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





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
ss 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, David
Wu, certify that:





1. I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2008of Dragon
International Group Corp. ("small business issuer");





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 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 small business issuer as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;





4. The
small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) 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 small business issuer, 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 small business issuer's disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions after the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and





c.
Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and





5. The
small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small
business issuer'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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal control over
financial reporting.





May 13,
2008




By: /s/ David Wu


David Wu,
CEO, principal executive officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6182

SHERWIN MCFADDEN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

ROBERT M. STEVENSON,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. 

(4:08-cv-03365-TLW)

Submitted: March 29, 2011 Decided: April 11, 2011

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sherwin McFadden, Appellant Pro Se. James Anthony Mabry, 

Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy 

Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Sherwin McFadden seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 

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) (2006). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and 

conclude that McFadden 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 
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 14

- 00364

- CV

Andrew J. Norstrud

v.

Anna and John Cicur §

§

§

§ From the 153rd District Court

of Tarrant County (153

- 273779

- 14)

August 13, 2015

Opinion by Justice Walker



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

It is further ordered that appellant Andrew J. Norstrud shall pay all of the

costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By

__ /s/ Sue Walker

_________________ Justice Sue Walker
No. 65372.

#### M. Adler’s Son, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 59/32203, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of beads the same in all material respects as those the subject of *United States*v. S. *H. Kress & Co.*(46 C.C.P.A. 135, C.A.D. 716), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JAMES MARIO PRIDGEN,

Petitioner,

v.

SHANNON, 

THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE 

COUNTY OF LANCASTER, and 

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE 

STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondents.

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 00-4561

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 2nd day of April, 2015, upon consideration of pro se petitioner’s 

Motion 60(b) Regarding the Filing, and Circumstances Surrounding the Disposition (Document 

No. 94, filed December 29, 2014); pro se petitioner’s Motion the Term [sic] Contained in Brief 

for 60(b) and Equitable Tolling (Document No. 95, filed February 4, 2015); and pro se

petitioner’s Motion to Define the Term Contained in Brief for 60(b) and Equitable Tolling 

(Document No. 96, filed February 12, 2015);1for the reasons stated in the accompanying 

Memorandum dated April 2, 2015, IT IS ORDERED that pro se petitioner’s Motion 60(b) 

Regarding the Filing, and Circumstances Surrounding the Disposition is DISMISSED.

 

1 Although styled as motions, pro se petitioner’s Motion the Term [sic] Contained in Brief 

for 60(b) and Equitable Tolling (Document No. 95, filed February 4, 2015), and pro se

petitioner’s Motion to Define the Term Contained in Brief for 60(b) and Equitable Tolling 

(Document No. 96, filed February 12, 2015), which are nearly identical in substance, are actually 

explanatory submissions in further support of pro se petitioner’s Motion 60(b) Regarding the 

Filing, and Circumstances Surrounding the Disposition. Nevertheless, to clear the docket, the 

Court DENIES the two documents styled by pro se petitioner as motions, Document No. 95 and 

Document No. 96.

Case 2:00-cv-04561-JD Document 99 Filed 04/03/15 Page 1 of 2
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability WILL NOT ISSUE

because reasonable jurists would not debate whether the motion states a valid claim of the denial 

of constitutional rights or this Court’s procedural rulings with respect to petitioner’s 

claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Jan E. DuBois

 DuBOIS, JAN E., J.

Case 2:00-cv-04561-JD Document 99 Filed 04/03/15 Page 2 of 2
Before the First Division,

February 1, 1946

No. 50868.

#### Protest 782729-G of M. Modlin (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
Exhibit 32

    Certification Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant To
                 Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


                            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 Form 10-KSB Annual Report of Xfone, Inc. (the "Company")
for the period ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

     o    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.



By: /s/Guy Nissenson
Guy Nissenson
President, Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer,
and Principal Accounting Officer
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 212 (Friday, November 3, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 75636]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-24351]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration #18100 and #18101; ALASKA Disaster Number AK-
00059]


Presidential Declaration Amendment of a Major Disaster for the 
State of Alaska

AGENCY: Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 2.

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

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for the State of Alaska (FEMA-4730-DR), dated 08/23/
2023.
    Incident: Flooding.
    Incident Period: 05/12/2023 through 06/03/2023.

DATES: Issued on 10/30/2023.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 12/22/2023.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 05/23/2024.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd 
Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the President's major disaster 
declaration for the State of Alaska, dated 08/23/2023, is hereby 
amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the 
disaster:

Primary Areas (Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans): Kusilvak 
Census Area, Yupiit REAA.
Contiguous Areas (Economic Injury Loans Only): All contiguous areas 
have previously been declared.

    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

Francisco S[aacute]nchez, Jr.,
Associate Administrator, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience.
[FR Doc. 2023-24351 Filed 11-2-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8026-09-P
1

NO. 12-22-00087-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

LATONYA WEEMS, 

APPELLANT

V.

MOSAIC APARTMENTS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE

COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1

JEFFERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

This appeal is being dismissed for failure to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure.1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3. 

LaTonya Weems, acting pro se, filed a notice of appeal on March 10, 2022. Pursuant to 

Rule 32.1, Apppellant’s docketing statement was due to have been filed at the time the appeal 

was perfected. See TEX. R. APP. P. 32.1. On March 10, Appellant was asked to file a docketing 

statement within seven days and on March 29, was asked to file the docketing statement 

immediately.. On April 13, the Clerk of this Court issued a notice advising Appellant that the 

docketing statement was past due. The notice provided that unless the docketing statement was 

filed on or before April 25, the appeal would be presented for dismissal in accordance with 

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3. The date for filing the docketing statement has passed, 

and Appellant has not complied with the Court’s request.

Because Appellant failed, after notice, to comply with Rule 32.1, the appeal is 

dismissed.

2 See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c) (after giving ten days’ notice, appellate court may 

1 This case was transferred to this Court from the Ninth Court of Appeals in Beaumont, Texas, pursuant to 

a docket equalization order. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (West 2013).
2

dismiss appeal because appellant failed to comply with a requirement of the appellate rules, a 

court order, or a notice from the clerk requiring a response or other action within a specified 

time).

Opinion delivered May 4, 2022.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

2 Even a pro se litigant is held to the same standards as licensed attorneys and must comply with 

all applicable rules of procedure. See Muhammed v. Plains Pipeline, L.P., No. 12-16-00189-CV, 2017 WL 

2665180, at *2 n.3 (Tex. App.—Tyler June 21, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.).
3

COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

MAY 4, 2022

NO. 12-22-00087-CV

LATONYA WEEMS,

Appellant

V.

MOSAIC APARTMENTS,

Appellee

Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

of Jefferson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 137017)

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the appellate record, and the same 

being considered, it is the opinion of this Court that the appeal should be dismissed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that 

this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed; and that this decision be certified to the court 

below for observance.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

____________________________________

 :

STEPHEN P. JURINKO, et al., :

 Plaintiffs, :

v. : CASE NO. 03-CV-4053

 :

THE MEDICAL PROTECTIVE CO., :

Defendant. :

____________________________________ :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 30th day of July 2009, upon consideration of Plaintiffs’ Motion

for Supplemental Attorneys Fees and Statutory Interest [Doc. No. 110], Defendant’s Response in

opposition [Doc. Nos. 112 & 113], Plaintiffs’ Reply [Doc. No. 114], and Defendant’s Sur-reply

[Doc. No. 120], it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion [Doc. No. 110] is DENIED.

Also, upon consideration of Defendant’s Amended Motion for Partial Relief from

Judgment Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) [Doc. No. 121], Plaintiffs’ Response

in opposition [Doc. No. 123], and Defendant’s Reply [Doc. No. 124], it is FURTHER

ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion is DENIED. 

It is so ORDERED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Cynthia M. Rufe

________________________

CYNTHIA M. RUFE, J.

Case 2:03-cv-04053-CMR Document 127 Filed 07/30/09 Page 1 of 1
September 13, 1946

No. 51305.

Suit 4517.

#### M. *V. Jenkins et al.*v. *United States.*

Reap. Dec. 6131 reversed and remanded June 27, 1946. C. A. D. 341.
(Reap. Dec. 10935)

#### Elof Hansson, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 802560-1/3; 805622-1/2.

*588(Decided March 24, 1965)

*Sharp & Bogan*for the plaintiff;.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant. '

Rao, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, annexed to this decision and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the undersigned, subject to the approval of the Oourt :

> 1. That the subject merchandise consists of hardboard exported from Sweden as to which the Secretary of the Treasury issued a finding of dumping, published in 89 TD 197, TD 53567, made pursuant to the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C., 160, et sect.).

> 2. That pursuant to Section 168 of said Antidumping Act, the appraiser reported the purchase price (Sec. 162) and the foreign market value (Sec. 164) as to the merchandise listed on Schedule A attached hereto and made a part hereof.

> 3. That pursuant to Sections 500 and 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, the appraiser appraised all of the merchandise in the appeals for appraisement enumerated on Schedule A for regular duty purposes.

> 4. That the plaintiff duly filed appeals for reappraisement as to the values referred to in the above paragraphs Nos. 2 and 3.

> 5. That at the times relevant herein the purchase price and the foreign market value under the said Antidumping Act are as specified in the aforesaid Schedule A attached hereto.

> 6. That as to all other items of merchandise not identified on Schedule A, the appraiser’s reports of purchase price and of foreign market value are correct.

> 7. That the appraiser’s findings of value under the provisions of Section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, are correct.

> 8. That said appeals are submitted for decision upon this stipulation and said Schedule A.

Upon the agreed facts, I find foreign market value, as defined in section 164 of the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C. § 164), for the merchandise described in said schedule A, and the purchase price thereof, within section 162 of said act (19 U.S.C. § 162), to be as indicated in said schedule. As to all other items of merchandise not identified in schedule A, I find the foreign market values and the purchase prices to be as reported by the appraiser. In all other respects, the values of all merchandise are as returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
No. 64757.

#### J. M. Altieri et al. *v.*United States,

protests 59/6817, etc. (San Juan, P.R.).

*334Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordange with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Pan American Standard Brands, Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 122, C.D. 2115), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                             569
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             212
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                   611
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      4,868
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                         23,640
<ALLOWANCE>                                         30
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  31,364
<DEPOSITS>                                      23,145
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                171
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           805
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,243
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  31,364
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                    453
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                   86
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    27
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                   566
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                 278
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 283
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                              283
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                    243
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     48
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        34
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.05
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.86
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                    30
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                   30
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                30
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
Order entered October 27, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01388-CV

PREMIER POOLS MANAGEMENT CORP., ET AL., Appellants

V.

PREMIER POOLS, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-12-07182

ORDER

We GRANT appellee’s October 19, 2015 fourth motion for an extension of time to file a 

brief. We ORDER the brief tendered to this Court by appellee on October 26, 2015 filed as of 

the date of this order.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

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

         I, Scott D. Dorfman, Chief Executive Officer of Innotrac Corporation
(the "Company"), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)      the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended
         March 31, 2004 (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.

Dated: May 14, 2004

                                                  /s/ Scott D. Dorfman
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Scott D. Dorfman
                                                  President, Chief Executive
                                                  Officer and Chairman of the
                                                  Board