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

CASH 4 HOMES 247Certifications

                I, Gordon Forgey, certify that:

               1.             I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q ofCash 4 Homes 247.

               2.             Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterlyreport;

               3.             Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, andother 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 officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and15d-14) for the registrant and have:

                               (a)           designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure thatmaterial 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 quarterly report is being prepared;

                               (b)           evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controlsand 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 theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

               5.             The Registrant's other certifying officer and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function): a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internalcontrols which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and haveidentified 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 officer and I haveindicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors thatcould significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actionswith regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date:   November 22, 2004           /s/ Gordon Forgey                                                       Gordon Forgey,President and Chief Operating Officer
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Dale E. Messick, certify that: 

1. Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Luna Innovations Incorporated; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not containany 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 allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

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

(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned 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 report isbeing prepared; 

(b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin 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 

(c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’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 arereasonably 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 controls over financial reporting. 

Date: November 13, 2007
(Reap. Dec. 10438)

#### United China & Glass Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 2450, etc.

(Decided February 5, 1963)

*Stein & Shostah*for the plaintiff.

*Joseph D. Guilfoyle,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

*379Oliver, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, are before me for decision on a written stipulation reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, as to the merchandise marked “V” and initialed RA by Robert Abramson on the invoices accompanying the entries covered by the appeals for reappi'aisement enumerated in the attached Schedule of Oases, which is incorporated herein, that, on the dates of exportation thereof to the United States, the market values or the prices at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, were the ex factory invoiced unit values, net packed.

> That all of the merchandise covered by all of the appeals for reappraisement the subject of this stipulation was entered subsequent to February 27, 1958.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that as to any of the merchandise on the invoices covered by the entries the subject of the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the attached Schedule of Oases which is included in the list of articles designated by the Secretary of the Treasury in T.D. 54521, 93 Cust. Ct. [sip] 14, issued January 20,1958, as provided for in Sec. 6(a) of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, Public Law 927, 84th Congress, that there were no higher foreign values for such or similar merchandise on the dates of exportation involved herein.

On the agreed facts, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question, as hereinabove identified, is statutory export value and that such value therefor is the ex-factory invoice unit values, net, packed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Exhibit 99.3

                        Written Statement of the Trustee


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, I, the undersigned Trustee of the Journal
Employees' Stock Trust (the "Trust"), hereby certify, based on my knowledge,
that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Trust for the year ended December 31,
2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Trust.


/s/ Steven J. Smith
----------------------------------
Steven J. Smith
March 31, 2003


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Journal Employees' Stock Trust and will be retained by Journal
Employees' Stock Trust and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDRE RIDER,

Petitioner,

v.

S. KERNAN, Warden,

Respondent.

CIV S-04-1809 GEB CMK P

ORDER ENLARGING TIME

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Respondent’s

application for a thirty-day enlargement of time to and including July 25, 2005, to file a response to

the petitioner's application for writ of habeas corpus, is hereby GRANTED.

Dated: June 22, 2005

/s/ CRAIG M. KELLISON 

Craig M. Kellison

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:04-cv-01809-GEB -CMK Document 8 Filed 06/24/05 Page 1 of 1
[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: Annualreport.**
 
2000 | 2001 | 2002 |2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007
 
SuDoc Number:I 29.89/2:
Item Number:0646-R-02 (online)
CGP systemNumber: 000557063
 
July 30, 2018
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED**

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

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of EnerNOC, Inc.(the “Company”), for the quarter ended June 30, 2010, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we,Timothy G. Healy, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Timothy Weller,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, to such officer’sknowledge, pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18, UnitedStates Code, that:

 

(1) TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities 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.

 
|   | Date:  August 5, 2010             |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|   |                                   |   |
| By:    | /s/  Timothy G. Healy                  |   |
|   | Timothy  G. Healy                      |   |
|   | Chief  Executive Officer               |   |
|   |                                   |   |
|   |                                   |   |
| By:    | /s/  Timothy Weller                    |   |
|   | Timothy  Weller                        |   |
|   | Chief  Financial Officer and Treasurer |   |

 

----
Federal Depository Library ProgramPersistent URL Home Page      

# Target for /GPO/LPS4028 lost

The target resource for this PURL can no longer be traced. The following is a list of the targets this PURL was previously assigned to.

Powered by the Federal Depository Library Program.                A service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office.
No. 53015.

#### Edward *&*John Burke, Ltd., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 96690-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 64855.

#### Justin Tharaud & Son, Inc., and J. J. Murphy & Co. *v.*United States,

protests 219465-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of Rockingham earthenware similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Justin Tharaud & Son, Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(44 Cust. Ct. 216, C.D. 2177), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
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

Order

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

MARCUS R. ELLINGTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

E. S. ALAMEIDA, et al.,

Defendants.

02:04-CV-0666 DFL KJM P

ORDER

On May 24, 2006, Defendants filed a request to act in excess of time, nunc pro tunc, to

respond to Plaintiff’s interrogatories (Dr. Rohlfing), Plaintiff’s First Set of Admissions (Dr.

Rohlfing) and Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Production. They explain that Plaintiff

mistakenly included or otherwise attached the discovery as if exhibits to an opposition to an

earlier motion, rather than serving it separately.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Defendants are granted thirty days from the date of this order

to serve their responses to Plaintiff’s discovery. Plaintiff is granted fifteen days from the receipt

of Defendants’ discovery responses to address such discovery. For all other discovery matters, 

June 16, 2006, shall remain the discovery deadline.

Dated: May 25, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00666-RSL-JLW Document 92 Filed 05/26/06 Page 1 of 1
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 22 - 0278

_________________ STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. DANIEL HUNTER FLANSBURG,

Defendant and Appellant. O R D E R

_________________ Appellant Daniel Hunter Flansburg appeals from the Sentencing Order and Judgment of the Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County, in its Cause No. BDC - 19 - 097 . Flansburg argues the District Court erred by failing to give him credit for 169 days served because it calculated his time from the wrong start date . The State has filed a Notice of C oncession that this matter should be remanded to the District C ourt for the purpose of entering an amended sentence and judgment . The State agrees that in this case the District Court erred in failing to give Flansburg credit for sufficient days served and that Flansburg is due credit for an additional 169 days. Based on Flansburg’s opening brief and the State’s concession, and good c ause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County, with instructions for the District Court to amend its Judgment and Commitment to give Flansburg credit for an additional 169 days served . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the remainder of this appeal is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that REMITTITUR shall issue IMMEDIATELY UPON REMAND. The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this Order to all counsel of record and to presiding judge Honorable Elizabeth A. Best . Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 8 2023

12/08/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0278
No. 55250.

#### Davies, Turner & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 160009-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the •court dismissed the protests.
No. 50998.

#### Protests 37399-K, etc., of Agner & Frederickson Co. et al. (Los Angeles, etc.).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-2484
CHARLES GRAY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES L. ELLIS ALDRIDGE; ODESSA CLARK, her heirs, successors, and assigns, individually; GROVER LEE MOORE, his heirs, successors and assigns, individually; ANNIE MOORE, her heirs, successors, and assigns, individually; JOHN H. HARMON, Attorney at Law; CARRIE M. GODETTE, Defendants - Appellees, and
CLEVELAND CLARK; DAVID M. ALDRIDGE; ANNIE MAE ALDRIDGE; SALOMON MOORE; JOHN I. MORGAN, Register of D eeds of Beaufort County; BETTY WAILARD, Deputy Beaufort County Register of Deeds; BEAUFORT COUNTY, North Carolina, Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-93-152-4-H) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: April 22, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.23 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Gray, Appellant Pro Se. Milton E. Moore, MOORE, MOORE & RODGERS, Williamston, North Carolina; James Wilson Swindell, High Point, North Carolina; John H. Harmon, HARMON & RAYNOR, New Bern, North Carolina; Franics Blackwell Stith, STITH & STITH, P.A., New Bern, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing his Complaint for failure to prosecute, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Our review of the record and the district court's order adopting the recommendations of the magistrate judge disclose no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Gray v. Aldridge , No. CA-93-152-4-H (E.D.N.C. May 25, 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
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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Harry Nelson Miller,

Petitioner, No. Civ. S 04-1154 LKK PAN P

vs. Order

David L. Runnels,

Respondent.

-oOoApril 19, 2005, petitioner requested an extension of time to

file and serve a reply to respondent’s answer. Good cause

appearing, petitioner’s request is granted and time is extended

until 30 days from the date this order is signed.

So ordered.

Dated: May 12, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01154-AK Document 8 Filed 05/12/05 Page 1 of 1
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

APRIL 5, 2011

JOHN LEY

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 10-12116

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 1:09-cr-20545-AJ-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE CARRENO,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

_________________________

(April 5, 2011)

Before EDMONDSON, WILSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Hector Flores, appointed counsel for Jose Carreno in this direct criminal

appeal, has filed a motion to withdraw from further representation of the appellant,
because counsel believes that the appeal is without merit. Counsel has filed a brief

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493

(1967).

Our independent review of the record reveals that counsel’s assessment of

the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the

entire record reveals no arguably meritorious issues of merit, counsel’s motion to

withdraw is GRANTED, and Carreno’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.

2
Before the Second Division,

February 28, 1951

No. 55262.

#### Charles Gitlan & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 166234-K (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

It appeared from the record that this case was docketed on the day calendar on two separate occasions and finally submitted without the introduction of any competent evidence. As there was nothing before the court to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s decision, the protest was overruled.
Exhibit 13.(a).1




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the Annual Report of Partner Communications Company Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned hereby certify that to the best of our knowledge:




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: March 19, 2013




By: /s/ Haim Romano

——————————————

Name: Haim Romano

Title: Chief Executive Officer




Date: March 19, 2013




By: /s/ Ziv Leitman

——————————————

Name: Ziv Leitman

Title: Chief Financial Officer
– 1 – 

 

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

Holland &

Knight L

L

P

50 California Street, 28th Floor

San Francisco, C

A 94111

Tel: (415) 743-6900

Fax: (415) 743-6910

Michael D. Koomer (Bar No. 43476) 

Alan H. Finkel (Bar No. 93763) 

ZIMMERMAN, KOOMER, CONNOLLY & FINKEL, LLP 

1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2375 

Los Angeles, California 90067 

Telephone: (310) 229-1700 

Facsimile: (310) 277-0035 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

WOODRIDGE LABS, INC. 

Matthew P. Vafidis (Bar No. 103578) 

Chung-Han Lee (Bar No. 231950) 

HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 

50 California Street, 28th Floor 

San Francisco, California 94111 

Telephone: (415) 743-6900 

Facsimile: (415) 743-6910 

Attorneys for Defendant 

BLOCH LUMBER COMPANY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SACRAMENTO DIVISION 

WOODRIDGE LABS, INC., a California 

corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

BLOCH LUMBER COMPANY, and DOES 1 

through 100, inclusive 

Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. CIV. S-04-1972 MCE DAD 

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF 

ACTION 

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

designated counsel that the above-captioned action, including all claims and counterclaims, be 

and hereby is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1) and the parties Confidential 

Global Settlement Agreement and Release. 

Case 2:04-cv-01972-MCE -DAD Document 19 Filed 04/25/05 Page 1 of 2
– 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

Holland &

Knight L

L

P

50 California Street, 28th Floor

San Francisco, C

A 94111

Tel: (415) 743-6900

Fax: (415) 743-6910

Dated: April 14, 2005 //s// 

 MICHAEL D. KOOMER 

 Attorney for Plaintiff 

WOODRIDGE LABS, INC. 

Dated: April 22, 2005 //s// 

 CHUNG-HAN LEE 

 Attorney for Defendant 

BLOCH LUMBER COMPANY 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 25, 2005

__________________________________ 

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

Case 2:04-cv-01972-MCE -DAD Document 19 Filed 04/25/05 Page 2 of 2