alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31 (b)**CERTIFICATION**I, Craig D. Abolt, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MSW Energy Holdings LLC; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis 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 thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure 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 and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe 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 whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date:November 9, 2005        By:   /s/ Craig D. Abolt   Craig D. Abolt   Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DONALD MORRIS LEE,

Petitioner

- Appellant,

v.

STATE OF WASHINGTON,

Respondent

- Appellee. No. 16

- 35472

D.C. No. 2:16

- cv

- 00311

- RSL

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Robert S. Lasnik, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 8, 2017 **

Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Washington state prisoner Donald Morris Lee appeals pro se from the

district court’s judgment dismissing his “RICO Complaint by a Civilian

. ” We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291

. We review de novo the district court’s

dismissal for failure to state a claim under the Racketeer Influenced an d Corrupt

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAY 11 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 35472

Organizations Act (“RICO”), see Howard v. Am. Online Inc. , 208 F.3d 741, 746

(9th Cir. 2000), and we affirm.

Although Lee’s action was docketed as a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petiti on,

Lee is not seeking habeas relief, as the district court note d

. Instead, he alleg es a

RICO violation premised upon someone allegedly forging a judge’s signature on

orders in his state court proceedings. The district c ourt properly dismissed Lee’s

action because he failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible RICO claim

.

See Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex C o. , Inc. , 473 U.S. 479, 496 (1985) (elements of

RICO claim); Hebbe v. Pliler , 627 F.3d 338, 341

- 42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro

se pleadings are to be liberally construed, a plaintiff must present fact ual

allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief)

.

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

eAcceleration Corp.
Poulsbo, Washington

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Forms S-8 (No. 333-85444), of our report dated February 27, 2002
(which contains an explanatory paragraph concluding that there is a substantial
doubt about the Company's ability to continue as a going concern), relating to
the consolidated financial statements of eAcceleration Corp. appearing in the
Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2002.

/s/ McKennon Wilson & Morgan, LLP
Irvine, California
April 11, 2003
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON



### O RDER

Appellate case name: In re James Wesley Groves and Keith Gross

, Relator s

A ppellate case number: 01

- 1 5

- 0 0 5 37

- CV

Trial court case number: 20 08

- 14 8 66

Trial court: 3 11 th District Court of Harris County

Relators, James Wesley Groves and Keith Groves

, have filed a petition for a writ of

mandamus challenging the trial court ’s April 28, 2015 oral ruling. On October 8, 2015, Gross

filed a verified emergency motion to stay enforcement of the trial court’s “ order

. ” The motion is

granted . The trial court’s April 28, 2015 order is stayed

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.10( b ). The stay

is effective until disposition of the petition for a writ of mandamus or further order of this Court.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/Justice Russell Lloyd

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: October 9, 2015
### -82 -80 -78 -76 38 40 

## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 

### 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 08/01 

## NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

# Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 01 Aug 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.86 N 77.06 WMeters AGL
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk April 27, 2010

d0419 

# Order

April 27, 2010

140528

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 140528 COA: 287471 Wayne CC: 08-004430-FC KEVIN RAY WERSTEIN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 17, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
**Exhibit 31.1****Certification**     I, Paul A. Lang, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Arch Western Resources, LLC;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this 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 report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure 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 and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) [Reserved.]  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial 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.                                                       /s/ Paul A. Lang   Paul A. Lang   President   Date: November 13, 2007
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

ALEX M. KEDDIE IV, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL 

CAPACITY AND DERIVATIVELY ON 

BEHALF OF CROSSETT INC., A 

PENNSYLVANIA BUSINESS 

CORPORATION,

Petitioner

v.

JANET M. GREGORY, IN HER 

INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND AS 

PRESIDENT AND CHAIRMAN OF THE 

BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF CROSSETT, 

INC., AND DOUGLAS C. SMITH, IN HIS 

INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND AS VICE 

PRESIDENT OF CROSSETT, INC.,

Respondents

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 154 WAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 18th day of September, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
Exhibit 31.3**CERTIFICATION**I, Anthony J. Orlando, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MSW Energy Finance Co., Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis 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 thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure 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 and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand 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 financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe 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 havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.       Date: October 30, 2006               By: /s/ Anthony J. Orlando Anthony J. Orlando      Chief Executive Officer and President  
46
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8345 

To limit funds to the United Nations and other organizations that provide 

any status, rights, or privileges beyond observer status to the Palestine 

Liberation Organization, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 10, 2024 

Mr. BAIRD (for himself and Mr. MCCAUL) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To limit funds to the United Nations and other organizations 

that provide any status, rights, or privileges beyond observer status to the Palestine Liberation Organization, 

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, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘No Official Palestine 

5 Entry Act of 2024’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8345 IH

1 SEC. 2. MODIFICATION WITH RESPECT TO MEMBERSHIP OF 

2 PALESTINE LIBERATION ORGANIZATION IN 

3 UNITED NATIONS AGENCIES. 

4 Section 414(a) of the Foreign Relations Authoriza5 tion Act, Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 (22 U.S.C. 287e 

6 note; Public Law 101–246) is amended by striking ‘‘the 

7 same standing as member states’’ and inserting ‘‘any sta8 tus, rights, or privileges beyond observer status’’. 

9 SEC. 3. AMENDMENTS TO LIMITATIONS ON CONTRIBU10 TIONS TO THE UNITED NATIONS AND AFFILI11 ATED ORGANIZATIONS. 

12 Section 410 of the Foreign Relations Authorization 

13 Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 (22 U.S.C. 287e note; 

14 Public Law 103–236) is amended by striking ‘‘full mem15 bership’’ each place it appears and inserting ‘‘any status, 

16 rights, or privileges beyond observer status’’. 

17 SEC. 4. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION. 

18 Nothing is this Act shall be construed to apply to Tai19 wan. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Before the Third Division,

May 16, 1958

No. 61943.

#### Fred Giesler *v.*United States,

protests 189385-K and 189386-K (Nogales).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of meats, prepared or preserved, not specially provided for, similar in all material respects to the meat the subject of *United States*v. *Mercantil Distribuidora, S. A., et al.*(45 C. C. P. A. 20, C. A. D. 667), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Richard Springer, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 508]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Egitto, J.\ rendered October 13, 1993, convicting him of murder in the second degree, attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree, kidnapping in the second degree, robbery in the first degree (two counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal possession of weapon in the third degree, and arson in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of the branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress written, oral, and videotaped statements made by the defendant to law enforcement authorities.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The hearing court properly denied the branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress his oral and videotaped statements, since each was rendered after the defendant *knowingly*and voluntarily waived his *Miranda*rights *(see, People v Fuschino, 59*NY2d 91; *People v Mercado,*198 AD2d 380; *People v Abreu,*184 AD2d 707; *People v Washington,*182 AD2d 791; *People v Charon,*165 AD2d 914; *People v Sohn,*148 AD2d 553; *People v Benitez,*128 AD2d 628).

Moreover, we agree with the hearing court’s conclusion that the People’s notice of intention to introduce the statements at trial was sufficient under CPL 710.30 to apprise the defendant that they would be introducing a sketch rendered by the defendant which demonstrated where he disposed of the murder weapon, since the statements contained the sum and substance of what the drawing indicated *(see, People v Bennett,*56 NY2d 837; *People v Reid, 215*AD2d 507; *People v Jordan,*216 AD2d 489; *People v Holmes,*170 AD2d 534).

The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction for the robbery and murder of one of the victims *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Udzinski,*146 AD2d 245). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Balletta, J. P., Miller, O’Brien and Copertino, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 32(b)**

CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Form 10-Q of Frederick CountyBancorp, Inc. for the quarter ended June 30, 2006, I, William R. Talley, Jr.,Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Frederick CountyBancorp, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuantto §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge andbelief, that:

(1) such Form 10-Q forthe quarter ended June 30, 2006, fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) the informationcontained in such Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006, fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of Frederick County Bancorp, Inc.
| /s/ William R. Talley, Jr.                           |   |
|------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| William R. Talley, Jr.                               |
| Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
#### Meakin & Ridgway, Inc. *v.*United States

No. 6302.

Entry No. 718850, etc.

Invoices dated Stoke on Trent, England, September 4, 1941, etc.

Certified September 12, 1941, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., October 18, 1941, etc.

(Decided July 29, 1946)

*Benjamin A. Levett*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Keeee, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement fisted in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> It is hereby stipulated and agreed, subject to the approval of the court, that the merchandise consisting of earthenware and chinaware and the issues in the appeals for reappraisement listed in the attached schedule are the same in all material respects as the merchandise and issues decided in *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*Suit No. 4513, C. A. D. 334, and that the record in said case may be incorporated herein.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that the appraised value of the merchandise consisting of earthenware and chinaware involved in each of the cases enumerated in the attached schedule, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases, is equal to the price, at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise is freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, and that the foreign value of such or similar merchandise is no higher.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that these cases may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the earthenware and chinaware here *268involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases. Insofar as the appeals relate to all other merchandise they are hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
#### In the Matter of the Report, Grand Jury Exhibit 83A of the September/ October 1993 Suffolk County Grand Jury IC, Term X.

[634 NYS2d 134]

—Appeal by the District Attorney from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Leis, J.), dated November 7, 1994, which sealed the Report of the Grand Jury of Suffolk County of the September / October 1993 Term.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The District Attorney appeals from an order which sealed, pursuant to CPL 190.85 (2) (b), a Grand Jury report issued pursuant to CPL 190.85 (1) (c), on the ground that it was critical of an "identifiable person”. Appeals from orders concerning Grand Jury reports are governed by CPL 190.90, which only authorizes appeals by the District Attorney from orders sealing Grand Jury reports issued pursuant to CPL 190.85 (1) (a), and sealed pursuant to CPL 190.85 (5) *(see,*CPL 190.90 [1], [2]). Since CPL 190.90 (5) states that "[t]he procedure provided for in [CPL 190.90] shall be the exclusive manner of reviewing an order made pursuant to section 190.85”, the instant appeal does not lie *(see, Matter of Report of Grand Jury,*110 AD2d 44, 45; *cf, Matter of Hynes v Shea,*152 AD2d 485). We note that the question of appealability was not raised or considered in *Matter of Report of Aug.-Sept. 1983 Grand Jury III*(103 AD2d 176). Sullivan, J. P., Thompson, Hart and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
No. 54131.

#### Cluff & Pickering, Ltd., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 71838-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Eicwall, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.