alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31 (a)**CERTIFICATION**I, Anthony J. Orlando, Chief Executive Officer and President 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 whichthis 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 of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; 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(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; 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 operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.Date:August 15, 2005       By: /s/ Anthony J. Orlando       Anthony J. Orlando  Chief Executive Officer and President
Order entered November 1, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-00541-CV

AAA COOPER TRANSPORTATION AND XTRA LEASE, LLC, Appellants

V.

OLYNTHUS M. DAVIS AND PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF 

HARTFORD, Appellees

On Appeal from the 14th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-16-10773

ORDER

Before the Court is appellee Olynthus M. Davis’s October 31, 2018 unopposed third 

motion for extension of time to file brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the brief be 

filed no later than November 7, 2018. We caution that further extension requests will be 

disfavored.

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE
No. 55328.

#### New York Merchandise Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 161582-K (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
Opinion filed May 27, 2016

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

___________

No. 11-16-00114-CV

___________

IN THE INTEREST OF X.G.P., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 266th District Court

Erath County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CV-33116

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant has filed in this court a “Notice of Nonsuit” in which she states that

she “no longer desires to prosecute this suit.” We understand the “Notice of 

Nonsuit” to be a motion to dismiss this appeal, and we have filed it as such. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1).

The motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

May 27, 2016

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.
(V. D. 92)

#### Empire Findings Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 804999.

(Decided November 20, 1958)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliveb, Chief Judge:

This matter is before me on remand from classification proceedings decided by the first division of this court in *Empire Findings Co., Inc.*v. *United States,*40 Cust. Ct. 458, Ab *470stract 61584. By the judgment therein and under the terms of the statute (28 U. S. C. § 2636 (d)), the matter was remanded to a single judge for determination of the value of the merchandise in the manner provided by law. The proceeding has been abandoned by counsel for the importer. It is, therefore, dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
EXHIBIT 31.1

I, Michael Schaffer, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this Annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of Case Financial, Inc.;

2.  Based on my  knowledge,  this  annual  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 Annual 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 Annual 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,  or caused such disclosure
controls and  procedures to be designed  under our  supervision,  to ensure that
material  information  relating  to  the  company,  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  company'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 company's  internal  control over
financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report
that has materially affected,  or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
company's internal control over financial reporting; and

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
registrant'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  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.




                                                     /s/ Michael Schaffer
                                                     --------------------
                                                     Michael Schaffer
                                                     Chief Executive Officer
                                                     January 23, 2006
<PAGE>   1


                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.7

                           AAG and GM Bridge Agreement

Delayed GM Payment for AAG 4th Quarter 2000 Services Payment issued on or before
January 16, 2001

Economics                           Surcharge Amount

Core Region                $        [xxx] x 4th Qtr % Compliance to [xxx] Hr.
                                    Dispatch Std

Bleeder                    $        [xxx] Surcharge increases [xxx] Jan 1,  01

East                       $        [xxx]

Florida & South            $        [xxx]

NorthWest                  $        [xxx] Surcharge reduction to [xxx] upon
                                    transition of Dilworth (Target Nov 5, 2000)

Canada                     $        [xxx] Oshawa - Montreal St Therese, Windsor

Labor Surcharge

                           01-Oct-00

         Canada            $        [xxx] Excluding Oshawa - Montreal/St
                                    Therese, Windsor

Terms:
Core Region                Oct 1, 00 - July 31,  01
Balance US/Can             Rolling 60 Day - cancellation location specific,
                           either party, with 60 day prior written notice

GM Market testing following location:
[xxx]
[xxx]
[xxx]

Reassignment of [xxx] and [xxx]- latter 4th qtr or 1st qtr

I.E. Pontiac East - [xxx]% Minimum Goal
[xxx]% Compliance = [xxx]% $[xxx]
[xxx]% Compliance = [xxx]% of $[xxx] applied to conforming units


Side note - not part of agreement. Fuel will increase October 1, 2000 to [xxx]
US and [xxx] Canadian

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

[xxx]    represents material deleted per the Company's request for Confidential
         Treatment and filed separately with the Securities and Exchange
         Commission pursuant to Rule 24b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of
         1934
Exhibit 23

        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



The Board of Directors and Stockholders
First South Bancorp, Inc. and Subsidiary
Spartanburg, South Carolina


We  consent  to  the incorporation by  reference  in  the Registration Statement
on Form S-8  (No.  333-128522),  of  First  South  Bancorp, Inc.  and Subsidiary
of our report  dated  March 26, 2008,  related to the audits of the consolidated
financial statements of First South Bancorp, Inc. and Subsidiary at December 31,
2007 and 2006, and  for each of the years  in the two year period ended December
31, 2007,  which are included  in the  December 31, 2007  Annual Report  on Form
10-K of First South Bancorp, Inc.

/s/ Cherry, Bekaert & Holland, L.L.P.


Charlotte, North Carolina
March 26, 2008
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 59 (Wednesday, March 28, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 14465]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5563]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 07-1106; MB Docket No. 05-101; RM-11159]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Jackson, WY

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Audio Division grants a Petition for Rule Making filed by 
Jackson Hole Community Radio, requesting the allotment of Channel 
*294C2 at Jackson, Wyoming, and reservation for noncommercial 
educational use. A staff engineering analysis determines that Channel 
*294C2 can be allotted at Jackson in compliance with the Commission's 
minimum distance spacing requirements at reference coordinates 43-28-42 
NL and 110-45-42 WL. An objection filed by the University of Wyoming is 
dismissed.

DATES: Effective April 23, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Victoria M. McCauley, Media Bureau, 
(202) 418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Report and Order, MB Docket No. 05-101, adopted March 7, 2007, and 
released March 9, 2007. The full text of this Commission decision is 
available for inspection and copying during regular business hours at 
the FCC's Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 Twelfth Street, 
SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this 
decision may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating 
contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room 
CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-800-378-3160 or http://www.BCPIWEB.com. The Commission will send a copy of this Report and 
Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government 
Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio, Radio broadcasting.

0
As stated in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 
47 CFR part 73 as follows:

PART 73--RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES

0
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336.


Sec.  73.202  [Amended]

0
2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Wyoming, is 
amended by adding Jackson, Channel *294C2.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau.
[FR Doc. E7-5563 Filed 3-27-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Case No. 8,508.

#### The LORD WELLINGTON.

[2 Gall. 103.] 1

Circuit Court, D. Rhode Island.

June Term, 1814.

Prize — Causo from Enemy’s Ship — Pretence— Sejzure on Return Votase.

If an American vessel take on board a cargo from an enemy’s ship, under the pretence, that it is ransomed, it is an illegal traffic, for which, by the law of w'ar. she is liable to condemnation as prize of war, and may be seized on the return voyage.

[Cited in Caldwell v. Southern Exp. Co., Case No. 2,303.]

See The Joseph [Case No. 7,533]; The Rapid, 8 Cranch [12 U. S.] 155; The Diana [Case No. 3.870].

[Appeal from the district court of the United States for the district of Rhode Island.]

This w’as an information filed in behalf of the United States by the district attorney, claiming the sloop Lord Wellington, as forfeited to the United States for an alleged trading with the enemy. From the facts admitted by the claim, or proved by the evidence. it appeared that the sloop, on the 11th of December, 1813, cleared out from Newport for New York, and a manifest was theu produced at the custom-house, and sworn to by the master, stating the cargo on board to be 700 tons of iron, and six tons of burr stone. In fact there was no cargo on board. The sloop sailed from Newport, went alongside of the British squadron in Long Island Sound, and there received the iron on board, which was thereupon transported to New York, and upon her return to Newport, about the 4th day of January, 1814, the sloop was seized by the commander of the revenue cutter, as prize to the United States. The special claim filed by the claimants [Sandford and others] admitted, that the cargo had been taken on board, as above stated; and averred, that it had been some time previously captured from another American vessel, the Amelia, bound from New York to Newport, and was ransomed by the American owners from the British captors under a special agreement, and the sloop Lord Wellington was engaged by the owners to pay the ransom and take the iron back to New York.

Mr. Robbins, for the United States.

Mr. Burrill, for claimants.

STORY, Circuit Justice.

This is a very clear case of trading with the enemy. Wheth*891er the facts stated in the special claim are true or not, is not now material to be considered. It is not competent for American citizens to engage in this sort of traffic with the public enemy. Even admitting the ransoming of captured property to be legal, it cannot be admitted to be made at any distance of time, and by any new voyages undertaken for this especial purpose. There would be no end to such intercourse; or to the dangers, which would thereby arise to the country. No intercourse of this kind can be carried on, except by the express permission of the government. I will not stop to consider, whether the claim can be supported in point of fact. It comes with no very good grace, after an inception of the voyage by a most gross and palpable perjury in swearing to a cargo, which was not on board. This was a fraud, which deserved no countenance, and can be sustained by no apology. I condemn the sloop to the United States.
(Reap. Dec. 8465)

#### Atlas Shipping Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 866545.

(Decided July 14, 1955)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has 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 issues in the appeal to reappraisement listed above are the same in all material respects as the issues in the case of *United States*v. *Schroeder & Tremayne, Inc., et al.,*Suit 4783 and that the record in said case may be incorporated herein.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED, that the entered values of the merchandise involved in the case listed herein are equal to the price at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the Country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, and that the foreign value of such or similar merchandise was no higher.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that this case may be deemed 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 merchandise here involved, and that such values were the entered values.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
(Reap. Dec. 8712)

Entry Nos. 754983, etc.

#### S. H. Pomerance Co., Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided December 11, 1956)

*Siegel, Mandell and Davidson (Joshua M. Davidson*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General *(Daniel I. Auster,*trial attorney), for the defendant.

Donlon, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule *“A,”*attached to and made a part of this decision, were consolidated for the purpose of trial.

The cases were submitted on an oral stipulation in open court, as follows:

> Mb. Davidson: If it please the court, I offer to stipulate with Government counsel that the export value of the merchandise covered by the appeals to reap-praisement consolidated herein at the time of exportation to the United States at which time such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal market of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States, including cost of containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise ready for shipment to the United States, was the invoice unit prices plus case and packing as invoiced and that there was no higher foreign value for merchandise such or similar to the merchandise herein at the time of exportation thereof.

> Mb. Atjstee: May it please your Honor, I have consulted in respect to this anticipated stipulation with Mr. Bornstein, the examiner involved in these cases, and we have discussed it with Mr. Ma,ndell, and we have arrived at that figure as representative of the export value at the time of exportation of the involved merchandise. Therefore, with their consent and approval I am willing to so stipulate. (R. 2-3.)

Accepting this stipulation as a statement of fact, I find and bold that export value, as defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis for determination of value of the merchandise herein, and that such values of the respective items of merchandise are the invoice unit prices plus case and packing, as invoiced.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
EXHIBIT 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Edward J. Heinrich, President of CE Generation LLC (the "Company"),  certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  18 U.S.C.  Section
1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

     (1)  the Annual  Report on Form 10-K of the Company  for the annual  period
          ended  December  31,  2002  (the  "Report")  fully  complies  with the
          requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act
          of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

     (2)  the  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the Company.


Dated:   March 28, 2003




                                            /s/ Edward J. Heinrich
                                            -------------------------
                                            Edward J. Heinrich
                                            President
                                            (chief executive officer)
No. 38920.

#### Protest 896561-G of National Rag & Waste Co.

T. D. 49564. Application by Government for rehearing denied.
No. 47446.

#### Protests 81611-K, etc., of Strauss-Eckardt Co., Inc., et al. (Philadelphia, etc.).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 48595.

#### Protests 971746-G, etc., of Rosenblum Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the cheese in question is similar to that the subject of Abstract 48269. The protests were therefore sustained.
#### Nicholas H. Babcock, *Appellant, v.*Joseph Emrich and another, *Respondents.*

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Davis, P. J.
No. 57386.

protests 685642-G, etc. (New York).

#### Mei Hwa Fur Trading Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Olivee, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the •items marked “A” consist of kidskin plates similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Kung Chen Fur Corpn.*v. *United States*(29 Cust. Ct. 266, C. D. 1480) and that the items marked “B” consist of dogskins the same as those involved in *United States*v. *Arnhold & Co., Inc., et al.*(27 C. C. P. A. 135, C. A. D. *74),*the claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was sustained.

Poed, J., concurred.

Mollison, J., dissented for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in C. D. 1480, *supra,*only so far as the items marked “A” are concerned.
_____________ No. 96-1284MN

_____________ John Louis Johnson, * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the District v. * of Minnesota. * Frank W. Wood, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

_____________ Submitted: August 7, 1996 Filed: August 12, 1996

_____________ Before McMILLIAN, FAGG, and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM. JohnLouis Johnson appeals the district court's order dismissin g Johnson's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. After careful review of the record, we affirm for the reasons stated in the district court's thorough opinion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. Appointed counsel's motion to withdraw is granted. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.