alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.1
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Michael McShane, certify that:
 1.  I have reviewed this Form 10-K of Grant Prideco, Inc.  2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact 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 theperiod covered by this report;  3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;  4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))for the registrant and have:
 (a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information 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)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  (c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):
 (a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  (b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.        Date:  February 15, 2005 Signature: /s/  Michael McShane    President and Chief Executive Officer
#### State, *ex rel.*A. T. Parks, v. D. H. Sloan, Jr., as Clerk of the Circuit Court of Polk County.

179 So. 402.

En Banc.

Opinion Filed February 25, 1938.

*233
      *H. G. Stephenson, A. Summerlin*and *E. C. Wimberly,*for Relator;

*Cary D. Landis,*Attorney General, and *H. E. Carter*and *Wm. P. Allen,*Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent;

*Sutton, Reeves & Hobbs, Winder H. Surrency*and *Herschel 0. Moats,*as *amici curiae.*

Terrell, J.

The alternative writ herein alleges that Relator is the owner of certain lands in Polk County, Florida, that were sold and certificated to the State, August 5, 1935, for the non payment of State and County taxes, that on November 12, 1937, he (Relator) in writing requested Respondent, as Clerk of the Circuit Court, to advertise and offer to sell said certificates as authorized by Chapter 18296, Acts of 1937, but that said request was rejected.

By his return to the alternative writ, Respondent says that said certificates were not two years old at the time Chapter 18296, Acts of 1937, became effective and are accordingly not subject to sale under said Act.

The return therefore presents the sole question of whether or not Chapter 18296, Acts of 1937, is applicable to tax certificates in the hands of the State that were less than two years old on the effective date of the Act.

In our opinion, his question must be answered in the negative. Sections 1 and 2 and other provisions of the Act show conclusively that it was intended- to apply only to certificates that were more than two years old on the effective date of the Act. The purpose of the Act and the opinion of this Court in Messer v. Lang and in Messer v. Lee, filed October 7, 1937, and reported in 129 Fla. 546, 176 So. 548, is to like effect. The Act dealing with an asset of the State, it was not competent to treat it in the manner it did until the certificates matured which was after they were two years old.

*234We have not overlooked the contention of counsel that certificates which became two years old during the life of the Act should also be construed as coming within its terms and subject to sale thereunder but in our view this contention is without merit. Such an application would unequally affect taxpayers and might for other reasons render the Act invalid.

Some of the counsel who appeared *Amicus Curiae*devoted most of their energy to chiding the Legislature for passing the Act. We might agree with all that counsel say on this point, in fact, let it be admitted that not a member of the Court would have supported the Act if he had been a member of the Legislature; that fact of itself has nothing whatever to do with its validity. Courts have no power to relieve from the operation of a bad law unless it offends against the Constitution. The foolishness or the unwisdom of a legislative Act is not for the Courts to correct.

■ It follows that the rule nisi must be and is hereby dismissed.

• 'Ellis, C. J., and Whitfield, Brown, Buford and Chapman, J. J., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jimmy R. Diaz, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 639]

—Peters, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Otsego County (Ny*750dam, J.), rendered December 19, 1994, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

The sole issue raised on this appeal is whether County Court abused its discretion by denying defendant’s request for youthful offender status and by sentencing him as an adult to a period of incarceration of *11⁄2*to 41⁄2 years. The granting of youthful offender treatment rests entirely with the court’s discretion and depends upon the facts of each individual case (CPL 720.20 [1]; *see, People v Cruickshank,*105 AD2d 325, 333-335, *affd*67 NY2d 625; *see also, People v Hayes,*115 AD2d 910). Our review of the record discloses no abuse of judicial discretion here.

Defendant’s conviction arose out of his sale of heroin to a college student who subsequently died of a drug overdose. Although defendant, who was then 17 years old, had no prior criminal convictions, he was a known drug dealer in the community. As the sentencing court accurately observed, defendant’s sale of drugs on the date in question was not "an impulsive, youthful indiscretion”, but a "deliberate plan” to obtain cash illegally.

Additional factors supportive of County Court’s denial of youthful offender treatment are the recommendation in defendant’s presentence report that he merited "no leniency” together with the fact that defendant has expressed little understanding or remorse for the consequences of his crime *(see, People v Duff,*216 AD2d 689, 690).

Under the circumstances presented here, we find no abuse of County Court’s discretion in refusing defendant youthful offender status and no reason to consider youthful offender treatment in the interest of justice *(see, People v Buckley,*196 AD2d 915; *People v Pearson,*133 AD2d 951).

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, Yesawich Jr. and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY A. CHATMAN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2655 MCE GGH P

vs.

SOLANO COUNTY JAIL, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

On April 12, 2006, the court granted the motions to dismiss filed by defendants

Mixon, Childers, Hambright and Mercado. The court granted plaintiff thirty days to file a third

amended complaint. The court warned plaintiff that if he did not file a third amended complaint

within that time, the court would recommend dismissal of this action. Thirty days passed and

plaintiff did not file an amended complaint. Accordingly, the court recommends dismissal of this

action.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed. See Local Rule

11-110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within

twenty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file 

Case 2:04-cv-02655-MCE -GGH Document 52 Filed 06/30/06 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

written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 

DATED: 6/29/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

chat2655.fta

Case 2:04-cv-02655-MCE -GGH Document 52 Filed 06/30/06 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT  31.1 CERTIFICATION

I, William J. Reilly, Chairman , certify that:

     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Suncoast
Naturals, Inc.;

     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

     3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other 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 officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:
         a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly report is being prepared;
         b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
and 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 the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

     5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing
theequivalent functions):
         a) All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified 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 officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Dated: August 12, 2004   /s/ WILLIAM J. REILLY
                        -----------------------
                        William J. Reilly
                        Chairman, Director
No. 45022.

#### Protest 826756-G of T. Fukushima (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the-authority of Abstract 32355 the mandarin oranges in question were held dutiable at 1 cent per pound under paragraph 743 as claimed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1988
JOHNNY D. THORNTON, Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Defendant - Appellee.

No. 07-2097
JOHNNY D. THORNTON, Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Defendant - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (1:06-cv-00397-GBL) Submitted: July 2, 2008 Decided: July 21, 2008- 2 - Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher D. Vaughn, MELVILLE JOHNSON, P.C., Atlanta, Georgia, for Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Dennis C. Barghaan, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.* The multiple appeals result from the fact that Thornton and his counsel each filed a separate notice of appeal from the final order of the district court. - 3 - PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, * Johnny D. Thornton appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to his former employer in his action alleging violations of § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794(a) (2000), and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e - 2000e-17 (2000). This court reviews a district court’s order granting summary judgment de novo, viewing the facts and drawing reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Doe v. Kidd , 501 F.3d 348, 353 (4th Cir. 2007), cert. denied , 128 S. Ct. 1483 (2008). Summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). With these standards in mind, we have thoroughly reviewed the briefs and the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court Thornton v. Mukasey , No. 1:06-cv-00397-GBL (E.D. Va. filed Aug. 27, 2007; entered Aug. 29, 2007). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in- 4 - the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED
No. 51041.

#### Protest 111186-K of Boutross Bros. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was stipulated that certain items of the merchandise consist of pincushions similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstracts 48406 and 49006, save that the involved merchandise is made or cut from material composed in chief value of silk. In accordance therewith and following the cited authorities the claim at 65 percent under paragraph 1211 was sustained.
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

The undersigned Cosmo Palmieri, Treasurer of Oriole Inc. hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) the annual report on Form 10-KSB of Oriole Inc. for the year ended December
31, 2004 (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 Oriole Inc.

Dated: April 11, 2005

/s/ Cosmo Palmieri
------------------
Cosmo Palmieri
Treasurer
(Principal Financial  Officer and Principal Accounting 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 September 30, 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
 /s/ Philip E. Soran
    
    /s/ John R. JuddPhilip E. Soran
    
    John R. JuddChairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
    
    Chief Financial Officer
March 14, 1963

Reap. Dec. 10468.

#### The A. W. Fenton Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

REHEARING MOTION GRANTED

Entered at Cleveland, Ohio. (Not published.) Motion by plaintiff.
Before the Second Division,

March 13, 1952

No. 56472.

protests 141826-K, etc. (New York).

#### Pongees Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

It was stipulated that certain items of the involved merchandise consist of woven silk fabrics, valued at more than $5.50 per pound, the same in all material respects as those passed upon in *Walter Strassburger & Co., Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(26 Cust. Ct. 210, C. D. 1326). Accepting the stipulation as a statement of fact and following the cited authority, it was held that the merchandise imported or withdrawn from warehouse prior to January 1, 1948, is dutiable at 45 percent under paragraph 1205, as modified by T. D. 48316, and that which was imported or withdrawn from warehouse subsequent to said date is dutiable at 25 percent under said paragraph, as modified by T. D. 51802.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 2, 2022

No. 04-22-00794-CV

Frank HERRERA,

Appellant

v.

INTERTERRA HOLDINGS,

Appellee

From the County Court At Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2022CV05121

Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

 On November 22, 2022, appellant filed an emergency motion to stay a writ of possession 

and eviction. On November 28, 2022, we denied appellant’s request for a stay because he had 

not paid a supersedeas bond. See TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 24.007. On November 29, 2022, 

appellant filed a motion asking us to reconsider our denial of the requested stay. Appellant’s 

motion for reconsideration is DENIED. See id.

_________________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice

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

court on this 2nd day of December, 2022.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6697

GENEVA ELAINE HAMES,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN LEATH CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (4:18-cv-01026-CMC)

Submitted: October 2, 2018 Decided: October 11, 2018

Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Geneva Elaine Hames, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Geneva Elaine Hames seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as successive and unauthorized 

her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A 

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable 

jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on 

procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a 

constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hames has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and 

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 7, 2019

No. 04-19-00297-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.J.C.B.R., J.E.R., AND J.J.D.R., CHILDREN,

From the 225th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018-PA-01636

Honorable Genie Wright, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The Appellee’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is hereby GRANTED. The 

appellee’s brief is deemed filed.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

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

court on this 7th day of August, 2019.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle,

Clerk of Court
##### 



Exhibit 32

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 City Telecom (H.K.) Limited (the
Company) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
each of the undersigned officers of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to such officers 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 as of the dates and for the periods
expressed in the Report.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: February 26, 2004
    
    /s/ RICKY WONGName: Ricky WongTitle: Chairman/s/ CORINNA SIOName: Corinna SioTitle: Finance Director


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate
disclosure document.