alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, Jon Garfield, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Clearant, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations, and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant is made known to me by others within the entity, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control overfinancial reporting to be designed under my supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regardingthe reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for externalpurposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin this report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures asof the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andd) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize, and report financial information; andb) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: November 14, 2007 By:  /s/ Jon Garfield    JON GARFIELD    *Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer*
Case No. 9,762.

#### MOORE v. GADSBY.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 3.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

April Term, 1801.

Evidence — Note — Internal Revenue — Stamp.

Same point as in Neale v. Hill [Case No. 10,-068.]

Assumpsit [by John Moore against John Gadsby] for hay sold and delivered. Non assumpsit, and issue.

1

 [Reported by Hon. William Cranch, Chief Judge.]

THE COURT

refused to permit the note offered by the plaintiff to go in evidence to the jury, because it was “a note for the security of money,” and not stamped agreeably to Act Cong. July 6, 1797, '§§ 1, 13 (1 Stat. 527). The note was in these words, viz.: “Received of Jno. Moore twenty-three hundred and twenty wt of hay, at seven pounds ten shillings per tunn, to be paid in sixty days from this date. 2,320 wt. at 7s. 6d. per C. Dollars, 29.00. Jno. Gadsby. May 23, 1800.”
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4311 

To limit funds to the United Nations and other organizations that provide 

any status, rights, or privileges beyond observer status to the Palestine 

Liberation Organization, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 9, 2024 

Mr. RISCH (for himself, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. CASSIDY, Mr. LEE, 

Mr. COTTON, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. DAINES, Mr. RICKETTS, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. 

HAGERTY, Mr. CRUZ, Mrs. FISCHER, Mrs. HYDE-SMITH, Mr. YOUNG, 

Mr. ROMNEY, Mr. HOEVEN, Mr. SCOTT of Florida, Ms. LUMMIS, Mr. 

TILLIS, Mr. RUBIO, Mr. TUBERVILLE, Ms. ERNST, Mr. THUNE, and Mr. 

MULLIN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Foreign Relations 

A BILL 

To limit funds to the United Nations and other organizations 

that provide any status, rights, or privileges beyond observer status to the Palestine Liberation Organization, 

and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘No Official Palestine 

5 Entry Act of 2024’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4311 IS

1 SEC. 2. MODIFICATION WITH RESPECT TO MEMBERSHIP OF 

2 PALESTINE LIBERATION ORGANIZATION IN 

3 UNITED NATIONS AGENCIES. 

4 Section 414(a) of the Foreign Relations Authoriza5 tion Act, Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 (22 U.S.C. 287e 

6 note; Public Law 101–246) is amended by striking ‘‘the 

7 same standing as member states’’ and inserting ‘‘any sta8 tus, rights, or privileges beyond observer status’’. 

9 SEC. 3. AMENDMENTS TO LIMITATIONS ON CONTRIBU10 TIONS TO THE UNITED NATIONS AND AFFILI11 ATED ORGANIZATIONS. 

12 Section 410 of the Foreign Relations Authorization 

13 Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 (22 U.S.C. 287e note; 

14 Public Law 103–236) is amended by striking ‘‘full mem15 bership’’ each place it appears and inserting ‘‘any status, 

16 rights, or privileges beyond observer status’’. 

17 SEC. 4. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION. 

18 Nothing is this Act shall be construed to apply to Tai19 wan. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
No. 52263.

protests 105054-K, etc. (New York).

#### American Mink Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court'dismissed the protests.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

December 14, 2007

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

 [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 05-14383

 

D. C. Docket No. 02-20398 CV-KAM

DANIEL LUGO,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

GAIL LEVINE, 

ALISON W. LEHR, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

 

(December 14, 2007)

Before EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, DUBINA, Circuit Judge and STORY,*

District Judge.

_____________________

*Honorable Richard W. Story, United States District Judge for the Northern District of

Georgia, sitting by designation.
 Though the district court based its dismissal on the defendants’ argument for absolute 1

prosecutorial immunity, we need not address that question. Lugo failed to state a claim absent such

immunity, and we may affirm for any reason supported by the record. See Williams v. Bd. of

Regents of Univ. Sys. of Ga., 477 F.3d 1282, 1294 (11th Cir. 2007).

2

PER CURIAM:

In this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff

Daniel Lugo (“Lugo”) appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his amended

complaint and denying his various post-judgment motions.

We review de novo a district court’s order dismissing a complaint,

accepting all allegations “in the complaint as true and drawing all reasonable

inferences therefrom in the plaintiff’s favor.” Chesser v. Sparks, 248 F.3d 1117,

1121 (11th Cir. 2001). Nevertheless, “conclusory allegations, unwarranted factual

deductions or legal conclusions masquerading as facts will not prevent dismissal.” 

Davila v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 326 F.3d 1183, 1185 (11th Cir. 2003).

After reviewing the record, reading the parties’ briefs, and having the

benefit of oral argument, we conclude that Lugo’s amended complaint failed to

state a claim. Moreover, because we conclude that the district court properly

1

dismissed the amended complaint, we conclude that it did not abuse its discretion

by denying Lugo’s various post-judgment motions, including those requesting

relief not pled in the amended complaint. Accordingly, we affirm the district
3

court’s orders dismissing Lugo’s amended complaint and denying his various

post-judgment motions.

AFFIRMED.
##### 



Employment and Term




---



##### 



-2-




---



##### 



-3-
           -4-




---



##### 



Duties of the Executive
 -5-




---



##### 



Compensation
 Base Salary
 Restricted Stock Award
       -6-




---



##### 



Expenses
 Indemnification
 Confidential Information
 -7-




---



##### 



Entire Agreement; Amendment
 Assignability
 Notice
 Specific Performance
 No Third Party Beneficiaries
 Successor Liability
 -8-




---



##### 



Mitigation
 Waiver of Breach
 No Attachment
 Severability
 Survival of Benefits
 Construction
 -9-




---



##### 



LUMINENT MORTGAGE CAPITAL, INC.By:S. Trezevant Moore,Jr., President and Chief Operating Officer Gail P. Seneca -10-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM ESSEX
PORTFOLIO, L.P. REPORT FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2000.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          23,086
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,577
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                67,711
<PP&E>                                       1,029,561
<DEPRECIATION>                                  95,404
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,056,362
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           48,436
<BONDS>                                        372,917
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                     627,521
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,056,362
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                39,536
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   17,522
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,284
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,808
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 18,798
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             18,798
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    18,798
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.70
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.69


</TABLE>
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 19 Filed 04/17/2006 Page 1 of 1

BLACKWATER SECURITY CONSULTING, LLC et al v. WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY et al Doc. 19

Dockets.Justia.com
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Federal real property profileas of September 30 ... [electronic resource].**
 
1966
1970 | 1974 | 1978
1980 | 1983 | 1984| 1985 | 1986 | 1988| 1989
1990 | 1991 | 1992| 1994 | 1995 | 1996| 1997 | 1998
2001 | 2002 | 2003| 2004 | 2005
 
SuDoc Number:GS 1.15/6:
Item Number:0559-A-02 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000556617
 
February 11, 2020
[PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-12816

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 9:13-cv-80831-KAM

ALTMAN CONTRACTORS, INC., 

a Florida corporation, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CRUM & FORSTER SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, 

an Arizona company, 

 Defendant - Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(January 26, 2018)

Before JORDAN and FAY, Circuit Judges, and FRIEDMAN,* District Judge.

 *

The Honorable Paul L. Friedman, United States District Judge for the District of Columbia, 

sitting by designation.

Case: 15-12816 Date Filed: 01/26/2018 Page: 1 of 3 
2

PER CURIAM: 

This case returns to us after our certification of a dispositive question of state 

law to the Florida Supreme Court. For background, we refer the reader to our 

previous opinion in this case, Altman Contractors, Inc. v. Crum & Forster 

Specialty Ins. Co., 832 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2016). In that opinion, we certified 

the following question:

Is the notice and repair process set forth in Chapter 558 of the Florida 

Statutes a “suit” within the meaning of the CGL policies issued by 

C&F to ACI?

Id. at 1326. The Florida Supreme Court answered this question in the affirmative, 

explaining that “[a]lthough the chapter 558 process does not constitute a ‘civil 

proceeding,’ it is included in the policy’s definition of ‘suit’ as an ‘alternative 

dispute resolution proceeding’ to which the insurer’s consent is required to invoke 

the insurer’s duty to defend the insured.” Altman Contractors, Inc. v. Crum & 

Forster Specialty Ins. Co., --- So. 3d ---, No. SC16-1420, 2017 WL 6379535, at *5 

(Fla. Dec. 14, 2017). The Florida Supreme Court did “not address whether, in this 

case, C&F consented to [ACI’s] participation in the chapter 558 process because it 

[was] outside the scope of the certified question and an issue of fact disputed by 

the parties.” Id.

The Florida Supreme Court, therefore, reached a different conclusion than 

did the district court regarding whether chapter 558 constitutes an alternative 

Case: 15-12816 Date Filed: 01/26/2018 Page: 2 of 3 
3

dispute resolution proceeding (and accordingly a “suit” under the CGL policies at 

issue). Compare id. with Altman Contractors, 832 F.3d at 1325 (explaining district 

court’s holding that chapter 558 is not an alternative dispute resolution proceeding 

and, therefore, not a ‘suit’ under the CGL policies). Because “state courts are the 

ultimate expositors of state law,” Reaves v. Sec’y, Fla. Dept. of Corr., 717 F.3d 

886, 903 (11th Cir. 2013), the Florida Supreme Court’s determination on this point 

is dispositive. Given the benefit of this answer to our certified question, we 

reverse the grant of summary judgment in favor of C&F, vacate the final judgment,

and remand this case to the district court for further proceedings. We thank the 

Florida Supreme Court for accepting, and answering, the certified question.

REVERSED, VACATED AND REMANDED.

Case: 15-12816 Date Filed: 01/26/2018 Page: 3 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

PORTER, SCOTT, WEIBERG & DELEHANT

A Professional Corporation

Carl Fessenden, SBN 161494

Michael W. Pott, SBN 186156

350 University Avenue, Suite 200

Sacramento, California 95825

(916) 929-1481

(916) 927-3706 (facsimile)

Attorney For Defendants

COUNTY OF YUBA, COUNTY OF YUBA CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES, COUNTY OF YUBA

CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DIRECTOR MICHAEL D. TESTERMAN 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CORTNEY DOZIER,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

MICHAEL D. TESTERMAN, ESQ.; and

COUNTY OF YUBA CHILD SUPPORT

SERVICES

Defendants.

 /

Case No. CIV.S-04-1312 MCE-KJM-P 

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH

PREJUDICE AND ORDER

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties to this action through their

designated counsel that the above-captioned action be and hereby is dismissed with prejudice as to all

claims and all parties pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1) and (2). Each party is to bear its own costs and

attorneys’ fees.

Dated: October ___, 2005

COURTNEY DOZIER

By___________________________

Courtney Dozier

 Pro Per

Case 2:04-cv-01312-MCE -KJM Document 23 Filed 10/14/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Dated: October 13, 2005 PORTER, SCOTT, WEIBERG & DELEHANT

A Professional Corporation

By /s/ 

Carl Fessenden 

Michael W. Pott

Attorneys for Defendants 

COUNTY OF YUBA, COUNTY OF YUBA

CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES, and

COUNTY OF YUBA CHILD SUPPORT

SERVICES DIRECTOR MICHAEL D.

TESTERMAN 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 13, 2005

___________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01312-MCE -KJM Document 23 Filed 10/14/05 Page 2 of 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 quarterly report of General Steel Holdings, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with
      the Commission on February 12, 2007 (the “Report”), I, John Chen, Chief
      Financial Officer and Director 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:




(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 results of operations of the Company.




Date:
                February 12, 2007/s/
                John ChenBy:
                John ChenTitle:
                Director and Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofAbgenix, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30,2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)           TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

August 9, 2005

 

 
|   | /s/  WILLIAM R. RINGO                  |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|   | William  R. Ringo                      |
|   | President  and Chief Executive Officer |
|   | (Principal  Executive Officer)         |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906has been provided to Abgenix, Inc. and will be retained by Abgenix, Inc.and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

 

----
No. 50019.

#### Petition 6430-R of Rene Weil (New York).

Opinion by

Lawbence, J.

The importer filed an appeal for reappraisement but found it impracticable to procure evidence and accordingly abandoned the appeal which was subsequently dismissed. When this case was' called for trial Mr. Heinrich Meyer, witness for the petitioner, testified that he bought the mferchan-dise in question and paid the price represented on the invoice. Although the invoice conspicuously disclosed two prices, it is obvious from the entire record that the witness entered at the purchase price rather than at the home consumption value. He further stated that he had authorized his broker to make entry herein; that he gave no instructions as to the market’value or the price at which to enter beyond the information contained in the invoice; and that he had no intention of deceiving the appraiser, concealing information, or of attempting to clear the goods through the customs at less than the correct amount of duty. The Government examiner testified that prior to appraisement the importer was requested to come to the appraiser’s office; that said Mr. Meyer appeared but gave no explanation for the difference between the two prices shown on the invoice; and that no request was made to amend the entry. The Government contends that the petition should be denied because the importer made “no attempt to determine or ascertain the true statutory value of the merchandise.” *D. S. Walton & Co.*v. *United States*(16 Ct. Cust. Appls. 100, T. D. 42756) and *Hensel Bruckmann & Lorbacher*v. *United States*(13 id. 498, T. D. 41377) cited.

From an examination of the entire record the court held that in this case the '“home consumption” price was as conspicuously displayed on the invoice as was the “invoice unit” price upon which the importer made entry. With this information plainly before the appraiser, the court was of the opinion that the entry of the merchandise at a less value than that returned on final appraisement was without any intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal •or misrepresent the facts or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.
- Bureau of the Fiscal Service
- Secure Payment System
- Technical Requirements

# Technical Requirements

The Secure Payment System (SPS) is a web-based application.

To  use SPS, you must use a computer system that meets these requirements:

- Desktop, laptop, or tablet with 64-bit Windows 10 or 11. You should have applied all the latest Windows updates, patches, and service packs from Microsoft.
- Latest version of Adobe Acrobat       Reader 
- PIV/CAC/PIV-I card 
- One PIV/CAC/PIV-I card Reader 
- Internet connectivity 

Windows  10 and 11 are fully supported on Desktop, Laptop and Tablet form factors. Windows  7 and Windows 8.x are no longer supported operating systems.

SPS  does not use a web browser (like Microsoft Edge, Apple Safari, Google Chrome,  or Mozilla Firefox) to launch or run. SPS does not depend on Java Web Plug-ins.

SPS  uses a localized version of Java, not the Java that browsers use. This Java is  built into SPS. Any Java updates your agency makes do not affect SPS.

Last modified 05/26/23
Before the Second Division,

August 30, 1950

No. 54637.

#### Doughnut Corporation of America *v.*United States,

petition 6645-R (Duluth).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

When the case was called for hearing petitioner’s customhouse broker, who had made entry of the merchandise involved, testified that in making entry he believed the values shown were the correct values. Upon the entire record the court held that there was no intention to defraud the revenue ■of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the ease or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.