is mistaken. ORAP 4.35(3) provides:

> “Regardless [of] whether an order first has been withdrawn for the purpose of reconsideration under subsections (l)(a) or (b), if an agency issues an order on reconsideration, the Attorney General shall file a copy of the order on reconsideration with the Administrator. The order shall be filed within 7 days after the agency issues the order on reconsideration.”

That is the procedure that an agency must follow in the Court of Appeals when it issues an order on reconsideration while judicial review is pending from the original order. Its purpose is to keep the court informed of the agency’s activities; it does not authorize an agency to issue a valid order on reconsideration without first withdrawing the original order. Because respondent did not do that, we vacate the order on reconsideration and allow judicial review to proceed on the May 21, 1992, order.

Objection sustained; order on reconsideration vacated; judicial review to proceed on the May 21,1992, order.
§ 156.160 Supervision by person in charge. ( a ) No person may connect or disconnect a hose, top off a tank, or engage in any other critical procedures during the transfer operation unless the person in charge, required by § 156.120(s), supervises that procedure.
( b ) No person may start the flow of oil or hazardous material to or from a vessel unless instructed to do so by either person in charge.
( c ) No person may transfer oil or hazardous material to or from a vessel unless each person in charge is in the immediate vicinity and immediately available to the transfer personnel.
[CGD 75-124, 45 FR 7177, Jan. 31, 1980, as amended by CGD 86-034, 55 FR 36256, Sept. 4, 1990]
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

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of SUTTER HOLDING COMPANY,
INC. (the "Company") for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), and
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, William G. Knuff, III, Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, hereby certify 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 result of operations of the Company.





/s/ WILLIAM G. KNUFF, III
--------------------------------------
William G. Knuff, III,
Chief Financial Officer of
Sutter Holding Company, Inc.

April 13, 2004
Editorial Note on Part 165
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 165 appear by USCG-2006-25556, 72 FR 36328, 36329, July 2, 2007 and by USCG-2018-1049, 84 FR 7813, Mar. 5, 2019.

§ 165.817 Arkansas River, Mile 118.2 to 125.4, Little Rock Arkansas—regulated navigation area. ( a ) Location. The following is a regulated navigation area (RNA): The waters of the Arkansas River between mile 118.2 and mile 125.4.
( b ) Regulations. Transit of the RNA is limited during periods of high velocity flow, defined as the flow rate of 70,000 cubic feet per second or more at the Murray Lock and Dam at mile 125.4. The flow rate at this location is calculated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on a regular and routine basis. This information will be distributed by announcements by Coast Guard Marine Information Broadcasts, publication in Coast Guard Local Notice to Mariners, and telephone or radio contact with the Lockmaster at Murray Lock and Dam.
( c ) Transit of the RNA during periods of high velocity flow may only occur under the following conditions: ( 1 ) Vessels may not meet or pass in the RNA.
( 2 ) No vessel shall anchor, stop, remain or drift without power at any time in the RNA.
( 3 ) All vessels shall continually monitor VHF-FM channel 13 on their radiotelephone while in or approaching the RNA.
( 4 ) Prior to entering the RNA, downbound vessels shall make a broadcast in the blind on VHF-FM channel 13 announcing their estimated time of departure from Murray Lock and Dam or from the mooring cells at mile 121.5 to ensure there are no upbound vessels within the RNA. If there is upbound traffic within the RNA, the downbound vessel shall not depart until the upbound vessel has passed through the RNA. After departing, vessels will proceed through the RNA, including all drawbridges located therein, without delay.
( 5 ) When upbound vessels reach mile 116, they shall make a broadcast in the blind on VHF-FM channel 13 announcing their estimated arrival time at the Rock Island Railroad Bridge at mile 118.2.
( 6 ) When a downbound vessel is already in the RNA, an upbound vessel shall adjust its speed so as to avoid a meeting situation in the RNA.
( d ) Refer to 33 CFR 117.123 for drawbridge operation regulations.
[CGD2-90-04, 57 FR 22176, May 27, 1992. Redesignated by CGD 96-026, 61 FR 33669, June 28, 1996]
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

MARSHAY LAVON RAINEY
, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 16

- 4114

[ February 1, 2018 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Glenn Kelley , Judge; L.T. Case No. 2013CF011801AWB

.

Antony P. Ryan, Director, Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, West Palm Beach, and Paul O'Neil, Assistant Regional Counsel, West Palm Beach, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach , for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Luke R. Napodano, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ERBER
, C.J., T AYLOR and C ONNER

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Order entered February 15, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 13
- 00026
- CR
JOHN MICHAEL SATTERW HITE, Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 422nd Judicial District Court Kaufman County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 30137
- 422 

### O RDER
The Court GRANTS appellant’s February 11, 2013 motion to substitute counsel. Dennis Jones is substituted for Joseph Russell as appellant’s counsel of record.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send all correspondence to Denni s Jones, 201 W. Mulberry, Kaufman, Texas 75142; telephone: (972) 962

- 8800; facsimile: (972) 962

- 3733.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
February 25 , 2015

Mr. David W. Mansen 10736 Vista Heights Blvd. Fort Worth, TX 76180

Dear Mr. Mansen :

This is in response to your September 29 , 2014, letter sent to the docket (No. FAA

- 2014

- 0830 ) petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of RD Group for an exemption from part 21; §§ 45.23(b), 61.113(a) and (b), 91.7(a), 91.9(b)(2), 91.103, 91.109, 91.119, 91.121, 91.151(a), 91.203(a) and (b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2), and 91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Feder al Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would allow RD Group to c ommercially operate its small unmanned aircraft systems (sUAS) to perform aerial photography and inspection services.

By email dated January 26

, 201 5 , which posted to the docke t on January 28 , the FAA sent you a request for additional information asking you (in part) to:

• Describe the aircraft make(s) and model(s) for the proposed UAS operation. The description(s) should include the following: size, maximum weight (including p ayload), and

aircraft type (i.e.

- fixed

- win g,rotorcraft, lighter

- than

- air).

To date, the FAA has not received the required information to continue processing your petition. Because your petition lacks sufficient information to proceed, the FAA has close d

your exemption request. Should you wish to provide the additional information, please

resubmit your petition for exemption to the public docket.

Sincerely,

/s/ Brenda D. Courtney Acting Director, Office of Rulemaking
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of SUTTER HOLDING COMPANY,
INC. (the "Company") for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), and
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Robert E. Dixon, Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, hereby certify 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 result of operations of the Company.




/s/ ROBERT E. DIXON
--------------------------------------
Robert E. Dixon
Chief Executive Officer of
Sutter Holding Company, Inc.

April 13, 2004
§ 155.760 Amendment of transfer procedures. ( a ) The COTP or OCMI may require the vessel operator of any vessel that is required to have transfer procedures under § 155.720 to amend those procedures if the COTP or OCMI finds that the transfer procedures do not meet the requirements of this part.
( b ) The COTP or OCMI shall notify the vessel operator in writing of any inadequacies in the oil transfer procedures. The vessel operator may submit written information, views, and arguments on and proposals for amending the procedures within 14 days from the date of the COTP or OCMI notice. After considering all relevant material presented, the COTP or OCMI shall notify the vessel operator of any amendment required or adopted, or the COTP or OCMI may rescind the notice. The amendment becomes effective 30 days after the vessel operator receives the notice, unless the vessel operator petitions the Commandant to review the COTP or OCMI notice, in which case its effective date is delayed pending a decision by the Commandant. Petitions to the Commandant must be submitted in writing via the COTP or OCMI who issued the requirement to amend.
( c ) If the COTP or OCMI finds that there is a condition requiring immediate action to prevent the discharge or risk of discharge that makes the procedure in paragraph (b) of this section impractical or contrary to the public interest, he or she may issue an amendment effective on the date the vessel operator receives notice of it. In such a case, the COTP or OCMI includes a brief statement of the reasons for the findings in the notice, and the vessel operator may petition the Commandant, in any manner, to review the amendment. The petition does not postpone the amendment.
[CGD 75-124, 45 FR 7175, Jan. 31, 1980, as amended by CGD 86-034, 55 FR 36255, Sept. 4, 1990]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ANDREW QUINN, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 

v. ) Civil Action No. 22-2524 (UNA)

) 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al., ) 

) 

Defendants. ) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to

relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell 

Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Here, plaintiff purports to bring this action 

against the United States Department of Justice, Verizon and TMobile, which are responsible 

harassing plaintiff, invading his privacy, and falsely imprisoning him, and for these alleged

harms, plaintiff demands an award of $20 million. See Compl. at 4. Missing from the 

complaint, however, are factual allegations of any kind. Plaintiff does not state when, where, or 

how defendants brought about the harms alleged, and without factual allegations the complaint 

utterly fails to state a plausible legal claim. 

The Court will grant plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the

complaint and this civil action without prejudice. A separate order of dismissal accompanies this 

Memorandum Opinion. 

DATE: September 29, 2022 

JIA M. COBB

United States District Judge

________________________
FILED

April 16, 1999

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate C ourt

Clerk

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

CHARLES BUFORD BURNS, )

) BRADLEY CHANCERY

Plaintiff/Appellee )

) NO. 03A01-9806-CH-00190

v. )

) HON. FRANK V. WILLIAMS, III

BARBARA SPANGLER BURNS, ) CHANCELLOR

)

)

J U D G M E N T

This appeal came on to be heard upon the record of the Chancery Court

of Bradley County and briefs filed on behalf of the respective parties. Upon

consideration thereof, this Court is of the opinion that there is no reversible

error in the trial court’s judgment.

It is therefore ORDERED and ADJUDGED by this court that the

judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Costs are assessed to the appellant and

its surety. The case is remanded to the Chancery Court of Bradley County for

further action in accordance with this opinion and for collection of costs

pursuant to applicable law, for which execution may issue if necessary.

PER CURIAM
**Exhibit No. 12**









|**Earnings******                                                      |        
|--------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------
|Income before interest expense                                        | $41,484
|                                                                      |        
|Add:                                                                  |        
|Income tax items                                                      | 15,416 
|Income tax on other income                                            | 814    
|Amortization of debt discount, premium expense                        | 322    
|Allowance for funds used during construction - borrowed
        funds | 176    
|Interest on rentals                                                   | 905    
|*Total earnings before interest and taxes*                            | $59,117
|                                                                      |        
|**Fixed Charges******                                                 |        
|Interest on long-term debt                                            | $12,622
|Other interest                                                        | 1,683  
|Amortization of debt discount, premium expense                        | 322    
|Interest on rentals                                                   | 905    
|*Total fixed charges*                                                 | $15,532
|                                                                      |        
|**Ratio of Earnings to Fixed
        Charges**                        | 3.81x