alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit31.1**

 

CERTIFICATION

 

I,Joseph P. Durrett, certify that:

 

1.          I have reviewedthis quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Information Resources, Inc. LitigationContingent Payment Rights Trust;

 

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 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 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-15eand 15d-15e) for the registrant and have:

 

a)              Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such internal control overfinancial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial 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 theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

c)              Disclosed inthis 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’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

 

a)              All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

b)             Any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| /s/  JOSEPH P. DURRETT |   |
|------------------------|--------|
| Joseph  P. Durrett     |
| Litigation  Trustee    |
| May  4, 2005           |

 

 

1

----
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of AppealsCAAP-12-000004016-MAY-201209:48 AM
Exhibit 31.1

CASH 4 HOMES 247

Certifications

      I, Gordon Forgey, certify that:

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

      2.    Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder 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 financialinformation included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

      4.    The Registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for theregistrant and have:

            (a)   designed such disclosure controls andprocedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

            (b)   evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant'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 ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the EvaluationDate;

      5.    The Registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent function): a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which couldadversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for theregistrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

      6.    The Registrant's other certifying officer and I have indicated in thisquarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantlyaffect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard tosignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date:   August 19, 2004             /s/ GordonForgey                                                    Gordon Forgey                                                    President and Chief Operating Officer
No. 56468.

protest 129983-K (St. Albans).

#### C. S. Allen Corporation *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of wax-coated paper the same in all material respects as those the subject of *C. S. Allen Corp.*v. *United States*(38 C. C. P. A. 48, C. A. D. 438), except that the merchandise in question is not covered in any part with metal or its solutions, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
**Exhibit31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

I,Kevin W. Mooney, certify that:

 

1.             I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form10-Q of Worldspan, L.P.;

 

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

 

3.             Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

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

 

a)             designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such 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 the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

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

 

5.             The registrant’s other certifying officer andI have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

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 or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| Date: May 12, 2006 |                    |
|--------------------|-------------------------|
|               | /s/ Kevin W. Mooney     |
|               | Kevin W. Mooney         |
|               | Chief Financial Officer |
|               | Worldspan, L.P.         |

 

1

----
3200 Southwest Freeway, Houston, Texas 77027
P.O. Box 2824, Houston, Texas 77252-2824
713/543-8675, 800/288-3223

Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A.
11000 Broken Land Parkway
Columbia MD 21044-3562
Attention: Master Servicing

(LOGO) BANK UNITED


RE: Officer's Certificate

Dear Master Servicer:

The undersigned officer certifies the following for the 1999 fiscal year:


A. I have reviewed the  activities and  performance  of the Servicer  during the
   preceding  fiscal  year  under the terms of the  Servicing  Agreement,  Trust
   Agreement,  Pooling and Servicing Agreement and/or  Seller/Servicer Guide and
   to the best of these Officers'  knowledge,  the Servicer has fulfilled all of
   its duties, responsibilities or obligations under these Agreements throughout
   such  year,  or if there has been a default or  failure  of the  servicer  to
   perform any of such duties, responsibilities or obligations, a description of
   each default or failure and the nature and status  thereof has been  reported
   to Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A.;

B. I have  confirmed  that the Servicer is  currently an approved  FNMA or FHLMC
   servicer in good standing;

C. I have confirmed  that the Fidelity Bond, The Errors and Omissions  Insurance
   Policy  and any  other  bonds  required  under  the  terms  of the  Servicing
   Agreement, Trust Agreement, Pooling and Servicing Agreement and/or
   Seller/Servicer Guide are in full force and effect;

D. All premiums for each Hazard  Insurance  Policy,  Flood Insurance  Policy (if
   applicable)  and Primary  Mortgage  Insurance  Policy (if  applicable),  with
   respect  to each  Mortgaged  Property,  have  been  paid  and  that  all such
   insurance policies are in full force and effect;

E. All real  estate  taxes,  governmental  assessments  and any  other  expenses
   accrued and due,  that if not paid could result in a lien or  encumbrance  on
   any Mortgaged Property,  have been paid or if any such costs or expenses have
   not been paid with  respect  to any  Mortgaged  Property,  the reason for the
   non-payment has been reported to Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A.;

F. All Custodial Accounts have been reconciled and are properly funded; and

G. All annual  reports of  Foreclosure  and  Abandonment  of  Mortgage  Property
   required per section  6050H,  6050J and 6050P of the Internal  Revenue  Code,
   respectively, have been prepared and filed.

Certified By:
Tyrone W. Crawley

Vice President
Title

7/6/00
Date
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 

-1-

DIEPENBROCK 

HARRISON

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

EILEEN M. DIEPENBROCK – SBN 119254 

CHRIS A. McCANDLESS - SBN 210085 

DIEPENBROCK HARRISON 

A Professional Corporation 

400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1800 

Sacramento, CA 95814-4413 

Telephone: (916) 492-5000 

Facsimile: (916) 446-4535 

Attorneys for Defendant 

CAVIAR CREATOR, INC., a Nevada corporation 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (SACRAMENTO)

DANIEL W. FAERFERS and KATJA 

FAERFERS, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CAVIAR CREATOR, INC., a Nevada 

corporation, individually and as successor to n 

Oregon corporation; CAVIAR CREATOR, 

INC., a Nevada corporation, 

Defendants 

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. 2:04–cv-2690-MCE-PAN 

ORDER RE: STIPULATION OF 

DISMISSAL 

The Court hereby orders that the claims of Caviar Creator, Inc., against Sinclair Wilson are 

dismissed with prejudice in accordance with the Stipulation of Dismissal attached hereto as Exhibit 

“A”. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: March 27, 2006 

__________________________________ 

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:04-cv-02690-TLN-EFB Document 108 Filed 03/27/06 Page 1 of 1
No. 56007.

protests 162901-K/13081, etc. (New Orleans).

#### L. H. Hayward & Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Exhibit 10.34


 


February 18, 2015


 


Mr. Mark Miller


11331 Corsica Mist Ave


Las Vegas, NV 89135


 


Re: Amendment to Separation Agreement


 


Mr. Miller:


 


On November 28, 2014, you entered into a Separation Agreement (“Agreement”) with Full House Resorts, Inc. (“the Company”) whereby in consideration of, among other things, severance payments under Section 2.2 of the Agreement, your Employment Agreement with the Company was terminated and you resigned from any and all officer positions held with the Company and its subsidiaries or affiliates.


 


Pursuant to Section 7.5 of the Agreement, you and the Company (collectively, “the Parties”) now hereby agree to enter into this Amendment to the Separation Agreement (“Amendment”).


 


The Parties agree that the Company will continue to make severance payments to you under Section 2.3(a)(ii) of the Agreement in substantially equal installments, in accordance with the Company’s normal payroll procedures, until the Company decides, at its sole discretion, to accelerate the payments, at which time the Company will pay the remaining amount owed to you under 2.3(a)(ii) in a single lump sum payment.


 


The Parties agree that all other provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.


 


Signed this 24th day of February, 2015,


 



 



	/s/ DANIEL LEE 	 	 
	Mr. Daniel Lee, President & CEO, Full House Resorts, Inc. 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 
	

ACCEPTED AND AGREED:

	 
	 	 
	 	 
	/s/ MARK MILLER	 	 
	Mr. Mark Miller  	Date: February 23, 2015
No. 51044.

#### Protests 66688-K, etc., of Johnson Bros. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of oat-meals or oatmeal saucers and puree cups or chowder cups the same in all material respects as those passed upon in *Copeland &*Thompson, *Inc.*v. *United States*(12 Cust. Ct. 85, C. D. 833) and *Johnson Bros.*v. *United States*(15 id. 113, C. D. 955). In accordance therewith the merchandise was held dutiable as claimed.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

331 KA 10-00807 PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V ORDER
MICHAEL SPRINGS, JR., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JANET SOMES OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
MICHAEL C. GREEN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (STEPHEN X. O’BRIEN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Francis A. Affronti, J.), rendered August 19, 2008. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of assault in the first degree, assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Entered: March 16, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
No. 76-5607.

#### Robinson *v.*United States.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 11-50046 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. JOSE LUIS PASCUAL-DURAN, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:10-CR-2380-1

Before REAVLEY, SMITH and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jose Luis Pascual-Duran pleaded guilty t o being illegally present in the United States following deportation and to false impersonation in immigration

m a t ters. He was sentenced to 46 months of imprisonment and three yea r s o f supervised release on each count, to be served concurrently. Pascual-Duran argues that the district court erred in imposing a 16-level

e nh a n c e ment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(iv) on the basis that his pri o r conviction under Colorado Revi s e d S t at u t e § 1 8

- 6-403(3)(b.5) constituted a “child 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 27 , 20 11 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d 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 for th in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-50046 Document: 00511647104 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/27/2011No. 11-50046

pornog r a p h y o ffense.” He maintains that the Colorado statue of conviction is broader than the federal child pornography statutes set forth in § 2L1.2 because the Colorado statue criminalizes the possession of visual depictions that portray minors observing explicit sexual conduct, whereas the federal statutes prohibit only those visual depictions that portray minors actually engagi n g in sexually explicit conduct. Pascual-Duran properly concedes that his argument is subject to review for plain error because he did not raise the instant argument before the district court. T o e stablish plain error, Pascual-Duran must identif y a f o rf e it e d e rr o r th at is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States , 129 S. Ct. 1423, 1429 (2009). Whether the conviction at issue constituted

a “child pornography offense” for purposes of § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(iv) is an issue of f i r s t i m pression in this circuit. Thus, if any error occurred, it was not clear or obvious and does not warrant relief on plain error review. See United States v. Ellis , 564 F.3d 370, 376-78 (5th Cir. 2 009); Puckett , 129 S. Ct. at 1429. Pascual-Duran also argues that his sentence is unreasonable because the district court failed to consider the unwarranted disparity that exists between him and defendants who were sentenced in jurisdi c t i o n s i n which “fast track” programs are available. As Pascual-Duran correctly concedes, this argument is foreclosed. See United States v. Gomez-Herrera , 523 F.3d 554, 559-64 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Lopez-Velasquez , 526 F.3d 804, 808 (5th Cir. 200 8). AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 11-50046 Document: 00511647104 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/27/2011
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

501 “I” STREET

SACRAMENTO, CA 95814

SCOTT JOHNSON

 DEFAULT JUDGMENT

v.

Case No. CIV S-04-2671 LKK EFB

ESTHER DE LA TORRE

___________________________

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED default judgment is hereby

ENTERED against defendant:

ESTHER DE LA TORRE

September 12, 2006

VICTORIA C. MINOR, CLERK

By: ____________________

NDDuong, Deputy Clerk

Case 2:04-cv-02671-LKK -EFB Document 36 Filed 09/12/06 Page 1 of 1
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THERESA UREKEW,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2529 FCD KJM

vs.

TETRA HOLDING INC., et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff’s motion to withdraw admissions came on regularly for hearing on June

7, 2006. Todd Murray appeared for plaintiff. William Bishop appeared for defendant. Upon

review of the documents in support and opposition, upon hearing the arguments of counsel, and

good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT FINDS AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:

The court finds presentation of the merits of the action will be subserved if

withdrawal of the admissions is not permitted; as conceded by counsel at hearing, plaintiff would

not survive summary judgment on at least two of her causes of action if the motion is denied. 

Additionally, defendant will not suffer the kind of prejudice that would preclude exercise of the

court’s discretion to allow withdrawal. Plaintiff’s belated responses to requests for admission are

Case 2:04-cv-02529-FCD-KJM Document 40 Filed 06/09/06 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

1

 The lateness in providing responses to the admission requests was occasioned by

plaintiff’s counsel’s emergency surgery in December 2005, and subsequent workload

management problems after counsel, a solo practitioner, returned to work. None of the delay

appears caused by any lack of diligence by plaintiff herself and plaintiff’s counsel has accepted

full responsibility for the lateness. 

2

not unsurprising or inconsistent when compared with her original pleadings.1 No witnesses have

been shown to be unavailable, and plaintiff was fully deposed during discovery. Moreover, when

pressed at hearing to explain how defendant’s motion for summary judgment and the opening

briefing in support thereof would have differed if defendant had received the responses to

requests for admission before the filing of the motion, defendant’s counsel indicated there would

have been no change in the framing or content of the motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b); Hadley

v. United States, 45 F.3d 1345, 1348 (9th Cir. 1995). To the extent defendant wishes to

challenge new positions and new evidence it says plaintiff has presented in response to summary

judgment, defendant will have the opportunity to do so in its reply and, if the case proceeds to

trial, in pretrial motions, trial objections and attempts to impeach plaintiff. 

For all the foregoing reasons, the motion to withdraw admissions is granted. 

DATED: June 8, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

006

urekew.oah 

Case 2:04-cv-02529-FCD-KJM Document 40 Filed 06/09/06 Page 2 of 2
118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 499 

AN ACT 

To amend the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 

2000 to reauthorize the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog 

Grant Program, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

†S 499 ES

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Debbie Smith Act of 

3 2023’’. 

4 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION. 

5 Section 2(j) of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimi6 nation Act of 2000 (34 U.S.C. 40701(j)) is amended by 

7 striking ‘‘through 2024’’ and inserting ‘‘through 2029’’. 

8 SEC. 3. AUDITS TO PROTECT INTEGRITY OF GRANT 

9 AWARDS. 

10 Section 2(c)(4) of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimi11 nation Act of 2000 (34 U.S.C. 40701(c)(4)) is amended 

12 by striking ‘‘2022’’ and inserting ‘‘2029’’. 

Passed the Senate November 2, 2023. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 499 

AN ACT 

To amend the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination 

purposes. DNA Backlog Grant Program, and for other Act of 2000 to reauthorize the Debbie Smith