alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

RULE 13A-14 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Carl
W. Pennington, Sr., certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K of TC Global, Inc.; and
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this Amendment No. 1 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 Amendment No. 1.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|3. | [Intentionally omitted pursuant to SEC Division of Corporation Finance Compliance & Disclosure Interpretation Question 161.01]
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|4. | [Intentionally omitted pursuant to SEC Division of Corporation Finance Compliance & Disclosure Interpretation Question 161.01]
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|5. | [Intentionally omitted pursuant to SEC Division of Corporation Finance Compliance & Disclosure Interpretation Question 161.01]
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: August 11, 2010



|                                                                                                      
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    CARL W. PENNINGTON,
SR.                                                                        
|Carl W. Pennington, Sr.
President
(Principal executive officer and
acting principal financial officer)
EXHIBIT 99.1


 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER OF
            IKON RECEIVABLES, LLC PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1850
            --------------------------------------------------------

We certify that, to the best of our knowledge and belief,  the Quarterly  Report
on Form 10-Q of IKON Receivables, LLC for the period ending March 31, 2003:

(1)  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 IKON
     Receivables, LLC.


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
<S>                                              <C>

/s/ Russell S. Slack                                 /s/ Harry G. Kozee
--------------------                                 ------------------
Russell S. Slack                                     Harry G. Kozee
President (Principal Executive Officer)              Vice President - Finance (Principal Financial Officer)
May 15, 2003                                         May 15, 2003

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors

LeCroy Corporation:

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-139638, 333-129490, 333-120656, 333-113271, 333-03144 and 333-91833) on Form S-8, (Nos. 333-119730, 333-46418, 333-43690, 333-88239, 333-43699, 333-37269 and 333-22117) on Form S-3 and (Nos.
333-139708, 333-112630 and 333-64848) on Form S-3/A of LeCroy Corporation of our reports dated September 13, 2007, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of LeCroy Corporation and subsidiaries as of June 30, 2007 and 2006, and the
related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended June 30, 2007, and the related financial statement schedule, and the effectiveness of internal control
over financial reporting as of June 30, 2007, which reports appear in the June 30, 2007 annual report on Form 10-K of LeCroy Corporation.

Our report on the consolidated financial statements refers to the Companys adoption of the provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123(R), Share-Based Payment, effective July 1, 2005.

Our report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of June 30, 2007, contains an explanatory paragraph
that states that mangements assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and our audit of internal control over financial reporting of LeCroy Corporation and subsidiaries excludes an evaluation of the internal
control over financial reporting of an acquired business, Catalyst Enterprises, Inc.



|                       
|-----------------------
|                       
|/s/ KPMG LLP           
|                       
|Short Hills, New Jersey
|September 13, 2007     



104
#### Joseph Flavian MAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 68-868.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

May 6, 1969.

*251John V. Ferguson, and Richard Kanner, Miami, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Harold Mendelow, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, C. J„ and HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

By an information the appellant was charged in a first count with throwing toward and upon an occupied vehicle “a certain missile which was capable of producing death or great bodily harm, to wit: a fire bomb,” in violation of § 790.19 Fla.Stat., F.S.A. In a second count the appellant was charged with setting afire and burning a designated vehicle of value exceeding $25, in violation of § 806.03 Fla.Stat., F.S.A.

Section 790.19 deals with throwing (at or in places including an occupied vehicle) any missile which could produce death or great bodily harm. The offense proscribed by § 806.03 is third degree arson.

On trial by a jury the appellant was convicted of the offense charged in count one, and under count two was convicted of fourth degree arson, a lesser degree of the offense charged. He was adjudged guilty accordingly, and sentenced to confinement for five and two years respectively, to run concurrently.

The trust of appellant’s argument is that he was denied a fair trial because the prosecution, over objection, made numerous references to “fire bomb,” whereas, appellant contends the state failed to prove the missile was a fire bomb as defined by statute (§ 806.11 Fla.Stat., F.S.A.). We find no merit in that argument.

The definition of a fire bomb in § 806.11 is there stated to be for the purposes of that section of the statute, which makes it a crime to possess, manufacture or dispose of such an article for certain purposes, and subject to stated exceptions.

Here the missile performed as a fire bomb would, and the reference at trial to the missile as a fire bomb was not in the technical sense, but was descriptive of its character and effect. 'The information contained the essential allegation that the mis*252sile thrown was one which would produce death or great bodily harm, and the additional language of “to-wit: a fire bomb” was surplusage and did not require proof that the missile had the particular ingredients of a fire bomb as set forth in the statute relating to possession of fire bombs. When such an article is found in one’s possession, it can be examined, and dismantled, to determine whether it is composed of the ingredients listed in the possession statute. But when, as here, the missile is thrown and explodes or bums, there would be no way to prove the exact nature and quantity of its ingredients. For the purposes of the crime charged in this case, it was the nature and capability of the missile as disclosed by its explosive or fire producing effect, rather than its exact ingredients, which were material.

The verdict was supported by competent substantial evidence, and no harmful error was shown.

Affirmed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 December 28, 2016

d1212

Order 

Clerk

December 28, 2016

153338

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 153338

COA: 330804

Macomb CC: 2013-003383-FH

MICHAEL GERARD FLYNN,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 24, 2016 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-60743

Summary Calendar

PARESH BHAI RABARI,

Petitioner

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A205 196 047

Before SMITH, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Petitioner Paresh Bhai Rabari petitions for review of the order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that dismissed his appeal from the order 

of the immigration judge (IJ) denying as untimely his motion to reopen removal

proceedings. Motions to reopen are disfavored, and the moving party must 

carry a heavy burden. Altamirano-Lopez v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 547, 549 (5th 

Cir. 2006). The denial of such a motion is reviewed “under a highly deferential 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 24, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-60743 Document: 00512710326 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/24/2014
No. 13-60743

abuse-of-discretion standard.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted). 

A motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of the date on which the 

final administrative decision is issued. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i). An alien 

is not bound by this time limit, however, if the motion is made for purposes of

applying for asylum or for withholding of removal “based on changed country 

conditions arising in the country of nationality or the country to which removal 

has been ordered, if such evidence is material and was not available and would 

not have been discovered or presented at the previous proceeding.” 

§ 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii).

Rabari does not contest that he failed to file his motion within the 90-

day time limit. See § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i). Although he cites new evidence not 

contained in the administrative record to show a change of country conditions

in India, we may not consider this evidence. See Hernandez-Ortez v. Holder, 

741 F.3d 644, 647 (5th Cir. 2014). To the extent that Rabari has not otherwise 

abandoned his appeal through his failure to brief his arguments adequately, 

see Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003), his conclusonal

assertions that his motion to reopen should have been granted are wholly 

insufficient to show that the BIA abused its discretion. See Altamirano-Lopez, 

435 F.3d at 549. His petition for review is DENIED.

2

 Case: 13-60743 Document: 00512710326 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/24/2014
J~tED ST,qT~

S 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

0 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

7-

Q 

o= 

~

"PT, PADjEG" 

Allr+ 

17 

 ,010 OFFICEOF 

htV V / I AIR AND RADIATION 

Donald C. Gadbury 

Manager, National TRU Program 

Carlsbad Field Office 

U.S. Department of Energy 

P.O. Box 3090 

Carlsbad, NM 88221-3090 

Dcar Mr. Gadbury: 

On October 21, 2009, the Carlsbad Field Office (CBFO) requested that the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approve three remote-handled (RH) waste streams at 

Idaho national Laboratory (INL) as Tier 1 changes. On February 1, 2010, EPA approved two of 

the three RH waste streams as a Tier 1 change (EPA Docket No. A-98-49; I1-A4-122). This 

approval is for the third retrievably stored, RH transuranic (TRU) debris waste stream IDINTEC-RH. As a result, INL may dispose of this waste at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). 

The enclosed report (EPA Docket No. A-98-49; II-A4-129) supports EPA's approval decision. 

As a part of this review, EPA also evaluated and approves the following: an RH waste sampling 

process implemented at the Argonne National Laboratory-East (ANL-E) and a radiochemical 

analysis procedure for RH waste implemented at the INL. 

The Central Characterization Project (CCP) characterized this waste using remotehandled waste characterization processes approved by EPA in February 2007. In addition, the 

CCP used sampling and radiochemical analysis processes similar to those implemented at ANLE and INL, respectively. EPA determined that the procedures and processes used by INL-CCP 

staff for characterizing this waste were adequate. As a result of our evaluation, no changes to the 

tiering table are necessary. The tiering table (revised May 12, 2010), contained in the EPA report 

(EPA Docket No: A-98-49, II-A4-126), supporting an approval of the INL RH waste stream (IDMFC-S5400-RH), continues to apply to all RH waste streams at INL. 

If you have any questions regarding this approval, please contact Rajani Joglekar at (202) 

343-9462 or Ed Feltcorn at (202) 343-9422. 

Sincerely, 

~ J~ 

PXtlA,4~~ 

Tom Peake, Director 

Center for Waste Management and Regulations 

Intemet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov 

Recycled/Recyclable - Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30`o Postconsurner) 
Enclosure 

cc: Electronic Distribution 

Christine Gelles, DOE EM 

Alton Harris, DOE EM 

David Moody, CBFO 

Vernon Daub, CBFO 

Ava Holland, CBFO QA 

J R Stroble, CBFO 

Courtland Fesmire, CBFO 

Martin Navarrete, CBFO QA 

Dennis Miehls, CBFO QA 

Jerry Wells, DOE ID 

D K Ploetz, WTS-CCP 

Mike Sensibaugh, WTS-CCP 

Mark Pearcy, WTS-CCP 

Allison Pangie, CTAC 

Wayne Ledford, CTAC 

Steve Zappe, NMED 

EPA Region 10
#### MISSISSIPPI HIGHWAY COMMISSION v. Joseph M. MOSBY et al.

No. 49544.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Aug. 10, 1977.

Robert Dan Coit, Meridian, for appellant.

Bourdeaux & Jones, Thomas R. Jones, Meridian, for appellees.

Appeal from Special Court of Eminent Domain, Lauderdale County; H. C. “Mike” Watkins, Judge.

Before INZER, P. J., and ROBERTSON and WALKER, JJ.

REVERSED AND RENDERED.

PATTERSON, C. J., SMITH, P. J., and SUGG, BROOM, LEE and BOWLING, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 21**

**LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES**

All subsidiaries listed herein are wholly-owned. Unless otherwise indicated,all companies listed herein are Delaware corporations. 

**BWAY HOLDING COMPANY**

Subsidiaries of BWAY Holding Company 

BWAY Corporation 

**BWAY CORPORATION**

Subsidiaries of BWAY Corporation 

Armstrong Containers, Inc. 

North America Packaging Corporation 

Subsidiaries of North America Packaging Corporation 

North America Packaging of Puerto Rico, Inc. 

SC Plastics, LLC (a Georgia limited liability company) 

Subsidiaries of Armstrong Containers, Inc. 

ICL Industrial Containers, ULC (a Nova Scotia unlimitedliability company)
Case 4:05-cv-02522-JEJ Document 14 Filed 10/04/06 Page 1 of 5
Case 4:05-cv-02522-JEJ Document 14 Filed 10/04/06 Page 2 of 5
Case 4:05-cv-02522-JEJ Document 14 Filed 10/04/06 Page 3 of 5
Case 4:05-cv-02522-JEJ Document 14 Filed 10/04/06 Page 4 of 5
Case 4:05-cv-02522-JEJ Document 14 Filed 10/04/06 Page 5 of 5
Exhibit 31.2  I, Dempsey Mork, certify that:  1.           I have reviewed this quarterly report for the period ended June 30, 2008 on Form 10-Q of China Holdings, Inc.;  2.           Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3.           Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4.           The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the 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 registrant, 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 registrant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 registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and  5.           The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing 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.  Oct. 1, 2008   /s/ Dempsey Mork Dempsey Mork Chief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT 99.5**     KPMG LLP    Chartered Accountants Telephone (403)691-80002700 205– 5th Avenue SW Fax (403)691-8008Calgary ABT2P 4B9 Internet www.kpmg.ca**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**To the Board of Directors of Agrium Inc.:We consent to the inclusion in this annual report on Form 40-F of:**•** our Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm datedFebruary 27, 2008 on the consolidated balance sheets of Agrium Inc.(“the Corporation”) as at December 31, 2007 and 2006, and theconsolidated statements of operations and retained earnings, cashflows, and comprehensive income and shareholders’ equity for each ofthe years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2007; **•** our Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm datedFebruary 27, 2008 on the effectiveness of internal control overfinancial reporting as of December 31, 2007; **•** our Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm datedFebruary 27, 2008 on the supplemental information entitled “Item 18Reconciliation with United States Generally Accepted AccountingPrinciples for the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005” ofthe Corporation; **•** our Comments by Auditors for U.S. Readers on Canada — U.S. ReportingDifferences;each of which is included in this annual report on Form 40-F of the Corporation for the fiscal yearended December 31, 2007.We also consent to the incorporation by reference of such reports in Registration Statement No.333-147767 on Form F-10 and Registration Statements Nos. 333-11254, 333-114276, No. 333-132207 andNo. 333-143334 on Form S-8 of the Corporation.*Signed “KPMG LLP”*Chartered Accountants
CERTIFICATIONS 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 The Cyber Group Network Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2002, as filed with
the  Securities  and  Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned,  Chief  Executive Officer, 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 Report fully complies with the requirements of section 3(a) or 15(d) of
     the  Securities  and  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.

A  signed  original  of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears  in  typed  form within the electronic version of this written statement
required  by  Section  906,  has  been  provided to [name of issuer] and will be
retained  by  [name  of  issuer]  and  furnished  to the Securities and Exchange
Commission  or  its  staff  upon  request.




By: /s/ R. Scott Cramer
    ---------------------------

    R. Scott Cramer
    Chief  Executive  Officer


Dated: September 29, 2003


<PAGE>
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CHRISTOPHER LEWIS, : Case No. 4:14-cv-885

:

Plaintiff : (Judge Brann)

:

v. :

:

CORIZON HEALTH CARE, et al., : (Magistrate Judge Schwab)

:

Defendants :

ORDER

September 18, 2015

BACKGROUND:

The undersigned has given full and independent consideration to the June 

26, 2015 report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Susan E. Schwab. ECF 

No. 51. No objections have been filed.

Because this Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Schwab’s assessment that 

Plaintiff failed to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the 

Court will not rehash the sound reasoning of the magistrate judge and will adopt 

the report and recommendation in its entirety.

Case 4:14-cv-00885-MWB Document 52 Filed 09/18/15 Page 1 of 2
2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The June 26, 2015 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge 

Schwab is ADOPTED in full. ECF No. 51.

2. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED for failure to prosecute pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). ECF No. 1.

3. Defendants’ motions to dismiss are DENIED as moot. ECF Nos. 26, 37, 41, 

& 46.

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case.

BY THE COURT:

/s Matthew W. Brann

Matthew W. Brann

United States District Judge

Case 4:14-cv-00885-MWB Document 52 Filed 09/18/15 Page 2 of 2