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

CERTIFICATIONS

I,
David G. Hanna, certify that:

1.     I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q/A of CompuCredit 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 the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; and

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 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-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:



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 registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



|Date: November 3, 2003 |  |                                                                                  
|---------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                       |  | /s/DAVID G. HANNADavid G. Hanna Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board

---

QuickLinks
§ 156.959 Judicial review. ( a ) *Filing of an action for review.* Any responsible entity against whom a final order imposing a civil money penalty or decertification of a QHP is entered may obtain review in the United States District Court for any district in which the entity is located or in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia by doing the following: ( 1 ) Filing a notice of appeal in that court within 30 days from the date of a final order.
( 2 ) Simultaneously sending a copy of the notice of appeal by registered mail to HHS.
( b ) *Certification of administrative record.* HHS promptly certifies and files with the court the record upon which the penalty was assessed.
( c ) *Standard of review.* The findings of HHS and the ALJ may not be set aside unless they are found to be unsupported by substantial evidence, as provided by 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(E).
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation byreference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-138225) pertaining to the GateHouse Media, Inc. Omnibus Stock Incentive Plan, of our reports dated March 13, 2009, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule ofGateHouse Media, Inc. and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of GateHouse Media, Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2008. 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

Buffalo,New York 

March 13, 2009
§ 1641.8 Notice of proposed debarment. ( a ) Before debarring an IPA, the OIG shall send the IPA written notice of the proposed debarment. The notice shall be sent in a manner that provides evidence of its receipt and shall: ( 1 ) State that debarment is being considered;
( 2 ) Identify the reasons for the proposed debarment sufficient to put the IPA on notice of the conduct or transaction(s) upon which a debarment proceeding is based;
( 3 ) Identify the regulatory provisions governing the debarment proceeding; and
( 4 ) State that debarment may be for a period of up to three years or longer under extraordinary circumstances. If the OIG has determined that extraordinary circumstances warranting debarment in excess of three years may exist, the notice shall so state.
( b ) A copy of the notice also shall be sent to the affected recipient(s), if any, which may comment on the proposed action in the time frame set out in § 1641.9.
CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, the undersigned officer of Solpower Corporation
(the "Company") hereby certifies that the Company's Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.


Date:  August 26, 2005          By: /s/ James H. Hirst
                                    ----------------------
                                    James H. Hirst
                                    President, Chief Executive Officer,
                                    Principal Accounting Officer and Director
§ 16.7 The first steps in the appeal process: The notice of appeal and the Board's response. ( a ) As explained in 45 CFR 75.374, a prospective appellant must submit a notice of appeal to the Board within 30 days after receiving the final decision. The notice of appeal must include a copy of the final decision, a statement of the amount in dispute in the appeal, and a brief statement of why the decision is wrong.
( b ) Within ten days after receiving the notice of appeal, the Board will send an acknowledgment, enclose a copy of these procedures, and advise the appellant of the next steps. The Board will also send a copy of the notice of appeal, its attachments, and the Board's acknowledgment to the respondent. If the Board Chair has determined that the appeal does not meet the conditions of § 16.3 or if further information is needed to make this determination, the Board will notify the parties at this point.
[46 FR 43817, Aug. 31, 1981, as amended at 81 FR 3012, Jan. 20, 2016]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONDENSED BALANCE SHEET (UNAUDITED) AS OF JUNE 30, 1999 AND CONDENSED
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS (UNAUDITED) FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1999,
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          47,928
<SECURITIES>                                       696
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,010
<ALLOWANCES>                                       500
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                70,056
<PP&E>                                           5,030
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,876
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  74,984
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           37,109
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           155
<OTHER-SE>                                      33,732
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    74,984
<SALES>                                          8,908
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,908
<CGS>                                            4,479
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,479
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,967
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (2,934)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (2,934)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (2,934)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.19)


</TABLE>
Nos. 5428, 5429, 5430, 5431.

#### Homer Mee *v.*The State.

Forgery—Indictment—Evidence—Variance.—See the opinion *in ex-tenso*for the substance of an indictment for forgery, and for the contents of the alleged forged instrument, between which two documents there is held to be no variance, wherefore the forged instrument was properly admitted as evidence.

Appeal from the District Court of Fannin. Tried below before the Hon. D. H. Scott.

The conviction in each of these cases was for the forgery of orders for the payment of free school vouchers, each in the sum of five dollars. The penalties awarded were terms of two years in the penitentiary in each case. The sufficiency of the evidence to support these convictions does not enter into the disposition of these appeals, and therefore the evidence is not set out,

*Taylor & Galloway,*for the appellant.

*W. L. Davidson,*Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Hurt, Judge.

These are four convictions for forgery against appellant, all of which present the same questions.

The indictment alleges that the instruments forged purported to be the acts of Martin McFarland and Mark Adams as trustees of. Pleasant Grove *free*school community No. 83, Fannin county, Texas. These instruments are set out by their tenor, and are *m*follows:

*567Opinion delivered June 11, 1887.

"§5.00. Ladonia, Texas, March 30, 1886.

Pleasant Grove School Community No. 83.

Pay to Edmund Shores the sum of five dollars belong said community, for house rent use, as service for free school, from *22*of February, 1886, to 19 of March, 1886, being one month at five dollars per month.

Martin McFarland,

Mark Adams,

Trustees of School Community 83, Fannin county, Texas.”

TJpon the trial the appellant objected to the introduction in evidence of the instrument, upon the ground of variance between the purport and tenor clauses of the instrument offered in evidence.

The indictment alleges that appellant forged an instrument which purported to be the act of Martin McFarland and Mark Adams, the trustees of Pleasant Grove *free*school community, etc. Does the instrument purport to be the act of these men? And do they, from the instrument, purport to be the trustees of Pleasant Grove *free*school community? If not, there may be a chance for variance. But if, from any part of the instrument, McFarland and Adams are shown to be the trustees of Pleasant Grove *free*school community, then there is no variance.

By an inspection of the indictment it will be seen that it is called "free school;” therefore the supposed variance vanishes. This disposes of all questions arising from the supposed variance of the purport and tenor clauses.

We have very carefully considered the other grounds urged for reversal of the judgment, and do not think either of them well taken; and since the questions presented have been elaborately discussed in former opinions of this court, we will not go over the ground again. The judgments in the four above styled and numbered cases are affirmed.

Affirmed„ •
Opinion issued June 6, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-23-00378-CR

———————————

IN RE J.B. BLACK, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

J.B. Black, acting pro se, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus compelling 

the trial court to rule on his motion for appointment of new counsel.1 We deny the 

petition.

1 The underlying case is The State of Texas v. J.B. Black, cause number 1723527, 

pending in the 177th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Robert 

Johnson presiding.
2

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Goodman, Landau, and Rivas-Molloy.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
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 Yak Communications Inc. (the Company) Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the three months ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Charles Zwebner, Chief Executive Officer and President 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, that, to the best of my
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: April 21, 2006 |  | By: |  | /s/ Charles Zwebner                
|                     |  |     |  | Charles Zwebner                    
|                     |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer & President
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 53 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 53

    Providing for congressional disapproval of the proposed foreign 
    military sale to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia of certain defense 
                         articles and services.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 11, 2023

  Mr. Paul introduced the following joint resolution; which was read 
        twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Providing for congressional disapproval of the proposed foreign 
    military sale to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia of certain defense 
                         articles and services.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the following proposed 
foreign military sale to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is prohibited:
            (1) The sale of the following defense articles and 
        services, described in Transmittal No. 23-15, submitted to 
        Congress pursuant to section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export 
        Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2776(b)(1)), and published in the 
        Congressional Record on December 7, 2023: seven Embedded Global 
        Positioning System/Inertial Navigation System (GPS/INS) (EGI) 
        security devices, Airborne, with Selective Availability Anti-
        Spoofing Module (SAASM) or M-Code capability, and five (5) 
        L3Harris BlackRock Communications Intelligence Sensor Suites. 
        Also included are KY-100M narrowband/wideband secure 
        communications terminals; KIV-77 MODE 4/5 Identification Friend 
        or Foe (IFF) cryptographic appliques; AN/PYQ-10 Simple Key 
        Loaders; integrated electronic intelligence (ELINT)/signals 
        intelligence (SIGINT) systems; L-3 Communication Systems-West 
        (CSW) multiband receivers/transmitters; ARC-210 radios; high 
        frequency (HF) radios; secure communications equipment; 
        precision navigation and cryptographic devices; aircraft 
        support and support equipment; test and integration support; 
        equipment; spare and repair parts; consumables and accessories; 
        repair and return support; U.S. Government and contractor 
        engineering, technical, and logistics support services; studies 
        and surveys; and other related elements of logistics and 
        program support.
                                 <all>
```
IIA 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. J. RES. 116 

Providing for congressional disapproval of the proposed enhancement or upgrade of sensitivity of technology or capability of certain major defense 

equipment for the Government of Israel. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 25, 2024 

Mr. SANDERS (for himself, Mr. WELCH, and Mr. MERKLEY) introduced the 

following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval of the proposed enhancement or upgrade of sensitivity of technology or 

capability of certain major defense equipment for the 

Government of Israel. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That the following proposed enhancement or upgrade of 

4 sensitivity of technology or capability of major defense 

5 equipment for the Government of Israel is prohibited: 

6 (1) The sale of the following major defense 

7 equipment described in Transmittal No. 0B–24, sub8 mitted to Congress pursuant to section 36(b)(5)(A) 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•SJ 116 IS 

1 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 

2 2776(b)(5)(A)) and published in the Congressional 

3 Record on September 10, 2024: The addition of the 

4 KMU–556 J/B M–Code variant with Strategic Anti5 jam Beamforming Receiver (SABR) Global Posi6 tioning System (GPS) Receiver. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6981

JOHN PINCKNEY, Petitioner - Appellant,

versus JON OZMINT, Director of SCDC; HENRY MCMASTER, Attorney General of South Carolina; ANTHONY PADULA, Warden of the Lee Correctional Institution, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (9:06-cv-02274-PMD) Submitted: November 30, 2007 Decided: December 20, 2007 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Pinckney, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: John Pinckney seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Pinckney has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED
No. 5464.

#### Hattie Huffman *v.*The State.

1. The Keeping of a Disorderly House is, under the law of this State, a continuous offense, and a conviction bars all further prosecution up to the time of conviction, unless, as in this case, the indictment specifies or “ carves out ” the times of the commission of the offense, and the evidence is confined to the times carved out; when a conviction will not be a bar to prosecutions forjike offenses at other times not carved out by the indictment.

2. Same.—It was agreed in this case that the appellant should be tried upon her bond, and judgment was rendered against both the appellant and her sureties. *Held,*error as to the sureties, but as to appellant the judgment is affirmed.

Appeal from the County Court of Bell. Tried below before the Hon. J. M. Rosborough, County Judge.

The opinion states the case. The verdict assessed the penalty at a fine of one hundred dollars, upon which judgment was rendered against the sureties on the appearance bond, as well as against the appellant.

*Gr, S. Walton*and *James Boyd,*for the appellant.

*W. L. Davidson,*Assistant Attorney General, for the State,

Hurt, Judge.

This is a conviction for keeping a disorderly house. The indictment alleges that the house was kept from the first day of February, 1886, and on each day from that date up to the twenty-eighth day of February, 1886.

Though not directly passed upon by the courts of last resort in this State, the weight of authority is that this is a continuous offense, and that a conviction bars all further prosecutions up to the time of conviction. While this is the general rule, yet, to avoid this effect, it is well settled that if the indictment is drawn in the form in which this is drawn, and the evidence confined to the time thus carved out, a conviction will be no bar to prosecutions for keeping such house at other times not carved out by the indictment. By this character of pleading, the complicated *492and perplexing subject of continuous offenses is eliminated from the case. And, as the proof was confined to the time alleged, both in fact and in the charge of the court, the form of the indictment eliminates from the case the appellant’s plea of former conviction. *(Vide*Willson’s Forms.)

Opinion delivered June 8, 1887.

It was agreed between the parties that appellant should be tried upon her bond, and hence the judgment was rendered against the sureties as well as the appellant. In this there was *error;*wherefore the judgment against the sureties is reversed, and that against the appellant is affirmed.

*Ordered accordingly.*
NotesFAQContact Us

Collection

Thesaurus
AdvancedSearch Tips

Collection

Thesaurus
BrowseThesaurus

 Download full text

**ERIC Number:**

**Record Type:**

**Publication Date:**

**Pages:**

**Abstractor:**

**ISBN:**

**ISSN:**

**EISSN:**

AsthmaDisadvantaged YouthElementary Secondary EducationMinority GroupsPhysical HealthSchool Health ServicesSpecial Health ProblemsUrban Youth

**Publication Type:**

**Education Level:**

**Audience:**

**Language:**

**Sponsor:**

**Authoring Institution:**

**Grant or Contract Numbers:**

PrivacyCopyrightContact UsSelection PolicyAPI
JournalsNon-JournalsDownloadSubmitMultimediaWidget