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





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER





I, Mary G. Merritt, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Preferred Voice, Inc.;





2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;





3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report.





4. I am 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 I have:





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





b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the “Evaluation Date”); and





c. presented in this quarterly report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;





5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):





a. all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant’s auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and





b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls; and





6. I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.


/s/ Mary G. MerrittMary G. MerrittChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officerand Principal Financial Officer)November 12, 2009
The State of TexasAppellee

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 20, 2014

No. 04-13-00505-CR

Christopher G. CARRINGTON,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2008CR8418A

Honorable Maria Teresa Herr, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant’s brief was originally due to be filed on December 16, 2013. Appellant’s first 

motion requesting an extension of time to file the brief was granted, extending the deadline for 

filing the brief to January 15, 2014. Because the brief was not filed by the deadline, this court 

expended judicial resources to prepare and send an order to appellant’s attorney, Mr. Edward F. 

Shaughnessy, III, on January 22, 2014, directing Mr. Shaughnessy to respond to this court in 

writing by February 3, 2014. Mr. Shaughnessy was instructed that his response should state a 

reasonable explanation for failing to timely file the brief and demonstrate the steps being taken to 

remedy the deficiency. Our order stated that if Mr. Shaughnessy failed to file an adequate 

response by the stated deadline, this appeal would be abated to the trial court for an abandonment 

hearing, and the trial court would be asked to consider whether sanctions were appropriate

against Mr. Shaughnessy. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b)(2). No response was filed. Accordingly, on 

February 11, 2014, this court expended additional judicial resources to prepare and send an order 

abating this appeal to the trial court for an abandonment hearing. Id.

On February 18, 2014, Mr. Shaughnessy filed a brief for the appellant. The brief was not 

accompanied by any motion requesting an extension of time to file the brief or offering any

explanation for the delay in filing the brief. In the interest of justice, this court’s order of 

February 11, 2014 is WITHDRAWN; however, Mr. Shaughnessy is cautioned that in order to 

avoid sanctions and possible suspension from practice in this court, he must be more responsive 

to this court’s orders and respectful of its time.

_________________________________

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

court on this 20th day of February, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
The State of TexasAppellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 16, 2014

No. 04-13-00510-CR

Juan GARCIA,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012CR1531

Honorable Philip A. Kazen, Jr., Judge Presiding

ORDER

The Appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Pro se Brief is hereby GRANTED. 

Appellant’s pro se brief, if any, is due on or before May 12, 2014. No further extensions of 

time will be granted.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

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

court on this 16th day of April, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### Charles Lee COON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 2088.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 22, 1970.

Appeal from Court of Record, Broward County; Robert J. O’Toole, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
### {In Archive} ExxonMobil MCU Shaheerah Kelly to: christopherjlee, mohanrasthana, morrismuskett 07/18/2005 09:35 AM Cc: Gerardo Rios

From: Shaheerah Kelly/R9/USEPA/US To: christopherjlee@navajo.org, mohanrasthana@navajo.org, morrismuskett@navajo.org, Cc: Gerardo Rios/R9/USEPA/US@EPA Archive: This message is being viewed in an archive. I just faxed the following documents to you. April 19, 1991 PSD permit May 27, 2004 letter from ExxonMobil to EPA June 10, 2004 fax from ExxonMobil to EPA July 8, 2004 fax from ExxonMobil to EPA Please let me know if you have any questions or if you do not receive everything. Thanks. Shaheerah Kelly Air Division, Permits Office U S EPA Region IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415-947-4156 Fax: 415-947-3579
#### Charles WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-454.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 27, 1973.

*285Jack J. Taffer, Miami, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and William L. Rogers, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

Before PEARSON, CHARLES CARROLL and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was tried non-jury, convicted of murder in the first degree and sentenced to life in prison. He appeals and urges error in the following particulars: (1) It was error to deny the defendant access to grand jury testimony; (2) it was error to find the defendant legally sane at the time of the commission of the crime; (3) the conviction was not supported by the evidence.

Turning to point one, we find no error. Defense counsel requested the transcript of grand jury testimony of one Frank Young whose testimony at trial was conflicting. The grand jury testimony was reviewed in camera by the trial judge, who, unable to find any material discrepancies, refused to release it to defense counsel. This procedure is in accord with Minton v. State, Fla.1959, 113 So.2d 361, which is controlling. In Minton the Florida Supreme Court held that if the trial judge finds in grand jury testimony merely unconsequential deviations, he is not required to provide the cross-examiner a basis for ranging over a wide area of collateral and minute detail. See also Jackman v. State, Fla.App. 1962, 140 So.2d 627.

As to the second point, the defendant’s sanity, the evidence was in conflict. Two doctors testified that the defendant was unable to distinguish right from wrong at the time of the offense. However, one of the doctors expressed his opinion as a reasonable medical probability rather than a certainty. He also further qualified his opinion. In addition, the arresting officers testified to the effect that at the time of arrest they thought defendant to be normal. It is well established that where evidence as to defendant’s sanity is in conflict, it is within the province of the trier of fact to resolve the conflict in favor of the sanity of the defendant. French v. State, Fla.App.1972, 266 So.2d 51; Sallavirta v. State, Fla.App.1968, 210 So.2d 487; Crum v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 24. The above statement is true even where the conflict is between the testimony of lay witnesses and the opinions of psychiatrists. See Blatch v. State, Fla.App.1968, 216 So.2d 261; Brady v. State, Fla.App.1966, 190 So.2d 607; Byrd v. State, Fla.App.1965, 178 So.2d 886; Norman v. State, Fla.App.1963, 156 So.2d 186.

*286We have considered appellant’s third point on appeal and find that to be without merit.

Accordingly, the judgment of the lower court is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.
[No. 436-3.

Division Three.

April 11, 1972.]

#### Virginia Garza Gomez, *Appellant,*v. Donald A. Stark *et al., Respondents.*
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

                    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841*et seq.*) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.                

The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than August 7, 2018.

                    A.                     *Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas*                     (Robert L. Triplett III, Senior Vice President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:                

                    1.                     *Keystone Acquisitions, Inc., Driftwood, Texas;*                     to become a bank holding company by acquiring voting shares of Ballinger National Bank, Ballinger, Texas.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 10, 2018.

Ann Misback,

Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2018-15008 Filed 7-12-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the 
Company's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 1998, and is qualified 
in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           1,710
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,161
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,257
<INVENTORY>                                     16,056
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                44,815
<PP&E>                                          58,510
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,753
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  94,307
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           52,355
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           138
<OTHER-SE>                                      16,029
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    94,307
<SALES>                                         52,709
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                52,709
<CGS>                                           34,794
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   15,455
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,784
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    676
<INCOME-TAX>                                        25
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       651
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.05
        



</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
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 November 21, 2011

h1114 

# Order

November 21, 2011

143465

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 143465 COA: 303998 CYNTHIA LITTLETON, Wayne CC: 10-002762-FH Defendant-Appellant. 10-002761-FH

________________ ____________________/ 10-003284-FH

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the June 22, 2011 order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Wayne Circuit Court with instructions to amend the judgment of sent ence in Case No. 10-00 2761-FH to reflect a
sentence of 12 to 48 m onths in accordance with the sent ence evaluation offered pursuant

to People v Cobbs, 443 Mich 276 (1993). In all othe r respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not pe rsuaded that the remaining qu estions presen ted should be reviewed by this Court.
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 116

To amend the Rules of the House of Representatives to require the Committee

on Ways and Means to include in committee reports the identity, sponsor,

and revenue cost of single-taxpayer relief provisions contained in reported

bills.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 4, 1993

Mr. WELDON (for himself, Mr. CLINGER,, Mr. TORKILDSEN, Mr. ZIMMER, and

Mr. SHAYS) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Rules

RESOLUTION

To amend the Rules of the House of Representatives to

require the Committee on Ways and Means to include

in committee reports the identity, sponsor, and revenue

cost of single-taxpayer relief provisions contained in reported bills.

1 Resolved,

2 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

3 This resolution may be cited as the ‘‘Targeted Tax

4 Relief Disclosure Resolution of 1993’’.
2

•HRES 116 IH

1 SEC. 2. IDENTITY, SPONSOR, AND REVENUE COST OF SIN2 GLE-TAXPAYER RELIEF PROVISIONS RE3 QUIRED TO BE REPORTED.

4 Clause 4 of rule X of the Rules of the House of Rep5 resentatives is amended by adding at the end thereof the

6 following:

7 ‘‘(j) The report accompanying each bill or joint reso8 lution of a public character reported by the Committee on

9 Ways and Means shall identify—

10 ‘‘(1) each provision (if any) of the bill or joint

11 resolution which is intended to provide special bene12 fits with respect to 5 or fewer taxpayers, trans13 actions, events, items of property, projects, or

14 issuances of bonds,

15 ‘‘(2) the identity of each beneficiary (known by

16 the Committee) of such provision,

17 ‘‘(3) the Member or Members of Congress who

18 sponsored the inclusion of each such beneficiary in

19 such provision, and

20 ‘‘(4) an estimate by the Joint Committee on

21 Taxation of the loss in revenues resulting from such

22 provision with respect to each such beneficiary for

23 the fiscal year for which such loss in revenues first

24 occurs and each of the 5 fiscal years thereafter.’’.
3

•HRES 116 IH

1 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

2 The amendment made by section 2 shall apply to bills

3 and joint resolutions reported on or after the date of the

4 adoption of this resolution.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-04-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-08-1996
<CASH>                                           1,800
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,662
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    114,218
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               136,064
<PP&E>                                         145,182
<DEPRECIATION>                                  67,769
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 222,112
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           98,193
<BONDS>                                         43,379
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        11,293
<OTHER-SE>                                      62,028
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   222,112
<SALES>                                        515,723
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               515,723
<CGS>                                          365,015
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  365,015
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               137,841
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,131
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,736
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,284
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,452
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,452
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .49
        

</TABLE>
# C_2013360EN.01000701.xml

| 10.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 360/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 360/7

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.7084 — Medtronic Vascular/Backston/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2013/C 360/05

On 3 December 2013, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M7084. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M7084. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---