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

 

SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

 

I, Charles T. Chrietzberg, Jr. certify that:

 

1.         I have read this annual report on Form 10-KSBof Northern California Bancorp, Inc.;

 

2.         Based on my knowledge, this annual reportdoes not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this annual report;

 

3.         Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presentedin this annual report;

 

4.         The registrant’s other certifying officer andI are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

 

a)              designed such disclosure controls andprocedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report isbeing prepared;

 

b)             evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period (the “EvaluationDate”); and

 

c)              presented in this annual report our conclusions aboutthe effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on ourevaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

 

5.         The registrant’s other certifying officer andI have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee or registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):

 

2.               all significant deficiencies in the design oroperation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and haveidentified for the registrant’s auditors any material weaknesses in internalcontrols; and

 

3.               any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal controls; and

 

6.         The registrant’s other certifying officer andI have indicated in this annual report whether there were significant changesin internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affectinternal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation,including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses.

 
| Date: March 17, 2005 | /s/ Charles T. Chrietzberg, Jr. |   |
|---------------------------|--------------------------------------|--------|
|                      | Charles T. Chrietzberg, Jr.     |
|                      | Chairman of the Board &     |
|                      | Chief Executive Officer              |

 

 

1

----
Case 2:14-cv-11691-LJM-MKM ECF No. 1, PageID.1 Filed 04/28/14 Page 1 of 9
Case 2:14-cv-11691-LJM-MKM ECF No. 1, PageID.2 Filed 04/28/14 Page 2 of 9
Case 2:14-cv-11691-LJM-MKM ECF No. 1, PageID.3 Filed 04/28/14 Page 3 of 9
Case 2:14-cv-11691-LJM-MKM ECF No. 1, PageID.4 Filed 04/28/14 Page 4 of 9
Case 2:14-cv-11691-LJM-MKM ECF No. 1, PageID.5 Filed 04/28/14 Page 5 of 9
Case 2:14-cv-11691-LJM-MKM ECF No. 1, PageID.6 Filed 04/28/14 Page 6 of 9
Case 2:14-cv-11691-LJM-MKM ECF No. 1, PageID.7 Filed 04/28/14 Page 7 of 9
Case 2:14-cv-11691-LJM-MKM ECF No. 1, PageID.8 Filed 04/28/14 Page 8 of 9
Case 2:14-cv-11691-LJM-MKM ECF No. 1, PageID.9 Filed 04/28/14 Page 9 of 9
EXHIBIT 31.2

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

      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Donald E. Raby II, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Pharmacy Buying
Association, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly 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-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

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

      b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
      procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
      quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

      c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
      effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
      evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

      a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
      controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
      process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
      registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

      b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
      employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
      controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: November 15, 2003


/s/ Don Raby
-----------------------
Donald E. Raby II, CPA
Chief Financial Officer
# C_2008047EN.01002501.xml

| 20.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 47/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 47/25

---

Corrigendum to Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of the Directive 2004/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on measuring instruments

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 29 of 1 February 2008
  )

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 29 of 1 February 2008

(2008/C 47/08)

The publication of the communication has been cancelled.

---
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

PETER SPOREA , Appellant,

v.

REGIONS BANK, N.A. , Appellee.

No. 4D 20

- 2 653

[ July 7, 2021 ]

Appeal of nonfinal order from the Circuit Court for the Seven teenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Sandra Perlman

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 2014

- CA

- 003212

- AXXX

- CE

.
Peter Sporea, Coral Springs, pro se

.
Loretta Comiskey O’Keeffe of Gibbons Neuman, Tampa

, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.315(a), and having considered appellant’s initial brief, the order on appeal is summarily affirmed. The initial brief presents no preliminary basis for reversal.

Affirmed

.

G ROSS , M AY and D AMOORGIAN , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
§ 113.30-3 Means of communications. ( a ) An emergency means of communication required by this subpart must— ( 1 ) Be comprised of either fixed or portable equipment; and
( 2 ) Provide common talking means of two-way voice communication and calling among the navigating bridge, emergency control stations, muster stations, embarkation stations, and other strategic positions listed in § 113.30-5.
( b ) The means of communication and calling must be a reliable means of voice communication and must be independent of the vessel's electrical system.
[CGD 94-108, 61 FR 28289, June 4, 1996, as amended by USCG-2003-16630, 73 FR 65201, Oct. 31, 2008]
#### THOMAS I. ARNOLD v. McCULLOUGH GENTLE TRUCKING COMPANY, INCORPORATED, ET AL.

Decided January 16, 1929.

Before Gummere, Chiee Justice, and Justices Parker and Katzeebach.

For the rule, *Rosenkrans £ Rosenkrans.*

Contra, *William E. Holmwood*and *Raymond E. Taylor.*

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff instituted the present suit against the McCullough Gentle Trucking Company and one Schadell to recover compensation for damage done to his automobile in colliding, with a car of Schadell’s, the collision resulting, as he claimed, from the joint negligence of the driver of the trucking company, and the driver of the Schadell car. When the case was moved for trial the plaintiff consented to enter a judgment of nonsuit as to Schadell, and the trial proceeded with the trucking company as the sole defendant. The jury returned a verdict of no cause of action, and the plaintiff thereupon applied for and obtained the present rule. The only contention made before us is that the verdict of the jury was contrary to the weight of the evidence.

The accident occurred on a stormy night, at a little after seven o’clock, in March, 1926, upon the Paterson Plank road, *100not far from Lyndhurst. The plaintiff’s automobile was being driven by his chauffeur from New York to Paterson over this highway. There are trolley tracks on each side of this road, the driveway for motor and other vehicles being between these tracks. While plaintiff’s chauffeur was traveling along the highway at a rate of thirty to thirty-five miles per hour, he suddenly observed some thirty-five or forty feet in front of him the truck of the defendant company, which was at a standstill and close to the trolley tracks which were on the right of the plaintiff’s driver. The truck had no lights burning. The headlights upon plaintiff’s car were turned on. When the plaintiff’s driver observed the truck he swung to the left in an attempt to go around it, but before he had cleared the truck he collided with the automobile of Schadell, which was approaching from the opposite direction, and which he had failed to observe, although the headlights thereof were both burning. The jury’s finding in favor of the defendant .upon a consideration of the facts recited presumably was based upon the ground that the accident occurred partly at least by xeason of the negligence of the plaintiff’s driver in traveling at a rate of speed which was excessive under the conditions d;hen existing; on his failure in not having sooner discovered -the standing truck, although his own headlights were burning, and also in not having observed the approach of the Schadell ■car before swinging out into its path, notwithstanding that 'the headlights on the latter ear were also burning. We cannot say that a finding of contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff’s driver based upon these facts was against the clear weight of the evidence. On the contrary, in our opinion, this finding was clearly justified.

The rule.to show cause will be discharged.
**Exhibit 32.2
**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
I, Barry MacNeil, Chief Financial Officer of Trans-Orient Petroleum Ltd. (the "Company"), 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 the best of my knowledge:
- the Annual Report for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2004 (the "Annual Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 
- the information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

By:
/s/ Barry MacNeil
Name:
Barry MacNeil
Title:
Chief Financial Officer 
Date:
January 25, 2005
*This written statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Company's Annual Report on Form 20-F. A signed original of this statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.*

*This certification accompanies this Annual Report on Form 20-F  pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.*****
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

IN THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

HARRY BALK, 

Plaintiff, Case No. 14-11767 

v. Hon. Laurie J. Michelson 

CLARENCE AVANT and 

INTERIOR MUSIC CORP., 

 Defendants. 

__________________________________________________________________/ 

INTERIOR MUSIC CORP., 

 Third-Party Plaintiff, 

v. 

SIXTO RODRIGUEZ, 

 Third-Party Defendant. 

_________________________________________________________________/ 

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL 

 Third-Party Plaintiff Interior Music Corp. (“Interior”) and Third-Party 

Defendant Sixto Rodriguez, by and through their respective counsel, hereby 

stipulate to the dismissal of Count II of Interior’s Third-Party Complaint [Dkt. No. 

11]. 

 Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, Count II of the Third-Party Complaint is hereby dismissed. 

 

Case 2:14-cv-11767-LJM-RSW ECF No. 102, PageID.2571 Filed 03/22/17 Page 1 of 2
2 

Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s/ Peter M. Falkenstein By: /s/ Geoffrey N. Fieger 

Peter M. Falkenstein Geoffrey N. Fieger 

JAFFE RAITT HEUER & WEISS, PC FIEGER, FIEGER, KENNEY AND 

535 W. William St., Suite 400S HARRINGTON, PC 

Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104 19390 W. 10 Mile Rd. 

(734) 222-4776 Southfield, Michigan 48075 

pfalkenstein@jaffelaw.com (248) 355-5555 

 g.fieger@fiegerlaw.com 

Attorneys for Interior Music Corp. 

 Attorneys for Sixto Rodriguez 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I CERTIFY that on March 22, 2017, I filed a copy of the foregoing document 

with the Clerk of the Court via the ECF system, which will provide electronic 

notice of the filing to all attorneys of record in this case. 

Date: March 22, 2017 /s/ Jacqueline Delevie 

 Jacqueline Delevie 

Case 2:14-cv-11767-LJM-RSW ECF No. 102, PageID.2572 Filed 03/22/17 Page 2 of 2
# C_2014462EN.01002002.xml

| 22.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/20

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2014 — Volvo Trademark v OHIM — Hebei Aulion Heavy Industries (LOVOL)

(Case T-524/11) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark LOVOL - Earlier Community word and figurative marks and earlier national figurative marks VOLVO - Relative ground for refusal - Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2014/C 462/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Volvo Trademark Holding AB (Gothenburg, Sweden) (represented by: M. Treis, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Geroulakos, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Hebei Aulion Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. (Zhangjiakou, China) (represented by: A. Alejos Cutuli, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 July 2011 (Case R 1870/2010-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Volvo Trademark Holding AB and Hebei Aulion Heavy Industries Co., Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders Volvo Trademark Holding AB to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Volvo Trademark Holding AB to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 355, 3.12.2011.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1893 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1893

  To prohibit any person which sells to or otherwise disposes of any 
   asset through a public-private investment program, including the 
Public-Private Investment Program for Legacy Assets, from purchasing or 
otherwise acquiring any other asset from or through such programs, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 2, 2009

 Mr. Bachus (for himself and Mr. LaTourette) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To prohibit any person which sells to or otherwise disposes of any 
   asset through a public-private investment program, including the 
Public-Private Investment Program for Legacy Assets, from purchasing or 
otherwise acquiring any other asset from or through such programs, and 
                          for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Anti-Gaming and Collusion in Public-
Private Investment Program Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON DOUBLE-DIPPING.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law and in order to limit 
conflicts of interest and to prevent arbitrage, churning, or hedging 
activities through the use of taxpayer money, no person who--
            (1) sells or otherwise disposes of any asset to or through 
        any public-private investment program, including the Public-
        Private Investment Program for Legacy Assets established by the 
        Secretary of the Treasury, in conjunction with the Board of 
        Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Deposit 
        Insurance Corporation, may purchase or otherwise acquire any 
        other asset from or through any such program; and
            (2) purchases or otherwise acquires any asset from or 
        through any such program may sell or otherwise dispose of that 
        or any other asset to or through any such program.
                                 <all>
```
STATE

### OFMIssIssIpm HAW Bmua

GOVMNOR MISSISSIPPIDEPARTMENT

### OF ENVIRONMENTALQUALITY TRUDY D FISHER. Fmamv~ DIRECTOR May 14,2008
Mr. Marc F. Holman Plant Manager E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Company P.O. Box 430 Pass Christian, MS 39571
Re: Regional Haze Rule Dupont DeLisle Plant Harrison County, Mississippi
Dear Mr. Holman Mississippi is finalizing our State Implementation Plan for the Regional Haze Rule in order to go to notice and submit to EPA. Our Reasonable Progress analysis found that the DuPont Delisle Plant contributes to the visibility impairment at the Breton Wildlife Refuge and may need to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions. Tohelp meet the Reasonable Progressprovisions in the Regional Haze Rule, we are required to evaluate types of controls necessary to improve the visibility at Breton. In evaluating the controls, we are required to consider the cost of compliance, the time necessary for compliance,the energy and non-air environmentalimpacts of compliance,and the remaininguseful life of the source. DuPont provided us with informationdated December 4, 2007 to help in our evaluation.
Sulfur dioxideemissions fromthe facility's coal 

### fved boilers are the pri mary concern and it appearsthat switching to a lower sulfur coal would be reasonable. The December 4 submittal briefly evaluated switching from 2.5 % coal to 1.05, 1.5,or 2% coal. From a cost standpoint,it appears that switchingto 1.05 % coal would result in the greatestreduction and at a cost of $5451ton would be well within a cost that would be considered reasonable. In the same submittal, it was stated that using thel.05 % coal may adversely affectthe facility's electrosta tic precipitators (ESP).In further discussionswith DuPont Personnel, it was indicated that 1.5 % sulfur Coal may not be possible due to the effects on the ESPs and issues with being able to meet the future MACT Boiler requirements as well. It is our understanding that while switching to a low sulfur coal 

### can adversely affect the performance of ESPs, the impact is not significant until the sulfur content drops below 1%. In addition, the lower sulfur coals

OFFICE OF POLLUTION CONTROL PanOFFICE BOX2261 .JACKSON. MlSSlSSLPM 39225-2261. TEL: (601) 961-5171

# . FA% (601) 3541612. mnv.deq.snrc.ms.us AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITYEMPLOYERgenerally have lower ash and metals content that could reduce the load on the ESPs and help meet any future MACT requirements.
For our current SIPsubmittal, we are considering requiring a switch to 1.05 % sulfur coal to reduce SO2 emissions from this facility. The proposed time frame for the switch would be 2013. If it does not appear possible for the facility to use this coal type or there are other factors that need to be taken into consideration, please submit this information by August 12, 2008.

If you have any questions,please contact me at (601) 961-5142 or Elliott Bickerstaffat (601)961-5176.
Sincerely, 

# 4?4'waL\ Maya dao, P.E.. BCEE Chief, Air Division