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

 

**Certifications**

 

I, Michael J. Grebe, certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewedthis quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Interline Brands, Inc.;

 

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

 

3.               Based on myknowledge, the financial statements and other financial information included inthis quarterly 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 quarterly report;

 

4.               The registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a)              designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused each disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

b)             evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in 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)              disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat 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 and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent function):

 

a)              all significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b)             any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date: August 11, 2005 | By:    |   /S/ MICHAEL J. GREBE      |
|-----------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|                  |   | Michael J. Grebe                      |
|                  |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
Before the First Division,

December 15, 1958

No. 62594.

#### L. Matousek *v.*United States,

protests 285275-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of shells the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstract 62251, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Case No. 5,358.

#### GERMAIN v. KNOX.

[Nowhere reported; opinion not now accessible.]
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 Sunway Global Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Samuel Sheng, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 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.




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




The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.




Dated: July 6, 2011
By:
/s/ Samuel ShengSamuel ShengChief Financial Officer(principal financial and accounting officer)
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

MICHAEL SWEET,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2703 FCD PAN P

vs.

O. C. O’CONNOR, et al.,,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On April 27, 2006, defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 12(b). Plaintiff has not opposed the motion. 

Local Rule 78-230(m) provides in part: “Failure of the responding party to file

written opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any

opposition to the granting of the motion . . . .” On February 22, 2006, plaintiff was advised of

the requirements for filing an opposition to the motion and that failure to oppose such a motion

may be deemed a waiver of opposition to the motion. 

Local Rule 11-110 provides that failure to comply with the Local Rules “may be

grounds for imposition of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the

inherent power of the Court.” In the order filed February 22, 2006, plaintiff was advised that 

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02703-FCD-EFB Document 22 Filed 06/01/06 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

failure to comply with the Local Rules may result in a recommendation that the action be

dismissed.

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within thirty days of the

date of this order, plaintiff shall file an opposition, if any he has, to the motion to dismiss or a

statement of non-opposition. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation

that this action be dismissed pursuant Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

DATED: May 31, 2006.

12

swee2703 .46osc

Case 2:04-cv-02703-FCD-EFB Document 22 Filed 06/01/06 Page 2 of 2
#### 320 Realty Management Co., Appellant, v 320 West 76 Corp. et al., Defendants, and Irwin Granville et al., Respondents.

[633 NYS2d 295]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Lobis, J.), entered on or about June 10, 1994, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the second cause of action alleging fraudulent misrepresentation for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The pleadings allege that defendants misrepresented that a *175tenant intended to purchase her apartment; that such sale would "break the ice” causing other tenants to purchase shares allocated to their apartments; and that the misrepresentation induced plaintiff to enter into a settlement agreement. These allegations do not suffice to state a claim of fraudulent misrepresentation *(Chimento Co. v Banco Popular,*208 AD2d 385). Assuming the falsity of the statement concerning the intended purchase by the tenant, as we must on this CPLR 3211 (a) (7) motion, plaintiff was unjustified in relying upon representations concerning the future intent to act by third parties, i.e., possible purchases by other tenants of .the building. Knowledge of their actual intent was not exclusively within defendants’ control and could otherwise be ascertained by plaintiff, as the sponsor of the cooperative conversion *(198 Ave. B Assocs. v Bee Corp.,*155 AD2d 273, 274-275). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Ross and Tom, JJ.
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 07-509 

________________________________________________________________________ 

DEFENSE 

Communications 

 Memorandum of Understanding 

Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and the UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN 

AND NORTHERN IRELAND 

Signed at Corsham and Offutt AFB 

March 16 and May 9, 2007 

with 

Annex 

 and 

Agreement Amending the 

Memorandum of Understanding 

Signed at Abbey Wood and Offutt AFB 

December 4, 2007 and January 18, 2008 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
 UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN 

 AND NORTHERN IRELAND 

 Defense: Communications 

 Memorandum of understanding signed at 

 Corsham and Offutt AFB 

 March 16 and May 9, 2007; 

 Entered into force May 9, 2007. 

 With annex. 

 And agreement amending the 

 memorandum of understanding. 

 Signed at Abbey Wood and Offutt AFB 

 December 4, 2007 and January 18, 2008; 

 Entered into force January 18, 2008. 


























NOTE: It is noted that the Memorandum of Understanding referenced in the second paragraph on this page entered into force on May 9, 2007.
EXHIBIT 10.3
                              PROMISSORY NOTE


$1,200.00                                             Santa Ana, California
                                                            January 2, 2002

     THE UNDERSIGNED promises to pay to the order of Whitelight Technologies,
Inc. at 1516 Brookhollow Drive, Suite D, Santa Ana, CA 92705, or at such
other place as the holder hereof may designate in writing, the sum of one
thousand two hundred dollars ($1,200.00), with interest thereon at the rate
of 10% per annum from the date of the original promissory note, January 2,
2001.  Principal and interest shall be due and payable upon demand.  This
note shall replace the promissory note for these funds dated January 2, 2001,
originally due on January 2, 2002.

     Prepayment of this note may be made at any time without penalty.

     In the event of commencement of suit to enforce payment of this note,
the undersigned agrees to pay such additional sum as attorney's fees as the
court may adjudge reasonable.

                                       Mezzanine Investment Corporation

                                       By: /s/ Eric Chess Bronk
                                           Eric Chess Bronk, President
**EXHIBIT 12.1****COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES**                           **Three Months Ended**  **Years Ended December 31,**   **March 31, 2008**  **2007**  **2006**  **2005**  **2004**  **2003** Fixed charges (1):                        Interest expense $188,945  $847,241  $606,725  $185,935  $79,053  $39,956 Interest capitalized  —   357   414   932   —   — Interest portion of rental expense  437   1,697   1,327   1,244   1,494   843                    Total fixed charges $189,382  $849,295  $608,466  $188,111  $80,547  $40,799                                             Earnings:                                                 Net income before noncontrolling interest expensesand income taxes $11,144  $268,788  $350,749  $269,072  $205,421  $132,480 Fixed charges  189,382   849,295   608,466   188,111   80,547   40,799 Less: Interest capitalized  —   (357)  (414)  (932)  —   —                    Total earnings $200,526  $1,117,726  $958,801  $456,251  $285,968  $173,279                                             Ratio of earnings to fixed charges  **1.1**x  **1.3****x  **1.6****x  **2.4****x  **3.6****x  **4.2****x                    (1) Excludes interest related to the application of FIN 48.
 **************
# C_2007141EN.01002601.xml

| 26.6.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 141/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/26

---

Commission notice pursuant to Article 4(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92

Modification by Italy of the public service obligation in respect of the following scheduled air services: Alghero-Rome, Alghero-Milan, Cagliari-Rome, Cagliari-Milan, Olbia-Rome and Olbia-Milan

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 141/11)

In accordance with Article 4(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes (1), the Italian Government has decided to modify the public service obligation in respect of the following scheduled services: Alghero-Rome, Alghero-Milan, Cagliari-Rome, Cagliari-Milan, Olbia-Rome and Olbia-Milan, published in
  Official Journal of the European Union C 72, 24.3.2006, p. 4, concerning point 4.1 on the fares applicable to these routes.

1

Official Journal of the European Union

In accordance with point 4.5 of the public service obligation, the fares are revised as follows:

| Route | Maximum concessionary fare | Maximum non-concessionary fare |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Alghero-Rome or vice versa: | EUR 46 | EUR 102 |
| Alghero-Milan or vice versa | EUR 56 | EUR 117 |
| Cagliari-Rome and vice versa | EUR 46 | EUR 102 |
| Cagliari-Milan and vice versa | EUR 56 | EUR 117 |
| Olbia-Rome and vice versa | EUR 46 | EUR 102 |
| Olbia-Milan or vice versa | EUR 56 | EUR 117 |

Route

Maximum concessionary fare

Maximum non-concessionary fare

Alghero-Rome or vice versa:

EUR 46

EUR 102

Alghero-Milan or vice versa

EUR 56

EUR 117

Cagliari-Rome and vice versa

EUR 46

EUR 102

Cagliari-Milan and vice versa

EUR 56

EUR 117

Olbia-Rome and vice versa

EUR 46

EUR 102

Olbia-Milan or vice versa

EUR 56

EUR 117

The other requirements of the public service obligation published in OJ C 72, 24.3.2006, p. 4, remain unchanged.

---

(1)  OJ L 240, 24.8.1992, p. 8.

1

---
No. 50102.

#### Protests 102639-K, etc., of Atlantic & Pacific Packing Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
February 15, 1944

No. 49204.

Suit 4433.

#### *Eurasia Import Co., Inc.*v. *United States.*

C. D. 693 affirmed January 3, 1944. C. A. D. 265.
Exhibit 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 American Home Mortgage Investment
Corp. (the "Registrant") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Stephen A. Hozie, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best
of my knowledge, 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 Registrant.


August 9, 2004

                                    /s/ Stephen A. Hozie
                                 -----------------------
                                 Stephen A. Hozie
                                 Executive Vice President and
                                 Chief Financial Officer
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 23

- 00052

- CR

S ALVADOR R UBIO

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 355th District

Court

of Hood County ( CR15025 )

December 14, 2023

Memorandum Opinion by Justice

Birdwell

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

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

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

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Wade Birdwell

Justice Wade Birdwell
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 51 (Friday, March 16, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 12655]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4872]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>10826]


Washington Disaster <greek-i>WA-00010 Declaration of Economic 
Injury

AGENCY: Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) 
declaration for the State of Washington, dated 03/12/2007.
    Incident: Winter Storm.
    Incident Period: 11/26/2006 through 12/04/2006.
    Effective Date: 03/12/2007.
    EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date: 12/12/2007.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the Administrator's EIDL declaration, applications for economic injury 
disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other 
locally announced locations.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:

Primary County: San Juan.
Contiguous Counties: No Eligible Contiguous Counties.

    The Interest Rate is: 4.000.
    The number assigned to this disaster for economic injury is 108260.
    The State which received an EIDL Declaration <greek-i> is 
Washington.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59002)

    Dated: March 12, 2007.
Steven C. Preston,
Administrator.
 [FR Doc. E7-4872 Filed 3-15-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
No. 61401.

protests 302815-K, etc. (New York).

#### Ferd. Werthheimer, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with rule 5 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protests were dismissed for lack of prosecution.
##### 



EXHIBIT 8
 CERTIFICATION
 
  (1)
    
    the Report fully complies, in all material respects, with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 (2)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  /s/
Donald A. StewartDonald A. StewartChief Executive OfficerDate: February 13, 2006 /s/
Paul W. DerksenPaul W. DerksenExecutive Vice-President and
Chief Financial Officer
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v RICHARD M. HICKS, Private First Class, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

15 USCMA 68, 35 CMR 40

No. 17,987

October 2, 1964

*Lieutenant Colonel Charles B. Sevier,*USMC, and *Lieutenant Thomas J. Hilligan,*USNR, were on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant H. D. Campbell,*USNR, was on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam:

Tried by special court-martial, the accused was found guilty of larceny of a wristwatch, in violation of Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 121, 10 USC § 921, and sentenced to bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of $50.00 per month for four months, confinement at hard labor for four months, and reduction. Intermediate appellate au*69thorities affirmed, with one member of the board of review dissenting, and accused has filed a timely petition for review with this Court, without specifying error.

Examination of the record discloses that accused, contrary to evidence adduced by the Government, claimed testi-monially that he did not steal the watch from the alleged victim but conceded that he pawned it, in light of the fact that the pawn ticket bore both his name and fingerprint. According to Hicks, it was common practice for him to “[t]ake things out for friends and pawns [sic] it, or borrow things from friends and pawn it.” He was unable to recall the “friend” for whom he had pawned the watch and to whom he had given the proceeds of the pledge.

Without in any manner tailoring the instructions to the evidence before him, the president advised the court, among other things, that it might find the accused guilty, if it was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he “wrongfully took, obtained, or withheld” the property described in the specification, without the consent of the owner, and with the requisite intent to steal. At no point, did he advise the court of the fact that accused could not be convicted of larceny solely on the basis of pawning a stolen watch or failing to redeem it and return it to the true owner. Cf. United States v McFarland, 8 USCMA 42, 23 CMR 266. In short, under the instructions, the court might have convicted the accused of larceny on the basis of “withholding” the watch from its proper owner rather than on the correct theory of taking it from his possession originally. Such failure properly to submit the theories of the respective parties was prejudicially erroneous. United States v Jones, 13 USCMA 635, 33 CMR 167.

The petition for review is granted. The decision of the board of review is reversed, and the record of trial is returned to The Judge Advocate General of the Navy. A rehearing may be ordered.