alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31 Section 302 Certifications  I, Roger L. Fidler, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2006 of Global Agri-Med Technologies, Inc.  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect  to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operation 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 defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)), and I have:  (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant is made known to me.  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report my 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 the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of the annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and  5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing equivalent functions):  (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of the internal cover over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial information; and   (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.   Dated: November 15, 2006 By: _/s/Roger L. Fidler_____ Roger L. Fidler President, Chief Executive and Financial Officer
Before the First Division,

February 25, 1944

No. 49219.

#### Petition 6359-R of Miller Bros. Hat Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

It appeared that the hats in question were a part of merchandise included in a previous season contract and were invoiced at the previous season price which, in the meantime, had advanced. From the record the court was satisfied that there was no intention of defrauding the revenue of the United States, concealing or misrepresenting the facts, or deceiving the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.
No. 61393.

protests 309351-K, etc. (New York).

#### Canada Dry Ginger Ale, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that the facts and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) and that the quantities reported by the inspector as manifested, not found, were not in fact received by the importers. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited it was held that duty and internal revenue tax are not assessable upon such portions of the merchandise as were reported by the inspector as not found. The protests were sustained to this extent.
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 Desert Health Products, Inc., (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each
of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his 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 operation
            of the Company.


By: /s/ Johnny Shannon
    ----------------------
Johnny Shannon                  Date: April 15, 2005
Chief Financial Officer

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


                                                                               1
Exhibit



HERE CONFIDENTIAL
Exhibit 10.16.35+







	
	
	FIRST AMENDMENT TO TERRITORY LICENSE NO. 11






This First Amendment (“First Amendment”) to the Territory License No. 11, effective April 3, 2015 (“TL 11”), to the Data License Agreement (“Agreement”), dated December 1, 2002, by and between Telenav, Inc. (“Client”) and Navigation Technologies Corporation, which was subsequently assigned to HERE North America, LLC (f/k/a NAVTEQ North America, LLC) (collectively, “HERE”), is made and entered into as of the date of latest signature below (“Amendment Effective Date”).  The Agreement and TL 11 is hereby referred to herein as the “Agreement.” Capitalized terms not otherwise defined in the body of this First Amendment shall have the meanings set forth in the Agreement.
WHEREAS, the Parties desire to amend certain terms of the Agreement;
NOW THEREFORE, the Parties agree to amend certain provisions of the Agreement with this First Amendment as follows:
		
	1.
	Licensed Use.  Section IV (Licensed Use) of TL 11 is hereby amended to add the following subsection IV(C):


C.    Distributing such Copies of the Compiled Data that includes HERE POIs and street names solely (i) to [*****]’s subcontractor, [*****] and its Affiliates (“[*****]”), and (ii) for [*****]’s internal, non-commercial evaluation purposes for possible support, development and/or maintenance of [*****] Route Guidance Applications as specified in TL 11; provided that, (1) there is a written agreement in place between Client and [*****] that is at least as protective of the HERE Data as is the terms of the Agreement; and (2) Client will remain liable for the acts or omissions of [*****] (i.e., any such actions or omissions by [*****] will be treated as actions or omissions by Client).  As used herein, an “Affiliate” of [*****] means an entity directly or indirectly controlled by or controls [*****] or (ii) is under common control with [*****].
		
	2.
	Except as modified hereunder, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall stay in full force and effect.




	
			
	Amendment 1 to TL 11 [Telenav, Inc.][NA AUTO PR-017756][8-10-16 lee]
	Page 1 of 2
	 






HERE CONFIDENTIAL







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this First Amendment to be executed by their authorized representatives as of the Amendment Effective Date.
	
					
	HERE NORTH AMERICA, LLC
	 
	TELENAV, INC.

	By:
	/s/ Lori Bellows
	 
	By:
	/s/Michael Strambi

	Name:
	Lori Bellows
	 
	Name:
	Michael Strambi

	Title:
	Director
	 
	Title:
	Chief Financial Officer

	Date:
	8/24/2016
	 
	Date:
	8/17/2016

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	HERE NORTH AMERICA, LLC
	 
	 
	 

	By:
	/s/ Janet Lee
	 
	 
	 

	Name:
	Janet Lee
	 
	 
	 

	Title:
	Director
	 
	 
	 

	Date:
	8/24/2016
	 
	 
	 






[*****] Certain portions denoted with an asterisk have been omitted and filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Confidential treatment has been requested with respect to the omitted portions.








	
			
	Amendment 1 to TL 11 [Telenav, Inc.][NA AUTO PR-017756][8-10-16 lee]
	Page 2 of 2
# C_2007141EN.01002401.xml

| 26.6.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 141/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/24

---

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: Pantelleria-Palermo, Lampedusa-Palermo, Lampedusa-Catania, Lampedusa-Rome and Pantelleria-Rome

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 141/09)

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 air services: Pantelleria-Palermo, Lampedusa-Palermo, Lampedusa-Catania, Lampedusa-Rome and Pantelleria-Rome, published in
  Official Journal of the European Union C 305, 14.12.2006, p. 13, concerning point 2.4 on the fares applicable to these routes.

1

Official Journal of the European Union

In accordance with point 2.4(b) of the public service obligation, the fares are revised as follows:

| Route | Revised fare |
| --- | --- |
| Pantelleria-Palermo or vice versa | EUR 32 |
| Lampedusa-Palermo or vice versa | EUR 34 |
| Lampedusa-Catania or vice versa | EUR 34 |
| Lampedusa-Rome or vice versa | EUR 66 |
| Pantelleria-Rome or vice versa | EUR 66 |

Route

Revised fare

Pantelleria-Palermo or vice versa

EUR 32

Lampedusa-Palermo or vice versa

EUR 34

Lampedusa-Catania or vice versa

EUR 34

Lampedusa-Rome or vice versa

EUR 66

Pantelleria-Rome or vice versa

EUR 66

The other requirements of the public service obligation published in OJ C 305, 14.12.2006, p. 13, remain unchanged.

---

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

1

---
No. 44044.

#### Protest 952685-G of Kaufmann Dept. Stores, Inc. (Pittsburgh).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was agreed that the glass bells in question are the same as those involved in Abstract 39389. The protest was therefore overruled.
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 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER Case No. 04-1791 WBS CMK

TO AMEND THE SCHEDULING ORDER 

LYNN HUBBARD, III SBN 69773 

SCOTTLYNN J HUBBARD, IV, SBN 212970 

LAW OFFICES OF LYNN HUBBARD 

12 WILLIAMSBURG LANE 

CHICO, CA 95926 

(530) 895-3252 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

CATHERINE MANSKE, ESQ. 

GORDON & REES LLP 

655 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, SUITE 200 

SACRAMENTO, CA 95825 

(916) 565-2900 

Attorney for Defendant 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JAMES SANFORD, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

RED ROBIN INTERNATIONAL, INC. 

dba RED ROBIN #78, and DOES 1 

through 20, 

Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. CIV.S-04-1791 WBS PAN 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER MODIFYING THE 

SCHEDULING ORDER REGULATING 

DISCOVERY 

WHEREAS, on February 16, 2005, the parties were served with an Amended 

Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order ("Scheduling Order") for this action; 

WHEREAS, the Scheduling Order provided that all discovery regarding experts, 

shall be completed by all parties on or before July 14, 2005; 

WHEREAS, the Scheduling Order provided that all discovery, shall be completed 

by all parties on or before October 14, 2005; 

WHEREAS, plaintiff’s counsel has requested to take the depositions of defendant’s 

experts; 

WHEREAS, defense counsel is not available any time prior to discovery cut-off to 

attend depositions of defendant’s experts; 

Case 2:04-cv-01791-WBS-CMK Document 21 Filed 10/07/05 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 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER Case No. 04-1791 WBS CMK

TO AMEND THE SCHEDULING ORDER 

WHEREAS, plaintiff’s expert is unavailable for deposition during the month of 

October due to three federal court trials; 

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and among the parties hereto 

that the Scheduling Order shall be amended to provide as follows: 

(1) The depositions of experts shall be completed on or before December 1, 2005. 

DATED: October 6, 2005 LAW OFFICES OF LYNN HUBBARD, III 

/s/ Lynn Hubbard__________ 

Lynn Hubbard, III 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

DATED: October 5, 2005 GORDON & REES LLP 

Signature on File 

 Catherine Manske 

Attorneys for Defendant 

ORDER

IT HAVING BEEN STIPULATED BY THE PARTIES, IT IS HEREBY 

ORDERED that the Scheduling Order shall be amended to provide as follows: 

(1) The depositions of experts shall be completed on or before December 1, 2005. 

DATED: October 6, 2005 

Case 2:04-cv-01791-WBS-CMK Document 21 Filed 10/07/05 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 31.1

     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Martin Berns, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Form 10-KSB of MEDIANET GROUP TECHNOLOGIES, INC.;

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

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

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

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

   (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

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

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of
the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):

   (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.

Date: March 31, 2007       By: /s/ Martin Berns
                           Martin Berns, Director and
                           Principle Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION OF
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  Exchange Act  , , Company
 1.
    
    The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31,
2009, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Periodic Report),
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Exchange
Act; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 In Witness Whereof th
 /s/ Philip E. Soran
    
    
    
    /s/ John R. JuddPhilip E. Soran
    
    
    
    John R. JuddChairman, President and
Chief Executive Officer
    
    
    
    Chief Financial Officer
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 10-20624 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. LESLIE LANG, also known as Leslie Lang-Reynolds, Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:09-CR-69-1
Before GARZA, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Leslie Lang pleaded guilty to on e c h a r ge of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and was sentenced to serve 24 months in prison and a three-year term of supervised re l e a s e . In this appeal, she argues that her plea was involuntary because it was entered when she was in a state of extreme mental turmoil. The Government contends that Lang has failed to show the district court erred by not

sua sponte holding a c o m p e tency hearing. Our review of the record and pertinent authority refutes Lang’s position and supports the Government’s. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Octob er 26 , 20 11 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t hasd ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 10-20624 Document: 00511646016 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/26/2011No. 10-20624

A defendant who contends that she was incompetent to plead guilty must show that her alleged mental defect rendered her unable to consult with her lawyer or to understand the proceedings against h e r . Godinez v. Moran , 509 U

. S

. 3 8 9, 396, 398-99 (1993). Lang has not made this showing. Although th e record arguably shows that she suffered from anxiety and mental illness, such illness does not automati c a l ly render one legally incompetent. See Bouchillon v. Collins , 907 F.2d 589, 593 (5th Cir. 199 0). Similarly, our review of the record and parties’ arguments does not show that Lang exhibited irrational be h avi o r or a demeanor indicative of incompetency, and she did not produce a prior expert opin i o n addressing her competence vel non. Se e U n i t e d States v. Ruston , 565 F.3d 892, 902 (5th Cir. 2009). Consequently, Lang has not shown that the district court had reasonable

cause to believe that a competency heari n g w a s needed or that it abused its discretion by not sua sponte ordering such a hearing. See 18 U.S.C. § 4241(a); Ruston , 565 F.3d at 901. AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 10-20624 Document: 00511646016 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/26/2011
Before the First Division,

December 16, 1954

No. 58591.

protests 218557-K, 218558-K, and 218559-K (New York).

#### R. F. Downing & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Mollison, Judge:

The above-entitled and enumerated protests were consolidated for trial and disposition. Each is directed against the action of the collector of customs at the port of New York refusing to allow drawback under the provisions of section 313 (a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 upon the exportation of certain watches manufactured or produced in the United States with the use of imported duty-paid materials.

It appears from the undisputed facts that for some unexplained reason it had been thought by the customs officers concerned that the exportation of the watches had been accomplished from Idlewiid Airport, N. Y., rather than from La Guardia Airport, N. Y., the place of deposit for examination prior to exportation specified in the notices of intent. It was also believed that such exportation had been made without customs supervision and under such circumstances as would not warrant allowance of drawback.

When the protests were called for trial, counsel for the plaintiff offered in evidence all of the so-called “official papers,” meaning thereby, presumably, all of the papers transmitted by the collector to the court with the protests. Counsel particularly called attention to a document found with the papers in protest 218558-K, dated March 25, 1954, entitled “Office Memorandum,” addressed to the “Assistant to the Deputy Collector, Protest Section, Fifth Division,” by “M. W. Benjamin, Deputy Collector, Drawback Division,” and to statements under date of February 26, 1954, in a document headed “Amended Inspector’s Certificate,” attached to the notice of intent to export in each case, to the effect that each shipment had been inspected prior to exportation and that exportation had, in fact, been made from La Guardia Airport.

Counsel further offered to stipulate that the plaintiff herein complied with all the rules and regulations and conditions affecting drawback.

Counsel for the defendant made no objection to the receipt of the official papers in evidence, conceded that the facts therein recited were true, and agreed to the stipulation.

Counsel for the plaintiff further offered in evidence letters of transmittal of the protests by the collector, indicating that his office would not object to a stipulation in accordance therewith, and there being no objection thereto, the same were received in evidence as plaintiff’s exhibits 1 and 2.

It clearly appears from the record as thus made that the plaintiff complied with all statutes and regulations relating to drawback and is entitled to judgment directing reliquidation of the drawback entries involved and allowing the drawback claimed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
In the matter of 

TGIFREIGHT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

RECEIVED 

DEC 1 7 2013 

HEARING DOCKET 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

FAADocketNo. CP10NM0012 

DMS No. FAA-2010-1079 

WITHDRAWAL OF NOTICE OF APPEAL 

Complainant hereby withdraws its Notice of Appeal previously filed on 

November 8, 2013. 

Dated: December 12,2013 

Respectfully submitted, 

Peter Lynch 

Assistant Chief Counsel 

for Enforcement 

By:cQ 

Charles Raley, Attorney 

Enforcement Division, AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Phone: (202) 267-3357 

Facsimile: (202) 267-5106 
Certificate of Service 

I hereby certify that on this date I have sent by certified-mail, a copy of 

Complainant's Withdrawal of Notice of Appeal In the Matter ofTGI Freight, Docket No. 

CP10NM0012, addressed to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl 000 

In addition, I hereby certify that on this date I have sent by certified mail one copy 

of the foregoing document to: 

Rebecca J. Hozubin, Esq. 

Wilkerson Hozubin 

310 K Street, Suite 405 

Anchorage, AK 99501 

Fax: 907-276-5291 

Dated: December 12,2013