alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.1****Certifications**I, Dennis R. Wolters, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Day International Group, 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 information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin 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 andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, 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; 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 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 of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’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 asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: August 19, 2005 By:  /s/ Dennis R Wolters   Dennis R. Wolters   President and Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT (21)-1-

               COMPANIES OWNED BY UNIMAR COMPANY


     The following is a list of companies owned, directly and
indirectly, by Unimar Company, together with their respective
jurisdictions of incorporation.  In each case, all of the
outstanding voting securities of each company listed are owned by
the company indicated by indentation as its parent, except as
otherwise noted.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                               State of
                                             Incorporation
<S>                                          <C>
Unimar Company (a General Partnership under
  The Texas Uniform
 Partnership Act)
   ENSTAR Corporation.                           Delaware
     VICO 7.5, Inc.                              Delaware
       Virginia Indonesia Company                Delaware
         Virginia Services, Inc.                 Delaware
         Virginia Services, Ltd.                 Delaware
     ENSTAR Indonesia, Inc.                      Delaware
       Virginia International Company            Delaware
     ENSTAR Petroleum Ltd.                       Canada
     
</TABLE>
Exhibit
      32.1








**CERTIFICATION
      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 Quarterly Report of Preferred Voice, Inc. (the "Company")
      on
      Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mary
      G.
      Merritt, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the
      Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of
      the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
      The Report fully 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 result of operations of the Company.








/s/
      Mary G. Merritt


Mary
      G.
      Merritt


Principal
      Executive Officer


Principal
      Financial Officer


November
      13, 2006
# C_2022472EN.01003901.xml

| 12.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 472/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 472/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2022 — Philip Morris Products v EUIPO (TOGETHER. FORWARD.)

(Case T-500/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark TOGETHER. FORWARD. - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 472/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Philip Morris Products SA (Neuchâtel, Switzerland) (represented by: L. Alonso Domingo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Nicolás Gómez, M. Eberl and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 2 June 2021 (Case R 417/2021-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Philip Morris Products SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Philip Morris Products SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 391, 27.9.2021.

---
#### James G. DEMPSTER, Appellant, v. Charlotte DEMPSTER, Appellee.

No. T-456.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Feb. 7, 1974.

Isham W. Adams, Daytona Beach, for appellant.

Henry P. Duffett, of Duffett, Barry & Seps, Ormond Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The briefs and the record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court hereby appealed is affirmed.
No. 00-1042.

#### Tonn *v.*United States.

C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
#### Arthur Leroy JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-869.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 16, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
[No. 892-1.

Division One— Panel 2.

May 1, 1972.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Sam Thomas, *Appellant.*
Dismiss and Opinion Filed April 9, 2014 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00390-CV 

No. 05-14-00391-CV 

IN RE SENRICK WILKERSON, Relator 

Original Proceeding from the Criminal District Court No. 3 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F10-01183-J, F10-01184-J 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices FitzGerald, Francis, and Lewis 

Opinion by Justice Francis 

Relator files a motion seeking summary judgment. He complains of false imprisonment 

based on alleged inaccuracies in his Dallas county arrest records and purported procedural errors 

with relation to his arrests and convictions. The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure do not 

permit this Court to grant summary judgment in this case. Moreover, this Court may not address 

complaints of the type relator raises, regardless of the form in which they are couched. Ater v. 

Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (“What the court of 

appeals tried to do was treat the original mandamus petition as a writ of habeas corpus. We are 

the only court with jurisdiction in final post-conviction felony proceedings.”). While the courts 

of appeals have concurrent mandamus jurisdiction with the Court of Criminal Appeals in some 

post-conviction proceedings, Padilla v. McDaniel, 122 S.W.3d 805, 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) 
 –2– 

(forensic DNA testing), only the Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction in cases collaterally 

attacking a final judgment of conviction of a felony. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 

(West Supp. 2010); In re Turk, No. 14-09-00129-CR, 2009 WL 396197, at *1 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 19, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.); In re Bailey, No. 14-06-00841-CV, 

2006 WL 2827249, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); 

In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715, 717 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding). 

“Article 11.07 contains no role for the courts of appeals; the only courts referred to are the 

convicting court and the Court of Criminal Appeals.” In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d at 718. 

The nature of relator’s complaint is that he has is being illegally confined due to the 

defects he alleges. This Court does not have jurisdiction over any matters related to such 

complaints; they must be raised with the Court of Criminal Appeals. Accordingly, the Court 

DISMISSES the petition. 

140390F.P05 

/Molly Francis/ 

MOLLY FRANCIS 

JUSTICE
#### Mamle Martin ALBRIGHT, Appellant, v. KENTUCKY HOME LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 7100.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

March 4, 1937.

W. A. Guild, of Nashville, Tenn., for appellant.

Cecil Sims, of Nashville, Tenn., for appellee.

Before HICKS, SIMONS, and Al-LEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This cause was heard upon the record, briefs, and argument of counsel, and on consideration of all which the court is of opinion that there is no error in the decree of the District Court that the insured, William Francis Albright, procured the reinstatement of policy No. 113,670, issued upon his life by Inter-Southern Life Insurance Company October 1, 1923, and assumed by appellee, by false and untrue statements made with actual intent to deceive and relating to a material matter which increased the risk of loss, Haddad v. New York Life Ins. Co., 42 F.(2d) 651, 652 (C.C.A.6); New York Life Ins. Co. v. Cohen, 57 F.(2d) 494, 496 (C.C.A.6); Lyttle v. Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co., 72 F.(2d) 140, 142 (C.C.A.6); that the certificate of reinstatement of the policy issued March 17, 1933, was contestable within one year from its date because of the fraud of Al-bright in procuring its issuance, New York Life Ins. Co. v. Seymour, 45 F.(2d) 47, 49 (C.C.A.6); and that there is no merit in the contention that appellee’s right of cancellation was waived by the alternative allegations of paragraph 3 of the bill (stricken out by leave of the court before trial) to the effect that, because of Albright’s intentional self-destruction, one-tenth only of the principal sum of the policy was due by reason of the suicide clause therein. Ætna Life Ins. Co. v. Bellos, 158 Tenn. 554, 559, 13 S.W.(2d) 795, 14 S.W.(2d) 961.

It is therefore ordered and adjudged that the decree of the District Court be, and the same is, in all things affirmed.
#### KENWORTH MOTOR TRUCK COMPANY, Petitioner, v. CAP AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE, INC., a cooperative association, and Slagle Ross Galmon, Respondents.

No. 72-397.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 10, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari denied.
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1117

To amend the Agricultural Act of 1949 to permit producers on a farm

who were prevented from planting the 1993 crop of corn because of

a disaster to devote conservation use acreage under the 0/92 program

to soybeans, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 16 (legislative day, JUNE 15), 1993

Mr. PRESSLER (for himself and Mr. DURENBERGER) introduced the following

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture,

Nutrition, and Forestry

A BILL

To amend the Agricultural Act of 1949 to permit producers

on a farm who were prevented from planting the 1993

crop of corn because of a disaster to devote conservation

use acreage under the 0/92 program to soybeans, 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. PREVENTED PLANTED DISASTER ASSISTANCE

4 FOR 1993 CROP OF FEED GRAINS.

5 The first sentence of section 105B(c)(1)(F)(ii) of the

6 Agricultural Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1444f(c)(1)(F)(ii))

7 is amended—
2

•S 1117 IS

1 (1) by striking ‘‘crambe, and’’ and inserting

2 ‘‘crambe,’’; and

3 (2) by inserting before the period at the end the

4 following: ‘‘and, in the case of producers on a farm

5 who are eligible for a prevented planting disaster

6 payment under paragraph (2)(A) for the 1993 crop

7 of corn, soybeans’’.

Æ
---

Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton LLPSuite 2000National Bank Tower600 De La Gauchetière Street WestConsent of Independent Auditor
      Montréal, Québec H3B 4L8Telephone: 514-878-2691Fax: 514-878-2127www.rcgt.com




We have issued our independent auditors
  report dated November 28, 2012 with respect to the consolidated financial statements
  included in the Annual Report of Sand Technology Inc. on Form 20-F for the year
  ended July 31, 2012. We hereby consent to the incorporation of said report in
  the Form 20-F, and to the incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration
  Statements of Sand Technology Inc. on Forms S-8 (File No. 333-08538, effective
  March 27, 1998 and File No. 333-07462, effective August 20, 1997) and Form F-3
  (File No. 333-51014, effective August 18, 2000).

| |  | 
| |  | 

Montréal, Canada,
  December 11, 2012





Chartered Accountants
  Member of Grant Thornton International Ltd

---
#### WHITNEY TANK LINES, INC. et al., Petitioners, v. Marshall SALTER et al., Respondents.

No. 39966.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 7, 1970.

Certiorari denied.

DREW, Acting C. J., and THORNAL, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 21

- 1388

_____________________________
V ICTOR V AUGHAN R EED , Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Jeb T. Branham , Judge

. September 15, 2021

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. R AY , J AY , and T ANENBAUM , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Victor Vaughan Reed, pro se
, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 177 (Friday, September 12, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 54696]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-21841]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Paducah

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of Open Meeting: Correction.

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

SUMMARY: On August 14, 2014, the Department of Energy (DOE) published a 
notice of open meeting announcing a meeting on September 11, 2014 of 
the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Paducah (79 
FR 47632). This document makes a correction to that notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Woodard, Deputy Designated 
Federal Officer, Department of Energy Paducah Site Office, 1017 
Majestic Drive, Suite 200, Lexington, Kentucky 40513, (270) 441-6820.

Correction

    In the Federal Register of August 14, 2014, in FR Doc. 2014-19307, 
on page 47632, please make the following correction:
    In that notice under DATES, third column, second paragraph, the 
meeting date has been changed. The new date is September 25, 2014 
instead of September 11, 2014.

    Issued at Washington, DC, on September 8, 2014.
LaTanya R. Butler,
Deputy Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014-21841 Filed 9-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```
# C_2023179EN.01003301.xml

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO — Mystic Products and Koopman International (Fluid distribution equipment)

(Case T-576/21) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing fluid distribution equipment - Ground for invalidity - Non-compliance with requirements for protection - Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Features of appearance of a product solely dictated by its technical function - Article 8(1) of Regulation No 6/2002)

(2023/C 179/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tinnus Enterprises LLC (Plano, Texas, United States) (represented by: T. Wuttke and J. Lewandowski, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Mystic Products Import & Export, SL (Badalona, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Koopman International BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: G. van den Bergh, A. van Hoek and B. Brouwer, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, Tinnus Enterprises LLC, seeks the annulment and alteration of the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 1 July 2021 (Case R 1005/2018-3) (‘the contested decision’).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Tinnus Enterprises LLC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Koopman International BV. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Tinnus Enterprises LLC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Koopman International BV.

---

(1)  OJ C 462, 15.11.2021.

---
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Arthur BAILEY, Jr. v. Frank C. BLACKBURN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 62698.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 15, 1978.

In re: Arthur Bailey, Jr., applying for remedial writ. Parish of Orleans.

Writ denied.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, in
accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of Vitran Corporation Inc., that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report of Vitran Corporation Inc. on Form 10-Q
for the nine months ended September 30, 2009, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operation of Vitran Corporation Inc.



|                       |  |  |  |     |  |                                                   
|---------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | --------------------------------------------------
|                       |  |  | 
|Date: October 27, 2009 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ RICHARD E. GAETZ                              
|                       |  |  |  |     |  | Richard E. Gaetz                                  
|                       |  |  |  |     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer             
|                       |  |  | 
|                       |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ SEAN P. WASHCHUK                              
|                       |  |  |  |     |  | Sean P. Washchuk                                  
|                       |  |  |  |     |  | Vice President Finance and Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 99.2



                            CERTIFICATION 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 Quarterly  Report of Avery  Communications,
Inc. Inc.  (the  "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  I, Thomas C.  Ratchford,  Chief  Financial  Officer of the  Company,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

            (1) The Report fully 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 the
Company.



/s/ Thomas C. Ratchford
-----------------------
Thomas C. Ratchford
Chief Financial Officer
May 22, 2003


<PAGE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.1



                   THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDED AND RESTATED
               HARBINGER CORPORATION EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN

         THIS THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDED AND RESTATED HARBINGER CORPORATION
EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN (the "Amendment") is made effective as of September
30, 1998 (the "Effective Date"), by HARBINGER CORPORATION, a corporation
organized and doing business under the laws of the State of Georgia (the
"Company"). All capitalized terms in this Amendment have the meaning ascribed to
such term as in the Harbinger Corporation Employee Stock Purchase Plan (the
"Plan"), unless otherwise stated herein.

                              W I T N E S S E T H:

         WHEREAS, the Plan has been amended on two prior occasions and the Board
of Directors desires to again amend the Plan pursuant to the authority set forth
in Plan Section 16;

         NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual promises
contained herein, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

         SECTION 2. "Definitions", is hereby amended by substituting the
following definition of "PURCHASE PERIOD":

         "PURCHASE PERIOD means the period beginning 48 hours after the release
of operating results for the immediately prior quarter and ending 48 hours after
the release of operating results for the then current quarter."

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE
AMENDED AND RESTATED HARBINGER CORPORATION EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN to be
executed and effective for the third quarter of the 1998 Plan year.

                                      HARBINGER CORPORATION

                                      By:    /s/ C. Tycho  Howle
                                         --------------------------------------
                                                 C. Tycho Howle, Chairman & CEO
    ATTEST:

    By:  /s/ Joel G. Katz
       ---------------------------
         Joel G. Katz, Secretary