alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.1**
CERTIFICATION REQUIRED BYRULE 13a-14(a) OR RULE 15d-14(a) AND UNDERSECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
I, Joseph J. Ueberroth, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of AmbassadorsInternational, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared; (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
August 5, 2004
/s/ Joseph J. Ueberroth
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



The undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of Diedrich Coffee, Inc. (the Company), for
purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:



| |  |  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended March 9, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | - |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
| | - |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                          |  |  |  |                                      
|------------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------
|                          |  | 
|Dated: September 27, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/ Roger M. Laverty                 
|                          |  |  |  | Roger M. Laverty                     
|                          |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer



Note: A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Diedrich Coffee, Inc. and will be retained by Diedrich Coffee, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

April 28, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 134358(52) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, JAMES MARTIN and LUCIA MARTIN, Justices 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v SC: 134358 

 COA: 273528 
 Kent CC: 04-008611-NI 

SMG, 

Defendant/Cross-Defendant/ 

Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee, 

and 

GRAND RAPIDS-KENT COUNTY 

CONVENTION AREA AUTHORITY,

Defendant/Cross-Plaintiff/

Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee, 

and 

GRAND RAPIDS BALLET COMPANY,

d/b/a GRAND RAPIDS BALLET, 

Third-Party Defendant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s January 30, 

2008 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously. 

d0421 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

April 28, 2008 

 Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 141 (Monday, July 23, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34847-34848]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15733]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL ACCOUNTING STANDARDS ADVISORY BOARD


Notice of Issuance of Staff Implementation Guidance 6.1, 
Clarification of Paragraphs 40-41 of SFFAS 6, Accounting for Property, 
Plant, and Equipment, as Amended

AGENCY: Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3511(d), the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Pub. L. 92-463), as amended, and the FASAB Rules Of Procedure, as 
amended in October 2010, notice is hereby given that the Federal 
Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) staff have issued Staff 
Implementation Guidance (SIG) 6.1, Clarification of Paragraphs 40-41 of 
SFFAS 6, Accounting for Property, Plant, and Equipment, as amended.
    The SIG is available on the FASAB website at http://www.fasab.gov/accounting-standards/. Copies can be obtained by contacting FASAB at 
(202) 512-7350.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Wendy M. Payne, Executive 
Director, 441 G Street NW, Suite 1155, Washington, DC 20548, or call 
(202) 512-7350.

    Authority:  Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. 92-463.


[[Page 34848]]


    Dated: July 17, 2018.
Wendy M. Payne,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 2018-15733 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 1610-02-P
# C_2023094EN.01003301.xml

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 18 January 2023 — Neratax v EUIPO — Intrum Hellas and Others (ELLO ERMOL, Ello creamy, ELLO, MORFAT Creamy and MORFAT)

(Case T-528/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word marks ELLO and MORFAT and EU figurative marks ELLO ERMOL, Ello creamy and MORFAT Creamy - Absolute ground for invalidity - Bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2023/C 94/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Neratax LTD (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: V. Katsavos, lawyer)

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

Other party, intervener before the General Court: Intrum Hellas AE Daicheirisis Apaitiseon Apo Daneia kai Pistoseis, formerly Piraeus Bank SA (Athens, Greece) (represented by: P.-A. Koriatopoulou, lawyer)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Eurobank Ergasias SA (Athens), National Bank of Greece SA (Athens)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 23 June 2021 (Cases R 1295/2020-4, R 1296/2020-4, R 1298/2020-4, R 1299/2020-4 and R 1302/2020-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Neratax LTD to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Intrum Hellas AE Daicheirisis Apaitiseon Apo Daneia kai Pistoseis. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Neratax LTD to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Intrum Hellas AE Daicheirisis Apaitiseon Apo Daneia kai Pistoseis.

---

(1)  OJ C 462, 15.11.2021.

---
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 141 (Monday, July 23, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 34907]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15655]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 10474]


Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported 
for Exhibition Determinations: ``Judson Dance Theater: The Work is 
Never Done'' Exhibition

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I 
hereby determine that certain objects to be included in the exhibition 
``Judson Dance Theater: The Work is Never Done,'' imported from abroad 
for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural 
significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with 
the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition 
or display of the exhibit objects at The Museum of Modern Art, New 
York, New York, from on or about September 16, 2018, until on or about 
February 3, 2019, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet 
to be determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that 
Public Notice of these determinations be published in the Federal 
Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6471; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ee9d8b8d9a878180dcdadbd7ae9d9a8f9a8bc0898198"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fe8d9b9d8a979190cccacbc7be8d8a9f8a9bd0999188">[email protected]</span></a>). The mailing address is U.S. 
Department of State, L/PD, SA-5, Suite 5H03, Washington, DC 20522-0505.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The foregoing determinations were made 
pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the 
Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, 
et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of Authority No. 234 
of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 
2000, and Delegation of Authority No. 236-10 of July 6, 2018.

Jennifer Z. Galt,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural 
Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2018-15655 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4710-05-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
252 La. 109

#### Cleveland SCALLION v. Albert BORNE and Employers Liability Assurance Corporation Limited.

No. 49181.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 19, 1968.

In re: Cleveland Scallion applying for certiorari, or writ of review-, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 207 So.2d 267.

Writ refused. There appears no error of law in the judgment of the Court of Appeal.
<PAGE> 48

Exhibit 23 - Consent of Certified Public Accountant


Board of Directors
Highlands Bankshares, Inc.


   We consent to the use of our report, dated January 17, 1997, relating to
the consolidated balance sheets of Highlands Bankshares, Inc. as of
December 31, 1996 and 1995, and the related statements of income, changes
in stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three
year period ended December 31, 1996, which report appears on page 23 in the
December 31, 1996 Annual Report to Shareholders of Highlands Bankshares,
Inc. and page 43 of this 10KSB.


                                         S. B. HOOVER & COMPANY, L.L.P.
 


Harrisonburg, VA
March 26, 1997

                                                                Exhibit 23
# C_2021382EN.01001301.xml

| 20.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação do Porto (Portugal) lodged on 4 June 2021 — ING Luxembourg SA v VX

(Case C-346/21)

(2021/C 382/16)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal da Relação do Porto

Parties to the main proceedings

Defendant at first instance and appellant at second instance: ING Luxembourg SA

Applicant at first instance and respondent at second instance: VX

Questions referred

| 1. | May Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 (1) be interpreted as meaning that service by registered letter that is effected on a company having its registered office in another Member State, without use of the form set out in Annex II to Regulation No 1393/2007, may, in the circumstances of the present case, be regarded as valid? |
| --- | --- |

1.

May Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 (1) be interpreted as meaning that service by registered letter that is effected on a company having its registered office in another Member State, without use of the form set out in Annex II to Regulation No 1393/2007, may, in the circumstances of the present case, be regarded as valid?

| 2. | May Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 and the principles of EU law therein be interpreted as meaning that they preclude the application of Article 191(2) of the Portuguese Código de Processo Civil (Code of Civil Procedure) to the present case, in so far as that provision states that a pleading of nullity of service must be lodged within a certain time limit (namely, the time limit laid down for lodging a defence)? |
| --- | --- |

2.

May Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 and the principles of EU law therein be interpreted as meaning that they preclude the application of Article 191(2) of the Portuguese Código de Processo Civil (Code of Civil Procedure) to the present case, in so far as that provision states that a pleading of nullity of service must be lodged within a certain time limit (namely, the time limit laid down for lodging a defence)?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 (OJ 2007 L 324, p. 79).

---
#### Odes Neal HAMILTON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-392.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 30, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1279 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1279

To prohibit the revocation or withholding of Federal funds to programs 
      whose participants carry out voluntary religious activities.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 11, 2013

 Ms. Landrieu introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit the revocation or withholding of Federal funds to programs 
      whose participants carry out voluntary religious activities.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Freedom to Pray Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON WITHHOLDING FEDERAL FUNDS TO PROGRAMS WHOSE 
              PARTICIPANTS CONDUCT VOLUNTARY RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES.

    (a) In General.--It shall be unlawful for the Federal Government to 
revoke or withhold Federal financial assistance that would otherwise be 
provided to any recipient of such assistance on the basis of religious 
activities that are conducted voluntarily and initiated by participants 
in a program or activity carried out by such recipient.
    (b) Rules of Construction.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed 
to authorize the United States or any State or political subdivision 
thereof--
            (1) to sponsor a religious activity;
            (2) to prohibit a recipient of Federal financial assistance 
        from ensuring that a religious activity does not materially and 
        substantially interfere with the orderly conduct of the program 
        or activities carried out by such recipient;
            (3) to require any person to participate in prayer or other 
        religious activity; or
            (4) to compel any employee or agent of a program or 
        activity that is carried out by a recipient of Federal 
        financial assistance to participate in an activity if the 
        content of the speech at the activity is contrary to the 
        beliefs of the employee or agent.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Wuo Queeglay, Appellant.

[656 NYS2d 1015]

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and seventh degrees (Penal Law §§ 220.16, 220.03). We reject the contention that Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for an adjournment of the trial. "The decision whether to grant an adjournment is ordinarily committed to the sound discretion of the trial court” *(People v Spears,*64 NY2d 698, 699). Defendant’s trial counsel was advised on August 18, 1995 that the trial would commence on December 4, 1995. Defense counsel had ample time to prepare for trial and did not specify how defendant would be prejudiced if the trial were not adjourned *(see, People v Houk,*222 AD2d 1074, 1975; *People v Brown,*159 AD2d 1011, *lv denied*76 NY2d 731).

Defendant was not denied effective assistance of counsel by the court’s refusal to grant an adjournment or because of claimed deficiencies in counsel’s representation at trial. The record establishes that trial counsel’s representation was meaningful *(see, People v Satterfield,*66 NY2d 796, 799-800; *People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 147).

The court did not abuse its discretion in restricting defendant’s cross-examination of two police officers concerning their familiarity with defendant prior to his sale of drugs to an undercover officer. Defendant sought to establish that he would not have sold drugs to someone he knew to be an officer. One officer, however, was not present during the transaction, and the other denied having seen defendant prior to the transaction. The court properly exercised its discretion in curtailing further cross-examination with respect to credibility *(see, People v Frazier,*233 AD2d 896).

Defendant contends that, in sentencing him, the court directed that the sentence run consecutive to a prior sentence that he was serving based upon the court’s erroneous understanding that defendant was a second felony offender and, thus, that a consecutive sentence was required *(see,*Penal Law § 70.25 [1], [2-a]). We reject that contention. The record *897establishes that the court realized at sentencing that defendant was not a second felony offender but determined that defendant was not entitled to any mitigation. Thus, in the exercise of its discretion, the court directed that sentence to run consecutive to the prior sentence. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Cosgrove, J.—Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Pine, Lawton, Doerr and Balio, JJ.
#### Charles WINSTON, Appellant, v. John ZITO, Appellee.

No. 73-306.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 13, 1973.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; Jose A. Gonzalez, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.