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

FORM 10-K CERTIFICATION

I, Darwin L. Stump, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of the Registrant;

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

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual 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 annual report.

The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the registrant and we have:

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

(b)	Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the year covered by this annual report based on such evaluation; and 

(c)	Disclosed in this annual report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter of 2003 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors:

(a)	all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b)	any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date:  March 25, 2004               
 /s/ Darwin L. Stump                           

Darwin L. Stump

Chief Financial Officer

of the Managing General Partner of the Registrant
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT JOHN DOUGLAS ALEXANDER, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. No. 96-6674 HOLMAN C. GOSSETT, JR.; CHARLIE SANDERS; WILLIAM E. GUNN, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-96-783-7-20AK) Submitted: October 31, 1996 Decided: November 27, 1996 Before HALL, MURNAGHAN, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL John Douglas Alexander, Appellant Pro Se.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________OPINION PER CURIAM: John D. Alexander appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that the district court correctly determined that exhaustion of state remedies was required. Although the general rule is that the case should be dismissed rather than retained on the district court's docket pending exhaustion of state remedies, Slayton v. Smith , 404 U.S. 53, 54 (1971), a civil rights claim should be retained on the docket if dismissal would create a statute of limitations problem. Hamlin v. Warren , 664 F.2d 29, 32 (4th Cir. 1981), cert. denied , 455 U.S. 911 (1982). We find that Appellant's claim that Defendant Gunn improperly calculated his parole eligibility has already accrued, and therefore, exhaustion ofremedies may result in a running of the statute of limitations. Appellant's remaining claims have not yet accrued and, therefore, do not face a similar fate. See Brooks v. City of Winston-Salem , 85 F.3d 178, 183 (4th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, to preserve any timely § 1983 claim Appellant mayhave regarding his parole eligibility, we vacate the portion of the district court's order dismissing this claim against Gunn and remand to the district court with instructions to retain Appellant's case on its docket in abeyance until Appellant has exhausted his state remedies.We affirm the dismissal without prejudice of the remainder of Appellant's claims. 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. AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED
2
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 of Watair. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending March 31, 2012, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Christopher Malone, Chief Financial
Officer of Vyre Network (formerly, Watair, Inc.), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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.



|                 | On behalf of: WATAIR, INC.                     
|---------------- | -----------------------------------------------
|January 26, 2024 | /s/ Christopher Malone                         
|                 | Chief Financial Officer, Vyre Network          
|                 | (Principal financial and accounting executive).
No. 57928.

protests 156193-K (A), etc. (New York).

#### Chekiang Co. and Hensel Bruckmann & Lorbacher, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the articles in question consist of silent butlers, smoothing irons, and trays the same in all material respects as those involved in *Ignaz Strauss & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 342, C. D. 710), *The Fan Co.*v. *United States*(25 Cust. Ct. 42, C. D. 1261), and *Ignaz Strauss & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(28 Cust. Ct. 280, C. D. 1423), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 75-1533.

#### Canada *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of Anne Belle Welsh for leave to join in petition for certiorari denied. Motion to strike brief for respondent and certiorari denied.
# C_2016078EN.01002801.xml

| 29.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/28

---

Action brought on 28 December 2015 — Labeyrie v OHIM — Delpeyrat (Representation of a sowing of light coloured fish on a dark background)

(Case T-767/15)

(2016/C 078/39)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Labeyrie (Saint-Geours-de-Maremne, France) (represented by: A. Lecomte, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Delpeyrat (Saint Pierre du Mont, France)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark without any representation of colours (Representation of a sowing of light coloured fish on a dark background) — Community trade mark No 3 916 533

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for revocation

Procedure before OHIM

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 October 2015 in Case R 2694/2014-1

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision, in that it confirmed the decision of the Invalidity Division of OHIM revoking the rights of the company LABEYRIE over its Community mark No 3 916 533 to designate fish; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision, in that it confirmed the decision of the Invalidity Division of OHIM revoking the rights of the company LABEYRIE over its Community mark No 3 916 533 to designate fish;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009, in conjunction with Article 1(1)(a) of that regulation, and of Rule 22 and Rule 40 of Regulation No 2868/95. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009, in conjunction with Article 1(1)(a) of that regulation, and of Rule 22 and Rule 40 of Regulation No 2868/95.

---
# C_2016038EN.01006201.xml

| 1.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/62

---

Action brought on 6 October 2015 — Flamagas v OHIM — MatMind (CLIPPER)

(Case T-580/15)

(2016/C 038/84)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Flamagas, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: I. Valdelomar Serrano, G. Hinarejos Mulliez and D. Gabarre Armengol, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: MatMind Srl (Formello, Italy)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: Community tridimensional mark (Shape of lighter containing the word element ‘CLIPPER’) — Community trade mark No 4 758 652

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Procedure before OHIM:

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 July 2015 in Case R 924/2013-1

Contested decision:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | confirm the decision of 22/03/2013 of the Cancellation Division in Cancellation Proceedings No. C 5642 against Community trademark registration No. 4 758 652; |
| --- | --- |

—

confirm the decision of 22/03/2013 of the Cancellation Division in Cancellation Proceedings No. C 5642 against Community trademark registration No. 4 758 652;

| — | order the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
No. 57614.

#### Pennsylvania Wool Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 187475-K, 187791-K, and 188097-K (New York).

Opinion by

Olivee, C. J.

It was stipulated that for duty purposes the clean content of the wool in question was determined in accordance with the instructions contained in T. D. 53159. Said T. D. 53159 was issued following the decision in *Fred Whitaker Company, Inc.*v. *United States*(27 Cust. Ct. 168, C. D. 1365), affirmed in *United States*v. *Fred Whitaker Company, Inc.*(40 C. C. P. A. 19, C. A. D. 492), wherein the statutory language, clean content of wool, as used in paragraph 1102 (b), was construed to mean the product commercially usable as wool and from which all the weight of grease and foreign material has been removed, including the wool fibers which are unavoidably and irrevocably lost as a result of commercially applied cleaning processes. Accordingly, the wool in question was held dutiable at the rate applied by the collector on the basis of the percentages of clean content as set forth in the column headed “Clean Content” in the schedule attached to and made a part of the decision in this case.
**EXHIBIT 18.1**

 

**LETTER: RE: CHANGE IN ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLE**

 

November 15, 2004 

 

Duke Capital LLC 

526 South Church Street 

Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 

 

DearSirs/Madams: 

 

At your request, we have read the description included in yourQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q to the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2004, of the facts relating to the change in the date of the annual goodwill impairment test under Statement of Financial AccountingStandards No. 142, *Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets*, for the Duke Energy Field Services segment. We believe, on the basis of the facts so set forth and other information furnished to us by appropriate officials of Duke Capital LLC, thatthe accounting change described in your Form 10-Q is to an alternative accounting principle that is preferable under the circumstances. 

 

We have not audited any consolidated financial statements of Duke Capital LLC and its consolidated subsidiaries as of any date or for any period subsequent to December31, 2003. Therefore, we are unable to express, and we do not express, an opinion on the facts set forth in the above-mentioned Form 10-Q, on the related information furnished to us by officials of the Duke Capital LLC or on the financial position,results of operations, or cash flows of Duke Capital LLC and its consolidated subsidiaries as of any date or for any period subsequent to December 31, 2003. 

 

Yours truly, 

 

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

Charlotte, North Carolina 

 

63
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In Re Asbestos Products :

Liability Litigation (No. VI) : MDL 875

:

See Attached List of Cases :

____________________________________X

O R D E R

This Court has previously administratively dismissed each of the cases listed on the attachment

to this order pending the determination of certain issues by the Bankruptcy Court. Those issues

having now been resolved, these cases are hereby reinstated for the purposes set forth herein.

Each of these cases was originally filed in the state court and subsequently either removed or

transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistric Litigation to the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The removal in each case was predicated upon the theory of

“related to” bankruptcy jurisdiction, vis-a-vis the bankruptcy filing in the United States District Court

for the District of Delaware by Federal Mogul Corporation or the bankruptcy filing by Armstrong

World Industries. A large number of similar cases were directly transferred or removed to the

Bankruptcy Court in Delaware the Third Circuit designated the Honorable Alfred M. Wolin as the

presiding judge. Having completed an extensive briefing and hearing process, Judge Wolin, on

February 8, 2002, issued his ruling that the Bankruptcy Court lacked jurisdiction in these matters and

thereupon ordered their transfer back to the various state courts. The order was appealed to the

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and on July 31, 2002, Judge Slovitor issued the

Court’s opinion upholding Judge Wolin’s decision. The Supreme Court denied cert and all avenues

for appeal appear to have been exhausted by the parties.

Case 2:02-cv-04097-CRW Document 6 Filed 10/09/2002 Page 1 of 2
The actions before this Court are all cases similarly situated with regard to their removal from

the state court. The Court can find no reason not to comply with Judge Wolin’s decision as it relates

to the removal of these cases to the federal court.

IT IS ORDERED that each of these cases is hereby reinstated and remanded to the State of

Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court from whence it was removed to this Court.

DONE this 3rd day of October, 2002.

BY THE COURT

___________________________

Charles R. Weiner S.J.

Case 2:02-cv-04097-CRW Document 6 Filed 10/09/2002 Page 2 of 2
No. 58450.

protests 202831-K and 185729-K (Seattle).

#### Border Brokerage Co. and Geo. S. Bush & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items of the merchandise marked *“A,”*parts of internal-combustion engines, imported separately, or marked “B,” internal-combustion engines, imported with power saws, are the same in all material respects as the articles involved in *Geo. S. Bush & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(41 C. C. P. A. 33, C. A. D. 525), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained. Further, in accordance with said stipulation, it was held that the value of said items marked *“A”*is the appraised value and that the value of said items marked “B” is the percentage of the appraised value of said power saws, as noted in green ink on the invoices by the examiners.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7156
DOUGLAS B. SEIBERT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus J. T. DONNELLY, JR., Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-94-596) Submitted: February 29, 1996 Decided: March 19, 1996 Before HALL, MURNAGHAN, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Douglas B. Seibert, Appellant Pro Se. Jack L. Gould, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Seibert v. Donnelly , No. CA-94-596 (E.D. Va. July 18, 1995).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.

AFFIRMED
No. 51588.

#### Protests 985006-G, etc., of Friedman & Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of beads similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Eitinger Bead Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(17 Cust. Ct. 56, C. D. 1020). In accordance therewith the claim at 35 percent under paragraph 1503 was sustained.
# 2014_09 Pivot Table 5

# 2014_09 MTS Table 5 Detail

&F	

&P/&N
Exhibit 12.2  I, Stephen Pearce, Chief Financial Officer, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this Amendment to Annual Report on Form 20-F of Golden Goliath Resources Ltd.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The companys other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the company 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 company, 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) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the companys disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the companys internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The companys other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the companys auditors and the audit committee of the company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 company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 companys internal control over financial reporting.   Date: August 21, 2012   /s/ Stephen Pearce Stephen Pearce, Chief Financial Officer
No. 58886.

protest 219406-K (New York).

#### The Hillman Importing & Trading Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of hair pencils similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Solo Horton Brush Co. (Inc.)*v. *United States*(63 Treas. Dec. 143, T. D. 46123), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Before the Third Division,

December 22, 1944

No. 49898.

#### Protest 87742-K of Railway Express Agency (Pembina).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

When the case was called for trial it appeared from statement of Government counsel that the representatives of the importing company desired the case to be submitted. No evidence was offered and no briefs were submitted. An examination of the record failing to disclose evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s decision, the protest was overruled.