alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31.3**

CERTIFICATION

I,Michael J. Ricketts, certify that:

1.             I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q of Cano Petroleum, Inc.;

2.             Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.             Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

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

(a)           designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)           evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and

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

5.             The registrant’sother certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)           allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

(b)           anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
| November 14, 2006               |
|---------------------------------|
|                            |
| /s/ Michael J.  Ricketts        |   |
| Michael J.  Ricketts            |
| Principal  Accounting Officer   |
| (Principal  Accounting Officer) |

 

----
Before the First Division,

August 25, 1944

No. 49682.

#### Protest 104810-K of French Italian Wine Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

At the trial the collector’s letter and statement of goods in warehouse referred to therein were admitted in evidence without objection of the Government. In view thereof the claim at % cent per pound was sustained.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7511

In Re: RODNEY H. WILLIAMS,

Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-01-231) Submitted: November 4, 2005 Decided: November 21, 2005 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rodney H. Williams, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Rodney H. Williams petitions for writ of mandamus. He seeks an order directing this court to retract and correct alleged errors in the opinion issued in United States v. Williams , No. 03- 4148, 2003 WL 21744160 (4th Cir. July 29, 2003) (unpublished). He further seeks an order directing certain judges that considered his direct criminal appeal be recused. The mandate in Williams’ appeal was entered September 10, 2003. As a result, this court is without jurisdiction over the case. SeeJohnson v. Bechtel Assoc. Prof’l Corp., D.C. , 801 F.2d 412, 415 (D.C. Cir. 1986); United States v. DiLapi , 651 F.2d 140, 144 (2d. Cir. 1981). Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. See In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn , 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). A court of appeals may issue a writ “for the sole purpose of protecting the respective jurisdiction” of the court. Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg County , 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969). Because this court is without jurisdiction over the appeal and very unlikely to ever regain jurisdiction, there is no basis upon which to grant the writ. Moreover, assuming this court had jurisdiction, there is no basis upon which it would enter an order to itself in order to protect its jurisdiction. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus. We grant Williams’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are- 3 - adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DISMISSED
No. 41789.

#### Protests 652192-G, etc., of G. Ascione, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 40880 it was held that an allowance should have been made in the weight of the cheese to compensate for the inedible covering on the outside.
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NORMAN HUBBS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2256 GEB DAD P

vs.

STEVEN MAYBERG, ORDER REQUIRING

Defendant. STATUS REPORT

 /

This matter has now been at issue for sufficient time that it may be ready to be set

for trial. Plaintiff and defendant shall therefore each submit to the court and serve by mail on

each other the following status report:

1. Whether this matter is ready for trial and, if not, why not;

2. Whether additional discovery is deemed necessary and, if so, the nature and

scope of the discovery and the time needed in which to complete it;

3. Whether a pretrial motion is contemplated and, if so, the type of motion and

the time needed to file the motion and complete the time schedule set forth in Local Rule 78-

230(m);

4. A narrative statement of the facts that will be offered by oral or documentary

evidence at trial;

Case 2:04-cv-02256-GEB-DAD Document 52 Filed 01/09/06 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

2

5. A list of all exhibits to be offered into evidence at the trial of the case;

6. A list of the names and addresses of all witnesses the party intends to call;

7. A summary of the anticipated testimony of any incarcerated witnesses;

8. The time estimated for trial;

9. Whether either party still requests trial by jury; and

 10. Any other matter, not covered above, which the party desires to call to the

attention of the court.

The parties are informed that they may, if both consent, have this case tried by a

United States Magistrate Judge while preserving their right to appeal to the United States Court

of Appeals. An appropriate form for consent to trial by a magistrate judge is attached. Any party

choosing to consent may complete the form and return it to the clerk of this court. Neither the

magistrate judge nor the district judge handling the case will be notified of the filing of a consent

form unless all parties to the action have consented.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s status report shall be filed and served within thirty days from the

date of service of this order. Defendant’s status report shall be filed within thirty days after

plaintiff serves his status report. The parties are advised that failure to file a status report in

accordance with this order may result in the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal of the

action or preclusion of issues or witnesses.

2. The clerk of the court is directed to mail to all parties the form “Consent to

Proceed Before United States Magistrate Judge,” together with the instant order.

DATED: January 9, 2006.

DAD:13

hubb2256.40

Case 2:04-cv-02256-GEB-DAD Document 52 Filed 01/09/06 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:04-cv-02383-FCD-DAD   Document 17    Filed 05/26/06   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2012-07-27T21:44:15-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TIMOTHY STREM,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-56709

D.C. No. 

3:15-cv-02120-KSC-JMA

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Karen S. Crawford, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted February 27, 2019

Southwestern Law School, Los Angeles, California

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, HAWKINS, Circuit Judge, and PREGERSON,**

District Judge.

 

Timothy Strem(“Strem”) brought an action against San Diego County Sheriff’s

Deputies Vernon Willis and Peter Myers (together, the “Deputies”) and the County

of San Diego (the “County”) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the Deputies used

FILED

APR 03 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The Honorable Dean D. Pregerson, United States District Judge for the

Central District of California, sitting by designation.
excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment by tackling him and

handcuffing his hands behind his back when responding to a 911 caller’s report that

Strem was suicidal and armed with a gun. Strem appeals the grant of summary

judgment in the defendants’ favor on qualified immunity grounds.1 We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

Under these circumstances, bringing Strem to the ground and handcuffing him

was a reasonable way of overcoming Strem’s resistance and ensuring the

Deputies’—and Strem’s—safety. See Jackson v. City of Bremerton, 268 F.3d 646,

650–53 (9th Cir. 2001) (officer did not use excessive force by pushing an unresisting,

unarmed suspect to the ground, kneeling on her back, and handcuffing her,

notwithstanding her complaints of prior injuries, because the suspect’s conduct

potentially threatened the officer’s safety). The Deputies did not violate Strem’s

constitutional rights. 

AFFIRMED.

1Strem challenges the grant of summary judgment as it pertains to the Deputies,

but not to the County. 

2
No. 53012.

#### G. & R. Importing Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 56490-K, etc. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United Slates*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained. The protests were overruled in all other respects.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John L. King, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 505]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Paño Z. Patsalos, J.), rendered May 6, 1994, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the hearing court did not err in denying his motion to suppress the identification testimony of the undercover officer who purchased narcotics from him on two separate occasions. Although more than one month elapsed between the sales and the defendant’s arrest, the officer spontaneously identified the defendant on June 2, 1993, when he unexpectedly encountered the defendant walking along a street in the area where the drug transactions had occurred. Furthermore, the officer’s viewing of the defendant on the following day to ensure that the proper person had been arrested was confirmatory in nature and did not taint his subsequent in-court identification *(see, People v Morales,*37 NY2d 262; *People v Fanfan,*207 AD2d 907; *People v Lane,*185 AD2d 282; *People v Knight,*156 AD2d 588).

The defendant’s further assertion that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his identity as the individual who sold the narcotics to the undercover officer is unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Udzinski,*146 AD2d 245, 250). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light *371most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

Finally, the defendant’s contention that the court’s reasonable doubt charge improperly shifted the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defense is also unpreserved for appellate review *(see, People v Whilby,*204 AD2d 370; *People v Burney,*192 AD2d 543), and, in any event, without merit *(see, People v Antommarchi,*80 NY2d 247; *People v Daniels,*204 AD2d 865). Miller, J. P., Thompson, Ritter and Krausman, JJ., concur.
(Reap. Dec. 9497)

#### Filjay Imports *v.*United States

Entry No. 870605, etc.

(Decided August 26, 1959)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, 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 STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the export value of the merchandise at the time of exportation to the United States covered by the Appeals to Reappraisement enumerated on the schedule attached hereto and made a part hereof at which time such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal market of the country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade for export to the United States including costs of containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise ready for shipment to the United States was the entered *484unit values less tlie addition made under duress to meet tlie advances by tbe Appraiser in similar cases covering non-dutiable F.O.B. charges for inland freight, insurance premium, storage, hauling and lighterage and that the issues involved are similar in all material respects to the issues involved in *Filjay Imports*v. *United States,*Reap. Dec. 8560.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED .that there was no higher domestic value for merchandise such or similar to the merchandise herein at the time of exportation thereof.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the Appeals to Re-appraisement enumerated on the schedule attached hereto and made a part hereof may be submitted for decision on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question is export value, as defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and hold that such statutory value therefor is, in each instance, the entered unit value, less the addition made under duress to meet the advances by the appraiser in similar cases covering nondutiable f.o.b. charges for inland freight, insurance premiums, storage, hauling, and lighterage.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
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 

Patrick R. Holley, Sr.,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-2006 MCE PAN P

vs. Amended Notice

California Department

of Corrections, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoMarch 9, 2005, the court issued a notice that plaintiff was

required to pay a $250 filing fee. Since plaintiff filed his

complaint before the filing fee increased, the court this date

made an order directing plaintiff to pay a $150 filing fee. 28

U.S.C. § 1914(a) (2000). However, plaintiff must make monthly

payments of 20 percent of the preceding month’s income credited

to his trust fund account. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The agency

having custody of plaintiff is required to forward payments from 

Case 2:04-cv-02006-MCE -EFB Document 13 Filed 05/12/05 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

2

plaintiff’s account to the clerk of the court each time the

amount in the account exceeds $10 until the filing fee is paid. 

The clerk of the court shall serve a copy of this amended

notice and a copy of plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application

upon the Director of the California Department of Corrections and

deliver a copy of this amended notice to the clerk’s financial

division.

Dated: May 12, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02006-MCE -EFB Document 13 Filed 05/12/05 Page 2 of 2
### SNAP STAKEHOLDER MEETING September 11, 2015
9:30 A

. M

. – 11 : 30 A

. M

. E D T Washington Marriot t at Metro Center, 775 12th Street

, NW Washington, DC 20005

EPA is hosting a stakeholder meeting for interested stakeholders to exchange information on the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program. On July 20, 2015, EPA published a final rule in the Federal Register to change the listing
status of various hydrofluorocarbons ( HFCs ) and HFC

- containing blends that were previously listed as acceptable alternatives in specific end

- uses in the aerosols, foam blowing, and refrigeration and air conditioning sectors. This rule is one of four recent actions, all of which support the President ’s June 2013 Climate Action Plan which directs EPA to “use its authority through the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program to encourage private sector investment in low

emissions technology by identifying and approving clim ate

- friendly chemicals while prohibiting certain uses of the most harmful chemical alternatives .”

AGENDA

1. Welcome & Introductions

2. Opening Remarks

3. The SNAP Program

a. HFCs & the Climate Action Plan
b. Overview of Recent Actions

4. Open Dialogue : Additional Listings and Changes of Status

a. Discussion Questions

5. Wrap Up & Next StepsKEY DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

To help frame our discussion, please consider the following questions ahead of the meeting on September 11. We look forward to engaging in a discussion on these and other topics you may wish to raise.

 What sectors or end

- uses need additional safer alternatives?

 The SNAP program continues to receive submissions across various sectors.

o Are the recently listed alternatives leading to transitions?

o Are additional submissions anticipated (e.g., new chemicals, new blends, existing chemicals for new applications)?

 What barriers do companies face in transitioning to safer alternatives?

 W h ere a transition has been made, what benefits have you experienced from making the change?

 How can SNAP continue to help “encourage private

- sector investment in
low

- emissions technology?”

o A potential substitute is often submitted for approval for many end

uses. Is it helpful for EPA to move forward with listing those end

- uses where we have made a determination while we are still reviewing
others?

 Are there sectors EPA should explore for po tential changes in status?

o For end

- uses EPA or stakeholders identify

- what safer alternatives are being used today?

o Are there end

- uses where safer alternatives are lacking?
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 333-190720) on Form S-8 of United Health Products, Inc. of our report dated May 4, 2015, relating to our audits of the financial statements as of December 31, 2014 and 2013 and for each of the two years in the period ended December 31, 2014, which appear in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of United Health Products, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2014.

 

 

*/s/ Rosenberg Rich Baker Berman & Company*

 

Somerset, NJ 

June 26, 2015
(Proposed) Order Extending Time

BARBARA MICHEL, Attorney at Law

California State Bar N. 95503

P.O. Box 12535

Berkeley, California 94712

Telephone (510) 841-4338

e-mail barbaramichel@sbcglobal.net

Attorney for Petitioner

Ellis Clay Hollis

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELLIS CLAY HOLLIS, CIV S-04-2574 MCE GGH P

Petitioner, ORDER

v. EXTENDING TIME

DAVID L. RUNNELS, Warden,

Respondent.

_______________________________________________/

Petitioner, Ellis Clay Hollis, through counsel, having applied for a 90-day

extension of time in which to comply with the filing deadline originally set at April 19,

2005, in which to file an amended petition or statement as expressed in the parties'

“JOINT SCHEDULING STATEMENT,” dated January 19, 2005, and Good Cause

therefor having been shown,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the time in which said petition or statement is to

be filed shall be extended by 90days, and that said document shall be filed on or before

July 18, 2005.

Dated: 5/3/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

_______________________________

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS, JUDGE

holl2574.eot04

Case 2:04-cv-02574-MCE -GGH Document 18 Filed 05/04/05 Page 1 of 1
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

November 6, 2013

No. 04

- 13

- 00626

- CR

Robert HERNANDEZ

, Appellant

v.

The State of

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 290th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011CR9923

Honorable Melisa Skinner , Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED.

It is so ORDERED on November 6, 2013

.

_____________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 6th day of November, 2013

.

_____________________________ Keith E. Hottle, Clerk
No. 62578.

#### J. J. Boll and Grossman Electric & Radio Co. *v.*United States,

protest 259314-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of resistors similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 57879, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

WILLIE CHARLES JONES,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D20-2060

[March 18, 2021]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Daliah H. Weiss, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 502014CF003853AXXXMB.

Willie Charles Jones, Lake City, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, MAY and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.